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

http://popularwoodworking.com/articledisplay?id=17747

It 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?

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 lined up.

Dave - Parkville, MD wrote:
Corded and cordless. Spring-loaded riving knife and anti reverse (in
track) device.

http://popularwoodworking.com/articledisplay?id=17747

It 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?

On Aug 20, 9:15 am, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd love to get one of the
DeWalt's for a comparison.

My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that lined up.

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

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.






wrote in message
...
On Aug 20, 9:15 am, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd love to get one of the
DeWalt's for a comparison.

My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that lined up.

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

On Aug 20, 4:12 pm, "Leon" wrote:
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!

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 your 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 **** 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?

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

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

Robert

wrote:

"We found the manufacturer's instructions to be difficult to
understand, but a call to tech support helped us sort things out".

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

wrote:


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.

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

On Aug 20, 6:23 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
wrote:
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.

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.


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 he 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.

wrote:


I am pretty sick of "product testers" checking out new tools in
these
magazines.

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

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:4Fgrk.368$w51.316@trnddc01...
wrote:


I am pretty sick of "product testers" checking out new tools in these
magazines.

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

There's a story told about Henry Ford where he puts the laziest guy in
the plant on a particularly difficult process. If there's an easier way
to do it that guy will find it. G

Max

On 2008-08-21, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

When at uni in the 80's, I had a lecturer who'd been a design
engineer at Hewlett Packard. HP had a couple of guys who's sole purpose
in life was to test all products/equipment to destruction in as many
ways as they could devise.

The engineers called them "Frankenstein and Egor".

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:24:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 20, 9:15 am, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd love to get one of the
DeWalt's for a comparison.

My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that lined up.

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

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

On Aug 20, 2:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:15 am, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd love to get one of the
DeWalt's for a comparison.
My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that lined up.

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.

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.







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

wrote


Really? I happen to know a person who works for Wood magazine
published by Meredith Publishing.

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

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
wrote


Really? I happen to know a person who works for Wood magazine
published by Meredith Publishing.

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


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

On Aug 21, 9:08*am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

Really? *I happen to know a person who works for Wood magazine
published by Meredith Publishing.

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

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Did I offer my own credentials? No. Read closer. The person whom I
do know and does test products for a woodworking magazine does know
about woodworking. I have seen his results. Does this 41 shooter
person know anyone who tests products for woodworking magazines? Or
does he simply make things up to fit his story?

On Aug 20, 3:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:15 am, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd love to get one of the
DeWalt's for a comparison.
My guess, though, is that all the mags already have that lined up.

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

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.

On Aug 21, 10:04 am, Charlie Self wrote:

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

SNIP

I wasn't trying to design a test, just make a point. But then again,
you help make mine. Your idea sounds like an intelligent test, one
that could have useful results. I would really appreciate any "lab
test" that would take the time to see how a tool performed over a
period of time.

Yes, we know that a Stuttgart 450 SEL Super Sand will leave a better
end product out of the box than a middle range priced sander. But
how will that sander hold up after some real use? Is the extra
scratch worth it? As with many, I literally wear tools out or rebuild
them, so I am constantly balancing performance first, price second.

My Milwaukee tools are a good example. They used to be a 30 - 40%
premium over other "professional" tools. But worth every damn penny.
I have many of their tools and while some aren't my favorites in use,
their dependability is unquestioned.

But how are we to know these things now? Spending money doesn't mean
a good tool anymore. Relying on old reputations doesn't mean anything
anymore. With all the cross tied ownerships and most tools being
little more than a collection of assembled parts from around the
world, who knows what to buy? Without significant, practical testing,
we have to rely on word of mouth (dicey - I have a friend that thinks
the reason DeWalt tools are yellow is because they are the gold
standard) which isn't necessarily a good thing.

Pro or hobby guy, people that spend a lot of money on tools aren't
likely to express their dissatisfaction or their mistakes.

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.

A good test. My Sears Professional Drill 14.4v (that refuses to die)
for which I paid the princely sum of $52 bucks at their reconditioning
outlet will outdrive my DeWalt in a toe to toe test. How
embarrassing. I paid $229 for the DeWalt when I bought it.

I only bought the drill because I needed a backup, but I mentioned to
a buddy of mine how impressed I was with the battery life and torque.
He had bought the same drill on my advice and coming up from a B&D, he
chided me about using the Sears drill in the first place. He loved
his drill, and compared to the Sears, the DeWalt feels better in the
hand, and seems more well balanced.

