Author Topic: Carvex 420 first impressions  (Read 23554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline windmill man

  • Posts: 671
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #120 on: October 06, 2012, 06:25 PM »
I take your point Ken, think Festool should get their finger out and facilitate some reviews.  [big grin] Both in Europe and the US [big grin]

The truth is you can make any tool look like manure in a review.  [big grin]

Festool USA does not pre-approve the contents of this website nor endorse the application or use of any Festool product in any way other than in the manner described in the Festool Instruction Manual. To reduce the risk of serious injury and/or damage to your Festool product, always read, understand and follow all warnings and instructions in your Festool product's Instruction Manual. Although Festool strives for accuracy in the website material, the website may contain inaccuracies. Festool makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness or timeliness of the material on this website or about the results to be obtained from using the website. Festool and its affiliates cannot be responsible for improper postings or your reliance on the website's material. Your use of any material contained on this website is entirely at your own risk. The content contained on this site is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.


Offline Rembo72

  • Posts: 36
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #121 on: October 06, 2012, 06:35 PM »
Wauw, this keeps people busy here...

@JMB: Dude, the second saturday the blades supplied by festool where used and these where supposed to be long enough to cut this thickness of wood
Quote
Dude for a jigsaw to work correctly it needs the correct blade for the jigsaw some jigsaws sit higher than others! Mafell sits very low so can have a shorter blade!

 So using the same blade does not always make it a fair test a fair test would be that you use a blade that ALL JIGSAWS can use so the blade  should ALWAYS  come past the work piece  when fully retracted up.  

The carvex clearly didnt come past the work piece.   Saying that im not doubting the fact the jigsaws which might also needed a longer blade still performed with a short blade BUT I wanna see a test with proper use of a tool and having a blade to short for the work piece is NOT proper use of a tool.

@JimB1: Yes it's obvious that you don't do this regularly however, one of the test was to test the limits of the machine. This material is way within the specification of all 5 brands and machines tested. This was a remarkable finding and it was tested again after consulting Festool on whap happened. 2nd Saturday with longer blades and carefully adjusted guides you saw what happened in Rian's post. Im the guy you can hear being absolutely amazed on the bended blade as I was utterly stunned to see this happening.
Quote
Anyway I agree with the folks that said using a jigsaw on thick hardwood is something I don't think I've ever done. Usually 3/4" - 1/4" ply is all I use it for. Power to cut though 12/4 mahogany in a jig saw just isn't a concern to me. I have a bandsaw for that

I think I'd be more interested in smooth, tight cuts in ply with good visibility and dust control then power. Weight of the tool would be something that would also be of concern. I'm fairly happy with my Dewalt jigsaw but dust is an issue and I often think a light would be useful. Usually I try to position myself so that my shadow doesn't fall along my cutline but sometimes you can't help it, especially in circle cuts where you have to move around the piece a bit.

So I would suggest like I requested before that to make sure the blade is long enough that ALL jigsaws using the blade in question would be sticking past the material when full retracted.

@Shane Holland
Quote
Interesting since Remco posted this video showing no issues at all while at Festool Netherlands. Seemed to work just fine.

I indeed went over to Festool and tried to cut a 4x4" piece of wood and was successful. You saw my vid on that one. The test 2nd saturday was done with same blade as when I was with festool, blades where adjusted exactl the same and the same blade was used. You saw what happened in Rian's video. I was utterly amazed what i Saw happening with my own eyes especially when we used the 2nd (Brand new Carvex 420) and saw the blade break. Two tests happened within 10 minutes of each other and I was soooo amazed I couldn't believe what I saw. But all of it was true! Bear in mind that the piece sawed in festool was 95x95mm and this piece was aproximately 100x200mm Slightly thicker and twice as wide.

There's one important thing that should not be left unsaid: I couldn't believe it and I wanted to feel what happened myself and I did the same test, I was able to cut this piece of would with a Carvex 420 with the same blade without damage to the machine or to the blade, I did have sparks in the machine towards the end of the piece. Appearantly the other tester just pushed it slightly harder or did something else that make the blade bend and even break. As you can see in the movie it's by no means handled with brute force. He did not mis-use this machine as you probably can see for yourself in the video, this could have happened to any one. As it appears to be the machine is working at it's limit and temperatures end up in a region where they get so hot that it's getting a problem for the blades.

