# Tell me how to build the easiest workbench possible



## ali27 (7 Jan 2012)

Guys I need a workbench, but I am not willing to pay 200-300 for
such a thing. So either I need to buy second hand or make on myself.

Now when I think of building a workbench, I think of a flat wood/mdf top and four
legs and that's it. Seeing pictures of workbenches I noticed that there were many
extra pieces of woods, between the legs and in other parts. I am guessing that 
just four legs is not enough stability. I have very little tools so I need to make a bench
that is super easy to make. Help is appreciated.

Thanks.


----------



## Hudson Carpentry (7 Jan 2012)

Set of Trestles and a sheet of MDF


----------



## Hudson Carpentry (7 Jan 2012)

The cross members you see are as you say to stabilise the bench, with out them you will have a wobbly bench in no time.

So the basic bench you can make is 4 legs, each connected to a cross member top and bottom then a nice thick top. You need cross members on all sides not just front and back.


----------



## theartfulbodger (7 Jan 2012)

This is one of the easiest benches I've found, but it uses a load of coach bolts, which would add to the price

http://www.buildeazy.com/workbench.html



The easy one I'm planning to build for a mate is here

quick-solid-bench-for-a-friend-t57184.html

HTH


----------



## The Bear (7 Jan 2012)

I'd say second hand. I got one, ex school, with two massive record quick release vices for £30. Very solid even if somewhat battered.

Mark


----------



## marcros (7 Jan 2012)

pair of tressles and a firedoor. 2nd hand record vice, or holdfasts for workholding.

If you are willing to do some work to it, but want to spend minimal funds on materials, you could look for used scaffold boards (local to me they are 35p/ft + VAT) and laminate them together and make Chris Schwarz' "English workbench", with firedoor as a flat and cheap top. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... -workbench 

His book is well worth a read if you are building a bench- there may be other good books on the subject, but this is the only one that I have experience of.


----------



## Hudson Carpentry (7 Jan 2012)

I have some fire doors I could let go cheap if your close and you wish to go down that road!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Jan 2012)

Quick and solid bench ...

Hinge a solid door on the horizontal to a wall at the bench height you desire.

Add any type of legs you like to the front (even fold up types - as long as they lock in place).

The attachment to the wall will keep the top rigid.

Time to build: about 1 hour.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbloke (7 Jan 2012)

Have a little looksee here, a proper bench that can be knocked up in next to no time - Rob


----------



## bobbybirds (7 Jan 2012)

We just built a nice basement bench for a friend out of 8 foot 2x4's. I am not sure what they cost in GB but here they are $1.99 each. We laminated the top together using the tried and test "glued and screwed" method instead of clamping, marking the screw spots as we went so later we were able to bore dog holes without worry. Same for the legs and stretchers. we used a simple shoulder vise screw to fashion a wagon vise and bing bang boom we had a nice little bench with a 3.5 inch thick top in a weekend for around $90.00 and a bit of elbow grease..


----------



## Fat ferret (7 Jan 2012)

I built a very cheap and reasonably good bench from old square fence posts and scaffolding boards. Just mortice the cross peices (ripped up boards) into the legs (square fence posts) and drive a couple of nails throught the joints (pre drill), use glue aswell if you want but no need. For the top I planed the scaffolding board edges flat then glued them, nail this on top (punch nails in, or screw from underneath) then plane the top flat and there you go. I painted the bench except the top with green cuprinol and it looked good. The vice was more expensive than the bench, a record 52 for £20 8) .

I also built a smaller one from some four by two joists I got when I ripped out an old floor.


----------



## Alf (7 Jan 2012)

My formative years were spent at a bench of three boards bolted to three frames of Dexion acting as legs, which in turn were bolted to the floor and the wall. Never moved an inch and still doing sterling service several house moves later. Not pretty, but certainly quick and very minimal tools or skill required.


----------



## Shrubby (7 Jan 2012)

Buy a secondhand EMIR on Ebay. They usually come with a record vice
Matt


----------



## baldpate (7 Jan 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Quick and solid bench ...
> 
> Hinge a solid door on the horizontal to a wall at the bench height you desire.
> 
> ...


+1

Workbench essentials (my opinion of course ):
- the working surface absolutely must not move about when you clamp stuff too it and then start shoving it around (with a plane, a saw, a router, .... etc). A wall is a great stabilizer : my own bench is bolted to a brick wall via its back legs, but Derek's solution does exactly the same job. 
- the working surface must be flat. I used the cheapest possible solid-core firedoor as a basis (with some MDF layers on top). Any old warped door won't do, but super-flat isn't too important.
- the working surface must be supported. Again Derek's solution does the job, although it must be done in such a way that the surface doesn't "give" vertically (either by "sagging" over time, or by "bouncing" when you bash it). I screwed some 2x4s underneath to give the necessary stability. 
PS: I re-used a knock-down, under-frame from an earlier bench, but it was always very wobbly until I tied it to the wall in the new construction.

