Face Frame Questions

[Steve Milito]

I'm building wall cabinets that will span 19'. Most of the cabinets are a bit over 36" in width, and 30" tall. The span is broken by two tall cabinets, so the longest 'run' is 10', and the other is 6'. I want put face frames on them. Should I frame each individual unit, or build two really big face frames?
What is the best way of attaching the frames (I'm a beginner).
Steve

[Kelly C. Hanna]

I always stick build my frames, but most cabinetmakers build them then attach to the carcass. Most of them like pocket holes for building and just glue to attach [no nail holes]. I just glue and shoot with 18 guage brads one piece at a time.

[Jim Becker]

If your workspace allows you to "dry install" your cabinets, at least in reasonably large sections, I'd go with the larger face frames, but leave final installation until the carcases are in place. My FF construction is via pocket screws, but I use a few biscuits for help in alignment and just use glue and clamps to fasten them once the cabinets are in place and leveled. (Be sure to leave extra material on the ends for scribing....)


But if you feel you can't handle large face frames, there is no harm in building them onto each sub-unit. Plenty of cabinetry gets installed that way.

[Anthony Anderson]

Steve, something that you may want to consider when planning for the longest run of 10', if you intend to use one strip of wood for the top and bottom rails, is that you will need to make sure that you can a good straight piece of wood in a 10' length (after planing and squaring). If not, build the face frames separately for each cabinet and then attach.

As far as the method to build them, as Kelly suggested, use a pocket hole jig. They will go together extremely fast and easy. I have the Kreg K3 sytem, and it works great.

Now to attach the face frames to the carcass, you can use pocket holes as well, but place them where they cannot be seen. On the bottom panel of the carcass you will need to drill the pocket holes in the underside, and then use pocket hole plugs to fill the pocket hole, or you could just use glue and clamps on this portion of the cabinet. The pocket hole attachment method, will cut down on the number of clamps you will need, and will speed up the process at which you can get the project completed.

I always use glue in conjunction with pocket screws, unless it is something that may need to be taken apart in the future. Not sure about something? Keep asking until it becomes clear. Hope this helps. Regards, Bill

[Ted Miller]

For uppers I always attach face frames before install floors I leave til I know they are perfectly level. I pocket hole all my frames but I glue the upper frames as well due to added pressure and abuse by the owners with the doors...

[Dave Falkenstein]

Since you are not well experienced, I would advise you to build the face frames for each cabinet seperately and attach the face frames to the cabinets before installing the cabinets. If you choose the vertical face frame members carefully, the joints will be almost invisible. Use long screws in pre-drilled holes through the face frame edges to bind the cabinets together at the front. By attaching the face frames before installation, you can use pocket hole screws to attach the face frames to the carcasses and easily hide the screw holes.

Rather than scribing the face frames to the walls, use scribe molding to trim out the edges where the cabinets meet the walls.

Building and installing as I suggested will simplify the process, and still make the final result professional in quality, IMHO.

ps - Added after reading Per's post - I agree - make the face frames slightly wider than the carcasses. That will also help make the installation simpler.

[Pete Brown]

I use sommerfeld's tongue and groove kit (http://www.sommerfeldtools.com/item.asp?n=03004&d=79&b=1) for most face frames in my kitchen. He has a good video that instructs you on how to use that to build cabinets. I get positive registration, mechanical help keeping things square, and easy glued installation.

On the length, I got around that in my kitchen by installed "legs" as separators between cabinets. The bottom rail between the legs has a nice curve cut into it. That saves me from working with really long pieces (I can't handle anything longer than 6' in my shop), keeps me from handling enormous cabinets (I work alone), as well as adds visual interest.

I have several of the bottom cabinets done this way, but haven't finished the uppers yet. TBD if the design remains the same, but I see no real issues with it.

(the Microwave build-in kit has a large stainless overlay, which is why the rails are so wide)

Pete

57716

[Per Swenson]

If you are going to make your cabs and frames individually....

Make your frames outside measurement in units of 24, 30, 32, 36, exact.

Make your carcases 1/4 inch smaller. Overhang the frames 1/8th

on each side of the case. This will solve 95% of installation nightmares.

Per

[Steve Milito]

The tongue and grove looks nice, but my the boxes are already glued up, so that's a no go. Maybe next project.

Originally I was going to try to hang the cabinets and then put the face frames on. I think Dave approach sounds the easiest, and lets me fix the invitable mistakes at bench level.

This is really a great forum, with a very high information to noise ratio. It's a pleasure to spend time here. Thank you.

[Ellen Benkin]

My first large post retirement project was "built in" bookcases for a bedroom. Since I knew nothing about building them I made it up. I used 3/4 plywood for the boxes with rabbets at top and bottom. I built each case and installed them on a platform of 2x4s that were screwed to the floor. They are screwed to each other using the holes for the adjustable shelf pins to hide the screws. I then covered the rough edges with molding (I didn't even know they were called face frames). The 2x4s were exactly the height of the baseboard molding in that room, so they do look built in. I stole the old baseboard from a closet so it matches the baseboard in the room. They look great and are very sturdy.

