Consolidated Q&A for Carvex 420 Jigsaws

[festnoob]

How is the vibration as compared to the bosch? I have a bosch and it's been a work horse, however its getting a bit shakey. (or I am  [scared])

Does Festool have a blade that's similiar to the bosch T101A0 or T119B0?

Will the new jigsaw accept a collins coping foot?

Thanks!

Dudes (& ettes)...I took the carvex for a spin yesterday at the ToolNut while the rep was there and Sal Levecchi did his fantastic CMS demo. I have to say I'm VERY impressed with this saw. We did a bunch of ridiculous curvy and wavy cuts in both 3/4" ply and almost 2" poplar. Perpendicular is all I have to say!

On that note, I also just ordered a Collins Coping foot for my trion as it still fits that!

I think people are going to be very pleased!

I'm glad to hear you say that! I have to say, I've been doubting my decision to sell my triton in order to save for the carvex, but I'm excited as the days approach!

 

[Administrator_JSVN]

How is the vibration as compared to the bosch? I have a bosch and it's been a work horse, however its getting a bit shakey. (or I am  [scared])

Does Festool have a blade that's similiar to the bosch T101A0 or T119B0?

Will the new jigsaw accept a collins coping foot?

It's been a while since I've used a Bosch jigsaw, so I can't really offer any specific feedback. Maybe some of our European members can share their opinions. Vibration can be affected by the blade, material, etc. so there's more than the jigsaw in the equation.

Our blade 486564 would be most similar to the T101A0 and our blade 486563 would be most similar to the T119B0 in my opinion. If you try our blades and they don't suit your needs, the Carvex will use all universal T-shank blades, including the Bosch blades you're listing.

The Carvex will not accept the current Collins copying foot and it's my understanding that he will not be producing one specifically for the Carvex at this time.

Just a follow up on this... I had wondered if the angle base might work for coping. I've not tried it, as I don't do a lot of coping. But, I saw this photo of it being used for coping and thought I'd share. Those who do a lot of coping might offer their feedback on whether they think it would work for that task.

[attachimg=#]

 

[fdengel]

Aren't his fingers rather close to that blade?

[eek]

 

[Stephen B]

Surely a hand coping saw would be much safer.

During our owner build, I tried using my German but not Festool jigsaw, and soon found that doing it by hand was more accurate and safer.

I am sure that some who regularly do this process, are more experienced and have commercial considerations will have quicker methods?

 

[Administrator_JSVN]

Just to clarify, here's what's included with the Carvex Accessory Kit (497709):

-4 Base Inserts: dimpled base insert, phenolic base insert, steel base insert, StickFix Base Insert (497 298, 497 299, 497 300, 497 301)
- Angle Base (496 134)
- Base Adapter (497 303)
- Circle Cutter (497 304)
- Splinterguard - 5 pieces (490 120)
- 5-pack of felts
- SYS 2 T-LOC Systainer (497 564)

http://festoolusa.com/power-tool-accessories/jigsaws/carvex-bases-and-inserts/accessory-kit-for-carvex-jigsaw-497709

 

[festnoob]

Just to clarify, here's what's included with the Carvex Accessory Kit (497709):

-4 Base Inserts: dimpled base insert, phenolic base insert, steel base insert, StickFix Base Insert (497 298, 497 299, 497 300, 497 301)
- Angle Base (496 134)
- Base Adapter (497 303)
- Circle Cutter (497 304)
- Splinterguard - 5 pieces (490 120)
- 5-pack of felts
- SYS 2 T-LOC Systainer (497 564)

http://festoolusa.com/power-tool-accessories/jigsaws/carvex-bases-and-inserts/accessory-kit-for-carvex-jigsaw-497709

What about that festool "keychain" thingy? Or does that come with the actual Carvex?

 

[Administrator_JSVN]

What about that festool "keychain" thingy? Or does that come with the actual Carvex?

The keychain thingy is for using the Carvex with the jigsaw CMS module. It will be in the accessory kit, not with the Carvex.

 

[festnoob]

One more question: will one be able to make bevel cuts using the guide rail attachment?

 

[Administrator_JSVN]

One more question: will one be able to make bevel cuts using the guide rail attachment?

