Upcoming CXS / TXS 18

[agehall]

The CSX/TSX12 was just mentioned in the newsletter here in Sweden. Stated it will be in stores later this year.

 

[Boski]

October 2023 release date for the CXS12 for the UK

 

[mrboult]

Just spotted a video about the new 12v drills. .


Amusingly they finish the video with a shot of the lineup that excludes the two new drills. Rather than the image posted above in this thread by gharel2

 

[squall_line]

The right angle adapter looks almost comical on that super-sub-compact drill.

I wonder if they'll sell a Plus and a Set model so that folks who already have all of the FastFix attachments can get just the tool/battery combo?  The new FastFix appear to be able to rotate without removing, which may be a benefit, but still...

 

[Hawkeye0001]

I wonder if they'll sell a Plus and a Set model so that folks who already have all of the FastFix attachments can get just the tool/battery combo?

They do, the set comes with a Sys DF 187 + inserts, attachments, etc and the plus model with a Sys M 187 including nothing but battery and charger

 

[rocky100370]

Do we know yet when the CXS18 will be available in the US?

 

[Mr Speaker]

I discussed the soundpower definition agian with some fellows. With my measurements, the 83 dBA sound power spec has to be off. It is way more than that.

 

[mino]

I discussed the soundpower definition agian with some fellows. With my measurements, the 83 dBA sound power spec has to be off. It is way more than that.

Well, the official (published) specs in the manual call for a 3 dB(A) uncertainty, hence a range of  80-86 dB(A) is what in fact specced. Plus not sure what type of a chamber is used for measurements per EN 62841. One can certainly get an additional 2-3 dB(A) variance from that alone.

Your tests were certainly on the hight side, but likely still within the official specs. If barely.

Does not change that, noise-wise, the new CXS-es are not a clean replacemnt/upgrade of the original ones. Essentially a different class of tools more along the M12 drivers than the "old" CXS/TXS ones.

[attachimg=1]

 

[Mr Speaker]

[/quote]
Well, the official (published) specs in the manual call for a 3 dB(A) uncertainty, hence a range of  80-86 dB(A) is what in fact specced. Plus not sure what type of a chamber is used for measurements per EN 62841. One can certainly get an additional 2-3 dB(A) variance from that alone.

Your tests were certainly on the hight side, but likely still within the official specs. If barely.

[attachimg=1]
[/quote]

For 4π full sphere propagation the sound power level is equal to sound pressure level or intensity level at the distance of 28.21 cm. Sound power is not related to distance or acoustics it's just how much power is emitted acoustically. Another way to put it is that for a quasi point source in a free field (outside or anachoic chambers) the sound pressure level at 1 meter should be 11 dB lower that the sound power level. Acoustics and distance come into it when you want to measure the emission levels. 3 dB uncertainty is possible, but I calculated that with my rooms RT60 time there is a max deviation of 1 dB. I have class 1 measurement gear. Unknowns or not investigated parts are directivity of the source and size. At a distance of 0.5 to 1 meter the size of the source is not trivial and it is not a point. But still, you get 6 dB sound pressure difference whenever you double or half the distance. so we are looking at let's lay 98-1-3= 94 dBA sound power. So maybe you have to account for size of the emitting area, and maybe it forms discrete beams. I cannot massage these numbers enough to get to 83 dBA. If massaging away 11 dB would be possible, i would have to reevaluate my career.  Now the trick I think is that this is at about 60% 'throttle' and less than full speed. But that is now how the standard should be interpreted. I had the same discussion about measurement distance. It is virtually impossible to hold this tool at 1 meter distance and use it, so that is not a real world use case for the safety standards. Also, this product has a variable speed, controlled by the operator, so we have to assume that he (or she) can use any speed at his or her discretion, and all should be safe. This a well known issue. There are no product safety standards in the US as there are in Europe. In the US, commercial parties like UL create standards. So I agree with you that we should know these parameters, especially used power setting. But the whole goal of using sound power i.s.o. sound pressure is that is would be independent of distance and room acoustics. This is why i think that 83 dB A weighted sound power level is unlikely to be correct.

 

[mino]

...
the whole goal of using sound power i.s.o. sound pressure is that is would be independent of distance and room acoustics.
...

Yes agreed on that. But. If you ever did some controlled-environment measuring, even not in a scientific setting, you would be aware how a measurement can be afffected by the technique of measuring. That is even with the same instruments, not to mention different ones.