[glenn bradley]

Most multi-unit builds of bookcases use the frames to delimit the verticals (shorter frames side to side). I use pocket holes when I can, biscuits if the pockets will show.

[Joe Chritz]

Only wanted to add to follow Per's advice.

An 1/8 overhang will make installation many time less aggravating.

I generally stick to under 48" for face frame width because it is easier for me to handle. However, the kitchen pantry of mine is 36 x 96 which is just a long 36" tall cab on it's side so it's possible both ways. :rolleyes:

Joe

[Bob Wingard]

I use sommerfeld's tongue and groove kit (http://www.sommerfeldtools.com/item.asp?n=03004&d=79&b=1) for most face frames in my kitchen. He has a good video that instructs you on how to use that to build cabinets. I get positive registration, mechanical help keeping things square, and easy glued installation.

I wouldn't push a newbie to use that bit set .. .. .. if you follow Sommerfeld's slightly misleading video, you cannot possibly be making perfectly square cabinets due to a dimensional flaw in his bits. He is aware of the flaw, and refuses to do anything to correct it.

[luc gendron]

About pocket holes...Do you put the holes outside the cabinets? that way they are invisible once installed in a run of cabinets? I guess for the visible gable end, one could use buiscuits?

[Jim Becker]

Luc, yes you put the pocket holes where they will not be seen whenever it's physically possible to do so.

[Al Navas]

I wouldn't push a newbie to use that bit set .. .. .. if you follow Sommerfeld's slightly misleading video, you cannot possibly be making perfectly square cabinets due to a dimensional flaw in his bits. He is aware of the flaw, and refuses to do anything to correct it.
Bob,

I just purchased the Sommerfeld Eighteen Piece Signature Series at the Kansas City Woodworking Show a week ago. It includes the tongue and groove bits.

I bought the set to make some cabinets, including a very large entertainment center, as my next project.

Just exactly WHAT is the dimensional issue with the tongue and groove set? I believe you owe it to this Forum to support your claim, rather than leave it hanging. Otherwise, it may appear as a very one-sided issue.

And if there is indeed a problem, I will contact Sommerfeld to make good on the dimensional issues. I cannot see how the cabinet cannot be square if tongue and groove is used for the construction, provided all the pieces are cut accurately.

I do know, from a conversation I had with Mark this afternoon, that he recognizes that the tongue does not reach as deep in the groove as it should or could. But I fail to see how this would affect making a perfectly square cabinet; as I see it, the square shoulders on the tongue piece, and the square shoulders on the groove piece, are the only two surfaces required to provide the "squareness".

Is the real issue that these surfaces are not truly square to the tongue and to the groove? The only thing that would cause this would be dimensional issues with the cutters themselves.

Maybe I am missing something in my thought process. Please understand that I am a total newbie when it comes to cabinet construction; and it may be that my engineering background gets in the way.

I look forward to your reply.


.

[Pete Brown]

I wouldn't push a newbie to use that bit set .. .. .. if you follow Sommerfeld's slightly misleading video, you cannot possibly be making perfectly square cabinets due to a dimensional flaw in his bits. He is aware of the flaw, and refuses to do anything to correct it.

How so? I've found that they actually help with squaring things up. I also don't see how the video was misleading, but I may have missed something.

It's only a T&G bit. I don't see how they could knock things *out* of square.

Let me know. Seriously, I'm curious.

Pete

[Per Swenson]

The old way.

Or what I did before pocket screws and the next

trick the domino.

These frames are biscuit and glue joined.

I wish you could hear the circus calliope music in the

back ground.

With pocket screws-- 10 minutes...Screws go on the inside.

With the new domino.... Perfect alignment, same or faster speed

and no holes.

The point?

Pocket holes for speed and economy.

Domino for perfection.

Biscuits and clamps. The great saw dust pile.

Per

[Bob Wingard]

Bob,

I just purchased the Sommerfeld Eighteen Piece Signature Series at the Kansas City Woodworking Show a week ago. It includes the tongue and groove bits.

I bought the set to make some cabinets, including a very large entertainment center, as my next project.

Just exactly WHAT is the dimensional issue with the tongue and groove set? I believe you owe it to this Forum to support your claim, rather than leave it hanging. Otherwise, it may appear as a very one-sided issue.

And if there is indeed a problem, I will contact Sommerfeld to make good on the dimensional issues. I cannot see how the cabinet cannot be square if tongue and groove is used for the construction, provided all the pieces are cut accurately.

I do know, from a conversation I had with Mark this afternoon, that he recognizes that the tongue does not reach as deep in the groove as it should or could. But I fail to see how this would affect making a perfectly square cabinet; as I see it, the square shoulders on the tongue piece, and the square shoulders on the groove piece, are the only two surfaces required to provide the "squareness".

Is the real issue that these surfaces are not truly square to the tongue and to the groove? The only thing that would cause this would be dimensional issues with the cutters themselves.

Maybe I am missing something in my thought process. Please understand that I am a total newbie when it comes to cabinet construction; and it may be that my engineering background gets in the way.

I look forward to your reply.


.