@Stone Message
Quote
They are using the wrong blade - it should be the 499478

I don't have one here with me but I believe that actually is the blade we used the 2nd saturday. These where supplied by Festool.

Guy's all in all, this post is not to tell everybody that because of this test the Carvex 420 is a bad machine. We tested 5 machines to find out what machine works best. 1 test of the tests that where done was the capacity test and we had a very remarkable outcome that was posted here. Most of the posts now tell that the test is done incorrectly and we are all biased and selling Mafell which is not true by any means. The 4 testers are enthusiastic people that are fully independent of any brand, or any person. We all have very well paid jobs in daily live and share our passion for high quality tools.  The test was facilitated by a dealer who'se main machine brand is Mafell, he obviously has high trust in the quality of the Mafell machine as he would probably not run this test if he would expect that the machine he sells would be the worst. I have never seen cheap / bad tool manufacturers run a test that includes high end machines, you can guess why. The tests are however set up by us and not by the facilitating dealer. He gave us complete freedom in what we wanted to test, all blades used or the same throughout the tests giving all brands equal oppurtunities.

Outcome of the test is actually that 2 Festool machines the PS 300 Trion and the Protool JSP 140 (Protool) are very good machines. The Carvex has very nice features and works fine in more regular material for jigsaws than 4x8" wood. It appears to have an issue with temperatures around the blade guides. Far more than the Festool Trion and the Protool JSP. Should we not mention that here? We have reached out to Festool with our results to ask for their opinions before we posted them. So far we have heard that our remarks where received and they are under investigation.

We all have a passion for high end best in class tools and in many many maybe most occasions those machines are branded Festool, in this case it's not, should we than say nothing or be honoust and share this with other tool passionates? Isn't that what this forum is about?

I would challenge anybody to take up the challenge and get your hands on a heat camera and some of these machines and see for yourself what happens. In any material you will cut the Carvex 420 will have a significantly higher temperature around the guide and blades than the other machines. We saw this on 2 Carvex 420 machines from 2 different suppliers, bough by regular Festool dealers in Europe so it would be too hard to believe that something is wrong with the machines.

Will the high temperatures make the 420 a bad machine? I'm not sure, but I do know for sure is that this is something that could be an issue for some of us and for those people it's interesting to know.

Last but not least a reaction to JMB
Quote
My test will always be fair like always! I say it how it is    junk OR GOOD lol

So have we!

Offline Festool USA

  • Festool USA Employee
    FOG Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 8430
    • Festool USA
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #122 on: October 06, 2012, 06:40 PM »
Ken, I think I've been more than patient and generous, especially based on the information I made public today.

Forum members have always had the opportunity to speak their minds about our tools, good and bad, and I think there is evidence of that in the threads about the Carvex 400, the 420's predecessor, from our forum friends in Europe expressing their concerns with that model.

I've tried to look to our forum members and moderators in times like this for guidance and a consensus. To remove any perceived influence or bias on my part. Festool's goal is to have this forum's direction guided by its members. So, again, I look to the members to express their opinions here in the thread about what should be done. If it were up to me personally, I see a fair amount of unethical behavior on the part of the reviewers and Gereedschappro. Festool has never made it a practice to attack other brands, but to rely on the merits of our own tools and let the consumer decide. I see evidence of "posting on behalf of a banned member", in this case All About Tools (the owner of Gereedschappro), which is against our forum guidelines.

The issue isn't about the Carvex in this thread. It's about a concerted effort by employees and affiliates of Gereedschappro to manipulate the tests and results in favor of a particular tool. Starting with the non-disclosure in the original post and ending with the information about the owner of Gereedschappro and his very close relationship with Rian in particular. The suspicious activity of a banned account attempting to log on multiple times when this thread surfaced and since after over a year. And, I don't know any of us would devote multiple full days of our personal time to do tool tests for a retailer free of charge.

There are just to many things that scream foul to me personally. But, I am a Festool employee and as much as I try to separate my loyalty to Festool from my personal feelings, the forum members will always scrutinize my words and actions here, and rightly so.

Offline Scott Burt

  • Magazine/Blog Author
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • painter/writer/educator
    • Prep to Finish
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #123 on: October 06, 2012, 06:54 PM »
I don't have a dog in this fight, I have an old pos Bosch jigsaw that I use for sink cutouts and siding notching mostly, although I did make my son some cool ninja stars last halloween with it, but this looks like a classic case of forum "drive by" posting, where you have a  member or two with 12 post histories and under, blowing through with polarizing footage and opinions.

Who really cares what some dudes in the netherlands did with some tools. I get a little bit more out of seeing what kreg or Dave R or Brice have to say about them, and Peter Parfitt (sp) as well. Even then, their info has to be measured against each of our own realities of typical tool use and project pipelines.

We all have free will, which no post, moderator, test or review can really alter very much, as is evidenced by the staunch stubbornness of opinions and beliefs even in ordinary every day posts about tools.

In all my travels professionally and personally, I don't believe I have ever been in the same room with a Mafell tool, or even been in a room with someone who was talking about them.  

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 06:56 PM by Scott B. »

Offline Rembo72

  • Posts: 36
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #124 on: October 06, 2012, 07:00 PM »
Quote
And, I don't know any of us would devote multiple full days of our personal time to do tool tests for a retailer free of charge.

Shane is it you saying that as a Festool employee selling top quality tools to machine passionates? I guess there are numerous people that would be tool enthusiast enough to do so. Since these tests I know at least three more of them besides myself. I hope they did not get paid or compensated in any way because that would make me the fool out of us and normally I'm not that kind of person  [smile]

Quote
posting on behalf of a banned member

Shane , any proof of this? The original post was from JGVilla whom I meet at the test and who is a retired airline pilot. A woodworker ever since his retirement and a customer of the facilitator of the test like we all are. A Festool adept like all of us are. Would you think a retired airline pilot would post on behalf om somebody else, come on. How difficult would it be these days with IP scramblers or whatever high tech tools to post under a fake name..... He was just enthousiastic and posted this on the forum he was posting on for I believe a long time. My attention was drawn to this post by the comments He made me aware of and that's when I jumped in, nothing more nothing less.

What's all the hassle about? the fact that there's an issue with a Festool machine when tested in 1 specific test? Wait for the outcome of the whole test and you'l see there's nothing to feel bad about.

Offline Scott Burt

  • Magazine/Blog Author
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • painter/writer/educator
    • Prep to Finish
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #125 on: October 06, 2012, 07:35 PM »
I guess one thing that makes me question the empirical nature of the testing is that in the Festool vs Piece of Pine video, I spotted this under the work surface, which struck me as a technological oddity amidst a team showing competence with infrared grade heat measuring technology...

I don't even plug office equipment into junk like that.

56068-0

Offline Rembo72

  • Posts: 36
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #126 on: October 06, 2012, 07:43 PM »
Quote
I don't even plug office equipment into junk like that.

Hi Scott, one thing for sure you looked at the video carefully.... we indeed did not pay attention to that.

Sorry for mainly paying attention to things that would affect the test results and not at things that compromised working safely. Not shown in the video but there was a fire extuingisher ready on site for safety so if this would have gotten out of hand..... The fact that the infrared sensor kept focussing on the saw blades indicated that temperatures where way within acceptable reacht.

Nevertheless not the best practise to show, your right it's a bit odd being carefull in on area and not in the other  [smile]

Offline Scott Burt

  • Magazine/Blog Author
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • painter/writer/educator
    • Prep to Finish
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #127 on: October 06, 2012, 07:48 PM »
Quote
I don't even plug office equipment into junk like that.

Hi Scott, one thing for sure you looked at the video carefully.... we indeed did not pay attention to that.

Sorry for mainly paying attention to things that would affect the test results and not at things that compromised working safely. Not shown in the video but there was a fire extuingisher ready on site for safety so if this would have gotten out of hand..... The fact that the infrared sensor kept focussing on the saw blades indicated that temperatures where way within acceptable reacht.

Nevertheless not the best practise to show, your right it's a bit odd being carefull in on area and not in the other  [smile]

Well, a couple of things on that. For a review video to so meticulously refer to the festool manual and using the "just like festool said" card, I just found it a little odd to see an piece of electrical equipment directly under the work surface that was so unqualified to be there in any shape or form. How do I know you didnt plug your tool and extractor combo into that junk, and if you did, could there be any correlation between poor current and heat at the tool? Perhaps.

Also, I am pretty sure that Festool didnt recommend that you run their tool on another brand extractor. Why on earth would your facilitating dealer not have provided you with a ct unit, given the systemic engineering of festool gear?

It appears that you used a different brand extractor on the tool. Is this the case? If so, why?

56069-0

Offline derrills

  • Posts: 20
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #128 on: October 06, 2012, 08:18 PM »
You too can make sparks with any jig saw blade. Just run a screw directly through the path of your cut and then hide it from yourself by clamping the square, paying special attention to cover the screw so it won't be visible. Then push like you mean it when cutting. I was raised on a farm so I'm pretty sure I know bull junk when I see it.

Offline Scott Burt

  • Magazine/Blog Author
  • *
  • Posts: 2005
  • painter/writer/educator
    • Prep to Finish
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #129 on: October 06, 2012, 08:31 PM »
The whole point of shop or lab based benchtop testing is that you CAN control all variables, for better or worse. While the heat cam imagery in the video lends the appearance of first glimpse credibility, on further analysis its specious. This is why I prefer to see testing that is done on real projects (and tasks that are generally considered typical for the tool) where performance consequences translate to time and money, and no shenanigans. Forget the torture testing, show competence with the tool in its intended skill set.

Difficult to splash into a pool of knowledge like the FOG without having all those essential bases covered. I didn't mention the cheap outlet strip because it is a safety issue. I mentioned it as potential skew in electrical current. I know I yell at my guys if they run tools on too long or wrong gauge extension cords. These things are engineered and built to work as a system, and the least a tester can do is test them in the manner that they were intended to be used, especially before making what is intended to be a scientific claim that has some obvious holes in it.

I am sure that as this tool gets around, more reliable footage will get shared, and hopefully by people who are plugging them in on jobs with real consequences and no nonsense.

Offline hockey_magnet

  • Posts: 330
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #130 on: October 06, 2012, 08:37 PM »
Quote
And, I don't know any of us would devote multiple full days of our personal time to do tool tests for a retailer free of charge.

Shane is it you saying that as a Festool employee selling top quality tools to machine passionates? I guess there are numerous people that would be tool enthusiast enough to do so. Since these tests I know at least three more of them besides myself. I hope they did not get paid or compensated in any way because that would make me the fool out of us and normally I'm not that kind of person  [smile]

Quote
posting on behalf of a banned member

Shane , any proof of this? The original post was from JGVilla whom I meet at the test and who is a retired airline pilot. A woodworker ever since his retirement and a customer of the facilitator of the test like we all are. A Festool adept like all of us are. Would you think a retired airline pilot would post on behalf om somebody else, come on. How difficult would it be these days with IP scramblers or whatever high tech tools to post under a fake name..... He was just enthousiastic and posted this on the forum he was posting on for I believe a long time. My attention was drawn to this post by the comments He made me aware of and that's when I jumped in, nothing more nothing less.

What's all the hassle about? the fact that there's an issue with a Festool machine when tested in 1 specific test? Wait for the outcome of the whole test and you'l see there's nothing to feel bad about.

Actually I think the more time you spend - and you've already spent an inordinate amount of time testing a single tool IMHO.  - the more I'm inclined to side with Shane on this. Have you ever personally spent this kind of time testing any other tool? or been encouraged by this dealer to spend this kind of time testing other tools? Why not just test the Mafell and tell us how great it is instead of trying to make the Festool look bad and using such drama? (you'd think the Carvex blew up and killed a dozen people during the test). You can't possibly think you have a high level of credibility regardless of your protests otherwise. As a comparison, what would YOU think if, say, a BMW dealer conducted a test on a Mercedes with some customers and found problems with it? Would you accept the results as credible?   Of course not! I will rely on test sources that I am confident are unbiased and independent.   BTW, Why the obsessive interest in jigsaws? Instead of routers, TS, etc? Finally, Can you refute any of what Shane has said regarding this dealer and his previous activities on this forum? It's either true or it's not, it's not open to interpretation.

Chris

Offline le_yum

  • Posts: 2
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #131 on: October 06, 2012, 08:59 PM »
it is obvious that the blade guides are too tight, why bend a dozen of blades and insist, just make 1/2 turn instead 1/3...

Offline derrills

  • Posts: 20
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #132 on: October 06, 2012, 09:13 PM »
I wouldn't be afraid to buy any of Festool's  products. Their customer service is outstanding and with Festool's 30-Day Money Back Guarantee " Buy with confidence. If you are not completely satisfied, return your tool to the selling dealer within 30 days ......"




Offline PeterK

  • Posts: 1020
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #133 on: October 06, 2012, 09:14 PM »
Let this all just play out. My take on all this is that it will all get sorted out after the the final test video becomes available. If there are questions at that time on the results, I am sure we will see people who have the new Carvex replicating the usage and giving their experiences. No one here is going to base their future purchase decision on a video if it is obviously biased and flawed. I hope to see this comparison show some guys using the various saws in real world applications to show if there are any real differences. Actually, I don't expect to see any big differences between the tools.

I own 3 jigsaws, a Trion, a Bosch, a Makita battery powered. They all get used frequently for different tasks. The Bosch gets the really messy dirty jobs like cutting thick metal plate while using lubricant, the Trion sees all the shop wood cutting, the Makita gets used for all the really quick rough board shortening tasks as it is always ready to use anywhere I need it.

I look for features first in a saw- led lighting, dust collection, a good blower, clear view of the cut line, easy switch and trigger access. As I use Bosch blades most of the time, the final cut results are very similar for the 3 saws but the Trion really shines for true vertical cuts in thin and thick materials. Looking forward to the release of the Carvex as the optional bases will be very useful to me for some tasks.

Offline glass1

  • Posts: 558
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #134 on: October 06, 2012, 09:20 PM »
This is my first post (moderator edit - first post in a long time). I usually post a the jlc forum. I am neither a festool lover or hater. I own several festools(1400 router, 55 track saw, trion jig, sanders, c12 drill, and 850 planer)all of which I find to be excellent tools. I bought and returned the kapex which I do not think is bad but was not worth the cost to me. Is it not possible the carvex is not as good as it should be. On another note in the finish carpentry forum at jlc I posted a few shots of a timber stair, for the record I rely on my "jig saw" to make some big cuts!
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:37 PM by Shane Holland »

Offline derrills

  • Posts: 20
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #135 on: October 06, 2012, 09:41 PM »
glass1

 Online

Member Since: Aug 2008
Posts: 48

Posted on: Today at 09:20 PMPosted by: glass1 
Insert Quote
This is my first post. I usually post a the jlc forum. I am neither a festool lover or hater. I own several festools(1400 router, 55 track saw, trion jig, sanders, c12 drill, and 850 planer)all of which I find to be excellent tools. I bought and returned the kapex which I do not think is bad but was not worth.............. 

Welcome to the FOG [welcome] You must type really fast  [poke]


Offline Peter Halle

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 12367
  • Remington Steele - My Third Boy
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #136 on: October 06, 2012, 09:45 PM »
I offer this as a member.  If I wanted exposure on the internet about something one strategy I would consider would be to go to a place that had great exposure and activity, post something controversial, interact to continue the conversation, add teaser comments and contents once the attention slipped, throw in multiple personalities to heat up and cool down the reactions and once there was not any more attention then my job would be done and I could go on to the next place.


Just some random thoughts.

Peter


Offline derrills

  • Posts: 20
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #137 on: October 06, 2012, 10:11 PM »
Peter , thank you for your words of wisdom. Sheds a new light on the subject for me. Carvex light [thumbs up]

Offline Michael1960

  • Posts: 187
  • It needs a little work...
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2012, 11:55 PM »
Shane - I would close this thread. The original video was claimed to be a 'teaser'.  The 'complete' review was conducted over a week ago and its release was promised 'soon'....  I've lost interest.
I'll look to other reviews on this forum for comprehensive test results on the Carvex 420

Offline glass1

  • Posts: 558
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #139 on: October 07, 2012, 12:26 AM »
I was immediately emailed by Shane and reminded that I had posted in 2009 40 times. He went on to say that I must have just forgotten but just didn't want anybody to remember my past posts. thx Shane you are right I am the one with the agenda. After a long afternooof soccer games and a couple of beers I truly forgot that I used to post here.

