Jet Xacta fence pads too thick

Page 1 of 2  
I've seen this topic numerous times, but my situation seems to be slightly different.
I have an Xacta II fence. The small pads on the "allign to slot" adjustments came off. Jet sent me a new pair of what are now called flouro pads. They suggested rearview-mirror adhesive to attach them.
I buffed the surfaces of both pad and fence metal, wiped with the cleaner/activator and applied a drop of glue and held in place with spring clamps. An hour later, upon trying to set the fence on the rail, the pads easily came off.
Issue 1 - the rearview-mirror adhesive did not work (maybe it was too cool when I tried it -- about 55F). The residual glue was still a bit sticky.
Issue 2 - the pads are too thick! Even if the glue had setup well -- the fence would not have gone onto the rail as the pads are about 1/16" thick, and there is not that much clearance on either side where they need to go.
I have an email into Jet, but just wondering if anyone else has come across this issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Are you saying that even with the adjustment screws all the way in (or out depending on how you look at it ;~) ) there is no room for the pads? I'm talking about the screws on the T part of the fence used to align the fence with the blade/miter slots not the ones on top that are used to square the sides of the fence to the top of the table.
I haven't had a problem with the XActa fence pads on my cabinet saw but the the pad on my 18" Jet band saw needs to be repositioned regularly... I live with it. ;~)
John

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My Jet dealer suggested using Epoxy to attach the new pads. You should be able to adjust the left and right sides to allow for a 1/16" thick pad, mine are that thickness now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, been there done that and after a number of attempts, the glue that finally worked and is still holding the pads in-place after 5 years...
Gorilla Glue
Clean the mating surfaces, put glue on one, dampen the other with water and clamp them down but only snug. Don't want to force all the adhesive out. The glue will foam out and after its dry, use a razor blade or knife to clean it up. Let it set overnight in a warm basement - not a freezing shop.
If the pads truly are to thick, sand them down a bit them adjust the T bar as per the instructions.
I would have thought Jet had this problem fixed by now.
Bob S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it's the pads that position the fence to the slots/blade from front of saw to back of saw. It's the pads that get clamped into place when the fence is locked (lever pushed down).
The saw is ~suppose~ to be about 2 years old. It's the right tilt 3HP cabinet. The motor says 2007 I think, but the fence looks to be worn more than the rest of the saw (suggesting it might be older than the saw), but it still stays Xacta II. It probably is about a 2 year old saw.
With the screws backed all the way out, I cannot get the pads into place. The pad thickness is greater than the space between the metal (that pads attach to) and the fence rail. I can slide the pads in about 1/2 way, but if I glued then on, I could never get the fence onto the rail (which is partly why they got knocked off this time, though they never would have remained in place).
The pads are probably closer to 3/32nds thick.
Plan of attack..
- wait for reply from Jet (they responded quickly to the pad falling off problem - with a set of new pads) - sand pads down and attach with Gorilla glue (I think I have the Elmers equivalent - hope it works)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One other thought... are you lifting the lock down handle completely up as you try to place the fence on the rail? I just looked at my Jet cabinet saw with Xacta fence and the gap opens up about 1/16" more with the cam completely off the locking bar than when the cam is laying against the locking bar while the handle is in the loose position. That sentence reads terribly! LOL
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message wrote in message

John, I think you just nailed his problem.. The lock cam may be bent, buckled or otherwise distorted forcing the whatchmajig (T bar) closer to the rail. Wish I had access to a binary site, I would take a picture of mine so he can see how it's supposed to be. The pad thickness sounds about right - don't sand them. Something else is wrong and it can only be the locking cam assy. The thickness of the pad on that should be about the same as the other pads. The locking mechanism allows about 1/8" (+/- an RCH) space from locked to unlocked position.
Look at the piece of metal that the cam forces against the rail and that pad - that's where the problem is most likely. That's assuming that the spring arms on the T bar assy are not in their full out position and that the rail(s) are original equipment.
Bob S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*snip*

Bob, email me at puckdropper AT yahoo DOT com and I'll post it to ABPW on your behalf.
Puckdropper
--
On Usenet, no one can hear you laugh. That's a good thing, though, as some
writers are incorrigible.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 5, 10:51pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