Let me see if I can explain this accurately. Marc's video shows assembling the face-frame, then attaching the sides using the t&g joint. So far, so good. Next, he shows measuring just behind the face frame to get a dimension for the rear "hanging-rail or nail-rail". He takes that dimension and add 1/2" to it, supposedly compensating for the 1/4" tongues that are going to fit into the grooved carcass sides. The problem is that his tongues are somewhat shy of 1/4" in length. On my set and most others I've been able to measure, the error is about 0.035" on each end. This equates to a cabinet that is 0.070" wider at the rear than at the front. Not too big of a deal if you're only making one carcass and adding partitions, BUT .. .. .. if you're building modular cabinets, and hanging 10 of them in sequence on a single wall, you are off by approx 3/4" with the rear being the widest part. You simply cannot close up that big of a gap. In your post, you've indicated that you are already aware of the dimensional error, I'm simply pointing out the effects it will have on your projects IF you use the bit set according to his video instructions. To further prove my point, I took a smaller bearing and made a brass collar for it .. .. the O.D. is 1.185" .. .. I now have a perfect fit .. .. the original bearing had an O.D. of 1.250". A difference of 0.035" on each side for a total of 0.070".

[Pete Brown]

Let me see if I can explain this accurately. Marc's video shows assembling the face-frame, then attaching the sides using the t&g joint. So far, so good. Next, he shows measuring just behind the face frame to get a dimension for the rear "hanging-rail or nail-rail". He takes that dimension and add 1/2" to it, supposedly compensating for the 1/4" tongues that are going to fit into the grooved carcass sides. The problem is that his tongues are somewhat shy of 1/4" in length. On my set and most others I've been able to measure, the error is about 0.035" on each end. This equates to a cabinet that is 0.070" wider at the rear than at the front. Not too big of a deal if you're only making one carcass and adding partitions, BUT .. .. .. if you're building modular cabinets, and hanging 10 of them in sequence on a single wall, you are off by approx 3/4" with the rear being the widest part. You simply cannot close up that big of a gap. In your post, you've indicated that you are already aware of the dimensional error, I'm simply pointing out the effects it will have on your projects IF you use the bit set according to his video instructions. To further prove my point, I took a smaller bearing and made a brass collar for it .. .. the O.D. is 1.185" .. .. I now have a perfect fit .. .. the original bearing had an O.D. of 1.250". A difference of 0.035" on each side for a total of 0.070".

Ok, yep, that is absolutely true. I have to account for a small amount (1/32") for each tongue. However, since I use the T&G set all around, that hasn't been a crippling problem, but it is a pain. I agree that if the tongue was a straight 1/4" things would be quite a bit easier easier. What he should have done is made the tongue 1/4", but made the groove slightly deeper instead of taking the opposite approach.

That being said, I still find it easier, quicker, and more reliable than the other methods I have tried.

When the domino comes out, I'll likely pick one up and reevaluate how I put cabinets together. Biscuits slide around too much and have little real strength. Pocket screws are ugly and have some other problems (see other threads). Making loose tenons by hand for each cabinet isn't going to happen. The domino looks like it will give me the best of all worlds. TBD.

Pete

[Bob Wingard]

Pete .. .. the bit set is a great idea, but poorly executed. For a project like a set of cabinets, the problems are minimal .. .. BUT .. .. try to make a box to EXACT dimensions .. .. if you use the video instructions, it will be 1/32" too deep, proper height, and it will taper out 1/16" front-to-back. Not my idea of a $109.00 bit set.

[Bill Neely]

Bob thanks for the explaination. Did you cut a sleeve for the bearing on a lathe or was there a simpler solution?

I know that there wouldn't be an offset but I wonder if it would be possible to use the Freud adjustable T&G set?

[Steven J Corpstein]

I noticed you have some rather unique clamps in your picture. Where did you purchase those? Thanks.

[Al Navas]

...To further prove my point, I took a smaller bearing and made a brass collar for it .. .. the O.D. is 1.185" .. .. I now have a perfect fit .. .. the original bearing had an O.D. of 1.250". A difference of 0.035" on each side for a total of 0.070".
Thanks, Bob! A great explanation - now I understand. Is it possible to get a bearing that is 1.185"? Can you possibly make some more of these, and make them available to those of us that have this set?


Ok, yep, that is absolutely true. I have to account for a small amount (1/32") for each tongue. However, since I use the T&G set all around, that hasn't been a crippling problem, but it is a pain. I agree that if the tongue was a straight 1/4" things would be quite a bit easier easier. What he should have done is made the tongue 1/4", but made the groove slightly deeper instead of taking the opposite approach....

Pete, I also thought that by using the T&G set all around I would not have the dimensional issues - the reason I posted my reply to Bob's original post. How do you account for the 1/32"? Do you simply cut pieces for the cabinet's back that much shorter? Now that I know about this, I want to make sure I don't screw up my cabinets. I want them square. :D

Thanks again, Bob and Pete.


.

