Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

Well Rob...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>...since noone has chimed in, I'll put out a few comments with my bench experiences.

I built both of my benches. I followed Chris S's plans in Pop. Woodworking for both of them. I don't know your situation but here's something to keep in mind. Don't bother trying to make a "last bench" because, odds are, you won't get it quite right and you will end up building another anyway (or at least that's what I have been told and for me, it was true).

My first bench was built from plans from here:

$175 Workbench

It was built from SYP and was sturdy but was light, relatively speaking. It had one face vise which was good. My major problems were that it was light enough to allow me to move it sometimes when planing and the SYP warped and buckled on a regular basis. I found it very frustrating to have a bench top that was not flat. I could plane it, and did very often, but in some spots it could end up 1/8" off. Also, the length was fine except when working on items longer than 6 feet. My bench often doubles as a work area and assembly table since I don't have much space in my shop. The width was a bit on the small side too.

So I decided to build another bench.

Chris S. write another article on a bench that was simliar to my first one but had a different top, one made from laminated pieces of baltic birch plywood. This design appealed to me for a number of reasons:

1) simple and easy construction

2) material was readily available

3) odds were very high that the top was going to be flat or flat enough. Also, it would be pretty easy to get the top flat after construction.

The plans for this were from here:

24-hour Workbench

In there Chris mentioned that you could build a case underneath with drawers. Also, I preferred the base from the powertool workbench (another issue). Also, I was lusting after a twin screw vise so I decided to add that as well.

In the end I made these choices and decisions:

1) laminated baltic birch top with White Oak frame

2) White Oak base (I wanted to use White Oak instead of Pine since I wanted a tough bench plus it looks nicer)

3) Use the face vise from my first bench

4) Add a Twin-Screw vise on the end

5) Add a case made from baltic birch plywood with drawers for underneath

6) Make sure the top was flat

7) attach the top with L Brackets to the legs (Chris does this for this bench)

It ended up working out pretty well. It's a few inches shorter than my old bench but it's wider by a decent margin but not too wide.

It's heavy and VERY sturdy and stable. I can't move it when I plane. I performed a stability test of sorts similar in theory to the "nickel test" used on table saws.

I took some thin skinny item, placed it on end standing up on my bench top. Then I proceded to chop some mortises and plane some to see if I could get my test item to fall over. It never did so I was more than satisfied.

Here's a link to some pictures of it.

Workbench 2

What would I prefer to be different?

1) I wish it was longer. I'd prefer it to be 6 or 7 feet long but that's not possible given my shop space.

2) Dog hole placement is difficult and perhaps is not ideal. I spent about 2-3 days researching locations and chose my layout. I need to finish it by drilling two more rows that are closer to the top center.

3) I wish my face vise was a quick release...

4) The case under the top is a mixed bag. It's nice to have for storage but it ends up being a catchall for things. Also, the chosen drawer sizes are somewhat wasteful since they are so deep. There could easily be another row of drawers that better uses the space.

Some things came out well. The base is nice...far nicer than I expected. I laminated some White Oak to make the thick legs. The BLO+Ploy finish on them really looks good. The top was pretty flat but I went overboard and flattened it in comparison to a long straightedge I have. However, it is nice having a good reference surface when working.

Well, enough rambling...good luck!

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others) *LINK*

daleM

>I had the same dilemma before finally deciding on a European style workbench. The reason was that I figured if it was good enough for those who made a living with their bench, then certainly it must be good enough for a part time amateur woodworker. Because the design has been around for centuries then all the bugs must be worked out.

The 2 changes that I would make:

1. To lengthen the bench so that a minimum 8’ piece of lumber could be clamped between the bench dogs.

2. I would definitely have UNEQUALLY spaced dog holes in the tail vice. The reason is so that if a piece of lumber is just a bit too short for the distance in between the dog holes, then you do not have to open the tail vice up the full 4-5” to the next dog hole.

