SSUPII@sopuli.xyz to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 8 months agoacceptable screwssopuli.xyzimagemessage-square314fedilinkarrow-up1681arrow-down1141
arrow-up1540arrow-down1imageacceptable screwssopuli.xyzSSUPII@sopuli.xyz to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 8 months agomessage-square314fedilink
minus-squarestarmanlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·8 months ago It was designed to allow more torque to be applied and greater engagement than Phillips drives. As a result, the Pozidriv is less likely to cam out.
minus-squareRed_October@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·8 months agoIIRC that was a design feature of Phillips screws, not a flaw. Deliberately designed to limit torque to avoid over-tightening.
minus-squareFilterItOut@thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoInterestingly, it was an accidental feature. The original patent application makes no mention of it, but 9 years later they added language about it camming out to the second patent application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_out
minus-squaremariusafa@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·8 months agoIn my experience pozidrive slips more than Philips, worst experience cap IMO
IIRC that was a design feature of Phillips screws, not a flaw. Deliberately designed to limit torque to avoid over-tightening.
Interestingly, it was an accidental feature. The original patent application makes no mention of it, but 9 years later they added language about it camming out to the second patent application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_out
Bug >> feature
In my experience pozidrive slips more than Philips, worst experience cap IMO