Cutting along 8 foot sheet?

[jcrowe1950]

If you want to try some parallel rails but funds are tight you can make some of these.  PARALLEL GUIDES DIY If you have some scrap laying around they will only cost you a few bucks. I would forgo the 3rd setting guide he made as it seems redundant but if memory serves he talks about that and just use one to set the other.  As I mentioned earlier I dont use them and dont like the kind that attach to the rail as I feel it can be a bit cumbersome more so with the long rail and even more so with 2 rails joined to make a long rail.  However everyone has their own way but I actually prefer how these are not attached.  If you wanted you could screw on a draw clamp like the one used on the GRS rail squares.  You can order them from mcmaster carr.  if you are concerned about the rail moving. 

  The video is interesting, and will give a parallel cut, but there is no way to calibrate it to different rails so while it's a nice jig, it would not work well in the scenarios for which the Festool, TSO, Woodpecker etc. parallel guides work. Also, since these guides are not attached to the rail, the stock will have to be pushed under the rail to the stops and then the rail put into place before cutting. I guess this would work if your parallel rips were short but if your intention is to rip the stock for cabinets from a typical cut list, this would probably not be a great solution. There is also no means of cutting narrow stock in this scenario. That said, good on this young man for coming up with a nice solution for his situation. To truly appreciate the value of the parallel guide systems out there, you have to actually use them a few times. Also, there are tons of methods of work for individuals....if it works for you.....have at it...

 

[afish]

If you want to try some parallel rails but funds are tight you can make some of these.  PARALLEL GUIDES DIY If you have some scrap laying around they will only cost you a few bucks. I would forgo the 3rd setting guide he made as it seems redundant but if memory serves he talks about that and just use one to set the other.  As I mentioned earlier I dont use them and dont like the kind that attach to the rail as I feel it can be a bit cumbersome more so with the long rail and even more so with 2 rails joined to make a long rail.  However everyone has their own way but I actually prefer how these are not attached.  If you wanted you could screw on a draw clamp like the one used on the GRS rail squares.  You can order them from mcmaster carr.  if you are concerned about the rail moving. 

  the stock will have to be pushed under the rail to the stops and then the rail put into place before cutting.

I dont understand this.  why the stock has to be "pushed under the rail"  the DIY parallel guides simply sit on the stock and clamp to it.  So one would simply clamp parallel guides ( some simple 2" spring clamps) would probably be sufficient then butt the rail to the guide.  I actually prefer them not being attached.  If you have ever tried turning, spinning a long rail with a set of parallel guides attached it isnt fun especially in a small space then combined with a two piece rail could put enough stress on the joint I would be concerned with it moving out of alignment and at the very least make me paranoid enough to constantly be checking it.  As far as ripping narrow stock isnt that the same issue with most parallel guides?  Its also easily addressed by having a few spacer blocks that are of the same width that would go between the sliding part that typically butts to the material and the material. this would push the parallel guide over that dimension.  Or if you wanted to get real fancy you could make a couple stop pieces that project past the edge that butts to the rail.  Most objections are easily overcome with a little out of the box thinking.  The O.P. did stress that space and budget was an issue.  If it wasnt then parallel guides still arnt the best solution in my opinion and table saw, panel saw, cnc is better if size and budget arnt a concern.  Im sure parallel guides are great for some

 

[jcrowe1950]

 

  the stock will have to be pushed under the rail to the stops and then the rail put into place before cutting.

I dont understand this.  why the stock has to be "pushed under the rail"  the DIY parallel guides simply sit on the stock and clamp to it.  So one would simply clamp parallel guides ( some simple 2" spring clamps) would probably be sufficient then butt the rail to the guide.  I actually prefer them not being attached.  If you have ever tried turning, spinning a long rail with a set of parallel guides attached it isnt fun especially in a small space then combined with a two piece rail could put enough stress on the joint I would be concerned with it moving out of alignment and at the very least make me paranoid enough to constantly be checking it.  As far as ripping narrow stock isnt that the same issue with most parallel guides?  Its also easily addressed by having a few spacer blocks that are of the same width that would go between the sliding part that typically butts to the material and the material. this would push the parallel guide over that dimension.  Or if you wanted to get real fancy you could make a couple stop pieces that project past the edge that butts to the rail.  Most objections are easily overcome with a little out of the box thinking.  The O.P. did stress that space and budget was an issue.  If it wasnt then parallel guides still arnt the best solution in my opinion and table saw, panel saw, cnc is better if size and budget arnt a concern.  Im sure parallel guides are great for some
[/quote]

  Let me ask if you've ever used parallel guides. I'm not trying to criticize you here but until you use a set a few times, it's unlikely you will grok the value.

