# "Quick" solid bench for a friend



## theartfulbodger (4 Jan 2012)

My first commission! :lol: 

A friend has asked my to build him a bench, there's lots of plans on the net but I have arrived at this one

http://dreambuildfly.com/2010/08/building-workbenches/

According to the video they weigh over 100 lbs and look solid enough for an American person to sit and lie on :mrgreen: 

Cheap, quick, solid are the only real prerequisites. 

Any others to consider?

Thanks in advance :ho2


----------



## bosshogg (4 Jan 2012)

Framing as per (personally I used 4" x 4" fence posts, dressed, M&T, and only 2 top stretchers) then a solid core door for the top if you have one, had mine now for more than 15 years...bosshogg


----------



## theartfulbodger (4 Jan 2012)

Thanks, Bosshog! That was a quick answer  

I'm more in favour of MandT joints than screws it has to be said..but screws would be a lot faster.

Is a stretcher the short "front to back" part of the frame that's under the top?


----------



## RogerP (4 Jan 2012)

I use a cut down old pine farmhouse kitchen table with 4" x 4" legs and cross bracing fitted with an extra 25mm birch ply top that gets changed every couple years. Solid as a rock and been in use for 30 years - but if I'd known then what old pine farmhouse kitchen tables can be worth now I'd probably not have abused it :shock:


----------



## bosshogg (4 Jan 2012)

theartfulbodger":3fdc2j9c said:


> Thanks, Bosshog! That was a quick answer
> 
> I'm more in favour of MandT joints than screws it has to be said..but screws would be a lot faster.
> 
> Is a stretcher the short "front to back" part of the frame that's under the top?



Yea, one further thing, I fixed these in open mortises with 3mm clearance above the end grain of the legs this allows for any movement, warping/twisting etc. Iv'e had no problems so far and that in a seasonally affected wooden shed.
Hope this helps...bosshogg


----------



## theartfulbodger (4 Jan 2012)

Thanks again, fellas!

Who was it that said this was an unfriendly forum? (hammer) 


Here's a small pic for anyone not wanting to click on the link


----------



## condeesteso (4 Jan 2012)

A fine bench - easy, quick and cheap. I have made silly deluxe benches but I honestly respect the simple 'workers'. Just please make the front frame flush to the top edge, then bore 3/4 holes in the legs for holdfasts, dogs etc (not Jack Russells as they don't fit 3/4 holes... see my avatar).
I am convinced that a very effective bench can be done well under a 'ton' [£100], and cheap softwood is great but go for quite big sections. I also hear old fire-doors are handy for tops.


----------



## MickCheese (5 Jan 2012)

If you favour M&T joints then.......

The legs are laminated with two pieces of timber, if you use three pieces and leave a gap in the centre piece you have a ready made mortice, do the same for the stretcher but just have the centre piece longer then the outside and a ready made tenon.

I think it was Fine Woodworking that made a similar one from 18mm ply.

Mick


----------



## MickCheese (5 Jan 2012)

There you go, plans and all.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/PlansAndProjects/PlansAndProjectsarticle.aspx?id=29507

Mick


----------



## theartfulbodger (5 Jan 2012)

Excellent! <rubs hands together>

I guess the reason to leave the front frame flush to the top edge is to prevent splintering of the worktop? That seems a good simple top tip!


----------



## MickCheese (5 Jan 2012)

I find leaving mine flush allows me to balance long boards on dogs jutting out of the legs or use my holddown in the leg holes to secure things.

Mick


----------



## condeesteso (5 Jan 2012)

That's it - with stretcher and legs flush to the front edge of top, the whole front 'plane' is a clamping surface - vital for working edges of big boards, doors etc. This is a Chris Schwarz 'mantra' and I would say he knows a lot about what makes a good bench.


----------



## theartfulbodger (5 Jan 2012)

That sounds like a plan! I see what you mean now..flush as in to hold vertical boards against the front of the bench, not flush as in flush if a board was laid on top.

if you see what I mean #-o 

The plans suggest a laminated MDF and ply top and I figured that if the front "rail" covered the front edge of the surface then it would save a splintery chippy edge.

i think I'll plan for both


----------



## MickCheese (5 Jan 2012)

I tried laminating two 18mm ply boards to make a thicker top, it was hell. Could not get enough clamping force across the boards to make them really tight and it's not really a one person job.

