New TSC 55 K saw and TPC 18 drill

[Spandex]

Actually, if I remember right, the locking of the special chucks from the T/C series uses metal fixations points which then slide into plastic internal grooves in the casing and USE THE ELASTICITY of the casing to lock-in. It would actually be impossible to support the same connecting approach with a metallic part as it cannot be made elastic enough for that.

I think you're right that the locking mechanism drives this change, but for a different reason. The inner bayonet locking part of a C/T18 is steel and a fairly large diameter:
View attachment 1
This means that any casing around this part has to be relatively thin to still allow for a standard 43mm collar. If that casing were made of aluminium, it would be extremely fragile. Even making it out of steel would be a risk, as one drop could dent it permanently, preventing chucks from fitting:
View attachment 2
I think once the decision was made to support C/T style chuck attachments, there really was no way to use metal for that part without making the drill significantly less durable.

 

[mino]

Those breakdown photos is what we all missed here!

You are spot on, and even my short-term memory is not as good as used to be ...

 

[AlexThePalex]

Sooooo ........ with the PDC, the thinking was, we have a stronger drill, we need a stronger right angle chuck.

Now with the new TPC, the idea is, we want to use the standard chucks, so we have to compromise in the design.

Yep, sure, sounds like quality to me.

[huh] [scratch chin]

In other news, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Also look at the systainers, how much weaker they are two generations down from the original type.

 

[mino]

Sooooo ........ with the PDC, the thinking was, we have a stronger drill, we need a stronger right angle chuck.

Now with the new TPC, the idea is, we want to use the standard chucks, so we have to compromise in the design.

Yep, sure, sounds like quality to me.

[huh] [scratch chin]

In other news, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Also look at the systainers, how much weaker they are two generations down from the original type.

Having a bit of a mechanical engineering background, you are completely off here.

The axial strength of the angle chucks is defined by the Centrotec connection. The stability of the chuck in the longitudinal direction which is provided by the collar attachment in case of DRC/PDC and via the bayonet system on the T/C presents a couple orders of magnitude LESS stress than the C/T series bayonet connection can handle. The drill would (will not as has torque limiter) break your hands of way before it will be close to the connection strength limits.

The only limitation here is that if used in a drill stand, one will need to use a bit of brain when tightening the drill to the stand. And using a plastic piece is beneficial here actually - it is more likely even an idiot will see it is "plastic" so will not over-tighten it. If it had a "metal look" that same idiot might easily over-tighten it and break the thin part as spandex mentioned.

Anyway, I fail to see reasons to glorify the cheap & cheerful approach of re-using a 43mm collar cylinder against a purpose-designed special bayonet connection. The same goes for CXS and the big PDP drill with the Centrotex-XL chucks which all use the cheaper approach.
The high-end solution which is possibly even over-complicated is the T/C bayonet mechanism here. Not the other way around.

The original Protool PDC/DRC were rough-work tools for industrial and contractor market and so we designed not for finesse and compatibility but for durability and raw power. AND for cost. These were to compete with the mainstream Metabo/Bosch/Makita lines, not in the Festool high-end niche. That is why they are a bit "rough" to someone used to the T/C smoothness.
The possibility of using them in a stand or a drill press was a requirement. Compatibility with Festool was NOT needed nor desirable. They were targeting different markets. Yes, we often forget these drills were announced back in 2006/2007 (!) at which point they were some of the most powerful drills on the market. I was drooling over the Protool version back in 2007 when it came out but it was way out of my budget then ...

EDIT: more detail

 

[Spandex]

Sooooo ........ with the PDC, the thinking was, we have a stronger drill, we need a stronger right angle chuck.

Now with the new TPC, the idea is, we want to use the standard chucks, so we have to compromise in the design.

Yep, sure, sounds like quality to me.

[huh] [scratch chin]

In other news, this is exactly what I was talking about.

Also look at the systainers, how much weaker they are two generations down from the original type.