[Pete Brown]

Pete, I also thought that by using the T&G set all around I would not have the dimensional issues - the reason I posted my reply to Bob's original post. How do you account for the 1/32"? Do you simply cut pieces for the cabinet's back that much shorter? Now that I know about this, I want to make sure I don't screw up my cabinets. I want them square. :D
Thanks again, Bob and Pete.
.

Yep, that's exactly what I do. I cut them 1/32" x number-of-tongues shorter. In my drawings I show the nominal length and them put (less 1/16") in the label for the dimension. This only comes into play with cross-pieces (supports, nailing rails, backs if using 3/4" instead of 1/4" etc.)

I agree with Bob that this is silly and shouldn't need to be done. Sommerfeld is usually really good when he designs his sets, but he fell down on that one. After a year of using it, I got so used to it, I had forgotten all about it until Bob mentioned it.

One other benefit on the bits that I can't realize is the length. Mark, in his video, points out that you can bottom out the bit to allow for quick and easy changes. My Milwaukee, however, has a really long collet, so the bit never bottoms out, so I have to re-setup each time I change bits. Not a huge deal.

Pete

[Al Navas]

Yep, that's exactly what I do. I cut them 1/32" x number-of-tongues shorter. In my drawings I show the nominal length and them put (less 1/16") in the label for the dimension. This only comes into play with cross-pieces (supports, nailing rails, backs if using 3/4" instead of 1/4" etc.)...
I really must remember to do this, Pete. Have you looked into another option, such as simply changing out the bearing and putting on a sleeve to get the new diameter? It may be easier said than done...



...One other benefit on the bits that I can't realize is the length. Mark, in his video, points out that you can bottom out the bit to allow for quick and easy changes. My Milwaukee, however, has a really long collet, so the bit never bottoms out, so I have to re-setup each time I change bits. Not a huge deal...
I will have to check this out with my DW625 and, if too deep, use the DW618, unless that one also has too deep a collett.

Thanks!!!


.

[Bob Wingard]

[QUOTE=Al Navas]Thanks, Bob! A great explanation - now I understand. Is it possible to get a bearing that is 1.185"? Can you possibly make some more of these, and make them available to those of us that have this set?


Al .. .. I have made a few of these sleeves in the past and sent them all around the country, they are not difficult to make, .. .. .. BUT .. .. .. as of the first of the year I have retired and no longer have access to the machine shop where I worked. I MAY be able to get one of my old friends back there to turn out a few, but it is a slim possibility as the management has been clamping down on "G-JOBS". The other downside to using these sleeves is that, being made of brass, they are fairly heavy and my fear is thet they will wear out the rather small bearing prematurely. I might try to get some done in aluminum. I'll stay in touch & let you guys know if more can be had. I'm glad you folks all now understand the nature of the problem and that was the reason for my original post. I would not recommend this bit set to anyone who possibly wouldn't understand it's inherent problems, as it could be quite maddening to a beginner.

I never meant to say the method or the bit set is BAD .. it's just a bit more difficult to use than what Marc show on his video .. .. .. for that, I am critical of his set. He has been aware of this problem for quite some time, even before he quit using CMT to supply the set and went to China to have his "Signature" yellow bits made. That would have been the perfect time to correct the dimensions and get things right. By so doing though, he would probably been flooded with requests for corrections. I know one guy up in Michigan who fought this problem for a long time, then bought the yellow set thinking it would be correct .. .. .. same problem .. .. now he has 2 sets that are difficult to work with. He now has a bushing and everything is just fine. I spoke with a Freud rep at the IWF show back in August about this and asked him to consider marketing this concept with correct dimensions .. .. .. they probably already have the cutters, just need to grind them to the correct size and package them as an offset tongue & groove set .. .. .. hopefully,, they will come through for us.

[Bob Wingard]

One other benefit on the bits that I can't realize is the length. Mark, in his video, points out that you can bottom out the bit to allow for quick and easy changes. My Milwaukee, however, has a really long collet, so the bit never bottoms out, so I have to re-setup each time I change bits. Not a huge deal.

Pete

Pete .. .. .. I had the same problem with an old Bosch 1615EVS that I use in my table. I got around it by dropping in a piece of 1/2" Poly-Cord. If you don't have access to that stuff, a piece of 1/2" OD plastic tubing, cut to the correct length does an effective job. You insert/remove the poly-cord or tubing if ever needed by just picking it out with a pointy dentist tool. I've never yet had to remove mine. If you really want to use Poly-cord and can't find it, give me a yell .. .. I think I still have a little bit of it left over.

[Al Navas]

Thanks, Bob. I look forward to hearing from you if new bearings or an alternative may become available.


.

[Scott D Johnson]

I am really a fan of the set and consider myself a newbie. I usually only make 1 or 2 cabinets at a time so it really does not seem to be a huge issue. Thanks for the info. I always wondered if that small gap in the joint would be a problem. Sign me up for the "fix" if it becomes available. I would imagine if we get a list together, we could find someone on this forum with machining skills/tools to create it for us. I personally would even be to pay a nominal fee. (Cost of parts, [assume they would be minimal] plus say.... $20 labor).

[John Hulett]

If you are going to make your cabs and frames individually....

