I am unable to get TWO squared cuts in a row with the Festool system.

[Lincoln]

I've had issues like the original poster when using MFT's for square cuts, 99.99% for cabinet panels.

I've found following a stringent process helped to get great results; but I HAVE to do it the same very time, lol.

I have the slop stop from toolnut (I don't know how you can use it without this).

I square it up with the Woodpecker MFT setup square; I do not rely on dog holes at all; had a huge time/material wasting experience when I tried that when I first got it.

The biggest thing I found with the process:

I rip the 4x8 sheets down to width with parallel guides, so I end up with a bunch of correct width pieces that are 8ft long.

I have 2 or 3 MFT's linked together, and I found if i would take the 8ft piece, square an end of it, then slide it along the fence to the stop for the lenght needed, it would always come out a little wonky.

I found that if i "rough" cross cut to length, creating much shorter pieces to square, it came out perfect.

I think for me, what was happening, the long heavy piece was acting almost like a pry bar against the fence, causing slight deflection.

I've been on the fence about the dashboard gear for the MFT's, i'm wondering if it would help me overcome this issue, cuz when cutting a lot of pieces, it's a bunch of time wasted with the rough length breakdown.

I'd say your ripped pieces have bowed/sprung after cutting - very common with sheet goods, as the tension is released once cut. Only way to avoid this is to rip the sheet over size, straight line one edge, then rip to width.

 

[semenza]

This post is the sketchiest I have seen on FOG in some time. No one ditches high end woodworking equipment, buys "cheap" substitutes and expects the same outcome. Stationary tools, even the most marginal, will beat the Festool system hands down with the exception of things they cannot do (cut diagonals, cut directly on surfaces (like a floor) and in all but the biggest saws cut plywood panels from large sheets).

This is obviously a product placement. Someone please pull it.

I am sure it is not the sketchiest post I have seen recently.  The motivation seems "markety" but it certainly is not the worst thing ever, and we really don't know do we. I am also sure the information that will come out of the topic will still be quite relevant to the focus of the forum in general.

I have moved it to the product board because that seems like a better fit at the moment.

Seth

 

[mino]

...
Stationary tools, even the most marginal, will beat the Festool system hands down ...

HARD disagree on two points:
- You are probably not in the market for the low-end stationary tools. Were you, you would know what kind of junk is sold these days for "hobby" or even semi-pro use. This is not the 60's anymore where almost no tools sold were pure junk. Unlike today.

- LOTS of tasks are better suited for a tool-to-material as compared to a material-to-tool workflow. And there the mobile tools hold an inherent advantage. Irrespective the cost aspect.

There is only one universal rule:
There are no Right Tools. Only Right ToolTM for the job. Period.

 

[sancho57]

@ SRSemenza

Seth I really wish this board had a ignore button so I can put people like the OP in ignore and not see their post. However I really doubt if this used car salesman will be back anyway

 

[ChuckM]

I agree that for some jobs it's better to bring the tool to the work. But after reading so many threads about people struggling to cut square or parallel with a track saw (on an MFT or not), and after seeing so many after-market accessories that people buy to do basic cuts accurately, I've come to the conclusion that the track saw/MFT is not the right tool for a lot of woodworkers.

I know my table saw delivers the kind of precision, accuracy and speed that I'd never be able to achieve from any track saw system unless I'm willing to spend lots of money and time (time that I don't have) on accessories and gadgets. (I used to own a TS75, and have used the TS55 with an MFT table to build things.)

An example here, just one take on the SS PCS that produced a square that is as accurate as one that's done on a CNC:

[attachimg=1]

Unless someone is dealing mostly with large sheet goods (4x8), I'd see the table saw a more suitable tool for them.

 

[ChuckM]

@ SRSemenza

Seth I really wish this board had a ignore button so I can put people like the OP in ignore and not see their post. However I really doubt if this used car salesman will be back anyway

Not just on this Forum, but I've come across many many posts elsewhere in which someone posted a question or inquiry or a request for solutions, but never made a response or comment afterwards. Even more interesting is that sometimes, a heated debate could go on and on in the thread with the OP missing in action. [big grin]

 

[mino]

I agree that for some jobs it's better to bring the tool to the work. But after reading so many threads about people struggling to cut square or parallel with a track saw (on an MFT or not), and after seeing so many after-market accessories that people buy to do basic cuts accurately, I've come to the conclusion that the track saw/MFT is not the right tool for a lot of woodworkers.

I know my table saw delivers the kind of precision, accuracy and speed that I'd never be able to achieve from any track saw system unless I'm willing to spend lots of money and time (time that I don't have) on accessories and gadgets. (I used to own a TS75, and have used the TS55 with an MFT table to build things.)

An example here, just one take on the SS PCS that produced a square that is as accurate as one that's done on a CNC:

[attachimg=1]

Unless someone is dealing mostly with large sheet goods (4x8), I'd see the table saw a more suitable tool for them.

Depends.

