Coming GCSS Tool Reviews.....PICS

[Dennis Peacock]

Good afternoon everyone.

I have some good news. Festool cooperated with me, thanks to Uncle Bob Marino, to allow me to perform an evaluation of the Festool GCSS. I am currently outlining how to best evaluate each GCSS:

1. The Festool Saw and GuideRail System
2. The Eurekazone GuideRail with my own Circular Saw

I have a complete Festool "System" here now and finished unpacking it this afternoon. I have the Circular Saw, short and LONG GuideRails and the CT 22E Vac.

I am working on a set of "test rules" that will best suit the testing of both systems. I'm doing the Festool setup now because Festool agreed to send me the items necessary to evaluate it and enough time to perform and post my evaluation of the Festool GCSS. This will allow me proper time to evaluate the Eurekazone GRS while at the Dallas BBQ this month. Honestly, I didn't feel "comfortable" evaluating BOTH setups at the BBQ as proceedure, steps and tests could "waiver" and not be considered equal and fair to both systems.

My plan is to "fairly" and "honestly" evaluate each GCSS and post my findings. I will have the Festool eval done within the next 2 weeks due to JOB workloads, family needs, and projects I have pressing in my shop for people that I have committed to.

I want YOUR input to help me build a list of "tests" for each system fairly and then I will post my eval of the saw and vac seperately from the GuideRail Systems of Festool and Eurekazone.

<b>This is NOT to stir up a fight between members or vendors.!!!!</b> Remember that I'm posting "my" eval of the GCSS's and I am not a part of either vendor nor am I getting paid to do this by either vendor. I'm doing this for my own benefit and to post my findings to the general membership of SMC that are interested in my findings.

Remember, I will not be evaluating the Eurekazone GR setup until the Dallas BBQ.

Here are three pics of the Festools items.

1. The saw.
2. The Vac.
3. Both Long and Short GR's.

[Frank Pellow]

That's great Dennis. I am happy that finally an impartial person with good woodworking skills is good to compare these two systems.

[Betsy Yocum]

Dennis - I think that is the same vac I used when I took classes this summer at American Sycamore. If it is, and I think it is, the one gripe I had was the attachment for the hose to the sander was not tight enough and it slipped off one to many times for such an expensive piece of equipment. I think they would have been better served to have a clip type system that you have to push on and off. Otherwise it's just a tight fit - like a can in a kuzzie.

I thought it ran very quietly as well. The other thing that's not really a gripe but something they could probably do a better job on is the wheel system - its a bit gangly to move around the shop.

Hope that helps.

Betsy

[Kevin Gerstenecker]

Dennis, I would stick to the "basics" on the evaluation of each system. Take into consideration that these systems could be used by the seasoned woodworker, and the hobbiest woodworker. By the basics, I mean things like the instruction manuals. How thorough they are in explaining the proper set up and use of each system? Set up time and adjustment. Is one easier to set up and use than the other? The quality of the components. Are they built to last, and hold up to the rigors of professional use, and the occasional abuse they may be subjected to by the hobbiest woodworker? (You know what I mean.........we all screw things up occasionally, don't we?) ;) Other than that, just the "inquiring minds want to know" things. How good to they work? Do they do what they are advertised to do? Are they easy to use? Are the results what YOU expect? Are they accurate? I look forward to seeing an objective, unbiased comparison of each system, and the differences that are unique to each system as well. I know you will be fair Dennis..............it may not make everyone happy, but comparisons rarely do. Good luck! :)

[Jim Becker]

What Kevin said. Keep "real" use in mind, but also look carefully at cut quality and for any sloppyness in how things fit together as that will greatly affect repeatability, not to mention the aforementioned cut quality! While I'd prefer dust control to also be a part of the test, that would not be a fair comparison with the two systems.

