Replies

1. 
   Robbie | Apr 21, 2003 11:50pm | #1

   John -

   I thought the same thing.  Last year I bought the Fein Turbo III for 2 reasons:  it was deathly quiet and it has the auto-on switch for coordinated use with a powertool.  I have loved what I bought, but I bought it on impulse. 

   Would have enjoyed learning how really gullible I was during The Woodworking Show.  But that is a subject for an entirely different post.

2. 
   JeffKurtz | Apr 22, 2003 02:59am | #2

   John,

   Agree article is rather weak, and it really would have been nice to see some ratings on performance.  But in the author's defense, I'd say that it's rather difficult to rate the vacuum's particle efficiency since that depends on the particular filter you use.  For my Craftsman I have the plain old $8 red stripe filter (actually, I get them for 50 cents ea.) and a $30 HEPA filter.  Big difference.  Perhaps a test of filters may be in order.

   Jeff

1. 
   Elcoholic | Apr 22, 2003 05:39pm | #3

   I agree that testing filters would be beyond the scope, but providing mfr. specs for their filters and combinations thereof would have been useful info.  The absence of this info from a mfr. would have probably been as telling as the numbers for those interested in protecting their lungs.  Besides does anyone need an article to tell them to use the big hose/wand to clean up the floor or to use the small one for hooking up a ROS?John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking

   Life is tough.  It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne

1. 
   b1gcountry | Apr 22, 2003 07:04pm | #4

   Hopefully the editors will address some of these concerns in the letters to the editors section this next month. I too was disappointed they did not even mention the efficiency of these machines when it came to either 1. amount of actual power they had, and 2. efficiency of removing small particles from the dust. We all know that the cheapest one will work good for sweeping up the floor. I had hoped they would cover issues we didn't know. (the noise ratings were useful btw.)

   Tom

3. 
   ChasStanford | Apr 22, 2003 07:17pm | #5

   Any more articles about freakin' vacuums and I might cancel my subscription.

   Who gives a poop?

1. 
   mitch | Apr 22, 2003 08:39pm | #6

   and do they always have to use the mfr's list price on equipment comparisons when everybody knows you can buy them cheaper pretty much anywhere that sells them?  another time i noticed this was in a tablesaw blade article where the price given for forrest blades was about $20 higher than the price in the forrest ad in the same issue!  other magazines have figured out the concept of"street price"- why can't fw?

   my $.02

   m

2. 
   JeffKurtz | Apr 22, 2003 10:02pm | #7

   Just don't leave the forum, Charles.  We need your voice of sanity here.  (Somehow that quiet, "unwired" voice always manages to be heard above the screams and whirrs of the planers and routers and table saws.)

   Do we need you to write an article for FW?  Something like "The Peaceful Solitude of Woodworking".

   Jeff

1. 
   ChasStanford | Apr 22, 2003 11:44pm | #9

   I know I preach with the fervency of a convert, which I am.  I appreciate your tolerating my rantings.

1. 
   JeffKurtz | Apr 23, 2003 02:40am | #11

   I was serious.  Always enjoy your posts, and you've made me think a lot about doing things in a simpler, quieter, safer way.

   Jeff

1. 
   ChasStanford | Apr 25, 2003 02:39am | #14

   Jeff, I appreciate your comments.  Mike Dunbar has written a couple of articles on building projects with handtools.  While I would love to air my philosophy, and especially dispel the huge myth that working with handtools is slow and inefficient, I doubt FW would be interested. 

   I urge you to work with handtools.  And when you do, free yourself from the mental baggage of comparing processes and procedures that you had been accomplishing with power.  Just work with the tools. 

   My workshop used to be cramped.  The other day I was telling my wife I wouldn't mind if it was a bit smaller.  I can almost create an echo in the one I'm in now.

3. 
   Elcoholic | Apr 22, 2003 10:30pm | #8

   No argument here, but if they're gonna do one, do it right.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking

   Life is tough.  It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne

1. 
   ChasStanford | Apr 22, 2003 11:47pm | #10

   Yep, if you're going to take up space with an article about vacuums it does need to completely exhaust the subject, it really needs to be a "be all and end all" article.

   I didn't read the bloody thing, I just got disgusted and went on to read Rob Millard's article about scratch stocks which was very good.  But we got no head-shot of Rob so we don't know what the bloke looks like.

4. 
   SIMON | Apr 24, 2003 11:43pm | #12

   I actually liked the article. Rather than spending huge amounts of time arguing about what the "real" specs of these things are, it focused on how usable they were. Talking about horsepower and suction here seems unnecessary - they aren't designed to suck everything out of your shop, just to sweep it up. I have no idea why manufacturers seem intent on selling them as powerful beasts.

   I've yet to find a shop vac that didn't function just fine as a basic vac, but all the details make a huge difference over time. Noise levels, a switch that turns on the vac when you turn on a power tool, and how well you can drag the vac all matter a lot more to me than actual HP or column-inches. Filters can make a huge difference, but these aren't really tools designed to help your lungs.

   (And yes, I do clean up lathe and plane shavings with a vacuum at times.)

1. 
   HowardAcheson | Apr 25, 2003 01:55am | #13

   Simon, I agree with you. From my experience all the major shop vaccuums are more than adequate in suction. I too, though the article amply covered what is useful about vacuums without a lot of other basicly irrelevent specifications. Things like filter placement and it's relation to capacity and noise were more relevent to me.