Saddle square recommendations ?

[Cheese]

...Injection molded pieces have part to part repeatability, though only as accurate as the machined mold. 

Not really...the part to part repeatability is only guaranteed by the manufacturing process repeatability. I can deliver parts with different perpendicularities using the same tooling/mold by varying the manufacturing cycle parameters. Ever hear of the term "just pack it a little more"? That's a term used when you haven't successfully determined the proper molding parameters but feel confident enough to run product for sale without considering the ultimate dimensional fallout. The product may pass QA specs initially but will ultimately fail long term when exposed to various environmental conditions.

FWIW...an injection molded saddle square would be absolutely my LAST choice for this task. Even if you 2nd op the square by further machining, it is still not a viable precision tool. A fart in the wind would have better staying power.  [smile]

 

[PaulMarcel]

A fart in the wind would have better staying power.  [smile]

Woodpeckers needs to announce this as an OTT on April 1. Not sure how to anodize it, though  [member=7266]jeffinsgf[/member]  [tongue]

 

[Packard]

A fart in the wind would have better staying power.  [smile]

Woodpeckers needs to announce this as an OTT on April 1. Not sure how to anodize it, though  [member=7266]jeffinsgf[/member]  [tongue]

I ordered a over-sized T-square from Woodpeckers right after I purchased my track saw and before I fully understood how to use it. 

I don’’t recall if it was designated as a One Time Tool, but they did not foot-note it or asterisk note it as “delivery may be seriously delayed.  After we were in the “seriously delayed” time frame I wrote to them and asked about delivery and I never got even an estimate. 

As further proof that OTT are often of limited usefulness, mine was never used and is hanging on the wall (seriously dusty) in the CNC milled MDF presentation board. 

(I ended up getting a TSO track square and never needed the T-square.)

The process seriously tainted any judgement I would have on Woodpeckers or their products.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

That's funny, just shows how different we all are. I use a 24" T square every day and wish I had bought it years before I did.

 

[jeffinsgf]

I have resisted the temptation to join this conversation until I had a chance to talk to the product engineer. I have some experience with the tool. I will take all comments (positive and negative) about slick marketing techniques quite personally. What you see, read and hear about Woodpeckers usually starts with me. I work with a talented team of photographers, videographers, and graphic designers...a few of whom are budding woodworkers, but it is usually up to me to take a product from the design team, listen to their explanation of the development and then take it into the shop and figure out how to tell the tool's story. It most definitely is not the other way around. I have very little influence over what is developed, just how to market it once it is market-ready.

Contrary to comments made up-thread, we most certainly do not machine the edge just to make it look machined. It's already machined before anodizing and removing the anodizing is not something we would normally do. That extra step can be attributed to the hinge mechanism. It is nearly impossible to join two pieces with a moving connection and maintain the edges in perfect alignment. They're close. Probably close enough that we could have stopped there and most customers would have been perfectly happy. A decision was made to take an extra step, even though it would negatively affect the appearance of the product.

This is what I learned today from the Product Engineer. A fixture inside the chuck registers on only one half of the tool. In effect, it doesn't matter if the half is above or below the other half. What does matter is that the reference is perpendicular to the hinge, since they were cut together in the previous machining step. A very light cut is made on the edge, ensuring it is linear, and, accepting that the reference surface is perpendicular to the hinge and the cut is parallel to the reference surface, everything should be where it should be. For all of you who understand machining more thoroughly than I do, I hope this explanation makes sense. It certainly did to me. I was following the concern about referencing off the entire assembled surface, but a light bulb went off for me when it was explained that only one side was used when chucking up the tool for final machining of the edge.

 

[semenza]

  [member=7266]jeffinsgf[/member]

        Does that final pass also make the side / edge slightly concave? So that there is a "sharp" edge for the marking knife or pencil to run along? I ask because it appears that way in the video. But maybe just a viewing or image thing.

