Jump to content

DeWalt DCG414 Cordless Flexvolt Grinder Review


Stercorarius

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Bremon said:

Most cordless grinders seem to be 8000-8500 rpm. This is 9000. Reasonable bump.

 

I also had no plans to get any of the 2.0/6.0 black FlexVolt batteries and will be selling them when the new 3.0/9.0 yellow ones come out. The current ones are clearly a stopgap. 

 

I've seen some around 9000-10,000 RPM. But don't be fooled, no-load speeds doesn't mean squat ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Well only in the sense that 9.0 is a stopgap for 10.0, and 12.0 and so on. There's always linear progression. That said I think it was premature of them to develop the 6ah pack at all, could have waited a few months and shipped everything with 9ah using the upgraded cells and had better arguments against milwaukee 9ah pack. 

Yeah, I think Milwaukee should have done this with their 9 ah packs and waited until they could start using the better cells to really help stay ahead of the performance curve. I'm sure it's not going to make a difference for anyone with the available 9 ah packs, because they do work great already, but we all know how they love their stupid marketing claims 7x battery life 5x cooler 5x sexier .... You're right bremon, I too could go the rest of my life without seeing that on every one of their products

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hugh Jass said:

Well only in the sense that 9.0 is a stopgap for 10.0, and 12.0 and so on. There's always linear progression. That said I think it was premature of them to develop the 6ah pack at all, could have waited a few months and shipped everything with 9ah using the upgraded cells and had better arguments against milwaukee 9ah pack. 

I disagree that it's only in that sense. 9.0 is not a stopgap; it's the latest and greatest tech. XC 6.0 packs are not a stopgap; they are the latest and greatest tech. FlexVolt 2.0/6.0 IS a stopgap because they're using cells from 2+ years ago so they could get enough current draw to rush their new line to market. Opinions and all that, but this is how I see it, and imo it's plain to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KnarlyCarl said:

Yeah, I think Milwaukee should have done this with their 9 ah packs and waited until they could start using the better cells to really help stay ahead of the performance curve. I'm sure it's not going to make a difference for anyone with the available 9 ah packs, because they do work great already, but we all know how they love their stupid marketing claims 7x battery life 5x cooler 5x sexier .... You're right bremon, I too could go the rest of my life without seeing that on every one of their products

I don't actually think that using larger cells with higher current capabilities crossed any minds in Brookfield. I think they thought they were being plenty "innovative" just by slapping another row of cells in the battery and calling it a day. I could be wrong: maybe we have the bean counters to blame, but to me the wait between now and the yellow 9.0 is still shorter than the wait from January '16 to two weeks ago which is how long the HD9.0 was delayed to begin with. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bremon said:

I don't actually think that using larger cells with higher current capabilities crossed any minds in Brookfield. I think they thought they were being plenty "innovative" just by slapping another row of cells in the battery and calling it a day. I could be wrong: maybe we have the bean counters to blame, but to me the wait between now and the yellow 9.0 is still shorter than the wait from January '16 to two weeks ago which is how long the HD9.0 was delayed to begin with. 

I think we actually first heard about them the spring of 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bremon said:

They were announced in June '15 with a launch window of January '16. They showed up in September '16. 15 short months to generate and maintain hype. 

 

So the reason they were delayed was explained at the NPS '16 event. The cells they bought for production were not the same they received for testing, so apparently they had to wait all over again for the proper cells. Again with the supply chain determining the outcome 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bremon said:

The journey from test lab to store shelves can be an arduous one. I wonder who got fired for that blunder. 

More likely they stopped doing business with a certain supplier.  I'm glad they waited though because I've seen the results of just shipping with a component that didn't meet specs and reduces performance.  Doesn't work out in the long run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Member Statistics

    18,196
    Total Members
    6,555
    Most Online
    mattyuk
    Newest Member
    mattyuk
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...