Thread: Supersaw/router Table Poser

Hi

Depending on what you intend to route, you may need to drop the saw blade for longer lengths of timber. Using the "rear" of the saw table means you can route almost anything without saw blade "interference".

Hey Bewdynewk,

I have a Jet Supersaw and I actually purchased the 50 odd inch fence to allow me to build in a Router table. I mounted the router in a Woodpecker Unilift and work from the saw side of the Microfence. I initially simply clamped an old triton router table fence directly to the Microfence and away she went. I plan to look at either building the fence that featured in Wood magazine's November 2004 issue or possibly see if the Incra fence will work as an attachment to the MicroFence. I get a heap of support for even long timber on the saw side with the saw wound down and for me it's the most natural way to work...but that could be because i don't know any better. I also like the idea of using the very accurate and stable Microfence as the base for the router fence. In relation to dust collection - i built a rough sort of cabinet under the router table and ran a 4 inch branch off the dust collector into the base of the cabinet. Blast gates control the suction. I plan to take a 2-3 inch hose from the side of the cabinet and up to the new router fence once I have the time to make or buy & install it.

Cheers,

Graeme C.

Rod wrote:

Am I weird!!??

Yes. I have read and re-read your post several times and I cannot make head nor tail of it. Perhaps I am just thick. Probably so. Just how does what you plan differ from the picture below? Curious minds want to know.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for your comments and assistance Peter and Graeme - we seem to be on the same wavelength, so I'm glad somebody found my ramblings decipherable!

Derek - sorry you couldn't follow my explanation. I really worked hard on it in order to be explicit too! Trouble is, the idea I propose is simple, but in order to be as explicit and unambiguous as possible, the explanation gets complicated.

Thanks for posting your pic. - it makes the whole deal simpler, as your set-up is exactly opposite to what I am proposing.

In essence, my question is this: why not move the router and plate further inboard and mount the router fence on the other side of the saw fence, thus allowing the operator to feed the router and adjust the (saw) fence from the one side of the table? If I'm not mistaken, with your set-up you adjust the fence from one side (left of picture) and feed the router from the other side (right of picture)?

The main disadvantages I can see with this set-up are (a) perhaps a certain amount of running side-to-side to get things adjusted and (b) the need for off-table support for larger/longer feed pieces... whereas with my proposal, saw fence adjustment and feeding are from the same side and table support for long/large items (especially with saw blade fully down) is virtually limitless.

The only real disadvantage I can see with my proposal is that I would need to remove the router fence in order to use the saw, whereas you can use either router or saw at will - perhaps an important plus that may outweigh the perceived drawbacks.

So, firstly I'm asking if there's anything else I'm missing - since most router/sawtable combos I've seen do it your way - and there must be good reasons for that. Secondly, what the heck are they?!?!?

Cheers,
Rod

Rod

I think I understand what you propose - in fact, I got it right the first time around, but was not sure that I did since it all seemed illogical.

Can I ask you straight if you have used a router table before? Because what you propose goes against all sensibility. You are suggesting that the router table be used in the same way as a tablesaw, that is, just feed in timber at one end, push it away from you as if you were ripping timber.

While I know that there are moulders that work like this, a router table does not benefit from a design to imitate this. Certainly you can push timber past the cutter with the aid of finger boards to hold the timber to it, but I think that you will find that most control comes from a combined forward and sideways push. Anyway mouldings are just a small part of what you can use a router table for. Most of the other tasks benefit from being in front of the table. Often you need to start a cut in the middle section of a board, and you will not have the control you need unless you are in front of it. Reaching across the router table is dangerous.

The "advantage" you argue for - "the router feed side is the same as the saw feed side, so that there's no need for the operator to adjust the saw fence (with attached router fence) from the normal operator position" - is incorrect (as I understand) since you will not be able to use the tablesaw without first removing the router setup (at least lowering the cutter, as well as moving the fence). This issue will be no different where you place the router table section since you are creating a combination machine that shares components.

Then the "disadvantage" of the traditional set up at the right hand side - "with the composite saw/router fence to the extreme Right, one does lose a certain amount of the table (probably about 1ft - but there are five to play with in this instance... lots more with the blade down) and this does place the router and insert plate further inboard, making adjustment, removal and dust problems a little more difficult " - where do you get this stuff from? This is just not so. You do not lose table space (as you said, you just lower the cutter), and I would love to hear your logic on just why you think that your system provides easier access to the router and cutters when you are forced to stand further away than when all is situated at the end of the tablesaw?

Rod, my apologies if all this sounds very critical - well it is, but the intention is to make you look afresh at your ideas.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

Yes, I've used a Triton router table for years as noted in my original post - but never found a need to stand in front of it (facing the router fence) - thus prompting my "am I weird" to stand at the infeed end. True, I've really only done moulding type work.

And that's the crux of my proposal - right from the original post I have really been asking if there is any need to stand in front of the fence... I've never found it and if I understand Graeme's post, he works quite happily ala my proposal too.

So I find it a little difficult to believe that it "goes against all sensibility". However, your reply has been most helpful in that, being much more experienced with equipment than I, you state that most router tasks benefit from being in front of the table (facing the router fence) - so that will certainly make me totally re-evaluate my ideas... that alone really answers the question, although I am yet to discover most of the router's joys obviously!