Keep an eye on eBay for some old wooden worktop.

Mick


----------



## theartfulbodger (5 Jan 2012)

Kitchen worktop, Mick?

that would be solid enough and pretty flat I would think


----------



## MickCheese (5 Jan 2012)

If you keep looking occasionally a beech one comes up or try your local kitchen place they may have some longish bits lying around.

The new beech ones from Ikea are not that expensive.

Mick


----------



## condeesteso (5 Jan 2012)

Yes Artful - I didn't make it very clear, but if you imagine the front edge of the top as a datum, then both top (obviously) and front frame are built off that. To not have a flush front just throws away a load of clamping / holding capability. And I do think a bench has 2 roles - a flat work surface, and the ability to clamp any workpiece you can reasonably imagine. And I do credit C Schwarz for that insight... there is a lot to be said for that old basic Roubo slab of a bench I reckon.
Couple of thoughts - I've seen great bench-tops made from laminates of mdf, maybe shove one layer of ply in the middle. And do have a look at the old-fashioned holdfast - the fastest most versatile clamping device to keep near a bench I think. Richard T here makes them the trad way (hand-forged)... and no, I am not on commission :lol: 
If you use holdfasts you'll need a top min (I think) 50mm but Richard is the expert on that topic.


----------



## Alan Holtham (9 Jan 2012)

Hope its all right to post this, but I have just made a bench incorporating many of the features you have been discussing for the first of our Build it with Bosch series of videos. A quick and simple bench that doesn't require a lot of tools or skill. The plans and material list are available on the Bosch professional Facebook page. Hope you enjoy it, would appreciate any constructive feedback, thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeWeeY4R ... ature=plcp

Alan


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jan 2012)

theartfulbodger":ujxo2wnb said:


> Thanks again, fellas!
> 
> Who was it that said this was an unfriendly forum? (hammer)



Someone who was unsociable I would say. :wink: 

John


----------



## marcros (10 Jan 2012)

Benchwayze":2q2xqypd said:


> theartfulbodger":2q2xqypd said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again, fellas!
> ...



also, tinytims wife hinted at it...


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2012)

condeesteso":2zkm18y1 said:


> That's it - with stretcher and legs flush to the front edge of top, the whole front 'plane' is a clamping surface - vital for working edges of big boards, doors etc. This is a Chris Schwarz 'mantra' and I would say he knows a lot about what makes a good bench.



Other (equally respected) people are against it; Landis makes a good presentation on the pros and cons. Robert Wearing is probably the most persuasive advocate of "non flush" - essentially more versatile.

BugBear


----------



## theartfulbodger (10 Jan 2012)

More food for thought!

Thank you I think, BugBear, I'll have a google for Landis and Wearing..more food for thought! :shock: 

Happily with this bench plan flush looks easier, so I'm going to build it that way. My mate doesn't read the forum so I should be safe 8)


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jan 2012)

Hmmm... 
I think it's a case of 'speak as you find', so someone must have upset someone! The trouble is, the things that upset people are as varied as the people who become upset? 
Something like that. 

As to the Bench:

My present bench has an overhanging edge, and much as I can see Chris Schwartz's thinking, I don't often work on full size doors. 
I find the overhang of my bench extremely useful for using 'G' clamps, to hold down workpieces. But of course my excellent holdfasts from RichardT are ideal for that job too! So either way my 'bench-slave' is redundant, to be replaced by a sliding deadman. Depending on the amount of overhang, I don't see how it would definitely preclude a sliding deadman. It would just mean you need longer supports to use with it. 

Edit: Before someone asks, how would I deal with the void behind a wide board?

I could machine a temporary leg (with dog-holes) as a 'filler-block', to clamp to the right-hand front leg of the bench to flush it out level with the top. Maybe fix it with Earth Magnets, so it's easily removable. If the magnets are strong enough of course. :mrgreen: 

John


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2012)

My favourite (theoretical) work bench is the Japanese planing beam. Basically just a big beam which is heavy and stiff enough to plane on, or to fix workpieces to in a solid and stable way. Here's a westernised version - lifted off the floor and braced against the wall. I found it here.