Make your frames outside measurement in units of 24, 30, 32, 36, exact.

Make your carcases 1/4 inch smaller. Overhang the frames 1/8th

on each side of the case. This will solve 95% of installation nightmares.

Per

Per,

I'm failing to see how this simplifies installation. I'm not doubting you... could you explain what this method achieves? My only guess is that hte 1/8th overhang becomes your excess to scribe???

Thanks,
John

[Per Swenson]

Nope John,

There is no such thing as a perfectly flat wall.

You can make a perfectly square cabinet.

Perfectly square cabs (flush box) do not fit well together.

The only saving grace for instance in euro style boxes is the full
overlay door that hides the discrepancy.

But for Face frames the goal is to have all your frames
screwed together perfect, seams flat and flush.

Any wall problems this won't happen on a flush box

When you install, left to right first cab gets screwed to the wall
but not super tight. Next cab is screwed to the first cab.
Then the first cab is tighten up. You then screw your second cab on
the left side of the box lightly and attach your third cab.

You use cedar shakes to shim the cabs in the back of the box.

In this way with the carcass smaller and the face frame exact,

you could hang a professional cab job on a wall framed and sheet rocked
by a drunk 12 year old.

I hope this helps you pick it up.

If its not clear enough I will be happy to try some more.

Per


PS

All store bought cabs are made this way for this reason.

P.

[glenn bradley]

If these are what you mean, here's one source. Most folks carry them:

http://www.rockler.com/product.cfm?page=5155

and his cousin:

http://www.rockler.com/findit.cfm?page=5154

Better prices:

http://www.woodworkersshop.com/Miscellaneous_Woodworking_Clamps.htm

Another variation:

http://www.woodcraft.com/family.aspx?familyid=4837

[Bob Wingard]

I was just looking at this bit set on Marc's site, and noticed something that I don't think was there several weeks ago .. .. ..

**Gap between T&G allows for gluing.

it would appear that he has turned a flaw into a "feature" .. .. ..

Now, think about it this way .. .. .. how would you be reacting to this "feature" if he employed it on a Rail & Stile bit set ?? ?? ?? I can just imagine him telling an irate customer that his doors are falling apart due to his custom bit's "features"

[Larry Prince]

I just gotta jump in here.

I may not have been the first to notice this problem with the Sommerfeld bits but I was at least one of the first, and started talking with Marc Sommerfeld about it almost two years ago.

There are several things about this bit set that bother me:

1. Following Marcs vidio I'm intentionally building shoddy boxes.

2. I shouldnt have to 'compensate' in any way for a shoddy tool.

3. Even if the nail rails are shortened by 1/16" to bring the box into square, the tongue still doesnt seat properly in the groove. This leads to a weak joint and is NOT what you want to hang upper boxes on the wall with.

4. Using this bit set is like using a square thats not square. You're always having to adjust, and remember to adjust, and you're never quite happy with the result.

5. Sommerfeld recognizes the problem but wont fix it. My guess is that the bottom line is more important in this case.

As the recipient of one of Bob Wingards modified bearings I can attest to it's effectiveness. It removes every object I have to the bit set.

I agree with Pers assessment that leaving a scribe can make this a non problem, but, again, it's having to 'compensate' for a bad tool.

I agree with Bob Wingard's comparison of this set to a rail and stile set. If I had to shorten the rails for 20+ doors by 1/16", and then still come up with a bad glue joint, I'd be a mite upset.

This tongue and groove method for box construction is a beautiful idea. It definitely makes assembly a lot more accurate, quicker, and easier. The bit set, however, is poorly made and in light of the $100+ cost, totally unacceptable.

[Al Navas]

I called Mark again a little while ago. He has promised to deliver proper-diameter bearings to me in about one month.

Apparently other customers were also commenting or complaining about this issue, and he will make good on it by having some new bearings machined and distributed. How many I have no idea, but you may want to call him once more.


.

[Larry Prince]

I called Mark again a little while ago. He has promised to deliver proper-diameter bearings to me in about one month.

Apparently other customers were also commenting or complaining about this issue, and he will make good on it by having some new bearings machined and distributed. How many I have no idea, but you may want to call him once more. .

This is good to know.

FWIW, about six-eight months ago I went on an extensive hunt for a bearing of the proper OD that would just drop in as a replacement but had no luck at all. Many were close but none were acceptable. Hopefully Marc will follow thru on this.

[Bob Wingard]

I truly hope he does do "the right thing" because it is going to be very costly to him. Bearings with an O.D. of 1.185" are going to have to be custom built ,unless he takes my approach and uses a smaller O.D. bearing with a collar or sleeve to make up the difference.

This is a better-than-nothing approach, BUT, be reminded that if you use this set extensively, the first time you have them sharpened, the geometry is out the window again. That's why I think the ultimate solution is two routers, each running to a fence and disregarding the bearings altogether.

[Matt Reeves]

I agree with Per totally. After installing thousands of cabinets over the years, this method (almost) always makes up for out of square and out of flat walls. Having the 1/4" gap in the back of the cabinets helps make up for small wall imperfections.

