Tippy ripping on narrow boards

[Toolpig]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael Kellough]

Shimming with stock the same thickness is best generally.

Occasionally I need to rip something oddly small and have had good results taping the strip (double stick and regular) to the straight edge of a bigger thicker board. Also added a stop at the far end to keep the strip from being pushed forward and set the blade depth deeper so the teeth are lifting the stock more than pushing.

 

[SoonerFan]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I need to thin rip with a track saw, I do it just like you do. 

 

[bobtskutter]

I've clamped a sheet of plywood between the rail and the workpiece to act as an extended surface for the rail to sit on.  You loose 18mm (or what ever thickness your plywood is) of your depth of cut.
Regards
Bob

 

[Packard]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A perfect situation for someone with a 3D printer to make an adjustable height stabilizer.  It would attach in multiple locations on the unsupported side of the track.  There are lots of ways to incorporate adjustment.  The simplest is to make support blocks in standard material thicknesses.  They would slide in the slots intended for the clamps. 

 

[Toolpig]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A perfect situation for someone with a 3D printer to make an adjustable height stabilizer.  It would attach in multiple locations on the unsupported side of the track.  There are lots of ways to incorporate adjustment.  The simplest is to make support blocks in standard material thicknesses.  They would slide in the slots intended for the clamps.

I deal with rough cut hardwoods, so there are no standard thicknesses. Would have to be infinitely adjustable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Packard]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A perfect situation for someone with a 3D printer to make an adjustable height stabilizer.  It would attach in multiple locations on the unsupported side of the track.  There are lots of ways to incorporate adjustment.  The simplest is to make support blocks in standard material thicknesses.  They would slide in the slots intended for the clamps.

I deal with rough cut hardwoods, so there are no standard thicknesses. Would have to be infinitely adjustable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then, two “door stop” like wedges with serrations that allow them to lock into place.  One wedge would slide into the clamping slots, the other would have a screw that locked to two wedges together.  Once tightened, they lock into position.

Lots of other solutions to that issue. 

The designer of the 3D printer parts might decide to leave you under-served and just issue standard metric and imperial size blocks. 

Or he might decide to produce two systems. 

Keep in mind that there is a price wall.  A small, inexpensive table saw would resolve the small part issue.  So you cannot produce something that will cost hundreds of dollars.  Manufacturers that produce CNC machined, red anodized aluminum devices would likely be priced out of this market.

It is also a good reminder that “maybe-I-shouldn’t-sell-my-old-table-saw-now-that-I-got-a-track-saw”.

This tile leveling spacer uses a wedge with serrations similar to what I was referring to.  The two would be placed face to face to result in a parallel block.

 

[Toolpig]

Occasionally, I have to rip a straight edge on a board with my TS75 that is narrower than the rail, making things a bit tippy. I usually try to find another board the same thickness as my workpiece to stick underneath the rail, but there isn’t always one available. Have also cut small scrap pieces to fit under the tippy side, but it’s never a perfect solution. Anybody have a better one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A perfect situation for someone with a 3D printer to make an adjustable height stabilizer.  It would attach in multiple locations on the unsupported side of the track.  There are lots of ways to incorporate adjustment.  The simplest is to make support blocks in standard material thicknesses.  They would slide in the slots intended for the clamps.

I deal with rough cut hardwoods, so there are no standard thicknesses. Would have to be infinitely adjustable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then, two “door stop” like wedges with serrations that allow them to lock into place.  One wedge would slide into the clamping slots, the other would have a screw that locked to two wedges together.  Once tightened, they lock into position.

Lots of other solutions to that issue. 

The designer of the 3D printer parts might decide to leave you under-served and just issue standard metric and imperial size blocks. 

Or he might decide to produce two systems. 

Keep in mind that there is a price wall.  A small, inexpensive table saw would resolve the small part issue.  So you cannot produce something that will cost hundreds of dollars.  Manufacturers that produce CNC machined, red anodized aluminum devices would likely be priced out of this market.

It is also a good reminder that “maybe-I-shouldn’t-sell-my-old-table-saw-now-that-I-got-a-track-saw”.

This tile leveling spacer uses a wedge with serrations similar to what I was referring to.  The two would be placed face to face to result in a parallel block.

I have a tablesaw. Just not always the most practical choice in some situations. Wedges might work. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Packard]

As an aside, I have used those wedges/spacers for 24” x 24” tiles and they work really well.  Mine came with a pair of special pliers to really ratchet up the tension. They are only needed for porcelain or ceramic tiles.  Regular spacers are generally fine for natural stone tiles.

Note: For inexperienced tile setters, large format tiles in tub surrounds can be more difficult than say, subway tiles. (I am a member of that “inexperienced” group of tile setters and I found the large format tiles on the wall to be a challenge.)

 

[ShopTeacher27]

Rails and the parallel guides are great for sheet goods, but I also cannot find a consistent, accurate way to rip narrow stock that does not fully support the rail in length OR width. Fiddling with spacers (assuming you have scrap available) is just a pain and unless the rail is perfectly supported by the material, I find it sometimes yields unsatisfactory results for me. I recently had to joint a face frame style edge into square because the rail must have tilted while making the cut, so the result was an edge that was just a bit under 90-degrees, even though I thought I had sufficient support. Argh!

The parallel guides work great for ripping narrow strips from large sheet goods, but they are a pain if you have multiple length pieces from which you need to cut thin stock from. Constantly adjusting the arms on the rail for different lengths of wood is frustrating for me. I even installed an Incra flip fence on the OUTFEED side of my MFT so I can repeatedly cut thin strips from sheet goods without parallel guides, which works great, as long as the rail is fully supported by the sheet goods on the rail side of the cut. Using this technique, I can rip 1-inch strips (or smaller), one after the other, with repeatable accuracy much faster than I can wrangling sheet goods on the table saw. For large sheet goods, rails and MFTs work great!!

I also have a table saw, and even though I would love to dump it and just use 100% Festool, I gave up and now use the table saw for cutting narrow things like rails and styles and other variable length thin stock (especially from variable length hardwood boards). On a table saw, the length of the material makes no difference. Set the fence for the width, and you can make repeat cuts one after the other regardless of the board length. So, I guess I love both tools (Festool rails and a good table saw), but only for the jobs for which they work best - for me.

Like any tool, we should probably try to use the right tool for the right job where possible. For sheet goods, I would never give up the MFT and rail system. For narrow hardwood, you can probably make a rail work if you don't have a table saw, but why force a tool to do something that it just isn't really good at doing in a safe, repetitive, easy, non-frustrating way.

This is just my opinion based on what works best for me in shop with my tools, my limited knowledge, and skill level. Other solutions may work better for you! Best of luck finding out the best solution for you.

 

[Michael Kellough]

Even when you have stock of the right thickness you can have a problem caused by the foam strips under the rail. Sometimes you have to put a thin piece of ply (or cardboard) on top of the stock and shims to keep the stock from tilting. And then you certainly need to clamp the rail.

 

[Jim_in_PA]

I deal with rough cut hardwoods, so there are no standard thicknesses. Would have to be infinitely adjustable.

That kinda makes things more difficult for ripping narrow on rough cut boards. Perhaps you'll want to consider resequencing the rips until after you've at least done basic surface milling (flattened and thicknessed) so you can have an assortment of "helper" boards in various thicknesses to help you support the material for the ripping work. If you need to rip "rough and narrow", the bandsaw (or table saw) may be the better choice. I know from your thread at SMC that you're considering eschewing the table saw, but this is just one of those things that might make that difficult to do and still work safely and accurately.