UL Approval Process

[mantonuc]

Hello Christian,

  I, like many other people who frequent this web site, am a huge fan of your tools...  There always seems to be something new that Festool brings to the table with each new introduction...  At last count I am up to 10 of so, counting MFTs, Sysports, and tools.  About the only complaint I have with Festool in general is that it can sometimes be a very long delay between when a tool first shows up in Europe and eventually makes it to NA...  From reading this website, I understand there can be long delays associated with UL approval, but it can nonetheless be an agonizing wait.

  To that end, I like many others here, are just absolutely drooling over the impending release of the very cool looking Kapex.  The only real issue is how long we have to suffer until it finally arrives on these shores   So, inquiring minds want to know if you have any idea of when it might become available here in North America?

Signed,

Inquiring Minds... 

 

[Christian93117]

Matt,

Thanks for your question.

You are right, the waiting is mainly caused by the UL approval process. We once made the mistake
to announce a tool without having UL approval. We won't do that again. The Kapex is at UL
currently, but I know as much about the ETA as anybody else: Nothing.

Sorry about that. I would like to know as much as anybody here what the ETA is.

Regards,

Christian

 

[mantonuc]

Thanks for the quick response...  The main reason that I ask is that my current SCMS is on its last legs.  I was wondering if I should try and hold out...

With past tools that Festool has run through the UL labs, is this "typically" a year process?  Two years???

Matt

 

[Christian93117]

Matt,

Unfortunately there is no "typical" process. It can take 3 months, it can take 3 years. We are confident
right now that the UL process for the Kapex will be rather fast, since the Kapex was designed according
to UL standards. But then again, we never really know until we get the certificate.

Regards,

Christian

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Good Morning,
Matt, thanks for your question.  Christian, thank you very much for taking the time to explain some of this to us.

UL approval is something a lot of us wonder about: we see exciting new tools and, of course, want to be able to buy them and use them, or at least see them in action at woodworking shows!  It's always frustrating to know that a good tool is being held up because of UL approval.

The whole process and the logic of it are really mysterious to me.  Why does UL make things so difficult?  It seems that companies like Festool should get quick UL approval, since they are making tools that are safer and designed better than a lot of tools that are already approved and on the market.

I wonder if this topic could branch into a separate discussion?  The topic of UL approval deserves its own space, since so many people are frustrated and confused about it. 

There was a brief discussion on the Yahoo forum about UL approval.  I may cart some of those posts over here and start a new discussion.

Here's an even better idea...Matt, if it's OK with you, I could rename this discussion "UL Approval Process" or something like that, then go from there.

Thanks again,
Matthew

 

[mantonuc]

Hey Matt,

  Yes - that would be fine to move the discussion.  So. I was thinking about how best to speed up the process and had an idea, albeit somewhat unorthodox :-\  We need to find someone on the "inside" at UL-labs and who likes wood working.  Next we "arrange" for them to do an "extended-beta-test" of some of the tools.  After a short while, they will be completely addicted (like the rest of us) 8)  Then, we need to get them "interested" in new products that are coming down the road...  Once we have an insider, future approvals should be faster than greased lightning...

Matt

 

[jimg]

Christian, I know that in Germany the TUV sets very stringent standards that auto related items must pass to be certified to sell to the public. Is there a similar organization that certifies tools? It seems to me that in the US, UL approval is an insurance company mandated certification, is that correct? Are there no international insurance companies that would accept the German approval process ( which I assume must exist ) that the tools are safe to sell?
It seems to me that UL needs some competition.  ;D

 

[Dan Clark]

Unfortunately Politics has a hand in this.  There are legacy vested interests who tend to drag their feet.  Take a look at what happened to SawStop.  The vested interests in the industry have done everything they could to prevent that product from being sold.  (No, I'm not interested in arguing the SawStop pro or con.) 

It is frustrating to me to see innovative products like the Kapex, Domino, and other Festool tools take so long to get to the US. 

