|
Post by henrun on Jun 16, 2017 15:51:19 GMT -5
"Or what about plugging a few gaps in the existing range, too? Such as a more effective EC-motored impact driver. A better performing Sabre Saw? An brushless small (160-165mm) circular? Or a dedicated metal cutting circular saw?
Metabo alone currently boasts in excess of 80 different tools running on their 18v platform. When combined with the Metabo batteried output of both Mafell & Rothenberger in addition, this makes for a pretty comprehensive, but not as yet all-encompassing cordless suite of tools. All the more surprising when one considers that a mere 10-15 years ago Metabo's cordless offerings were almost as abysmal & poorly performing as Festool's current range!"
Very detailed reply - much appreciated!
I agree to the analysis. There seems to be a dual approach to Metabo's future plans that are somewhat in conflict with each other. On one hand they seem to still produce top quality and enduring machines and at the same time they are plugging a few holes in the line up with underwhelming products tossed in the mix.
I mentioned before that I bought a Metabo STA 100 jigsaw that looked a bit like a Carvex in shape. Bought it unseen and was expecting a standard performer for menial tasks at the shop. However it was a very flimsy and simply put: a crap tool with severe vibrations. I was literally shocked at how poor it was. Sent it back and got a refund - it did put a dent in my appreciation of Metabo.
Still, all the gear I use are still ticking on and they simply "do the job". Would love a little more finesse in some aspects but as a whole I am still happy with my choice. Batteries are top notch and last a long time.
|
|
|
Post by skinee on Jun 16, 2017 16:35:08 GMT -5
calidecks can you say if the blades you have ordered with your kss50 are indeed 168mm in diameter(and this is not a typo),were you advised that this is the correct size of blade for the saw?,if it is a new size blade I can see the advantage of squeezing out a little more depth of cut but the disadvantage would be that the customary 160mm blades could not be used.
|
|
|
Post by calidecks on Jun 16, 2017 21:37:28 GMT -5
calidecks can you say if the blades you have ordered with your kss50 are indeed 168mm in diameter(and this is not a typo),were you advised that this is the correct size of blade for the saw?,if it is a new size blade I can see the advantage of squeezing out a little more depth of cut but the disadvantage would be that the customary 160mm blades could not be used. Yes it is 168mm. I'm not seeing any reason you couldn't use a 160mm as long as you don't need the depth.
|
|
|
Post by henrun on Jun 17, 2017 1:00:35 GMT -5
It would make sense to have a 160mm blade for cutting delicates, like laminate/veneered boards which are seldom thick enough to warrant a full d.o.c blade. If a very good blade is available in 160mm, that is, and if you don't have another track saw. For me, I am going with the universal blade plus one spare and a rip blade. Not sure I would get a fine tooth blade for it. For flooring/laminate I still expect my little wonder to work it's magic. The thing I really look forward to is building dividing walls etc which I did with the KSS60cc - I did all the cuts, studs, mdf, osb with the one saw. I realized as I was typing that the KSS 50 will do the same job just as well. I can even foresee both saws in action at the next major interior renovation. Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by mafelluser on Jun 17, 2017 10:14:52 GMT -5
I'd like to see a clear series of images (different views/angles) of KSS 40 alongside KSS 50, to get a clear indication of overall size/bulk.
Hopefully someone here will be able to provide such, in due course!
|
|
|
Post by skinee on Jun 17, 2017 14:44:44 GMT -5
calidecks can you say if the blades you have ordered with your kss50 are indeed 168mm in diameter(and this is not a typo),were you advised that this is the correct size of blade for the saw?,if it is a new size blade I can see the advantage of squeezing out a little more depth of cut but the disadvantage would be that the customary 160mm blades could not be used. Yes it is 168mm. I'm not seeing any reason you couldn't use a 160mm as long as you don't need the depth. thankyou,of course you are right you could use a 160mm blade if need be but it would be an advantage to have to buy just one size of blade for all these similar sized saws(mt55,kss400,kss50) and of course the festool and other brand 160mm blades would have been another option and perhaps a little cheaper, I'm also curious about the blade size,i wonder why mafell felt the need to increase the blade size for this saw given that the mechanics(depth of rail,pivot point etc.) most likely remain the same as the kss400,perhaps the specs will show an increase in depth of cut over the kss400,it will also be interesting to see if a 168mm blade can be accommodated in the kss400 thereby boosting the depth of cut.
|
|
|
Post by huntsgemein on Jun 17, 2017 21:06:05 GMT -5
I "grew up" (although my wife says I'm still not there yet!), using larger saws. Typically Makita's 5900B (235 x 25.4) & my trusty, rusty old Elu MH85 (240 x 30), so anything smaller looks & feels,.....well, small! For decades these 9 1/4" saws were all you'd see in workshops, building sites and even schools all over the country. It's only in the last decade or 2 that smaller 7 1/4" (185mm) saws have become the standard. This is still a good inch (or about half that in depth of cut) bigger than these much smaller saws you're discussing. Smaller saws in those days were considered a mite effete and insubstantial, & realistically in comparison to a 235mm monster they possibly were.