PPS: some of this is irrelevant, of course, if you can't/don't want to fix your bench to a wall. In that case you'll definitely need to invest more effort in lateral stability (i.e making sure the "working surface absolutely must not move about when you clamp stuff too it and then start shoving it around" ).


----------



## matthewwh (8 Jan 2012)

Funnily enough I've just built a new bench this week. 







There is a post with work in progress shots here: New Workshop Build Part 1.

Probably not exactly what you are after, but it always helps to gather ideas from a few sources and then use them as appropriate.


----------



## No skills (8 Jan 2012)

'Adding mass' is always a good idea for stability (fixings to the wall etc), if you dont want to screw anything to the walls then put a couple of sandbags on the lower shelf of the bench (assuming you have one when built) - if the bench is stiff then the extra weight will help reduce movement when your working.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jan 2012)

For a rigid frame, use either diagonal braces, or the ultimate "infinite bracing" - sheet goods fixed over the legs (just like the hardboard back that prevent a bookcase from racking)

Achieving rigidity in the normal "timber framed" rectilinear design requires large (expensive) timbers, and decent joinery.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (10 Jan 2012)

ali27":354vsnok said:


> Guys I need a workbench, but I am not willing to pay 200-300 for
> such a thing. So either I need to buy second hand or make on myself.
> 
> Now when I think of building a workbench, I think of a flat wood/mdf top and four
> ...




Your options are endless, but you could start by making a pair of trestles and use a sheet of 8'x4'x1" ply (Split down it's length) doubled in thickness, or a few lengths of 6"x2" (Glued edge to edge with bread boarded ends) faced with 0.5" ply for your worktop. Simple and inexpensive, but not as simple as providing 4 legs with stretchers linked via mortise and tenon joints or dowel bolts. A saw, hammer, jack plane, pencil, tape measure, square and couple of chisels are all you need if tooling is a limitation.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2012)

GazPal":17896ls3 said:


> ali27":17896ls3 said:
> 
> 
> > Guys I need a workbench, but I am not willing to pay 200-300 for
> ...



I'll point out that a bench for stock preparation using hand planes needs to be very stable, since the forces are high. Hand power-tools work doesn't need much more than a sturdy table (work can be held for routing by mere friction, hence the "router mat")

BugBear


----------



## 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.


----------



## GazPal (10 Jan 2012)

bugbear":204juqyr said:


> GazPal":204juqyr said:
> 
> 
> > ali27":204juqyr said:
> ...



Suitable bracing tends to negate problems and the some of the best examples can be found on site where bench construction tends to be limited to what i'd described, yet capable of supporting most handwork activities.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jan 2012)

Spotted this very trad brit bench on Paul Sellers site.
Planing beam at the front, well, and rail behind.
A double beam version (as found in school etc) would allow working from both sides.
Didn't know it was called a beam until BB posted about it.

The deep apron is good for bracing the bench itself and for support of workpieces. You can nail. screw, clamp, to it, to support work etc..

Dead simple, the ideal starter bench (or permanent for life bench!)


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2012)

Jacob":314ixlvt said:


> A double beam version (as found in school etc) would allow working from both sides.
> Didn't know it was called a beam until BB posted about it.



I only found that nomenclature in a single book, so it wasn't widespread, but did exist.

BugBear


----------



## PaulO (12 Jan 2012)

Not like this:
workbench-build-wip-t28134.html

Two and a bit years in and I still haven't completely finished it (although it is in use). I do love it though.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jan 2012)

That's three bench threads on the go so I'll post here. Kinsella post650613.html#p650613 seems committed to making a very complicated bench, not unlike PaulO's above. I've been wondering why.

I've just been browsing the Scott Landis book which is full of interesting stuff without a doubt - but everything is fussy and complicated - even where supposedly "basic" such as Ian Kirby's on page 80. The exceptions being the (over simple) planing beam or bench.

IMHO there is a huge omission - the basic Brit bench as per the Sellers one above. Thousands of these have been made and used for generations and most people learned on something similar. Oddly there is a note about the Workmate (useless IMHO) but absolutely no mention of the bench we all know and take for granted.
Bring back the British bench!

Is it British? I assume so, it seems to be based around the Record vice. Is the Record vice a very British thing? Are all the fussy benches due to the fact that they didn't have the Record vice in USA and Europe?


