FWW Vac Review

[semenza]

is "CT" not an acceptable abbrev.?    ??? [poke]

Oh, I meant vac  ;D

Yep, well versed in them thar CTs 

Seth

 

[junk731]

Jesse, to add to your point they were preaching Hepa then basically saying use the vac without a bag and screw up your filters. They didn't say much about the hearing loss your going to get from a vacuum that's louder then most full sized dust collectors. Also if it's not about advertizing dollars how about just throwing in to use a Rockler dust separatror and not showing the other makes that preceded this unit. Rant is over, no more FWW for me

John

 

[VictorL]

Gentlemen,

This is free country. Everybody is free to say anything, listen anything or read anything. I don't buy FWW tool review special publication, but I love Tautrons "How to.." articles. I love their books, they are not 100 perfect, they are sometimes a little bit bit outdated, but they are really good. If you are not satisfied with some articles, just toss away those pages

VictorL

 

[mouppe]

Leaving bias aside, it's a poorly-written article, thin on detail and with subjective comparisons. If I didn't already have a vac, I would also be interested in the build quality, how easily it moves across the floor i.e. are the wheels any good, can you fit a boom arm, can it survive the rough-and-tumble of the workshop or jobsite, can it handle different hose sizes, cost of parts replacements etc.

I certainly wouldn't criticize FWW for advertiser bias on the basis of one crappy article, after all the OF2200 was nominated best heavy-duty plunge router, the ETS 150 was best 6-inch RO sander, and these are just two Festools off the top of my head.

It's a good magazine generally with interesting how-to articles, talented contributing editors- best just to skip this tool test and move on.

 

[junk731]

While I agree with both of you to a certain point (Victor and Richard) there have been too many flaky articles written by uninformed people regarding tools, surely someone has to read this crap before they publish it. To make it clear I'm not saying this because I've drank too much green Koolaid and Festool wasn't there first pick their article on sandpand was almost as bad. This truly was a terribly tested/executed article.

John

 

[BTDT]

This is not the first time and it won't be the last time that FWW has a poor methodology for one of their reviews. The stock response will be:

-To offer up the author of said review. They will give some technical reason for an apples to apples comparison of using Vacs without their bags. (While not acknowledging that it also created inconisistencies and does not represent how the tools are used in the real world.)

-Point out that it is a reader driven magazine. That is their readership also responsible for content. If you want to publish something pitch it to them. It wouldn't hurt if they actually thought things through or vetted the review methodologies. How about getting a second "author" to write up a sidebar on the limitations of the review?

My standard response:

-Move on. The quality of FWW has sunk/stunk. It used to be about innovation and now it is more about regurgitating/cycling beginner articles. (They have stock responses for that too!) I wish they would rediscover what they used to be known for instead of slick production of the latest (same old) shop jigs and tips.

BTW, I'm glad the Bosch is such a great vac... too bad it really doesn't integrate with any of my tools nicely and the filtration is not as great as my CT. But gosh durn it, it has a lot of CFM's and the editors of FWW told me that was impotent! I'm just not sure how that is relevant to what I really want which is to limit noise and dust. Perhaps they should have found someone willing to find a methodology to measure the results?

Brad

PS - My standard stock response: I have not read the review (and don't want to) but I am pretty sure my criticisms are valid.

 

[Jesse Cloud]

I guess even a well thought out tool review is pretty much hit or miss for most readers.  If you look at a list of qualities, say noise, wheel quality, integration with other tools, etc. There are some that matter a lot to you individually and others that don't.  For instance, my CT pretty much lives under an MFT, so the wheels aren't a big concern, but the WCR and the boom arm are huge.  Others could care less about the WCR for instance.

I think the reviews should focus on data, e.g. cfm, decibels, price, features tested in the context the machine was designed to run in and we readers should not make a big deal of which one fits the author's preferences the best.

 

[fdengel]

I'm constantly running into reviews of cameras praising them for how small and light they are.

I look at the tiny cameras and think, "how in the world do you get a decent GRIP on that thing?"

I look at the lightweight ones and think, "not nearly enough resistance for my shaky hands -- how would I ever get a clean picture on that thing when using it handheld?  Doesn't that basically defeat the whole purpose of having a camera?"