Being able to use the existing chucks is an upgrade (assuming they're strong enough - perhaps you could share where you got the information that the PDC right angle chuck was a unique design specifically because of additional strength requirements) and fits in with the Festool 'system' approach that we all want. So the only issue I can see will be if that has come at the cost of decreased durability.

And this is where I struggle with these arguments. No one has any evidence, documented or anecdotal, that this new design is less durable. I just can't get behind the "it's made of plastic, so it must be worse" explanation.

 

[AlexThePalex]

you are completely off here.

No, I am not. This drill is clearly a compromise. Sort of half PDC, sort of half T/C series drill.

Please, react to what I say and don't go off about the strength of chucks, and other stuff, of which I made NO comment.

Having a bit of a mechanical engineering background,

What does that mean exactly? You finished the study and have years of experience in the field? You fiddled around with a lathe once, or you read a book? Please, elaborate.

Or is it just an attempt to an argument from authority?

The only limitation here is that if used in a drill stand, one will need to use a bit of brain when tightening the drill to the stand. And using a plastic piece is beneficial here actually - it is more likely even an idiot will see it is "plastic" so will not over-tighten it. If it had a "metal look" that same idiot might easily over-tighten it and break the thin part as spandex mentioned.

You like theorising, I get that, but I'm starting to wonder, do you actually work with the tools you talk about? Because the applications for a 43 mm collar actually require that they can take some force. We're talking actual grown-ups tools here, not Fisher Price. Since they're made from metal, in general, you should not need to worry about overtightening anything.

One more reason why this drill with a plastic 43 mm collar is a compromise a respectable company like Festool should not be willing to make.

By the way, why the "idiots" remark?

Anyway, I fail to see reasons to glorify the cheap & cheerful approach of re-using a 43mm collar cylinder against a purpose-designed special bayonet connection.

Wait a second, where's the glorifying? Or is that just hyperbole? You use the 43 mm connection for the things it is meant for.

The bayonet fitting is very nice to fit a FastFix chuck. The 43 mm collar is very nice to fit a handle. Maybe you should not try to do both, or end up with a compromise. Personally, I never thought Festool was about compromises.

at which point they were some of the most powerful drills on the market. I was drooling over the Protool version back in 2007

No, the PDC/DRC's were never some of the most powerful drills in the market. While they were 18v, the strongest 14v Bosch drills easily outperformed them with a 40% higher torque.

The only thing where they were unmatched is their high RPM in 4th gear.

You see, I wan't just drooling over them, I was working with them.

 

[AlexThePalex]

Being able to use the existing chucks is an upgrade (assuming they're strong enough - perhaps you could share where you got the information that the PDC right angle chuck was a unique design specifically because of additional strength requirements) and fits in with the Festool 'system' approach that we all want. So the only issue I can see will be if that has come at the cost of decreased durability.

Well, the proof is right there, the actual chuck exists, and it is quite a bit beefier than those of the T and C series. The T and C series drills were developped in the same period as the PDC/DRC drills, and Festool decided to give the PDC its own right angle chuck because the whole drill was meant to be a stronger brother to the T's and C drills. No compromises here.

Of course people later started to complain they can't use the standard chucks with these drills. And since the PDC/DRC drills were launched as Protool drills, they were meant to appeal to those who worked on building sites. And Festool knows they lost that battle, so they're not trying that again.

And this is where I struggle with these arguments. No one has any evidence, documented or anecdotal, that this new design is less durable. I just can't get behind the "it's made of plastic, so it must be worse" explanation.

Alright, you really think these two collar designs could even remotely have the same mechanical properties?

[attachimg=1]

As for evidence, there are countless studies into the mechanical properties of structural materials like metals and plastics.

As with all materials, there is a variety of properties to look at. Is it wear resistant, is it impact resistant, can it stand pull forces, can it stand shear forces, can it stand heat or cold, is it resistant to chemicals. What's the weight to strength ratio for given forces?

On some of these properties, some plastics can win over some metals. But if you want a few of these properties combined, metals mostly still win.