----------



## cam (18 Jan 2012)

Ali..I have a work table/bench that I built out of a solid core door for the top and 2x12 fringe and 2x6 legs and cross stretchers, and braces...works for me as a work table ...with the 12" fringe a vise could be installed... not kosher to the purists but if it works?? who cares?
total cost under $200


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (18 Jan 2012)

I noted in Paul's bench build that the projected height was 39 1/2". Is that correct Paul? Either you are close to 7 foot tall, or this bench is not to be used with handtools. 

I, too, am busy with a new bench. It is 18 years since my last one, and that is a relic from a power tool era. The build is yet to go on my website as a blog, but issues in deciding what to do, and some progress, may be found here: http://www.woodcentral.com/woodworking/ ... questions/

and here (today's post), where I mention bench height: http://www.woodcentral.com/woodworking/ ... o-another/

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (18 Jan 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I noted in Paul's bench build that the projected height was 39 1/2". Is that correct Paul? Either you are close to 7 foot tall, or this bench is not to be used with handtools.
> ...........


Mine's 33 1/2" (edited - I've just measured it!). I can raise it on blocks if necessary. I have done this in the past but I can't remember why I needed to. I keep the blocks handy and regularly rescue them from the firewood box.

Just had a look at Schwarzy's book. He has the "English" bench on page 21. More or less the same as Seller's example referred to above. It has splayed back legs, which seems an unnecessary detail to me. He says it has a "thin" top but this is entirely up to the maker - mine has a thick top. He also thinks the lack of dogs makes wide panels difficult to hold, but he is wrong - there are plenty of ways of holding a wide panel, and you can add as many dogs as you want. If you don't have an end vice then wedges against dogs will do the job. But in fact it's usually perfectly OK to work a panel against one dog at the vice end without holding it at all. Wider panel ditto but with a lath against the dog, nailed or screwed at the other end to make a long planing stop. I think you shouldn't be inhibited about a workbench - nailing and screwing into it are perfectly OK. If the bench is polished and precious then it's no use as a _work_ bench.
He also suggests that aprons limit holding somehow, but I don't see this. The opposite in fact - the apron is handy to G clamp a workpiece to, when the other end is in the vice, or to nail/screw a block to to support a piece, or drill holes for pegs or holdfasts etc
He's also wrong about the Record vice; "guide bars interfere with clamping boards to work on edges and ends". In fact boards are easily held either way in the edge of the vice, which is usually extended with wooden jaws in any case.

Five essential accessories; 
a pair of bench hooks,
a pair of saw trestles - a lot of work is more easily done at knee height, or a trestle can support the end of a long piece held in the vice, 
an ammo box measuring 12 x 18 x 24" which works as a three height prop, and you can sit on it or carry tools in it.

PS Schwarzy's book is very good BTW. It's full of practical ideas - not that you need to take notice of all of them, or their details e.g. the planing board; I've been doing this for years but much more simply - basically nail a few laths to a piece of chipboard to work a panel against. The chipboard can have a batten under, to be held in the vice, or just have it up to a bench stop, or both. You can lay a cloth over the whole board if you want to plane a panel best face down.


----------



## bugbear (18 Jan 2012)

Jacob":a4ywrx56 said:


> I've just been browsing the Scott Landis book which is full of interesting stuff without a doubt - but everything is fussy and complicated - even where supposedly "basic" such as Ian Kirby's on page 80.



It's a flat worktop on a rectilinear frame made with M&T joints, with a Record Q/R vise fixed on. How much simpler could it be?

BugBear


----------



## marcros (18 Jan 2012)

bugbear":gh83s9mj said:


> Jacob":gh83s9mj said:
> 
> 
> > I've just been browsing the Scott Landis book which is full of interesting stuff without a doubt - but everything is fussy and complicated - even where supposedly "basic" such as Ian Kirby's on page 80.
> ...



flat worktop on a rectilinear frame made with "no nails"?!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (18 Jan 2012)

bugbear":2pte6jt4 said:


> Jacob":2pte6jt4 said:
> 
> 
> > I've just been browsing the Scott Landis book which is full of interesting stuff without a doubt - but everything is fussy and complicated - even where supposedly "basic" such as Ian Kirby's on page 80.
> ...


The top appears to be made with about 36 pieces stuck side by side, the undercarriage has a very peculiar frame construction, and there is no apron (which is a weakness IMHO). Instead of aprons he has horizontal rails as bracing, which are otherwise redundant - a missed opportunity.
I count 50 components not counting wedges.
The "British" bench as per Seller's example has 12 components, which would make a better bench in a fraction of the time.

PS I agree with Kirby about one end-stop and a vice for almost everything, but not about not having a well. If planes stick up, as he says, then the well isn't deep enough.


----------



## David C (18 Jan 2012)

Just a few thoughts.

A top which is wider than about 16" will be very difficult to plane flat.