Let me say it in a different way. Say the tail vice is closed fully and the 24’piece of lumber that you want to clamp is ½” short of being able to clamp it in between the dog holes. (With equally spaced dog holes the lumber will be short ½” of all the dog holes no matter where you slide the lumber.) You then must slide the lumber 1 dog hole to the right (tail vice side) and then open up the vice until you bring it back to the next dog hole. If you have 5” spacing between the dog holes in the tail vice you will have to open up the vice 4 ½” in order to clamp your lumber. But if you made the holes of unequal spacing you might find a dog hole within 1” as you slide it to the right. Make sense?

I think I would cut out a cardboard template of the bench holes and then try a number of different spacing patterns for the tail vice to see what would work out just right.

It may seem like it is no big deal to have the dog holes equally spaced (what’s the big deal about spinning open the tail vice 4”?) but for a bit of figuring you can almost eliminate "the spinning of the vice".

I would hasten to add that I spent 8 hours adjusting my tail vice to have it spin with 1 finger. My vice is very easy to open. I can only imagine what it would be like, with a stiff spinning tail vice.

daleM

http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/fw_readshow_167.asp


Readers Gallery

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

daleM

>

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others) 

daleM

>

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

daleM

>Finally the 2 pics

dog hole spacing

john jesseph

>I have wondered the same thing- I don't know why it hasn't become common practice to progressively space the dog holes on a bench, both on the tail vise and the first few on the benchtop. My next bench won't have dogholes, but if I ever get around to making a euroshaker bench, I'll put some thought into that.....

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>That bench is real purdy Dale. I hope to have one very similar to it when mine is finished!JR

Late to the Party

Christopher Schwarz

>Rob,

One of the luxuries of my job is getting paid to build stuff that we don't have to sell. I've probably built seven or eight workbenches (maybe more) of all different styles. And I've worked on many more benches that I haven't built, including several commercial ones.

And I modify benches a lot, too. My $175 Workbench (which is still a *great* bench in my book) has changed a lot. The Power Tool Workbench (which is at home) has also evolved.

As I studied these evolutions, it occured to me that I was stripping stuff off, and my bench was looking like the Roubo bench.

So I took a week out of my schedule and built one. It solves all of the frustrations I had with other benches. Its simplicity is its ultimate virtue. Once I started thinking of a bench as a three-dimensional clamping surface, and not as furniture, the scales fell from my eyes. And for that I have to thank Adam, Dean and Joel Moskowitz, who let me drool over his copy of Roubo during a trip to NYC last year.

The bench will indeed be featured in the next issue of Woodworking Magazine, which comes out in early August (it's at the printers now). You can read all about the issue on the website.

Hope this helped answer your questions!

Chris

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

Angus Barclay, in New Zealand

>Hello Rob,

my bench is not very traditional but it does work very well for most things I need to do.

Factors in the decision making were:

1 - Cost and availability of materials

2 - My own skill level at the time

3 - The tiny size of my workshop

4 - My preference to do hand tool work but admiting that I do use hand-held power tools too.

5 - Wanting to copy good ideas I saw here on WC

So I ended up with:

1 - legs made of PT pine fence posts, framing from 2x4 pine, a top made of 2x10 pine, tool tray bottom of MDF, and scrap rimu (NZ native wood) for the apron, end caps, and vice jaws. It is light but is bolted to a concrete wall and floor so doesn't move.

2 - a mix of mortise and tenons, lag bolts, butt joins, and ply bracing secured with drywall screws.

3 - working surface approx 60 x 20 inches and 3.5 inches thick, with drawers underneath and a tool tray behind it.

4 - a deep tool tray, dog holes, face vice on left end, planing stop made from a batten at the left end, sawing stop on the right end cap, twin electrical outlet on the right front leg.

5 - sliding-dog tail vice, square dogs, two-part sliding bottom for the tool tray.

Things I would do the same:

The next bench will be the same fairly narrow width. It will still include square dogs, tool tray with sliding bottom, cheap 2x4 framing timber and will be bolted to a wall. It will still have end caps and an apron.

