Cordless Lamello

[FestitaMakool]

Yes, I think this opens up possibilities for medium to small brands, as they don’t have to develop, build and support their own batteries (and chargers). Developing a tool that fits and are compatible with an existing platform must, to say the least be very appealing for smaller brands.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Yes, I think this opens up possibilities for medium to small brands, as they don’t have to develop, build and support their own batteries (and chargers). Developing a tool that fits and are compatible with an existing platform must, to say the least be very appealing for smaller brands.

It is a great idea, but the big companies will fight it. The thrive on proprietary batteries, plain and simple. They don't care about the small brands at all.

As far as corded/cordless, IIRC Kreg recommends that you use a corded drill, for the exact reason Packard mentioned, RPM. Faster cuts cleaner on the angled holes.
Cordless is a bit of a compromise. You get the "use anywhere" part, but it's not quite equal to the AC power units as far as the actual performance. It's "good enough" and much more portable. 

 

[mino]

Yes, I think this opens up possibilities for medium to small brands, as they don’t have to develop, build and support their own batteries (and chargers). Developing a tool that fits and are compatible with an existing platform must, to say the least be very appealing for smaller brands.

It is a great idea, but the big companies will fight it. The thrive on proprietary batteries, plain and simple. They don't care about the small brands at all.

As far as corded/cordless, IIRC Kreg recommends that you use a corded drill, for the exact reason Packard mentioned, RPM. Faster cuts cleaner on the angled holes.
Cordless is a bit of a compromise. You get the "use anywhere" part, but it's not quite equal to the AC power units as far as the actual performance. It's "good enough" and much more portable.

The CAS platform is really a (German division of) Metabo thing. They are by far the biggest in the alliance and they did it to help their platform compete with the other brands by extending the tools catalog of the platform via the speacialist makers like Lamello etc. You will notice 90% of the non-Metabo tools are specialist in nature and thus do not compete with Metabo lines. In effect it is not really any "alliance" but a product of Metabo where they effectively OEM the battery platform for the other makers and get the benefit of a wider platform for their tools to add.

I think a common battery platform is something that will come along once the related technologies have matured and become commoditised. The (tool) battery market is still pretty nascent and break-through tech is being introduced on an almost yearly basis. That will keep up for about 5-10 years.

I think we will settle on two "common" setups eventually:
"Small" 3-cell 10.8/12V 18650 packs /option for 6-cell/
"Mainstream" 10-cell 36/40V 18650 packs /option for 10x 21700 on same interface/
"non-standard" packs with high capacities and/or voltages

Eventually, I see the couurent 18/20V mainstream to dwindle as it is already attacked on the low end from the high-end 12V tools where modern 3-cell 18650 cells are already providing enough current as well as on the high end where 10 cells in series at 40V are superior to 2x 5 cells in series for the 18/20V platforms due to lower losses.

IMO Makita is a good example. I see them expanding their 12V LXT line as well as their 40V XGT line. Both lines "eating" from the 18V line's market.

Once that consolidation/standardization happens and Bluetooth battery interfaces are standardised, I can see common battery interfaces start becoming a thing. EU regulations might force this. They like to centrally mandate such stuff. But yeah, this market needs another decade to mature and one more to get commoditised enough for battery standardisation to make business sense.

 

[jeh]

Once that consolidation/standardization happens and Bluetooth battery interfaces are standardised, I can see common battery interfaces start becoming a thing. EU regulations might force this. They like to centrally mandate such stuff. But yeah, this market needs another decade to mature and one more to get commoditised enough for battery standardisation to make business sense.

The EU is good at overstepping their bounds to stifle competition. Common cords, batteries, connectors, etc sound great until you realize there is no advantage to building something better because you won't be able to sell it. Luckily for phones wireless charging will be the way by the time the EU succeeds in forcing manufacturers to use USB-C. If the EU had mandated micro-usb 10 years ago we would have not seen connector and charging speed advances. As an example Apple's Lightning connector would not have been invented as they could not have sold it even though it had the huge advantage of being able to be inserted into the phone without regard for the orientation of the cord. USB-C followed their lead as ease of plugging in was an improvement that everyone recognized. No question USB-C is the ideal solution today and without government intervention it will be improved upon and probably replaced within 5 years.

Phones will avoid this because of wireless charging, but one unintended consequence of the mandate could be requiring the USB-C connector on all phones even if they can charge wirelessly. Manufacturers get stuck with a legacy connector they no longer want or need. Consumers get stuck with a phone that is less water proof/resistant than one without it. Manufacturers have to keep buying and designing for a part they do not want to install.

Were the CAS program mandated there would be no reason to keep improving battery systems taking away the advantage of continuing to innovate. I do not want to live in that world. The only mandate for batteries should be a common plan for easily recycling the contents with the manufacturers subsidizing the program based on their percentage of batteries sold. This hurts no one and keeps the playing field level.

 

[mino]

Standards are a good thing. But they absolutely have to be based on sound and matured designs. This works where the tech settles, not so much when it is still in flux.

Ref. Brussels folks, there is a reason they are called "Moscow #2" over here ... if anyone will push this, it will be the Central Planners(TM) of Brussels. That I am sure of. For better or worse.

The main message is to not count on any standardisation in this field within the next decade or so. Too much development flux still.