Another design for universal parallel guide brackets

[rmwarren]

I toyed with making some "universal" brackets to attach Incra or other T-track to the guide rails a while back & then got sidetracked and never followed thru. There seemed to be enough interest to justifying making a quantity that would get the cost to a reasonable level. I am going to take another run at it because I have a couple jigs I want to make and having the brackets professionally made will same me a ton of time. The previous design looked like this:

[attachthumb=#]

[attachthumb=#]

It required a pocket for the Incra track so it was basically a single-purpose bracket. My current concept is to make the bracket about 75mm (3") wide and have 45mm (1-3/4") hanging off the rail. The space under the bracket would be 1/2" and the bracket would be un-drilled, this way you can drill as needed and any 1/2" material can be screwed or bolted to it, t-track, wood, etc. It would look like this:

[attachthumb=#]

[attachthumb=#]

I can get them made from aircraft aluminum in a reasonable quantity in 3-4 weeks, & I think I can pass them along with the thumb screws, t-nuts, packaging, postage, etc for about $35-$40/pair. My own plan is to use the Incra track and woodpeckers track for parallel guides and other jigs.

So my questions are:

1.  Interested?

2.  Suggestions/Modifications/Improvements?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

RMW

 

[Tom R]

I am interested in your project

Tom R

 

[mwildt]

Looks good, but I do not see it as 'stable' as the old design. Unless the flat wide side is long so you can have 2 mounting holes for a t-track or wood piece. The new design do allow for more flexibility. Can you post the dimensions of the bracket ?

I would prefer mounting holes since a cnc machine would be more accurate and you're machining it anyway, but I understand the reasoning for keeping it cheaper.

 

[rmwarren]

Looks good, but I do not see it as 'stable' as the old design. Unless the flat wide side is long so you can have 2 mounting holes for a t-track or wood piece. The new design do allow for more flexibility. Can you post the dimensions of the bracket ?

I would prefer mounting holes since a cnc machine would be more accurate and you're machining it anyway, but I understand the reasoning for keeping it cheaper.

I agree that you would need 2 screws in the t-track to hold it tight enough, I think there is room but have to check. Adding screw holes would not be very costly, just need to have a pattern that would be as "universal" as possible. Need to think about that one.

Thanks for the input.

RMW

 

[rmwarren]

Per the last post, here is another design, narrower but still 60mm wide with a pattern of 1/4" mounting holes. Spacing is somewhat arbitrary and needs to be refined.

[attachthumb=#]

RMW

 

[Dane]

Could you possibly mill one square lip that the track could butt against so that it wouldn't be so prone to wiggle around and would automatically square it to the rail?

 

[Julian Tracy]

I'd skip the 6 universal holes, anyone who's gonna utilize these ought to be able to drill a couple holes to adapt to whatever track they plan to use.

Having the 6 holes there is 4 holes redundant...

JT

 

[live4ever]

Definitely interested.  In fact, I've got some Incra track waiting for it.

Not to add an additional layer to this, there's probably a way to do this to add incremental 1/32" repeatability.

If whatever you are using as a track has incremental racks (yes, I know Incra track doesn't normally have racks but it would be trivial to attach the racks to the side of the T-tracks), all you need in your guide bracket is either a rack or an affixed 10-32 threaded rod.  Tada, incremental/repeatable positioning of the bracket along your guides.  I've made a few crosscut sleds this way (threaded rod + rack).  The positioning racks are $2 or $3 for a 6" rack.  

Would it be that much better than by eye?  I dunno, but some folks like repeatability.  But this is probably too complicated for your mass-produced design that is meant to accommodate more than one track product.

 

[edanielvijay]

Glad to see FOG like kickstarter's so many projects/ideas and backers to support!!

 

[rmwarren]

I'd skip the 6 universal holes, anyone who's gonna utilize these ought to be able to drill a couple holes to adapt to whatever track they plan to use.

Having the 6 holes there is 4 holes redundant...

JT

That was my original thought, but adding holes or slots does not add to the cost appreciably. 2 parallel slots like the one shown in the white brackets would be easy enough, but are they more desirable than letting the user drill as preferred?

[attachthumb=#]

RMW.

 

[Tinker]

I like the two slots.  that leaves more choices.
The problem with the Festool P-Guides is that in trying to do too much, the system becomes very limited.
They have tried to increase usefulness for parallel cuts as well as to set up for square.
With the side bars beyond the board edge, a means to hold them level becomes a necessity.  Thus extra jigging

With your idea, we have far wider limits, thus increasing the usefulness.  There is no need to set up a means to keep the guides level.
There is no need to set up for perfect square.  With MFT and/or dogs, square cuts become a simple task.  Once square, all parallel cuts carry the squareness to all four sides. No extra jigging is required.

