On 1/18/2013 4:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:


Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...


With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly
with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
sounds.

With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
material_.

IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:

Drawer Width
DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)

Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)

Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).

In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
the older style slides.

And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..."

That's 'cuz they sit in the corner of the frame opening and the distance
thereto is therefore fixed. If I were to use one for these very small
spaces, I'd likely make the bottom match the distance then essentially
take the rabbet idea previously mentioned and extend it the full
interior drawer depth to keep the outer dimension tolerances but still
have the thinner drawer side visible. Building it that way would
probably entail a glue joint of the two thickness pieces, then cut to
final width. _I_ really do not like the visual thickness whatever the
current housewife thinks!

For them back to the depth, I just looking at the datasheet--there's
1/2" min under bottom to drawer side bottom and 9/16 more to the rail
clearance. So there's 17/16" plus bottom thickness out of the opening.

The drawers here have 3/8" to drawer side + 1/8" above rail clearance a
net gain of 14/16" for same bottom thickness.

Now, granted, there's no self-closing feature and the centermount KV
isn't nearly what the MuV is in capacity but it works better in the
constrained spaces here...

_IF_ (the proverbial big if) I were in the business of satisfying
somebody else and selling in today's market, that would be an entirely
different animal...fortunately, I've been able to get out of that
environment for 10+ yr now...it's only Mom Nature and drought, plague,
input costs and farm program uncertainties that control now!

--