Most people don't get the entire suction vs. filtration issue......

want max. suction CFM, get a low cost Borg Blaster, ya know, the ones that advertise 5hp motors :-), but yet run on 15 amp 120V circuit....anyway, if you want suction, a $99 Borg unit can beat a Festool Vac....   why?   Cause they don't filter the exhaust air to the level of  HEPA, not even close...I would not doubt 20 micron size particles zip through their filters.   The less filtration, the greater the through-put of air.   Festools Vacs claim-to-fame IMO is their ability to maximize filtration via a huge HEPA filter bed.  The increased surface area reduces friction as to maintain excellent suction for a vac that can pass another tool through it, for auto on/off control....    And, its quiet, with a soft-start...and a design that is both portable and shop friendly.  

Interestingly enough, I was air-balancing a ventilation system I installed, and used my CFM meter on the Festool Vac.... and without getting into details, (cause this discussion can get confusing)...all I can say is.... the 27mm hose will reduce CFM by about 1/3 vs. the 36mm hose of the same length.   And the 50mm hose is about 1.3x factor greater CFM than the 36mm hose...and as always, the "ultimate means" to increase CFM, is to reduce hose length.... hoses are restrictive, period.  The longer the hose, the greater the friction.... nothing is more restrictive on air flow than a hose.   In some areas like sanding, or dominos, it doesn't matter....but for floor sweeping, using the largest Festool floor nozzle, the 50mm hose makes a huge difference...its just barely sufficient IMO, as the very ends have trouble picking up dust.   When I hook the same 50mm hose to my 5hp cyclone, the large nozzle performs noticeably better.    

Its hard to find fault with the Festool Vacs....  brilliant design in so many ways.  the only two things I would prefer is.... larger front wheels so they can jump over cords easier, and I would prefer an even larger motor, to run at the full 15 amps of most 120v circuits....  you would loose the auto on/off feature, in lieu of greater suction....the auto on/off can be done with 3rd party devices, using separate circuits.... it would be nice if Festool might consider making this as a future option, as there is a need for both types of vacs....but I know it will never happen, as it will increase the number of products, which is something most companies today try to avoid....   The Festool catalog is thick enough  :-)

That is awesome.... Festoolians are a clever bunch....
Do you have the intake of each vac going into one side of the cyclone?
Then the single intake hose leaving the cyclone splits into a Y for each sander ?

I agree, Festool Vacs are simply the best, all things considered....
for projects like this, a wheeled cyclone with 4" hose wold prob. be more powerful and easier to maneuver, as its one piece, and its size is in its height.   Of course, for extra suction, you would need 220v, such as on site small generator....     hose lengths is bear for any vac to overcome, so the more you have at the source, the more that ends up in the sanders....  that has to be a messy job...I never did floor sanding, thx for sharing...

called taunton.
feedback should go to this number (editorial dept) 1-800-309-8955
they prefer an email: fw@taunton.com

I also appreciate all of the reasoned comments above which have
helped us all understand the problems with the FWW article -- thanks.

Two comments: one about Vacuums, the other about woodworking magazines.

Not mentioned is that Festool vacs have a separate cool air intake to cool the motor. Most Vacs use the dust-laden exhaust to cool it. Fein is the only other Vac with that feature. And because several models of Fein have really large bags, I chose that brand. In my shop, a bag would typically last about 160 days. (I have separate DC for big machines). The primary meaningful specification in my book would be bag capacity.

And, about  magazines.:  Several years ago, I attended a Felder workshop given by Mark Duginske. Mark was at one time the editor of FWW. I was a journalist/editor my entire career, so we spent the breaks jabbering about FWW and other publications. Mark had dire predictions for this field of publishing. Fewer readers because, he says, fewer young people take an interest and the rest of the community is aging. It's no longer a subject being taught to the young generation in high schools. We didn't broach the subject of product review objectivity. But, that's a sore spot in all special-interest (read: hobby, professional) magazines. I saw problems working with education literature, motorhomes (and trailers), motorcycle and bicycle magazines and aviation literature. In defense of FWW, I believe that most product reviews are written by free-lancers, not magazine staff. And those people can be as short-sighted or slanted as any of us.

Beyond that, we are all dabbling in very technological matters discussing WWing machinery. Specifically, with vacuums the science is called Pneumatics, and that ain't a lightweight topic (even though it's made of air --- laugh, audience!)

That's an interesting typo...

Anyway, I'm one of the newer, younger woodworkers.  I read FWW at my local library, and can check out back issues.  However, I prefer TWW.  On-line, articles and video, and while I'm not part of the guild group, I buy Festool, and Festool helps support his collection of humorous black t-shirts.

Thank you, TWW, and thank you, Festool.

PS Bags are expensive, but not as expensive as new lungs or an angry wife.

It also puts the dust back in the air upon emptying, which somewhat defeats the purpose of dust control...


