If you read the testing methodology, and please forgive me because I don't have it right in front of me, they tested without a bag. Since our CTs use the bag as a preliminary filter, capturing a huge amount of the dust before it gets to the main filters, it was not tested in real world conditions in my opinion. It leaves the main filters to get clogged with dust. The vacuum that posted the best CFM numbers had an automated filter cleaning mechanism. I have to question the reasoning behind testing without the provided filter bag installed.

Shane

Just read the review online, no mention about the Festool vac being certified for lead dust containment. Once again the testing was done in such a way as to skew the results in favour of the brand they wanted to win. I saw 2 DeWalts listed and no Makita plus they missed a few other quality brands they previously tested.Would have been real interesting if they had used the machines properly with the bags in and did a flow test at various stages of fullness. Shane you guys really have to get your advertising dollars up with with FWW if you expect proper results.

John

Advertising shouldn't influence reviews. They should be independent and fact based. I say that as a consumer, not as an employee of Festool.

Edit: I should point out that the vac selected to have the highest CFM using their testing methodology actually has 5% less CFM on paper. Festool's specifications tend to be very conservative, especially compared to other manufacturers. An under-promise, over deliver mentality.

I cancelled my online annual membership two weeks ago.  I got so much from their site then a lot of it was somewhat repetitive, so I didn't renew.

Well, in my past experiences with them, they seemed like a nice group of people, so maybe what they need is to hear from the public about issues we have with their magazines and website.

800-477-8727  Mon-Fri 9-5 EST

Is running the CT without a bag even something that the CT manual says you can do?

I am not bothered by magazine reviews because I no longer read them.  I let all my WW mag subscriptions expire several years ago.  Their reviews are bogus and are largely just editorial opinion of the reviewer.   I want the facts and develop my own opinions from those.  Nothing is more irritating to me than the tags "Editors Choice" or "Best Value" in these idiotic "reviews".

Don't think you guys have anything to worry about.
I'm pretty sure everyone here on fog is pretty well versed on how well the CTs work   

What's a CT?        


Seth

That review struck me as totally bogus.  How are you supposed to empty the Ct or the other vacs if you don't use bags?  The dust that passes thru a dust deputy or similar device is the most harmful.  So to save the cost of a bag I'm supposed to lift up the vac and dump the fine dust into a trash can???  They should add the cost of lung disease to the review.

Reminds me of when they reviewed different joinery types and only used a single domino where doubles were obviously called for.

Hope FWW gets lots of phone calls, emails, and letters to the editor on this one.  They need to step up to better methods of work.

Jesse, to add to your point they were preaching Hepa then basically saying use the vac without a bag and screw up your filters. They didn't say much about the hearing loss your going to get from a vacuum that's louder then most full sized dust collectors. Also if it's not about advertizing dollars how about just throwing in to use a Rockler dust separatror and not showing the other makes that preceded this unit. Rant is over, no more FWW for me

John

Leaving bias aside, it's a poorly-written article, thin on detail and with subjective comparisons. If I didn't already have a vac, I would also be interested in the build quality, how easily it moves across the floor i.e. are the wheels any good, can you fit a boom arm, can it survive the rough-and-tumble of the workshop or jobsite, can it handle different hose sizes, cost of parts replacements etc.

I certainly wouldn't criticize FWW for advertiser bias on the basis of one crappy article, after all the OF2200 was nominated best heavy-duty plunge router, the ETS 150 was best 6-inch RO sander, and these are just two Festools off the top of my head.

It's a good magazine generally with interesting how-to articles, talented contributing editors- best just to skip this tool test and move on.

This is not the first time and it won't be the last time that FWW has a poor methodology for one of their reviews. The stock response will be:

-To offer up the author of said review. They will give some technical reason for an apples to apples comparison of using Vacs without their bags. (While not acknowledging that it also created inconisistencies and does not represent how the tools are used in the real world.)

-Point out that it is a reader driven magazine. That is their readership also responsible for content. If you want to publish something pitch it to them. It wouldn't hurt if they actually thought things through or vetted the review methodologies. How about getting a second "author" to write up a sidebar on the limitations of the review?

My standard response:

-Move on. The quality of FWW has sunk/stunk. It used to be about innovation and now it is more about regurgitating/cycling beginner articles. (They have stock responses for that too!) I wish they would rediscover what they used to be known for instead of slick production of the latest (same old) shop jigs and tips.

BTW, I'm glad the Bosch is such a great vac... too bad it really doesn't integrate with any of my tools nicely and the filtration is not as great as my CT. But gosh durn it, it has a lot of CFM's and the editors of FWW told me that was impotent! I'm just not sure how that is relevant to what I really want which is to limit noise and dust. Perhaps they should have found someone willing to find a methodology to measure the results?

Brad

PS - My standard stock response: I have not read the review (and don't want to) but I am pretty sure my criticisms are valid.

I'm constantly running into reviews of cameras praising them for how small and light they are.

I look at the tiny cameras and think, "how in the world do you get a decent GRIP on that thing?"

I look at the lightweight ones and think, "not nearly enough resistance for my shaky hands -- how would I ever get a clean picture on that thing when using it handheld?  Doesn't that basically defeat the whole purpose of having a camera?"


The qualities they think are good are actually just the opposite for me.  I'd rather the "small/light" trend reversed: I like my cameras big and heavy.


No matter how carefully the cameras were reviewed, the reviews gave good marks for what I view as bad things...


Same can happen with tools, I guess...

Amen.  FWW changed to be more attractive to beginners and it now looks like all the other WW mags but with a much higher price.  IMO, the premium price is no longer justified based on the content (more than just the lame tool reviews).  I found the only thing worth reading in the "new and improved" FWW was the master class section.  I communicated these concerns years ago with the FWW editor and he indicated it was a business decision to expand their audience to beginning woodworkers.  Unfortunately, they also lost the audience that aspired to advance to greater things beyond beginning woodworking.  I began subscribing to FWW in 1985 with Issue 50 and I let my subscription expire with issue 200 in 2008.  It was sad to see such a great publication sink into mediocrity.
Steve