Dewalt Plunge Saw Coming to the U.S.

Corded and cordless. Spring-loaded riving knife and anti reverse (in track) device.

formatting link
will be interesting to see how it stacks up against the Festool. Since it has been out in Europe, has anyone seen any comparisions in the EU press?

Reply to
Dave - Parkville, MD
Loading thread data ...

I got the press release on this a week or so ago. Impressive sounding. I've got the Festool, with track, and it is a wonder. I'll be using that later this week to slice some 20 year old oak faced plywood, a job I won't leave to just any tool. I'd love to get one of the DeWalt's for a comparison.

My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that l> Corded and cordless. Spring-loaded riving knife and anti reverse (in > track) device. >

Reply to
Charlie Self

Not exactly on topic, but I would like to see someone like you get a hold of that thing myself.

I am pretty sick of "product testers" checking out new tools in these magazines. Guys that might be testing screwdrivers one week, blenders and toasters the next, are testing tools for specific use when most have no knowledge of the tool in general.

As tool costs rise for quality tools, I want to see in depth, practical use tests for the tools, not tests set up by a committee after talking to the manufacturers to see what their specific design parameters addressed.

Many times "field guys" have a different set of specific requirements than "shop guys". For example, I am all for huge battery life, but not if the tool is so flimsy that if it falls off the tailgate it smashes into a million pieces. Yet how many times, other than tools that were specifically designed and sold with this as a feature, do they drop the tools on concrete? How waterproof are the workings?

They have been doing those tests with laptops for years, and I'd bet money more people are careful with their laptops than they are with their cordless tools.

And while I am glad table saws are tested with Forester blades and their equivalents, I want to see how saws test out with a simple good quality blade on it, one you can buy at a local machine shop. Forester blades can make just about any saw look good.

Same with sanders. I would love to have a $500 disk sander, but how much actual difference would you see if I took my $250 Swiss made Bosch with super premium paper in it as a comparison? No matter how premium it is, $250 difference will buy you a stack of sandpaper.

Before someone starts up, I want to make it clear I am not bagging on someone's sander, the tool was used for purposes of illustration only. Same with the saw.

The point is that most of the nitwits that design and test the tools in these reviews have no more business doing so than I do building a moon rocket.

I just want practical tests, that's all. How about taking two sanders and clicking the retaining button on the trigger closed and let them run all out for an hour, rest an hour, run an hour, rest an hour, etc., for a month and THEN test the output? After all that's only 80 hours of work time based on an 8 hour day in the lab. Even for a home shop guy, that's pretty low mileage for a sander, maybe replicating a year or so work.

To me, that would constitute a more valid test since you would know how much tool you will have in the long run.

But you know... they just don't ask me.

Anyway, back to work.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

Robert! You might be happy to know that I heard Consumer Reports is going to put power tools, washing machines, and cam corders in the same test and see how they all stack up against one another. LOL. I hear you!

I think Charlie is our man of choice for the job.

Reply to
Leon

Kind of tough to get a truly objective evaluation of a product by an employee or group of employees of a publication that has the product manufacturer as an advertiser.

Consumer Reports tries, but is a mixed bag on results IMHO.

Practical Sailor tries to evaluate sailboat equipment, but high test costs make it very difficult to keep afloat with only subscription revenues as the source of income.

Pushing on a rope has a better chance over the long haul, IMHO.

Lew

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Hmmm, the DeWalt is going to be higher priced than the Festool...? I wonder if that means Festool will UP their price to show that theirs is better. ;)

R
Reply to
RicodJour

If you're not familiar with the Journal of Light Construction, they have some of the best tool tests I've come across. They are mostly done by construction crews using the tools in their daily business for a month or more. So you hear about comfort in long term use, power in real life situations, balance, etc. in addition to job-site comparison of features. Since it's construction trades oriented, you don't get tests of jointers or hand planes, etc. But they do test bench top table saws, miter saws, and of course, every variety of cordless tool and things like hammer drills, rotary hammers, portable compressors, etc.

Since a lot of my projects tend to be home remodeling oriented anyway, I also like the features on best construction practices, new materials and techniques, etc. They have a regular column on the business side of the construction industry, a lot of which is dead on for small woodworking business too.

And no, I have no connection with the mag other than always finding it a good read.

Paul Franklin

Reply to
Paul Franklin

Oh, great. Now they have have found out a way to take it to the next level of silliness. I can't wait until we see the "router shootout" and the "cordless drill showdown" articles. And while Consumer Reports means well, they use tests that are designed around parameters specified by their team of product testing engineers.

I am sure that they will have some tests that have merit; but still, no more than some of the woodworking magazines.