Regards,

Dan.

 

[Ned]

It seems to me that UL needs some competition.

Absolutely, Jim.  The reason UL is so slow is that it has no reason to be faster.  It is a monopoly.  There is no reason why a competing evaluation agency could not exist, except that UL's status is now enshrined in law.

If a tester at UL will never be criticized (at least by his bosses) for taking a long time to test a product, but will be punished, perhaps fired, for failing to find a weakness in a product under test, that tester will be very careful and risk-averse.  When presented with anything unfamiliar, even greater caution will be exercised.

Festool is now taking into account UL standards in their product design and that will help.  But what's great about Festool--their willingness to come up with new answers and original designs that are not anticipated in existing standards--will always make their path through UL and other bureaucratic agencies longer.

I'd be delighted to have UL employees in this group and Festool enthusiasts.  I'd be extremely surprised if they would ever be allowed by their employer to identify themselves.

 

[Christian93117]

I want to be sure there is no misunderstanding: UL is doing their job to protect the US consumer.
We can argue all day long if their standards are making sense or not. Fact is that they are setting the standards
for safety of power tools in the US and they are not trying to harass anybody. I want to be sure UL does not get the bad boy image here on this forum.

In the past Festool products were built according to CE standards. And they are different from UL standards. One example: Fire safety is a lot more important for UL than it is for CE. That has probably to do with the way houses are built in Europe (mainly brick) and the US (a lot of wood).

In the last years the Festool R&D department has learned a lot and tools are now developed according to UL standards. Sometimes there is a surprise, but more often than not the engineers know pretty much what to
expect.

A different story are products that have no equivalent. A SCMS is a common product and UL does not have a problem to test a SCMS according to their standards. A saw like the CS70 is a different animal. There are no portable saws with a moving sawblade available in the US market currently. That means that UL didn't develop a testing standard in the past and it comes down to trial and error, which takes a lot of time.

UL has competitors. Those competitors are accepted by most if not all insurance companies. We tried some of
them. No difference. The standards and procedures are the same.

I appreciate your interest and the wish to help with the process. But quite frankly, I don't see this being an exciting topic for this forum. And contacting UL and trying to find an "inside man" will not help to speed up the process. We will do our work to get UL approval.

Regards,

Christian

P.S. Introduction of the Domino (the first tool that was built according to UL standards) was not held up by UL, but by the demand in Europe and Australia.

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Yes - that would be fine to move the discussion.

Thanks Matt!  Actually, I don't need to move it.  I'll just rename the discussion to identify it as a UL topic.

I want to be sure there is no misunderstanding: UL is doing their job to protect the US consumer.
We can argue all day long if their standards are making sense or not. Fact is that they are setting the standards
for safety of power tools in the US and they are not trying to harass anybody. I want to be sure UL does not get the bad boy image here on this forum.

Christian, you make a valid and important point.  I don't mean to give UL a bad-boy image.  Rather, I'm expressing confusion over how things work, and a desire to understand it better.  Sometimes, however, I think it at least appears as though UL makes things more difficult than they need to be.  But again, this might just be because I don't understand the process and I'm totally wrong.  Hence, the idea to discuss it!

I'd be delighted to have UL employees in this group and Festool enthusiasts.  I'd be extremely surprised if they would ever be allowed by their employer to identify themselves.

Now that would be interesting!  My goal for this forum is to have it populated by unique ideas and people.  Getting someone from UL to pop in and offer insights would be a major breakthrough.  Of course, they would need to see that this is a curious, not a critical, place.  Does anyone know how this could actually happen?

Thanks,
Matthew Schenker

 

[fcraven]

My 1996/97 Festo catalogue has several tools in it that I could have used back then.  I remember asking someone why some tools (in which I was interested) were in the US. The answer, back then, was "because we need to get UL approval." I can not remember which tool it was, but something got held up because it only had a two prong plug, and UL required a three prongs. (or something like that). My comment was "but Fein doesn't use three prongs." A couple calls later and it turned out that Fein decided NOT to bother with UL certification due to the related costs. For whatever reasons this wasn't worth it to them at the time, but it was worth it to Festo. Today, that may have changed for Fein--I don't know.