It also makes building the boxes, face frames, doors and drawers easier by using standard sizes. The only downside is that filler will likely be needed at one or more locations.

Regards,
Matt Reeves

BTW - Don't minimize the importance or skimp on the cabinet backs, especially for wall units. A hefty and well secured back allows for secure installation to the wall studs. Nothing would be more embarassing than to admire your beautiful handiwork only to see it come crashing down when it gets loaded up with your wifes best (and rather heavy) china.

[Al Navas]

... That's why I think the ultimate solution is two routers, each running to a fence and disregarding the bearings altogether.
Bob,

Does this mean you remove the bearings altogether and just set the fences to give you the tongue length and the groove depth?


.

[Al Navas]

With apologies to Steve Milito - I believe that his original thread was hijacked a long time ago! But I believe that this entire thing has been a real learning experience, especially for a newbie like me...


.

[Bob Wingard]

Al .. .. I believe you would need to either use the smaller bearings that came with your bit set, or make a shim(s) to space out the cutters to get the correct fit. THEN run the bits to a fence to control the depth of the groove and the length of the tongues. Since you bought the 18 piece set, you may or may not have gotten the extra two smaller diameter bearings that normally come in the set.

[Al Navas]

Thanks, Bob.

The 18-piece set does have the two extra bearings. Now I understand what you meant!


.

[Bob Wingard]

At the I.W.F. show last August, I asked the C.M.T. rep. what those extra bearings were for ?? ?? He had no idea they were even there .. .. they had several sets of cutters there, he opened the box, and sure enough, extra bearings !!

When I explained the problem to him, he promised to bring it to the attention of someone higher up who could address the issue .. .. .. never heard another word from them !! !! !!

Here is a direct quote from him .. .. ..

"I met you at the IWF show and the problem with the Sommerfeld bit is being addressed. The owner of the company has all the information and will evaluate the situation. The show was extremely busy and I did not make the time to discuss the issue until well after the show period had passed. If indeed there is a problem, I assure you we will take all the necessary steps to correct this matter."

Dave McCormack


I believe Dave is a member here on the Creek as well .. .. ..

[Steve Clardy]

Interesting thread...........

Had a problem with their arched door patterns a few years ago.
I never did get it straightened out. I fixed them myself:(

[wayne ateser]

I'm building wall cabinets that will span 19'. Most of the cabinets are a bit over 36" in width, and 30" tall. The span is broken by two tall cabinets, so the longest 'run' is 10', and the other is 6'. I want put face frames on them. Should I frame each individual unit, or build two really big face frames?
What is the best way of attaching the frames (I'm a beginner).
Steve
I just built a face frame for the garage about that size. I just bisquit'ed and yellow glued. Strong as an ox. As far as span goes I say you should build each double door frame and attached together when in place...this for ease of working with the assembly

[Steve Milito]

With apologies to Steve Milito - I believe that his original thread was hijacked a long time ago! But I believe that this entire thing has been a real learning experience, especially for a newbie like me...


.

No apology needed.

Feel free to call me Steve. :)

[Bob Wingard]

FWIW .. .. .. I sent an e-mail to Marc a few days ago, asking him to please respond to this problem .. .. .. to date, he has not replied. This doesn't surprise me because the last few times it was brought to his attention by others, he promised "something" would be done by Fall '06 .. .. .. obviously, we are well past THAT mark in time with no communication other than the fact that he has now turned this flaw into a "Feature" on his webite ad for this product "**Gap between T&G allows for gluing.." If I can get some of the collars made, I'll let you guys know. Maybe Marc will pick up on that cure and provide everyone with collars .. .. .. but if his past performance is any indicator of future action on his part, I wouldn't hold my breath. He is still bold enough to include this verbage in his ad copy for this product .. .. .. "The results of this new method now make your cabinets not only stronger, but much more accurate, plus assuring you that all-important hidden interlocking joint, along with suprising ease and quickness."

oh well .. .. ..

[Steve Milito]

I was pondering one other point. If I make the face frames first and install them on the cabs, the end cabs will have smaller frames where the are scribed to the wall and double frames where they meet another cab. Is this aestetically pleasing or should I make those members out of wider stock?

[Bob Wingard]

Aesthetically Pleasing is basically in the eye of the beholder .. .. ..

Take a walk thru Lowe's or H.D. and look closely at their displays. They use exactly what you are concerned about .. .. .. modular units, where all connections between two cabinets have a stile-to-stile joint. This is probably the most common method of building cabinets, although it does waste some material, i.e. double side panels and double stiles wherever two boxes abut. The upside is that they are generally much easier to transport and install. If you are building for yourself, go with whatever is most pleasing to your eye and whatever is most convenient.

[Al Navas]

I got off the phone with Marc just a few minutes ago; he asked me to post the following on SMC.

Marc Sommerfeld is having a number of bearings made with O.D. 1.185", and will make them available to all who have purchased his tongue & groove set. He stated it will take around 5 or 6 weeks to get them made, after which he can start distribution.