    With the aforementioned implementation, which is great for a budget solution, you set your length of cut...fasten the parallel guides to the, hopefully straight, edge of the stock and then butt the guide rail against the parallel guides. Then you repeat, but what if you want a different width? With at least the Festool and TSO parallel guides, you attach the guides to the back of the rail, or connected rails, and calibrate them. Then you set the desired width of the cut on the parallel guide stops and slide the rail up to the edge of the sheet goods and make the cut. Then you move the material you just cut and shove the rail again until it hits the stops......then if you want to change the width, it takes less than a minute and you are making dead accurate cuts. The other thing I don't know about the "cheap alternative" is how narrow cuts (less than the width of the guide rail) would work. Since the parallel guides are not calibrated to the rail, even with spacer blocks, it seems to me problematic. The parallel guides are a useful tool for a specific purpose. They are much more accurate and safer than using a table saw for the same purpose. CNCs large enough to process 4'x8' sheets of plywood are really nice and pretty expensive. Of course, they can cut parts accurately, drill holes accurately and so forth, but for a small shop or a hobbyist, that's a stretch. As always, YMMV.

Full disclosure: I work for a Festool dealer and use and demo the Festool parallel guides  there. Festool invented the parallel guides and that was and still is a really nice tool. I also own the TSO parallel guides which I use at home and like very much. If you would like a demo of either and are ever in the Chattanooga area, give me a bit of warning and I'll give you a test drive.

 

[afish]

 

  the stock will have to be pushed under the rail to the stops and then the rail put into place before cutting.

I dont understand this.  why the stock has to be "pushed under the rail"  the DIY parallel guides simply sit on the stock and clamp to it.  So one would simply clamp parallel guides ( some simple 2" spring clamps) would probably be sufficient then butt the rail to the guide.  I actually prefer them not being attached.  If you have ever tried turning, spinning a long rail with a set of parallel guides attached it isnt fun especially in a small space then combined with a two piece rail could put enough stress on the joint I would be concerned with it moving out of alignment and at the very least make me paranoid enough to constantly be checking it.  As far as ripping narrow stock isnt that the same issue with most parallel guides?  Its also easily addressed by having a few spacer blocks that are of the same width that would go between the sliding part that typically butts to the material and the material. this would push the parallel guide over that dimension.  Or if you wanted to get real fancy you could make a couple stop pieces that project past the edge that butts to the rail.  Most objections are easily overcome with a little out of the box thinking.  The O.P. did stress that space and budget was an issue.  If it wasnt then parallel guides still arnt the best solution in my opinion and table saw, panel saw, cnc is better if size and budget arnt a concern.  Im sure parallel guides are great for some

  Let me ask if you've ever used parallel guides. I'm not trying to criticize you here but until you use a set a few times, it's unlikely you will grok the value.

    With the aforementioned implementation, which is great for a budget solution, you set your length of cut...fasten the parallel guides to the, hopefully straight, edge of the stock and then butt the guide rail against the parallel guides. Then you repeat, but what if you want a different width? With at least the Festool and TSO parallel guides, you attach the guides to the back of the rail, or connected rails, and calibrate them. Then you set the desired width of the cut on the parallel guide stops and slide the rail up to the edge of the sheet goods and make the cut. Then you move the material you just cut and shove the rail again until it hits the stops......then if you want to change the width, it takes less than a minute and you are making dead accurate cuts. The other thing I don't know about the "cheap alternative" is how narrow cuts (less than the width of the guide rail) would work. Since the parallel guides are not calibrated to the rail, even with spacer blocks, it seems to me problematic. The parallel guides are a useful tool for a specific purpose. They are much more accurate and safer than using a table saw for the same purpose. CNCs large enough to process 4'x8' sheets of plywood are really nice and pretty expensive. Of course, they can cut parts accurately, drill holes accurately and so forth, but for a small shop or a hobbyist, that's a stretch. As always, YMMV.

Full disclosure: I work for a Festool dealer and use and demo the Festool parallel guides  there. Festool invented the parallel guides and that was and still is a really nice tool. I also own the TSO parallel guides which I use at home and like very much. If you would like a demo of either and are ever in the Chattanooga area, give me a bit of warning and I'll give you a test drive.
[/quote]

OH Ok,  well to answer your first question yes I have and I also understand how the festool P.G's work.  As well as the benefits and limitations of both systems.