Things I would change:

This was my first bench, so when (not if) I build another bench, it will definitely have much higher quality joinery.
I'll re-organize the entire shop to make space for a longer bench.
The top surface will probably be laminations of ply and may include a 1/4 inch thick sheet of something replaceable as the working surface.
It might have an interchangeable crochet/vice arrangement at the left end of the long edge. I've already got a lot of clamping and work-holding options but any new bench will have even more . . . I just haven't yet figured them all out yet.
Drawers underneath are useful but I'll probably put different storage underneath next time to hold bench hooks, shooting boards, hold-downs, pegs, dogs, battens, removable vices and other such clamping and work-holding contraptions.

regards

Angus Barclay

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

Adam Cherubini

>And, for anyone else who has built a workbench, what led you to the decisions you made, and how many of them would you do the same way?

As arrogant as I am, I’m relatively certain I can’t out-think more experienced workmen. Maybe arrogance and low self esteem go hand in hand. Consequently, I sought examples of workbenches which, in turn, naturally brought me to Scott Landis’ "The Workbench Book".

Leafing through its glossy, hallowed pages, as if in a trance, I postulated and intellectualized my way to a bench good for nothing. I give Landis way too much grief here. Its not his fault I hate my bench. But for me “The Workbench Book” came to epitomize everything that was wrong with main stream hand tool conventional wisdom.

Landis, like every one of the craftsmen in his book, doesn’t make reproduction furniture by hand. Their benches work fine for them because they don’t need to stick moldings or match plane wide boards. I didn’t see that. I didn’t recognize that there is this chasm between doing it by hand, and sort of doing it by hand (which is code for not doing it by hand).

Now I see that you simply can’t trust anyone to tell you the truth about hand tools if that person has a table saw in his shop. When the going gets tough, he doesn’t scratch his head, resharpen a saw, or rebuild his workbench. He hits the green button. That doesn’t make him wrong. But you can’t trust him.

So whom can you trust? Me? Well I’ve got a Bosch compound sliding miter saw in my shop (that I don’t use) and an electric woodlathe. And rules are rules so I’m out. We need to find somebody who works wood by hand for a living and makes stuff we admire. To whom should we turn? Can you think of anyone? What’s the answer?

Adam

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

Alan Bierbaum

>Now I see that you simply can’t trust anyone to tell you the truth about hand tools if that person has a table saw in his shop. When the going gets tough, he doesn’t scratch his head, resharpen a saw, or rebuild his workbench. He hits the green button. That doesn’t make him wrong. But you can’t trust him.

So whom can you trust? Me? Well I’ve got a Bosch compound sliding miter saw in my shop (that I don’t use) and an electric woodlathe. And rules are rules so I’m out. We need to find somebody who works wood by hand for a living and makes stuff we admire. To whom should we turn? Can you think of anyone? What’s the answer?

I would suspect that most of the bench designs in use today, in their basic forms, were designed before the advent of power tools. I don't think that a power tool user originally designed my bench which is European style with face and tail vise.

I picked my design to use based on the way that I work and the type of work that I do. It works well for me and I would not change the basic design. Everyone needs to understand that different designs exist for a reason: to enhance and enable the work process for a particular work style and process. If you don't know how you will work and what you will build; you can not pick the perfect, or correct, style of bench to build/use. This might be the reason that many shops, before power tools, contained more than one bench style (i.e., think of work bench and saw bench).

There is no best bench design available. Each person has to individually make the hard decision as to what is best for them.

A clamping surface!!

fmutchler@adelphia.net

>Chris, that's the same light bulb that went off in my head recently. Whether it looks like furniture or not isn't relevant. However, it's functionality is increased the moment I percieve it as a clamping surface.

I should be able to modify my bench the same way I modify my combination plane/saw/screwdriver/etc.

I think what happens here is what's been happening to software for years; do I want a suite of programs or 5 stand-alone programs that do the same things? Do I want 30 molding planes or a #45? How about a Felder/Rojak/Robland vs 5 separate machines?

If Adam were a programmer, he would be working in assembly language while I prefer Java. It doesn't really matter what our methodology is so long as we enjoy/benefit from the experience.

Just as there are "religious wars" regarding operating systems and programming languages, we have our ongoing discussions concerning what constitutes a hand tool, who is a purist & who is a heritic, etc. ;>)!!