I must take you to task though - you have "quoted" me twice but the deduced meanings are wrong...

First, the "advantage" quote. You left out the second part of the quote... " and then go round to the back of the saw table in order to feed the router". The full sentence is an opposite animal to that quoted above. The advantage that I could see with my idea was being able to adjust the fence from the feed side, alleviating any running back and forth when setting up the router - I wasn't considering the use of the saw at all at this point. A small advantage perhaps - but if there is a need to stand in front of the fence, then (as I have learned above) it's no advantage at all. And agreed - yes, with my idea, the cutter would have to be lowered and the router fence removed before the saw could be used (possibly not, depending exactly what fence is used, eg a Wonderfence could probably be left in place).

The "disadvantage" quote is a full back-flip on what I said, ie, the disadvantage of having the router plate further inboard and the composite fence to the extreme right (thus losing a little table length) - plus the adjustment, removal and dust problems - were downsides I could see with MY proposal and NOT the traditional set-up, as my original post makes clear.

Also, I made clear in that post that my idea did preclude standing in front of the router table (facing the fence) - and all I have really been asking in my inexperience is - do I really need to do that? (never having found it necessary nor feeling "right" in the past) and why can't it be done the way I propose? (seeing as I could see some advantages in it).

Rod

Hi Rod,

I understand your thought here and think, OK if it works for you then do it. I too have a jet supersaw and upgraded to the longer 50" fence not long after purchasing it. I forget the metric version so apologise for reverting to the imperial. I also was using a triton router stand with the triton router. Router is great but did not like the triton router stand much.

I have drawn, not yet buit, an extension table to go between the longer rails on my saw. I originally thought as you did to put a router in the this new surface. I naturally thought of putting the router at the very end of the table and having the feed in the opposite to what you propose. Never even considered your approach.

I have decided instead to build the extension table and enclose it in and make additional storage space for spare saw blades, tools for changing blades, the mitre guage and fence, feather boards etc. Space is a problem in my shed and I like to keep the saw accesories close to the saw and protected from damage when not in use.

By building a seperate router table I had the flexibility to include some specific ideas that I thought relevant for router tables that are not possible with including it in the table saw. I also use my router table for assembly work, marking out, in fact it doubles as a mobile work bench. I actually made it the same height as my table saw in case I need another out feed for the table saw.

One of my primary concerns with anything when I am working is safety. I would rate balance and control of the work piece as a major safety concern and if I am reaching over to push the wood past the cutting tool then I do not have adequate control. The majority of my routing has been with smaller pieces that required me to be close to the work for better balance. On occasions when I needed to work on longer pieces then my router table can deal with that and safely.

This is not to try and talk you out of your plans because as I mentioned earlier, if it works for you then that is all that matters.

Please send some pictures of what ever you build.

Regards,

Buz.

Thanks Buz - that is helping me refine my ideas.

In fact, I've begun to build something very similar to what you outline... I haven't decided on router placement yet but have built a separate table/cabinet on castors, with 30mm MDF top at Supersaw height - so that the whole unit can be rolled in-between the Supersaw rails to act as an extension table complete with integral router plate (but as I say, plate placement still not decided). The cabinet underneath is empty right now but will eventually incorporate dust extraction facility and storage too - just as you outline.

This unit will, like your idea, be able to be used as a self-contained router table or as an outfeed table for the Supersaw.

I have also purchased a Wonderfence which looks as though it will fairly easily attach to the Micro-Glide saw fence - and probably on either side as desired. This hybrid fence will have a width of about 8in... sorry, 200mm (Buz - don't apologise for using Imperial either... I still can't help but think in Imperial even though I taught Metrics in schools right from the outset in the 70s!)

So, with a near 900mm extension table length and a 200mm wide fence, plus room for adjustment and possibly a mitre track too, a mobile unit might just provide the best of all worlds, ie, whatever one does, the router bit is going to be not all that far away from the centre point, so it all becomes a bit academic. However, this is a rash guess and I need to research this further - so I'd like to know what most people consider to be a comfortable distance for the placement of the bit... ie, how far back from the front of the table (as you face the fence) should it be?

Interestingly, just in the last couple of days I have seen on the Incra website, a couple of set-ups that look to be pretty much the same as my proposal. I'm feeling a whole lot less aberrant now!

I'm not looking for any recognition of "my" idea - not interested in that. I'm just looking for the best idea for my situation, knowing that there's no perfect solution... the Wonderfence adds a further variable too. Just as it would be nice to adjust router and saw fence from the same or front side of the Supersaw - so too would it be nice to extract dust from the rear side (as the Supersaw does). The Wonderfence extracts from either end as desired. With my suggested set-up that conveniently is out of the way at the rear - but with the traditional router plate set-up (which I think I will probably end up following), extraction from the rear also means the operator's side where it might prove a hindrance. Ah well... nobody said it was meant to be easy!

A further point of possible interest for consideration: I've never felt with the Triton Router Table that I was ever reaching too far or dangerously (from the operator or switchbox end)... the extension table/cabinet I've built for the Supersaw, including the rails front and back is a mere 100mm wider than the Triton table's length.

Thanks all, for helping refine ideas - and keep 'em coming!

Rod