FWW Vac Review

[AsaChristiana]

Hi, all. I'm one of the authors of the article in question, and the editor of FWW. I think I can shed some light on our reasoning, etc. For starters I can assure you that advertising was not a consideration. We are well-known for our editorial integrity, and in fact lose advertising at times because of it. Our primary mission is to attract readers, and deliver the best magazine and website possible for passionate woodworkers.

I knew that leaving out the bags would be controversial, but here's why we did it (it's also explained in the article): They fill quickly, they are not really reusable (hard to empty), and they are relatively expensive. So while the Festool works wonderfully with its bags installed and acting as a prefilter, keeping the HEPA filter unclogged and flowing freely, we made a judgement call that for most woodworkers, the bags would prove to be a nuisance and a constant drain on the wallet and ultimately be discarded. Or they would hesitate to use the vac for general cleanup for fear of running through their bag supply too quickly.

Aside from these tough judgement calls, the other tough thing about head-to-head tool tests is that there are usually only one or two winners, while many of the tools would work just fine for most people. In this case, if you don't mind the expense of the bags, rock on. Festools vacs work wonderfully. But the Bosch that ended up being the winner because it lets you ditch its bags, and yet the filter remains unclogged, due to the vac's built-in filter shaker. That gives you much more capacity and zero bag expense.

Hope this helps explain things.

 

[tbellemare]

It also puts the dust back in the air upon emptying, which somewhat defeats the purpose of dust control...

Tom

 

[mouppe]

Asa, Welcome to the FOG.

Thanks for not making the Festool vac the top pick in the FWW review- those Festool USA guys' heads are big enough already!

[poke]

Besides, we all really know that the Festool vac is the clear winner- we just didn't need you to tell us!

 

[Jesse Cloud]

I disagree with the decision to review the tools without the bags.  Tools are designed to do certain things in certain ways, judging them on how well they do something else is nuts.

Its like if you reviewed fine woodworking chisels and decided that since some people use chisels to pry open lids or fasten screws, the chisel's ability to do that would be the main review criteria.  The sharp ones are clearly inferior.

 

[stvrowe]

I knew that leaving out the bags would be controversial, but here's why we did it (it's also explained in the article): They fill quickly, they are not really reusable (hard to empty), and they are relatively expensive. So while the Festool works wonderfully with its bags installed and acting as a prefilter, keeping the HEPA filter unclogged and flowing freely, we made a judgement call that for most woodworkers, the bags would prove to be a nuisance and a constant drain on the wallet and ultimately be discarded. Or they would hesitate to use the vac for general cleanup for fear of running through their bag supply too quickly.

Interesting.  I have been using a Fein vacuum with bags for over 17 years and Festool CTs for over 8 years and never once considered not using the bags.  I have never hesitated at using the vac for general cleanup as that was their intended purpose at least in part.  I have vivid memories of that old Craftsman non bagged jet engine sounding vacuum with the enourmous dust cloud during every empty cycle.  As far as cost goes, it just works into the overall equation of consumables (e.g. - sandpaper, rags, etc. ) used in my hobby.

 

[AlexThePalex]

Bad judgement call.

People who use Festools vacs use the bags. I dare say almost always. They don't worry about the added costs, they realise that in order to go Festool you have to pay a premium but you also get premium performance. People who worry about the cost of the bags would also worry about the cost of Festool tools themselves, and as a result, not buy them in the first place.

Saying that people would worry about the cost of Festool bags and therefor not use the bags is like saying that a Ferrari owner would drive 30 all day because he's worried about his gas bill if he went any faster.

 

[Frank Pellow]

Shane you guys really have to get your advertising dollars up with with FWW if you expect proper results.

Advertising shouldn't influence reviews. They should be independent and fact based. I say that as a consumer, not as an employee of Festool.

Edit: I should point out that the vac selected to have the highest CFM using their testing methodology actually has 5% less CFM on paper. Festool's specifications tend to be very conservative, especially compared to other manufacturers. An under-promise, over deliver mentality.

Shane, I am sure that junk was joking. Unfortunately, the review in question leaves one wondering a bit. ???  And testing without a bag was ludicrous -I was astounded by that bit of stupidity and the so called reasons given for doing so made me laugh (or cry when I though that some poor uniformed people miught actually believe those reasons).

 

[Frank Pellow]

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...

I completely agree with you about cameras (and cell phones, and notebook computers, and book readers, etc. etc.).  Small is bad for me, not good.  I have no idea how folks manage to use the small keys and dials and knobs on these devices.

 

[Dan Clark]

Hi, all. I'm one of the authors of the article in question, and the editor of FWW. I think I can shed some light on our reasoning, etc. For starters I can assure you that advertising was not a consideration. We are well-known for our editorial integrity, and in fact lose advertising at times because of it. Our primary mission is to attract readers, and deliver the best magazine and website possible for passionate woodworkers.

