On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:40:00 PM UTC-5, Swingman wrote:
ould have thunk it!
That's not what I meant! :-)
I could picture what you meant when you said you "transport the drawers and
mounts as one unit" but I don't now why you responded to me with that stat
ement. Let's condense and recap:
You said: "Basically, if the drawer works smoothly during a test mount in t
he shop, they will work smoothly after installation onsite."
To which I replied: "Bench testing the drawer and slides on their actual mo
unts...who would have thunk it!" meaning that I never would have thought of
building (and tweaking) the parts on the bench because I never would have
thought to build a frame for the slides as opposed to doing everything with
in the cabinet itself: Add supports, add slides, hope the drawers fit, etc.
Therefore when you say "Actually, I transport the drawers and mounts as one
unit" I don't know what you mean in the context of what I said. I didn't s
ay anything about transporting the units, I was talking about your excellen
t concept of the bench-build to ease the final installation. Obviously you
must have thought I meant something else since you brought up the matter of
So the question is: What did you think I meant that prompted that response?
Basically he and I both in many instances build a drawer unit that
slides into place in existing cabinets. All that is needed at the job
site is to simply anchor the drawer unit in to place. Absolutely no
tweaking needed as that was all done when fitting the drawers to the
Think of it as building a chest with drawers for a room in your house.
Instead you mount that chest inside of an existing cabinet.
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 1:27:12 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
would have thunk it!
and mounts as one unit" but I don't now why you responded to me with that
statement. Let's condense and recap:
in the shop, they will work smoothly after installation onsite."
l mounts...who would have thunk it!" meaning that I never would have though
t of building (and tweaking) the parts on the bench because I never would h
ave thought to build a frame for the slides as opposed to doing everything
within the cabinet itself: Add supports, add slides, hope the drawers fit,
one unit" I don't know what you mean in the context of what I said. I didn
't say anything about transporting the units, I was talking about your exce
llent concept of the bench-build to ease the final installation. Obviously
you must have thought I meant something else since you brought up the matte
r of "transport".
Yes, I understood that part.
My "I'm not sure what you mean by that" response was based on the fact that
I hadn't said anything that warranted Swingman's "transport" comment. He h
as since clarified the reason for that response and we're all good.
Sorry, my fault ... sidetracked by a phone call and never followed
through with the thought I was typing before hitting the send button.
Original intention was to convey the fact that bench testing of the
contraption with drawers was not the sole benefit (particularly when
every drawer in the kitchen is a different size by a few 1/16ths, making
it imperative to keep drawers matched with frames), along with the
possibility of also using them as replacement structural components, re
the other post.
(Certainly don't mind clarifying things for you, but it might not always
be so promptly done as during the holidays). LOL
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:42:55 AM UTC-5, Mike wrote:
Just be aware that you need at least an inch of space for the mounts - 1/2"
on each side.
My current no-slide drawers basically fill the RO of the space frame, so ad
apting them for slides would be problematic. I'm going to lose an inch of w
idth on each new drawer, but I'll get it all back (and more) in depth, not
only in the drawer box itself but also based on the fact that I'll be using
full extension slides.
My new drawers will be ~22" deep, which is at least 4" deeper than my curre
Actually, I often remove those offending parts when retrofitting with
new drawers in those old style built-in cabinets.
While they may be "structural" to some degree (keeping the face frames
attached to the back wall), to maintain any structural integrity the
offending part can often either be moved to another location that will
be out of the way of the new drawer and its supports, or structural
integrity can be maintained, and made even more robust, with the
addition of the new, three sided "drawer frame".
Being already attached to the back wall, it is easy to add increased
structural rigidity to the cabinetry with a couple of finish nails
through the face frame and into the two drawer frame sides ... just
don't hit a hit a screw.
Granted you will have to touch up the stain/paint on the exterior face
frame, but that is a minor issue, easily solved.
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 11:54:36 AM UTC-5, Swingman wrote:
I'm confused again. What parts are you talking about removing?
You can't use your slide frame method on drawers that are as wide as the fa
ce frame opening, can you? Maybe I shouldn't have used "RO" in my post. I m
eant the actual opening of the face face where the drawer goes in. Doesn't
the drawer need to be 1" narrower than that opening to use side slides?
I was responding to Mike who said he was going to use your frame idea to ad
d slides to his *existing* drawers. I was pointing out that he needed to be
sure he could actually add slides to his existing drawers based on their w
idth. In my case, I could not because the existing drawers are as wide as t
he FF opening and don't have the inch of clearance required to add slides.
I'll take a guess...see if I'm missing the boat. :)
I'm thinking he's talking of taking out a recess in the face frame so
the slide will clear. Means you have to have overlaid drawer fronts to
cover the end of the slide or they'll show.
I did that on a bunch of workbench drawers that I wanted as much space
as possible but the support of a heavy slide but haven't ever done it in
a kitchen cabinet. For the workbench I didn't care about looks; just
let the slide ends show so the drawers are full inserted to face when close.
That it, Swing??? :) Or did I misread entirely?
The reference to "offending parts" meant anything (even though it might
be a necessary structural part in its original state) that was required
by the old drawer installation, but will now interfere with the new
Not limited to, but similar to these old drawer runners which are both
no longer needed, and which will interfere with the new installation:
Or no longer needed partitions where new pullout shelving (on drawer
slides) are being planned:
Indeed. I once had to skinny down a bunch of drawers - 16 - that I made
some twenty years ago for a storage table in my shop. Fortunately,
appearance didn't matter so my decades old, aluminum clam shell disk
sander with some #60 paper did the job with a minimum of fuss. Not all 16
needed thinning but there were enough so that I decided to err the other
way in the future. I've never looked back :)
Other option is to use wood only. I just used orange oil on some
old drawers and they slide almost too easy now. They were binding
badly creating wood dust. Now I almost pull them all the way out
when I open them.
I think the wood is fir on my drawers and I don't know if this
is practical advice for your wood choices.
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:28:44 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
I appreciate the suggestion, but I want to use full extension, soft close s
Since my new drawers will be 5" deeper than my old ones, wood-on-wood (whic
h is what I have now) would be cumbersome. The new drawers will be about 22
" deep, which I think is a little deep to be pulling out and hanging onto w
hile trying to get stuff from the back of the drawer.
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.