The rolling folding stand has two plates on each corner that flank the sides of these blocks. The bolts with lock nuts you see here holding the blocks to the tubes are replaced with longer ones that go through those plates, the blocks and the tubes. The frame is far beefier than I expected from the photos.
So a simple L bracket using the same method would work for mounting to a table. Thanks.
That is so strange. This is the item i was talking about… Seems as it there would be some type of thread system like just about any other footing system, but apparently not…
I am thinking the L-Bracket is probably the way to go, or maybe you could rig something similar to what is pictured using a ‘tap’ to make your own threads in the bottom smooth hole. Then could use some rubber/rubber washers on either side of the platform to absorb some vibrations…
Well, looking at the parts, I see that a typical assembly would proceed as follows: Initially loose; check for square; tighten, check for square…final tightening of all bolts/screws.
To that end, while an L bracket will suffice; but, due to access, would be very frustrating for the initial, and later, fine tuning. (Aesthetically (my opinion only) it leaves much to be desired). Going this route would be better handled by 1F selling “mounting brackets” of some kind. They are in a better position to design/provide a better solution of this type;…at a reasonable additional cost.
However, to get the 1F cnc mounted to a board, I think that Dean may be on to something when he suggested “tap”. Yes, there is plenty of material on the underside hole for tapping a thread. Several attachments come to mind at that point. I think doing something along these lines with an oversized “through” hole in the table top would allow for fine adjustment afterward.
I remember seeing videos of support tables jerking around while the machine is operating; so I believe it needs to be secured in place; otherwise, at minimum, the whole setup will creep over time.
All of the above is a workaround. I still think the best solution would be optional, 1F designed, brackets. This is not a criticism; I would still buy the machine and the QCW if I had to do it again.
1 Like
I wonder if one orders the feet, if OF will tap the bottom of those holes for you (if you order the frame and feet prior to sending)? Would be a good question to ask them.
Interesting question. I would bet not. There will be too many QCW’s already delivered to offer that option. My business sense says all QCW’s would be already “tapped”, or none at all; retrofit would be way too much $. I speculate that they have another way of attaching the feet; recall that the pictures and video they provide are for a concept product, and not likely the final delivered product. In a perfect world the end fittings on the main tubes might have extended flanges to accept bolts/screws for securing the machine; akin to what the Y rails already have.
I have the Any Leveling Feet, they come with a 3D printed Plug for the large hole (see red circled area below) that has a threaded insert molded into it that the leveling feet screw into. There is a clearance hole in the bottom of the QCW that lines up with the threaded insert.
. When I get home I will post a picture of what comes with the kit.
1 Like
Thanks for that info!
Just take one or two of the bolts from each back corner that hold a rail. then get a set of big hinges. Drill holes in the hinges to match up with the bolt holes in the QCW. You will have to get longer bolts so as to attach the hinge to the QCW. After that is done screw or bolt the other hinge part down to your table.if you have under mount you still may be able to left your cnc for waste boards replacement’s. if the hinge is in the way of T Track accessories just grind it down a bit or grind channel’s so that you can slide on your T accessories…
I used a heavy-duty self-stick hook and loop. Seems to work well and I can change location easily on the table if needed. The table has its own levelers.
I drilled a 1/2" hole in the top of each “foot box”. I made a punch in the center and then worked my way up from 1/8" up to the 1/2" final hole.
Then I inserted a flat washer into the foot from the tube end (it’s just covered by a press-in plastic cap) using needle nose pliers. Dropped in one of those blue construction screws that originally shipped with the JM. I screwed it into the tabletop using a socket on the end of a 6" extension. Reamed & filed the hole smooth.
The JM Y rails sit in top and close off the access hole.
Using the “keep it simple” principle, I think there might be an easier attachment method. It just now came to me while looking at Jim’s photo in his recent, just above, posting.
How about just drilling completely down thru the right bottom corner hole in the QCW Y-rail mounting block? (boy, that was a mouthful!!) Then you can use either a wood screw or bolt to lock down the QCW frame. It would be up to the user to incorporate one or more, or different, holes. I also suspect that the “thru drill hole” will be most easily accomplished on a drill press, with the QCW footing securely clamped.
I have the “attach from above” QCW option; so I think I’ll use a wood screw in this instance and not have to get under the table for the installation, or later disassembly.
