Workbench top design (long)

Re: Much better!

Thom D


>"This is already much better. A couple of points: The tail vise would work better if the axis of the screw were lined up with or at least closer to the line of the dog holes close to the edge of the bench."

It depends what the mechanicals are. With large wooden screws it will be offset a lot. The second row of dogs is a big no no. It's not the dogs, it's the loading on the vise. The jaw there on the right end of the bench is not supposed to be used as a vise, though people not in the know often stick a workpiece in there. Using it for dogs institutionalizes that fault and will wreak that vise unless you throw a ton of metal at it.

"Now ask yourself what you need the twin screw vise for anymore. The sliding vise not only provides all the functionality that the twin screw vise would give you, it is also completely adjustable, making the length of the bench the only limit to how wide a piece you can clamp in it."

Traditional twin vises are easily removed and they do provide clean wide board clamping, like chair seats or wide cabinet sides. Not my favorite vise but a sliding vise would not be stiff enough for me.

"Similarly, I would ask about the value of the crochet. As someone else pointed out, Roubo is very fashionable nowadays. But ask yourself what you need a crochet for if you have a face vise. In "The Workbench Book", Landis makes the point that the crochet could be more efficient for someone doing edge jointing all day long, that it would save him the trouble of having to loosen and tighten the vise. What nonsense! If you're jointing stock that is all close to the same thickness, loosening and re-tightening the vise will take less than one second. And who among us will be using a bench to do production edge jointing all day long, anyway? It's much better to avoid having things that stick out of the bench face and get in your way if you can."

Home run. If you like Deirdre suggestion of aux. vises you can have aux crochets galore. The veritas vise is crochet shaped to start with but any vise could be pressed into and aux solution. Anyone who thinks a vise is slow to set up should fiddle with some clamps, battens etc... while moving between steps, anyway, having a vise doesn't stop you from using any of these other props.

"What this all boils down to is that, in my opinion, your bench would be just as flexible and easier to use if you were to forget the idea of using the back face for anything"

I don't mind the idea of a double sided bench, but it does raise issues about how you relate to the tools. With a bench against the wall one can have tools to hand on the wall or in a tool chest. One can have another bench out there for planing, or a table for set-up. Place a bench in the island position with the intention of using all sides, and the box or wall is always on the wrong side. It's like setting up a kitchen as a "U" vs. having a big loft but building the kitchen as an island where you always have to walk to the other side of the island to get to the stove, fridge, or sink.

One of the things I haven't seen mentioned all that much here is benchtop thinkness. The thicker the better in my opinion. 3-4" minimum.

Re: SECOND TRY - details

Thom D


>OK, see the part in the red box? Is that a breadboard joint/end cap A big piece normally attached with a sliding tenon and some bolts? If you put a dog in it where the hole marked with the red line is you are just prying it off the end of the bench, you will loosen the bolt purchase and open up a nasty gap in the joint, or split it. Remember you always plane against the dog mounted in the bench, not against the vise so it can be under a lot of load. If it's end grain it's possible you might blow it out though that wouldn't be all that serious. None of this matters all that much as long as you bench is generally long enough, since then you have options.

Re: SECOND TRY - more details

Thom D


>OK the blue box contains the actual usual extent of the breadboard end cap at this end of the bench. If it is a breadboard then you crochet is trying to tear it off on one end, and is mounted into end grain, if we have some standard details. No biggie but not the easiest scenario to structure.

At the lower end the breadboard is cut away to receive the vise screw while a cap covers it on the top, and that puts your vise screw in approximately the right position.

The red line is where you never put a workpiece and therefore by the same principle would never have loads from dogs either.

The yellow line is why building the tail vise is so worthwhile, you not only get dogs, but this vise point is very powerful and useful, well worth all the trouble.

Re: Much better!

Michael Recchione


> "This is already much better. A couple of points: The tail vise would work better if the axis of the screw were lined up with or at least closer to the line of the dog holes close to the edge of the bench."