The biggest issue I see with folks having "squaring issues" is the folks who are not really familiar with the "calibration" concept. And that is a must if one wants high accuracy.

Such people will not get straight cuts from a table saw either - they would not bother to tune/calibrate/check it. Sure, if they get something like an Erika or CS 70, that is calibrated out-of-the-box, they will get some good cuts. Up until they bend something on it ...

A well-tuned TS with the requisite in-feed and out-feed setup will provide FASTER square cuts. No quastion there. That needs tuning and space (and $2k+ money). Neither of which the folks seem to have.

But sorry. I STARTED messing with /any/ sheet goods cutting with:
- a $100 big shop tracksaw and two 700mm rails joined with a single bar - a clone of original Festool FS + TS55 (non-R combo)
- a set of two Festool track clamps for $40

And - it was a disaster. The factory blade was just total junk. So I added
- a $40 quality blade (48T, for MDF/Lamino)

Total $180 and almost no space taken for storage and, at the time, no shop space. Kitchen table and a home vacuum it was.

With that, I was able to get accurate cuts down to

 

[MikeGE]

@ SRSemenza

Seth I really wish this board had a ignore button so I can put people like the OP in ignore and not see their post. However I really doubt if this used car salesman will be back anyway

This board does have the ability to ignore members.  Click on Profile and select Forum Profile.  Then click on Modify Profile -> Buddies/Ignore List... -> Edit Ignore List. 

[attachimg=1]

In the next window, you can add members by typing their usernames in the Add to Ignore List section.

[attachimg=2]

 

[Michael Kellough]

I reread the original post and think some of you guys are overreacting.

This is just an enthusiastic post from a very knowledgeable woodworker who has experienced the opposite of buyer’s remorse and is sharing a solution to a problem many MFT users complain about.

Why would you want to ignore that?

I do take exception with the title. You certainly can easily get consistent cuts, if you don’t change the height of the rail.

 

[ChuckM]

I reread the original post and think some of you guys are overreacting.

This is just an enthusiastic post from a very knowledgeable woodworker who has experienced the opposite of buyer’s remorse and is sharing a solution to a problem many MFT users complain about.

Snip.

I don't find the OP's post a marketing ploy, if that's the concern of some readers. But I certainly don't feel the post coming from an enthusiastic user. By definition, someone enthusiastic about something to the point that he or she was willing to write about it, the person should be enthusiastic enough to follow up and participate in the discussion.

 

[Cheese]

By definition, someone enthusiastic about something to the point that he or she was willing to write about it, the person should be enthusiastic enough to follow up and participate in the discussion.

YES… [thumbs up]

 

[semenza]

Other than the debate about the OPs intentions, legitimacy, and what comes down to writing style this would be a normal topic. If you guys were not debating the afformentioned it would be a non-issue.

It's not like it is off topic or unrelated to everyday discussions on FOG. Maybe it is not the best way for a topic to start but in reality there is really nothing wrong with it except people's suspicion about the motivation behind it. If the review had a slightly different style to it, no one would have even blinked. If it is a sales pitch then it would have been better to just be open about it. On the other hand it is not a sneaky woodworking way to hawk bit coin miners.

Ignore feature will not help in this situation. You can't "pre-ignore" someone.

I suppose I could dump the entire topic? Based on suspicion with no real evidence.

Please stop debating the OP post so that we don't have to lose the entire topic that may very well contain useful information because of suspicion.

Seth 

     

 

[Birdhunter]

Seth,

Good call!  I’m guilty of posting on tools I’ve bought and really liked.

 

[afish]

An example here, just one take on the SS PCS that produced a square that is as accurate as one that's done on a CNC:

[attachimg=1]

Unless someone is dealing mostly with large sheet goods (4x8), I'd see the table saw a more suitable tool for them.

These types of comments amuse me.  People have this notion that just because something is cut on a cnc the accuracy/squareness is close to perfect.  Well, this is slightly misleading. A cnc is just a dumb machine that is only as good as the the guy running/tuning it.  I have seen CNC machines grossly out of square and there are aA LOT of cnc's out there that are slightly to moderately out of square.  This doesnt even take into account drive line/stepper errors. Im talking about basic squaring of the gantry is often taken for granted.  Im not singling out chuckS I see it a lot so just be cautious if hiring anyone to do cnc work for you just because its cut on a cnc doesn't mean its square. 

 

[ChuckM]

No offence taken about your comment, Afish. If you know the company (and the kind of industrial scale/ manufacturing machines it uses in its operation as well as its QA practices) that produces the triangle piece, you'll understand why I trust that piece in terms of its trueness*. (As far as I know, that company has a fully-staffed R&D dept. and invests in state-of-the-art machinery made in N.A. or EU on an on-going basis.)

Edit: *as well as its miter angle.

 

[Cheese]

On the other hand it is not a sneaky woodworking way to hawk bit coin miners.