The basic trad british bench could be seen as two planing beams separated by the well (to keep your tools and bits in whilst you are on the job) all supported by two frames/trestles etc well braced (typically by a deep front apron).
Or if you only work from one side then one beam will do, with a rail at the back (to close the well) set at same height as the beam so that workpieces can be spanned across.
Everything else is an add on or detail design - vices etc.

One of the worst possible benches is the workmate, on which it is almost impossible to plane or saw (without bracing or other strategies) but they are handy as a mobile holding device, step-on etc. Good place to start thinking "benches" though i.e. not to make the same mistakes!

A work table is a different thing altogether, but the natural thing is to try to combine them. But it's handy to separate the functions, in your mind at least i.e. work table and/or solid beam/structure for holding things stably when being worked upon.

PS I just moved this post to the other workbench thread where it's a better fit! Just moved it back again. Two threads - more or less the same issues.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2012)

Jacob":ghcmkxem said:


> The basic trad british bench could be seen as two planing beams separated by the well (to keep your tools and bits in whilst you are on the job) all supported by two frames/trestles etc well braced (typically by a deep front apron).



Yes - In one (and only one) of my many inter-war books, in the inevitable second chapter on "first build your bench", the large front timber of the bench is actually termed the "planing beam". It's not a common usage, though.

It's certainly quite common to see English bench designs where the front timber of the bench top is massive (say 8" wide by 3" thick), but the rest of the benchtop is much thinner stuff, packed up on the rail (or with a stepped rail) to give a flat surface (apart from the well, of course).

The biggest difference with the Japanese planing beam is the way the far end is supported against a pretty much immovable object (typically a wall or tree)

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jan 2012)

I have been mulling this over. It struck me that with the Roubo, another reason for a flush-face bench might be the massive thickness of the top. Such a thick piece of timber would need constant use of the larger, and heavier 'G' cramps to hold work down in the normal fashion. So what better way than holdfasts, where a huge, slabby top is concerned? And if you are morticing a heavy 4" or 5" square leg, you might even have to resort to a short sash cramp to get the reach. . In my case I might be able to sit on it!!! 


Well it is just an idea folks. :mrgreen: 

John 8)


----------



## condeesteso (10 Jan 2012)

A few points if I may  
I am very firmly an advocate of flush front (as is already known) but here are 3 quick examples why:

here's a typical kitchen door supported under by a dog, but fully supported behind too, noting that when working at a bench actions and forces will tend to be across (along its length) downwards, and into the bench (i.e. forward). So good support behind is good.




I think it's important to note a deadman is flush to the front. I could not conceive it having any use otherwise.
Here's a big ash board, supported by vice and a holdfast, noting the stock isn't resting on the holdfast, it's the clamping force holding it and the vice was tightened after setting the holdfast. The deadman is 2" thick and the holdfast works rock solid.




And here's a 3 x 4 ash mounted to cut a double tenon. Supported all the way down:





These are just examples to show why I like flush front. I cannot see how these pieces would be clamped anywhere near as well (if at all) with legs and stretcher set back.
And I don't get the point re g-clamping on the edge of the top - whether the legs are flush or not you can do that. It's aprons that ruin clamping that way, not flush construction. (I don't like aprons much either).
And if you fancy a 6" thick Roubo, but use holdfasts, you just counterbore from the underside a 1", so the holdfast sees the optimum 3/4 hole depth (probably around 60mm).


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2012)

Mine hasn't got a flush front but I don't think I'm missing anything - I just do things differently. That long board - I would probably rest the end on a saw stool or an ammo box, or clamp it to the apron. The ammo box (if that is what it was) is 12" x 18" x 24" which gives three convenient heights, including for sitting on or using as a step up, not to mention carrying tools in.


