What did you do in your workshop today ?

[Sgian Dubh]

I wonder if you could give me a couple of dimensions from yours, please?

2550 mm L X 1100 W X ~745 mm H. The pedestals are each ~220 wide and thick where they join the foot and the bearer under the top, so obviously they are somewhat wider and thicker where shaped details (beads for example) protrude beyond this dimension. The pedestal comprises five pieces ~45 mm thick glued together.

The foot is ~80 mm thick, i.e., two pieces at 40 mm joined together by about 240 mm wide by 900 mm long meaning the table top width is 200 mm greater (100 mm overhang at either side).

The foot is set ~430 in from the end meaning a standard dining chair will fit under the top at the end. The space between the feet is ~1210 mm, allowing for the fact the foot is roughly 240 mm wide.

Typical generous diner perimeter length is usually in the area of 28 - 30" (~700 - 760 mm) per person. 600 mm (24") is too small really for formal dining with all the cutlery and so on, but if it's just casual bung a plate in front of a diner and fill your face eating it's just about do-able. More generous spacing around corners is needed for the person sitting at the end and the two people nearest the end on the long sides, so the wider the table top the closer it's possible to place the diners sat nearest to the end. For example, a table top 1100 - 1200 mm wide means the diners on the side can have their place within about 300 mm of the end, but a table top only 900 mm wide means pushing the side diners further along away from the end, e.g., up to perhaps 400 - 450 mm away from the end.

All the above relates to formal dining where there's carving going on and vegetables being dished out by the host/ess(es). Informal dining needs less space, kind of like the way four people get crammed on to a postage stamp sized table in fast food joints and the like. Slainte.

 

[MikeG.]

Thanks Richard. All that is very much in line with what I have designed. It's nice to have confirmation. It would seem that this table of yours is typically for 6 diners, but that 8 is do-able, albeit with a chair in front of the pedestal at each end. I won't be able to do that, as my table is going to be more like this:

https://www.earlyoakreproductions.co.uk ... ct-401.php

or this:

https://www.earlyoakreproductions.co.uk ... ct-461.php

The trestle would foul knees, I think, unless the chairs were entirely between.

Edit:

This is my adjusted proposal, allowing 700 per person place setting. It generates quite a long table:

 

[El Barto]

I've had a few days off this week so finally managed to start properly organising my workshop and figuring out where stuff will go since we moved in. It's actually been very satisfying, and nothing more so than laying out the wall behind my bench. I'm sure down the line the layout will changed and things will come and go or just be in the wrong place but for the moment it feels right. Another day or two and it should be "done".

 

[monkeybiter]

Well done [I'm jealous] but please, before you hang any more tools, put your nice big spirit level on the top of the board, then spin it end for end to compensate for error, and level up the board while you still can. It would drive my OCD into overdrive.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

This is my adjusted proposal, allowing 700 per person place setting. It generates quite a long table:

I'd move your pedestals towards the centre of the length by about 100 - 150 mm. As you have it, the chair at the end won't tuck under the table top completely. In my opinion it would be better if the chair could be tucked in so that the front of the back rest either touches the top's edge or is prevented from doing so by only 10 - 15 mm because the front feet hit the pedestal foot. This also provides more knee room for the end diner. Another factor to consider is that moving the pedestal/foot/bearer towards the centre by this amount is unlikely to make a table as chunky as this unstable, i.e., applying someone's full weight at one end almost certainly won't cause the other end to lift given the length and likely moments about a point.

Naturally, this means the diner at the side nearest the end now has a pedestal just about centred on their seating position. How much of a bother this might be depends primarily on how much width the pedestal or pedestals take up. You can make the foot similar to the way I made the one in the example I put up, i.e., low lying at the extremity and gradually thickening towards a single pedestal. That way it can become a footrest for the diner, or they can put their feet either side of the foot. Okay, so resting feet on the foot is likely to scuff and damage it, but who really cares about that - it's a big, chunky table that can take abuse, so abuse it. The pedestal, assuming you use a single pedestal, which appears to be the case going by your drawing, isn't likely to block anything much because it's probably 400 - 425 mm away from the table's long edge, assuming the pedestal is roughly 200 mm square and the table top is as you've drawn, 1050 mm wide.

As a final aside, I'm not a big fan of clamped ends. They're fiddly and time consuming and there's nearly always a bit of a gap shows up at some point in the future at the outer limits where the unglued clamp ends meet the main panel, no matter how you engineer holding them tight there. Better, in my opinion if you want a thick looking top is a perimeter about 65 - 80 mm wide at, say 45 mm thick, and the rest of the top at, say, 18 - 25 mm thick. Just cut 70 - 80 mm lengths off the ends of the thinner centre boards and glue these 'offcuts' back on the underside. With suitable bearers attached with slot screws to the underside you can hold it all flat enough.

Just my opinions; take them for what they are. Others no doubt could offer valid alternative ideas. Slainte.

 

[MikeG.]

Thanks Richard.

The pedestal won't be 200 square, or round. I'm proposing something like this:

If I persuade myself it is OK for the 4 of the diners to sit astride the pedestals, this could shorten the length back to some 2500/2550. Personally, I don't mind the end chairs only sitting 3/4 of the way under the table. I'll probably mock a pedestal up in soft wood and clamp some ply to the top, then experiment with a chair, some cutlery and crockery, and adjust accordingly. If I decide that it is all too much trouble and go back to 4 legs, there is going to be quite a long rail each side to fill with carving...........and we really do want to be eating at this table sometime in the next 5 years!!

 

[El Barto]

Well done [I'm jealous] but please, before you hang any more tools, put your nice big spirit level on the top of the board, then spin it end for end to compensate for error, and level up the board while you still can. It would drive my OCD into overdrive.

The board is level. I think if that photo was an accurate representation of all the angles you can see I'd be in trouble :-k

 

[monkeybiter]

The board is level. I think if that photo was an accurate representation of all the angles you can see I'd be in trouble :-k

My apologies, must be the brickwork :twisted:
I'd recommend painting the walls white while you can get to them, it makes so much difference [positive] you'll be glad you did.

 

[tony_s]

+1 for painting the walls white

 

[Sgian Dubh]

The pedestal won't be 200 square, or round. I'm proposing something like this:

That form of pedestal leg really isn't my cup of tea, but my opinion on its aesthetic qualities aren't important. It is wide though, particularly at the chunky foot region where the end diner's likely to attempt placing feet, and then there's that muckle great tusk tenon positioned just right for a bit of shin bruising. Those are design features where I think moving the pedestal nearer the centre of the table's length gets a tick or four higher up on the list of practical considerations to take into account. Slainte.

 

[MarkDennehy]

This is why you get the kids to sit at the end of the table

 

[MikeJhn]

Then there is something like this, does not get in the way of dinners feet and works really well even with both extension leaves.

Mike

 

[MikeG.]

Yeabbut.....it's round Mike. Round. That way madness lies......

 

[MikeJhn]

Yes and its the same shape on the other side. :lol:

Mike

 

[MarkDennehy]

Ready for finishing.

Top just gets osmo 'cos it looks nice; legs are getting ebonised.

 

[Chris152]

Looks great Mark.

 

[MikeG.]

Nice table, Mark.

It appears you have a surfeit of planes.

 

[MarkDennehy]

Cheers Chris.
And yeah Mike, but I make up for it with a deficit of skill and machinery

 

[cgarry]

That is a lovely table Mark. I wonder how that style would look with a Walnut top and Maple legs, he says while looking at his timber rack...

 

[nabs]

the table looks excellent Mark - looking forward to seeing the end result (I have made a couple of these too and the ebonizing makes all the difference I think...)