--- Al




FWIW .. .. .. I sent an e-mail to Marc a few days ago, asking him to please respond to this problem .. .. .. to date, he has not replied. This doesn't surprise me because the last few times it was brought to his attention by others, he promised "something" would be done by Fall '06 .. .. .. obviously, we are well past THAT mark in time with no communication other than the fact that he has now turned this flaw into a "Feature" on his webite ad for this product "**Gap between T&G allows for gluing.." If I can get some of the collars made, I'll let you guys know. Maybe Marc will pick up on that cure and provide everyone with collars .. .. .. but if his past performance is any indicator of future action on his part, I wouldn't hold my breath. He is still bold enough to include this verbage in his ad copy for this product .. .. .. "The results of this new method now make your cabinets not only stronger, but much more accurate, plus assuring you that all-important hidden interlocking joint, along with suprising ease and quickness."

oh well .. .. ..

[Paul Wingert]

I'm building wall cabinets that will span 19'. Most of the cabinets are a bit over 36" in width, and 30" tall. The span is broken by two tall cabinets, so the longest 'run' is 10', and the other is 6'. I want put face frames on them. Should I frame each individual unit, or build two really big face frames?
What is the best way of attaching the frames (I'm a beginner).
Steve

If you won't see the sides of the cabinents (due to other cabinets butting against the sides), use pocket screws through the carcass to attach them.

Otherwise, if you have enough clamps, clamp them on (you will need a lot of clamps though).

Using a brad nailer and glue works too.. Just fill in the holes afterwards.

Regardless of how you do it, make the face frames a bit too wide. After you attach them and the glue dries, use a flush trim router bit to trim the sides of the face frame flush with the plywood carcass. It's almost impossible to line it up perfectly (and very stressful), so making them oversized is the way to go.

On the ends of your long row of cabinents, you probably want about an inch or so of extra width on the face frame to make it easier to install. You can scribe to match if you are anal retentive. :) If you aren't retentive, the extra width on the face frace still helps protect you if the walls aren't perfectly in plane.

Hope that was clear.. It's hard to explain without visual aids.

[Scott D Johnson]

Awesome, thanks Al.
What a "Creeker can do" attitude.

[Bob Wingard]

I got off the phone with Marc just a few minutes ago; he asked me to post the following on SMC.

Marc Sommerfeld is having a number of bearings made with O.D. 1.185", and will make them available to all who have purchased his tongue & groove set. He stated it will take around 5 or 6 weeks to get them made, after which he can start distribution.


--- Al
THAT is great .. .. .. I'm glad he is doing the right thing, even if it did take a bit of nudging. It's a shame that, for the most part, only SMC members and those in contact with us will realize there is a solution available. Lots of guys will just toss the bits in a drawer, and never realize how good they CAN perform.

[Pete Brown]

Cool. I also received a reply from sommerfeld telling me to stay in touch over the next couple weeks and "something" will happen. I guess that's it :)

Hopefully the new bearings will still allow a tight fit between the tongue and groove. The current set allows some room for glue to pool at the bottom of the groove

Pete

[Al Navas]

Hi, again.

I finally got the new fence on the router table set up to run the Sommerfeld tongue & groove bits I bought as part of the large Signature set.

The bearings on both bits are identical in diameter, and the joint looks like this on red oak:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/Sandal_Woods/Shop%20Tools/Tgjoint-sommerfeld.jpg


It does appear that the bearing size issue has been corrected. I should have taken a look earlier. I am not in the shop right now, or I would give the dimensions - I just don't remember, other than the identical sizes.

I had to remove one shim to loosen the joint just a bit, and now it is a much better fit. I have not glued this test joint; as a result, I am wondering if this will need a little more clearance to allow glue to do its job.

I will post in the near future with results. Just wanted to show the joint fit with the latest version of the t&g bits.


.

[Steve Clardy]

Looks good Al.
Joint should just slide together by hand.

[Al Navas]

Right, Steve.

I was wondering if more clearance may be needed at the bottom of the groove, though. In the past, too big a gap between the tongue and the bottom of the groove was the real issue with the t&g set; and it resulted in cabinets that were larger across the back than at the front by about 1/16", as Bob Wingard pointed out earlier in this thread.

But now, with these bits, the gap between the tongue and the bottom of the groove seems to not leave enough room for glue.

On the other hand, once glue is applied and the two pieces are joined, there should be an even surface match on the shoulders and at the bottom of the groove, which is what one would want. OR am I missing something? Nice, even clamp pressure may be thing that accomplishes that.

.


.

[Steve Clardy]

Yes. Main thing is both pieces flush on the front side. No visible gap.
Don't woory to much about not enough gap on tongue and groove.
Lots of glue area in other places also.
Even clamping pressure is good.