What do you think?
1 Like
I have the attach from above QCW as well.
In retrospect I wonder if it’s worth it vs just making my own with t-track and MDF slats.
The side slats on the QCW and the back 9 1/2" are unreachable by the router. That makes surfacing it something of a chore. I surfaced the front reachable area, removed the 5 wide slats and spun them around, screwed them down and reran the surfacing job without turning the machine off in the process so I maintained the Z zero. It seems to have resulted in a flat spoilboard. But it’s not out of the question that it might be a thou or two off between the two jobs because of the difference in screw tightness and thus spoilboard compression from having to assemble/disassemble/reassemble the slats.
If you don’t do this then it will introduce errors when doing tiled projects longer than the 32" depth because the back of the long material will be fractionally higher than the front.
I’m going to use it until I need to flatten it again before I decide whether I’ll keep using it. It’s a must for the rolling folding table and maybe if you’re not going to screw/bolt your 1F to your table. But if you’re going to screw it to your table, it’s probably easier to get 6 three-foot sections of t-track and a 4x4 piece of MDF and build your own slatted & tracked spoilboard.
Hey Jim;
Semi-random thought: How about cutting off the back 9 1/2" from the 5 wide slats, and not attaching the 2 side slats at all. In essence, just eliminate all areas that cannot be reached by the router? Then the surfacing bit will reach all usable areas, and the slats do not have to be turned…which eliminates the surface discrepancy from the “turning” maneuver. You can also place two thinner outboard slats if needed for clamping operations.
3 Likes
I’ve thought about that. The side slats are an easy toss - really haven’t found a need for those yet.
The back 9" cutoff was the first thing I considered. That leaves the rails/track supports exposed. Aesthetically undesirable 
but also an issue for longer piece support. Without the QCW I was able to place a 2nd slice of MDF behind my wasteboard that I surfaced on top of the wasteboard. Not perfect (probably off a few thou in terms of flatness) but certainly usable as a non-impacting support. With the QCW the t-track rails are in the way. I thought about planing down a long slice of MDF so I can lay it on top of the rails to provide the support for long material. I’d lose access to the t-tracks in the very back but can’t see a lot of use for them that far back anyway.
But I’m going to try to use it as designed to see how it works in real use. When it’s time to resurface I’ll decide if I’m going to keep the QCW with mods or go back to a traditional wasteboard & t-track setup. I want to give it a fair shake to make sure I’m not just reverting to the way I’ve always done things with previous CNC routers.
My feeling right now is that the QCW is a niche solution that really is only necessary for the folks who also buy the Rolling Folding Stand.
Oh, BTW, I designed my VCarve wasteboard project based on the doc for the QCW. That meant I used 8 3/4" wide MDF slats. Because I created the holes based on an offset from the sides I ended up with one side set of holes not fitting - the real width of the slats for the QCW I got is 8 7/8". I should have used wider slats (I cut them on my table saw) or setup the holes to be centered on the slat with a 7 1/16" gap between the two columns of holes. Then if you use the loose fit 8 3/4" slats or a snug fit 8 7/8", they’ll line up on both sides. It’s not a dimension called out on the QCW frame document and if you assume the distance from the edge is the same on both sides (since only the left side measurement is called out) you’ll end up with a problem.
1 Like
I think BJ has it right with the L Brackets. This would use the same holes/bolts that are used for the rolling stand. This also allows you to access the bolts from on top, unlike trying to use the female feet inserts.
I just got my Journeyman and am mounting on a folding torsion table so that is the way I plan to go. Given I’m mounting on a table, accessiblility is relevant for me.
Hey DrivewayWoodworker,
you mean these that come with the Any Surface Leveling System (and unfortunately not with QCW Frame)?
You could still access them if you have a circular hole in your torsion box with the diameter of your hex socket.
Welcome to the forum!
The bolts I got look exactly like this photo, they are not long enough to mount the folding stand. Am I missing something?
I’m interested to know if you actually found a answer to this problem, I own the journeyman waste board table and on mine it is tapped from under wet with a built in nut, so I could screw in something from underneath, but he’ll trying to drill from underneath my table to match the holes on that would be next to impossible way to much math, lol, so anyway I’m thinking an L bracket, unless you came up with something else,
That’s exactly what I didn’t want to do, but it seems that’s the only anwser