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jan 2012)

Yes Doug.. You can clamp on the edge of any bench. But with the typical thick top of the Roubo design, you would have to use bigger, and heavier clamps. That's the point I was trying to make. So, I have some hold-fasts which work better on a thick top. 

regards
John


----------



## condeesteso (10 Jan 2012)

Hi John, sorry, I did not mean to question your point re the top thickness. I think that is a different debate with pros and cons. My thing is just about setting legs and stretcher back... I have listed reasons not to, but have no arguments in favour. As a slight aside from this, I can't remember the last time I used a clamp to fix a workpiece to the top, from the front (I mean a G-clamp type thing). What shape would that workpiece be, and what would I be trying to do with it... I wonder.


----------



## Benchwayze (10 Jan 2012)

Yes Doug! 

Well I am probably going to have a flush front after all, mainly because the thick top makes it look better that way. But definitely NO apron! 

Cheers
John  (hammer)


----------



## bugbear (11 Jan 2012)

Benchwayze":30xhgyur said:


> Yes Doug!
> 
> Well I am probably going to have a flush front after all, mainly because the thick top makes it look better that way. But definitely NO apron!
> 
> ...



Main disadvantage of flush front is difficulty of fitting a Q/R vise, and difficulty in replacing a worn rear jaw on the vise - the rear jaw is commonly the front member of the bench top in flush front designs.

But there's pros and cons in all bench designs, which is why discussing them is fun, and different people, with differing requirments, can quite reasonably choose different designs.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2012)

Jacob":1astbo94 said:


> Mine hasn't got a flush front but I don't think I'm missing anything - I just do things differently. That long board - I would probably rest the end on a saw stool or an ammo box, or clamp it to the apron. The ammo box (if that is what it was) is 12" x 18" x 24" which gives three convenient heights, including for sitting on or using as a step up, not to mention carrying tools in.



PS and the vertical piece I would hold in the vice. 
Apron is handy in that you can clamp or screw things on for extra support or particular jobs. 
A basic design problem (for most things) is that the more you match the design to a particular function, the more you limit the possibility of other functions. Keeping it simple also leaves it open for adaptation.
Metal dogs are bad news - chipped tool edges. Go the extra inch and use wood!


----------



## Benchwayze (11 Jan 2012)

I suppose you have a point BB. 

But one could overlay a further piece of timber to form a rear jaw. (Could be 18" wide so it looks continuous. Not glued in of course.) Reducing the thickness of the front jaw, would maintain the maximum gape of the vice. 

The rear jaw of my last vice was a wide one and captured the metal within timber. Because most vices are deeper than the thickness of my benchtop, I need a packing piece under the bench. The thick top will remove this need, and recessing the metal into the face of the bench will also hide metal from my cutting tools! 

John


----------



## Jacob (12 Jan 2012)

Thinking about it - there is a disadvantage in a flush front and/or rear of vice being flush. If you use the vice to hold something which isn't dead flat then it's going to be deformed by being pressed against the bench front e.g. condeesto's long board. If you want to plane it true then it needs to be just nipped tight at the vice but otherwise not stressed or strained. To avoid stressing it, you'd have to pack out the back of the vice. It might as well be like that permanently.
Same problem with hold downs on the top. Better to do most things with the workpiece lying loose , against a stop or across bench hooks.


----------



## Benchwayze (12 Jan 2012)

I also thought about making a 'door' with two longer pieces parallel with the stiles, These would provide thickness, for the dog-holes to be bored. If I then bought a piece of ready made worktop, and fixed that to each side of the 'door-frame' in a sandwich, Could I call that a kind of 'torsion-box' construction? :?

Was it Ian Kirby who mistrusted dogs, for precisely that reason Jacob? I have a feeling I read somewhere, that he had a discussion with Frank Klausz on this,. Klausz of course champions the trad European cabinetmaker's bench. 

John


----------



## RickCarpenter (26 Feb 2012)

MickCheese":dzk4j6ao said:


> I tried laminating two 18mm ply boards to make a thicker top, it was hell. Could not get enough clamping force across the boards to make them really tight and it's not really a one person job.
> 
> Keep an eye on eBay for some old wooden worktop.
> 
> Mick



You could run some screws from the bottom, then back them out after the glue dries.


