My Planner Sled Design.

[Rick Ham]

I have a new planer, it's a DeWalt 735 with extension tables. I don't have a jointer or the money to buy one, or a place to put it if I did. I need to flatten lumber so I spent hours reading about other people methods and came up with the following design.

I am seeking input from wiser more experienced people than I. The metal wedges on the sides are meant to be tapped into the side of the board being flattened about 1/8 of an inch.

Will this work, I don't know I haven't built this yet. What do you think?

[Jerry Miner]

The nuts on those metal wedges would make me nervous--- seem awfully close to the planer knives. I'd be more comfortable with a wooden wedge hot-glued to the sled. my .02

[Rick Ham]

The nuts on those metal wedges would make me nervous--- seem awfully close to the planer knives. I'd be more comfortable with a wooden wedge hot-glued to the sled. my .02

Right now there 1/4 In. below a 3/4 inch Thick Board. On a 4/4 board that would give them a 1/2 in clearance. Don't know why I didn't create a full 4/4 board. I could also make the metal wedges 1/4 inch thick instead of 3/8 inch thick. I also plan on, initially at least, limiting my cuts to 1/32 thick.

I appreciate the feed back.

[Joe Mioux]

have you tried just using scrap plywood and wedges? worked great when I had my delta lunchbox planer and best of all it was a fast setup.

[Rick Ham]

Actually I haven't tried anything yet. I've only used a planer once and it was a long time ago. Based on things I've read here and other places wedges and hot glue can be problematic. My goal is to have a system that is quick to set up and is secure during the entire milling process. Knowing me I probably have introduced some overkill in the system by placing the t-track on 6 inch centers, 9 or 12 inch centers may work fine. The metal wedges that secure the work piece may be just as good 1/4 inch thick than the 3/8 thick I making them.

The whole concept may not work at all.

I appreciate the feed back.

[glenn bradley]

The design seems like it could be overly fussy to prepare a board for feeding. The material would have to be held with such force at the pinch-points that I believe it could be hard to accomplish. Without good support under the irregular areas, the planer rollers will try to crush them downward. Being held only by the spikes at the outer edge I could see the material fail at that point under pressure. BUT, that's just my humble opinion and worth every penny you paid . The hot glue or tape method is OK for folks who do this very rarely. If you plan to do this at all regularly I would build Keith Rust's jig from Fine Woodworking or the latest one from Shop Notes. I built the Keith Rust version is a very short time (I did not add the laminate and have not been sorry) and it has been serving me without a hitch for years.

[Al Launier]

Glenn, thanks for your recommendations. I've read your post(s) before on your planer sled (several times in fact) & plan on building my own since I still haven't mastered the use of my 6" Ridgid Jointer/Planer (despite your instructional video). I haven't decided yet which of the above designs I favor, although I may lean toward Shop Note's design(???). However, this project is getting close to the top of my "To Do" list & I do have a couple questions. My planer is also the DeWalt 735 & I have raised both the infeed & outfeed extension tables a bit over 3/16" to minimized the scalping during normal use.

1. I'm assuming I will have to return both the in-feed & out-feed tables to their "zero" position when using the planer sled. This holding true, how does one compensate (if at all) to minimize scalping with the planer sled other than using extra long pieces of wood? Does one lift up the sled as it exits the planer?
2. In Keith Rust's video, he mentions using a smooth laminate on the bottom board to reduce friction. Therefore, I'm wondering if Melamine, with its slippery surface, would be a good material to use on the bottom, or would the more durable (?) wear better?

[glenn bradley]

1. I'm assuming I will have to return both the in-feed & out-feed tables to their "zero" position when using the planer sled. This holding true, how does one compensate (if at all) to minimize scalping with the planer sled other than using extra long pieces of wood? Does one lift up the sled as it exits the planer?
2. In Keith Rust's video, he mentions using a smooth laminate on the bottom board to reduce friction. Therefore, I'm wondering if Melamine, with its slippery surface, would be a good material to use on the bottom, or would the more durable (?) wear better?

1. I used mine on a DW734 which also had the outer tips of the tables elevated to cure snipe issues. I did not change this when I used the sled. As long as there is good support under the leading and trailing ends to simulate an already flattened surface, the sled and it's passenger act like a single piece of wood.

2. I simply used BB-plywood, shellac'd the bottom, sanded to 400 and paste waxed it. I have been using the sled for years without any wear damage. The tables of a planer are pretty darn smooth (and of course we always keep them well waxed) so if we avoid mis-feeds or setting the sled on an unclean surface where we might pick up grit, the wear is very minimal in use.