I would be interested.
Tinker

 

[rmwarren]

Some more mock-ups with all the components:

[attachthumb=#]

[attachthumb=#]

[attachthumb=#]

[attachthumb=#]

I tend to agree with Tinker about the Festool PG's being too limited, I just find them awkward to use since I have to keep shifting them on the track in addition to setting the stops and they need to be set to a specific spacing for each sheet.

My own plan is to have 3 sets of these in different lengths, when I am cutting common cabinet parts I will set up 3 different rails rather than shifting the guides around. Think of a nominal 24" by 42" upper cabinet 12" deep, set one rail each for 42", 12" and 22.5" and cut all the parts.

Some momentum seems to be building...  [big grin]

RMW

 

[Julian Tracy]

I had the PG's, wow, what a crappy design
- too fiddly to attach and remove
- too much rail overhead needlessly used up (for instance, the standard 55" rail cannot be used for crosscutting a 48" sheet with them installed...)
- the ever present, oft fixed problem with the guides drooping lower than the sheet good surface
- the very sloppy arrow/curser arrangement - good luck getting better than 1mm accuracy without modding it...
- again - the time spent putting them on and off....

How hard could it have been to have the legendary Festool engineering and execution on a set of quick-release, accurate, simple parallel guides?

Back to your brackets, again, imo I'd prefer them with no slots or holes.  I could see adding some sort of calibration cam  or a ledge to register them 90 degree, but having the slots or hole will just get in the way.

Plus, I just don't like universally deigned things - they seem cheaper.  Like the mobile bases with 100's of holes, or the power tool stands with holes every couple inches.  They just don't seem as well built as those that are purpose built.

In the case of your brackets, having them drilled specifically for whatever guide bar is used allows for more customization and will end up with a more professional looking overall end product.

It'd drive me nuts having 2" of slot just there not being used or having a purpose.

Plus, again I say, if you can figure out your own para guides, than you should be able to accurately drill a couple of holes!

Julian

 

[Kevin Johnson]

I am interested

 

[lawhoo]

Count me in, too.

 

[GPowers]

[popcorn]

 

[Alan m]

how about having a two part bracket. attach  one half to the rail and the other to the  extrusion. maybe have a dovtailed  join between the two so they can be easily detatched  adn reatached but sill hole their calibration.
or some kind of attachment for your other brilliant rail attacment
i would buy a few of these if theyu were done with a similar concept .i hate having to completely knock downt he set up for just a cut or two and then re do it to continue.

 

[rmwarren]

I had the PG's, wow, what a crappy design
- too fiddly to attach and remove
- too much rail overhead needlessly used up (for instance, the standard 55" rail cannot be used for crosscutting a 48" sheet with them installed...)
- the ever present, oft fixed problem with the guides drooping lower than the sheet good surface
- the very sloppy arrow/curser arrangement - good luck getting better than 1mm accuracy without modding it...
- again - the time spent putting them on and off....

How hard could it have been to have the legendary Festool engineering and execution on a set of quick-release, accurate, simple parallel guides?

Back to your brackets, again, imo I'd prefer them with no slots or holes.  I could see adding some sort of calibration cam  or a ledge to register them 90 degree, but having the slots or hole will just get in the way.

Plus, I just don't like universally deigned things - they seem cheaper.  Like the mobile bases with 100's of holes, or the power tool stands with holes every couple inches.  They just don't seem as well built as those that are purpose built.

In the case of your brackets, having them drilled specifically for whatever guide bar is used allows for more customization and will end up with a more professional looking overall end product.

It'd drive me nuts having 2" of slot just there not being used or having a purpose.

Plus, again I say, if you can figure out your own para guides, than you should be able to accurately drill a couple of holes!

Julian

I share your aesthetic appreciation of specific-purpose stuff versus universal-fit, however my enthusiasm wanes when I am considering making 100 sets and wanting them to be as flexible as possible. As an example, I plan to use the Woodpecker dual-purpose track instead of the Incra track, mostly because I worry (slightly) about the Incra scales sliding in the slot and messing up cuts. Hence the extra width. The Woodpecker track needs a separate self-adhesive scale and is more costly but I like it better.

Since no one else is expressing a strong preference for or against holes/slots I have no problem doing without, I agree that anyone with Festools can manage to drill the holes themselves.

The only possible reason I can see to avoid a registration edge is to make them further universal, i.e. with a clean, level bottom face someone can attach some unexpected 1/2" something or other to them no matter the width of the something or other. With 2 screws parallel in the track I don't think there will be any slippage causing the track to become misaligned. I guess if they are banged around a bit this could be an issue.

Needs more thought and jawing over.

RMW

 

[jjehowski]

ill take two sets when your ready to sell them. 

 

[Wooden Skye]

Count me in.