----------



## MickCheese (26 Feb 2012)

RickCarpenter":2hqhm62l said:


> MickCheese":2hqhm62l said:
> 
> 
> > I tried laminating two 18mm ply boards to make a thicker top, it was hell. Could not get enough clamping force across the boards to make them really tight and it's not really a one person job.
> ...



I did pepper it with screws but they would not pull it up tight enough and a few just broke.

Mick


----------



## Jacob (26 Feb 2012)

Benchwayze":1raicl1p said:


> ....
> Was it Ian Kirby who mistrusted dogs, for precisely that reason Jacob? ....
> John


Dunno. But any metal work on the top is going to get dinged with a plane blade or a chisel, sooner or later.

Instead of struggling away trying to make up bench tops with the wrong materials why not go and get the right ones?
A lot of the struggle seems to be in attempting to emulate the continental style bench. The Brit style is much simpler and works really well. The "quick solid bench" in fact. It's not as fashionable but it could get you into doing woodwork a lot faster! Once you have one you could then think about making a continental version, but you probably wouldn't bother by then.

Don't be a fashion victim - aprons are essential, softwood is OK, no need to be solid all the way across, wells are useful, etc.
Brit benches are best!


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Feb 2012)

Jacob":33ft6fpj said:


> Benchwayze":33ft6fpj said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Thanks Jacob. 

In my own case, an apron would be a hindrance. If it had an apron it would mean I couldn't have a cupboard under the bench. Or, if there was a cupboard it wouldn't be very high, and the inaccessible space behind the apron would be a dust trap. When I was a sapling I could have managed the bending and reaching, but not any more! 

As for fashion, all the points you make were in Kirby's argument. Klausz on the other hand being a Hungarian (I think) felt the tail-vice was essential. I think maybe we can get away with just a planing stop, and dog holes, for holdfasts.

I still can't help wondering why the big, 'Roubo' bench fell out of favour. It was either because of the scarcity of thick lumber, or that eventually the tenons through the top, dried out and caused racking.

But the quick bench is taking shape.. 
:wink:


----------



## Jacob (26 Feb 2012)

Benchwayze":1dwddf3a said:


> ..............
> I still can't help wondering why the big, 'Roubo' bench fell out of favour. It was either because of the scarcity of thick lumber, or that eventually the tenons through the top, dried out and caused racking.
> ......
> :wink:


Huge thick expensive unstable piece of timber for the top. The Brit "2 beam" model with a well in between does everything and is a lot easier and cheaper to make. Just doesn't look so glamourous! IMHO. 

PS and the complicated construction! Look at these.
Yer brit bench is simplicity itself! Tail vices could be added if wanted.

It happens a lot in many areas that if a design looks too simple, however well it works, it can get overlooked in preference for the more complicated alternatives. Hence gadgetry in general.


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Feb 2012)

MickCheese":3dd5nyi7 said:


> I find leaving mine flush allows me to balance long boards on dogs jutting out of the legs or use my holddown in the leg holes to secure things.
> 
> Mick



Quite so Mick.

However, doesn't an apron also provide a flush surface at the front of the bench? 

I wouldn't use a full apron because of the effort in bending and stretching to get to the void behind it. But I see Jacob's point. An apron usually has holes bored, for holdfasts too, so it could serve the same function as a 'deadman', sliding or otherwise. 

Maybe we should see all these variations as just that; variations, rather than 'improvements', or 'better-ways'. 
I am still not going to use an apron, but mostly for the reason I stated.


----------



## Jacob (26 Feb 2012)

Main reason for the apron is to brace the front edge where all the work gets done. It's going to be a lot more rigid and adds mass to the front where it's needed (inertia resisting all the various forces). They look a touch wobbly without aprons or other braces IMHO. wobbly = plane chatter!


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Feb 2012)

Jacob":38of01c2 said:


> Main reason for the apron is to brace the front edge where all the work gets done. It's going to be a lot more rigid and adds mass to the front where it's needed (inertia resisting all the various forces). They look a touch wobbly without aprons or other braces IMHO. wobbly = plane chatter!