The qualities they think are good are actually just the opposite for me.  I'd rather the "small/light" trend reversed: I like my cameras big and heavy.

No matter how carefully the cameras were reviewed, the reviews gave good marks for what I view as bad things...

Same can happen with tools, I guess...

 

[davee]

When I recieve a new magazine, I first skim at a high level, and have only done this to date on the latests FWW.  As I remember, they do have a nice article about the CSX in the same magazine which is favorable.  Some of the authors are very good, and others less so.  I use their content as input and then make up my own mind.  I certainly will not be replacing my CT26 - dust collection and noise where my first criteria which have been fully met by the product.  My personal opinion is that we'd all be better listening to those who do not agree with us at times and then making up our own minds. 

 

[stvrowe]

The quality of FWW has sunk/stunk. It used to be about innovation and now it is more about regurgitating/cycling beginner articles. (They have stock responses for that too!) I wish they would rediscover what they used to be known for instead of slick production of the latest (same old) shop jigs and tips.

Amen.  FWW changed to be more attractive to beginners and it now looks like all the other WW mags but with a much higher price.  IMO, the premium price is no longer justified based on the content (more than just the lame tool reviews).  I found the only thing worth reading in the "new and improved" FWW was the master class section.  I communicated these concerns years ago with the FWW editor and he indicated it was a business decision to expand their audience to beginning woodworkers.  Unfortunately, they also lost the audience that aspired to advance to greater things beyond beginning woodworking.  I began subscribing to FWW in 1985 with Issue 50 and I let my subscription expire with issue 200 in 2008.  It was sad to see such a great publication sink into mediocrity.
Steve

 

[fshanno]

They didn't have a criteria for functionality in stacking things on top.  They didn't have a criteria for rolling over bumps and thresholds and so on.  The didn't have a category for lifting in and out of the pickup.  What's up with that?

 

[JSands]

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  

 

[nehardwoodfloors]

The CTs can be used without bags but it's not recommended for the reasons stated earlier in the thread. It would leave the HEPA filter exposed to a lot of debris and fine dust, leading it to premature wear and clogging. Yes, bags are removed for wet operation.

I'm certainly not trying to cause anyone to end their subscriptions. The facts are that magazines make their money from advertisers. To what extent that influences reviews, who knows. Just take what you read with a grain of salt and make sure you understand the conditions under which products are tested to see if they mimic your own applications. The best information is probably the unbiased opinions of your peers.

Being a floor guy I can attest to the fact that all in all, Festool makes the best vacs.
We have clarkes, Bosch and festool and guess which gets pulled out the most......you got it.
Clarkes are very good but this no bag thing is stupid. I'm sure you don't need a bag but man , does the vac lose suction without one! My parters Clarke CAV 8 was powerful. It auto cleans itself all the time, but the bags are pricey and they are not very good at staying put. The balance and wheels are terrible IMO.

The festools rarely need a cleaning compared to our other vacs. They keep their power right up until you empty the bag.
All our workers had their favorite vac at the beginning, but now a year later, they all agree that festool is the best out there.
I just wish you guys made floor sanders!(I mean edgers)

Here's a vid of our 2 stacked up.
dustless sanding, dustless refinishing, wood floors, eco friendly

 

[JSands]

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...

 

[nehardwoodfloors]

I have the mini plugged into the ct26. The 26 is set to auto start. Both vacs connect into one side of seperator via festool Y splitter.
Then one line out to edger. NO DUST!

 

[jon]

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.

 

[Neill]

I use my CT-22 without the bag.  However, lifting it 4 feet off the ground to shake it out into my garbage can is awkward and very hard on my back.  So, I bought a new CT-26 that I use with a bag to vacuum out the CT-22.  Works like a charm.

Neill

 

[extiger]

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!)

 

[AlexThePalex]

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!)

The science behind it is actually called aerodynamics, studying the movement of gasses. Pneumatics is a field in engineering where objects (pistons, rotors) are moved by air. There are no pneumatics in a vac.

 

[CDM]

But gosh durn it, it has a lot of CFM's and the editors of FWW told me that was impotent!

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.