new slider - requesting feedback on rip capacity

[David Zaret]

i'm thinking very seriously about upgrading my slider to get a few big features that i don't have on my current slider. it's a big investment, but i think it would pay off over the long term. the length of the slider would remain consistent (10') as it's fine for me, and fits in my shop. but, the rip capacity requires some thought, and that's where i'd like to solicit feedback.

on my current slider, i have ~52" or so of capacity, but, the rip fence doesn't easily come off and get out of the way. so, the capacity needs to be that big, because i often have to shove the fence all the way over to ensure the piece i'm cutting clears the fence. with the new saw, i'm seriously thinking about a dramatically smaller rip capacity (33"), mainly because with this saw, the rip fence rolls off the end of the table and disappears below it. so, it's out of the way of the cut.

the smaller rip capacity means a smaller overall footprint on the machine, which, in my case is actually very helpful. but, of course, i'm banking on the fact that i rarely cut stock on the right of the blade that's wide, and rather, do the wide cuts on the slider side.

i have options here as these are made to order - i can increase the rip capacity, but, it increases the footprint. the smaller, the better. i would appreciate opinions of those with similar industrial-size saws. thanks in advance.

--- dz

[Erik Loza]

I can't recall the last time I took an order for a saw with the narrow rip capacity but on the other hand, it seems like you know what you want and your logic makes sense.

Erik

[Kevin Jenness]

Do you work with sheet goods? If you can't crosscut in half whatever size sheets you use there will come a time when you have to get out the tracksaw or whatever to dice up the material.

[David Zaret]

kevin - i do - but i have a CNC. most of my sheet goods are cut on that, obviously. i do some sheet good work on the slider, but i really do a lot of solid wood cutting for casework. i completely agree that there will be rare times when i kick and scream.... i'm just trying to weigh the footprint benefit with the relatively minor "cost." tough call.

[Albert Lee]

i'm thinking very seriously about upgrading my slider to get a few big features that i don't have on my current slider. it's a big investment, but i think it would pay off over the long term. the length of the slider would remain consistent (10') as it's fine for me, and fits in my shop. but, the rip capacity requires some thought, and that's where i'd like to solicit feedback.

on my current slider, i have ~52" or so of capacity, but, the rip fence doesn't easily come off and get out of the way. so, the capacity needs to be that big, because i often have to shove the fence all the way over to ensure the piece i'm cutting clears the fence. with the new saw, i'm seriously thinking about a dramatically smaller rip capacity (33"), mainly because with this saw, the rip fence rolls off the end of the table and disappears below it. so, it's out of the way of the cut.

the smaller rip capacity means a smaller overall footprint on the machine, which, in my case is actually very helpful. but, of course, i'm banking on the fact that i rarely cut stock on the right of the blade that's wide, and rather, do the wide cuts on the slider side.

i have options here as these are made to order - i can increase the rip capacity, but, it increases the footprint. the smaller, the better. i would appreciate opinions of those with similar industrial-size saws. thanks in advance.

--- dz

I have just ordered a new slider not too long ago, I too have a small workshop but I still ordered a 60" rip capacity... my current saw is 52" capacity.

[Jim Becker]

Do you work with sheet goods? If you can't crosscut in half whatever size sheets you use there will come a time when you have to get out the tracksaw or whatever to dice up the material.

Not really an issue...the material goes on the outrigger and wagon. The fence isn't used.

------

David, I actually cut down the rip capacity to the right of the slider I owned and my next one with either have a narrower footprint from the factory or I'll likely reduce the footprint myself. Any bigger ripping I would do would involve the wagon anyway, so I could be happy with narrower capacity. Heck, the PCS I'm using right now in my temporary shop effectively only has 22" of rip capacity because the rails were cut down by the previous owner. I don't see it as a problem and if it is, I have my tracksaw. So for the future replacement slider...I'm good if it doesn't take up an aircraft hanger's space to the right.

I think the important point here is that we all have different needs and expectations for our machinery. Do what's best for you.

[Derek Cohen]

David, my Hammer K3 has a 33” rip capacity. This works perfectly for my purposes, which is building furniture in solid wood. I have not needed larger in the 4 years I switched from a 52” traditional tablesaw. I do not use sheet goods (if I did, I would first resaw it with a circular saw). A big advantage here for me is the reduced footprint.



