# Help me design a new fence



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

Here is my preliminary plan for a new fence. The idea is to make something similar in concept to the original INCRA fence, with a base that clamps to the table, and then adjusts from there.

Since I want there to be no side to side play, I have one of the sides of the rut glued down, and the other can be adjusted in and out to be able to take out all the slack; that is what the knobs are for. The toggle bolt holds the fence in place.

I am still working on the front ... I want to build in a way to offest the sides for jointing, and it also needs a t-track and dust collection port.

I also will incorporate a ruler into the mix with an adjustable zero marker so it can be positioned easily.

What else would be good to include?


----------



## jw2170 (Jan 24, 2008)

Chris,

Are you going to incorporate a split fence?


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Here is a fence I was going to build. It has more stability than the one you are proposing IMO. If you can provide the dimensions of your table, I would be willing to finish fleshing out this one.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

James, yes I want it to be able to support a split fence.

Jon, that looks interesting. Thanks for sharing it. You said, "I was going to build", but it sounds like you ended up going a different direction? What happened?

One of the main goals is ease and accuracy of adjustment while keeping the fence at the same angle relative to the bit or blade. That is one of the attributes I like so much about the INCRA approach. The base stays put, and there is no play in the shaft the fence is attached to, but it can still adjust 6 inches or more.


----------



## GulfcoastGuy (Feb 27, 2012)

If you do a split fence it's a good idea to put a 45 deg back bevel at the split to allow for removable zero clearance inserts. I'm glad I did or I'd have been up a creek with a little project for my mother-in-law.

GCG


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Chris Curl said:


> James, yes I want it to be able to support a split fence.
> 
> Jon, that looks interesting. Thanks for sharing it. You said, "I was going to build", but it sounds like you ended up going a different direction? What happened?
> 
> One of the main goals is ease and accuracy of adjustment while keeping the fence at the same angle relative to the bit or blade. That is one of the attributes I like so much about the INCRA approach. The base stays put, and there is no play in the shaft the fence is attached to, but it can still adjust 6 inches or more.


Hi Chris,
Rockler put their Router Table Top, including fence and accessories on sale at a "I can't pass it up "sale"". As we speak, it is sitting here while I redesign my project around it.
By shimming the "outfeed" fence of the Rockler fence, and adjusting the cutter to the same plane with a straight edge, I can still achieve the same result. A bit more fussy, but not hard to do.
One nice thing about a router table is that all straight lines are still parallel with the bit as Bob on the router workshop continually pointed out, unlike the table saw where the fence being parallel to the blade is critical. 
The way the design you presented fails is there isn't much support in the middle, just the width of the end of the board. 
The design I presented clamps at each edge of the table. This spreads the support across the entire width of the table.
Rockler's approach doesn't extend completely to the edges, but the slots are far enough apart. The fence provides the "Tee Bolt" slots and a position for tape measure mounting and fence stops, so it is acceptable.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

n6vc said:


> ...
> The way the design you presented fails is there isn't much support in the middle, just the width of the end of the board.
> ...


Jon, I don't fully understand what you are saying here. The base clamps to the top on both ends. And the sliding part attaches to the middle of the fence, so that is where the most support would be. If anything, the ends would be more likely to flex under pressure. I am now thinking 2 sliding parts would give it the type of support you are talking about (sort of like the attached)? Of course, then there is the additional complexity of making sure there is no play in 2 shafts, not just one.



n6vc said:


> ...
> One nice thing about a router table is that all straight lines are still parallel with the bit as Bob on the router workshop continually pointed out, unlike the table saw where the fence being parallel to the blade is critical.
> ...


I understand this as well. I guess I neglected to mention that I hope to be able to use a similar approach for a replacement fence for my table saw, since that is a very inexpensive saw with a rudimentary fence that has a lot of play and can easily be set up such that it is not parallel to the blade.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Hi Chris,
That old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" is very applicable here. Give me your table top dimensions and I will show you what I mean.

One of the first lessons I learned about table saws was given to me by one of the carpenters at Northrop when I first started working there. 
1. make sure the saw is parallel to the miter gauge slot.
2. Never trust the fence. Always measure at both ends of the slot (front and back) to get the same measurement you got at the blade. This ensures that the fence is parallel to the blade.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

the actual table saw's table is 17 9/16" front to back, and 24 1/2" left to right.

and i have learned that i cannot trust the fence to be parallel to the blade (without help) because of the slop i am referring to. the blade is parallel to the miter slot (by the way the miter gauge also has too much slop), and perpendicular to the front and back edges. so when i set the fence, i use a speed square to make sure it (the fence) is also perpendicular, which would then make it parallel with the blade.

one more reason why i want to replace the fence with a setup that has no slop so i can be more confident it is parallel with the blade.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Here is another split fence. I didn't build this one because it clamped to the top like the rockler one does. Maybe a hybrid from both would work. Instead of screws, a cam action clamp would appeal to your wish for quick release. This fence was popular years ago:


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Chris Curl said:


> the actual table saw's table is 17 9/16" front to back, and 24 1/2" left to right.
> 
> and i have learned that i cannot trust the fence to be parallel to the blade (without help) because of the slop i am referring to. the blade is parallel to the miter slot (by the way the miter gauge also has too much slop), and perpendicular to the front and back edges. so when i set the fence, i use a speed square to make sure it (the fence) is also perpendicular, which would then make it parallel with the blade.
> 
> one more reason why i want to replace the fence with a setup that has no slop so i can be more confident it is parallel with the blade.


