I watched a few of these a while ago and I can somewhat see why they’re popular as they have this fast-paced data-dump look-at-all-this-testing format but I didn’t really think they were very good. I thought many of the tests were likely poor metrics for actual quality and that results would therefore be misleading. A stupid example would be trying to measure how much torque a Phillips head screwdriver can apply before camming out because the point of the screw design is that screw drivers should cam out at a certain torque (so better screw drivers shouldn’t necessarily let you go tighter).
Re: Phillips drive, it's actually a common misconception that this was an intentional feature of the design. The original patent for the driver[1] specifically describes resistance to "camming out" (seemingly in the modern sense of the phrase). Omitting some of the verbose context:
> One of the principal objects of the invention is the provision of a recess in the head of a screw which is particularly adapted for firm engagement with a correspondingly shaped driving tool or screw driver, and in such a way that there will be no tendency of the driver to cam out of the recess when united in operative engagement with each other. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)
And the patent for the drive (I don't know why under patent law several consecutive patents mostly saying the same thing had to be filed) uses the word to refer to the ejection of trapped debris instead of the driver:
> This same angular formation of both elements is especially designed to also create what might be termed a camming action during the approach of these angular faces toward one another with respect to any substances which might have become lodged within the recess of the screw. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)
Edit: Wikipedia notes that a later patent acknowledged the tendency to cam out and its effect of preventing damage to screw heads...perhaps meaning that the head would be saved from snapping off--the drive itself surely isn't!
It's a myth that Phillips screws designed or intended to cam out at a certain torque. Not least of all because, the correct amount of torque varies wildly by application, even for the same fastener.
I'll agree that Project Farm's videos can be a little formulaic and my least favorite thing about the presentation is that he shouts instead of talks.
However, he's WAY ahead most YouTube tool reviewers because he does NOT accept free tools for review, and he puts the tools to real work, often ending in the destruction of the tool in order to find its limits. I find his tests to be very well designed. He only has limited time to test so many things, but he generally hits the important points. He goes MUCH farther than any other reviewer I've ever seen and his home brew-rigs and testing methodology are an order of magnitude better than anything I've ever seen out of a "professional" outfit like Consumer Reports.
The only thing I _wish_ he would add regularly to his videos is tool teardowns so we can see and compare how cheaply various tools are made. (Although we all know these days, they are all made like crap due to the race to the bottom.)
I'll also agree that his reviews aren't perfect, but the one on automotive scratch removers was enlightening. I had used a random product before that basically did nothing. I bought Meguiar's ultimate compound on his recommendation, and it did indeed work surprisingly well (with just hand polishing, no buffer) on the multitude of surface scratches as I was preparing a car for resale.
I watched a few of these a while ago and I can somewhat see why they’re popular as they have this fast-paced data-dump look-at-all-this-testing format but I didn’t really think they were very good. I thought many of the tests were likely poor metrics for actual quality and that results would therefore be misleading. A stupid example would be trying to measure how much torque a Phillips head screwdriver can apply before camming out because the point of the screw design is that screw drivers should cam out at a certain torque (so better screw drivers shouldn’t necessarily let you go tighter).
Re: Phillips drive, it's actually a common misconception that this was an intentional feature of the design. The original patent for the driver[1] specifically describes resistance to "camming out" (seemingly in the modern sense of the phrase). Omitting some of the verbose context:
> One of the principal objects of the invention is the provision of a recess in the head of a screw which is particularly adapted for firm engagement with a correspondingly shaped driving tool or screw driver, and in such a way that there will be no tendency of the driver to cam out of the recess when united in operative engagement with each other. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)
And the patent for the drive (I don't know why under patent law several consecutive patents mostly saying the same thing had to be filed) uses the word to refer to the ejection of trapped debris instead of the driver:
> This same angular formation of both elements is especially designed to also create what might be termed a camming action during the approach of these angular faces toward one another with respect to any substances which might have become lodged within the recess of the screw. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468...)
Edit: Wikipedia notes that a later patent acknowledged the tendency to cam out and its effect of preventing damage to screw heads...perhaps meaning that the head would be saved from snapping off--the drive itself surely isn't!
It's a myth that Phillips screws designed or intended to cam out at a certain torque. Not least of all because, the correct amount of torque varies wildly by application, even for the same fastener.
I'll agree that Project Farm's videos can be a little formulaic and my least favorite thing about the presentation is that he shouts instead of talks.
However, he's WAY ahead most YouTube tool reviewers because he does NOT accept free tools for review, and he puts the tools to real work, often ending in the destruction of the tool in order to find its limits. I find his tests to be very well designed. He only has limited time to test so many things, but he generally hits the important points. He goes MUCH farther than any other reviewer I've ever seen and his home brew-rigs and testing methodology are an order of magnitude better than anything I've ever seen out of a "professional" outfit like Consumer Reports.
The only thing I _wish_ he would add regularly to his videos is tool teardowns so we can see and compare how cheaply various tools are made. (Although we all know these days, they are all made like crap due to the race to the bottom.)
To that last point, that's why we have AvE and his BOLTR reviews.
2 replies →
I'll also agree that his reviews aren't perfect, but the one on automotive scratch removers was enlightening. I had used a random product before that basically did nothing. I bought Meguiar's ultimate compound on his recommendation, and it did indeed work surprisingly well (with just hand polishing, no buffer) on the multitude of surface scratches as I was preparing a car for resale.
I love it. I love the accent, cadence and volume.