My confusion was not with how PG's work but your statement " Also, since these guides are not attached to the rail, the stock will have to be pushed under the rail to the stops and then the rail put into place before cutting"  The way I read that, I'm not the one confused with how things work.  Perhaps Im reading it wrong but the only accurate part is the "then the rail put in place before cutting" Nothing about the low tech PG requires you push the stock under the rail to the stops.  If anything I would say that is a more accurate description of how the Festool PG work for narrow cuts.  You keep saying that the low tech PG are not calibrated to the rail which is incorrect. There are easy ways to to calibrate them just as there are ways to make them work for narrow cuts. Is the festool version better suited for narrow cuts "yes" but that's not to say the LTPG (low tech parallel guide) can't do them.  It just takes a little creative thinking.  There are also situations I see benefits of not having the PG attached to the rail. To say they are "much more accurate than a table saw" is... Not sure what table saws you have been using but I will have already made a dozen perfectly dimensioned cuts before the PG are attached to a rail and calibrated. At least you didnt say they are faster.  Are PG's More portable =YES, Safer = Probably,  Much more accurate = NO,  Faster = NO  However, I never compared PG's to a table saw or CNC.  I only offered a possible solution for someone with space and budget constraints. Im not trying to sell anything here and have no horse in this race. Its up to the reader to decide what works best for his/hers situation based on facts.  The LTPG might not be the ideal solution for you or someone else reading this just as the commercial PG offerings might not be the ideal solution for all either. Both systems have their pluses and minuses. Thanks for the demo offer but I am well beyond the point of needing or using PG's in my workflow.

 

[JimD]

I like the budget idea already posted but they depend on a track design like all track saws use with one soft edge that shows where the saw will cut and one hard edge where Festool attaches the parallel guide.  My track saw is a DeWalt so I have two soft edges.  So I built a couple jigs I call track positioning guides that register off the guide rib of the track.  That should work on a Festool style track except you'd need a wider dado to get over the hard edge of the track.  I grab the track with a dado in the jig and the other end of the jig has a movable stop with an adjustable hairline pointer.  I use the same jig at both ends of the track so I have to go back and forth, at least 3 times.  One of my jigs works with the piece you want under the track (like the posted jig) and the other works with the workpiece not under the track.  The latter works fine for cutting narrow slices off bigger pieces. 

I also have home made parallel guides (no commercial ones for DeWalt) but I like the track positioning guides better.  The parallel guides might be quicker for repeat cuts, probably are, but the positioning guides don't take very long and they don't make the rail bigger and more difficult to handle.  Festool's parallel guides for their rails look very nice, however, and probably work a lot better than my home made ones. 

It's nice we have choices.

 

[Mario Turcot]

To the OP, I know it's late but when it come to sheet good I rarely cut 8' long pieces. Because I never need a 8' long board. Perhaps in your case you do. I always try to organize my cut list to start my first cut on the 4' side.

About the DIY parallel guides. I would give em a try since they cost almost nothing. I also don't like the fact that most parallel guides are attached to the rail.

 

[jeh]

The holy rail is one of those things that makes me wonder why Festool even bothers making a rail without the holes?  They dont hurt anything being there so I ask why Festool?

and also yes I would not trust parallel guides to rip a full sheet accurately enough for case work.  Im not a big fan of parallel guides to begin with.  They tend to make a long rail unwieldy especially if its a 2 piece long rail.  For doing multiple smaller crosscuts a stop on the MFT bench will work just as good for a lot less money and you can use those funds towards LR 32 which will be money better spent in my opinion.

Cost is the answer.

 

[mkasdin]

Holy rail it is then and some Makita connectors.

I did wonder if the parallel guides could be used to accurately cut one length in 2 parts i.e cut half way then move the guides and continue the cut but too much room for error I guess.

Thanks

- with so many custoemrs replacing their MAKITA and FESTOOL rail connectors with the TSO GRC-12, you may want to look into that . . .

- and repositioning any parallel guide, including the TSO, would not be our first choice either!

all the BEst with your project!

Hans

the newest rev c is nice by TSO. I’m planning on selling my Festool connectors

 

[afish]

The holy rail is one of those things that makes me wonder why Festool even bothers making a rail without the holes?  They dont hurt anything being there so I ask why Festool?

and also yes I would not trust parallel guides to rip a full sheet accurately enough for case work.  Im not a big fan of parallel guides to begin with.  They tend to make a long rail unwieldy especially if its a 2 piece long rail.  For doing multiple smaller crosscuts a stop on the MFT bench will work just as good for a lot less money and you can use those funds towards LR 32 which will be money better spent in my opinion.