[Frank Pellow]

Dennis, a place to start might be the tasks that Dino lists in the Eurekazone Challenge at his web site. These are:

1. trim a door without splintering.
2. trim and fit a cabinet filler.
3. cross cut a plywood without chipping.
4. trim and fit a finished countertop.
5. straighten rough lumber.
6. trim and fit a refrigerator side panel.
7. trim the frame of a cabinet from 1/8" to 1/16" .
8. make a tapered column.
9. Why not a fluted tapered column.

[Dennis Peacock]

Frank,

Good ideas here...but I don't have spare finished counter tops just laying around waiting to be cut in to 100 little bitty pieces, nor do I have a refrigerator that needs wooden side panels.

We'll stick to the basics and I'll gather what SMC'ers post and what I come up with and will compile the entire list and perform the steps.

[Todd Burch]

Dennis, I'm thinking a variety of woods and wood products. MDF & birch veneer core plywood for the sheet goods. The MDF will let you see the quality of cut and be a good litmus test for dust pickup. Cheap birch plywood will be a good test for chipout on both sides of the cut. Crosscut, rip and diagonal. If the ply is prefinished with a dark stain, chipout is easier to see.

For solid woods, test #2 pine (pitch build-up), cherry or maple (likely to burn) & red oak or poplar, all in crosscut and rip modes.

You should use the same support system for both tests. This could be sawhorses, a 1/2 lap grid of 1X4s, a Multi-function type table, etc.

Todd

[Dennis Peacock]

Todd,

Excellent input!!!! This is the stuff I want ya'll to provide me so that the general membership will also feel that the testing done is fair to both products.

[Steve Clardy]

Festool has the collection system. Eureka doesn't. So--Unless you have a Porter Cable saw with the dust tube, how are you to compare dust collection?
Maybe just forget that part of it?

Steve

[Bob Hovde]

I know you're not doing the tests at the same time, but it might be good to use the same test items (pieces of plywood, boards, etc.) from the first test on the second whenever possible to eliminate at least one variable.

Bob

[Jack Diemer]

I think a second opinion is required for this test. I must caviat that if I do it, it will take about a 15 year evaluation time period. ;) :D

[John Weber]

Dennis,

I agree with Bob, the test should be done at the same time. To limit the number of variables, try to test both units together. It also seems that blade quality could be an issue. I would consider using the same blade on both saws. Either buying a second Festool blade, using one blade for both saws (changing between test), or buying an aftermarket blade such as a Forrest circular saw blade. Dust collection could be measured, but my guess is the Festool will out perform a PC with dust pickup or other saw. Might just add a note to the Festool "pro" column - "built-in dust collection".

John

[Jim Becker]

I would consider using the same blade on both saws. Either buying a second Festool blade, using one blade for both saws (changing between test), or buying an aftermarket blade such as a Forrest circular saw blade. Buying "identical" Forrest blades (or similar) and having them bored to fit each saw may be the only way to accomplish this. The ATF55 uses a 20mm bore. The diameter is also different...it's smaller on the Festool from what most circular saws use.This would also means the test is no longer "low-cost"...

Perhaps the best way will be to use a blade on the non-Festool saw that is the same kerf width and with a similar tooth grind/configuration to the Festool blade.

[John Weber]

Jim,

My guess is a blade as a lot to do with the end result, so it would be important to address. Maybe our buddy at Forrest, or 3DSawBlades (I think that was the name) from the Forrest threads the last 6 weeks, might be willing to step up and help Dennis out. I think it's to important to overlook. Kind of like testing cabinet saws with the OEM blade.

John

[Frank Pellow]

...

Perhaps the best way will be to use a blade on the non-Festool saw that is the same kerf width and with a similar tooth grind/configuration to the Festool blade.

That seems the best way to go. I would add the the blade should cost about the same amount as the "standard" blade that comes with the Festool saw (that is $37).

