|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, airplane), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Is torx properly pronounced "torks" so that it rhymes with "forks" or is it pronounced "torrex" or "torr-X"? And while we're on the topic, is the "driv" in pozidriv pronounced as "drive"? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- >Is torx properly pronounced "torks" so that it rhymes with "forks"[?]
- Yes, correct.
- >is the "driv" in pozidriv pronounced as "drive"?
- — ¾-10 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Inch vs. Metric==
There are dimensional discrepency's on the Whiha charts between inch and metric. Some large enough to prevent interchange. I currently have equipment that should take T6 per instructions, however a T6 is too small, T8 too large. What's up with that? Per the article, Torx should have only one specification to avoid the inch vs. metric tool hassles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's true: The driver size is independent of threads. You might have some counterfeit ChiCom fasteners or drivers. TORX is still under trademark protection, but since the patent on the original TORX fastener design ran out in 1991, the copycats have been doing who-knows-what to it. It's unlikely that you're dealing with TORX PLUS screws, 'cause the article says a standard TORX fastener will fit them loosely and can drive them.—QuicksilverT @ 00:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Point to point ?
There are size tables in the article, and they mention "point to point distance". However, I can't find any definition of this distance, which means the tables are essentially useless. Does anyone have a source for how this distance is defined? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't it simply the distance across two diametrically opposed points of the star? To confirm that, you could throw a caliper across a handful of males and verify them against the table to see if the numbers correspond (± 10 thou). Until that's done, I don't really see how the tables can be judged as "essentially useless". I would even go caliper some myself, with curiosity piqued by this thread, but I'm working. — ¾-10 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The claim that the Torx head design allows higher torque generation than a comparable socket head capscrew has not been demonstrated to be true. The statement on this in the article is merely parroting the patent application that was filed.
It should be noted that the Torx design creates multiple stress risers in the head that may cause fatigue failure in vibration applications.