Torx binding screws

I'd guess the reason is it would be easier to strip the threads the screw makes in the core of the ski with a screw head that doesn't cam out like a posi drive. Posi works great for their intended purpose, I've never had a problem. Epoxy loosens really nicely with heat. It's not like they're corroded together or anything

I've never really had much of an issue when using the correct Posi #3 bit, but I also have wondered if torx would be a good fit for binding screws.
The benefit (arguable if this is actually a benefit in some applications) of phillips over torx is that a phillips will cam-out when overtorqued rather than destroying the bit or screw. However the benefit of posi over phillips is that posi can't cam-out and can handle higher torque. So if for a similar size screw head both posi and torx effectively prevent cam-out, it would seem that the geometry of a posi would be stronger due to the simipler shape with less delicate geometry. Since the size of the screw head is constrained and must be a countersink shape, posi will offer a larger tool size than torx. Countersunk torx screws require a smaller and more delicate tool and screwhead geometry. I'm kinda just spitballin though

Torx screws are so fucking dumb for binding screws. You have to reef on binding screws to mount bindings flush to skis and torx screws are stupid easy to strip. We sell dynafit at my shop and do everything in our power to sell other tech bindings because mounting them is such a fucking pain. Pozi makes way more sense because the screws don’t strip and you can tighten them to the appropriate tension without having to worry about stripping screws or bits.

I feel like an engineer needs to come in this thread and settle it. Anyone?

But by design, torx has less cam out and less subsequent stripping than pozi although the pozi is an improvement over the Philips which is garbo. Tbh I've never had issues with pozi. Overall the torx design is superior to allow higher torque. How tf are you stripping a torx head in a ski, unless you're using the wrong size bit? I'm not advocating for use on bindings cuz that just sounds like overkill, but curious how you had issues.

No.QuarterI've never really had much of an issue when using the correct Posi #3 bit, but I also have wondered if torx would be a good fit for binding screws.
The benefit (arguable if this is actually a benefit in some applications) of phillips over torx is that a phillips will cam-out when overtorqued rather than destroying the bit or screw. However the benefit of posi over phillips is that posi can't cam-out and can handle higher torque. So if for a similar size screw head both posi and torx effectively prevent cam-out, it would seem that the geometry of a posi would be stronger due to the simipler shape with less delicate geometry. Since the size of the screw head is constrained and must be a countersink shape, posi will offer a larger tool size than torx. Countersunk torx screws require a smaller and more delicate tool and screwhead geometry. I'm kinda just spitballin though

animatorTorx screws are so fucking dumb for binding screws. You have to reef on binding screws to mount bindings flush to skis and torx screws are stupid easy to strip. We sell dynafit at my shop and do everything in our power to sell other tech bindings because mounting them is such a fucking pain. Pozi makes way more sense because the screws don’t strip and you can tighten them to the appropriate tension without having to worry about stripping screws or bits.

**This post was edited on Sep 29th 2021 at 3:00:57pm

HypeBeastI feel like an engineer needs to come in this thread and settle it. Anyone?

But by design, torx has less cam out and less subsequent stripping than pozi although the pozi is an improvement over the Philips which is garbo. Tbh I've never had issues with pozi. Overall the torx design is superior to allow higher torque. How tf are you stripping a torx head in a ski, unless you're using the wrong size bit? I'm not advocating for use on bindings cuz that just sounds like overkill, but curious how you had issues.




**This post was edited on Sep 29th 2021 at 3:00:57pm

I figured they meant stripping the core where the threads meet the ski from over torquing. Tbh I’d rather be careful to not over torque. Someone should design a head that will cam out when tightening but not loosening.

jompcockI figured they meant stripping the core where the threads meet the ski from over torquing. Tbh I’d rather be careful to not over torque. Someone should design a head that will cam out when tightening but not loosening.

You're describing a hi-torque fastener in reverse. These are the biggest pains in the ass on the planet.

jompcockI figured they meant stripping the core where the threads meet the ski from over torquing. Tbh I’d rather be careful to not over torque. Someone should design a head that will cam out when tightening but not loosening.

Wouldn't that be nearly impossible since all cores are different and thus require different torque values to fully screw the screw in?

HypeBeastI feel like an engineer needs to come in this thread and settle it. Anyone?

But by design, torx has less cam out and less subsequent stripping than pozi although the pozi is an improvement over the philips. Overall the design is superior to allow higher torque. How tf are you stripping a torx head in a ski, unless you're using the wrong size bit? I'm not advocating for use on bindings cuz that just sounds like overkill, but curious how you had issues.

Lol, I have a mech engineering degree, however I can't speak to mathmatical differences in strength.
The mounting pattern and desire for low stack height on a ski binding dictates that a countersunk screwhead must be used. One simple explanation could be that the pointed shape of a pozidriv bit is closer in shape to the taper of the countersink, and due to the simpler geometry a larger bit can be used than a torx geometry of the same countersink. Think of nestling a triangle within a larger triangle vs a square within triangle. Pozi may allow for a smaller screwhead of comparable strength to a torx in the countersunk/flathead application.
I was browsing on MCMaster-Carr and I found that an 8-32 flat head screw (for a countersunk hole) uses a t-15 while a similar 8-32 panhead (for a counterbore or flat interface) uses a t-20. I found these screws deliberately to illustrate my point so it's really not a direct comparison or all that indicative of their relative strengths, however it illustrates my point of the geometry constraints regarding the shape of the screwhead and the shape of the bit interface.
This is all mostly speculation and the simple answer could be that pozi was patented before torx, or one company chose posi and the rest followed suit, or pozi is more commonly available for custom screws, or manufacturing tooling constraints, or simply that this is how it always has been done.
Don't get me wrong I love torx and use it exclusively on any construction projects and am (usually) glad to see in on my bike parts, but in the specific application of binding screws, pozidriv makes a lot of sense.
I have never cammed out a pozidrive screw when using the correct bit. I have seen stripped pozi drive screws, but 95% of the time the cause of the damage is due to using the incorrect bit (a common phillips) or due to using epoxy during mounting.

