I am trying to build some doors using rail & stile bits (Freud 99-261) and panel raising bit (Freud 99-515) When running test cuts, the panel is always fruther out than the rail & stile. If I adjust the depth of the panel raising bit to take a shallower cut I lose part of the profile on the panel. Do I have a compatibality problem with the bits that I am using. No amount of adjustment that I have tried seems to make this combilation work. Any Ideas?
Pat S.
Discover a concrete-free foundation option that doesn't require any digging.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
How thick ?? bits are made to work
with a specific thickness stock.
1/2 or 3/4 usually. Use the panel
cutter. Cut the rails/stiles without
the groove and groove it separately.
Reading your post I assume (gulp i do that sometimes) that you mean the raised portion of the panel sicks out farther than the rails and stiles. If your panel bit doesnt have ####back cutter on it then here are your choices as I see it.
1) plane the panel down to about 5/8, if your using 3/4 mat'l
2) buy a seperate back cutting bit
3) raise front and back of the panel not totally but take ####couple of passes on the back side of the panel and route the front.
4) buy a bit with the back cutter already on the panel bit.
5) If your making alot of doors then when your finished take them to a cab shop and pay them to run the doors through the wide belt sander.
I hope this helps
Darkworksite4: When the job is to small for everyone else, Its just about right for me"
Pat,
View Image
Edited 6/26/2002 8:52:39 PM ET by J Fusco
Thicker frame will screw the profile, you need a shallower angle on the panel cutter. They have them somewhere, but I haven't found one yet.
If someone could Google this I am all ears, but I couldn't be bothered.
View Image
Edited 6/28/2002 7:27:55 AM ET by J Fusco
Edited 6/28/2002 7:40:40 AM ET by J Fusco
Edited 6/28/2002 7:41:49 AM ET by J Fusco
Joe,
On each antique cabinet I own (quite a few), the panel is flush with the frame. I have never seen an old cabinet (1700's, 1800's even most of the 1900's cabinets) that have panels that sit proud of the frame. They simply planed off the panel to make thinner stock. I have often wondered why they didn't just raise both sides. It is not a mass production thing at all. Cabinet makers I know who don't bother to reduce the thickness of the panel stock end up with 3/4" frames and 3/4" panels that stick out past the surface of the frame. All of the doors in my house were made in the mid-1800's, mostly 5/4" stuff or thicker with 5/8" thick panels that actually are below the edge of the frames. Panels higher than the frames don't particularly bother me, it works just fine and if the clients like it that step is eliminated, but it's just not the way I would do it. BTW, your door looks beautiful.
WFLATHER,
View Image
Edited 6/28/2002 11:27:29 AM ET by J Fusco
Thats alotta doors. How do you like working with mahogany?
WFLATHER,
View Image
Edited 6/28/2002 2:23:10 PM ET by J Fusco
If it's of any interest to you, I have a copy of "The Rules of Work of the Carpenter's Company of Philadelphia - 1786" which shows about a dozen raised panel designs for doors and millwork. Consistent with the period work that I have seen in place, these came in two flavors - (1) single-faced raised panels where the back of the panel is set back from the stiles and rails with the raised face flush with the face side stiles and rails (various bevel designs) and (2) double-faced raised panels where both faces are meant to be of equal importance and panel faces are flush with the surfaces of stiles and rails.T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Jeff,
View Image
I can relate to your wood splintering ect. You try Hickory sometime. Its looks good but man I can be frustrating. I can wait to be using maple again.. Darkworksite4: When the job is to small for everyone else, Its just about right for me"
WFLATHER,
View Image
Sorry for being so painfully cryptic, but I am dragging butt right now, (howz that for an excuse?).
The cutters the original poster has will only cut the panel proud to the frame, and I don’t care what you fudge with them. If you frig with the frame bits you will throw off the reveals and cheat the integrity, you frig with the panel cutters you lose the reveals. The solution is a different panel cutter. No? I don’t know from router bits, but I know the cutters are available for a shaper.
Joe, your cad was fine, but the width of the cut on the panel doesn’t change that much, so a more acute angle will allow for a thinner panel.
Ordinarily I don’t mind the "raised" panel, but I have some paneled walls coming up that "I" would prefer the panels to be flush on. The client will be la la with whatever I do, but I don’t see what is so hard about getting the right cutter. Being from cow country I have to deal with Woodworkers Warehouse or go on a 3 hour tour. I very rarely mail order, but WW has nothing and if I drive 3 hours it will be to the beach.
Geesh, I’ll Google shaper bits, this will probably take less time than explaining any of this.
Ya, they say 7/8", but I fudged the frame bits to build a few stong 1" doors. I forget now what they were, but it was a rush rush to repro some passage doors for a job on a 300 year old house, and it all worked out. Same old, couldn't get the right bits in my lifetime, and if did someone wanted to make a boat payment from the deal.
