If Festool offered the ______ (insert favorite NAINA), I would buy one today.

[Scribs]

CMS, the inserts and that cool little work station ( wmr1000 I think? ) that sits on the ct's.  Still going to miss my savings account....  But, I don't care!  [big grin]

 

[graphex]

Even just the router cms setup would keep me from moving to Europe.

 

[Sparktrician]

I'd like to see the OF1800.  (Totally fictitious product, guys!!!)  Ideally it would have the form and functionality of the OF2200, just scaled down to be a touch more powerful than the OF1400, and to fit between the two.  It's hard to justify the OF2200 for much of what I normally do.  Yes, the 18 pound OF2200 does keep things from wiggling about, but it's a bit of overkill unless one is in a full-time production shop.  The OF2200 goes to hand very well and is more comfortable to use than the OF1400 in my paradigm.  Dust collection on the OF2200 is far better, too.  I'd also like to see it with the ability to be used in a router table, like the CMS. And now that I think of it, I'd like it to be compatible with the LR32.

I'd add the TF2200 and the CMS, too.  

 

[tDot]

Planex... and probably more then just one of them
Belt sander BS75
CMS (TS75 Plate and Router plate, I'd also buy the 2200 if I bought the CMS)
WCR1000 x2
Carvex
Vac Sys, (though I might build one soon)

 

[illumicon1]

CMS and every thing available for it.

 

[Frank Pellow]

Here is another vote for the CMS.  I would buy that for sure.

If the CMS is not available in Canada but the PRECISIO is, I might purchase a PRECISIO.

 

[Rob-GB]

Here is another vote for the CMS.  I would buy that for sure.

If the CMS is not available in Canada but the PRECISIO is, I might purchase a PRECISIO.

Hey, Frank your back!
How was your trip? Get plenty done, or was it an r&r trip this time?
By the sounds of things if you want a saw table, festool style, the Precisio  is the only option, but for the router table CMS kit it is more likely to be granted UL approval. My TS55 works very well (and as I play safely, does not feel like work to me  ;D) in the CMS table, and fail to understand why companies acquiesce to a non governmental (legally binding requirement) body, whose only interest (from what I have read and understood) is the protection of insurance companies, given the numerous products available in N.A. that are deemed pretty dodgy by " Euro" standards . Is it that Canada has to buy through the USA for Festool tools? Just thinking out loud here, can be a curse at times. [wink]

 

[NuggyBuggy]

I do not understand the constant vilification of UL.  It should be no surprise that insurance companies would want to have a way to assess, filter, and control risks and liability of the myriad products entering the market.  They either do it collectively before the fact, collectively after the fact, individually before the fact, or individually after the fact.  It seems to me that all but the first is an unmanageable prospect, as would not doing it all.

What alternative is there for insurance companies to know whether or not the simple use of device X was reasonable and insurable ? How else could we imagine companies underwriting policies offering coverage for devices of unknown specifications ? And would we trust insurance companies to fairly process claims involving devices which may not have been safe, after the fact ?

We presume that these so-called dodgy devices that are gaining UL certification present greater liability than the Festool devices we all lust over.  But since none of us regular members really know what UL's issues are with the various Festools apparently not meeting UL certification, we'll never know, will we ?

 

[mouppe]

Here is another vote for the CMS.  I would buy that for sure.

If the CMS is not available in Canada but the PRECISIO is, I might purchase a PRECISIO.

Is it that Canada has to buy through the USA for Festool tools? Just thinking out loud here, can be a curse at times. [wink]

I would imagine that Festool Canada is managed and operated out of Festool USA, even though it may be a separately incorporated subsidiary of Festool AG. Canada is too small a market to justify a separate product line to the USA, so whatever the US gets, we get, and if they don't get it, we don't either.

 

[mouppe]

I do not understand the constant vilification of UL.  It should be no surprise that insurance companies would want to have a way to assess, filter, and control risks and liability of the myriad products entering the market.  They either do it collectively before the fact, collectively after the fact, individually before the fact, or individually after the fact.  It seems to me that all but the first is an unmanageable prospect, as would not doing it all.