I'm sorry, Chris. I guess I confused the discussion by mixing router table and table saw information in one message. The dimensions I was requesting was for your router table.

The table saw information was a side issue. I guess I don't have a problem with table saw fences. I expect them to need verifying after each adjustment. For me it's second nature.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

Oh, sorry. The router table was GOING to be the same width (17 9/16"), but that was when I planning on using the table saw's fence. That was before I realized that it had so much slop.

Now that I am scrapping that POS, my goal is to integrate the router table and table saw into one larger surface, 24" front to back and probably 6' left to right.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

Sorry I'm kinda bouncing around here ... 

So I'll probably end up with 2 fences actually: one for the table saw and one for the router. Either that, or the one fence I end up with will have a way to be able to swap faces for the different ways it would be used.

But in practice, that would probably be more work than it is worth, so lets say 2 seperate fences.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

With your information, I think a single fence is possible. How thick is your table going to be and how thick. How much overhang will there be?


----------



## MAFoElffen (Jun 8, 2012)

Chris-

I have a picture in my head of what you are envisioning.

Router fence:

Where your rectangular arm is that perpendicularly attaches to your fence... if instead of being rectangular, you rabbet each edge and do likewaise to the support blocks on each side of it in the base... Seems to me that that would add more support and help guide it like you want.

On your t-track, I think it's mounted on the wrong surface (the front of the fence.) If you mounted your t-track to the back of the two sliding fence curtains and used holes through your fence, the t-bolts (2 each fence half) would then go back through your fence with the threaded knobs at the rear. If you did it the other way, the knobs for it would end up on the work side of your fence. 

With that worked out, you could cut shims with slots to slip over those bolts, between the fence and fence half, to use for jointing.

Table Saw:

(This is tempered by my own opinion and observations) The Incra system for TS uses rails front and rear to slide the base perpendicular to the blade, while keeping the base and fence parallel to the blade. It then extends the fence on an arm. The point I see in that is to ensure that one precarious arm doesn't extend too long. I see if it got extended too long as it being weak and flexing.

The strongest way would be to lock the fence down to both the front and rear of the table or to rails. Other systems overcome that by brute over-engineering and mass. 

An arm like you propose would work, if that arm didn't have to extend out very far. Envision that if it was extended out a ways, that it would not just flex the fence laterally, but also vertically... as the base is what is mounted or locked down. You're going to see these forces more with a TS than with a router.

That's just my insight. Curious to see how it goes for you.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Here is a cross section of the proposed clamping mechanism.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Here is a breakdown. I'll wait for your response before doing more. The next step will be adding the fences:


----------



## Harrison67 (May 30, 2012)

n6vc said:


> Here is a breakdown. I'll wait for your response before doing more. The next step will be adding the fences:




I would say that is a great design. Looks sturdy and square.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

n6vc said:


> Here is a breakdown. I'll wait for your response before doing more. The next step will be adding the fences:


Jon, thanks. That looks like it would keep the base square to the table, which is a great start. But what works best for me is to look at how other people do stuff and then incorporate those ideas and approaches in what I come up with. So, if you don't mind, would you post more details about your plan and then let me digest it for ideas how to design my fence? The planning and designing part is my favorite part of this whole process.

Mike, the idea behind the track in the front was to have a place for accessories like feather boards, stop blocks, bit guards, and the like. And you are right in that what I have posted so far gives no hint of the ability to have fronts that are individually adjustable. What I had so far was a sort of hybrid thing that wouldn't really be good for either; the next version will more specific. Also, I understand what you mean about how a center-supported fence would probably not stay put the way it would be used on a TS, so that idea is out for a TS.


----------



## denniswoody (Dec 11, 2011)

Really interesting so far. But don't forget dust collection in your designs.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

denniswoody said:


> Really interesting so far. But don't forget dust collection in your designs.


Hi Dennis,
You are psychic. As I finishing up the fence top, I noticed the original dust collection box wasn't going to work, but, I will make it work after Chris critiques this latest contribution.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Chris Curl said:


> Jon, thanks. That looks like it would keep the base square to the table, which is a great start. But what works best for me is to look at how other people do stuff and then incorporate those ideas and approaches in what I come up with. So, if you don't mind, would you post more details about your plan and then let me digest it for ideas how to design my fence? The planning and designing part is my favorite part of this whole process.