Joe, if I were clamping those full miters I would probably go with the bar clamps. I haven't tried the wood block/strap clamp however. Which do you find easier to keep everything square? Have you ever done doors like that mortise and tenon?
WFLATHER,
View Image
"Rules of Work" etc. The rules were not designs that had to be followed, these Rules of Work constituted, primarily, price-fixing for carpentry work. They contained rules for what should be charged for specific items of work, and the few architectural drawings of details were included so there was no doubt as to what was being described.
I guess what I should have said is that it was typical for stiles and rails to be substantially thicker than panels so that panels could be inset from the back side and yet still be flush on the front with the stiles and rails.
Isn't "Architecturally correct" an oxymoron? ;o)T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Ron, is your panel profile a cove? Looks like, and you lose more of your panel detail width the more you try to make the panel thinner. Might be a nice trick when you want to balance a box newel, but it isn't going to fly with a large panel.
Also doesn't help the poor poster who started this mess, check out what cutters, sorry... router bits he is using.
This thread did make me search for the cutters I wanted, took seconds. I'm really surprised this question didn't provide us with you need ABC with XYZ. Maybe it was better suited for a Q over with the limp wristed tea drinkers.
Yea it is a cove profile. I started thinking (dangerous?) that maybe it woulnt work with other type of profiles. But they do seel bits with back cutters. I havent tried one so I dont know but wouldnt a back cutter flush up the panel? Darkworksite4: When the job is to small for everyone else, Its just about right for me"
Ya, a back cutter set will work just fine, (just don't ask me if they have them for routers, probably do), but if you look at the face cutter it cuts a shallower angle. There isn't any reason you couldn't make your panels thinner to miss the back cutter, if that is what you want. The job I'm thinking of is mostly wall panels, so that is probably the plan.
Now I just need to go back to the tool boyz and see if I can get them out of doh mode. In all fairness, the guy I asked was new and I was in a hurry, (who knew?), but the store I usually go to has a guy that knows just about everything, or that is what he tells me.
clam clamps
If you increase the thickness of the frame, to be equal with the panel, you will have an out of balance bead, (for example).
If you have a panel cutter that cuts a more acute angle your panel won't be proud.
The panel cutters are out there, I just haven't found them, (or bothered to look that hard).
Qtrmeg,
View Image
Interesting replies to this discussion.
When it comes to doors or things structural, I'm sotra in with Joe on this one. I want the panel to be inset towards the center of the rail/stile for maximum strength. Reducing the cutting profile of the raised panel cutter and cutting the back of the panel in a second separate step...vs using a backcutter installed on the panel cutter to do it all at once...gives you better control over how much the panel will stand proud of the stiles and rails.
For non-structural raised panel systems, as used in wall wainscotting, I'll use a setup that sets the face of the panel flush with the face of the stiles and rails. I like this, as it somewhat helps protect the milled edge on the panel. Every avoided ding helps.
The more versatile, or adjustable, your cutting set is, the easier it is to mill the material to fit the application. Or I should say, the easier it is to fit the application as you see it.
Even when runnign wainscotting, if it's a raised panel I almost always use 3/4" stock. I'll use thinner stock if it's a flat panel.
Architecturally, I think Jeff is probably the most "architecturally correct" person on this forum. Application-wise, I think Joe is one of the guys who can say "been there, done that" to most any situation.
In my small world, the older homes around here (mostly 18th century construction) have a mix of both "raised" raised panel construction and "flush" raised panel construction. One of the more famous museums is noted for paintings on the wainscotting...used to be an inn way back when, the owner would take in traveling artists who were allowed to stay for free in exchange for leaving a piece of art painted on a raised panel in the house's wainscotting. The wainscotting in that house (now a museum) is both "raised" raised and "flush" raised.
Is any one way "correct?" From the architectural purists' point of view...yes. From what works in today's generic world of construction? I think not. Vary your methods to work with the customer, the end application, the versatility (or lack of versatility) of your tools, the stock you are building with, and the aesthetic.
Joe,
I took Qtrmeg's comments about changing the angle of the cutter to mean you could still get a decent visual profile on the raised panel while using thinner stock.
If you take another peek at your graphic (worth yet another thousand words, btw<g>) you can see that reducing the angle of the raised panel cutter would allow you to still get a decent width on the milled edge on the raised panel, and if you reduced the thickness (thickness taken off the "face" in your graphic) of the panel to a half-inch, then the face of the panel would be in close aproximation to the face of the stiles and rails.
If I muddled my interpretation of his comments, my apologies to the both of you.
Mongo,
View Image
Et al,
View Image
Ron,
View Image