It depends what the mechanicals are. With large wooden screws it will be offset a lot. The second row of dogs is a big no no. It's not the dogs, it's the loading on the vise. The jaw there on the right end of the bench is not supposed to be used as a vise, though people not in the know often stick a workpiece in there. Using it for dogs institutionalizes that fault and will wreak that vise unless you throw a ton of metal at it.

What you say is true for the traditional tail vise, where the screw's axis is closer to the front face. In Dirk's picture, the length of the moment arm was the same for both rows of dogholes, i.e. the screw is centered between them. I believe that design will load and rack no matter which row is used. It would be better to have the single row and the screw closer to front face. I agree, the L part of the vise shouldn't be used for anything.

"Now ask yourself what you need the twin screw vise for anymore. The sliding vise not only provides all the functionality that the twin screw vise would give you, it is also completely adjustable, making the length of the bench the only limit to how wide a piece you can clamp in it."

Traditional twin vises are easily removed and they do provide clean wide board clamping, like chair seats or wide cabinet sides. Not my favorite vise but a sliding vise would not be stiff enough for me.

Why do you say that? I'm picturing a vise that can be locked to the benchtop at the position you need. I wouldn't even make it part of the bench, just a specialized clamp that I'd pull out when I needed to. Robert Wearing has a couple of simple ones in "Making Woodwork Aids & Devices", but you could get a little fancier if you wanted to. Right now, I have front stretchers on my bench, flush with the face, that double as aprons, so I just use a clamp when I need to do this. It's easier than mounting and dismounting a twin-screw vise. If/when I build a replacement bench without an apron, I'll probably opt for something like Wearing's solution. Then again, I don't work on chair seats all that much (or at all for that matter :-) ). If I were a chairmaker, I might think again about the twin screw vise.

"What this all boils down to is that, in my opinion, your bench would be just as flexible and easier to use if you were to forget the idea of using the back face for anything"

I don't mind the idea of a double sided bench, but it does raise issues about how you relate to the tools. With a bench against the wall one can have tools to hand on the wall or in a tool chest. One can have another bench out there for planing, or a table for set-up. Place a bench in the island position with the intention of using all sides, and the box or wall is always on the wrong side. It's like setting up a kitchen as a "U" vs. having a big loft but building the kitchen as an island where you always have to walk to the other side of the island to get to the stove, fridge, or sink.

The thing I found after I set up my shop is that I use the back face of the bench very rarely, and the back half of the bench is often covered with tools. I still like having access to the back of the bench because I don't have the space for a dedicated glue up table, so when I get to that part of a project, I can clear off my bench and use it for assembly and get to all sides of a piece. But that's about all I use it for. Also, for my shop, there are other things the wall is useful for, while the middle of the floor would be sort of wasted if I moved the bench against the wall. If I were designing the space from scratch, the bench would be against a wall with a window facing me as I work. (That's how I have set up my "summer shop").

One of the things I haven't seen mentioned all that much here is benchtop thinkness. The thicker the better in my opinion. 3-4" minimum.

I've gotten by with less for a long time, but if I were doing it again, I'd probably go with thicker. My front stretchers are 4x4s, so they add an additional 3 1/2" to the width of the top right at the face, making it an effective 5" for the first 3 1/2 inches in from the face. This provides a great surface for mortising, etc. There's no need for the back of the bench to be that thick, IMHO.

- Mike

Re: SECOND TRY- last detail

Thom D


>OK, see the red line? This divides the white and black wood in your design. Normally all the wood in the blue box would have the same grain alignment as the white wood in my attached picture. I can conceive of other arrangement, that would all have cross-grain problems... But for simplicity sake, let's assume they have their grain running in the same direction, and that direction is aligned with the yellow arrow. This is normal bench construction. In that case the wood in the red area is endgrain to endgrain joined, which is a significant structural challenge in this area, and possible a dimensional change problem. Have fun!

One way of making your life easier would be to make the wood in the blue box all white, and make the end vise of the same wood as your "black" wood. You would continue to get the outline effect, for what that is worth, and you would make a better bench structurally.

