Woodpeckers OneTime Tool - Festool MFT Layout & Assembly Square (US)

[RustE]

Just a brief update:  Woodpeckers confirmed that their boxes are meant for retail and not for direct shipping.  I was also told that the MFT square I received is above average quality per the designer's standard.  Really disappointed in the outcome of this deal.

 

[GoingMyWay]

I was also told that the MFT square I received is above average quality per the designer's standard.

They consider the one you got to be above average quality?!  That's pathetic.  The average quality must look atrocious then.  The designer really should up their standard - in actuality shouldn't they all be the same??

 

[RustE]

... in actuality shouldn't they all be the same??

Ideally, all of these should look the same (visual standard) and have three quality reference surfaces (dimensional standard).

 

[southrider]

Got my square last week, and there is noticeable slop between the dogs and the square. The dogs have a nice interference fit in my mft, but once there you can rock the square quite a bit in all directions due to the play between the square itself and the dogs.

Is this by design?

I don't plan on using it with the dogs, but it sure doesn't seem like you could get consistent accuracy with this setup.

 

[Cheese]

Got my square last week, and there is noticeable slop between the dogs and the square. The dogs have a nice interference fit in my mft, but once there you can rock the square quite a bit in all directions due to the play between the square itself and the dogs.

Is this by design?

I don't plan on using it with the dogs, but it sure doesn't seem like you could get consistent accuracy with this setup.

How well do the Woodpeckers dogs fit in the holes of the Woodpeckers MFT square?

Have you checked the squareness of the Woodpeckers MFT square against a known standard?

Have you checked the squareness of your Festool MFT against a known standard?

I talked with Ed the designer of the MFT square and he told me he placed 2 old Festool MFT tops and 1 new Festool MFT top on their vision system and all 3 tops were "out quite a bit".

 

[Welshdog]

My layout square and dogs have the same issue - slop.  the square is square, but using the dogs it is loose. I even bought extra dogs and they are loose in any MFT hole I place them in. My Qwas dogs fit with almost no movement.  If I use the Qwas dogs on the square, it fits better, but is still pretty loose. Not sure yet if this really matters to me - depends on how I end up using the square for setup I guess.

 

[Cheese]

The square is square, but using the dogs it is loose. I even bought extra dogs and they are loose in any MFT hole I place them in. My Qwas dogs fit with almost no movement.  If I use the Qwas dogs on the square, it fits better, but is still pretty loose. Not sure yet if this really matters to me - depends on how I end up using the square for setup I guess.

Have you measured the squareness of your MFT hole pattern using a known standard?

 

[southrider]

My previous post says it all. The square is square. The dogs fit the mft table appropriately. I'm not talking about how well this fits an mft.

The dogs do NOT fit the square appropriately. They are very loose (I didn't measure the slop, nor will I). If you insert the Woodpeckers dogs in the Woodpeckers square they rattle significantly, thus when you install the square to an mft the square moves on it's own dogs while the dogs are nice and snug in the mft.

 

[Michael Kellough]

If you have a round pin (dog) you might find a round hole it fits well. You might find a bunch of round holes it fits pretty well, especially if the holes were all cut at the same time in the same way in the same material. Like an MFT.

Even on an MFT you’ll find some holes that the pin does not fit as well.

Expecting that pin to fit a hole cut at a different time with different specs with a different tool in a different material is a setup for disappointment.

 

[Cheese]

The dogs do NOT fit the square appropriately. They are very loose (I didn't measure the slop, nor will I). If you insert the Woodpeckers dogs in the Woodpeckers square they rattle significantly, thus when you install the square to an mft the square moves on it's own dogs while the dogs are nice and snug in the mft.

Well I measured mine for you... [smile]  I measured at all 4 hole positions on the MFT Square and with the Woodpeckers dog, all were in the .0025 - .0035" range. I've also measured all the Woodpeckers dogs (4 of them) for another previous issue and they were all within .0005" of each other.

So, if you have that much slop that the dogs actually rattle in their bores, either the dogs are undersized, the bores are oversized or both conditions exist. I'd contact Woodpeckers and chat with them.

 

[Cincinnati]

We like parts to fit reasonably tight. But even if the fit is “too sloppy”, as long as all holes are the “same” size and all dogs are the “same” size the system works.

Here’s the example:

If your dogs are too small, or the holes were too big,  as long as the holes are on 96mm centers and in proper geometric registration in the MFT and in the Woodpeckers square, you can push them to one side of the holes and your fence or square will remain in registration with the hole pattern.

So pull the Woodpeckers square toward you or push it to the left, and bring the rail up to it. It will be square to the horizontal rows of holes in the MFT. this works whether you have 1/8 inch or 0.002” of “slop”.

 

[RustE]

I'm going to guess that the holes in the Layout Square are sized to account for the majority of tolerances:  MFT hole sizes and positions, Dog diameters and run-out, Layout Square hole sizes and positions.

About the only way to tighten-up the design is to use long "pins" that go through both the Layout Square and the MFT simultaneously.  The holes in the Layout Square would be 20mm like the MFT and the "pins" would have a shoulder to rest on the Layout Square.
Correction:  The above paragraph is how it was designed.  I didn't have a way to check since mine is gone.

 

[Jesse Cloud]

I take the quality issues very seriously, but I can't get too steamed about the scheduling issues.

I know when I make the very first one of a new product, it takes a lot of time, sometimes an unpredictable "lot of time".  Suppliers contribute to that as do subcontractors, unforeseen technical issues, last minute design changes, etc.  It sometimes takes me ten times longer to make the first acceptable good one as it does the second.  The One Time Tool business model is hostage to that.  I great prefer a maker who takes the time to get it right.  I would never plan a project around the arrival of a one time tool. [unsure]