Tweet, Tweet,.....foul!

fmutchler@adelphia.net

>Adam, if you weren't making that statement about 'truth' with tongue in cheek then I can only say: NONSENSE. If you were sincere then you got some "'splainin to do". Please explain to me why you can't trust me to tell the truth about a hand tool I'm using because I have and use power hand tools?

Are you confusing the TRUTH with the truth? The only TRUTH I know of walked on water...I can't do that. Bet you can't either?? The truth, as commonly used, refers to how one perceives one's experiences in relation to a given standard. That perception is always filtered by one's world view which of course defines one's standard. A bit of a cyclic redundancy going on here ;>)

What exactly do you mean by 'the truth'? Is that the 'truth' about that hand tool according to Adam or the truth about that hand tool as Frank perceives it? Good grief, man, get your head out of that 18th century woodchip pile (almost said sawdust pile), take a breath of 21st century fresh air (even if you have to come to Colorado to get some), and get a grip! ;>)

Why would you dismiss as incapable of truth telling anyone who is using electrons in the shop?

Frank...Stunned in Colorado Springs.

P.S. Are those 18th century electrons scurrying about in your computer? How about the ones in your shop light(s);>)

Like it or not, Adam,

mike recchione

>You're the closest thing to "it" we've got. As someone else who doesn't own a table saw or routah or chop saw or thickness planer or (the list goes on), and wrestles with a lot of the same issues you do, I'm certainly grateful that you've been so willing to share not only your knowledge and experience, but your thought processes. It's helped me more than once.

Wrong answer

Adam Cherubini

>

I agree, but...

Adam Cherubini

>I agree with everything you said, but you have to answer the question before you decide you disagree.

I definitely mean this sincerely. As hand tool woodworkers we need someone to trust. So whom shall we choose?

Adam

Re: I agree, but...

Luke Herzberg

>We shouldn't get too hung up in trying to figure out "the" way that each operation was performed. No doubt there is a large body of knowledge that has been lost to a certain extent, but I don't believe that every 18th century woodworker performed every task in the same manner, or that the technique was perfect if used.

If (in addition to research) everybody uses their tools, reports back on things that work well, sift through the techniques, try some, invent some, be different...the body of knowledge is rebuilt.

A historian might want to restore it exactly; a woodworker might just want it as well stocked as his tool cabinet.

Who do I trust

Jeremy Osner

>for advice about hand tool techniques? Well I trust Adam, Mike, William, Ed, ... Not because I think they are particularly privy to How Things Were Done In The Eighteenth Century (in which regard see the post I am about to put up, concerning the John Townsend show I saw tonight at the Met) but because they have given me advice in the past and it has been borne out by application. But than that is not quite the question you asked nor obviously, the answer you were looking for. See you in August!

whom shall we trust?

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I never entirely trust the cynic. I find it very easy to be cynical myself. It is extremely easy to find fault with something. It seems to be much harder to come up with a working solution myself than it does to find fault with someone else's solution.

I think any reasonable human being should trust their own instincts when it comes to how they wish to build their workbench. It is, after all, a learning experience. I'm quoting something vaguely here, and can provide reference if needed; "A man who cannot make up his mind is like a ship without a rudder, tossed to and fro in the wind." I choose a path and go with it. If I find it does not work, then I adjust my tactics to the circumstances. I think probably the thing that makes life most interesting is if we mostly choose the road that is not quite as heavily traveled.

I can't answer the question because...

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>it's too vague. What am I trusting someone for? May I only trust one source or many? Guidance in every aspect of woodworking or a specific area?

In a general sense, I trust those whom, in my considered judgement are trustworthy...you know, the commonly referred to "Masters"; ancient as well as contemporary. Usually they have published multiple volumnes which have passed the test of time.

If I'm to trust someone in a specific area of woodworking, e.g., "How do I make a wooden smoother?", then I can be more specific in my search. People like John M. Whelan and Kenneth D. Roberts come to mind, as do Steve Knight, Larry Williams, Terry Gordon, et al.

We are so fortunate to have the contributions of many contemporary Masters here at WC among whom I unhesitatingly place you. You are a special Master who is capable of opening a window into days gone by allowing those who care to to grasp the hand of a fellow woodworker long passed from this place.