What alternative is there for insurance companies to know whether or not the simple use of device X was reasonable and insurable ? How else could we imagine companies underwriting policies offering coverage for devices of unknown specifications ? And would we trust insurance companies to fairly process claims involving devices which may not have been safe, after the fact ?

We presume that these so-called dodgy devices that are gaining UL certification present greater liability than the Festool devices we all lust over.  But since none of us regular members really know what UL's issues are with the various Festools apparently not meeting UL certification, we'll never know, will we ?

Nuggy,

I would like to politely disagree with what you wrote. The issue that many of use have is not with the insurance companies. Festool need product liability insurance for their entire product portfolio, and UL approval is key to getting that insurance. That's Festool's corporate reality and nobody can argue with it. It is the price of their doing business in North America.

But the issue we have is with UL's seemingly black box and incomprehensible approach to granting said approval. When we see inferior products approved in the marketplace, and a Festool product unapproved (whilst being widely available in the rest of the developed world and in countries with very stringent safety regulations) is it not natural for us to question the process that leads to such contradictory approval results?

For this reason we vilify UL. No riving knife on a table saw? No problem for years. Vac sys? On your bike, son!

Richard.

 

[AlexThePalex]

But since none of us regular members really know what UL's issues are with the various Festools apparently not meeting UL certification, we'll never know, will we ?

But we do know because the world is bigger than only America. Products that are deemed perfectly safe over here in Europe, where we also have insurance companies, are somehow not safe enough in the eyes of UL. How is that possible? Are Americans more stupid than Europeans? It seems that at least UL thinks so.

 

[Wood_Junkie]

But since none of us regular members really know what UL's issues are with the various Festools apparently not meeting UL certification, we'll never know, will we ?

But we do know because the world is bigger than only America. Products that are deemed perfectly safe over here in Europe, where we also have insurance companies, are somehow not safe enough in the eyes of UL. How is that possible? Are Americans more stupid than Europeans? It seems that at least UL thinks so.

Certainly the US is considered far more litigious (much to our collective shame).

 

[NuggyBuggy]

Well, us regular forum members don't know to what extent UL is really a black box, do we ? It seems fairly certain to me that UL would be giving information back to applicants as to why item  X is not up to whatever standards they have, wouldn't you think ?  I just don't believe that UL is going to send an item back to the manufacturer with no feedback whatsoever.  If I'm wrong in this crucial assumption, I'd happily stand to be corrected.

Here is a passage from the UL website regarding certification for household appliances (for which portable electric tools may fall under):

UL provides the CB-style test report along with the UL Mark for streamlined global access. With a network of knowledge that spans 71 countries, UL can help manufacturers obtain key national marks.

This suggests to me that UL is providing substantial feedback on the results of the testing.  It doesn't seem to me that they are trying to put themselves into an adverserial position vis a vis manufacturers.  It doesn't sound like a black box to me.

IF the assumption that UL provides feedback on any reasons for rejection is correct, then it's not UL's fault that we don't know why a given item was rejected.  The perception that their processes are an inscrutable black box would then be just that, perception.  And  I certainly don't  expect any company to reveal why their item was rejected either, especially when said tool may be sold in other markets.

 

[graphex]

UL almost certainly provides feedback to Festool regarding the certification status. The question is, is Festool free to pass that information on to us? The answer to that question is, "no, they aren't." There is either an NDA with UL or their insurer or the German HQ, but they are definitely not able to say more than they have.

It's an unfortunate situation and it shouldn't happen that way. Maybe UL is to blame for it, maybe they aren't, and maybe there is a good reason for it, but regardless it seems to me like a safety certification/underwriting process should be transparent.... but it isn't.

 

[NuggyBuggy]

UL almost certainly provides feedback to Festool regarding the certification status. The question is, is Festool free to pass that information on to us? The answer to that question is, "no, they aren't." There is either an NDA with UL or their insurer or the German HQ, but they are definitely not able to say more than they have.