When choosing between the two, the Shop Notes version is much more refined. Keith's version just happened to be the best thing I'd come across at the time I built. Another deciding factor may be 'usable height'. Whatever your planer's capacity, you will have to subtract the height of the sled to get your usable height. Don't let this tempt you to make the sled skinny as that will jeopardize your stability and the sled is pretty worthless if it cannot act as a rigid carrier.

P.s. Sorry for the thread jack Rick .

[Rick Ham]

I may be wrong but it appears your only getting support at two contact points along the width of the board being planed with any of the methods being used. The way I see it every raw board is going to be warped, twisted, cupped and crooked. Unless the support system across the width of the board can conform to the irregular surface of the board, the best you can get is two contact points across the width of the board. That only works if you put the cupped side of the board down, otherwise you only get one contact point along the width of the board.

Boards.jpg

The more I look at it the more I'm thinking that the rollers don't actually deform the board directly underneath that much. It's the twist in the board that's actually the problem we are working to control.

[Al Launier]

Thanks Glenn, good to know I wouldn't have to reset the extension tables when not using the sled.

Rick, I didn't mean to jack your thread - wasn't thinking & probably should have PM'd Glenn instead.

Secondly, these are good observations.
The sleds do have a number of supporting cross pieces & would provide "most" of the support. However, as you point out, there could still be unsupported places (cup side down) within the width of the board & along its length. If the board is thick enough this may not be much of a problem. However, a thinner board might still allow some deflection. Whether this deflection occurs, given the full width of the drive rollers opposed by the full length of the sled supporting components, is difficult to assess. Having extra supports on hand to "take up the slack" probably would help, as might shims between the support(s) & board if one could access those areas. Generally I think it's better to plane with the board cup side down, but in these cases perhaps cup side up might allow better shim access along the outer edges with temporary hot glue(???).

PS Good thread!

[Rick Ham]

Rick, I didn't mean to jack your thread - wasn't thinking & probably should have PM'd Glenn instead.

My thread, thought it was all of ours thread. No problem either way it was educational for me also.

I use wedges in different ways but, I just don't feel comfortable using wedges in this instance. Mostly based on my inexperience with planers I'm sure. Some of it is based on experiences of others I've read about on different web sites. I like to experiment so I might build one of each design just to see which I like better. At this point in time I don't plan on planing anything thinner than 4 quarters. If 8 inch joiners weren't so expensive I might not even consider a sled for the planer. Even then I can see the need for one.

I'm fifty six years old so I've got pretty good with practicing taking it slow. I plan on doing no more than 1/32 cuts till I get more comfortable with the planer. So if the rollers are spring loaded the downward forces should not be a problem. If I remember correctly from my days in engineering the force of a compression spring increases exponentially as you increase the distance of compression up to the working distance of the spring. It's been a long time since I've done any design work with springs though.

Any way I'm drifting.

Thanks for the input.

[glenn bradley]

I may be wrong but it appears your only getting support at two contact points along the width of the board being planed with any of the methods being used. The way I see it every raw board is going to be warped, twisted, cupped and crooked. Unless the support system across the width of the board can conform to the irregular surface of the board, the best you can get is two contact points across the width of the board. That only works if you put the cupped side of the board down, otherwise you only get one contact point along the width of the board.

Boards.jpg

The more I look at it the more I'm thinking that the rollers don't actually deform the board directly underneath that much. It's the twist in the board that's actually the problem we are working to control.

Remembering this is just my observations from what I do and how I do it; we're all different. Certainly a sled will do better with a board that is twisted or bowed (teeter-totters or bows up like a bridge when laid face down) than on a board that is cupped (looks like a bridge across the width versus the length).

The side to side supports will not contour to a really bad board like a waterbed to my back (I'm dating myself, I should have said "sleep number bed") . However, a board that is that far out of whack would not be a good candidate to surface as a 'whole board' due to the excessive loss of material thickness overall once you finally have a flat "board". For boards this wild I would rip to thinner dimensions to minimize the effect of the defect. If I needed a single wide board and it was really wild, I would head to the lumber yard and save the wild piece for smaller parts.

I have also seen sleds where the bed is full of screws in a sort of random pattern. The board is set on the 'bed of screws' and they are adjusted up and down till the board is well supported. At the other end of the spectrum is a surfacer that employs a 'spike conveyor'. Spiked fingers press down on the irregular surface and convey the surface to be planed across the cutters. I didn't describe that very well but, have seen one is action and it is pretty impressive. Of course, tha machine was as big as my car and way more expensive . . . but really cool