Workbench Advice

[No skills]

The through tennon and dovetail looks neat, the smaller cherry topped roubo he built for his daughter - its a very nice looking tool (after repair ).

The Dutch chest I want to build will differ from what hes done (made from scrap as well so by default its slightly different), but I desperately need some sort of storage for my hand tools (theres none atm) so I'll be throwing the shell together this week and making modifications when I get time.

 

[Eric The Viking]

The resulting racking - face of bench thrown out of square with the legs - from seasonal changes in the bench he publicises would soon sicken me from working with such a bench and the exposed tenons would seldom be flush with the top surface. The main weakness is are around the top "dovetailed" leg tenon nearest the face edge, as this would - for me - prove a liability due to it forming a small section of the front edge of the bench.

Unless I've misunderstood, he doesn't do it that way. He suggests the leg tops are simply blind tenons, albeit drawbored. He makes a passing comment that you could do through tenons "if you're feeling brave" (or simlar), and that the racking hasn't been as bad as he thought it might be.

My biggest issue with it though is the unnecessary mass. If I want to really thump something on mine, I just make sure I'm doing it over a leg, although the bracing I have makes it really rigid anyway. Since holdfasts don't work well in really deep holes, I struggle to see the point.

I haven't finished the book yet though - enjoying it too much to rush. I'm seriously considering a sliding deadman, as it would really help the workholding on mine and isn't that hard to add.

 

[GazPal]

Unless I've misunderstood, he doesn't do it that way. He suggests the leg tops are simply blind tenons, albeit drawbored. He makes a passing comment that you could do through tenons "if you're feeling brave" (or simlar), and that the racking hasn't been as bad as he thought it might be.

My biggest issue with it though is the unnecessary mass. If I want to really thump something on mine, I just make sure I'm doing it over a leg, although the bracing I have makes it really rigid anyway. Since holdfasts don't work well in really deep holes, I struggle to see the point.

I haven't finished the book yet though - enjoying it too much to rush. I'm seriously considering a sliding deadman, as it would really help the workholding on mine and isn't that hard to add.

I'll have another squint at my copy and could very well be mistaken in my take on what he'd written. I may have been too focused on his dovetailed, through mortised example.

I agree unnecessary mass is needless. I think it's the reason I prefer using my bench so much as - although it's pretty heavy as an 8 footer - it's nowhere near the heft he suggests people should use. Mine's still in need of re-assembling since we moved house last summer and I'm still in the process of building a new home workshop.

 

[No skills]

I dont think its been written anywhere but I do belive the top thickness/mass issue is down to the fact that these were 'commercial' benches, on larger sized (big!) benches several people could be working away and not all of them would have the luxury of working over a leg for chopping, having several people planing one one bench would need something with a fair bit of weight to stop movement as well. And lets not forget that obtaining large lumps of tree for the bench tops was probably easier back in roubos day

FWIW

 

[Eric The Viking]

I dont think its been written anywhere but I do believe the top thickness/mass issue is down to the fact that these were 'commercial' benches, on larger sized (big!) benches several people could be working away and not all of them would have the luxury of working over a leg for chopping, having several people planing on one bench would need something with a fair bit of weight to stop movement as well. And lets not forget that obtaining large lumps of tree for the bench tops was probably easier back in roubos day

Good points, all.

I'm 5' 7" approx, and ought to be 101/2 stone, tops (need to lose about a stone presently :-( ). I can't lift and don't need anything heavier than half the mass of C. S'. bench. Ideally, the more mass the better, but my compromise will be quite a lot lighter!

E.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I suspect that in bygone years the stresses and strains on a bench were much higher than they are now - we've tools and machines to do the heavy work. If you're putting that big a strain on your bench, there's probably an easier way of doing the job!

 

[GazPal]

The obvious choice if a bench lacks mass is to bolt it down and the top - if thin - could have a ladder rack framework (Lateral braces fixed to longitudinal stretchers) fixed to it's underside.

 

[Eric The Viking]

That's exactly how mine is: 3/8" ply on top, 1 1/4" chipboard (IIRC), 3x2 bracing lengthwise, sitting on the rails at either end. The front edge is 4x4 hardwood, approx., for top and front clamping, with thick hardwood lippings on the other three sides, allowing top clamping on them. Works a treat.

E.

 

[GazPal]

That's exactly how mine is: 3/8" ply on top, 1 1/4" chipboard (IIRC), 3x2 bracing lengthwise, sitting on the rails at either end. The front edge is 4x4 hardwood, approx., for top and front clamping, with thick hardwood lippings on the other three sides, allowing top clamping on them. Works a treat.

E.

Nice one E.