The guide rail base does not bevel. The angle base must be used for bevel cuts.

The guide rail base and angle base cannot be used simultaneously. You could clamp a rail in place and use it as a guide to keep the angle base against.

Can I ask what the application is and maybe there's a better solution? The TS saw would probably work best.

 

[festnoob]

Well, I had in mind cutting down a scribe line that is straight enough to use a guide rail. I've used the ts55 in the past and it made for a much faster rip than carefully following a line. I no longer have the ts55 (as you know  [wink]) and I don't want to drag the 75 along. I'm thinking pressing the carvex alongside/against the guide rail could cause it to shift if it cannot be clamped down UNLESS I buy the fast clamp. I guess I'm answering my own question.

I'm sure there are a few other applications where cutting a straight rip with a bevel would be useful in say maybe a table top. In my case I would then use the ts75. I guess I was just thinking ahead but when the time comes I'll figure it out.

 

[MrToolJunkie]

Shane,

Do you know which blades were used in the accessory video?  I know that the one for steel was used for that cut, but were any other blades used aside from the Carvex blade?  The cuts look really good.  I chuckled with the cut using the splinter guard and without as both look pretty good.  Granted the cut with the splinter guard was better, but the one without looked pretty darn good IMHO. 

Scot

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I chuckled with the cut using the splinter guard and without as both look pretty good.  Granted the cut with the splinter guard was better, but the one without looked pretty darn good IMHO.

If you look close, the operator had wiped away some of the splinters from the non-splinter guard cut a moment earlier. If he hadn't done that, when the closeup image was taken, the difference would have been much more noticeable.

I know that the one for steel was used for that cut, but were any other blades used aside from the Carvex blade? 

I think there may be some confusion on the blades recently. All blades are both Carvex blades and Trion blades. Yes, the FSG blade got relabeled with the Carvex name printed on it, simply because it got a minor redesign while the Carvex was the current main jigsaw. But it is not something special for Carvex.

The FSG blade has a very wide tooth set. In the previous model, it also had a trapezoidal shank. These two features are redundant with one another, so the trapezoidal shank was removed in the newer version.

In comparison, the FS blade has no tooth set, so it has a trapezoidal shank to permit it to turn and clear the kerf in the rear. This permits the FS blade to make smooth cuts due to the lack of side-set on the teeth, but also still have clearance on the shank.

 

[MrToolJunkie]

I chuckled with the cut using the splinter guard and without as both look pretty good.  Granted the cut with the splinter guard was better, but the one without looked pretty darn good IMHO.

If you look close, the operator had wiped away some of the splinters from the non-splinter guard cut a moment earlier. If he hadn't done that, when the closeup image was taken, the difference would have been much more noticeable.

I know that the one for steel was used for that cut, but were any other blades used aside from the Carvex blade? 

I think there may be some confusion on the blades recently. All blades are both Carvex blades and Trion blades. Yes, the FSG blade got relabeled with the Carvex name printed on it, simply because it got a minor redesign while the Carvex was the current main jigsaw. But it is not something special for Carvex.

The FSG blade has a very wide tooth set. In the previous model, it also had a trapezoidal shank. These two features are redundant with one another, so the trapezoidal shank was removed in the newer version.

In comparison, the FS blade has no tooth set, so it has a trapezoidal shank to permit it to turn and clear the kerf in the rear. This permits the FS blade to make smooth cuts due to the lack of side-set on the teeth, but also still have clearance on the shank.

Thanks, Rick.  I thought that the new Carvex blades were ever so slightly thicker than the Trion blades.  Maybe I am mistaken on that and it is only a rebranding but I thought I read somewhere that they were a little thicker.  These blades help minimize deflection and ensure perpendicular cuts and I have been very happy with them under both names.

Scot 

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Thanks, Rick.  I thought that the new Carvex blades were ever so slightly thicker than the Trion blades.  Maybe I am mistaken on that and it is only a rebranding but I thought I read somewhere that they were a little thicker.  These blades help minimize deflection and ensure perpendicular cuts and I have been very happy with them under both names.

Scot  

Yes, you probably did read that somewhere, and might even continue to hear it from some of the Festool Dealers for a while. It came about from one of the Trainers from Germany, but it was a miscommunication about the FSG blades no longer being trapezoidal. Instead of him saying that the FSG blades were no longer "thinner in the back" (i.e. trapezoidal), he said the blades were thicker, and everyone listening to that misunderstood what he meant. (I watched the video of the presentation he gave.)

A trapezoidal blade has a thinner rear of the shank so it clears the saw kerf better than if it was just a straight blade. A saw blade with a wide tooth-set accomplishes the same thing solely due to the tooth set. So a blade that is both trapezoidal and with a wide tooth set is redundant. The new FSG blades removed this redundancy. Yes, as a result, they are stiffer. That part is correct. Overall they are the same thickness at the front of the shank (not counting the set of the teeth) as other blades, but they just don't have the thinning at the rear.

[attachimg=#]

 

[MrToolJunkie]

Thanks, Rick.  I thought that the new Carvex blades were ever so slightly thicker than the Trion blades.  Maybe I am mistaken on that and it is only a rebranding but I thought I read somewhere that they were a little thicker.  These blades help minimize deflection and ensure perpendicular cuts and I have been very happy with them under both names.

Scot  

Yes, you probably did read that somewhere, and might even continue to hear it from some of the Festool Dealers for a while. It came about from one of the Trainers from Germany, but it was a miscommunication about the FSG blades no longer being trapezoidal. Instead of him saying that the FSG blades were no longer "thinner in the back" (i.e. trapezoidal), he said the blades were thicker, and everyone listening to that misunderstood what he meant. (I watched the video of the presentation he gave.)

A trapezoidal blade has a thinner rear of the shank so it clears the saw kerf better than if it was just a straight blade. A saw blade with a wide tooth-set accomplishes the same thing solely due to the tooth set. So a blade that is both trapezoidal and with a wide tooth set is redundant. The new FSG blades removed this redundancy. Yes, as a result, they are stiffer. That part is correct. Overall they are the same thickness at the teeth as other blades, but they just don't have the thinning at the rear.

[attachimg=#]

Thanks, Rick.  That makes sense...I appreciate the diagram!

Scot

 

[tbellemare]

Not only has the redundant trapezoidal aspect been discontinued but the blade's "spine" (if that's the term) is overall thicker.

The Trion's S 75/4 FSG spine is about 1.6mm at the part closest to the teeth. The Carvex's S75/4 FSG is about 1.8mm from front to back.

Tom

 

[festnoob]

Are there any plans for a dust collection attachment for the angle base?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Not only has the redundant trapezoidal aspect been discontinued but the blade's "spine" (if that's the term) is overall thicker.

Tom, this is a slightly misleading statement simply because it is redundant.  [poke] Yes, the effect of not grinding the trapezoidal shank is that the blades are thicker, but otherwise they have always used the same 14 gauge (0.070") blade blank. That's why I've been fairly careful to say that the old blades were thinner "due" to the trapezoidal grind, or at least something to that effect.

 

[MrToolJunkie]

Not only has the redundant trapezoidal aspect been discontinued but the blade's "spine" (if that's the term) is overall thicker.

Tom, this is a slightly misleading statement simply because it is redundant.  [poke] Yes, the effect of not grinding the trapezoidal shank is that the blades are thicker, but otherwise they have always used the same 14 gauge (0.070") blade blank. That's why I've been fairly careful to say that the old blades were thinner "due" to the trapezoidal grind, or at least something to that effect.

Rick I think you said the operative word in reply to one of my earlier posts -- the new blades are "stiffer" vs. thickness.  Stiff blades deflect less and help ensure perpendicular cuts.  I love the new blades, BTW...

Scot

 

[MrToolJunkie]

What is the length of the D-Handle and the barrel grip version?  In know that the cord swivels on the barrel grip, but curious if the two saws can cut almost as close to an edge -- the pics in Rick's manual appeared that the D-Handle is slightly shorter, but that might just be how the picture appears to me.  The barrel grip cord swivel is slick, but the variable speed trigger is also slick on the D-Handle.

Rick -- awesome manual, BTW.  Did you ever complete one for the Trion?

Scot