TS55 Improvements

[Blouis79]

Suggestions for consideration....

1. Depth scale switch for guide rail thickness.

The most favorable reviews of TS55 depend on use with the guide rail. Having a millimetre accurate depth scale (or more accurate to 0.1mm with M4 thread unspecified grub screw - not supplied) seems a waste of time when the guide rail throws out the scale by a consistent amount. A simple modification to the depth stop should permit switching in/out of a block that will allow the scale to read zero with the TS55 sitting on the guide rail. The grub screw should be included. With interchangeable depth scales (see 2) with a guide rail switch, fine adjustment should really be for the scale position rather than the depth stop.

Alternatively, the scale should be zeroed for use with the guide rail and be inaccurate when the guide rail not in use.  It is more likely that noncritical cutting will be performed without the rail.  The "single entry point" design for angled cuts is designed for use only with the guide rail.

2. Depth scale in inches.

This is a common complaint from users in USA. Implementing this requires production of a whole new depth scale with depth stop, with notches in presumably 1/16ths or 1/32nds. The depth scale should be user changeable as optional accessory, even in metric countries, old woodwork was built in the imperial (inches) system.

3. Splinter guards and blade thickness.

Reviews mention the problem with chewing up splinter guards when using different Festool blades with different thicknesses and that chewed splinter guards are useless. The simple system answer is to make all blades the same kerf thickness. Alternatively, new blades should be packaged with splinter guards which are color coded to match the blade. (Some non-festool saw blades have consistent thickness between different blade types.)

4. Guide rail gib cam thumbwheel.

Access to the rear gib cam thumbwheel is difficult even with the power cable removed. This mechanism should be relocated rearwards or redesigned. A lever rather than a thumbwheel could give a visual indication of wear of the slide as well as indicating the degree of play in use for people who might be happy with no play for critical cutting or some play for less slide wear.

5. Low-friction replaceable baseplate.

Routers have low-friction baseplates. Guide rails have low-friction strips. Why is the low friction part on the guide rail and not the saw base? A low friction replaceable baseplate like on a router would also be functional when not using guide rails. It could also serve as a splinterguard when not using guide rails, but would work for angled cuts only if the saw angle pivot moved as well.

(A whole saw angle pivot height adjustment would fix both depth scale and splinterguard issues.)

6. Safety switching.

Hand injuries from circular saws are commonly serious. A mechanism for ensuring both hands are on the handles would be a good safety feature. (Though thrill-seeking users or one-handed users wouldn't like it.)

 

[nickao]

I love your suggestions for improvement, very well thought out.

As far as the low friction baseplate if you are not using the guide rail the saw should slide nice, but if to slippery the saw could slide all over the place. I use a circular saw with one hand far more than I use a router with one hand.  I really think if the saw plate was too low friction it could get squirrelly on you. The router on the other hand is usually held with both hands and may be a little more controllable with the slippery base.

I think the better solution is the guide rail, jig or fixture having the slippery surface and not the saw base. The saw seems to slide with the right amount of ease for me.

Offering it as an additional plate for certain operations as I think you are suggesting is a good idea. But totally replacing it might be a mistake.

nickao

 

[Corwin]

I rather like the idea behind number 1.  And yet, I would not want to see number 2 -- unless as a user installed option.

Number 3 is an issue, but I seriously do not think the answer lies with all blades having the same kerf.  Instead, I think any upgrade need only address keeping the point where the blade meets the splinter strip at the same location.  This might be implemented with either a base that readily adjusts to zero out each blade, or a base with interchangeable inserts for each different blade -- these inserts would fit in an oversized groove in the base where the hat's groove is now, each different insert would have its own groove that fits on the hat but these grooves would be offset accordingly to shift the saw so each blade aligns with the splinter strip.

Don't see any need for either 4 or 5.  But that might just be me.

And I think the last idea is a bad one.  Where would you want to require that second hand?  What about lefties, or righties?  And how 'bout those bevel cuts -- would your hand be where it is needed then?  I think this is the safest circular saw I've ever used.  Many saws could be designed with better safety in mind, but I do think Festools are already designed that way.