Offline Reiska

  • Posts: 1175
  • Hackers build things, Crackers break them.
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #140 on: October 07, 2012, 02:53 AM »
I guess one thing that makes me question the empirical nature of the testing is that in the Festool vs Piece of Pine video, I spotted this under the work surface, which struck me as a technological oddity amidst a team showing competence with infrared grade heat measuring technology...

I don't even plug office equipment into junk like that.

(Attachment Link)

Well, that's a quite standard Central-European extension lead - I use them everywhere else but in wet spaces since those white plastic ones are not IP44 protected. They do have integrated child protectors in them so the holes are blocked when not in use. Sure, for the lawn mower I have a more robust rubberized extension lead and some Chinese 25m long rolled extension cords for renovation use when electricity has to be cut in a room and brought in from elsewhere but in a normal workshop where there is neither water nor a need for extended lengths I use those normal extension leads.

I think here we are getting a bit too over-analytical...  [blink]
The sky's the limit in my workshop, literally. [big grin]

Offline jmbfestool

  • Posts: 6634
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #141 on: October 07, 2012, 03:12 AM »
Like Ken said.   

I dont think this Thread should be closed if you going to close it you should delete it.

because people will make up there own mind and so far no videos of proof that the carvex can do it.  So people will leave this page thinking it might not be up to the job. 

Only thing going on at the moment is people discrediting the people doing the tests...

I am hoping to get the Carvex 420 and I will DEFIANTLY be doing some tests and videos my self and post on this topic.

JMB
*********************************************************************** [thumbs up]UK members click me
*********************************************************************** [thumbs up]

Offline woodguy7

  • Posts: 2727
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #142 on: October 07, 2012, 04:18 AM »
JMB, i look forward to your test.  As for the full test results from the OP, where are they,,,,,
If its made of wood, i can make it smaller.
Shirt size medium
p.s- ive started reading these too

Offline cliffp

  • Posts: 515
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #143 on: October 07, 2012, 04:52 AM »
As for the full test results from the OP, where are they,,,,,

Maybe the OP tried doing the tests hoping to show the Carvex 420 performing badly but given all the suggestions made by other contributors as to the way the tests should be conducted (which were obviously aimed at making the tests more valid), couldn't get it to perform badly? If that were the case and if their only motive was to damage Festool's reputation (and I am not suggesting it was their motive), they probably wouldn't bother showing the second test.
T15+3 set, CXS set, Centrotec set (2011), TS55REBQ, TS75EQ, 1400 rail, 1900 rail, 1400 LR32 rail, LR32 set, MFT/3, OF1400, OF1010, Guide rail adapter, edging plate, angle arm, chip catcher, small bore base, MFS400, MFS1000 profiles, RO90DX, RO150, ETS150/3, Domino DF500, Domino assortment systainer, CTL Midi, compact cleaning set, CMS GE, TS75 Module, OF Module, VL and VB extensions, LA Stopper, Sliding table, Carvex 420 Li 18 GG, core maker set, EHL65EQ, Syslite.

Offline Rembo72

  • Posts: 36
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #144 on: October 07, 2012, 04:59 AM »
Quote
BTW, Why the obsessive interest in jigsaws? Instead of routers, TS, etc?

Their is no obsessive interest, #1 tool category for both users and manufacturers is the plunge saw. This was tested few months ago.

Quote
Finally, Can you refute any of what Shane has said regarding this dealer and his previous activities on this forum? It's either true or it's not, it's not open to interpretation.

I believe much of what Shane is saying is true, but don't know all the details.

Quote
Maybe the OP tried doing the tests hoping to show the Carvex 420 performing badly but given all the suggestions made by other contributors as to the way the tests should be conducted (which were obviously aimed at making the tests more valid), couldn't get it to perform badly? If that were the case and if their only motive was to damage Festool's reputation (and I am not suggesting it was their motive), they probably wouldn't bother showing the second test.

Test results will be published in coming days, you have to accept that it takes some time to write the review and make te movie a comprehensive summary.

Offline Rembo72

  • Posts: 36
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #145 on: October 07, 2012, 05:10 AM »
Quote
it is obvious that the blade guides are too tight, why bend a dozen of blades and insist, just make 1/2 turn instead 1/3...