How things have changed. The crucial aspect of the 7 1/4" saw design was its capability of cutting through a full 2" (52mm) of hardwood scantling when bevelled over. Just as contemporary building materials have changed so too have the tools. The new "standard" stud, plate, rafter & truss dimensions are now 90 x 38mm, or nominally 4" x 1 1/2". These days they tend to be standard dimensioned (length too) dressed & kiln dried P. radiata plantation softwood. The old green (i.e. recently cut, or wet) Tas Oak "fourbytwo" have all but gone the way of the dodo. With the crucial thickness dimension now at least 25% less, the saws have become smaller too. A good thing, too. Those old 9 1/4" saws were big, heavy, dangerous bastards. Smaller saws are much safer, easily handled, more accurate and seemingly (if it's a good one) just as powerful.
I suspect that this 38mm or 1 1/2" thickness is probably more or less some sort of global "standard" dimension for softwood scantling, as anything less (in timber anyway) is perhaps getting a mite insubstantial from a structural integrity perspective.
So, any serious construction saw still must take into account that previously mentioned crucial 38mm bevel cut. Without this adequate depth, it becomes slightly useless on any construction site, at least for framing & 1st. fix duties anyway. I therefore personally hail Mafell's decision to nominally increase the blade size marginally, hopefully to adequately accommodate this crucial dimension. It effectively upgrades the new saws' capabilities from the "useful" to something approaching the "indispensible".
|
|
|
Post by henrun on Jun 18, 2017 2:18:45 GMT -5
I'd like to see a clear series of images (different views/angles) of KSS 40 alongside KSS 50, to get a clear indication of overall size/bulk. Hopefully someone here will be able to provide such, in due course! Place that imaginary KSS 50 saw in the middle of these two and remove the _plug_ and add a battery: The form factor of the KSS 50 18m is nice, it looks sleek but I don't think there will be a question as to which one is more comfortable in use out of the three. The KSS 40 is sweet.
|
|
|
Post by henrun on Jun 18, 2017 2:26:02 GMT -5
After a few days pondering I am sure I will keep the KSS40 - it is a brilliant little piece of kit. Much as I try not to hoard track saws my conclusion is that the KSS 50 will be used a lot - but the KSS 40 is still the go to saw for a lot of things and in the most convenient package.
The MT55cc I see no point in selling though I seldom use it. I think I will permanently transfer it to the shop. But even there it is challenged by the KSS saws. A few weeks back we got a load of oversized boards that would not fit in the elevator so had to be rough cut to size on the loading dock. The little KSS 40 and a 3000mm rail made short work of it. It was a big pile of boards and only two notches down on the battery when done.
I would love to have a KSS 40 dedicated to the shop but I am not that extravagant.
|
|
|
Post by henrun on Jun 18, 2017 2:41:07 GMT -5
"I suspect that this 38mm or 1 1/2" thickness is probably more or less some sort of global "standard" dimension for softwood scantling, as anything less (in timber anyway) is perhaps getting a mite insubstantial from a structural integrity perspective." So, any serious construction saw still must take into account that previously mentioned crucial 38mm bevel cut. Without this adequate depth, it becomes slightly useless on any construction site, at least for framing & 1st. fix duties anyway. I therefore personally hail Mafell's decision to nominally increase the blade size marginally, hopefully to adequately accommodate this crucial dimension. It effectively upgrades the new saws' capabilities from the "useful" to something approaching the "indispensible". " Over here in Sweden the base size is 45mm. 45x45/70/95mm planed and rounded edges are the most common for interior use/framing. I've only used 120mm once. For heavier applications larger dimensions are available and glued laminate or jointed/glued planed larger sizes are usually 42mm in thickness for some reason unknown to me. Currently working a project with 56x270mm. Had to flip the beam to cut the 56mm with the KSS40. The KSS 50 would not have helped much but with all the 34x145 that needed to be cut and ripped I would have loved the KSS 50 for those two weeks of decking... ...the KSS 40 did the job though.
|
|
|
Post by shokunin on Jun 18, 2017 6:23:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mafelluser on Jun 18, 2017 9:36:13 GMT -5
Reading the german description it mentions the blade guard has built in LEDS that illuminate the cut line. Well, it's about time!! Now they need to roll that feature out, across the entire range, pronto.
|
|
|
Post by huntsgemein on Jun 18, 2017 9:45:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mafelluser on Jun 18, 2017 9:48:38 GMT -5
calidecks can you say if the blades you have ordered with your kss50 are indeed 168mm in diameter(and this is not a typo),were you advised that this is the correct size of blade for the saw?,if it is a new size blade I can see the advantage of squeezing out a little more depth of cut but the disadvantage would be that the customary 160mm blades could not be used. Yes it is 168mm. I'm not seeing any reason you couldn't use a 160mm as long as you don't need the depth. Additional confirmation:
|
|
|
Post by mafelluser on Jun 18, 2017 9:54:47 GMT -5
That KSS50 catalogue confirms 58mm DOC.
|
|