It's an unfortunate situation and it shouldn't happen that way. Maybe UL is to blame for it, maybe they aren't, and maybe there is a good reason for it, but regardless it seems to me like a safety certification/underwriting process should be transparent.... but it isn't.

Why would UL require an NDA with an applicant ? If a given product does meet some standards, I don't see why UL would care either way whether this information is made public or not.  The applicant, however, *would* care, especially if the product is marketed elsewhere.  Regardless, as long as UL is telling applicants why a product does or not meet their standards,  the process is completely transparent - to the parties directly concerned (i.e., applicant and UL).  What do we expect of UL - to publish report results online ?

Edit: It was pretty easy to find a UL report online: http://www.xppower.com/pdfs/UL_EMA212.pdf.  The only mention of non-disclosure is on the part of the applicant and a party requesting additional details from the applicant.  The report specifies nothing about non-disclosure, which is consistent with my argument.

But we do know because the world is bigger than only America. Products that are deemed perfectly safe over here in Europe, where we also have insurance companies, are somehow not safe enough in the eyes of UL. How is that possible? Are Americans more stupid than Europeans? It seems that at least UL thinks so.

I don't know how to reply to this except to say: unless both  standards are exactly the same, one will be more stringent than the other.  So someone's panties are going to be in a twist by some supposed affront.  

CE standards are said to be less strict than UL standards (in what manner, I do not know, but in some cases, I understand that companies can "self-certify" some classes of products).   Your logic implies that we should adopt the least stringent standards - in the world, by extension, if we are to avoid implying that anyone else in the world might be more "stupid".  Should we be bound to accept emissions levels or safety standards deemed acceptable in China or Bangladesh or Somalia because they are no more or less stupid than we are ?

 

[nickao]

"But we do know because the world is bigger than only America. Products that are deemed perfectly safe over here in Europe, where we also have insurance companies, are somehow not safe enough in the eyes of UL. How is that possible? Are Americans more stupid than Europeans? It seems that at least UL thinks so."

Ever think that maybe its the opposite. 

UL probably thinks we in the US are smarter and have better standards and that the people in Europe are to stupid to know what they are using is not safe. Maybe they also know that it is much more difficult , well until recently, for a European citizen to get their just due if a manufacturer screws up. We sue in America because we can, in a lot of countries they cant because the consumers and citizens have little recourse under the law. I wouldn't  trade the world to live anywhere but in the US, litigious society and all. 

 

[Frank Pellow]

Here is another vote for the CMS.  I would buy that for sure.

If the CMS is not available in Canada but the PRECISIO is, I might purchase a PRECISIO.

Hey, Frank your back!
How was your trip? Get plenty done, or was it an r&r trip this time?

...

Thanks, my trip this time served two purposes.  The first was to finish work on the new shed and the second was to do some research and make arrangements for another book that we are going to write about Hearst Ontario.

I am happy to say that I got everything that I needed to get done on the shed.  I will write more about that in the appropriate thread.

I am also happy to say that we are now on track to publish a book, tentatively entitled 'Histoire Hearst History', in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of the formation of Hearst in 1912.  We will be publishing in both French and English.  My job, as with the book we published last year, will be to gather and edit pictures and to layout the book.

 

[Mr. Jeff Smith]

CMS with the various inserts.  This I would buy immediately and is something I have a real need for now.  I am currently looking at alternate solutions.  If you guys have any idea when it might be available it would be useful to know when.  I can keep a secret...

 

[chris mann]

Stuff that I don't think requires UL approval

• LR-32 Guide rail connectors-weren't these supposed to be here by now???
• New Kapex support wings and stand (which would also lead to Kapex purchase)-it's hard to justify a $1300 saw, when the current extension wings are crap

UL Approval

• CMS w/ insert for TS75
• new c12 with LI

 

[fortrout]

How about a dust extractor hose with a smooth outside surface , so it doesn't catch on everything it comes in contact with. My wife's Hoover came with such a hose, and it cost less than my Ct33,Ct22 or my Midi. You guys in Germany start engineering this.