Blades guides where definitely not too tight, they where tighter on the PS 300 Trion and the Protool JSP with no issues. They where adjusted to manufacturers instructions and after adjusting the as instructed they was plenty of space to move around. The drive shaft however is not as tight as you would expect it to be so the whole pack, shaft, guides, blades has a lot of space to bounce around between the shaft / guides.

Quote
You too can make sparks with any jig saw blade. Just run a screw directly through the path of your cut and then hide it from yourself by clamping the square, paying special attention to cover the screw so it won't be visible. Then push like you mean it when cutting. I was raised on a farm so I'm pretty sure I know bull junk when I see it.

If you want to fool a test yes than you can probably do that but the effect would probably not be as what we have seen but you blade would have been completely worn out and not bended or broken. Making this statement says much about how you think and does not say anything about what we have done in the test.

Quote
Well, a couple of things on that. For a review video to so meticulously refer to the festool manual and using the "just like festool said" card, I just found it a little odd to see an piece of electrical equipment directly under the work surface that was so unqualified to be there in any shape or form. How do I know you didnt plug your tool and extractor combo into that junk, and if you did, could there be any correlation between poor current and heat at the tool? Perhaps.

Mafell is taking more power and was connected through the same cords as the other machines. Mafell was showing no issues and was the tested machine with highest power requirements so that one should have been the one causing issues.  Theoratically you might be right, practically what you say does not make sence and I think you know that yourself.

Quote
Also, I am pretty sure that Festool didnt recommend that you run their tool on another brand extractor. Why on earth would your facilitating dealer not have provided you with a ct unit, given the systemic engineering of festool gear?

It appears that you used a different brand extractor on the tool. Is this the case? If so, why?

No specific reason, there was only one shopvac available, not branded like any of the 5 machines. I believe it does not make a difference at all to this test. Do you? Please explain.

Offline woodguy7

  • Posts: 2727
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #146 on: October 07, 2012, 07:50 AM »
I don't think the vac would have any relevance to the test either.  But I do hope the new reviews shows a mixture of scenarios not just hogging through a ridiculous lump of wood !
If its made of wood, i can make it smaller.
Shirt size medium
p.s- ive started reading these too

Offline Jaybolishes

  • Posts: 399
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #147 on: October 07, 2012, 09:03 AM »
Obviously by all the tests the ONLY thing anyone ever uses a jigsaw for is cutting huge beams.  There's no other use at all, these tests show the Mafell is way better.  I mean who the heck uses a jigsaw for anything else, the only important task a jigsaw is for is cutting thick beams.

On a serious note, using  a jigsaw to cut thick beams is like using a Ferrari for hauling gravel.  Then saying after the car overheats, wow, these ferraris sure are junk.   Give me some more tests, not just this ridiculous use that isn't even a common application.  Btw, Mafell makes amazing timber framing tools, I'm pretty sure festool is fine with staying out of that market. I don't see many timber framers on the fog lol
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 03:10 PM by Jaybolishes »

Offline neeleman

  • Posts: 1273
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #148 on: October 07, 2012, 09:11 AM »
To set the record straight, is there anyone with a Carvex 420 who can replicate the test on their own and post their results here, please? Someone not associated with a Mafell dealer or Festool.

Since a few weeks I have a Carvex PS 420.
Before that I had a PS 300 and a PS 400. The PS 400 was sent back twice to Festool because of the problems we've all read about.
So two weeks ago when I went to pick-up the PS 400 there was a T-Loc systainer waiting for me while the PS 400 was brought in a Classic systainer.
So Festool did gave me a new PS 420 as an exchange!!!!!!!!!!! Together with 2 new blades, from which one of them is the new S75/4 FSG Carvex (499476).
I was very surprised but also very curious how this model would perform.

Of course I have also read all the messages about the jigsaw testing with GereedschapPro in Holland.

But I CANNOT CONFIRM, I repeat CANNOT CONFIRM, the bending, sparkling and very hot blades AT ALL.

I used a various selection of blades from Bosch and Festool (Trion and Carvex models).
I used it for sawing a timber beam 2"x6" in 2 directions with a longest blade of 145 mm.
Therefore I used pendulum setting 3 and the Automatic or 5-speed setting.
I also did some plywood in the middle and on the edges without a problem.