I knew that leaving out the bags would be controversial, but here's why we did it (it's also explained in the article): They fill quickly, they are not really reusable (hard to empty), and they are relatively expensive. So while the Festool works wonderfully with its bags installed and acting as a prefilter, keeping the HEPA filter unclogged and flowing freely, we made a judgement call that for most woodworkers, the bags would prove to be a nuisance and a constant drain on the wallet and ultimately be discarded. Or they would hesitate to use the vac for general cleanup for fear of running through their bag supply too quickly.

Aside from these tough judgement calls, the other tough thing about head-to-head tool tests is that there are usually only one or two winners, while many of the tools would work just fine for most people. In this case, if you don't mind the expense of the bags, rock on. Festools vacs work wonderfully. But the Bosch that ended up being the winner because it lets you ditch its bags, and yet the filter remains unclogged, due to the vac's built-in filter shaker. That gives you much more capacity and zero bag expense.

Hope this helps explain things.

Asa, welcome to FOG.  

I don't question your ethics and this is not about who wins or loses, but...  

Testing a tool in a way it was not designed for and which virtually NO user ever uses isan incredibly STUPID decision!  If you want to say that the Bosch vac is better because it you don't have to use a bag, that's fine.  But test as they were designed to be used!!!

When you buy any tool, you accept it's design constraints. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE buys a Festool vac with the intention of using them without a bag!  (Except for wet vac use, of course.)  The concept of safe woodworking includes a dust free environment. How can you have a dust free environment if you get a face full of dust every time you empty a vac?

By including bagless vacuuming as a criteria, you are promoting an unsafe practice.  That is a huge mistake.

Dan.

 

[EWTHeckman]

I knew that leaving out the bags would be controversial, but here's why we did it (it's also explained in the article): They fill quickly, they are not really reusable (hard to empty), and they are relatively expensive. So while the Festool works wonderfully with its bags installed and acting as a prefilter, keeping the HEPA filter unclogged and flowing freely, we made a judgement call that for most woodworkers, the bags would prove to be a nuisance and a constant drain on the wallet and ultimately be discarded. Or they would hesitate to use the vac for general cleanup for fear of running through their bag supply too quickly.

I also disagree with this reasoning. Engineers make certain tradeoffs during the design process to meet certain goals. One of Festool's obvious goals is HEPA certification. And obviously one of Bosch's design goals was to make the bag optional. Those two goals are apparently mutually exclusive. Someone who considers HEPA cleanup to be a higher priority will want to know how well the vacuum works when it's being used as designed.

It seems to me that it would have been far better to compare performance when the vacuum is used according to the manufacturer’s documentation. Then the reader can more accurately compare how well the vacuum's design actually works for various purposes, and can make a more informed decision on how well those purposes match their own needs. And yes, the cost of the bags vs. performance when used with the bag is part of the reader's decision process, not yours.

 

[AsaChristiana]

Good points made by all. As I said, it was a tough decision, but one that I stand behind. But I encourage a few of you to write letters to the editor, making your points. I promise to run at least one of them in the mag. Send them to me at achristiana@taunton.com.

 

[Dan Clark]

Asa,

You already have my "letter to the editor" (see above).

Dan.

 

[Frank Pellow]

...

we made a judgement call that for most woodworkers, the bags would prove to be a nuisance and a constant drain on the wallet and ultimately be discarded. Or they would hesitate to use the vac for general cleanup for fear of running through their bag supply too quickly.

..

Hope this helps explain things.

Asa, I appreciate you responding to this thread but I can tell you that I do not give your article much credibility.  I think you tested the wrong things and made some bad decisions.

I am astounded that anyone would use these very expensive machines improperly by not attaching a relatively inexpensive bag.  I have had a Festool vac for about 8 years and, except, when cleaning up water, have never used it without a bag.  I admit that I have skimped a bit by reusing some bags, but that is the extent to which I have "cheated".

 

[EWTHeckman]

Here's another thought: Imagine a magazine "review" where the author made more significant modifications to a tool assuming that most users would. Maybe those changes would actually improve the tool's performance, or they may damage it. What would happen to a magazine's credibility if the author replaced a tool's motor with one that has all the power of an asthmatic hamster because "most people would to save weight." Or maybe you made a Tim Taylor More Power mod to a tool because "most people would" because an otherwise good tool is underpowered. Not only would that magazine lose all credibility, by they would be (and should be) sued by the manufacturer.

I read reviews to see how well the manufacturer's design tradeoffs worked out, not to see how well the author's Frankentools perform. The only exception is when the article is about how to make modifications to tools, and that's not review article material, beyond a "you may want to…" note in the review.

