Sandpaper test

[Berta]

I have used those mesh for Festool and I didn’t have a problem. I do not use it to go from rough to smooth, I have a planer and wide belt sander for that. I use it for getting ready to attach my pattern, and before finishing. I do admit that I usually grab regular Klingspoor paper though.

 

[Keye]

I looked on every site mentioned and found only 2 grits which were 33 cents/per and this was on Amazon. I also found the 3M naming a little confusing. I have seen 3M Xtract, 3M Cubitron and 3M Xtract Cubitron mesh discs. Are they all the same thing or is there more than one kind of 3M mesh discs.

 

[Rushton]

3M Cubitron is a broader brand that has been available for some time. The 3M Xtract Cubitron is a subset recently released. Taylor Toolworks carries all the different grits and sizes:

https://taytools.com/products/3m%E2%84%A2-710w-ztract%E2%84%A2-sanding-discs-cubitron-ii-%E2%84%A2-hookit%E2%84%A2-hook-and-loop-attachment-clean-sand-multi-hole-dust-extraction-3-mil-film-backing

 

[JNCarr]

Thanks for sharing. My thought as the video started was "I dont care if it's 1.3 cents/ gram or 2.5cents / gram , my time is worth WAY more than the difference." So I want the stuff that removes the most the fastest. The 3M satisfied BOTH speed and cost. Awesome! Now I'd like to see a finishing grit comparison - 220 or 320 grit...

 

[cyclopentadiene]

What is the price point difference in comparison to Klingspor? Festool claims their sandpaper last longer…… however the price poibt is at least 2x Klingspor paper. I was taught woodworking by a theory to use sandpaper like someone else is paying for it. If the price is 2x then it must last at least 2x as long. Is that really the case or does it just save time?
in commercial applications, time + money but for the hobby woodworker, sanding is part of the process and is actually quite satisfying.

 

[Oka]

I use the 3 M both the Cubitron and X tract. THE solid Cubitron is better for sand articulated pieces with highs and lows. The Xtract is like the mesh, the grit get worn away or breaks off way to fast. I only use these now for higher end work and in the process of using up my old stock for roughing in.

 

[mikewhoins]

Watching

 

[Keye]

The video made a big deal about the cost of the sand paper at 41 cents each. After looking at a number of web sites and cost of the sand paper I feel the video was misleading about the cost. It appears he only tested one size and one grit. I would hesitate to assume this can be extrapolated to cover all sizes and grits. He also did not test it on different woods. The number of variables he did not test for is endless. Based on comments like Donn's and Oka's it seems there are indeed situations where other sand paper would be a better option.

Not saying this is not great sandpaper but I think he over sold it. I will buy some and expect in the right situation it will be a good option.

Testing of anything is testing . Once you burrow down in the weeds you find more questions than answers. Reducing variables is imperative and with this subject it is almost impossible to do. Some of the most difficult and frustrating things I have ever undertaken involved testing.

I do appreciate the video being posted and it did make me aware of a sand paper I did not know existed.

 

[Echd]

I do think JKM strikes me as a bit shill-y at times, something I am always on guard against in a hobby so prone to burying yourself in gadgetry that you never actually bother to do any real woodworking (is that just me, or anyone else?) but I'm not sure how the test could have been more fair given what he examined. It was a nearly perfectly made testing apparatus for what he wanted to explore that removed many variables that doing it by hand would have left.

I agree that nothing is perfect, but having an objective chart of "brand x removed y grams of test material before being used up" and comparing that against the overall cost is about as objective as one can be.

 

[Billm0066]

I do think JKM strikes me as a bit shill-y at times, something I am always on guard against in a hobby so prone to burying yourself in gadgetry that you never actually bother to do any real woodworking (is that just me, or anyone else?) but I'm not sure how the test could have been more fair given what he examined. It was a nearly perfectly made testing apparatus for what he wanted to explore that removed many variables that doing it by hand would have left.

I agree that nothing is perfect, but having an objective chart of "brand x removed y grams of test material before being used up" and comparing that against the overall cost is about as objective as one can be.

I personally used the 80 grit on my festool sander and can vouch for it. It sanded very quickly and so far seems to last longer. Still using the first piece so we will see how long it lasts.

 

[Wiley's Woodworks]

Bought the 3M X Tract straight off the video. Just finished using 120 grit for first time. Observations:

• Biggest improvement (over Klingspors aluminum oxide, my current stock) was dust collection. I used a Dewalt 5" ROS with 8 holes for dust collection. For some reason the dust is removed much more efficiently from the entire disc area through the mesh rather than just the 8 holes in a paper disc. Made whole job cleaner, and I stopped wearing a dusk mask. I'm wearing a mask enough in my ordinary day.
• Did some simple shaping; edges of the mesh broke down and frayed quicker than paper.
• Unscientific opinion is that the X Tract did remove wood faster. It took less passes to get uniform surfaces ready for 180 grit.
• IMO it's worth the $. Saves time. 80 grit probably would flatten and shape even faster than paper backed sandpaper.
• Will save used discs to wrap around sanding block for rough touch up work.

For me the ultimate test will be removing blade scorch marks with 120 grit X Tract. I normally use 80 grit for scorch marks, and that necessitates an extra step in sanding progression. If it removes scorch marks in same time it takes with 80 grit that will be a significant time saver.