[Bob Wingard]

Al .. .. according to your photo, you appear to have a near-perfect fit. If your bearings are, in fact 1.250" each, it stands to reason that he made the cutters on the tongue-making bit a little larger in diameter, thus making a longer tongue/tenon. I wouldn't worry one iota about glue being trapped .. .. .. the channel is open on both ends, and glue WILL find a way out .. .. .. it's not the same as squirting too much glue into a hole and then trying to pound in a dowel .. .. .. THAT will cause hydraulic lockup and split the hole out. The critical thing (to me) is to have a tongue that is truly 0.250" X 0.250" for dimensional correctness .. .. THEN, IF need be, make the groove a few thousandths deeper for glue clearance. I personally don't need or really want any clearance .. .. .. I prefer a more precise fit in order to get the wood-to-wood surface contact that produces the most strength.
I really hope yours is going to be the norm and that he has come to a solution about this problem .. .. .. there's not much worse feeling in this hobby as buying what you think are precision-matched cutters .. .. .. intently watching the instructional video where everything works perfect .. .. .. then you go out to your shop, do the same thing as on the video and find out you can't make a square joint for nothing. That's how we discovered the flaw in the first place .. .. .. tried making a small box to very precise dimensions .. .. .. it just wouldn't work.

[Al Navas]

Steve - Thanks again! Coming from you, cabinet maker extraordinaire, it helps my confidence, as I am a newbie to making cabinets this way, or any other way ;) .

Bob - I will measure again today and post the dimensions tonight. I feel reasured that the bit set should do a good job. Now the rest is up to me :D .


.

[Pete Brown]

It does appear that the bearing size issue has been corrected. I should have taken a look earlier. I am not in the shop right now, or I would give the dimensions - I just don't remember, other than the identical sizes..

Thanks Al. Looks good.

I wasn't concerned about a gap inside the groove. Often, mortises are left a little deep to allow for glue pooling and whatnot. In fact, I'd prefer the groove be just a little deep.

The primary concern is the length of the tongue. Is the tongue now exactly 1/4" long?

Thanks.

Pete

[Al Navas]

Here we go, the dimensions for the Sommerfeld tongue & groove bit bearings and dimensions of test boards - with apologies for not posting this earlier:

Bearing diameter, tongue bit:..........1.250"
Bearing diameter, groove bit:..........1.250"
Tongue width:.............................0.248" to 0.249" (after I removed one shim)
Tongue length:............................0.249" to 0.253" -- some chipping on the shoulders (old oak)
Groove width:..............................0.248" to 0.254"
Groove depth:.............................0.249" to 0.252"I hope this helps.


.Edit to add groove depth

[Bob Wingard]

Al, it indeed appears that he has added a bit to the diameter of the tongue cutters such that a true 0.250" tongue remains after the shoulders are pared away. This is really the only practical way to solve the issue since custom bearings are VERY pricey to have made. Now we'll see if he provides retrofit bearings for all of the existing sets out there .. .. .. I hope so.

Looks like your set is dead-on the money !! !! !! I KNOW you'll enjoy using them !! !! !!

[Al Navas]

I am glad too, Bob!

Just HAD to take a break from my current project to get the new router table fence set up to conduct the tests with these new bits. A little downtime from making drawers helped me do this, though.

Now I truly have to finish the design for the entertainment center, so that I can start on it. But first... --> finish the current project.


.

[Larry Prince]

It does appear that the bearing size issue has been corrected. I should have taken a look earlier. I am not in the shop right now, or I would give the dimensions - I just don't remember, other than the identical sizes.
.

Al I dont mean to be argumentive here but I'm not sure the problem has been corrected.

There is just a little blowout on the ends of those pieces in your picture which results in a shadow line right where the tongue should contact the bottom of the groove. When I blow the picture up by about 500% it appears that the 1/32" gap between the tongue and the bottom of the groove is still there, but this may be because of the shadow.


Can you recut the ends of those pieces, and reshoot the picture so the light is shining towards the bottom of the groove? Or, alternately, measure the length of the tongue and see if it is, indeed, exactly .250" ?

[Al Navas]

...Or, alternately, measure the length of the tongue and see if it is, indeed, exactly .250" ?

Larry,

Do you need a new measurement, in addition to the ones I provided three posts above?

Please let me know.


.

[Larry Prince]

Larry,
Do you need a new measurement, in addition to the ones I provided three posts above?

Please let me know..

No and I'm sorry I even asked!! :mad: I didnt see that post before I made mine. Embarrassment reigns supreme in the woodworks this morning.

Your measurements are reassuring and give me impetus to call Sommerfeld and see what they'll do about the two bad sets I own.

[Al Navas]

No and I'm sorry I even asked!! :mad: I didnt see that post before I made mine. Embarrassment reigns supreme in the woodworks this morning.

Your measurements are reassuring and give me impetus to call Sommerfeld and see what they'll do about the two bad sets I own.
I am quite slow getting moving this morning too ;) . I hope you CAN get back on track -- :D -- .

Just let Donna know that you saw these posts at Saw Mill Creek. They have also been following up on this thread, as I sent Mark the link about two weeks ago - or maybe just last week???? I wanted him to know that people were still upset that their router bit sets were flawed. As I mentioned earlier, I believe he will make good on it, based on my latest chat with him yesterday.


.

[Larry Prince]

FWIW Woodline is offering this T&G set via Amazon for $75. I've confirmed with Woodline that their set cuts a true 1/4 X 1/4 X 14 tongue.

On the amazon site just search for "Woodline Tongue and Groove"