Aprons are not necessary and will prevent the use of clamps. A top from 3" hardwood is quite stiff enough, ex 4" might be considered ideal.

A removable or sliding tool well allows clamps to be used from the back edge of the front slab.

I would start taller than you think, legs can always be shortened. I am 6' 1" and my favorite bench is 40" high.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Harbo (18 Jan 2012)

I use an ex school bench.
31" high, beech with a centre well, double "sided" with cupboard underneath. Fitted with a Woden vice.
Flat sided which can be a pain clamping sometimes but can be got round with other techniques?

Rod


----------



## Jacob (18 Jan 2012)

David C":1aip2nn6 said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> A top which is wider than about 16" will be very difficult to plane flat.
> Aprons are not necessary and will prevent the use of clamps. A top from 3" hardwood is quite stiff enough, ex 4" might be considered ideal.
> A removable or sliding tool well allows clamps to be used from the back edge of the front slab.
> ...


Agree abt the top - having a front "beam" say 12" max width, a well and a back rail is much easier to keep level than a one piece top.
I think aprons are essential mainly for clamping or otherwise supporting longer pieces held in the vice. Stops you using clamps on top yes, but lo and behold you simply manage without them! Most things I do on the top are not held at all, but just worked against stops if necessary. Built in stops or temporary screws, pinned on laths etc - or simpler variations on Schwarz's planing board.
Mines 33 1/2" but I have raised it on blocks on occasions.


----------



## PaulO (19 Jan 2012)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I noted in Paul's bench build that the projected height was 39 1/2". Is that correct Paul? Either you are close to 7 foot tall, or this bench is not to be used with handtools.


 
Yes it is correct (the bench height). I am 5'11", I arrived at the height after spending four weeks in David C's workshop. He has seven or eight benches of a similar design in various heights. I tried a few and found that I was most comfortable with a bench around 40", at 37" and lower I found my back hurt after a day of planing. 

If I stand with my legs slightly apart in a planing "pose" with straight(ish) back then measure from elbow to floor it is about 44", deduct a bit (around 4") for plane height+handle and workpiece thickness. At that bench height your forearm is slightly below parallel with your hand slightly lower than elbow. If chopping out waste or marking out then I sit on quite a high stool. Paring in the vice leaves the arms at the same angle as planing. 

In all the time of using it I can never say I have wished it was lower. If I had more space in my workshop I may build a lower assembly table. 

Also bear in mind that there are more dimensions to the human body than height, I have short legs and a long body. 

So Derek, how high is your workbench and how high from the bottom of your elbows to the floor?


----------



## theartfulbodger (19 Jan 2012)

Many years ago when the English Workbench was first designed and built were people on average shorter than they are today?
Old houses have lower doorways than new ones..

This might result in the traditional dimensions for workbenches being too short?

Just thinking out loud... #-o


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

PaulO":3fccqa48 said:


> ...... I tried a few and found that I was most comfortable with a bench around 40", at 37" and lower I found my back hurt after a day of planing.


Most unfamiliar exercise will hurt at first! Different after few weeks of planing.


> If I stand with my legs slightly apart in a planing "pose" with straight(ish) back then measure from elbow to floor it is about 44", deduct a bit (around 4") for plane height+handle and workpiece thickness. At that bench height your forearm is slightly below parallel with your hand slightly lower than elbow.


This means you won't be able to put any weight behind your planing - so yes your back will find it easier but also your planing will be slower and your arms should ache.


> If chopping out waste or marking out then I sit on quite a high stool.


Sitting down??? :shock: Not allowed. Not efficient unless you are doing very small things just in front of you


> Paring in the vice leaves the arms at the same angle as planing.


Yes i suppose paring does want to be a bit higher, just below chin height perhaps? Hence the moxon vice, not that I've tried it but it looks a good idea. I've done similar things though


> In all the time of using it I can never say I have wished it was lower.


Give it a few years and you will probably cut the legs off as I did. Mine must have been 40 ish and is now 33 1/2 and ideal. NB the refectory table style bottom rail is no good as it prohibits future adjustments. No point in it anyway - better (more solid) if the legs hit the floor direct.
I'm 5 11 too.


----------



## David C (19 Jan 2012)

I find the ability to clamp on my bench top indispensible. It seems that aprons are generally found on joiners' benches.

On my bench it is easy to support long work by clamping scrap to the face of the legs or the face of the rail. It is also possible to use a short sash cramp to fix to the front edge of the main slab.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (19 Jan 2012)

PaulO":3oq8jnj7 said:


> I arrived at the height after spending four weeks in David C's workshop. He has seven or eight benches of a similar design in various heights. I tried a few...