However, if you become your work we will lose you. The window you have opened will slam shut. Eventually someone else will open it, but not like you do. Because of your work I can participate in a sense of continuity or connectedness with the traditions of the past.

Everyone decides for themselves how much tradition is woven into the fabric of their present experience. Moses referred to a favorite of mine, "The Road Not Taken" by R. Frost. I like to think that I have always chosen 'the one less traveled by', however later on it's revealed that, "Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same.."

So, I trust the truth I hear that resonates within me. I hear it; I don't know how but I hear it. I don't always implement it properly but that's what tomorrow is for! ;>) I like to believe that it's our unique implementation of truth combined with many others since time began (that's the part you help us see) that makes for a beautiful mosaic when viewed from some lofty place. ;>)

Why It's underdog!

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA

>Fools! Bolts of lighting plaining thunder, sawing throuhg the boards down under! Underdog...Underdog!

stupid question

Adam Cherubini

>Ya know, I try to be thought provoking and empowering if I can. I mean, why say anything if you can't be helpful, right? But I really mucked up this thread so I apologize.

I was thinking specifically in terms of workbench design and I just wanted to say two things:

1) Frank's right. Truth is perception. So Frank's bench works great for Frank's hand tools. And since we don't know how he does this or that, we can't universally apply his design. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but because he might be sawing electrically, we have to ask questions.

Take Chris' upcoming article. At least in the pictures, he showed how his bench permitted each individual operation, answering the questions we should be asking of every woodworker's bench. And I think that's a much needed minimum. Without that information, you just can't tell whether a particular design will work for you or not. Landis should have done that with every bench he depicted. So my advice is not to trust that the benches in the workbench book, or my bench, or Frank's, will work for basic hand tool operations. BTW, if you notice, several of the benches in Landis' book, have no provisions for edge work for example.

2) So in terms of whom you can trust, I trust pros who make admirable furniture with hand tools. With respect to benches that means Felibien, Moxon, Roubo, Diderot, Dominy, and Nicholson. I don't care what kind of work you are into, these guys depicted pro's benches that worked with hand tools. Its not a purist thing, I think its a reasonable starting place and my answer to Rob's question.

Anyway, it was a stupid post that got more of your attention than it deserved.

Adam

Re: Bench Q's for Chris (and others)

john jesseph

>Who do you trust? I would submit Don McConnell as a resource to answer your question. Technically Mack Headly would qualify- he certainly makes his living with handtool woodworking, although not mostly from the sale of his work. The guys at Williamsburg have been kicking around this stuff for a long time, granted only for the a specific shop at a specific point in history...

Re: stupid question-long

Patrick Gibbons, Houston

>Adam, I got you the first time. I don't think it was a stupid question. I just think people were not aware of the full context. I understand your difficulty with the Landis book but I do think his bias of what constitutes a better bench was transparent. Because it was a survey, not every aspect was covered completely. His placement of Roubo and Moxon at the beginning of the book and his commentary made those benches appear to be the primeval from which woodworking benches have evolved. A great deal of coverage was given to Shaker benches and one could argue that the Kirby bench is a hand tool bench, though modernized. Dunbar's bench was given a blurb, mostly concerning its front vise. The article Dunbar wrote about its construction in FWW several years back excited me greatly. It is an 18th century design and does have a tail vise. He likened the user to a trim carpenter as the bench was moved from job to job and used in situ. That implies to me the use of all hand tools and no machinery. The Complete Woodworker and The Practical Woodworker are two books that were reprinted from works by a British author from the turn of the 20th century. Their benches, which mostly used leg vises and no tail vise, were designed for hand craftsmen without benefit of power tools. Their simple shop setup shows a lathe and grinder which are both hand-powered. This bench concept, the Dunbar concept and I will throw in a patternmaker's bench from the 19th/20th century are three concepts that "come in under the radar." While a patternmaker had access to a Norm's paradise of power tools, the bench work was primarily and essentially hand work. And excepting the Dunbar bench, these benches were used by craftspeople who had access to hand tools most closely resembling what we use today. I am always amazed how these are largely ignored here and everywhere else I have looked.