[Jim Becker]

That seems the best way to go. I would add the the blade should cost about the same amound as the "standard" blade that comes with the Festool saw (that is $37).I agree, Frank. The testing should be with the same kind of setups, including blades, that most folks would actually be using on either of the systems. Only a small percentage of people invest in a Forrest WW-II for a hand-held circular saw, even though it could offer super advantages in cut quality when teamed with a GCSS. (I know several folks who HAVE bought the blade, although I'm not one of them...)

But as previously posted by others, using the same support system and materials is the next level of critical test environment that really does need to be maintained.

[John Weber]

Dennis,

You might want to shoot Ellis Walentine over at WoodCentral a note. He's done more testing then most, and it already looks like there could be several debatable topics (like the blades), that could bring into question the test results. Just adding to your full plate, buddy.

At least have fun - John

[Kelly C. Hanna]

Dennis, it's great that you are able to do this and we all thank you. I am excited to hear the outcome.

The only thing I can add is the most important thing to me about any guided rail system for a saw. How much does the rail flex (more than the stock specs imply?) during a long rip or crosscut? I'm sure they list a tolerance like 1/64th or 1/32nd in their paperwork. Other than that these guys have it covered very well. Todd's points were right on the money as to what I would have asked for besides the flex.

[Chris Padilla]

It is unrealistic to worry over the blade. Whomever purchases Festool saw will have to use Festool blades...whomever uses non-Festool saw will purchase, well, non-Festool blades.

Dino's claim, I believe, was that even a cruddy blade could still cut nicely with his system. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, of course.

Get as similar a blade as you can, I guess. :)

Above all of us telling what you should do, Dennis, just have fun and use the two systems as you think you would use them. We all have our different ideas about them. Dino's list is decent starting point but be sure to use the product as YOU would use it, too. :)

[JayStPeter]

Some of my thoughts thrown together:

Blades - Eurekazone claims that they get chipout free cuts with cheap stock blades. So, it should at least be thrown into the mix, if only as an aside. But, having a good blade for apples to apples would be good. I don't think the Forrest is necessary.

Dust Collection - Fair or not, it is a consideration when comparing the two systems. So, maybe use a PC saw with a dust port as the test mule. Just to give a basis of comparison on that point. Using the same vac would be a plus (Festool or not).

Accuracy and repeatability - They are my problems with GCSSs in general. I guess in this apples to apples test, the only real way to test this is to make some cuts using the same method (ie story stick) and see which (if either) system consistently measures out closer to parallel and the desired size. Also, check cuts with straightedges to see if either is better. There could be a line of sight issue or something that gives one an advantage here.

Spec related - does one allow for smaller (i.e width) or larger parts to be cut than the other.

My test category list would be (in no particular order):
- cut quality
- accuracy and repeatability
- ease/speed of use
- dust collection

Finally, provide a true cost for each system "as tested". This will finally give a real delta for basis of comparison. I think every one of the "comparison" threads has had as many cost deltas as posters. :D

Jay

[Jerry Golick]

I tend to agree with Chris that the quality of the blades is not an issue. For that matter, neither is dust collection. The common denominator between Eureka and Festool is the rail system, therefore I think that should be the basis for the "comparative" tests.

Of course, if you want to mention something about the quality of the Festool ATF-55, its blades, the auto switch, etc, go ahead. I just don't see what it has to do with Eureka. Unless you can get the ATF-55 to fit onto the Eureka rail. That would make the test fair I think.

You could look at ripping, crosscuts, clamping systems, attachments, options, etc. For example, the Festool system has two very interesting clamping system that work with the rails. I am sure Eureka must have the same. How do they compare for setup time, accuracy, etc?

While I am interested in the results, I find the test a bit strange. Festool is a complete integrated system of products. For example, I can't imagine getting the full value of using a Festool setup without the MFT and the OF-1000 router, plus the various stops and clamps I have picked up. I realize that Eureka is a system as well, but it is a guiding system intended to be used with 3rd party tools. This makes the products kinda different.