  Seth

 

[jeffinsgf]

  [member=7266]jeffinsgf[/member]

        Does that final pass also make the side / edge slightly concave? So that there is a "sharp" edge for the marking knife or pencil to run along? I ask because it appears that way in the video. But maybe just a viewing or image thing.

  Seth

No, it should be dead flat. It's cut with an end mill. The shoulder is slightly sharper than you would normally see on a Woodpeckers tool, since the edge-breaker cut takes place in the initial machining.

 

[Packard]

That's funny, just shows how different we all are. I use a 24" T square every day and wish I had bought it years before I did.

There she is. Propped up against the wall behind my assembly bench.

Note:  What looks like a scratch across the top two Allen screws is actually a strand of a spiderweb.

So that this makes any kind of sense, I had ordered my Festool track saw and track for a project.  At that time I had little faith in the accuracy of cuts with the track, and I needed the ability to make 90 degree cross cuts on the plywood sheets. That was the planned use for the T-Square. 

It was so late arriving that I ordered a TSO squaring arm, which perfectly addressed my needs, and so the 32” One Time Tool T-Square became instantly superfluous. 

If the T-Square had arrived quickly, I would never have ordered the squaring arm. 

What I did not know at the time was that the track saw was perfectly able break down sheet goods with sufficient accuracy to serve as “finished” cuts.  My original plan was to make the finish cuts on the table saw.

I’m sure the T-Square is a perfectly competent piece of equipment, but I resent it so much that I always choose another way to measure.

 

[semenza]

  [member=7266]jeffinsgf[/member]

        Does that final pass also make the side / edge slightly concave? So that there is a "sharp" edge for the marking knife or pencil to run along? I ask because it appears that way in the video. But maybe just a viewing or image thing.

  Seth

No, it should be dead flat. It's cut with an end mill. The shoulder is slightly sharper than you would normally see on a Woodpeckers tool, since the edge-breaker cut takes place in the initial machining.

Aah, OK. Some of the perspective just makes it look that way.

Thanks,

    Seth

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Wow [member=74278]Packard[/member]  it's a 32. Do you want to sell it?

 

[Packard]

Wow [member=74278]Packard[/member]  it's a 32. Do you want to sell it?

I can’t imagine it is worth the effort to pack it up and ship it.  Plus it still serves a purpose:  It is a reminder to refrain from buying accessories to new tools until I have some experience with the new tool.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Oh, if it means something to you that's fine. I just asked because you mentioned it so casually.
You're probably right, by the time shipping is added to a reasonable price, it's not worth the effort.
It's not like they don't make new ones.

 

[Packard]

I meant to come back to this thread, but I got distracted.

I wanted to test the accuracy of my resin molded saddle square.

I ripped a piece of 1/4” nominal plywood to an indicated 2-1/2” width on my table saw.

As you can see in the photo, the actual width was 2.470” (though in one spot it was 2.4685” (one and a half thousandths narrower, which was probably a operator induced error).

I drew two parallel lines, one with the square banked off the left side, and one with the square banked off the right side.  The plan was to measure the distance between the lines in two spots to see if they were parallel (as they should be).

I used vernier calipers, but I could not get reliable and repeatable measurements. 

So then I tried making one line, banking first from the left side, and then from the right side.  The line looks a bit fatter, but that could also be an operator induced tolerance.  Maybe I didn’t perfectly align the two lines. 

At that point I went looking for my marking knife (but could not locate it).

But I called the experiment “moot”.  Any marking system that exceeds my ability to measure is probably good enough for woodworking.

In any case, it is my go-to device for marking over the edge of material.  Easy to use, as accurate as I am, and under $10.00.

 

[derekcohen]

I have had the Bridge City SS-2 saddle square for 10 or more years ...



I have made my own in the past, which I gave away as a gift when I received the BC ...

Jarrah and brass: 



If something happened to the BC, I would purchase the WoodPecker's.

Regards from Perth

Derek