Festool table saw height

[MMCO]

I'm looking at the Festool table saw and have a number of MFT tables. I'm curious if the height of the cordless Festool table saw work surface, using the dolly stand, is the same as a standard MFT table. The thought being this would significantly increase the work surface area for larger material.

 

[mcfal12]

The working height of the cart is 26-1/4”, per Festool USA, and the height of the mft table is 31”. If they made them the same height the table saw would sit too high for the average height user.

For reference the MW1000 work table is almost 35” high and is my preference being I am 6’5” tall.

 

[MMCO]

I'm asking how high the table saw top is sitting on the cart. 26" seems very low. My apologies of I'm not explaining this better.

 

[squall_line]

The working height of the cart is 26-1/4”, per Festool USA, and the height of the mft table is 31”. If they made them the same height the table saw would sit too high for the average height user.

For reference the MW1000 work table is almost 35” high and is my preference being I am 6’5” tall.

The MFT/3 table, MW 1000 mobile workbench, CMS system, Kapex on UG stand (or on MFT KAPEX), and CSC-SYS 50 on UG stand ALL sit at the same 900mm working height at the work surface (nominally 35-ish inches).

The FUSA website for the UG CSC SYS 50 stand lists this as 90cm instead of 900mm for some reason...

Underframe UG UG-CSC-SYS

www.festoolusa.com

• puts the CSC SYS 50 cordless table saw at a working height of 90 cm (with legs folded out)

 

[arso_bg]

The MFT/3 table, MW 1000 mobile workbench, CMS system, Kapex on UG stand (or on MFT KAPEX), and CSC-SYS 50 on UG stand ALL sit at the same 900mm working height at the work surface (nominally 35-ish inches).

The FUSA website for the UG CSC SYS 50 stand lists this as 90cm instead of 900mm for some reason...

Underframe UG UG-CSC-SYS

www.festoolusa.com

1cm = 10 mm
This means 90 cm equals to 900 mm

 

[Imemiter]

Fun and relevant YouTube short from @FestoolPortugal.

 

[woodferret]

Nominal height 900 though. Don't forget most of these surfaces has at least one levelling feet. Don't expect dead flat, or coplanar - as in the video (who'd use a free floating table vs the kapex wings for anything but the roughest cut?)

Think of these as just rough support. Also note that the carry frame support flip-up fence for the CSC is slightly lower than the bed. Only the table saw bed itself is nominally 900. If you're expecting other surfaces to be a large sheet support for your CSC, be careful. Double check your other surfaces are not higher. You can always put shims in the foot recess to raise the CSC though to avoid binding issues.

 

[squall_line]

1cm = 10 mm
This means 90 cm equals to 900 mm

Yes, I understand that much.

What I don't understand is listing all other tools as 900mm and this one as 90cm. It's that sort of inconsistency that drives me mad, like when I'm at work trying to bring cohesion to a document written by three different people.

 

[bertv]

Yes, I understand that much.

What I don't understand is listing all other tools as 900mm and this one as 90cm. It's that sort of inconsistency that drives me mad, like when I'm at work trying to bring cohesion to a document written by three different people.

What one should consider: European rules state that the allowed discrepancy in measure (be it weight, volume, length, et cetera) is related to the base unit used. Eg if a weight on a box is displayed as "1 Kg" (that is one kilogram), anything between 950 grams and 1050 grams is considered correct and acceptable, this is a ten procent range, divided into plus and minus.
BUT if the weight is given in grams, the allowable discrepancy becomes less. For instance: 100 grams has to be between 95 and 105. And 1000 grams has to be between 995 and 1005 grams.
Considering all this, a given height of 90 centimeters could be 89,5 to 90,5 cm. On the other hand when it is stated to be 900 mm, it has to be between 889,5 and 900,5 mm.
In reality this is not something that is given much attention or consideration in the world of commerce, but it would be fun to sue a company when the product does not comply with these rules, just because 900 (mm) sounds more impressive than 90 (cm). Or because someone has been too lazy or stupid to look up what is correct…

DISCLAIMER: This is what I remember from a lecture a few decades ago, so no guarantees here.

 

[MMCO]

Thank you for all the help.

 

[Coen]

Yes, I understand that much.

What I don't understand is listing all other tools as 900mm and this one as 90cm. It's that sort of inconsistency that drives me mad, like when I'm at work trying to bring cohesion to a document written by three different people.

Because marketing folk use cm, while all the more technical folk use mm.

 

[Coen]

If they made them the same height the table saw would sit too high for the average height user.

Haha what? CS-50, MFT, CMS ; all same height.

 

[Coen]

BUT if the weight is given in grams, the allowable discrepancy becomes less. For instance: 100 grams has to be between 95 and 105. And 1000 grams has to be between 995 and 1005 grams.
Considering all this, a given height of 90 centimeters could be 89,5 to 90,5 cm. On the other hand when it is stated to be 900 mm, it has to be between 889,5 and 900,5 mm.

You are buying 1 table saw, not 900 mm of it.

 

[mcfal12]

Haha what? CS-50, MFT, CMS ; all same height.

I was referring to the height of the cart with the saw. if the cart itself was the same height as the mft table it would be too tall with the saw for the avg person.
Context is everything, along with the entirety of the post as opposed to the snippet by itself…