Newbie question: Crosscutting vs. Ripping

[Matt P]

I know the basic difference between crosscutting and ripping. What if you have a board that's (for example) 2'x2' square, and want to cut a 2" strip off of one side - Do you rip it along the table saw's fence, or use a crosscut sled?

[Randal Stevenson]

Depends on the grain direction on the part you want to cut off.

[Tom Slupek]

I know the basic difference between crosscutting and ripping. What if you have a board that's (for example) 2'x2' square, and want to cut a 2" strip off of one side - Do you rip it along the table saw's fence, or use a crosscut sled?


Ripping - along grain
Crosscutting - across grain

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I know the basic difference between crosscutting and ripping. What if you have a board that's (for example) 2'x2' square, and want to cut a 2" strip off of one side - Do you rip it along the table saw's fence, or use a crosscut sled?

2" strip off the length of one side ? Either approach would do since there is plenty of material to hold onto.

Whether you use the Cross cut sled/fence depends on the accuracy of your cross cut sled/fence.

I'd use mine cause it's accurate within a thousandth or two over the limits of the run of the table.

Because the piece is square, you might be better off using the rip fence - it depends. Lots of guys won't ever cut the short side of a long piece on the rip fence. It's a good practice.

If however, I understand your question it's more theoretical than actual. You are really asking whether the use of the fences and sleds are somehow to be understood in some rigid way.

My response to that is absolutely not. The names of the two fences is purely happenstance. It's simply more common to cross cut on the cross cut fence and to rip using the rip fence.

However, take plywood. There is no pure rip or cross cut direction in the material unless one only considers the facing material. There is rip and cross cut in every cut no matter what angle it's attacked form.

Use your sled when accuracy is paramount. Usually people can't trust the miter fence as well as they'd like. So they build sleds. You will likely have sleds for various common cuts. I haven't seen an adjustable sled yet but I'll bet there is one somewhere.

I threw all mine away (all of them) when I got a slider. I do a great deal of ripping on the slider using the miter fence and rarely use the rip fence.

[Gary Keedwell]

In thay particular situation, I would just rip it because my fence is parallel to my blade. I could get the same results from my sled but using my fence wiould be a faster set-up.
You would also need alot of faith and confidence in your cross-cutting sled.:)
Gary

[Matt P]

That's a great answer - thanks Cliff!

--> "Lots of guys won't ever cut the short side of a long piece on the rip fence. It's a good practice."

--> sorry to be a pest, but why is this?

[Dave MacArthur]

friction on the rip fence can cause the piece to angle. The longer moment-arm of the sideways piece, vs. the short length along the rip fence to stablize the piece, means that you can build up appreciable angles of wood against the saw blade... and this leads to binding and kickback. This is particularly problematic if the length of cut, or width of the board, is less or equal to the blade diameter.

Basically, the goal in all fence use decisions is
FIRST to ensure safety by reducing the possibility for angle/binding/kickback to acceptable levels via technique choice.
SECOND to cut the piece accurately.

If you can not do #2 to your satisfaction with a given technique, some folks might consider using a riskier cut, while considering ways to manage the risk (Operational Risk Management). This leads to use of several things: clamping straight edges along a board to ensure no angles built up on crooked boards; various board hold-downs such as board buddies to apply "anti kickback" forces; featherboards to apply continuous pressure against the fence and negate/avoid any angle build up while keeping hands clear.

This is a great question you asked, and ALWAYS worth more thought! I constantly read posts here which make me consider safer ways to make cuts, and make me realize how lucky I've been with some techniques I have used... a few posts from folks not so lucky who got injured can make you think! I have seen a 3/4" thick piece of oak, ripped about 1" wide, catch and get thrown by the sawblade right through a guys shirt (hanging loosely), and embed itself through some 1/2" plywood on the shop walls. Guy could have been speared. With the "cutting a board sideways on the ripfence" issue, the more likely outcome is having your hands pulled into the blade.

These issues more than anything else make me think about the circular saw/cutting table method used by Eureka Zone and Festool MFT and other such systems where the wood sits still (dead wood concept), and your hand is locked into place with respect to the blade, safely, and you move the saw. I actually found quite a few ideas for improving my table saw safety, just by reading the EZ forum and thinking about points made there. I don't own one of these systems, but many folks actually do opt for them specifically because of these binding/kickback safety issues.

[Richard Magbanua]

You could use either method. For a 2'x2' board I would probably use my fence with the larger piece btween the blade and fence. I would definitely be using my guard/splitter!! Please, use your splitter whenever you are ripping! I've been lucky with regards to kickback. I had enough experience on the saw to think I was safe and had a few pieces thrown over my shoulder. One small piece hit my chest and gave me a bruise. Enough to really scare the crap out of me. I got the clue and now use my guard every time except for crosscuts, dadoes, etc. Good luck!

[Tom Veatch]

Traditionally, and as stated in another post, crosscutting is across the grain or at an appreciable angle to the grain while ripping is parallel to or at a slight angle to the grain. However, as another post indicates, all cuts on ply material will, in the traditional sense, be crosscut for some plies and rip for the others.

I believe the traditional distinction was made because different tooth forms are more efficient for the two directions of cut. Handsaws are filed with either a crosscut or a rip tooth form. The advent of power tools and high quality combination blades have, in my opinion, made the traditional definition in terms of grain direction somewhat obsolete.

With a table saw, the idea of using a miter gauge or sled for crosscutting and the fence for ripping is valid as long as the definition of the cut is also changed. In my mind, when working with a table saw, a crosscut is any cut that is across or at an appreciable angle to the long dimension of the piece, regardless of grain direction. Likewise, a rip cut is any cut that is along or at a small angle to the long dimension of the piece. With those definitions, crosscuts should use a miter gauge or sled and rip cuts should use the fence.

The different definitions usually coincide because the grain direction is normally parallel to the long dimension of the stock. But, since that is not always and forever true in every possible case, I believe that safety is best served by ignoring grain direction and refering to the geometry of the piece when discussing rip or crosscuts on a table saw. Only when using a handsaw or in selecting a blade for the tablesaw is the grain direction an important criterion. And then only because the different cuts are best performed using a tooth form appropriate to the grain direction.

Just my 2 cents.

[Norman Hitt]

Very well Stated, Tom. I concur fully.