I quit reading almost all tool reviews as they always end with trying to soothe the feelings of the crappy product manufacturers. I can't stand to read the reviews like these;

"If you want a tool that allows you to set it up to own specifications, this may be the tool for you". READ: This POS was so screwed up when we pulled it out of the box we had to take a couple of hours just to adjust it to usable standards so we could try to test it.

or

"We found the manufacturer's instructions to be difficult to understand, but a call to tech support helped us sort things out". READ: A Chinese mathematician couldn't decipher the instructions, and after a day of trying to figure them out, we called tech support. Thankfully, one of our assistants spoke Kurdu, so he was able to get us squared away with an hour and a half of long distance time.

or

"We were unable to test this product at this time due to a glitch in the product which the manufacturer assures us has been addressed and won't be a problem in the future. READ: Due to piss poor quality control, we were shipped a machine with a cracked work surface and a dead motor. We didn't see the crack until the next day since we worked late into the night because we had so much trouble putting this POS together. And we had no way to test the motor to know it was dead until we had it mounted on the assembled machine with its mounts.

Come to think of it, Consumer Reports can't do much worse than the woodworking magazines, could they?

Amen. Come on, Charlie - git 'er done!

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

As a field sales guy, my comment to the product engineer was always the same when a new product was to be introduced and an O&M manual needed to be written.

The conversation would go something like this:

Me: Are you either married or have a S/O?

P/E: Yes.

Me: Are they technically trained?

P/E: No.

Me: Good.

When you are finished writing the manual. give it to your wife and/or S/O and have them read it.

If they can understand it, you have written a good manual.

If not, you have work to do.

All of which begs the question, What ever happened to tech manual writers, much less tech manuals?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

I did tool testing, round-ups and reviews for Popular Woodworking many years ago, and for WWJ more recently. At no time did an editor suggest I ease up. Now, subconsciously, I might have done so, but I sure didn't do it consciously. We did NOT do drop tests and similar durability checks, because those tools were tested for shop use, and because the expense is higher all around for that kind of destructive testing. First, you have to design something meaningful. I've seen carpenters screw up a cut on a second story job, and kick the saw out the window so that it dropped on concrete. Imitating that isn't sensible. Once you design the durability tests, you have to talk both the manufacturer and the editor into paying for them. First, instead of one tool that might or might not get returned, you'll find you need at least three (we're talking power hand tools here: ain't no one gonna send you three table saws, same model and specs, for one test). Second, the tester/writer/photographer has to spend much more time-- and I mean MUCH--doing the durability or destruction testing, after locating or building what's needed for the test. That means your two to three week article is now going to take eight to ten weeks. Is the editor, and by extension the publisher and the advertisers, willing to pay for that? They may be out there, but I know of NO woodworking magazine ever that has paid 8 or 10 grand for an article.

I've mangled a tool or six in my life, some by accident and some deliberately, but generally no one is willing to pay for that particular knowledge. Yes, they'd like to have it. Yes, I'd like to do it. But the money simply is not there, or at least it wasn't. It probably still isn't, especially in a down economy that appears likely to last for some time. I haven't done tool testing since taking a job I regretted ever hearing about, but I'm open for offers on replications of things like how a new Unisaw compares to an old Unisaw, which was the workhorse of decades of cabinet and furniture and hobby shop (damned saw is older than I am, at least in its basic model, and there's not much I can say that about these days). I'm also open to offers for destruction testing of things like circular saws (but not the two I have, a Festool and an old Porter-Cable), drills and various cordless tools. But I doubt I'll get the assignments, nor will anyone else.

Reply to
Charlie Self

Really? I happen to know a person who works for Wood magazine published by Meredith Publishing. He is a woodworker and does know about tools. I'd say you are just ranting and making stuff up and know about as much about how tools are really tested and by whom as you do about building a moon rocket.

Reply to
russellseaton1

On Aug 21, 1:54 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Again, I've written manuals, and I think they were pretty well done. The problem is, most distributors do NOT want to spend the price even for printing a new manual, never mind photographing and writing it. When they do pay, the amount is so small the time put into manual writing has to severely limited. Not only do most distributors also have their own ideas of what a manual should like like, the writer/ photographer runs into a lot of "givens," l'il items that the distributor thinks MUST be done a certain way. It takes more than a week to write a good manual, and there's a lot of different kinds of work involved, from studio photography of the tool and its parts to setting the tool up, running it, adjusting it, repairing it (or simulating repairs) that may double that time, IF a complete manual is done. Most are incomplete, covering assembly, adjustment and operation and can be done in about a week. But that still requires amortization of tools, photography gear, shop, etc., being included in the fee. I've got relatively low end DSLRs ($1,000 each) and relatively cheap ($400 each) studio flash units, but outfitting all that for use has cost me well over $15,000 in the past three years. Basically, I have to get around $2,000 per *incomplete* style manual to make it worth my while...that's for a stationary tool, such as a bandsaw. Obviously, it's faster and cheaper to do such a manual for a drill, cordless or corded, or a circular saw or similar small tool.

The stationary tools need a lot of heavy lifting, too, something I am beginning to avoid. At this moment, my right knee is panting, "Oxycodone, oxycodone, oxycodone" while I try to feed it Tylenol instead. Age and battering take their toll, and the thought of setting up and adjusting 24", or even 18" bandsaws, is not one I really want to entertain too often.

