|
Post by jonathan on Sept 9, 2013 15:53:13 GMT -5
Excellent news!
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 10, 2013 22:46:24 GMT -5
Here are some pictures of my idea using the rail connectors for parallel guides. I have received some valid feedback on this forum already but think pictures can move the discussion forward. I appreciate negative feedback for obvious reasons. I will post a few more pictures then make a list of the strengths & weaknesses in my opinion, as far as I have thought through it. I think the rulers would only need to be 24-30" which would give the capacity of a standard job site table saw. The rulers in the pic are just the ones I have on hand and are pretty standard.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 10, 2013 22:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on Sept 10, 2013 23:11:36 GMT -5
interesting, simple yet smart. specific rail lengths are needed for this set up though. Might not work for everyone
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 10, 2013 23:17:45 GMT -5
I picture using a small rail like the f80 to separate out the two arms. Again feedback is much appreciated. My opinions so far are as follows with no intention of being all inclusive:
STRENGTHS- Simple; top mount on board being cut just like the track itself; doesn't limit bevel cuts; accurate without double checking with a tape; can be removed fast and easy; compact when removed from rail; durable if welded to the rulers; fast to change cut lengths (only 2 thumbscrews).
WEAKNESSES: No cuts under about 6"; married to two rail connectors ($140); need many sizes of rails to customize length.
The biggest weakness is the need for short cuts. I have a few ideas on this but none are perfect yet. I think most of us on this forum have been able to justify cost but only when it either increases efficiency or quality in excess of the money spent.
Also the semi-permanance of welding the rulers to the rail connector is a bit annoying as an experiment of an idea. the weld could be ground off of course but my connectors would no longer be beautiful:)
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 10, 2013 23:26:57 GMT -5
interesting, simple yet smart. specific rail lengths are needed for this set up though. Might not work for everyone I agree. I ordered the longest rail (310 I think) when I ordered the saw and they cut off 16" for shipping purposes so that little chunk has come in handy many times and would help in this strange application too.
|
|
|
Post by fidelfs on Sept 11, 2013 7:05:24 GMT -5
I have been thinking about a solution since magnets won't work. Could it be than attaching it to the rails is not a good idea on this rails? Part of the invention or discovered by scientific teams is to have isolated teams, they communicate between the same group, but different groups don't talk to each other. This prevents the contamination of thoughts, one team might go one route and the other in a completely different one. Could it be we want to attach the parallel guides to rails, because the festool were attached to rail as well? Do they need to? What if we have something fast that doesn't need to be attached to the rails? will it work? could it be the festool way has contaminated our thoughts? I don't know. Well that has been in my head for quite some time. Why don't make the same principle, but butting up the rails to the parallel guides. One problem that I had with the festool ones, was when after the cut, moving the rails was not easy. The guides were hanging when I lifted the rails, I didn't like it. If we butt the parallel guides to the rails and then use a clamp to hold one side, then go to the other side butt it agains the other parallel guide. It will be fast to do it, so it can be done without the attachment to the rails. That is what we do it on a table saw, butt the wood against the fence and it works. In this case the fence are the 2 parallel guides. Another thought is using fastcap flat tape measure: www.amazon.com/FastCap-Flatback-Story-Pole-Foot/dp/B00066YARM/ref=sr_1_9?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1378900710&sr=1-9&keywords=fastcap+tape+measure I have one metric,then you measure from the sacrificial strip and you use the tape case as a stop. Simple and accurate.
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on Sept 11, 2013 7:37:41 GMT -5
This is more along the lines of whati was thinking
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 11, 2013 8:26:17 GMT -5
Fidelfs- you could be right about the thought process contamination because of what we are familiar with. I have never seen in person or used the festool rails. The mafell is my first track saw. That said I have seen enough of them to realize that they hook to the track by some method but other than that I am not at all familiar with them. However I am also only vaguely familiar with the mft table but immediately think of something very similar for a system of parallel guides incorporated into a table like the bump/ stop system that GhostFist has commented on in the past. Would this require an unusually large table? I will spend time thinking about options not using anything attached to the rails too.
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on Sept 11, 2013 10:48:09 GMT -5
Pardon my lazy renders and fanatical ramblings regarding my parallel guide ideas. I envision the guides to be attached along the side of a work table via a t-track, incra or whatever suits your fancy. This would allow them to be positioned anywhere along the edge of a work table to suit what you're building, and removable when not required. the size of the table needs only be long enough to support your work. using the guides in this manner I figure the jigs would need the following requirements; -height adjustability, a simple mechanism not unlike what is used on a festool mft's cross cut supports to accommodate differing thicknesses of material. - a hinging mechanism to raise the guides out of the way (while maintaining their settings for width of rip) in order to remove your cut piece and replace with your next rip.
In fact, if you think of the cross cut support on the mft (the hinging side) this is pretty much exactly how I envision the jig to work. the exception being, instead of a rail that is being hinged it would be your adjustable guide. Once set, you bump your rail up against the two bumpers and make your cut.
Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 11, 2013 22:56:34 GMT -5
Are both the rail and the adjustable guide attached to the table? I am still having a hard time imagining it being able to both support the sheet of wood being ripped and not allowing the cutoff to fall onto the floor unless the table is both long and wide, especially wide. I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Post by GhostFist on Sept 11, 2013 23:28:24 GMT -5
it would work the same way as any existing parallel guide system with the exception of them not being attached to the rail. The guides just act as a constant reference to bump the rail up to. make the measurements on your first piece as you would only using a guide rail and place the rail as normal. adjust the parallel guides so they are just touching the rail and lock at that setting. Make your cut. move the next piece into position, flop your guides down and slap the rail up to them. cut again...
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 12, 2013 20:49:41 GMT -5
ah, I think I get it. Very simple. Would it also require a plan B for rips that are less than the width of the rails?
|
|
|
Post by 7 on Sept 12, 2013 21:12:30 GMT -5
I think the woodpecker attachment would work well for the bump type you guys (GhostFist, Fidelfs) are referring to. It is wide enough that it would help keep the guide at a straight 90 deg. Such a simple concept that I couldn't see it. Weird. I also just realized that it would work the same way if you bumped the rubber side of the track. I guess I should wait longer than 10 seconds before posting. Narrow rips would not be an issue. The bump idea I think is better and way cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by nyctinyshop on Oct 11, 2013 4:02:18 GMT -5
|
|