In my case, since I didn't own a router or a CS (or a TS for that matter), the Festool system made sense. OTOH - if I already had a bunch of tools, and wanted a more accurate way to use them, the Eureka system would have a great deal of appeal.

Just my .02

Be seeing you,

Jerry

[Bob Reda]

What I'm seeing is a comparison of apples to oranges. The Festool ATF-55 is part of a system that includes dust collection. Its also a plunge saw so it should be compared to a plunge saw right?? If you just want to compare the cuts that would only be part of the Festool ATF-55. In this case you would be trying to compare a multi function tool to a stand alone. The blade on the Festool is standard for the Festool so why not use that. Just my .02 .

Bob

[Gary Max]

Not to be stupid ----- I had never even heard of Festool until I came to this site.
As part of the paper you write think a little broader.
who would buy these systems and where would the be most likey used?
Just a thought

[Frank Pellow]

I am thinking of a couple of things to do with set-up speed. I expect that the Eureka is better for one and the Festool for the other.

The first is ripping long (at least 8') narrow (say 5") boards down the middle. I had to do exactly that this afternoon when ripping battens for my workshop. The inner flywheel came off my old Craftsman tablesaw that I had been using for ripping. I "fixed" it three times but every time it came off after about 5 minutes use. I finally gave up and resorted to the Festool guide. I started with 12" boards and the ripping worked fine until I had "shaved" a board down to about 5". After that I had to clamp another board beside it in order to use the guide. This, clamping. of course took more time. It was just as accurate, but it took more time. I understand that the Eureka system does not have this problem with narrow boards (but maybe I understand wrong becuase I have never seen a Eureka rail and I can't imagine how they avoid the problem).

The second is simply the set up time for any "normal" cut. I find that about 95% of the time the clamps are not necessary on the Festool. I don't think that Eureka support a "clamp free" operation.

[Jerry Golick]

Frank: I think those are excellent points. Like you, I have never used the Eureka system, though I have read about it. How each system handles ripping narrow pieces would make a good comparison in a review. And to what degree of accuracy?

I just had another thought. What about the length of cut possible with each system's guide as a metric? That should count for something I would think.

[Dennis Peacock]

Ok...folks.....I wanted to avoid this bit of argument.

I will review the following:

Festool Circular Saw - seperate item review
Festool Vac - seperate item review.
Festool Short and Long GuideRails - combined review with the Eurekazone Guide Rail setup.

I will be using my DeWalt Circular Saw with a Brand New Blade on it of my choosing. I'm NOT doing this to please every member of SMC. I'm doing this of my own accord, at my own expense and on my own time. If I can't use my own Circular Saw for the test on the Eurekazone rail, then I'll use Steve's circular saw and will provide a new blade for testing purposes.

I will get familiar with the Festool setup but I can't take the LONG GR to Dallas with me as it will NOT fit in my car. :eek: :D

I will not be posting any more about this until the review is OVER.

[Lawrence See]

Dennis, I guess I have thought a lot about the guide rails.

How straight is the long rail joined up from two pieces? Does it stay straight after handling (normal bumps, etc), especially if you sort of grab it in the middle while moving it around?

How easy is it to accurately position the rail? Do you really need spacers/simple jigs? Will it really stay in place without clamps or is that expecting too much (especially with dusty rubber strips)?

Enquiring minds want to know :confused: .

Regards, Larry

[Ken Salisbury]

Ok...folks.....I wanted to avoid this bit of argument.

I will review the following:

Festool Circular Saw - seperate item review
Festool Vac - seperate item review.
Festool Short and Long GuideRails - combined review with the Eurekazone Guide Rail setup.
I will not be posting any more about this until the review is OVER.

Dennis,

I am sure whatever testing/comparisions you do will be beneficial to the forum readers. You are taking your own time to do this service and yet you are being told "how to do it". I suggest "you do it your way", and let those who want it done differently make their own test/comparisons.
:D