Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic

Hello,

I use one of the old style LMI binding cutters. It's the tower on drawer slides, pretty basic. It's got a Porter Cable router in it and I was thinking of replacing the router with a Dewalt 611 so I can more easily adjust the depth. The PC has a mounting base with a thumb screw that allows you to change the depth. Suuuuuper precise.

Anyway, while doing some looking at what else is out there I saw that LMI has an upgraded model and a new carrier.

Does anyone have the new model and do you like it? The rub plate allows you to change the depth and it supports a Bosch Colt, so maybe I can put that friggin router to use.

I could just mod the one I have to take the 611 and order one of their new fancy carriers.

Brad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had it as well before moving on from the tower style jig to a Kett jig. The binding jig was fantastic, but I hated the cradle. I really liked the way the guitar slid into the cutter as opposed to the more acutely stepped donut I had on the jig I used prior to it, and I also thought the router moved up and down incredibly smoothly. If I wanted to go tower again, it would be my choice.

Thanks, Mike. I'm using 30' radius top and 15' radius back. Like you said, I've always measured the four "corners" of the body to make sure they are the same height from the base of the carrier (or from the workbench top).

Instead, you are saying to make the gap between the top and the base of the carrier the same distance all around when doing the back? This will make the surface of the back appear not to be "level" but will keep the sides more square to the bearing. Is that correct?

Appreciate the feedback!

Brad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The correct way to use these is to make sure the sides are square to the platform. I've never heard of anyone trying to make sure the top or back was parallel to the platform. I guess the only way that would work is if the top was literally flat. But, in that case why would you need a binding machine?

Even when doing it the correct way, I notice about a 20 thou depth reduction in the rabbet in the upper bout of the back due to the geometry caused by the tapering. Others have said the same thing and I don't know of any way to avoid this without fixing it by hand somehow. This is on guitars. I haven't noticed the phenomenon happening on ukuleles. It's not much, and probably only luthiers would notice it.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Author:	bcombs510 [ Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:	LMI Binding cutter
Hello, I use one of the old style LMI binding cutters. It's the tower on drawer slides, pretty basic. It's got a Porter Cable router in it and I was thinking of replacing the router with a Dewalt 611 so I can more easily adjust the depth. The PC has a mounting base with a thumb screw that allows you to change the depth. Suuuuuper precise. Anyway, while doing some looking at what else is out there I saw that LMI has an upgraded model and a new carrier. Does anyone have the new model and do you like it? The rub plate allows you to change the depth and it supports a Bosch Colt, so maybe I can put that friggin router to use. I could just mod the one I have to take the 611 and order one of their new fancy carriers. Brad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	Ben-Had [ Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I just bought the new one a couple weeks ago, used it twice so far and I love it (adjusts so much more precise). I had the old tower type like you mentioned.

Author:	Imbler [ Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I had the old style and it worked well, but the new style is much better. Although the old style is very functional, I don't regret having spent the money to upgrade. Very precise depth of cut easily achieved with the threaded doughnut, and the counterweight spring keeps your soft tops from being scratched or dented as easily by the weight of the router when in use. Mike bcombs510 wrote: Hello, I use one of the old style LMI binding cutters. It's the tower on drawer slides, pretty basic. It's got a Porter Cable router in it and I was thinking of replacing the router with a Dewalt 611 so I can more easily adjust the depth. The PC has a mounting base with a thumb screw that allows you to change the depth. Suuuuuper precise. Anyway, while doing some looking at what else is out there I saw that LMI has an upgraded model and a new carrier. Does anyone have the new model and do you like it? The rub plate allows you to change the depth and it supports a Bosch Colt, so maybe I can put that friggin router to use. I could just mod the one I have to take the 611 and order one of their new fancy carriers. Brad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	doncaparker [ Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I'm a very happy user of the current LMI binding ledge cutting system. The screwed on plastic donut is a great feature; it really helps you sneak up on the perfect vertical depth of cut. Also, I think the body carriage is a very smart design. When you combine this with a rabbeting bit and the right sized bearings, and the right cutting sequence (very important), there are very few things that are likely to go wrong.

Author:	giltzow [ Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
Hi Brad I have used the LMI cutter for my last 5 guitars. I am very happy with it. I use the Bosch Colt - Mike G

Official Luthiers Forum! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/

LMI Binding cutter http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=49087	Page 1 of 1

Author:	James Orr [ Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I had it as well before moving on from the tower style jig to a Kett jig. The binding jig was fantastic, but I hated the cradle. I really liked the way the guitar slid into the cutter as opposed to the more acutely stepped donut I had on the jig I used prior to it, and I also thought the router moved up and down incredibly smoothly. If I wanted to go tower again, it would be my choice.

Author:	bcombs510 [ Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
James Orr wrote: I had it as well before moving on from the tower style jig to a Kett jig. The binding jig was fantastic, but I hated the cradle. I really liked the way the guitar slid into the cutter as opposed to the more acutely stepped donut I had on the jig I used prior to it, and I also thought the router moved up and down incredibly smoothly. If I wanted to go tower again, it would be my choice. Did you buy Ensor's Kett jig, the one from CanadianLuthierSupply, or...? I've got one from Chris on the way to give it a try. My main thing is flexibility to accommodate both Uke's and Guitars and consistent results. I like the LMI jig I have now but I do get some slight variance in the channel width. It's more noticeable in Uke's for whatever reason.