Wow. The ultimate luxury. Most people have little choice than making a "best guess" and hoping.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

David C":2eoe7h5n said:


> I find the ability to clamp on my bench top indispensible.


There are various alternatives - hold-fasts etc. Many manage with nothing. Personally I reserve G clamps for holding when doing dry runs or glue ups. I avoid holding workpieces as far as possible as it can leave marks on things being manipulated, particularly when morticing which is always best done loose on the worktop - unless you have a mortice stool (Ellis) in which case you hold down by sitting on it.


> It seems that aprons are generally found on joiners' benches.


Not as far as I know. They are useful to furniture makers too, for all the same reasons.


> On my bench it is easy to support long work by clamping scrap to the face of the legs or the face of the rail. It is also possible to use a short sash cramp to fix to the front edge of the main slab.


Mine too, plus the added advantage of the apron for a wider choice of supporting positions and methods. I see it as a vertical holding surface and a bench without it being at a disadvantage. Even the sliding deadman thing isn't quite as handy in some ways.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Jan 2012)

> So Derek, how high is your workbench and how high from the bottom of your elbows to the floor?



Hi Paul

Bench height is an interesting issue. I suspect that there are UK and US "schools" in this regard. 

Here is an extract of a post I made at WoodCentral very recently. David Charlesworth later replied, which I shall tack on afterwards...

I was asked why I chose the Benchcraft tail vise.

The choice of tail vise was made on a number of factors, one of which was the space available for the bench. My bench is placed against a rear wall in my garage/shop. The length of the bench is limited by a cabinet, to the left, and a door, to the right. It comes down to the longer the bench, the shorter the tail vise ... or, the longer the tail vise, the shorter the bench.

The Benchcraft tail vise is notable in that the handle remains in one position, that is, does not "screw out" or "screw in" in length. This translates into a short vise, which means I can build a longer bench. The bench size increases from a little under 5' to a little over 6'. This may not sound a lot, but it is a massive change for me.

I was initially planning on building my own version of the Benchcraft wagon vise. However, when Chris Vesper visited with me last year, he mentioned that he had purchased the BC tail vise. When I asked why he had not simply built his own - since he is a top class machinist - he explained that the design of the vise places great stresses on the mechanism (it screws at the side of the captured dog so as to run close to the edge of the bench), and that to accommodate this, the steel work needed to be heavy duty ... and that the BC was built like the proverbial tank. He did not believe he could replicate it. That sold me on the BC for the tail vise.

I hope to get to the bench dogs tomorrow. These will be rectangular, not round, so I have to prepare them before I glue up the bench top. Why rectangular? Simply because I believe that they will hold work more securely than round dogs. They have a broader face and will not twist. Plus, I wonder how many bench (dog) builders realise that the dogs need to incline slightly (I am using 2 degrees) towards the work piece? This is difficult to do if drilling for a round dog. Yes, it is possible to cut and angle a flat upper section of a round dog, but this thins and potentially weakens the dog, making it more susceptible to bending under stress. A rectangular dog is more work, both in planning and build, but it worth it. This does not preclude one from adding holes for bench accessories, such as hold downs.

So today I plan to finish off the legs. Their dimensions are 5" wide and 3 5/8" deep. I have cut the tenons, and what is left is to prepare one for the leg vise and all for the mortices for the adjoining stretchers. While I will not complete the base until after the top is done (as the length of the stretchers is determined by the dimensions of the top since all facing edges will be co-planar), I need to have everything ready to receive the top once it is glued up just so that I can work on the top.

To decide the length of the legs I first had to finalise the height of the bench. The present bench, which I built 18 years ago, was a remnant from a pre-handtool era. Much modified over the years to better deal with the demands of handtools, it still retained that one feature of the powertool user - height. It is 34" high. Too high for comfortable handplaning at my 178cm/5'10".

Chris Schwarz recommends the "pinky test", that is, the height of the bench should be situated where your pinky joins your hand when your arm is held at your side. I did this and the result was a bench height of 30". To test this out I place a double layer of bricks in front of the bench, and planed a board while standing on the bricks ...







Interestingly, this did feel so much better. It moved the focus of strength from my arms and shoulders to my hips and legs (which is what one is taught in karate). So the length of the legs was calculated for a bench top of approximately 4" thickness (it will end up a little under that), and the tenons were cut. Pictures of the legs tomorrow.

One other point: One change begets other changes. With the lowering of the bench, I shall need to build a new Moxon dovetail vise. The whole idea of the Moxon is to raise the work up high. The existing vise was built for a 34" high bench. To work with the same ease, the new Moxon will need to work 4" higher. Hence a new, taller Moxon.

