96 mm MFT hole spacing

[Sparktrician]

Hi, Sparktrician,

Although I have studied transcripts of the Standards Committee meetings, I have found no discussion of any particular set-back of hole rows. Perhaps this is because parts would functionally interchange even if the set back were to be different. On the other hand, there was a lot of discussion before 80mm up from the bottom fixed shelf and down from the fixed top shelf became a standard. Remember, the 80mm is measured on the inside from the inner face of the shelf, not necessarily the physical end of the side piece.

Reading the hundreds of books about using System 32, the common explanation for the 37mm from off-set is that experience soon showed that if the front shelf support were off-set more an empty shelf would tip forward and if less than 37mm the support pins would be too far apart for ideal support. I have not found bench note from experiments. I like to think hundreds of apprentices were required to drill test holes every millimeter from 30mm to 60mm so tipping tests could be done.

Also, one of the first post-WWII European-style cabinet door hinge needed a hole 37mm in from the face of the cabinet. My guess is this is the reason most of us use the 37mm off-set.

At about the same time as the hinges using 37mm off-set became popular, manufacturers designed drawer slides using a 37mm off-set for the forward hole.

My suggestion is to double check the installation specs of the selected hardware before calling for the 37mm off-set for the outside hole row!

Thanks very much for your insights, Carroll.  This is the sort of information that most literature I've seen on the 32mm system does not discuss.  It certainly adds to my understanding of the system to have an infill. 

[smile]

 

[newbirdhunter]

Great thread! FOG just plain rocks!

 

[Claimdude]

Why holes on MFTs are spaced at 96 mm? Why not 100 mm for a round number and convenience of referencing / measuring? Yes, I know, there is standard 32 mm shelf pin spacing, but that is what LR32 rail system for. What does it have to do with the table top? The only instance I know of something matching to 96 mm pattern is Kapex feet, but then again Kapex was made to fit MFT, not the other way around. Is there anything in Festool arsenal that requires dog holes to be that way?

This all comes down to many attempts by users to make their own tables mimicking Festool plates, although other (not necessarily square) hole patterns might be more practical.

Is that 96mm center to center of hole? What is the distance from the center of an outside hole to the edge of the wood top? I am looking to having a friend with a CNC make a custom sized top for me and need to know the exact dimensions.

Thanks
  Jack

 

[tbellemare]

It is 96mm hole-to-hole (centers) and 70mm to the edges (center to edge).

Tom

 

[ccarrolladams]

Just remember the 70mm edge of top to hole center only applies to the actual Festool tops.

When custom making your own tops of other sizes, such as 4' x 8' you need to stick to the 96mm on center for the field holes.

 

[RONWEN]

Using the 48" x 96" example the spacing from the edges will be as shown (for a 13x25 hole array).

[attachthumb=#]

 

[DaveTTC]

This is one I have pondered since looking into the MFT dog hole system. I have tried to research this myself and could find no real need for these hole centres on the MFT other than possibly the following

* If you reference your cut off a dog then using another dog hole spacing would give you a panel at 96mm intervals without needing to measure or use other stops. Even then you would need to leave panel in place and move the saw track. However without experimenting I believe even in this instance you would be out the thickness of your kerf. Before making your second cut you would need to slide the piece you want to close the kerf gap against the waste then make your cut. All so complicated I think I’ll use a fence, tape and stop

Aside from the above there appears to be no reason for the 96mm spacing other than one alluded to earlier in their post. Based on the 32 mm boring centres that was made standard for machinery, it would appear Festool used this machinery to bore their holes for the MFT which now has become standard.

For lack of other clarification I would conclude that 100 mm spacing would be superior particularly for those who prefer metric.

 

[Cheese]

I've always supported the explorer mentality...so go forth and use the 100mm spacing and let us know how well it works. Seriously, it'd be interesting to see the results.

 

[onocoffee]

@DaveTTC The 20x96mm grid pattern is just what Festool went with and it's become the de facto standard for a lot of woodworkers. That said, there's no regulation that forces you to conform. Where it may help is if you end up getting accessories or devices that are dependent on that 96mm spacing, but I haven't seen much of that.

A lot of systems in the USA use 3/4" (19mm) dogholes. Microjig specifies a 4" grid for their dovetail track system.