European walnut is tougher than American black walnut. Euro walnut is a premier gunstock wood, which means it is relatively stable, and strong yet not too heavy. Most better workbench woods, particularly for fancy benches would fall into the category of stable, strong, and "too heavy". In other words it may well be still too light.

Re: Much better!

Thom D


>"What you say is true for the traditional tail vise, where the screw's axis is closer to the front face. In Dirk's picture, the length of the moment arm was the same for both rows of dogholes, i.e. the screw is centered between them. I believe that design will load and rack no matter which row is used.

Probably true, I posted on the inside row of dogs only, below, but you are probably right about both.

"Why do you say that? I'm picturing a vise that can be locked to the benchtop at the position you need. I wouldn't even make it part of the bench"

Anything might well work. I like having something really stiff I could lift the whole bench by if necesarry. I could pretty much live without the vise being on the bench at all. But if it is there I see nothing wrong with it being in one place and building my racks and tools around it so that things are within reach. It just hasn't been a problem for me. A sliding one is significantly more complex and to get it to operate like a bank vault door stikes me as improbable. No sooner said than someone will prove me wrong.

"Right now, I have front stretchers on my bench, flush with the face, that double as aprons, so I just use a clamp when I need to do this."

That is a viable option, I just hate it though, messing with all that junk and handles sticking out the front...

"It's easier than mounting and dismounting a twin-screw vise."

Except for two things: 1) we don't know whether he will stick with the freestanding all around thing or not, if he does then having one vise that can how some wide pieces seems like a good idea, whatever form it takes. A number of pros have actual benches that do nothing more than hold wide parts often for wide hand dovetailing work. I get the feeling reading these kinds of thread that everyone is planing away on long 1x10s, but never comes across a piece that looks like a chair seat, the side of the a cabinet or a small table top... I didn't know so many people just made floorboards. I shouldn't talk, I do hand plane structural lumber from rough, just because it's fun. 2) Presumably the builder will decide a preference at some point. I have never had a side mounted double screw vies, I have an end mounted one but never use it except as a tail vise due to access issues. If I had one I would use it a lot, I don't think I would be tempted to take it off. But for another it is gone. So I don't see the problem with it, nobody will really be going back and forth, it's just not a vise style that overly locks you in. It's fast to make, and if he doesn't like it he can take it off. He wants to experiment.

"The thing I found after I set up my shop is that I use the back face of the bench very rarely, and the back half of the bench is often covered with tools. I still like having access to the back of the bench because I don't have the space for a dedicated glue up table, so when I get to that part of a project, I can clear off my bench and use it for assembly and get to all sides of a piece. But that's about all I use it for. Also, for my shop, there are other things the wall is useful for, while the middle of the floor would be sort of wasted if I moved the bench against the wall. If I were designing the space from scratch, the bench would be against a wall with a window facing me as I work. (That's how I have set up my "summer shop")."

I have a biggish shop but it is totally full and I never really get to use the back of my bench which was designed to be used. My space is 1 car garage wide but long. Reality encroches on the best laid plans. I probably wouldn't ever use a two sided bench continuously within a day, but I can imagine doing different kinds of work on opposite sides, in sequence.

"I've gotten by with less for a long time, but if I were doing it again, I'd probably go with thicker. My front stretchers are 4x4s, so they add an additional 3 1/2" to the width of the top right at the face, making it an effective 5" for the first 3 1/2 inches in from the face. This provides a great surface for mortising, etc. There's no need for the back of the bench to be that thick, IMHO."

My bench is 3-4 inches thick, over 8', and it still moves under heavy planing. That could be fixed but I just don't feel like it's too heavy yet. Actually the top on mine is two separate pieces and they do come appart easily so it's not too bad to move. I'm sure that people who never plane off more than .001, would have different needs, but heavy is better until you have to move it. Mine was designed to use both sides and so I made both sides rugged, but only the edge I am actually working on needs to be thick. I have a low bench that is torsion box and pretty light, it works too. A lot of stuff works, so the subject is in some regards not all that interesting. There is no perfect bench, and we are possibly dealing with another part of the woodworking dreamscape that is way out of alignment with reality.

