I’ll need a bit of time to play around with the suggestions. The bottom of the flange nut does indeed look like the model in Gully’s post.
Thanks all.
Man, I knew you guys were good…but wow.
You’re a pretty darned likable fellow, Rick.
-Gully
Done (2.8 MB)
and here is a picture of the router table.
Thanks everyone again, for all the help. It just needs a paint job.
Good work. I see a few nits that could be picked but as long as it does the job for you, it’s good.
[quote=“DaveR, post:25, topic:15448”]
I see a few nits that could be picked but …[/quote]
And they are? Just out of curiosity. I could learn something I oversee. And you are the expert.
The nit I would have picked straight away was incorrect layer usage.
Thanks Box, … didn’t see that one coming. 
I should have explained, for I was looking at the image and was curious about the router table itself and what could be “wrong”.
(I didn’t download the file so I take your word for it).
Wo3Dan, I’m certainly no more of an expert than you are. I’m probably less of an expert, truth be told.
Here are a few nits I found in addition to the layer thing.
The bolts that Bigtim spent so much time drawing aren’t positioned correctly. They are placed at an angle to the surface with the head partially buried.
There are no bolts securing the lower leg sections to the upper ones.
There are quite a few edges that could be softened and there are coplanar edges and internal faces that could be deleted.
Unnecessary component levels. There’s no need to double wrap geometry like this.
Unnecessary component separation. On the real thing all four of the short rails would be identical as would all four of the long ones. They should all be instances of the same component. instead of separated from one side to the other.
The miter angle on one end of the lower side of the short rail is incorrect.
Reversed faces (in green) on the underside of one set of the long rails.
It’s positioned below the ground plane so shadows are wrong.
All of these things can be fixed and I’m sure BigTim has found this project a good learning experience. And really, that’s the point, isn’t it?
Thank you all for your comments and nits. The only component built in the original drawing was the long leg angle and it was drawn on the ground plane All other components were drawn in their own drawing and copied and pasted to the long leg angle drawing. That’s why some components are below the ground plane. Didn’t know that that is wrong.
The missing bolts are missing because I must have unchecked the bolt/nut layer before downloading.
I wasn’t happy about the bolt alignment but didn’t notice it until they were all in place and correcting that would have meant re-positioning all 32 of them, I simply didn’t feel like going trough the whole exercise of doing that. I suppose there is some simple way of accomplishing that?
Could you explain: “Unnecessary component levels. There’s no need to double wrap geometry like this”
Same with your comment about “unnecessary component separation…” They are indeed the same component. I copied and pasted those from the original drawing of that item and then moved/copied to get four components of each.
Wow sharp eyes. I missed both the incorrect miter angle and the reverse face. In both cases the original components were correct. Must have happened afterwards. I do remember making a change to the long U rail, they had to be made slightly longer and I now notice I did not complete that change on all long U rails.
And it was indeed a good learning experience. Certainly one of the more complex exercises for me thus far. I’ve been working on this of and on for almost a month.
Thanks all.
You have several cases of a Component whose only nested contents are a Component (e.g. Kreg RT long leg angle#1 contains only Kreg RTlong leg angle#1). Unless there is more than one thing contained, there is no need for the outer Component.
From Dave’s screenshot you can see that the rails on one side are highlighted when he opened one for edit, indicating they are instances of the same Component (Kreg RT short U rail#1). But the ones on the other side, which are almost certainly mirror images of them, are not highlighted, indicating they are a separate Component (Kreg short U rail#2). You should copy and then flip to get the mirrored orientation. Then all four rails will be instances of the same ComponentDefinition.
slbaumgartner beat me to it but he hit the head on the nail regarding the double wrapped component leg and the rails.
Although it isn’t wrong to do as you did making each part in a separate file, I find it much more efficient to draw parts in place as much as possible. This tends to avoid the extra work of getting the components into place and the potential errors associated with that.
Going below the ground plane isn’t necessarily wrong, either but if you were to use shadows, they would appear kind of strange as in my screen shot. Of course you can move the entire model up so it is sitting on the ground plane if you wish.
Accurate placement of the bolts can be made painless by establishing a gluing plane. And once you have one instance in place, the rest can be copied using Move/Copy. Between copying and flipping, you could get all of the bolts installed rather quickly.
If the model serves the required purpose, maybe it’s time to leave it alone and get busy on your next project. Sometimes there’s value in repairing or redoing a project (just like there is in the shop) and sometimes you need to just let it be and say, On to bigger and better things!" It’s all up to you, of course.
My thanks again. I am going to take some time to do some “research” to make sure I understand everybody’s comments/suggestions.
Hi DaveR, thank you for these kind words. However, I ment you being the expert in woodworking (don’t deny) and the machines used, and I thought you were referring to the reallife router table
So I was wondering what could be improved (if at all) to make it better. Hoping to learn some things that I might have missed.
As for being an expert in using SketchUp, you certainly know the program inside out.