------------

I think many seem to lose sight of the fact a bench needs to function as a workhorse first and foremost and shouldn't be coddled or thought of as a piece of furniture. We each have our own preferences, but at the end of the day it can be in whichever form it's user wants it to be and will be sawn and chopped, battered and bruised throughout it's lifetime, but it's best the bench suffers than it's user. The bench is far far easier to repair. If something about a bench doesn't work, there's no need to put up with the problem, because it can be altered and made to work in the way you want it to.

A three legged, one eyed, toothless mongrel can be every bit as good as a prize winning pedigree champion.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Aye.

A good friend of ours has a greyhound-collie cross as a pet. Sadly you can guess - brains of greyhound. But "Socks" is coming up for thirteen now and she's still got the energy of a much younger dog. Apparently at her last checkup the vet thought the card was wrong. She's a very loyal and friendly dog too - a great pet.

 

[GazPal]

Aye.

A good friend of ours has a greyhound-collie cross as a pet. Sadly you can guess - brains of greyhound. But "Socks" is coming up for thirteen now and she's still got the energy of a much younger dog. Apparently at her last checkup the vet thought the card was wrong. She's a very loyal and friendly dog too - a great pet.

Quality dogs are a blessing to have around. One of mine is getting on in years, but thinks she's a pup and still runs riot with our younger dogs when we're out for a wander. She sleeps well afterwards. :lol:

 

[Jacob]

I suspect that in bygone years the stresses and strains on a bench were much higher than they are now - we've tools and machines to do the heavy work. If you're putting that big a strain on your bench, there's probably an easier way of doing the job!

The inertia of a heavy bench helps when you are planing.
And if you are hammering; morticing, carving, nailing etc. even more if you do it over a leg, where you get least bounce.
In fact mass is the best argument for using hardwood - strength and surface hardness actually don't matter that much.

 

[GazPal]

I suspect that in bygone years the stresses and strains on a bench were much higher than they are now - we've tools and machines to do the heavy work. If you're putting that big a strain on your bench, there's probably an easier way of doing the job!

The inertia of a heavy bench helps when you are planing.
And if you are hammering; morticing, carving, nailing etc. even more if you do it over a leg, where you get least bounce.

Most definitely. It's much the reason I feel like running for the hills if my son-in-law breaks out his workmate when we're doing work on his and my daughter's house, as you find yourself chasing the bloomin thing for miles when it attempts to take off at each plane stroke. Workmates are fine for doing bits and pieces on, but definitely not for sustained hand planing unless you can brace it against something, or are prepared to do a Fred Astaire routine while trying to plane and hold it down simultaneously.

 

[bugbear]

The inertia of a heavy bench helps when you are planing.
And if you are hammering; morticing, carving, nailing etc. even more if you do it over a leg, where you get least bounce.
In fact mass is the best argument for using hardwood - strength and surface hardness actually don't matter that much.

Just to separate stuff out properly, and use real physics:

1) The weight of a bench helps stop it sliding across the floor when you plane.
2) The rigidity of a bench (frame) helps stop it racking which you plane
3) The inertia of a bench (top) helps stop it moving under impacts.

A conventional high mass bench, has all of (1) (2) (3).

It is possible to contrive designs that have some, but not all of (1) (2) (3).

For example, a bench, suitable for planing, might be bolted to the floor (or walls) and have a extensively braced frame. This would only have(2).

A bench with a thin top, but with cupboards full of tools might have (1) and (2) but not (3).

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

....

Just to separate stuff out properly, and use real physics:...

If you were using real physics you would refer to mass not weight. Mass has inertia even when it has no weight e.g. in space.
Not much woodwork in space but much modern woodwork info often seems to have come from another planet!

 

[Eric The Viking]

Er no, weight, not mass in this context. It's about friction with the floor.

But heck, how many angels can we get to dance on the end of a (drawbore) pin?

;-)

E.

 

[bugbear]

....

Just to separate stuff out properly, and use real physics:...

If you were using real physics you would refer to mass not weight.

Mass does not stop a bench sliding. Weight does. Earth based workshops are subject to gravity. A high mass workbench under low gravity would slide easily.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

....

Just to separate stuff out properly, and use real physics:...

If you were using real physics you would refer to mass not weight.

Mass does not stop a bench sliding. Weight does. Earth based workshops are subject to gravity. A high mass workbench under low gravity would slide easily.

BugBear

You don't get sliding in zero gravity but you still get inertia.
Would increased mass increase the resistance to 'sliding' (on earth!), in your opinion?

 

[Eric The Viking]

(sound effect of man holding a ladder)... "but before I do, Jacob, perhaps it's best if you pass me up that shovel..."

C'm on Jacob, life's too short, surely?

 

[GazPal]

Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion