Wide panel/plywood crosscutting: Track saw? Cordless? Rail Compatible?

[smorgasbord]

Why the Mafell over the TS-60? Except for track joining what are the advantages?  I don’t need cordles

 

[Michael Kellough]

Thought you wanted to be able to cut down stock while at the lumberyard…

I think the Mafell is a better engineered tool than the Festool saws but I have not yet seen the TS60 in person.  If you need the extra 5mm get the Festool.

Back to the rails, a pair of Mafell/Bosch rails add up to 10-1/2 feet, better to straighten stuff, and the joining method is superior.

 

[Packard]

For accurate, repeat cuts the table saw is faster and more repeatable than a track saw (assuming a good fence).

This will probably prompt an argument, but I stand by this statement.

 

[jeffinsgf]

For accurate, repeat cuts the table saw is faster and more repeatable than a track saw (assuming a good fence).

This will probably prompt an argument, but I stand by this statement.

That depends entirely on the size of the piece. As the workpiece gets larger, the advantage switches to the track saw. No question that using parallel guides on a track saw is slower than using a rip fence on a table saw, but it is faster than roughing with the track saw and finishing on the table saw...which I know a lot of people do. If I can make the track saw do the job in one cut, I'll take that solution any day over handling the piece twice.

This all assumes we're talking about a "normal" table saw...not an Altendorf or Martin slider.

 

[thudchkr]

Then get the Mafell cordless track saw. The Mafell track is superior except that it can’t accommodate a parallel rig. To save a little money you can buy the Bosch branded track, which is actually made by Mafell.

BenchDogs makes a parallel guide system for the Mafell/Bosch rails,https://benchdogs.co.uk/products/pa...-mafell-bosch-gkt?_pos=4&_sid=38ab018fd&_ss=r

Not quite as nice as TSO's offering but I like it better than the Festool style.  FWIW, they also make one for the FMT style rail as well.

When I got mine, it didn't come in a systainer so I ended up making my own insert to put it into one of those same M112s that they now come in.  They also make some nice SS squares, similar to the ones offered by Woodpeckers.  I do prefer the Woodpecker SS squares over the BenchDog, but the BD square is nearly the same tool and was a bit cheaper. 

I've been pleased with the BenchDog tools overall, especially liking their rail squares that fit the Bosch/Mafell rails.

 

[mino]

...
Back to the rails, a pair of Mafell/Bosch rails add up to 10-1/2 feet, better to straighten stuff, and the joining method is superior.

Only if you go after self-aligning joning of rails. But then the accuracy of the Mafell is limited precisely by that joining. With wood it may be fine, with laminated engineered materials, not so much in some cases.

A blanket saying "the joining method is superior" - I take an issue with.

Aside the accessories versatlity of the FS/2 rails system, the Maffel rails are great for cuts within the rail length and for long cuts with joined rails which do not have to be absolutely precise. Unless one gets lucky, bought combination of rails remains absolutely straight once joined and one's technique is such the combo does not bend while placing. (hint: good luck there, even the stronger FS/2 3000 can hit rigidity issues at that length)

Unfortuntaly for longer precise cuts there is no Mafell 3000 rail (see above ref. bending, worse on the weaker Mafell profile), nor is there a way to join them with a precision comparable to a single rail. Like can be done with the FS/2 system.

Getting the MT 55 instead of TS 60 is absolutely valid though.
In that case I would still use it with a Festool rail set for hobby/small shop usage. For the versatility aspect the FS/2 accessories mounting provides as well as the accuracy aspect of long cuts mentioned.

Unlimited budget, or pro use, I can see MT 55 + a couple Mafell rails supported by FS/2 1400 LR32 and FS/2 3000 for those use cases where the Mafell rails are not the best fit. Call me pendantic, if you wish.

 

[Michael Kellough]

I’ve been joining Festool rails for over twenty years. Getting the rails straight requires several steps and use of a straight edge. The Makita connectors are more secure and the TSO connectors make it a bit easier (haven’t tried the latest Festool connectors) but the Mafell/Bosch connector only needs to be tightened (with a simple coin) to make the rails straight, within the limits of the rails themselves. And you don’t have to flip the pair of incompletely joined rails over. That is superior to the other methods.

Also, the Mafell connector is designed to make the spines automatically line up as closely as possible. And since the spine is about a tenth as wide as the Festool spine (and others) the typical slight differences in spine width are negligible on the Mafell rail. You don’t have to put the bigger spine first in the pair and possibly readjust the jibs. I’ve never had to make that adjustment on my Mafell MT55 cordless.

 

[Packard]

I did not know that there was a problem joining Festool rails.  I use a straight edge to join them and have never seen any indication that it was not assembled straight. 

Storing an 8-1/2’ rail would be more of an issue for me than taking care to assemble the rails maintaining the straight line. 

 

[mino]

I’ve been joining Festool rails for over twenty years. Getting the rails straight requires several steps and use of a straight edge. The Makita connectors are more secure and the TSO connectors make it a bit easier (haven’t tried the latest Festool connectors) but the Mafell/Bosch connector only needs to be tightened (with a simple coin) to make the rails straight, within the limits of the rails themselves. And you don’t have to flip the pair of incompletely joined rails over. That is superior to the other methods.

Also, the Mafell connector is designed to make the spines automatically line up as closely as possible. And since the spine is about a tenth as wide as the Festool spine (and others) the typical slight differences in spine width are negligible on the Mafell rail. You don’t have to put the bigger spine first in the pair and possibly readjust the jibs. I’ve never had to make that adjustment on my Mafell MT55 cordless.

This is a bit OT. But I will bite.

TLDR:
The limitation I noted above comes from how when a rail is manufactured, it has variance/bending along its length but it is not a single "consistent" bend. Instead, as it is rolled there are multiple bends "back and forth" while the whole rail is made to spec by "oscilating" within a certain distance from an ideal straight line. This directly impacts any accessory - be it a TSO GRS or a connector - which relies only on a short section of a rail for alignment.

-----
Now, lets say a "deflection" of 0.1˚ (for the sake of an argument) is present at the start/end of a rail. As long as this deflection is compensated later on, and does not go beyond tolerances, all is good. Now, imagine a connector is put into this deflected part of the rail (or a TSO rail square, same effect). What happens is now this deflection is multiplied by the ratio of the connector-interface to the connected-rail length. In practice that is 1:8 or so for the casual 1400/1600 rail lenghts. Same effect happens on the other side of the connection. So, worst case, from two rails which are very much "within spec" we get a deviation that is potentially 16x as much. And, now comes the catch, it is not possible to compensate-out this deviation when using a self-aligning connector - it is fixed/defined by the shape of the two rails we have. The catch is, what if we have two rails whose deflections are either not present, or cancel themselves out? Well then we have a win! So two users can observe a completely different behavior! And unless they have multiple rails and dig into this .. like I did .. may not even realize this!

With a non-self-aligning connector, were are not dependent on the short parts of the rails - we can use a pretty long rail as a reference, even as long as the joined rails in theory - thus getting comparable accuracy/deflection as a single-piece rail gets. Now, this benefit is not free - it requires correct alignment every time the rails are joined. But the alignment is possible. Unlike with a self-aligning connector setup where we just hope on winning the "rails lottery".

I came to be intimately aware of this when my TSO GRS was producing inconsistent results with different rails. I found out that while all my rails were absolutely fine for when used with a PG or with pencil marks, once a rail square - relying on just 8" of the rail back - was used, I got up to 0.01" deflection at the end of a 3' cut. Fine for wood. Resulting in an unusable stock for laminated chipboard as the gap was clearly visible. Hence my earlier posts praising the FS-WA as that allows to calibrate/align-out this limitation.

Recap of sorts
------
As far as self-aligning connectors go, I agree the Mafell option is great and definitely the most convenient. Funtionally the Festool self-aligning connector is indeed inferior (unless used with the second connector from Makita for strength). However, this assessment is valid only within the realm of self-aligning connectors. Once a whole rail system is concerned, where the (im)precision in the rail manufacturing as well as the rail stiffness come to play, it is not so simple.

In specific, two effects turn the tide to the FS/2 system benefit in some use cases:
- first effect, or a limitation, of the Mafell system: Self-aligning is the only way to connect the rails. There is no option of defferring to non-self-aligning rail joining, should absolute accuracy be required.
- second effect, or a tradeoff, is that the Mafell rails are narrower and thinner. This makes them more comfortable and easier to work with but at the same time limits their lateral stability at longer configurations - the 2x1600 is one of those configurations. My view is that Mafell went for only self-aligning because when their rails are joined, they are already a bit wobbly laterally. So there is not much point of having a super-precise connection option. For the same reason making a 3000 rail is pointless as well.

The overall conclusion being - there is no universally superior system. And there could not be. The optimisations Festool chose and Mafell did are mutually incompatible. There is no way to make the Mafell rails as stiff as the FS/2 ones, without losing their convenience. And there is no way to have a quick-connect system as convenient as the Mafell one, without losing the backwards compatibility of the FS/2 system. And that is fine. The fact we have these two systems is great, as one can have both and use for different tasks. Or chose the system better suited to one's workflow.
[smile]

 

[woodbutcherbower]

Input here from a pro who owns and uses all 3 machines almost on a daily basis = TS55, MT55, and TS60. Here's my take;

1 The TS55 has been the benchmark for plunge saws since whenever. I was an incredibly early adopter, having purchased my original one six months after the machine was first released way back when. It often feels underpowered when ripping thicker hardwood and more difficult stock (even when using the appropriate Panther 12T blade), but apart from that, it's done pretty much I ever needed it to. I also sourced low-cost aftermarket blades (Trend) which perform identically to OEM ones and are less than a quarter of the price - in fact it costs me less to replace them, rather than having them resharpened. Having worn out my first two TS55's, I'm currently enjoying my 3rd one and I'm still very happy with it. I replaced the looney-tunes swivelling extractor port with a rigid 3D-printed aftermarket one, and also added a 3D-printed snap-in cover plate to fill the blade-change hole in the sideplate. The best £7 I ever spent. The improvement in extraction quality has been remarkable.

2 The Mafell MT55 is (in engineering terms, anyway) a better saw. It's more solidly built using way less plastic, it feels like even more of a precision woodworking tool than the TS55, the Cuprex motor is considerably better/more powerful and allows me to rip 40mm oak kitchen countertop in one pass instead of three. Their rail system is undoubtedly superior - but I'm already heavily invested in Festool rails (1 x 2700, 3 x 1400, 1 x 800) and didn't want to negate that investment - so the Mafell gets run on my existing rails using the adaptor which comes with the machine. The machine's pre-scribe function for laminate is a great idea, but it's been badly implemented IMO - simply because the one-shot scribe button similtaneously shifts the cut line 0.1mm to the right. If your two laminated panels are then to be jointed, you'll have a visible shadow line caused by the above. I also freely admit that I purchased this machine at a tool show courtesy of a devastatingly good-looking and unbelievably persuasive German female Mafell rep. No regrets though ........

.......apart from her immediate refusal of my leathery hand in marriage. But anyway (and fighting back the tears) back on topic;

The TS55 is still my daily driver. The MT55 gets brought out of the van on those occasions where experience has shown that the TS55 will probably struggle (horrible wet stock, torrential rain etc. etc.). And FWIW- it's my purely personal opinion that the 'new' TS55F was introduced solely because Festool were losing substantial sales numbers to the MT55. They reduced the blade kerf from 2.2mm down to 1.8mm (same as the MT55 - who would have believed it?) and removed the riving knife (same as the MT55 - who would have believed it?) But I'm a cynical old Brit with close to four decades on the tools, and the claims of '50% faster cutting speed' are pure marketing BS and abject nonsense. Feel free to ignore the above as you wish.

Which brings me neatly to;

3 The TS60. For once - the marketing hype was 100% founded. It's the best plunge saw I ever used - and the only reason why it isn't yet my daily driver is that my TS55 hasn't worn out yet. Just like the MT55 - it gets pulled out of the van on those occasions when it's needed. Specifically - for 45-degree bevel cuts on 40mm kitchen countertops which neither of the above saws will do. Plus - the occasional need to reduce the width of stock such as 57/58mm wide timber - popular here over the pond. When my #3 TS55 finally retires, the TS60 will become my go-to. Although the substitution of a riving knife for an electronic anti-kickback system (discussed on here ad infinitum with an inevitable 50/50 split of 'fors' and againsts') it works incredibly well - and ultimately, you'll only experience a kickback if you're either;

a) Inexperienced
b) Tired
c) Careless
d) Stupid

Regarding the 'for repeatable accuracy - nothing will ever come close to a table saw' input from other thread contributors - those guys are 100% right. For a small hobby shop, it's an ideal solution for restricted-size small-scale stock - unless of course you're a hobbyist zillionaire who can afford (and house) something massive. But for guys like me, who rock up onto a site and occasionally face a forklift-load of 8' x 4' sheets - a tiny table saw is simply not an option.

So in summary - my feeling is that the TS60 is pretty much 'all things to all men'. As a fellow pro user of both the TS55 and the TS60, I'd welcome the opinion of [member=58857]Crazyraceguy[/member].

I hope you get fixed up.

Kevin

 

[Crazyraceguy]

As an "in-house" pro (cabinet shop) I can absolutely attest to [member=75780]woodbutcherbower[/member] assessment of the TS60. It is the end-all be-all track saw (at this point anyway)
I started with a TS55 and it was my daily driver for quite some time. I came across the need for deeper cuts/more power and went for a TS75, but it was right in the time of shortages. I waited several months for them to come back in stock, getting one of the last few before the switch to the Sys3. It is indeed bigger/more powerful, but comes with the cost of old-school adjusters, where is aligns with the track. Then there is the weight, the thing is a tank. It's not impossible or anything, but cumbersome for repetitive use.
The TS55 stayed my top-dog, until the TS75 was required.
Miter cutting 1 1/2" thick counter tops, for waterfall edges, was the most common case. The TS55 just can't cut it all of the way through. It misses but just enough to make fitting the pieces back together a pain.
For me, his was the TS60 big attraction. It can do that, with butcher block or solid surface, with the proper blade. Since day-one, it has become my daily driver. It has the power of the big saw and the size/weight of the smaller one. In fact, it is actually smaller. The brushless motor is so much smaller, that it doesn't even overhang the base plate.
Initially, I thought I would replace the TS55 with the TS60, but have decided to keep it. I keep different blade types on them and just grab the saw with the blade I need.
I definitely prefer the TS60 and would recommend it to most buyers.