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.

BOLTR is ok if you take the review with a huge grain of salt, basically just as a proxy for having and disassembling the tool yourself. I largely disregard whatever AvE says and make my own conclusions from what is visually apparent. His standards for what makes a good tool are too focused on physical resilience - basically "if it can't survive being dropped into a mine shaft and beaten to hell, it's shit" is unrealistic for most people. Plus there's been reviews where he broke the tool during disassembly and reassembly and then blamed poor performance on the tool itself - the Ryobi Airstrike staplers come to mind.

This also goes to the other themes in the discussion here; there's few to no sources with singularly "good" reviews anymore, at best you have to synthesize from multiple reviewers and at times hope you can buy from a merchant with a good return policy.

True; I just like seeing how the tool is put together without having to rip one apart myself.

Usually you can see where corners were cut and suss out whether those corners matter in your use case.

I don't care too much about his review portions, more on the teardown part.

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.