*David's reply ...*

_I find this bench height question very interesting. My favorite height is 40 inches and I used to be 6'1" tall._

_The recipe I came up with, some time ago, was about 4 1/2 inches below the average height of underside of elbows when forearms are held horizontal. People tend to be lopsided ! In fact Jim Kingshott said that cabinetmaking made people lopsided. (and deaf in one ear. machine shop side.)

I can see that wooden plane users might like a couple of inches lower, but if we think of making tasks more height seems generally preferable. Sawing, and horizontal chisel paring both need height and I like to sit on a stool for chopping..

I try to plane almost exclusively with my legs and my right elbow fixed to my ribcage. How else are we to manage long stuff? If a plane is sharp it does not need much downward pressure.

Over the years many students have felt my benches were a bit high when they arrived, but none when they left.

The picture of John Hoffman planing on page 21 of the Lost Art Press reprint of Robert Warings splendid book "The Essential Woodworker" will demonstrate why I disagree whith Chris Schwarz about bench height.

Best wishes, 
David_

One other relevant post (otherwise you may as well read the entire thread!) was that of Wilbur Pan, who is a physician as well as woodworker ..

_I remember the first time I saw one of Jim Kingshott's videos, and noted that when he was using a hand plane, that he mainly moved his body and not his arms, especially when planing longer boards. Using your legs for planing is a really good technique, and lowering a bench helps with that a lot.

I built my bench using the pinky joint rule, and I think it could stand to go down another inch. This is probably because I'm using wooden planes for the most part, which means that my hands are a little higher in relation to the board I'm planing than when I'm using Stanley/Lie-Nielsen type planes._

I will post pics of my build once enough is done to call it a bench.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (19 Jan 2012)

Jacob":vb4umobt said:


> I avoid holding workpieces as far as possible as it can leave marks on things being manipulated, particularly when morticing which is always best done loose on the worktop...



Surely this depends on the size of the workpiece.

If it's massive enough not to move all over place during striking or levering, fine, but smaller pieces need holding.

Timber framers don't have many workholding issues  

BugBear


----------



## Webby (19 Jan 2012)

i am building this one 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=WL ... re=mh_lolz

Dave


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

bugbear":2s82ftnh said:


> Jacob":2s82ftnh said:
> 
> 
> > I avoid holding workpieces as far as possible as it can leave marks on things being manipulated, particularly when morticing which is always best done loose on the worktop...
> ...


If you are hitting or paring downwards e.g. mortices or DT sockets, then the workpiece isn't going anywhere so doesn't need holding whatever the size. Sawing against bench hooks or in the vice, planing in the vice or against stops and so on. What _does_ need holding down?


----------



## PaulO (19 Jan 2012)

Jacob":1mlo8yui said:


> This means you won't be able to put any weight behind your planing - so yes your back will find it easier but also your planing will be slower and your arms should ache.


I apply weight through posture, using the legs, not by bending the back. Besides I don't need to put much weight behind my planing. Stock is prepared to near dimensions with machinery, I'm not a scrub plane masochist. Planing for me is to clean up, achieve hollow and refine square, all achieved with shavings of a couple of thou. 



> Sitting down??? :shock: Not allowed. Not efficient unless you are doing very small things just in front of you


This is a hobby, not a commercial enterprise. I enjoy taking my time and producing the best I can, not producing volume within cost and time constraints.



> NB the refectory table style bottom rail is no good as it prohibits future adjustments. No point in it anyway - better (more solid) if the legs hit the floor direct..


Not sure if that was aimed at me, but the legs aren't refectory table style, there are four legs all contacting the floor directly. Are you referring to the wedged cross rail? If so that isn't sitting on the floor.

Here's a drawing:




and a photo




I can shorten the bench by 3" before I need to make more structural changes, as I have already established that 37" is too low for me I should be fine.


----------



## David C (19 Jan 2012)

A bit more browsing in "The Workbench Book" will reveal that none of the featured benches have aprons. Kirby, Klausz, Fortune/Nelson and Shaker. I suspect there are no aprons in the whole book. However there are many pictures of craftsmen clamping all sorts of things to the tops.

I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

David C":m6k9g2p0 said:


> A bit more browsing in "The Workbench Book" will reveal that none of the featured benches have aprons. Kirby, Klausz, Fortune/Nelson and Shaker. I suspect there are no aprons in the whole book.


Third picture? 
It seems to be a national thing and fashion comes into it, so boring British style benches wouldn't have made it into the book. There are plenty in other books however, such as C Schwarz's.
If the apron is of value to a joiner then it certainly would be to a furniture maker also - but in this book they make up for it's absence with sliding deadmen. I haven't seen anywhere, in any old books, any distinction between benches for joinery or furniture making. Why would there be?


> However there are many pictures of craftsmen clamping all sorts of things to the tops.