LOL...those pesky bit coin miner people that keep resurfacing.  [big grin] [big grin]

Actually I'm in favor of the [member=75217]squall_line[/member] suggestion that the title of this thread should change because there is a lot of good info in this thread that the thread title obfuscates. For future subject searching the present thread title does nothing, most people would just look at the title and move on, while buried within this thread, good information does exist.

Then again, I have a knee-jerk reaction to sensational post titles that have no substance in-fact and are just a call to stir up the minions.

 

[ferntree@gmail.com]

I’m sure “Rod” didn’t put anyone up to posting about dashboard hinges.

I wonder how far the dogholes are out of parallel if you link multiple MFT’s together.

I only wish my dashboard hinges came with the cool arrows instead of the blue blocks.

 

[mino]

I’m sure “Rod” didn’t put anyone up to posting about dashboard hinges.

I wonder how far the dogholes are out of parallel if you link multiple MFT’s together.

I only wish my dashboard hinges came with the cool arrows instead of the blue blocks.

Enough to be a "problem". Which is not really a problem to begin. When MFT is used as designed.

People forget that the (Festool) MFT holes are NOT designed to be used as a reference for anything.

They "just happen to work" as Festool uses the right material (MDF) and the right tools (tuned CNCs) to make them.

Only recently other makers "caught" on this, and started /effectively straw-man/ marketing campaigns how their dog systems are "better" that the Festool "dog system" thta was never a "dog system" to begin.

Besides, a dog hole system is inherently inferior to any (calibrated) fence+rail setup like the MFT had from the get go. Like 30 (!) yrs ago.

Some story:
-------------------
This whole farce is along:
- XYZ starts making and seling custom rulers which the call "CUR" ruler and which are so-well-made that people start using them as reference straight edges
- couple (10+) years later, ABC makes a straight edge which they call "CUR" as the name got established for a use which it was not designed for /and which it can never do really well/
- THEN ABC starts a marketing (semi-false) campaign how their "CUR" rulers are the best they are straightest - a feature which was never marketed for the XYZ "CUR" product to begin (!)
- DEF, GHI and JK join in, all relying and building on the false presumption, in the process redefining the meaning of "CUR ruler" into "ruler which is also a straight edge"
- eventually DEF goes ahead and attacks the XYZ "CUR" product line for "not being as straight as a proper straight edge", closing the loop

I am not even sure how to get out of it for XYZ at that point. Arguing/defeating straw mans requires an intellectual audience which there is not (in general).
------------

I cannot really see a way for Festool handling this better. When you make quality stuff people WILL find new ways to use your tools you never indended or designed for.

Trademarks help here a bit, but fundamentally they would just prevent MFT being used while a different term like "holed-table" will end up used to the same effect.

/rant

 

[rmwarren]

People forget that the (Festool) MFT holes are NOT designed to be used as a reference for anything.

Bingo!

~10 years ago I was one of the early promotors of 20mm dogs (my Rip Dogs period), just before Peter and Veritas released the original Parf dogs. I was new to the FOG, had just sold the house with the 800 SF shop & moved to my new shed and was trying to replace my 1950's Unisaw w/ this newfangled Festool stuff.

At that time the only dogs available were Qwas (Steve Adams) and Tool Improvements (John...). I credit Steve as being the guy who realized the utility of the precision pattern of holes in the MFT and, AFAIK, birthing the 20mm dog industry. I could be totally mistaken; we tend to think things began around the time we first noticed them.

I've always considered it a happy accident that the CNC precision of hole size/pattern/spacing enabled the concept to not only flourish but that 20/96 was a standard that could be replicated easily.

I'm totally amazed at how it's grown and transformed with the innovations of Peter, Hans & Co. & others. Perhaps if I'd put a little more effort into things, I'd be sipping fruit drinks at my Caribbean beach-front shop now...

RMW

 

[peter halle]

People forget that the (Festool) MFT holes are NOT designed to be used as a reference for anything.

Bingo!

~10 years ago I was one of the early promotors of 20mm dogs (my Rip Dogs period), just before Peter and Veritas released the original Parf dogs. I was new to the FOG, had just sold the house with the 800 SF shop & moved to my new shed and was trying to replace my 1950's Unisaw w/ this newfangled Festool stuff.

At that time the only dogs available were Qwas (Steve Adams) and Tool Improvements (John...). I credit Steve as being the guy who realized the utility of the precision pattern of holes in the MFT and, AFAIK, birthing the 20mm dog industry. I could be totally mistaken; we tend to think things began around the time we first noticed them.

I've always considered it a happy accident that the CNC precision of hole size/pattern/spacing enabled the concept to not only flourish but that 20/96 was a standard that could be replicated easily.

I'm totally amazed at how it's grown and transformed with the innovations of Peter, Hans & Co. & others. Perhaps if I'd put a little more effort into things, I'd be sipping fruit drinks at my Caribbean beach-front shop now...

RMW

Richard,

I do also believe that Steve Adams was the first to mention it here as he was frustrated with the rear fence on his 1080 mft.

Peter