If you're boring your own grid, you can place the dog holes wherever they make the best sense for your workflow. A lot of people obsess about the precise square accuracy of the grid, but even that isn't paramount.

I think at 100mm you could create a square Microjig dovetail track grid with the 20mm dog holes in the center of each square.

 

[MacBoy]

Two gotchas if you deviate from the 96mm spacing for the dog holes:

• Parf Guide and/or Parf Fence uses that spacing
• LR32 track — if one plans to add more holes

Personally I would go with 80mm spacing because I’ve found the 96mm spacing to be a bit too far apart when trying to use those ratchet clamps or other clamps.

 

[DaveTTC]

Two gotchas if you deviate from the 96mm spacing for the dog holes:

• Parf Guide and/or Parf Fence uses that spacing
• LR32 track — if one plans to add more holes

Personally I would go with 80mm spacing because I’ve found the 96mm spacing to be a bit too far apart when trying to use those ratchet clamps or other clamps.

I have not invested in the LR 32 track yet however see that is something coming up in the future. Does that rely on the dog holes in the MFT?

I’ve tried doing research off and on over the last few years. It’s something I’ve never got around to pursuing the LR 32 but if you’re aware of especially a video that might show the LR 32 use in conjunction with the MFT that would be fantastic if you could share a link

 

[Cheese]

The thought just came to me that some welding tables have 16mm holes on a 50 x 50 grid while there are others that have 28mm holes on a 100 x 100 grid so nothing is necessarily sacred. It just means that some accessories may be difficult to source.

 

[Michael Kellough]

The only relationship between the LR 32 system and the MFT is that the LR 32 could be used to produce the 96x96 hole pattern by plunging at every third hole. The result would likely be a little less accurate than the pattern in existing MFT tops, which isn’t perfect and isn’t meant to be.

If I were making a perforated panel for general assembly and clamping I’d prefer a smaller pattern like the 80mm MacBoy suggested for clamping convenience. The only problem with that is you can’t use third party devices that require the 96mm spacing.

But really I’d postpone making holes until I needed one in a particular place (20mm bit in a plunge router). I find the holes inconvenient whenever anything other that sawing is happening on the surface.

 

[onocoffee]

But really I’d postpone making holes until I needed one in a particular place (20mm bit in a plunge router). I find the holes inconvenient whenever anything other that sawing is happening on the surface.

This is an important point to consider.

The grid is cool and looks cool, BUT sawdust, bits of wood, screws, other fasteners and everything else small enough to fall through a 20mm hole WILL fall through all your 20mm holes. And then there's the tracks - whether T-track, Miter Track or Dovetail Track, bits and screws and other miscellany will fall into the track and into the narrowest part, making retrieval a lengthier process.

I've since resorted to dog hole caps and printed them. 200 of them.

 

[MacBoy]

if you’re aware of especially a video that might show the LR 32 use in conjunction with the MFT

As always, Peter Millard devises terrific techniques and shows it to the world.

In this video, Peter shows how to use an LR32 track to bore out the holes on 96mm increments.

He uses an accessory that is fairly cheap from Temu / Banggood / AliExpress — around $10 USD.


It is a 13-minute video:

 

[Crazyraceguy]

I have not invested in the LR 32 track yet however see that is something coming up in the future. Does that rely on the dog holes in the MFT?

No, it does not. The LR32 track/system are intended to be used on cabinet sides that are already cut to size.
You certainly can use it in conjunction with an MFT, whether that is with a TS, for cutting, OF boring holes, or grooves.
Get yourself a decent track square and you're pretty well equipped.
I have never had a real MFT, but I don't need to be portable. My table of holes is much bigger. Having the entire surface covered in holes does take some getting used to, but it is extremely handy too.
I have used mine one like that for over 15 years. If you need to do small-parts assembly, tool maintenance, etc. just throw a piece of 1/4" MDF down over a small area first. A 2' x 3' piece strikes a good balance, between coverage and convenience.

 

[MacBoy]

if you’re aware of especially a video that might show the LR 32 use in conjunction with the MFT

I might have misunderstood your question. CRG answered it above.

On the Festool USA channel, there are three videos on using the LR 32 kit and track.

In 2025 on the SedgeTool channel, Brian Sedgeley released very insightful videos on the LR32 kit and track.