Author:	James Orr [ Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I have the Canadian Luthier Supply, but Chris' looks awesome and I'd love to try it. I just don't know if it's worth selling mine to do. My Kett jig from Josh is absolutely my favorite method to date. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	bcombs510 [ Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I'm pretty much committed to moving back to a tower cutter at this point. I've tried the LuthierTool and Ensor jigs. Both have pluses and minuses, but the biggest drawback for me is control of the workpiece. The reason I started investigating alternatives to the tower approach was issues I was having with getting a consistent channel depth, especially on Ukes. I believe this is due to the sides not being square combined with the radius on the front and back, is that correct? Any tips on how to avoid this? I use spreader jacks when gluing the back and top on, but the top is glued with a set of spreader jacks that are much smaller, only making contact with the widest parts of the upper and lower bout. Should I maybe spend some time making cauls that can fit through the soundhole and offer better contact while gluing the top? Other ideas? Thanks! Brad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	Imbler [ Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
Some of the instructions on how to set up your carriage are incorrect in my opinion and lead to the problem you describe. For cutting both the top and the back, the sides need to be normal to the board the carriage moves on. So for a flat top guitar/uke for example where the sides are built square to the flat top, the top should be parallel to the board the carriage glides on both when cutting the top -and- the back. I've seen instructions that tell you to adjust the carriage so that the back is parallel to the table when cutting the back channels, but that makes the sides skewed and depth of cut varies as the bearing is indexing off a skewed side. Might or might not be your problem, but something to consider, Mike

Author:	bcombs510 [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
Thanks, Mike. I'm using 30' radius top and 15' radius back. Like you said, I've always measured the four "corners" of the body to make sure they are the same height from the base of the carrier (or from the workbench top). Instead, you are saying to make the gap between the top and the base of the carrier the same distance all around when doing the back? This will make the surface of the back appear not to be "level" but will keep the sides more square to the bearing. Is that correct? Appreciate the feedback! Brad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	doncaparker [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
I think the trick is to make sure the sides of the body are completely vertical, 90 degrees from the bench top. If you use a short square to adjust the body toward that goal, the design of the rest of the system should handle any other irregularities in the body shape, slope of the back, all that stuff.

Author:	bcombs510 [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
Ok, thanks. I'll grab the new LMI rig here soon and give this a try. Thanks for the help! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Author:	Imbler [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
You've got it Brad! I'll bet that fixes your problem. Yes, the back will not be level, but the sides will be square to the bearing. And the rounded nub the router rides on keeps the unlevel back from noticeably affecting depth of cut. This is assuming you use a radiused top glued to straight sides. If you radius the sides for the top, then the gap between the top and base can't be constant all the way around due to the curve sanded into the sides. In that case get the top gap to base of carrier as constant as the geometry allows, and then check the sides with a square to the base. If square your are good to go, if not make the small adjustment necessary to make sure the sides are square to the base. bcombs510 wrote: Thanks, Mike. I'm using 30' radius top and 15' radius back. Like you said, I've always measured the four "corners" of the body to make sure they are the same height from the base of the carrier (or from the workbench top). Instead, you are saying to make the gap between the top and the base of the carrier the same distance all around when doing the back? This will make the surface of the back appear not to be "level" but will keep the sides more square to the bearing. Is that correct? Appreciate the feedback! Brad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Pmaj7 [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
The correct way to use these is to make sure the sides are square to the platform. I've never heard of anyone trying to make sure the top or back was parallel to the platform. I guess the only way that would work is if the top was literally flat. But, in that case why would you need a binding machine? Even when doing it the correct way, I notice about a 20 thou depth reduction in the rabbet in the upper bout of the back due to the geometry caused by the tapering. Others have said the same thing and I don't know of any way to avoid this without fixing it by hand somehow. This is on guitars. I haven't noticed the phenomenon happening on ukuleles. It's not much, and probably only luthiers would notice it. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Author:	Imbler [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
pat macaluso wrote: The correct way to use these is to make sure the sides are square to the platform. I've never heard of anyone trying to make sure the top or back was parallel to the platform. I guess the only way that would work is if the top was literally flat. But, in that case why would you need a binding machine? Even when doing it the correct way, I notice about a 20 thou depth reduction in the rabbet in the upper bout of the back due to the geometry caused by the tapering. Others have said the same thing and I don't know of any way to avoid this without fixing it by hand somehow. This is on guitars. I haven't noticed the phenomenon happening on ukuleles. It's not much, and probably only luthiers would notice it. Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Most classicals are built on flat rims on the top side even though they have radiused tops. Therefore, when the top is parallel to the base of the carriage, the sides are square, and it is easier to measure distance to the top than jockey things around to get the sides square. Both methods can be used to get the sides square. I just find it quite a bit simpler to keep an equidistant space between top and base of carriage.

Author:	Terence Kennedy [ Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: LMI Binding cutter
For the jigs that use a tower and sled I put a right angle on the table and set the sled so the sides are parallel. Set the tower so the router bit is also parallel, and move the guitar around and make sure the bit is parallel to the cutting surface of the guitar side. There is always a little compromise. That's about the best you can do. The upper bout of the back will always be slightly off in height but not bad if your doughnut has a small contact footprint.