 

[CumminsDiesel]

It doesn't matter where or on what I plan or do not plan to use the collar, to replace it with plastic for me is a downgrade.
The PDC has a solid piece of aluminum.
It looks like the shaft (to which the Centrotec is attached) now has a plastic support collar.  [sad]

It does matter, because plastic is not automatically worse than aluminium.

Yes it worse, especially on the TPC 18 drill.

 

[CumminsDiesel]

Actually, if I remember right, the locking of the special chucks from the T/C series uses metal fixations points which then slide into plastic internal grooves in the casing and USE THE ELASTICITY of the casing to lock-in. It would actually be impossible to support the same connecting approach with a metallic part as it cannot be made elastic enough for that.

I think you're right that the locking mechanism drives this change, but for a different reason. The inner bayonet locking part of a C/T18 is steel and a fairly large diameter:
View attachment 1
This means that any casing around this part has to be relatively thin to still allow for a standard 43mm collar. If that casing were made of aluminium, it would be extremely fragile. Even making it out of steel would be a risk, as one drop could dent it permanently, preventing chucks from fitting:
View attachment 2
I think once the decision was made to support C/T style chuck attachments, there really was no way to use metal for that part without making the drill significantly less durable.

Thats exactly what I said: the shaft (to which the Centrotec is attached) and bayonet system now has a plastic support collar, a big downgrade!
On the PDC the shaft soported by one solid piece of aluminum housing!

 

[mino]

Well, the proof is right there, the actual chuck exists, and it is quite a bit beefier than those of the T and C series. The T and C series drills were developped in the same period as the PDC/DRC drills, and Festool decided to give the PDC its own right angle chuck because the whole drill was meant to be a stronger brother to the T's and C drills. No compromises here.

Sorry, but you are shooting spaghetti at the wall and it is not sticking.

The DRC/PDC were remnants of the Protool Quadrill product line of which now only the DR 20 drill remains alive.

This was not only a completely separate product. I was a separate company with separate dealerships and separate target markets. Markets where the standard 43 mm collar was an essential feature. These drills have NOTHING to do with the T/C series drills at all.

That product line included cordless 4-speed drills like the DRC/PDC 12/15/18 which were newly developed, corded versions with the same mechanics AND it included a classic drill series based on the Narex technology which were ALL using the same FastFix (Protool name for Centrotec) chuck system. The classic drill series are now still available by Narex with unchanged design. The classic drills gearbox design necessitated the angle chuck attachment design used as that was the only way Protool can use a single angle chuck across the range. This was why the collar design on the DRC/PDC looks like from a classic drill and not from a cordless driver. It is from a classic Narex drill design from the late 80s.

The only reason we now have PDC/DRC as Festool products is that TTS decided to fold-up the Protool brand in 2012 and its "native" products which were not subcontracted like the DRC/PDC were either discontinued or moved to the Festool and Narex brands. Festool being global and with fine-work focus and Narex being a local Central/East European industrial brand.

There was exactly zero reason for Protool brand, which was heavily based on the Narex technology with a lot of non-Festo German ODMs but almost no kit subcontracted from Festool to complicate the DRC/PDC design with compatibility with a completely different design-base product like the T/C Festool series were. None. They even went so far as to use the Centrotec standard but call it "FastFix" to separate the brands as much as possible.

Personally I always thought this as stupid - as from what I heard it created internal friction inside TTS between the Festool and Protool/Narex "teams" which eventually broke the bone of Protool. But that was how this business was run then. As a completely separate business with independent R&D and independent manufacturing only co-owned by a parent holding.

 

[Spandex]

Well, the proof is right there, the actual chuck exists, and it is quite a bit beefier than those of the T and C series. The T and C series drills were developped in the same period as the PDC/DRC drills, and Festool decided to give the PDC its own right angle chuck because the whole drill was meant to be a stronger brother to the T's and C drills. No compromises here.

Of course people later started to complain they can't use the standard chucks with these drills. And since the PDC/DRC drills were launched as Protool drills, they were meant to appeal to those who worked on building sites. And Festool knows they lost that battle, so they're not trying that again.

That's not proof. The fact that two different designs exist doesn't mean you can just insert your own interpretation as to why.