Now obviously you didn't make such a major modification, but by testing the vacs in a manner contrary to the manufacturer's instructions, you did perform a low level modification, imposing your own priorities between the manufacturer's design decisions and the reader.

 

[greg mann]

The reviewer, IMO, should have started his article by imploring his readers to ALWAYS use a bag (for dry material) and then go on to explain why, i.e., dust control, longer life of the HEPA filters, and the fact that, quite frankly, any collector that did not accommodate a bag wasn't worth buying in the first place. I have an old Rigid that doesn't have accommodation for a bag. Boy, was I dumb. Cleaning the filter on that thing was brutal and necessary way too often. To imply that not using a bag was even an acceptable practice, for any machine, was irresponsible. That is encouraging a user to subject himself to all of the negative impact of dust when emptying the machine; to one's lungs and the space in which it is done and to the machine itself. To not encourage the use of a bag, and indeed to actually discourage the use of a bag by making it sound as though that is the common and acceptable practice is tantamount to saying you don't really need to use safety glasses. I learned the importance of a bag through experience. If I were just starting out, this review would have done nothing to help me make a good buying decision or more importantly from making a bad decision.

Both FWW and Mr. Christiana dropped the ball on this one and should post a disclaimer with an analysis of what poor assumptions were made in the review. Anything less is a disservice to their readership.

 

[junk731]

Frank and anyone else, my comment was definitely a bit of sarcasm and I'm sure Shane took it that way. Asa thanx for showing uo to the party. I would suggest like some others have, level the playing field and do your test with and without bags, the same hose size would also help. Now the hard part, how about no opinion about what you/FWW consider best, just pros and cons. Let the reader decide and not be directed. I personally think that anyone buying a $500+ vac would not consider bags a grievous expense.

John

 

[extiger]

This is all verging on the surreal. Naturally the air flow in a vacuum is restricted by bags. The CFM would drop. But the same thing happens when switching to a smaller diameter hose. Doesn't Festool offer two sizes along with the regular/antistatic versions?

If the purpose of the machine is to collect dirt and debris, where would it go without a bag in place? It would help if product tests leaned toward realistic shop operations rather than laboratory or bench numbers. It's similar to that old bugaboo of "developed HP" long favored by Sears and others. Users care about what a tool will accomplish in operation.

Arghh!

 

[Neill]

Asa,

As John said, thank you for adding your comments to the discussion and helping us to try to understand your methodology.  You could have just turned a deaf ear to the whole thing but you chose not to.  Good man.

As you can see, Festool users, especially those that are members here, are very loyal to the brand.  Shame on anyone who would dare think that Festool products are not the best in their respective category.  There have been numerous instances when a member has posted that his XYZ brand was better than Festool.  Needless to say, they incurred the unbridled wrath of the FOG's membership, me included.

Frankly, some of this may stem from the fact that pride and vanity sometimes get in the way of good judgment.  For example no one wants to admit that someone else's Mikita drill that they bought for $250 is equal to a $500 Festool drill.  No one that owns an $800 Domino wants to admit that a DeWalt bisquit joiner for less than 1/4 the price might do the job, most of the time, just as well.

I am a proud owner of many Festool products and a member of the FOG.  I do, however, recognize that there are other valuable opinions and wonderful tools out there with loyal proponents.

Now if you said Festool did not have the best Tech Support and Customer Service, those would really be fightin' words.

Neill

 

[tbellemare]

It just looks to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of dust control and the mechanisms used to achieve that control. I also sell Bosch...

If maximum air flow is the goal, take the filter(s) out altogether and only use a hose that is the maximum size allowable.

Tom

 

[EWTHeckman]

As you can see, Festool users, especially those that are members here, are very loyal to the brand.  Shame on anyone who would dare think that Festool products are not the best in their respective category.  There have been numerous instances when a member has posted that his XYZ brand was better than Festool.  Needless to say, they incurred the unbridled wrath of the FOG's membership, me included.

I hope you're being tongue in cheek here. One of the things I'm enjoying about this forum is the general even handedness about the pros and cons of Festools and other tools.

Just today I saw a comment about another brand of track saw being slightly better than Festool's model. No one jumped down his throat either. Rather, there was some mild agreement. I've also seen recent discussions of competing sanders, routers, and miter saws where Festool wasn't automatically assumed to be the best for all situations. Not to mention outright complaints about some things Festool. For example, Jacobs chucks.

Personally, I would not have been offended if Bosch still came out "on top" if tested with the bags. CFM wasn't the only criteria I was going by when I chose the CT 26. Getting distorted conclusions from a review article does offend me. And my general impression of this forum is that I am not alone in this view.