Actually speaking of the .001" only crowd, what one often needs there is a lot of distortion free thickness and the ability to constantly dress the beam flat. That's the worst thing about vises, not that they aren't good, they are great, the problem is that the whole classic unit in fine hardwoods and finish ends up a sacred cow one can't touch. What would be more useful would be a disposable top one could adjust up and constantly flatten yet still use with vises. I ended up putting some straight oil on my latest bench and I guess it had something like rust in the 5 gallon cans of oil I buy, so it stained the maple a beautiful shade. I'm anti-stain, but this is quite beautiful, was an accident, and it's is hard to match, so I haven't had the heart to redress the top. I'm in denial. I don't really buy the "what my bench needs is a few big dings" philosophy. No, I want my top to be perfect, but a perfect solid wood top has to be redressable. I think that is why Frid dressed his bench with a belt sander, the best way to get it flat and cut all the mismatched intersections of wood.

Cheers to you Mike.

- Mike

Re: Much better!

Dirk Vogel


>Dear Mike, thanks a lot for your fresh comments. Tell me, how can you line up the axis of a screw with dogholes ? The holes are supposed to penetrate all the wood, so what are you doing with the screw in the way ? I am aware that the frame that holds the vise under the benchtop has to be larger than the vise appears to be, at least on the right side. But look at the double screw vise ! The screws are exactly in the middle of two dogholes, and even if I adapted your idea to exchange it with a removable vise, it would be so. I can't do otherwise with my tailvise :-)

That said, I agree with you on the crochet : a lateral benchdog or a leg vise can do the same work. Drawing it was fun, avoiding it in real life when turning around the corner of my bench may be less fun.

Your musical analogy is quite right � but it seems to me that also a workbench is a "piece the woodworker produces" and � with this in mind � his composition, too, not only his instrument. :-) But I'm taking you seriously, and I'm thinking about the re-introduction of the removable vise. It's something quite difficult and complicated to build � so I do like it :-)

Greetings, Dirk

Re: Interesting comments (long)

Thom D


>"Well, I'm thinking about the Tucker vise ... Problem is, in Germany you won't find it for 570 $ (that's Veritas price tag), but for 800 � (that means over a 1000 $) ! So you may understand why I'm hesitating ... Buy it directly ? Yeah, that would mean something like 700 / 750 $, much better, but even then ..."

I totally believe it is worth whatever you have to pay for it, you won't look back. But it isn't required to work wood. It also more or less bolts on, it has some modest consequences for the base, so you could add it later when you come to the conclusion on your own. I couldn't have afforded it when I started out in the late 70s, it was a bit of an impulse purchase, but I'm happy I did it.

"And a Tucker would interrupt my all-wood-concept savagely :-)"

I know what you mean. I'm totally passionate about wood as a structural material. I started out with wooden boats, in which I am still (over) involved. I often think that the average woodworker is someone who makes things out of wood but doesn't really believe in it as a structural material. Which is a shame, but it explains the popularity of crap like Stanley planes.

Wood as a structural material was never surpassed by metal. It is surpassed by carbon fiber, though they knit together rather well also. On the other hand, if you want to design in wood you need to design to it's strengths. So a wooden plane with a wedge is a very good design, a wooden version of the Stanley adjuster is a bad joke. Somewhere in there there is a cautionary tale for vise screws.

Same thing with your inset vise (now I realize removed from your drawing). That looks like a fine design in metal, think of the frame in an Italian band saw. Tough design for wood.

Bottom line is wood is good. Miracle Fiber W as Jim Brown says. But loving wood means learning to use it the way it works best, not trying to execute designs that don't make sense in it. As you say, 700 E is a lot of money for a vise. Can you make it redundant to your work by coming up with simple workbench solutions that up the wood bill and down the vise bill? I roriginally brought the Tucker into it because your bench looked pretty luxurious, so I figured you might spend some money on something a little more useful, if not essential.