Alright, you really think these two collar designs could even remotely have the same mechanical properties?

[attachimg=1]

As for evidence, there are countless studies into the mechanical properties of structural materials like metals and plastics.

As with all materials, there is a variety of properties to look at. Is it wear resistant, is it impact resistant, can it stand pull forces, can it stand shear forces, can it stand heat or cold, is it resistant to chemicals. What's the weight to strength ratio for given forces?

On some of these properties, some plastics can win over some metals. But if you want a few of these properties combined, metals mostly still win.

The same mechanical properties? I didn't say plastic and aluminium have the same properties, I just suggested it wasn't worse, or a downgrade.

The mechanical properties of the material simply needs to exceed the requirements. It is not enough to say "plastic isn't as strong", you need to show that it isn't strong enough for this application. So far, I'm not seeing you do that.

 

[AlexThePalex]

Mino, if you actually knew anything about the PDC/DRC and the T12/15 & C12  from that era, then you would know they are based on the exact same technology and must be developped by the same team at the same time.

I think my spaghetti sticks just fine, with the bolognese sauce and the meat balls and all, it's just that you seem to live in your own world and nobody can reach there, that's for sure.

I just wish you wouldn't talk like every idea you don't agree with personally offends you. 

 

[AlexThePalex]

The mechanical properties of the material simply needs to exceed the requirements. It is not enough to say "plastic isn't as strong", you need to show that it isn't strong enough for this application. So far, I'm not seeing you do that.

Well, we'll see over time how this holds up. The tool is brand new. Plenty of time to hear all the ins and outs of this drill, its good points, and its bad points. I'm sure the Festool engineers have done their calculations and their test to see how it holds up in their lab tests, and now it is time to find out how it holds up in real life.

But one thing to consider for a high end luxury brand like Festool, if you want people to pay for the bling, you need to show some of the bling, which means, do not go down the plastic Home Depot route.

To me, considering it has to accept attachments from two sides, that flimsy ring of plastic, hardly 2 mm thick, doesn't seem to be up to the job, and would prefer to see hardened steel like on the Ti15. But who am I.  [tongue]

 

[Coen]

Well, even Festool engineers can make errors. Or design based around some bad restrictions.

CTL 26 hose garage anyone  [tongue]

 

[Spandex]

But one thing to consider for a high end luxury brand like Festool, if you want people to pay for the bling, you need to show some of the bling, which means, do not go down the plastic Home Depot route.

I personally would rather Festool didn’t spend any time (or add any cost to me) “showing the bling”. If it works well and lasts well, I don’t care what it’s made of. I would rather Festool choose the right material for the job, without any consideration for appearances.

So if this drill is a sign that Festool aren’t focussing on bling, then surely that’s one good thing we can take from it. [wink]

 

[mino]

Having a bit of a mechanical engineering background,

What does that mean exactly? You finished the study and have years of experience in the field? You fiddled around with a lathe once, or you read a book? Please, elaborate.

Or is it just an attempt to an argument from authority?

Indeed a clumsy attempt to not move the discussion into termites which most of the folks here would be lost at.

I actually studied chemical engineering, including plastics and composites stuff. Stuff that was being researched when I was at the uni is now commercially available. Things like multi-component composite plastics which cure during/after molding were just appearing at the time and were generally very expensive. Today these things are common place.

At the time I was digging in to machine engineering subjects as needed that for my hobby projects and it complemented well the materials engineering parts I needed to study on. Probably not enough, but enough to connect the dots with the physics and chemistry pieces so can advise friends who did not have that in their research ...

Then spent ca 25 years as a hobby/DYI user using pretty much any material there is AND always looking at it from the chemistry perspective. That helped immensely as it is much easier to learn when you have the theoretical background in place.

So we can talk here about what holds the metal atoms together in their multi-crystalline structure, why forged is better than cast due to this, what are the differences between the various chemical bonds in polymers and why PE is tensile-weak but is very plastic while PP is tensile-wise much stronger though way less plastic and thus fragile etc. etc.