Regards from Perth

Derek

[johnny means]

I can't ever remember needing over 30" of ripping capacity on a slider. Though, I have run into a problem cutting 5x12 sheet goods in half because the stand for the guard got in the way. Not a huge deal, but flipping 5x12 MDF sheets for a second pass is no fun. I'm guessing that 10 and 12 foot sheet goods are not a problem for most people.

[Mark e Kessler]

If you are placing the saw against the wall like me then obviously you would be limited to cross cutting hardwood boards to the 33” - if away from the wall then maybe not depending on if you get an overhead guard and how it attaches, mine is in the corner on the end of the extension table so it wouldn’t matter if it was in the middle of the room (well if away from the wall you could cross cut longer but no wider than the distance from the guard support to the blade)

I went through the same and really only need the 33” most of the time but didn’t want to be limited and if I remember correctly the cost difference wasn’t that much so I went for the wider rip and figure I could modify it to the 33” if needed at a later date. I also don't want to have a panel saw that is limited to the point that I need to pull out the track saw to make a cut, I want to use the saw for everything, My track saw and chop saw are collecting dust....

Sounds like making an adjustment to the rip width at a later date may not be an option for you on the proposed saw, you mentioned that the rip fence disappears beneath the table so either a powered rip with that option or maybe an Martin T17 or similar…just guessing…

Mine is against the wall and I don’t really feel i lose any space as i have a work table against the wall on the in-feed side lower than the saw table so it doesn’t interfere with the rip capacity if I need it. Even with the larger rip capacity I occasionally run into cross cut issues but that’s no biggie, the saw just turns into a really expensive set of saw horses…lol…

Out of the bizillion photos I have this is the only one that kinda shows the table on the in-feed side I mentioned
1168EA45-54E1-4617-99A7-7174D16D01B3.jpg

And of course the sawhorse configuration…
BA8BDD8B-1034-4A5A-A8A1-56842C2C8D0C.jpg

[Kevin Jenness]

Not really an issue...the material goes on the outrigger and wagon. The fence isn't used.

Whether the fence is used or not, the falloff to the right of the blade is limited to whatever space is available there. If you need to get two 48" long cuts out of one sheet or rip you have to do it another way. An infrequent situation, perhaps, but worth considering.

[Tom Bain]

I went through this same decision a few years back when upgrading my slider. I technically had the room to go up to 52” but it would have made the space around the saw a bit tight. I stayed at 33” and don’t regret the decision. As others have mentioned, the only time it becomes an issue is if/when you need to crosscut a 4x8 sheet in half, and I just pull out the track saw on those rare occasions.

[Jim Becker]

Whether the fence is used or not, the falloff to the right of the blade is limited to whatever space is available there. If you need to get two 48" long cuts out of one sheet or rip you have to do it another way. An infrequent situation, perhaps, but worth considering.

True, I would use temporary support in that situation. I actually have an old-old portable miter saw stand that has two legs and an aluminum beam about 5' long that I use for that kind of thing. But even with the wider right side table there's limited support forward of blade beyond a certain point so even with a "full size" fence setup, temporary support might be required for crosscutting material for the fall-off.

[Rod Sheridan]

I have 30 some inches of rip capacity, never need more.

I remove the rip fence if it gets in the way f crosscuts, which it normally doesn’t.

[johnny means]

Whether the fence is used or not, the falloff to the right of the blade is limited to whatever space is available there. If you need to get two 48" long cuts out of one sheet or rip you have to do it another way. An infrequent situation, perhaps, but worth considering.

The fall of is only limited by any obstruction on that side of the blade. A 48 X 48 off cut only requires a 25 x 25 area of support to not fall off the table.

[Kevin Jenness]

The fall of is only limited by any obstruction on that side of the blade. A 48 X 48 off cut only requires a 25 x 25 area of support to not fall off the table.

The issue I'm pointing to isn't support for the falloff, it's how much room there is to the right of the blade. If you have a saw with 32" rip capacity next to a wall or other obstruction on the right side, you will only have room for about a 42" offcut (depending on the size of the fence casting) even with the fence out of the way.