"but I can't see why one should employ a double screw tail vise with such a short distance between the screws. If they're going to be of wood, with a 2" diameter, this design would leave about 12" between the screws (without the use of dogholes it would be about 15). Wouldn't a single screw suffice in this case ?"

I won't argue hard for it either, all I claimed was it is more usable than the design on the original drawing. The argument might be, though, that with double screws you can hold slightly out of line pieces in the double dogs. Double dogs really aren't necessary, but if you want to find out what all the excitement about double screw end vises is and have all the advantages of the regular tail vise, experiment with this stuff, then that is the way. My double end vise is about that width, and your bench is wide enough for the third screw.

"And tell me please something else. The piece of the other 1/3 tail vise that turns the corner doesn't finish on the edge of the bench, you designed a gap. I saw that gap on many photos. Could you explain to me why this is so ? It would be easy to build the frame adjacent to the apron, wouldn't it ?"

Three reasons: 1) as in one of my details below, you never clamp in that gap. I mean it is possible, one of my desires is to someday built a face vise like that so that it will close flat like a face vice, but clamp the whole board like the L vise on a German bench. But it is structurally very difficult and the traditional tail vise is not designed for it. so if you leave it open you make the point it's not a vise. 2) If you have to face the jaw then you can dress it repeatedly and still get it to close. 3) The tail vise is joined with finger joints or dovetails, and you don't want to put a dog right in the joint, so if you want to use as much of the top as possible you need to move the joint back further to allow more room for the dog.

"I also studied the Noden Ajust-A-Bench products, but heaven, are they ugly. They may work fine, no doubt, but I couldn't use such things, sorry."

I agree. I was in an accident while building my current bench and to get things moving on when I could barely walk, I fitted LV cast iron legs. I like cast iron, but I hated the idea of a woodworking bench with those legs. I finally build a proper base. But again it's a mater of practicality vs. philosophy. Benches really need to be adjustable for height, freely, it would be wonderful it they were. Particularly if you are building your first bench. I'm on my fourth or fifth, and I still don't have an answer on height other than it is important.

"On the other hand, I understand now your concerns about the corners of my bench. It is true that I imagined box joints or dovetails to be the connection between the boards the apron is made of. Now, my dogholes happen exactly at the center of those joints !"

First you probably want to eliminate those joints, or find some way for the bench to move if you aren't going to have a tool tray.

"That's surely bad, but I cannot see other solutions, because if I want the distance between the dogholes of my vises and those of the bench to be as near as possible, I can't just postpone the bench's dogholes behind its apron, that would cost me nearly 4 inches ... Do you have an idea ?"

Again, I want to work with what the wood wants. At some point short of mounting stops on the face of the bench you are going to loose some space on the top. You can overhang the L as mentioned above. Basically just make you top big enough to do the work you need even if you loose a little length in the ends. you could come up with some sort of bench hook type thing to hold longer pieces thant he dogs will grab, you can also mount the workpiece to the dogs with dowels so that you coul hold a 12 foot piece on an 8 foot bench, all things I would rather not do.

Cheers Dirk.

Re: Simple bench (long)

James Watriss


>-Holdfasts, if you're that worried about damaging the work, use a piece of scrap wood between the holdfast and the work. But I think you'll find them to be much more versatile than a vise, if for no other reason than that they can be used in any hole you could conceivably drill into your bench, including into the legs, which brings me to my next point.

-IMHO, I would only have vises on one side of the bench, and on the end. The reason being, I like benches that have one side that's completely flat for edge planing of long and large boards.

-The layout of your benchtop is nice, but I'd listen to some of the folks who like roubo benches. Or some of the arts and crafts-style benches, that have little more than a stop for planing and an end vise. Look at Sam Maloof's bench. It's a flat, stable surface with a pattern-maker's vise on it. Nothing more.