animatorTorx screws are so fucking dumb for binding screws. You have to reef on binding screws to mount bindings flush to skis and torx screws are stupid easy to strip. We sell dynafit at my shop and do everything in our power to sell other tech bindings because mounting them is such a fucking pain. Pozi makes way more sense because the screws don’t strip and you can tighten them to the appropriate tension without having to worry about stripping screws or bits.

What are you doing to strip out torx head screws? Are you using the proper driver bit? Low quality hardware? Torx can handle a lot more torque than philips, that's basically why it exists.

mystery3What are you doing to strip out torx head screws? Are you using the proper driver bit? Low quality hardware? Torx can handle a lot more torque than philips, that's basically why it exists.

Lmao I don’t know but I swear we go through like 6 bits a year and we’ve all been turning screws for many years

mystery3What are you doing to strip out torx head screws? Are you using the proper driver bit? Low quality hardware? Torx can handle a lot more torque than philips, that's basically why it exists.

Plus we buy our bits from wintersteiger which to my knowledge makes the best ski hardware in the world

animatorPlus we buy our bits from wintersteiger which to my knowledge makes the best ski hardware in the world

Weird.
The only time I've had issues with torx head screws were some crap off-brand deck screws that were soft as shit. They stripped and snapped and bent. I assume G3 is shipping their binders with quality hardware.

I have a couple wintersteiger pozidrive bits and they grip nicely and seem good quality.

mystery3Weird.
The only time I've had issues with torx head screws were some crap off-brand deck screws that were soft as shit. They stripped and snapped and bent. I assume G3 is shipping their binders with quality hardware.

I have a couple wintersteiger pozidrive bits and they grip nicely and seem good quality.

G3 was pozi last I mounted one but I hate dynafits for the reason

HypeBeastWouldn't that be nearly impossible since all cores are different and thus require different torque values to fully screw the screw in?

I mean you'll feel when it's tight. The cam out safety feature is more for using a drill that spins a lot faster than your hand with a screwdriver.

animatorG3 was pozi last I mounted one but I hate dynafits for the reason

Do you use a drill on the screws when mounting dynafits? I usually just tighten by hand at least when the head is close to making contact with the binding.

jompcockI mean you'll feel when it's tight. The cam out safety feature is more for using a drill that spins a lot faster than your hand with a screwdriver.


Do you use a drill on the screws when mounting dynafits? I usually just tighten by hand at least when the head is close to making contact with the binding.

I use a drill initially and do all final tightening by hand. To adjust the heel I never use a drill

animatorG3 was pozi last I mounted one but I hate dynafits for the reason

My bad, but same goes for dynafit, I assume their shipping good as well?

mystery3My bad, but same goes for dynafit, I assume their shipping good as well?

Yeah they ship with good quality hardware definitely but for whatever reason man idk what it is but torx has always been a pain for us

jompcockI mean you'll feel when it's tight. The cam out safety feature is more for using a drill that spins a lot faster than your hand with a screwdriver.

That's what I am talking about. If you want a cam out safety feature for a drill, in which the safety is to not strip the binding hole, then you couldn't design a universal one because each ski model is different. I have a headache. Hope that isn't nonsense.

HypeBeastThat's what I am talking about. If you want a cam out safety feature for a drill, in which the safety is to not strip the binding hole, then you couldn't design a universal one because each ski model is different. I have a headache. Hope that isn't nonsense.

I can't speak for every ski model, but I believe most are reinforced in the binding mount area with extra hardwood and/or fiberglass and maybe even titanal. I would be willing to bet the material properties for the binding interface between skis isn't as dissimilar as you may think because standard binding screws are expected to be used.

BiffbarfI can't speak for every ski model, but I believe most are reinforced in the binding mount area with extra hardwood and/or fiberglass and maybe even titanal. I would be willing to bet the material properties for the binding interface between skis isn't as dissimilar as you may think because standard binding screws are expected to be used.

I just missed the edit threshhold time, but to make this even more clear as mud:

If you're thinking titanal is vastly different than a standard word core, you'd be correct however the drill diameter is increased for titanal skis in order to better facilitate a standard binding screw threading into the core.

BiffbarfI can't speak for every ski model, but I believe most are reinforced in the binding mount area with extra hardwood and/or fiberglass and maybe even titanal. I would be willing to bet the material properties for the binding interface between skis isn't as dissimilar as you may think because standard binding screws are expected to be used.

Also consider the various differences in hardness of wood cores. Maybe it's negligible? Maybe not?

BiffbarfI can't speak for every ski model, but I believe most are reinforced in the binding mount area with extra hardwood and/or fiberglass and maybe even titanal. I would be willing to bet the material properties for the binding interface between skis isn't as dissimilar as you may think because standard binding screws are expected to be used.

As far as what the meat of the screws are in, it is really different from manufacturer to another, as there is a wide variety of different core materials being used currently. Most companies do use a extra sheet of fiberglass as a 'binding mat' around the mounting area.

with the right bit/screwdriver the pozi head on a binding screw is totally overkill, and you can ruin any skicore eaaaasy. torx isnt needed for this application. some newer touring bindings has it though.