Holdfasts though, not G clamps, so aprons don't come into it.


> I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.
> 
> best wishes,
> David


I m sure you are right. BR (Derby) was the place for a lot of fine woodwork until about 50 years ago so they would certainly know how to design a bench! I'd be interested to see photos if you have the time. 
It seems to be lightweight benches for light work which omit the apron, or sliding deadman support thing e.g. many of the off the peg benches for sale.


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Jan 2012)

David C":3mqepusb said:


> I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.



I've often wondered why aprons seem to predominate on joiners benches. I wonder if it stems from having to construct a bench quickly and easily on site from available materials, such as scaffold boards? Incorporating an apron would be an easy way of making the bench rigid and preventing the top from flexing despite the relatively thin material :-k 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

I think they predominate on _all_ (British?) benches. It stems from the fact that it makes a good bench - provides a vertical surface for clamping and supporting - adds weight and stiffens the top of the bench - braces the legs. If it isn't there then you start needing the sliding deadman or other contrivance to support the end of long pieces, and you also need horizontal bracing such as a rail. The apron replaces the rail.
The "other" design seems to be more European, hence in the States you get both.
Just different traditions.


----------



## David C (19 Jan 2012)

Aprons were not featured on the COSIRA bench design which I started with in 1972, and have not been a feature of furniture makers benches in my lifetime. I really don't know where these Jacobean fantasies come from......... 

Similarly misleading is the idea that rubbing two stones together will create flatness.

best wishes,
David

(council for small industries in rural areas).


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

David C":na8kpd40 said:


> Aprons were not featured on the COSIRA bench design which I started with in 1972, and have not been a feature of furniture makers benches in my lifetime. I really don't know where these Jacobean fantasies come from.........
> 
> Similarly misleading is the idea that rubbing two stones together will create flatness.
> 
> ...


I've seen a lot of benches, from school up to the present, in various establishments. They were nearly all the common Brit pattern with an apron and a Record vice, and not distinguished as "joiners" or "furniture makers" as they are equally suited to both.
The books show all variations but the aproned "English" bench in Nicholson's elements is very typical, the non apron variety with an end vice often being referred to as "continental" or German etc. Perhaps for no good reason, just different traditions.
The point is - there is nothing about the aproned bench which precludes it from furniture making, quite the opposite - it has several advantages. 
I am taking a wild guess here but I think most furniture and other wood workshops in Britain for many years would have used the Brit style of bench. Could be wrong of course, but it make sense in that it's a very practical and economical way to make a useful bench.
"Arts n Craft" woodworkers trailing after the Barnsley tradition may well prefer fussier, less common, expensive, foreign styles of bench (they would wouldn't they :roll: ) but they are not the mainstream.
I don't know about the Cosira bench - probably bought in from a tool dealership as a "furniture makers" bench?

I'm surprised you can't manage the stone flattening thing - you shouldn't give up so easily!


----------



## Alf (19 Jan 2012)

I could throw myself at the books and work this out for myself, but after the result of the cricket in Dubai I find myself listless, unhappy and generally can't be ars- er, bothered, so I shall ask the multitude instead: Am I right in thinking that the general trend of aproned benches feature neither bench dogs or tail vices? I'm not sure exactly _where_ I'm going with that thought, but, ya know, if any wants to extrapolate from that, knock yourselves out.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

Tail vices; nasty foreign things. :roll: 
Dogs are in though, but usually just one or two as there is no tail vice to work against them


----------



## Harbo (19 Jan 2012)

Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.

Rod


----------



## Jacob (19 Jan 2012)

Harbo":3lpbne4w said:


> Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.
> 
> Rod


Sounds spot on, the bees knees. Who needs a tail vice? Only foreigners. :roll: Not sure about "aproned" the spell checker doesn't like it. apronned? Nope. Aperonied? Nope. Apronionied? Could be here all night.


> ..the result of the cricket in Dubai..


They play cricket in Dubai? (Where is Dubai?)


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Jan 2012)

Jacob":4j5unaed said:


> Harbo":4j5unaed said:
> 
> 
> > Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.
> ...



Sounds just like the workbenches we had at school in the 1950s. The design of school workbenches was more about providing the minimum necessary for a large number of pupils to learn basic woodworking skills. The average class size in those days (at least in the south east) was about 40. The design of the workbenches with a Record vice and sliding planing stop on opposing corners and a tool rack at each end meant that you needed only 20 benches for 40 pupils. If tail vices had been fitted as well, it would have been difficult for one boy to use his tail vice while the other was using his front vice - they would have got in each other's way.