My point is, FT specifies it according a specific EN norm. They do not state it as an absolute value - which may be higher or lower - hence your measurement. Unless you posses a certified lab compliant with the norm you should exhibit a variance in the measurement. That is normal and can go both up and down.

If you got 100 dBA and they specced 80, I would side with you on something being fishy with your unit. But a 3-4 dB(A) difference is just too close to fall within the measurting device/chamber/conditions variance.

One last point, I have seen some of these norms (not about acoustics but that is the same concept) and what they do is focus on repeatability not on the measured value accuracy.

The norms intentionally use methods which under/over-measure if it allows for a more consistent/repeatable method. Consistency is seen as more valuable than accuracy in the legal world.

/nough of the metrology OT

 

[Mr Speaker]

...
the whole goal of using sound power i.s.o. sound pressure is that is would be independent of distance and room acoustics.
...

Yes agreed on that. But. If you ever did some controlled-environment measuring, even not in a scientific setting, you would be aware how a measurement can be afffected by the technique of measuring. That is even with the same instruments, not to mention different ones.

My point is, FT specifies it according a specific EN norm. They do not state it as an absolute value - which may be higher or lower - hence your measurement. Unless you posses a certified lab compliant with the norm you should exhibit a variance in the measurement. That is normal and can go both up and down.

/nough of the metrology OT

Perhaps this is a good time to explain why I have class I audio measurement equipment. I do a couple of things related to sound. Loudspeaker design is one of them. Another thing I do is make measurements and write detailed reports on noise control. That can be for a theater, club or cafe, or for product development. So I set mandatory max levels and give advice on system design with as goal being within legal parameters for the prevention of noise pollution, and to prevent hearing damage. Those reports are reviewed and adopted by our local government. I have worked for the vibration division of Bruel & Kjear and I have worked for NASA and ESA on noise control for specific payloads. Contrary to what you would think, noise is a huge problem in manned spaceflight. I agree that a 3 dB margin for error/uncertainty is realistic, but the discrepancy is more than that. FT should address this as it is a liability issue for them. I hope it is a production issue, because I would love to have a CXS 18 or CXS 12, but only at levels where I do not need hearing protection.

 

[mino]

Yeah, thing is my point was not that your measuring setup is *worse* than the EN 62841 specced one.

I say that I very much expect it to be *different* - unless you specifically target that specific norm.

Actually, I would very much expect any semi-modern lab to be *better* as in more-accurate-better than the lowest-common-denominator requirements set in the decade old norms.

And itt even gets worse than that. To not be disadvantaged compared to a competition, it is necessary for manufacturers to publish specs according to norms *even-and-especially-if* they are fully aware the methods specced in those norms are total garbage.

None of above is any defence of FT or attack on your setup. It is an attempt to show how BOTH your and Festool views are not - necessarily - incompatible with each other.

OT:
We had a pretty big metrology institute in my home town as in 1k people worked there from a 35k town ... and I remember the stories how they kept pre-WW2 old measuring instruments running there *only* because those were made exactly to the norms of the time which were still valid in some countries where Czechoslovakia was exporting to. Such kit was hopelessly inaccurate compared to current stuff but the results were consistently inaccurate with the same systemic errors the old norm methods presumed. These days thanks to ISO the norms are more sensible but the point stands that any norm always presumes technology which is generally available at the time of its publication while "preferring" repeatability over outright accuracy.

 

[mrboult]

My hope would be that the new cxs 12 is reasonable sounding in ’typical delicate CXS tasks’ and only sounds loud when providing power for jobs the old CXS couldn’t do. That would be fine by me.

 

[MTF12]

I've happily been using my T15 and TI15. Later i bought a T18 because of the 18 volt platform. One of the reasons that I chose these drills was the small and well thought out systainer. Later I added a TS55 in a TLoc Sys 3, which is also a really nice small package. I would have upgraded my TI15 for a TID 18 if it came in a Sys1. I would have upgraded my TS55 to a battery version, if only the cases would be half the size.

I really don't like the direction that Festool took with the systainer size on almost all their new tools. My T18+3 fits in a Tloc Sys 1 with all the usable chucks, 2 batteries and a charger. The TXS18 or TXS12 both come in a far largers systainer while they are smaller tools. A small tool is nice, but a small tool in a small systainer is even nicer. I don't need big systainers for tools only. I don't need 5 chargers and 10 batteries. I would be carrying a lot of air if I bought more 18 volt tools. It really annoys me.