My other experiences:
1. The blade guide is nearly the same as on the PS 300.
2. Fiddling with the Allen key is not the easiest part but to my experiences it's not an art. To remove the baseplate is a pity and could be better. The Allen key should be of square shape and not the standard rectangular. The Allen bolt should be of high quality otherwise it will wear out soon.
3. Indeed it's a pity that they did not design a storage for the Allen key in the body or baseplate. I'am thinking of drilling a hole somewhere for the storage of the Allen key.
4. And the light has 3 settings: off, strobe or permanent on.
5. The changing of blades goes better then with the PS 400 and the little black knob on the slider has not come off once.

I have no possibilities to make a video and posting pictures is not necessary because of the good results I had.

I'am a satisfied customer of all my Festools and since two weeks also the Carvex PS 420.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 09:15 AM by neeleman »
Festoolian since 1998.
FESTOOL:
RTSC400Li | CTL MIDI I | SYSROCK BR10 | SYSLITE KAL II | SV-SYS D14 | DSC-AG125FH | CDD9.6 | SYSLITE DUO | DF700 | HKC55 | TXS2.6 | CTL SYS | CXS2.6 | DWC18 | CTWings | BHC18 | CS50 | CMS-OF | MFT/3 | MFT/3-VL | KS120 | TS55 R | PSC420 | PS420 | BS75 | RAS115 | RO90 | RO150 | RS400 | RTS400 | RS300 | LS130 | DX93 | ETS150/5 | ETS150/3 | OF1010 | OF1400 | OFK500 | MFK700 | T18 | EHL65 | CTL26 | CTL22 | WCR1000 | D27-AS Plug-it | D36 UNI-RS | D36x7 | D50x2.5 | FS800 | FS800/2 | FS1080/2 | FS1400/2 (2x) | FS3000/2 | FSK250 | FSK420 | Gecko Dosh | Toolie | CE-SYS-2010 | RB-SYS CART (2x) | LEV1400 | LEV350 | SYS-MFT
PROTOOL:
CHP26 | PDC18 | FLC UNI | VCP260 | DSC-AGP125 | DSC-AGP230 | DSG-AGP125 | DRP16

Offline Dovetail65

  • Posts: 4619
    • Rose Farm Floor Medallions and Inlays
Re: Carvex 420 first impressions
« Reply #149 on: October 07, 2012, 09:39 AM »
I have no interest in this thread as I never believe any review, not even posts here. I  try the tool myself. But as far as jigsaw testing thick beams is the gold standard of testing and EXACTLY how I would test and how I would want to see the jigs tested.. If the jig saw can do that it can do anything. Heck, a 50.00 Home Depot special can cut 3/4" ply perfectly, but the blade deflects using a 2" x 4". That simply is the difference between a good and bad jig in my opinion, lack of blade deflection on thick cuts that is.

As far as I know cutting thick beams IS the standard for jigsaw testing. When I first saw the Trion at a show, yep the Festool reps were cutting thick beams. Check the Trion original literature, yep shows cutting thick beams. And they state the lack of blade deflection in thick cuts as it's MAIN selling point. This type test demonstrates the power and the blade deflection and it has always been the standard test for a jig saw for me.

I used to make tons of trellis on site. Tell me, without a jig saw how was I suppose to cut the scroll ends on the 4" x 6" pieces, drag a band saw to the site?. A jig is the defacto tool for that operation! Cutting thick beams IS what a great jig saw is about and a great test.

As far as these testers who knows. I never saw a test that was not biased in one way or another and me having almost 4000 Festool posts am automatically biased toward Festool, as these guys are to Mafell, so what. Any person here saying the testing is biased is biased themselves, this is a Festool forum after all! Don't any of us FOG members under our breath hope the Festool wins? If you are a big poster here and can not admit that get real, we are all Festool biased and who says it's and bad thing. And just because one is biased toward one tool brand(we all are)  does not change the facts of a test. We can interpret the results and justify tests any way we like to get the answers we want to personally hear, these tests are meaningless to most.

Try the darn tool for yourself, you will either like it or hate it!
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 10:07 AM by Dovetail65 »
The one who says it can't be done should avoid interrupting the person doing it.