Hi Chris,
Here is the next layout. I still don't know how thick your table is. Once I know that, I can present plans for fabricating the parts.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

here is another idea ... just another step on the road

it uses jon's clamping mechanism to clamp the base to the top, and also to clamp the two side-to-side sliding individual fence units. each fence can be adjusted individually using an incra-like mechanism 

i don't think i like the way the fences are so disconnected, so the next step will probably be to make one larger fence backing unit with fronts that adjust left and right.

can you tell that i am making heavy use of mechanisms that try to ensure that the pieces have no play and stay perpendicular to each other?


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

next iteration ... this one is much more simple and uses f-clamps to attach to the table. one of the guide blocks is glued and the other is adjustable to you can remove any play. it also has slots for individual fence fronts, and a duct collection hookup

i'm liking this one the most so far.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Hi Chris,
I guess you didn't look at the last upload I presented. There are three pages in the pdf file. Page 2 has some details that might interet you.
As noted in the drawing, the movable fence uses a key and the edge of the base slide to guide on.
The whole assembly lifts off the base and a new jig can be placed on top. The jigs you add are keyed using 3/4" x 3/4" key stock and three studs are anchored and pinned with roll pins. I have included the stud detail in the third page of the pdf.
Jon


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Here are the plans for the movable base:


----------



## Mike (Nov 22, 2004)

My first fence from when I used the whistles and bells methods. Modified from the plans in Shopnotes #1 with Rockler stuff.


----------



## paduke (Mar 28, 2010)

I have an RT mounted in my TS wing. I use a Vega fence. The RT top was from a master force portable RT. Pictured are two fences I have made. 

IMHO if you have a cheap TS like I do (old craftsman mounted on a box for chip collection) the most neccesary upgrade is the fence ESP if you are doing a combo unit.

The MF RT came with a plastic off set fence which I mounted on a plywood frame that can clamp to fence. The other fence was designed to be used on an INCRA positioner, But I regularly use featherboards and the Incra does not provide downward pressure It just lifts off the table. However the weight of the TS fence and the RT fence are sufficent weight to apply downward pressure

If you are using miter slot then it is essential that the saw blade be true to TS miter slot (I used a dial guage) and the then the TS fence to the blade. Then use TS fence to install RT miter slot.


----------



## Quillman (Aug 16, 2010)

More ideas.
Will not take a full thickness swipe, but safe at what it does.


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Quillman said:


> Will not take a full thickness swipe, but safe at what it does.


Great idea! Incorporate a dial indicator and micro-adjust in the design!
Thanks for the input, Pat.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

thanks jon. it was pretty late last night ... long day ... and i was kinda burned out. looking at it again, i understand it better and see how the adjustment mechanism works. pretty neat! if you are ok with it, i will definately incorporate some of those concepts in my next go around.


----------



## billg71 (Mar 25, 2011)

If you're an online member at FWW you can check out Pat's article from a while back.

Bill


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

Chris Curl said:


> thanks jon. it was pretty late last night ... long day ... and i was kinda burned out. looking at it again, i understand it better and see how the adjustment mechanism works. pretty neat! if you are ok with it, i will definately incorporate some of those concepts in my next go around.


Hi Chris,
Feel free to use all or part of the information. That's why I posted it. I am going to finish the design based on the Rockler table I bought. Thanks for the inspiration to get started.
Pat's idea to add the dial indicator is easy to accommodate. Add a steel plate to adhere the magnetic base to (no need to mount the dial indicator permanently to the fixture).
I was thinking a ratchet plate and pawl would provide a positive micro-adjust to the movable fence. This would allow a short screw and plate to install the micro-adjust.
If you don’t mind, I will post the finished plans on this thread for anyone to use.


----------



## Chris Curl (Feb 13, 2012)

n6vc said:


> Hi Chris,
> Feel free to use all or part of the information. That's why I posted it. I am going to finish the design based on the Rockler table I bought. Thanks for the inspiration to get started.
> Pat's idea to add the dial indicator is easy to accommodate. Add a steel plate to adhere the magnetic base to (no need to mount the dial indicator permanently to the fixture).
> I was thinking a ratchet plate and pawl would provide a positive micro-adjust to the movable fence. This would allow a short screw and plate to install the micro-adjust.
> If you don’t mind, I will post the finished plans on this thread for anyone to use.


Of course I don't mind! Thanks!


----------



## n6vc (Oct 11, 2012)

billg71 said:


> If you're an online member at FWW you can check out Pat's article from a while back.
> 
> Bill


Hi Bill,
Thanks for the link. I subscribe to the magazine, so I'll look through my back issues. I wish Fine Woodworking allowed some access to files, but they don't.
I have an idea I wanted to try that's probably different from Pat's method, anyway.


----------