But, boys will be boys. Controversy ensued, and we decided to find
out just how good our drills were.

The lab test: Two fully charged new drills, a 5# box of 1 1/2"
drywall screws, a couple of hard pine studs, and two six packs of cold
beer.

The bet (which spawned the test): My Sears drill could drive within
25% of the total number of screws the DeWalt could.

We lit the barbecue. We then put the 2x4s on some sawhorses and got
after it, driving the bugle headed screws until just flush. On
battery one, the Sears drill out drove the DeWalt by about 20 screws.
My amigo decided that he probably had a harder 2x4, and that was the
difference.

So we flipped over the 2x4s and exchanged them so I now had the
"harder" 2x4. This time the Sears drill outperformed it by only about
10 - 12 screws.

Total screws drilled per battery were in the 225 range, which was done
in the worst way for the drill and the batteries, nonstop.

It was embarrassing for both of us, since we both had the same
DeWalts. How could a Sears drill outperform such a well respected
brand? Why did I pay that much for DeWalt drill? I took mine back
and got a refund. He kept his because he had to beg his wife for the
dough to spend that much on a drill.

And the drill that wouldn't die is still in my truck tool box, still
going strong 4 years after its purchase. It is still a little
unwieldy, still a little unbalanced, and all lettering, logos, and
markings are long gone. It is scratched up badly, the keyless chuck
is a bit bent, and it has sealers and caulk all over it. But it works
every time I pull it out of the box.

When my last DeWalt 18v drill died after about 3 years of pretty good
use, I haven't seen any need to replace this drill. The backup is now
the main tool.

But my point is, that if a couple of knotheads at a Saturday barbecue
can come up with a valid test, why can't the magazines? We even
retested about a year later, and had about the same results. How hard
would that be to duplicate in a controlled lab environment?

And if it was your job and all you had to do was think things through
and be creative about how you tested drills, saws, etc., how hard
would it be to drive over to a cabinet shop, out to a job site, or
over to a furniture make and ask them what they find to be the most
important features of a tool?

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 know you were speaking in context of saws, but in the overview, I
think that is true of most tools. Either they are manufactured with
care, concern and pride, or they aren't. I think the big reveal comes
when you first examine a tool, as this is usually evident.

It is obvious (to me anyway, maybe not to you as I think you may take
it for granted) that your type of skills are what is needed in tool
testing. I miss the old days of testing (probably about 500 years
ago like everything else I am fond of) when some testers would take
the tools to the shop and test for accuracy, build, and ease of use.
Then it would go out with someone like a Tom Silva that knew how to
use them (not abuse them) and they would get his opinion. If they
were really hitting it hard, they would retest the tool in the lab
after a few months in the field.

As the homogeneous masses of Chiawanese tools continue to flood the
market, often replacing old favorites, I think we have less and less
actual choices beyond the coloring and the graphics unless we are
ready to take the big monetary leap to the Euro tools.

For someone like me that knows when purchasing that a tool could be
lost, dropped, broken, stolen, left behind or abused, it is important
to balance expenditure to realistic term of service.

In that light, I am not ready to spend $600 for a sander that will be
a target for theft on a job site.

So what is a reasonable alternative to the $600 sander? Even if I
tell myself I am buying a way of life, not a sander, it doesn't work
for me personally anyway.

How do we find credible alternatives?

That's what I am looking for.

Robert.

wrote

But my point is, that if a couple of knotheads at a Saturday barbecue
can come up with a valid test, why can't the magazines? We even
retested about a year later, and had about the same results. How hard
would that be to duplicate in a controlled lab environment?

An excellent point. Which indicate...

1) If in fact two regular guys can come up with a test, why don't they hire
those two regular guys? Cuz they don't want to create any information or
results that regular guys can use.

2) It is obvious that these so called "testers" live in their own little
world. Not much to do with ours.

3) Never underestimate the power of beer and barbecue!

On Aug 20, 8:41*am, "Dave - Parkville, MD"
wrote:
Corded and cordless. *Spring-loaded riving knife and anti reverse (in
track) device.

http://popularwoodworking.com/articledisplay?id=17747

It 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?

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

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Aug 20, 8:41 am, "Dave - Parkville, MD"
wrote:
Corded and cordless. Spring-loaded riving knife and anti reverse (in
track) device.

http://popularwoodworking.com/articledisplay?id=17747

It 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?

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.