 

[squall_line]

If the recent uptick in For Sale posts of CXS10's is any indicator, the new CXS12 is probably going to sell pretty well to existing owners...

 

[mrboult]

I've happily been using my T15 and TI15. Later i bought a T18 because of the 18 volt platform. One of the reasons that I chose these drills was the small and well thought out systainer. Later I added a TS55 in a TLoc Sys 3, which is also a really nice small package. I would have upgraded my TI15 for a TID 18 if it came in a Sys1. I would have upgraded my TS55 to a battery version, if only the cases would be half the size.

I really don't like the direction that Festool took with the systainer size on almost all their new tools. My T18+3 fits in a Tloc Sys 1 with all the usable chucks, 2 batteries and a charger. The TXS18 or TXS12 both come in a far largers systainer while they are smaller tools. A small tool is nice, but a small tool in a small systainer is even nicer. I don't need big systainers for tools only. I don't need 5 chargers and 10 batteries. I would be carrying a lot of air if I bought more 18 volt tools. It really annoys me.

Lots of us agree with you 100%

 

[mino]

I've happily been using my T15 and TI15. Later i bought a T18 because of the 18 volt platform. One of the reasons that I chose these drills was the small and well thought out systainer. Later I added a TS55 in a TLoc Sys 3, which is also a really nice small package. I would have upgraded my TI15 for a TID 18 if it came in a Sys1. I would have upgraded my TS55 to a battery version, if only the cases would be half the size.

I really don't like the direction that Festool took with the systainer size on almost all their new tools. My T18+3 fits in a Tloc Sys 1 with all the usable chucks, 2 batteries and a charger. The TXS18 or TXS12 both come in a far largers systainer while they are smaller tools. A small tool is nice, but a small tool in a small systainer is even nicer. I don't need big systainers for tools only. I don't need 5 chargers and 10 batteries. I would be carrying a lot of air if I bought more 18 volt tools. It really annoys me.

A (possbily too much of a) bit of OT, but possibly still on topic as the CXS comes in a (comparatively) huge SYS3 137:

TLDR:
DO NOT LIMIT YOURSELF with the inserts.
They are designed to be "universal" and thus are inevitably incredibly space-inefficient. That is just the nature of it. The primary purpose of the inserts is to protect the tool *during shipping to the customer*. Secondary purpose being to support accessories sales .. thos empty spots are just soo empty ... Their key design objectives are not as anywhere-close-to-optimal way to store your tools in *your* personal usage pattern. Whatever the pattern is.

======================
For your reference:

My "basic tools" package includes:

BHC 18 + set of 4-5-6-8-10 concrete SDS bits
DRC 18/4 + Jacobs + Centrotec, sans optional handle
AGC 18 with Fein 150mm cover + sanding pad + couple cutting discs
one 5.2 BT battery
one 3.1 BT battery
small battery light
small distance laser
40cm level (cut to 38cm to fit a Systainer)
small Knipex combi pliers
mini clicking wrench for 1/4" bits and 1/4" hex bits
small right-angle hex drill adapter
small magnetic tape measure (3m)
19mm replacable-blade cutter
set of long-version drill bits (HSS to metal) 3-4-5-6
a microfibers towel (things not to rattle and to have a towel around as per THGTTG)

Small things in the DF lid:
PICA marker
a set of 1/4" hex screw bits (TX, PZ, PH, I)
a set of 1/4" metric bits for hexagonal head screws (7,8,10,13)
a set of small dual-size open-end wrenches (7-8, 9-10, 13-17)
a set of 5-10 various small HSS drill bits (3.2, 2.5, 2.0, etc.)
an 8mm shank V-groove router bit (for de-burring holes at low speed)
an 8mm shank U-groove router bit (for de-burring holes at low speed)
a case with various blades for the replaceable baldes cutter (non-separating blade, super-hard blade, wavy blade plsu a couple standard ones)
a scalpel-style small chisel
PICA black hole marker
small electrician's voltage test screwdriver
small diamond-tip glass cutter
a reduced roll of painters tape
a reduced roll of black electric wiring tape
a couple small metal grinding bits (for direct drive hand routers, works well in the DRC 18/4@3800 rpm)
a 100 mm hex bits extension holder

==============
All that in a SYS 2 T-Loc DF with a TANOS strap.