If you can show distributors where a better, more comprehensive and understandable manual might help him grind the faces of the competition, he might jump for it. But that's an iffy proposition. Do any of us buy tools because a manual is great or because the tool is great? Some of the worst manuals I've ever seen came with someof the best tools--Laguna's 18" bandsaw was an example. The manual was close to being an atrocity, aimed at serving for five different saws, some from of a totally different set up, which was never explained.

Reply to
Charlie Self

wrote

Gee ... and that qualifies _you_ in what manner?

Reply to
Swingman

Robert,

To pick a couple nits: I'm not sure that high speed running for however long would be a really valid test. What might work is some weighted device to hold the sander in contact with a surface being sanded for 10-15 minutes per occasion, with repeats for xxx times, plus stops to change sandpaper. Then take the sander and have the same person, over a period of days with different sanders, test how comfortable it feels in use, horizontally, vertically, maybe even overhead. See how long it takes someone to change paper. See how effective the dust collection is--overhead sanding is a great test here, IMO. With drills, it's easier, especially if you can figure a way to automate the testing. But I'd just run each drill until the fully charged battery stopped doing its job. Do the same with each drill. Zing. You got the holes per charge, at least for that particular size hole. Your arm falls off the next day, of course.

I've got one of the new Delta 17" drill presses. That's a solid pleasure to use, with a table designed for woodworking. One day, I may even hook the laser up. I'd like to see some comparisons with old types, as well as checks of drill speed, etc. Run out, of course. That's a quick and easy check. Drill presses tend to be exceptionally useful, and, often, awkward, but it seems to me this one is less awkward than older units I've used. Maybe that's just me.

If one saw is to be used with a Forrest blade, then all saws need to be used with the same, or similar, blades. In fact, a Forrest (or similar) blade can improve saw performance. It can't do a thing to help poor runout on the arbor, a lousy fence or an uneven table unevenness, among other problems. I'm all for testing saws with blades OTHER than the ones they come with, because, unlike contractors, most woodworkers ditch the original blades on tablesaws, bandsaws and such as quickly as they can. It also evens out the tests. Everyone gets off from the same set of starting blocks. Too, Tools of the Trade may be doing destruction testing. That's a magazine I never seemed to have any luck with, but it does, or did, do good work the last time I looked (late '90s).

Some kind of basics need to be set up when a test is begun, but a lot of questions are answered with tool selection, right at the outset. Specs? All 3HP table saws should produce, within fairly tight limits, the same amount of power. All 5/8" arbors should accept any good blade punched for 5/8" use, something that's not always true. Saw tables should be flat within .xxx, but there's really nothing like a consensus here, among testers or manufacturers. Fit, finish, overall appearance. It doesn't seem as if those should matter much, especially the last two, but over the years, I've found that most of the manufacturers who provide a good looking saw with a well done finish also provide other quality features.

I'd love to test the Bosch against the Festool. I have both. But I'm not going to. Why? I try not to beat up my tools. I'll still use a screwdriver to open a paint can, and even to stir the paint, but I am not going to wreck tools, or even add excessive wear to them, that I might have to replace, tax deductible or not. Some one once asked me why I didn't buy more camera lenses, because they're all tax deductible. Big problem: earning the money from which you can take the deductions.

Speaking of which, I need to do that. Earn some money. I'm writing an article on rental garages---at road racing tracks.

Reply to
Charlie Self

Leigh Jigs knows where one is.

Reply to
Leon

Snio

Some of the worst manuals I've ever seen came with someof the

Agreed here, however in very recent years starting about the time I bought my Laguna in the spring of 06 IIRC, Laguna began shipping a DVD with set up instructions. It all worked out real well with out unanswered questions or misinterpretations of what the manual meant.

Reply to
Leon

Today's officials with credentials are now qualified if they know a fella that knows of a fella... ;~)

Reply to
Leon

Hmmm, the DeWalt is going to be higher priced than the Festool...? I wonder if that means Festool will UP their price to show that theirs is better. ;)

Probably not, IIRC DeWalt will publish a "suggested retail price" and let the dealers/retailers play with pricing. Festool is pretty strict with its pricing policy.

Reply to
Leon

First, the advent of using modern electronics to create and distribute information rather than the more costly printed matter format is a great improvement IMHO.

Second, I'm confused. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to produce an O&M manual. How does the distributor fit into the process other than as a critic of past performance?

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Was told this story when I was a rookie by a senior design engineer.

Seems there was a guy who was all thumbs.

No matter what he picked up, he broke it.

Finally, plant supt had an idea.

Rather than fire the guy, he made him chief product tester and gave him his own lab space.

He got to play with every new product as part of the design process.

If he could break it, the design engineers had to "fix" the problem.

Don't know if it was just a good story or not, but it sure sounded good.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.