Don't mean to be contradictory, but this list just doesn't seem that well thought out to me.  

 

[mhch]

A quick fix helps around suggestion #1, Here is what I
did to fix my TS55

- install the guide rail on the MFT or a flat piece of wood
  and put the saw on it, unplugged

- move the saw depth stop at a 10mm position

- plunge the saw, UNPLUGGED, so the blade touches the wood

- while keeping the saw plunged this way, move the depth stop
  upward so that it rests against the metal pin on the plunging part
  of the saw and leave it here

- then glue a small piece of plastic on the flat upper part of the depth
  stop and draw a mark againts the 0 position. It makes another cursor
  which accounts for the rail dimension.

don't use a too big piece of plastic so that the saw pin can still move
freely and hit the depth stop.

 

[mhch]

While I wrote the previous post, I just thought it would be nice to have the mark
account for the extra depth wanted to the blade to cut into the MFT top. That
would eliminate another extra computation to do everytime I want to
cut a piece of wood.

(Is that clear ?)

 

[Steve Jones]

Considerations:

1. 13, 20, 25 write it on your wall, save you a bunch of grief (1/4", 1/2", 3/4") - no the sizes aren't exact just what I use to get through the material with enough extra cut to make sure it's clean - for other sizes lay the rail on the edge of the material drop the blade and slide up the stop

2. you want an imperial scale so you can set the depth on the metric saw to cut metric plywood which you also convert to imperial? does this not sound like the long way to go around the problem?

3. if you switch blades a lot, wouldn't an extra rail dedicated to the odd blade be cheaper than replacing splinter guards every time you change blades - way quicker too.

4. twice a year, regular as clockwork I have to fumble around for two seconds to adjust that pesky little sucker - ergonomics is the science of making the frequently used controls as easy as possible - sometimes to the detriment of the ease of use of the less used controls.

5. You want less friction when the saw is restrained into a single direction by the rail - you don't want it sliding all over the place when off the rail - so those intelligent german engineers put the slick strips where they should be - on the rails.

6. another safety switch? good grief - carefully unplug the saw, cut through the power cord with a good pair of wire cutters, remove the blade and the brushes from the motor, and some fool will still manage to hurt himself with it, but the saw will be almost as usefull as one requiring some convoluted grip requiring both hands to be in some predetermined position before starting it.

safety is in the hands of the operator - however many safety locks and devices you add it will always be possible to hurt yourself.

the blind addition of safety "features" almost always takes away from the usefullness of the tool -
Firearms should be solidly plugged at both ends of the barrel to be safe,
electrical appliances should have all means to connect them to dangerous power supplies removed.
you can keep this up and take us back to the stone age, but people will still hurt themselves with the rocks - at some point you have to decide that something is dangerous and then decide whether to use it or not.

 

[Eli]

I could see where these are concerns for you, but honestly I agree with basically none of them. The MFT has a sacrificial top, if you cut a mil deeper, who cares? Two hands on the saw? No. Very inconvenient. In truth, the fact that I can push a cut with my off hand is very convenient in itself. Imperial? Why. The whole system is metric, I switched, and I'm honestly happier for it. Blade thickness? They make a bunch of blades. I haven't seen that the standard blade needs any switching out, it works for everything for me. Never bothered adjusting the gib cam, works fine. Never had a friction problem. You have valid points for you maybe, but for general use, I think you're splitting hairs.

 

[mhch]

  The only real problem with depth cutting adjustment is to be sure not to cut into the
  MFT side rail, specially the one near the operator. And when in a hurry a mistake
  quickly happens when dealing with different wood thicknesses.

  That's why I added this extra mark: no computation needed (well 2 extra mm
  into the MFT top ... ).

 

 

[pteubel]

6. Safety switching.

Hand injuries from circular saws are commonly serious. A mechanism for ensuring both hands are on the handles would be a good safety feature. (Though thrill-seeking users or one-handed users wouldn't like it.)