I use that systainer as my "take-with-me-on-any-job" systainer. Optionally add a light protection equipment one (3M respirator, glasses, gloves, mini med kit, etc.)

Now, I am not a professional. So the fact I have so many things placed in a single systainer - not all directly accessible when I open it - does not bother me that much. Neither does a lack of a battery charger  - I have never had a situation to need one on a small/help work.

.. my TSC 55 is residing in a SYS 4 with a SYS-MFT lid along with 1(!) another blade so I have both the "wood" one and "chipboard" one at all times with me. So no charger, no addl. set of batteries or other accessories that *could* be fit in the original TSC-55 SYS 5.

What about the chargers one may ask ?
Well, another SYS 2 TL houses two of my SCA 8 -screwed to it- along with a couple spare 5.2 batteries. I take it only when I know a bigger work is up ahead - so like 10% of the time, possibly less so. Under normal condition, that "Chargers" systainer is (opened) in the shop hanged on the wall-mounted SYS-RB.

End notes:
Above from someone who absolutely abhors the heights decision with the SYS 3 generation. To me these are not only ugly (compared to the elegant TANOS T-Locs with white catches which my SO is willing to tollerate even in home, placed on furniture). So any new Festool I buy that comes with a SYS3 sees me selling the SYS3 the moment it comes in. I personally see the new heights non-system as asinine. An abomination and the destruction of what Festo/TANOS had built up over decades. But. I will IN NO WAY base my tool puchase decisions on what systainer or other packaging the tool comes in. That would be only hurting myself through compromised ergonomy. Not Festool/TANOS/Dewalt/Makita/etc.

 

[squall_line]

What about the chargers one may ask ?
Well, another SYS 2 TL houses two of my SCA 8 -screwed to it- along with a couple spare 5.2 batteries. I take it only when I know a bigger work is up ahead - so like 10% of the time, possibly less so. Under normal condition, that "Chargers" systainer is (opened) in the shop hanged on the wall-mounted SYS-RB.

[member=61254]mino[/member] - I would love to see this setup; it sounds brilliantly elegant, or elegantly brilliant, take your choice.

Any pics or a link to a thread where you have previously shown it off would be great!

 

[Marcus_B]

Update. Festool is kind enough to take the discussion out of it and I can return the CXS 18. I measured a bunch of equipment and confirmed that  the CXS 18 is just louder. It is what it does. I think the issue is solvable though, so I will be looking out for hardware version 2.

I can also confirm the rumors that the CXS 12 is coming. I held one in my hand today. Alas the drive frequency is the same as the 18 V version, so the sound produced is the same. The battery can be charged by the standard charger and the size and weight are perfect, even better than the CXS 18. It is the same size as the legacy CXS. Setting the max torque to about makes this tool acceptable in noise levels btw. So there is a workaround. Coming in september.

Many thanks for sharing all information and measurements with us here. Can you please clarify the following: "Setting the max torque to about makes this tool acceptable in noise levels btw." There seem to be something missing in the sentence. Do you mean adjusting the electronic clutch? And by acceptable, would that be in the region of the old CXS?

Also according to Festools official numbers, the CXS/TXS 12 is even worse than the the CXS/TXS 18 when it comes to noise. Can you confirm that?

Best regards

Marcus

 

[masonwoodshop]

I just received my pre-ordered CXS 12! I'm coming from the Bosch GSR12V "Flexiclick" (non-brushless) and was excited for the Festool balance and compatibility with Centrotec.

However, this thing absolutely screeches and is highly unpleasant sounding. Using my non-scientific decibel meter (iPhone app), the CXS is reading ~98db whereas the GSR12V from the same distance is ~85db. The loudness I could probably get off, but the high pitch could drive me batty using this inside a cabinet carcass.

For a $469 CAD kit, I'm not sure I want to keep it (plus, I'd be paying $195 CAD for the eccentric chuck to get to accessory parity with my Bosch GSR12V).

Disclaimer, I'm not sure how the new brushless Bosch or the Milwaukee M12 drill/driver sound so this could be the nature of brushed vs. brushless.

I'm going to record a first impressions video with some comparisons later today that I can post here if that doesn't violate any sort of promotion rule.