Cost is the answer.

Yea, but both the 1400mm rail with no holes and the 1400mm rail are the same price on amazon $145 so it still makes no sense to me why anyone would buy or Festool makes one without holes over the holly rail.  I highly doubt Festool is taking a big hit on the LR32 rail selling it for the same price.  It would make sense that if customers already had rails with holes they would probably be much more likely to buy into the the LR32 system.  This would = more sales of LR32's Even if they just made all 1400 and 3000 rails holly and raised the price a few extra bucks I doubt that would cost them any sales.  The other thing is the long holly rail is only 92" so it cant do double duty as a 8' cut rail.  That's just dumb on Festools part and my biggest gripe of the LR32 system.  Who wants to buy and store two long a$$ rails? Not to many people. Rant over.

 

[Coen]

+1 on a holy 3000

 

[jcrowe1950]

About the DIY parallel guides. I would give em a try since they cost almost nothing. I also don't like the fact that most parallel guides are attached to the rail.

  That most parallel guides attach to the rails is the reason they are so accurate. Pushing against the calibrated stops takes the guesswork out of the process. If you don't use the method of work for which parallel guides makes sense then that's fine. Today I processed seven sheets of plywood at 10 3/8" width with Festools parallel guide for a kids project during our anniversary sale. It would have been unsafe on our Sawstop as well as inaccurate. For cabinet work, it makes sense to use parallel guides to rip to final width accurately, safely and quickly. Then squaring up and cutting to length is typically done using something like an MFT or TSO's squares and parallel guide combinations. As always, YMMV and if your method of work does not fit parallel guides, it's easy to eschew their use. One other issue with the DIY setup mentioned, they are calibrated to a single rail....I don't see how could be recalibrated easily.

 

[jeh]

+1 the 3000. Joining is a rig at best and you need a jig to get it just right. Until I flipped to Mafell I had a 3000. Do keep in mind that you need to be careful to make sure you are not applying any lateral force as you can get some deflection.

 

[Coen]

One of the reasons I didn't buy a 3000 yet is that it isn't holy. Longest holy rail is the FS 2424/2-LR 32 but for ripping 2440 sheets that is simply too short. The last thing I want to do is buy a 3000 and find out that one month later Festool releases a holy 3000. Alas... I've been waiting a *few* years.

 

[afish]

Yes, its really short sighted on Festools part. Just like the fact that RTS/DTS 400 is two different sanders.  If Festool would have made it so the base was easily interchangeable so I only had to buy one sander I would have bought one.  The Motor/body is exactly the same so why would I want to Buy, store, and clutter up my work bench with 2 different sanders.  If it was just one and I could keep the other pad in my apron,it would be so much better.  The 400 looks like the perfect for sander for sanding drawers but it would be nice to have the DTS for in the corners and the RTS for the rest.  Not sure if it was more short sightedness or greed trying to make me buy 2 of basically the same sander.  So instead I refuse to buy one at all. 

 

[Jimmy69]

+1 the 3000. Joining is a rig at best and you need a jig to get it just right. Until I flipped to Mafell I had a 3000. Do keep in mind that you need to be careful to make sure you are not applying any lateral force as you can get some deflection.

I ended up buying a second 1400 (no holes as I decided against the LR32 and got the Mafell DDF40) and a Excell set of connectors for the rails, similar to the Makita connectors but at £6.95 for the set! I used a Benchdogs rail square. I found quite a bit of play in this set up and I don't think it was necessarily the connectors. I'd square up the rail square at one end and then go and check the other only to find it was often 5+mm out. The rail square was pushed up against the edge of the sheet tight, there were no gaps where the rails joined. I ended up having to measure at both ends every time. Not what I wanted but I didn't trust the joined rails and the square. I still don't have anywhere to store a 3000 so it's never going to be an option.

 

[mkasdin]

If you’re just doing lower base cabinets I would look at getting the fs 1900 rail guide. It’s the size that pretty versatile other than the 1080 and 1400? I would rough dimension  a 4x8 sheet to get the size to a comfortable by cutting the sheet across the width in a predetermined location. Then straightline the two separate pieces. Then make your final cuts LxH with either the fs 1400 or fs1900 if your using the TSO rail guide. The first straight cut(s) I would just lay the track down 1/4” in.