This feature would preclude me from buying or even USING any circular saw that had it. Now that I think about it, the only circular saw that I use two hands on is my Makita 16" beam saw...and that's only because it so darn heavy.

 

[dltflt]

Considerations:

6. another safety switch? good grief - carefully unplug the saw, cut through the power cord with a good pair of wire cutters, remove the blade and the brushes from the motor, and some fool will still manage to hurt himself with it, but the saw will be almost as usefull as one requiring some convoluted grip requiring both hands to be in some predetermined position before starting it.

safety is in the hands of the operator - however many safety locks and devices you add it will always be possible to hurt yourself.

the blind addition of safety "features" almost always takes away from the usefullness of the tool -
Firearms should be solidly plugged at both ends of the barrel to be safe,
electrical appliances should have all means to connect them to dangerous power supplies removed.
you can keep this up and take us back to the stone age, but people will still hurt themselves with the rocks - at some point you have to decide that something is dangerous and then decide whether to use it or not.

Steve,
I could'nt agree with you more, I am an engineer and fight this problem everyday.  At some point you saty I've made it as safe as possible and still make it user freindly.  People need to be responsible for their own actions.  If you get careless with any poer tool you will get hurt.

 

[Dave Ronyak]

Number 3 is an issue, but I seriously do not think the answer lies with all blades having the same kerf.  Instead, I think any upgrade need only address keeping the point where the blade meets the splinter strip at the same location.  This might be implemented with either a base that readily adjusts to zero out each blade, or a base with interchangeable inserts for each different blade -- these inserts would fit in an oversized groove in the base where the hat's groove is now, each different insert would have its own groove that fits on the hat but these grooves would be offset accordingly to shift the saw so each blade aligns with the splinter strip.

I'd like to see either the Festool blades redesigned so the edge of the kerf nominally hits the same point on the splinter guard, or a shim supplied with each blade (other than the standard original equipment Fine Tooth blade Item #491952 for the TS 55) which could used to shim the body of other wider kerf blades such as the Panther Rip blade (Item #439685 for the TS 55) to align the inside edge of the kerf with the edge of the splinter guard that was cut with the "fine" ATB blade (48 tooth on TS 55) on the same saw.  The bolt and lock washer supplied with the TS 55 seem plenty long enough and the arbor projection enough to enable this to be done safely.  We shim router bit cutters and dado cutters to align them without any safety problems, don't we? 

Dave R.

 

[Blouis79]

The extra plastic marker on the depth stop is a great idea - love it. (means festool should fix the depth stop problem)

There are two "splinter guards" - the black rubber strip on the guide rail and the green adjustable one on the saw. Really rather complicated to make them both work for different kerf blades. I am happy using Freud blades which all have same kerf and are generally extremely well regarded quality wise (and cost less than festool blades).

I'd also like to see:

7 - Improved mitre hinging mechanism/stops. (added: mitre/bevel - depends on which way the wood is assembled)

The present mechanism based on a matching circular segment groove and ridge has a bit of play in the hinging which makes setting precise angles a bit tricky. Discovered this problem trying to adjust the 90degree position on my new saw. The 90 degree stop adjustment screws are thin self-tappers through aluminum onto aluminum. Beware that frequent users of mitre cuts may find their 90degree position losing accuracy as the aluminum wears a dent where the stop screws hit. The slight play in the hinging mechanism makes it tricky getting a reliable 90degree cut without consistent procedure for tightening the angle adjustment knobs while removing the variable of the hinge play. No doubt other users will not be unhappy with this minor design defect, but I expect more for tools bearing the Festool price and quality image.

 

[nickao]

Miter or bevel cuts, I am confused? My wife says I easily am.

nickao

 

[semenza]

Hi,

  I like the idea of the #1 and also mhch extra block idea.    As has been discussed many times some type of fix for the kerf width would be great.  The two handed requirement would be bad for me I routinely run it down the rail with one hand.    The others would be middle of the road for me.

Seth