I think it's great that manufactures can go to an outside organization to get safety certified. But then again, some certifications seem laden with legacy issues which don't necessarily apply today. Safety issues with older tools and appliances don't necessarily effect us today. And some of today's safety standards don't really help out either (oops sorry, I'm thinking about the "safety inspection" on my car). To be fair this goes both ways across the pond. Some safety features in Europe are strange to us (e.g. no dado head on a table saw). And of course, no "required safety feature" seems required in a home shop (come to think of it I don't think I've ever seen any guard or riving knife on Norm's table saw ;D (removed for clarity while taping)

Nevertheless, I understand what Christian is saying. Festool tools are now being designed to our United States Underwriters Laboratories safety standards. That makes the UL testing much easier, and is good news to us.

I still wish that Festool (as well as other manufactures of other products) would take the risk and bring innovative products into the US. If the tools pass European standards, my only concern is that the motor work with our electricity. Too bad we have insurance issues.

It's really quite a mute issue for me though. I have yet to figure out a way to acquire gray market tools from overseas for a reasonable price. And despite the poorly chosen name, I'm really looking forward to my UL approved Kapex.

 

[LaserGecko]

I can add a little to this conversation because both of my jobs (the real job and the "Festool payin' for" job) are in theatrical environments that are unique and both underwent UL approval (and or TUV approval, as well). One is a show and the other produces equipment that fly people and theatrical elements. To say that Underwriters Laboratories' approval process is extensive is an understatement. They go through everything with a fine toothed comb, then they go through the dust that's left over on a microscopic level.

Every piece of the system has to be scrutinized to ensure that it is either made from a UL approved component or that it meets UL standards if it is not. Of course, using all UL certified components speeds things along tremendously if you're assembling a system of devices, but if you're making a unique product like Festool does, I can only imagine how long it might take to certify the trigger switch, certify the locking mechanism, etc.

You don't have to worry that you'll get the crap knocked out of you by simply pulling the trigger if there's a UL label on it.

The team of UL engineers that certified our rather unique "extensively damp" theatre had discussions debating minute details that would put any of us to sleep. I'm sure most of you know that "Oh, that's nice for you, dear, but I could not care less" look that you may get from the SO when you describe the latest, greatest woodworking innovation from Festool. Imagine that look multiplied by about a hundred and you'll have an idea of how uber-Geek Squad these guys are. (and I'm a bit of an electronics geek, myself)

I have a lot more respect for the UL seal now that I've seen first hand what it entails. When I recently installed a custom shower in our bathroom, I had no problem believing that the CopperBond Epoxy I used on the plumbing would work as stated since it was UL rated for use in up to 2" Sprinkler Pipes. If they were willing to certify it for use in a life safety application, then it would sure as hell hold my 1/2" copper shower pipes together!

I was darned glad for it later with over 130 joints with not a single leak nor a single joint that had to be reworked and nothing set on fire!

Anyway, frustrating, yes, but it's going to work as advertised if it's got that UL mark.

 

[Greg B]

Jason,

You're not working on "O" are you, by any chance? Impressive stuff, that show.

GB

 

[LaserGecko]

Hi Greg,

Good guess.  I'm a lighting guy there. Thanks for the compliment! It does get a little old after you've seen it a couple thousand times, but there's always something around the corner...like the clown knocking the bed off the top of the house as he sat down and both of them going in the drink last night.

The UL guys had quite a bit of fun taking one of our underwater fixtures, putting it in a big aquarium, plugging it into a non-GFCI outlet, then breaking the glass and measuring the electric field around the fixture. They were quite surprised to see how quickly it dissipated. The resulting conversation (past the first five minutes, anyway) from that test would make you want to hear Alexander Haig read War and Peace.