But the whole point is that WE DO NOT KNOW if the new TPC/TDC composite plastic-surfaced collar design is more durable than a hypothetical aluminium one would have been. We do not even know if it is good or bad for it being more durable to begin. Being plastic means that if you throw the TPC on concrete and it hits the collar, this can damage the separate collar easier BUT will protect the gearbox from the impact force at the same time while a metal piece will not.
There are simply too many variables to be able to say which technical design is better and from which aspect without having access to the Festool engineer who made the design choice. And even the engineer may not have an answer how the design choice will fare in daily abuse. And this before we start discussing the attachment compatibility aspects even or weight aspects.

But what I do know with authority is that the new design is more expensive to make than the old one was. This comes from the basic fact that a single casting is being replaced with a casting + multiple parts. There is zero possibility of Festool saving money here compared to a PDC/DRC design of the collar. Zero.

I also do know with authority that when used in a drill press/stand one will need to be a bit more careful to not not over-tighten. That is the only known negative until the tools are a few years in the field and we get to see how they hold up.

I am all for discussing the various aspects of the designs.
I am with all fours against this "metal is better and more expensive than plastics" ideology. That was the case a bit more than half a century ago. Was still so in the 90s in the hand tools space indeed due to costs of modern composites. Not anymore.

 

[AlexThePalex]

But the whole point is that WE DO NOT KNOW if the new TPC/TDC composite plastic-surfaced collar design is more durable than a hypothetical aluminium one would have been. We do not even know if it is good or bad for it being more durable to begin.

With "we" you probably mean you, because I can tell you "with authority", even with my limited material knowledge, that a thin aluminium collar will not hold up at all. The collar on the PDC works because it is one solid piece. On the other hand, a thin strip of aluminium is really not very strong at all.

I was more speaking of solid steel, hardened, solid, steel.

The plastic collar as it is would most certainly be better than aluminium.

Being plastic means that if you throw the TPC on concrete and it hits the collar, this can damage the separate collar easier BUT will protect the gearbox from the impact force at the same time while a metal piece will not.

I think throwing it on the ground won't be the main concern here, but wear and tear of the collar itself.

 

[AlexThePalex]

I personally would rather Festool didn’t spend any time (or add any cost to me) “showing the bling”. If it works well and lasts well, I don’t care what it’s made of. I would rather Festool choose the right material for the job, without any consideration for appearances.

So if this drill is a sign that Festool aren’t focussing on bling, then surely that’s one good thing we can take from it. [wink]

Don't kid yourself, how expensive things look have everything to do with why you want them, and that goes for Festool, and also for you.

 

[mrboult]

The PDC + angle Chuck setup is def more robust than the C/T series. But saying that I’ve never had cause to question whether the T/C series implementation is tough enough. It is.

Is the aluminium collar of the PDC tougher than the new TPC plastic one? You’d assume so, in all aspects other than ‘dent-ability’ when dropped. Is the new plastic version probably tough enough for use? I’ll give festool the credit and assume it is, but time will tell.

Certainly not worried about over tightening any clamping element. That kind of force is where it will likely be at its strongest.

I like the universal Chuck abilities of the new drill. Think that was a great shout from festool. I sold the old PDC after a couple years as I’d moved to sds for the hammer stuff and the PDC ultimately felt like junk next to the T/C series I also have.  At least for my usage. But I sometimes do miss having a cordless with a collar. The Chuck compatibility along with the change from the AWFUL gear selector mean this new drill might tempt me one day. .

 

[Spandex]

Don't kid yourself, how expensive things look have everything to do with why you want them, and that goes for Festool, and also for you.

I’m under no illusions about my ability to be swayed by appearances when it comes to products. I could sit here and try to convince you that I personally don’t find any power tools visually appealing, but to be honest it’s not relevant. The point is that Festools tools would be better if the designers didn’t care about ‘showing the bling’, regardless of whether or not I would like the look of them.

I mean, I’d happily swap my PDC for a TPC so maybe I really don’t care about bling on tools...  [wink]