I found that when I made my own bench and moved on to a wider range of cabiner making and joinery, the limitations of the single front vice and planing stop arrangement soon became apparent. I soon fitted a tail vice and several rows of dog holes and found that it greatly increased the usefulness of my bench. I really can't understand your aversion to tail vices, Jacob. As you have often said, you can nail on pieces of wood to support the work when necessary but that seems a very inefficient way of working.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (20 Jan 2012)

Paul Chapman":3r8fjpbu said:


> ..... I really can't understand your aversion to tail vices, Jacob.


I was exaggerating really, it's not an aversion. More a case of defending the basic bench, which like a lot of basic stuff is much better than they say. Certainly ideal as a first bench i.e easy and quick to make and an answer to the OPs question.


> As you have often said, you can nail on pieces of wood to support the work when necessary but that seems a very inefficient way of working.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


Quite efficient and very adaptable. The tail vice, useful no doubt, isn't the answer to everything, especially if you haven't got one.


----------



## bugbear (20 Jan 2012)

It appears that almost any bench can be used for almost anything (with greater or lesser convenience), and the lack of almost any feature can be worked round.

Jacob finds his apron useful - I find clamping down to the worktop with versatile G cramps (that I own anyway...) useful

The entire point of Landis' book it that there is no such thing as the ultimate bench, which is why he shows so many different ones.

Benches are also subject the rule that specialised features are great - but not versatile. That stems from the definition of specialised.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (20 Jan 2012)

Agree. 
But Landis does omit the apron style bench which we all know so well and, to get back to the OP, is the probably the best answer to his question.
There is a big fashion element with benches, as with so much other woodwork kit, which can be misleading.


----------



## marcros (20 Jan 2012)

Jacob":3kjaurar said:


> Agree.
> But Landis does omit the apron style bench which we all know so well and, to get back to the OP, is the probably the best answer to his question.
> There is a big fashion element with benches, as with so much other woodwork kit, which can be misleading.




Its not about the bench?


----------



## dedee (20 Jan 2012)

I'm not going to debate the merits of one bench over another, of aprons, tails vices or any other add on.

I put this together earlier in the year based on the "Chapman" bench. 







A M&T Frame at each end, chipboard back to stop racking, chipboard lower shelf also aids stability, frames also have panels screwed to them to add rigidity.
Top 1" chipboard, and 3 18mm MDF lipped with beech.
NB No fixed vices

Dog holes in the top for surface planing. Edge planing curtesy of a couple of wotsits (sorry Bugbear I've forgotten what you called them)











surface planing





I can clamp a "lathe" to it






A Gripmaster also comes in handy






Metal work vice






Simple and cheap to make, versatile in use.

Cheers

Andy


----------



## marcros (20 Jan 2012)

Interesting "lathe". It would probably do most of the jobs that a non turner might want to do, eg making tool handles etc.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jan 2012)

marcros":8ica0wxb said:


> Jacob":8ica0wxb said:
> 
> 
> > Agree.
> ...


Absolutely!
Landis has a big omission IMHO. The chapter 6 "A Basic Bench" is a peculiar thing and not basic at all. The British bench as per Seller's example above (somewhere) would have been perfect for this slot. It just doesn't look very sexy, unlike the Shaker bench on the cover!


----------



## WoodMangler (20 Jan 2012)

Here's my bench - built by me 37 years ago from a book called "The Complete Home Carpenter" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Golden-Home...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327053952&sr=1-1). It's moved house with me several times, living everywhere from a damp cellar to a purpose-built hobby-shop. About the only changes I've made to the original design are the addition of bench-stops and holes for a Wonder-Pup, sockets for a holdfast in the top and on the right front leg, and a hollow base to contain 50 Kgs of sand and ballast for stability. The top layer of chipboard has been replaced twice so far, and is about due to be replaced again. I'm certainly no master-craftsman, but it's served my needs well for nearly 4 decades, being used for everything from building large A-frames for obscure horsey contraptions to tiny dolls-house type things to keep my mother-in-law sweet. It has an apron on the front, but the ends are clear and overhanging, so workpieces can be held down with g-cramps if required.


----------



## Bale (21 Jan 2013)

Jacob":1avhrbfy said:


> There is a big fashion element with benches



You got that right.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (22 Jan 2013)

dedee":18nlra4u said:


> I'm not going to debate the merits of one bench over another, of aprons, tails vices or any other add on.
> 
> I put this together earlier in the year based on the "Chapman" bench.



Here's a couple more workholding ideas for a simple bench:

http://web.archive.org/web/200901140249 ... rtice_hold

As shown, it's being use for mortising, but it works really well for edge jointing, holding the end of a workpiece that is fully support vertically by the bench top.

A Stanley #702 can serve in a similar fashion, and is readily available s/h.






http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... =1#message

Here's an old Stanley advert (excerpt)






BugBear


----------