Or send to me at coloradotrout AT yahoo DOT com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

g:
My cam moves from 3.156" open to 3.096" closed -- from contact point on cam (where it meets the front of rail) to the opposite side which sits down against the back side of the rail. I'm measuring just the fence and not the rail. In other words, my cam moves 3.156-3.096 = . 06" or about 1/16th of an inch.
My fluroway pads are .124" thick.
My fence rail is 3.015" wide +/- .003" or so.
However, where the pads afix on the fence, there is a difference of . 440 - .360 or .080" (where the pads afix, there is a light bend in the metal). So .080 is taken up by that bend.
So, I have 3.156 open space less .080 = 3.076 less .124 (pad) = 2.952 which is less than the rail of 3.015.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

org:
Also, the old pad was much thinner than these new ones. It was a more rubbery pad of about .049" (worn some).
But .124 - .049 = .075 which makes all of this work out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a.org:
Got this from Jet support...
************* Try contact cement.
From Technical Support.
He may have to squish the metal tabs that the pads are fastened to in order to get them to fit and function properly. ************
Out of curiosity, do the "tabs" on your fences lie flat to the fence? Mine are purposely bent a bit for what looks like was expected that the set screws would be extended about 1/16" or so to make them parallel to the rail.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry guy's, just got around to reading these posts. I will take some pics in the morning and send them to you directly. That way you'll have something to compare with.
Bob S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lla.org:
More feedback from Jet..
My reply.. Are these pads different from the originals? "Squishing" the tabs seems a bit odd.
Jet response.. They are thicker than the original pad and need extra room to fasten the pads. The originals were made from a company here in the USA that went out of business a few years back and we no longer have access to the originals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rella.org:
Bob --- please email me the photos if possible.
I did manage - with some c- clamps to flatten the "tabs" a bit. Those "tabs" are a piece of metal about1/16" thick welded to angle iron of the fence that extends out to the edge where the set screws push against to adjust the fence parallel to the slots. So it's a bit of a process to try to flatten. But I did manage to get .040" flatter, so now my difference is .400-.360 = .040.
So total thickness of fence = 3.156" (open cam) - .040" (metal tab stick out) - .124" (new pad thickness) = 2.992", but my rail is 3.015 thick. And I probably really need 3.020 clearance, so I still need to find about .030".
I don't see any other way except to sand down the pads to .100", else my fence will never want to slide along the rail smoothly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob --- please email me the photos if possible.
I did manage - with some c- clamps to flatten the "tabs" a bit. Those "tabs" are a piece of metal about1/16" thick welded to angle iron of the fence that extends out to the edge where the set screws push against to adjust the fence parallel to the slots. So it's a bit of a process to try to flatten. But I did manage to get .040" flatter, so now my difference is .400-.360 = .040.
So total thickness of fence = 3.156" (open cam) - .040" (metal tab stick out) - .124" (new pad thickness) = 2.992", but my rail is 3.015 thick. And I probably really need 3.020 clearance, so I still need to find about .030".
I don't see any other way except to sand down the pads to .100", else my fence will never want to slide along the rail smoothly.
Sorry,
Got hung up this week and forgot about taking the pics for you. Will try to get to it tomorrow for you.
Got another storm moving in on us tonight - no fun...
Bob S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 4, 8:33pm, "John Grossbohlin"

John,
My cam has little travel from the handle-up to handle-loose position. From loose to lock it's about 1/16". I maybe need to state that a bit differently. From the handle perpendicular to the fence (sticking straight up) to the handle in-line with the fence (sticking straight back), there is almost no travel in the cam. All the travel comes from in-line to the down lock position. And total cam travel is 1/16".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

John,
My cam has little travel from the handle-up to handle-loose position. From loose to lock it's about 1/16". I maybe need to state that a bit differently. From the handle perpendicular to the fence (sticking straight up) to the handle in-line with the fence (sticking straight back), there is almost no travel in the cam. All the travel comes from in-line to the down lock position. And total cam travel is 1/16".
Sounds like there is less of a gap over all between the cam and the lever than on mine.
Just a thought, I wonder if you can remove the cam pivot bolt, insert the pads, and then put the bolt back in and let the locking lever and cam do the "adjusting" for you.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pads in-place after 5 years...

I assume you are talking about Gorilla Polyurethane, correct?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes...
Bob S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.