Wobbly = waste of time too. 

My present bench has no apron and the top is a mere 2.5 inches thick. But, the underframe is solid, and it rests against a brick wall, in the angle of the wall and a small buttress. The top is completely shot, (For which there is a reason) but it doesn't vibrate and it doesn't wobble. 

It's too wide for my space and were it 6" narrower I would just replace the top. To make the whole bench narrower is doable, but I'd have to butcher a perfectly sound under-frame, which would be a sin, when some one somewhere, with a bit more space, could make use of it. I've mucked along with it for far too long. It's time for a change, so I'm 'eventually going to stop procrastinating' :mrgreen: and get on with a new bench. I think the pine I bought is just about shop-ready.


----------



## Jacob (26 Feb 2012)

Brick wall is the way! You can even plane on a workmate if you brace it against a brick wall.


----------



## Jacob (28 Feb 2012)

Idly browsing ebay andspotted this bench
Stuck me as good value for money and a very sensible bench. No fashionable bench nonsense here! I'd buy it straightaway if I needed one.


----------



## Entenmann (2 Mar 2012)

This thread has discussed a lot of of topics since the first post but one point which I did not see adressed explicitly is the weight of the bench.
The original poster said that the bench he wanted to build would weigh "over 100 lbs" (about 50 kg if I am not mistaken).

Don't you think this is too light for a workbench?
I used one of similar weight and it would not stay put when planing or sawing, which was annoying, to say the least.
(Of course, a brick wall, as advocated by Benchwayze and Jacob helps, but a brick wall can also get in the way of planes and saws at times).

Lasse


----------



## theartfulbodger (2 Mar 2012)

Good points, Lasse.

A certain amount of digression is a good thing sometimes as it adds food for thought, and different opinions which can lead to a more personalised design.

Having built one for my friend I built one for myself, and then after seeing how useful two benches were, and discovering woodworm in the old bench I'd found in the shed when I moved in, I built another.

Both are against walls (single garage) and after putting toolboxes and other heavy assorted garage FOD onto the shelves I think the original estimate of 100 lbs is a little on the low side. I did add an extra "front to back" plank (stretcher?) under the shelf and also some extra wood to reinforce the area I needed to cut away to fix the vice on.

The only methods I have of weighing it are either fishing scales, kitchen scales or the How Much Weight Have I Gained balance board thing from the Wii .... so I haven't.

Certainly no movement when cutting large boards clamped to the worktops.

If anyone needs a quick solid bench then I can recommend it  But I'd advocate a slight readjustment of the dimensions so that the worktop is exactly the same size as the boards you can buy off the shelf DAMHIKT (or should that be DAMNIT)


----------



## Entenmann (2 Mar 2012)

I don't think the exact weight is important. If you don't experience any movement when working on it, then it is heavy enough. (Although I would enjoy a picture of the bench on the Wii balance board  ).
Also: did I read that right? You already built three benches since starting the thread? Very impressive!

(As a side note: I hope I did not give the impression of criticizing the route which the discussion had taken. I merely wanted to cover myself if I had missed someone already talking about the weight) .

Cheers,
Lasse


----------



## marcros (2 Mar 2012)

Entenmann":2dqahh25 said:


> Also: did I read that right? You already built three benches since starting the thread? Very impressive!



theartfulbodger meet condeesteso. You have much in common and could form a self help group...


----------



## theartfulbodger (2 Mar 2012)

Not at all! All input is welcome, just don't mention pineapples or sharpening.

With a chopsaw and a drill driver you can knock one of these benches out in a couple of hours. They're not as pleasing to the eye as a lot of proper benches but very easy and quick to build. And cheap! Seven 8 foot lengths of 2x4 and some scavenged wardrobes and MDF for the shelves/worktop.


----------



## theartfulbodger (2 Mar 2012)

marcros":10ju56py said:


> Entenmann":10ju56py said:
> 
> 
> > Also: did I read that right? You already built three benches since starting the thread? Very impressive!
> ...




hahahhahahahaha

One day when I've finished rearranging the garage and moving shelves about I'll get round to some proper woodwork. Then I'll slow right down.


----------