Tom

I disagree with the decision to review the tools without the bags.  Tools are designed to do certain things in certain ways, judging them on how well they do something else is nuts.

Its like if you reviewed fine woodworking chisels and decided that since some people use chisels to pry open lids or fasten screws, the chisel's ability to do that would be the main review criteria.  The sharp ones are clearly inferior.

Bad judgement call.

People who use Festools vacs use the bags. I dare say almost always. They don't worry about the added costs, they realise that in order to go Festool you have to pay a premium but you also get premium performance. People who worry about the cost of the bags would also worry about the cost of Festool tools themselves, and as a result, not buy them in the first place.

Saying that people would worry about the cost of Festool bags and therefor not use the bags is like saying that a Ferrari owner would drive 30 all day because he's worried about his gas bill if he went any faster.

 

I completely agree with you about cameras (and cell phones, and notebook computers, and book readers, etc. etc.).  Small is bad for me, not good.  I have no idea how folks manage to use the small keys and dials and knobs on these devices.

I also disagree with this reasoning. Engineers make certain tradeoffs during the design process to meet certain goals. One of Festool's obvious goals is HEPA certification. And obviously one of Bosch's design goals was to make the bag optional. Those two goals are apparently mutually exclusive. Someone who considers HEPA cleanup to be a higher priority will want to know how well the vacuum works when it's being used as designed.

It seems to me that it would have been far better to compare performance when the vacuum is used according to the manufacturer’s documentation. Then the reader can more accurately compare how well the vacuum's design actually works for various purposes, and can make a more informed decision on how well those purposes match their own needs. And yes, the cost of the bags vs. performance when used with the bag is part of the reader's decision process, not yours.

Asa,

You already have my "letter to the editor" (see above).

Dan.

Here's another thought: Imagine a magazine "review" where the author made more significant modifications to a tool assuming that most users would. Maybe those changes would actually improve the tool's performance, or they may damage it. What would happen to a magazine's credibility if the author replaced a tool's motor with one that has all the power of an asthmatic hamster because "most people would to save weight." Or maybe you made a Tim Taylor More Power mod to a tool because "most people would" because an otherwise good tool is underpowered. Not only would that magazine lose all credibility, by they would be (and should be) sued by the manufacturer.

I read reviews to see how well the manufacturer's design tradeoffs worked out, not to see how well the author's Frankentools perform. The only exception is when the article is about how to make modifications to tools, and that's not review article material, beyond a "you may want to…" note in the review.

Now obviously you didn't make such a major modification, but by testing the vacs in a manner contrary to the manufacturer's instructions, you did perform a low level modification, imposing your own priorities between the manufacturer's design decisions and the reader.

Frank and anyone else, my comment was definitely a bit of sarcasm and I'm sure Shane took it that way. Asa thanx for showing uo to the party. I would suggest like some others have, level the playing field and do your test with and without bags, the same hose size would also help. Now the hard part, how about no opinion about what you/FWW consider best, just pros and cons. Let the reader decide and not be directed. I personally think that anyone buying a $500+ vac would not consider bags a grievous expense.

John

Asa,

As John said, thank you for adding your comments to the discussion and helping us to try to understand your methodology.  You could have just turned a deaf ear to the whole thing but you chose not to.  Good man.

As you can see, Festool users, especially those that are members here, are very loyal to the brand.  Shame on anyone who would dare think that Festool products are not the best in their respective category.  There have been numerous instances when a member has posted that his XYZ brand was better than Festool.  Needless to say, they incurred the unbridled wrath of the FOG's membership, me included.

Frankly, some of this may stem from the fact that pride and vanity sometimes get in the way of good judgment.  For example no one wants to admit that someone else's Mikita drill that they bought for $250 is equal to a $500 Festool drill.  No one that owns an $800 Domino wants to admit that a DeWalt bisquit joiner for less than 1/4 the price might do the job, most of the time, just as well.

I am a proud owner of many Festool products and a member of the FOG.  I do, however, recognize that there are other valuable opinions and wonderful tools out there with loyal proponents.

Now if you said Festool did not have the best Tech Support and Customer Service, those would really be fightin' words.

Neill

I hope you're being tongue in cheek here. One of the things I'm enjoying about this forum is the general even handedness about the pros and cons of Festools and other tools.

Just today I saw a comment about another brand of track saw being slightly better than Festool's model. No one jumped down his throat either. Rather, there was some mild agreement. I've also seen recent discussions of competing sanders, routers, and miter saws where Festool wasn't automatically assumed to be the best for all situations. Not to mention outright complaints about some things Festool. For example, Jacobs chucks.

Personally, I would not have been offended if Bosch still came out "on top" if tested with the bags. CFM wasn't the only criteria I was going by when I chose the CT 26. Getting distorted conclusions from a review article does offend me. And my general impression of this forum is that I am not alone in this view.