Notice, too, that his bench is not at all like the fancy, polished, dovetailed benches you'll see elsewhere. It's a bench that gets used, and frequently, by one of the few true master craftsmen we have around today. Don't get caught up in the fancy bench craze if you don't have to. Some folks will tell you that a furniture maker's bench is a gauge of his talent, or something like that. But there's something I've noticed about that idea. I've read about and researched a number of fine furniture builders, and gone through books on their work. I've almost never seen their benches profiled in those books. The most notable exception was H O Studley, whose tool chest is infamous, but whose bench was also shown in the Taunton Workbenches book. Oddly enough, he seems to be mainly known for his tool chest, and not for his pianos.

-If you're interested in a complex bench, a traditional european style cabinet maker's bench will keep you occupied for quite a while. But if you're going to get elaborate about it, I think you'd be better served to draft the thing in three dimensions, so you can visualize how a board-jack, for instance, will fit in, and see whether or not you could really use it with another vise in the way.

-Visualize the space you're putting the bench into first, and make sure you have enough room to move yourself, your project, and your tools, between the bench and the walls. Make sure you have enough room to finish the final project, too, on a surface other than your bench. (Unless you like a surface that's rough and uneven from drippings of shellac, poly, and other things, not to mention stained with who knows what) Are you going to use a separate tool chest, or will you have drawers in your bench? A separate tool chest will take up more floor space, too.

-At home, I use a variation on an arts and crafts bench. The back edge is flush with the legs, so I can clamp a long board up against it for edge-planing, or put it up against a wall. I have a small skirt along the front edge, so that I can use a small clamp in tandem with the front vise to hold wide boards against the front of the bench for doing joinery and such. And there's a pop-up plane stop. But that's it. A flat surface, a bolt-on vise, and a stop. I've learned a lot from making that bench, and from using it.

-I've also been using the benches at North Bennet for about a year and a half now. Small, (5-6 foot, 24-27" wide) with one front vise. No board jacks, no end vises. Some dog holes to go with the front vise, but that's about it. I've learned that a little creativity and a few clamps can go a long way to make up for the lack of specialized vises. There are a few things I'd change on the benches at home, and at school, but not much.

I don't know what sort of bench you have right now, or if you even have one. If you don't have anything, I'd start with putting together a simple bench out of laminated 2x4s. No, they're not fine hard-wood. And no, it may not look fancy. But it can provide a pretty solid work surface. Once it's up, use it to build a good tool chest. (Either a free-standing model, or one to go under your new bench.) You'll learn a lot about the way you do your own work, and what you might want in a future bench. My first "bench" was a pair of 2x12s across a pair of sawhorses, and I used that surface to build my home bench. Now I plan on using my home bench as a surface to build yet another bench, or at least a new top.

There are a lot of benches to be seen, both in books, and here on the WC boards. And almost all of them are heart-breakingly gorgeous. AND, almost none of them would suit my style of work. And they may not suit yours either. Wood is expensive when you're talking about something so massive, and the amount of time you're going to invest doing it all by hand is something not to be spent lightly on a fancier bench that you may or may not be happy with in the end. Start simply, and figure out what you need, and what you want. Build your bench around that.

Read as many books on benches as you can get your hands on, and not just from Taunton Press. Don't get me wrong, Taunton is amazing, and their photographers are top notch. They do very well with the fancy, nifty, wow kind of stuff. But a lot of the old, reliable, and efficient ways of doing things aren't always glamorous enough to show up in their books. Sometimes wedges, holdfasts, a good bench hook, and some clamps are all you need. And you may learn to appreciate a less-fancy pine bench. In the event that you have to nail down a strip of something to help secure your work, you'll probably feel a lot better about it knowing your bench is "Just" pine.

Tail vise plans *LINK*

Michael Recchione


>Dirk, it is possible to design a tail vise with the long axis of the screw lined up with the dogholes. Here's a link to one plan, from Jeff Greene. This type of vise usually has only one dog hole on the movable jaw, in front of the screw. You can vary this design to extend the front of the jaw further and put in additional holes if you like.

The style of vise with dogholes going the entire length of the movable jaw usually places the axis of the screw as close as possible to the line of dogholes, and also uses a beam on the opposite side to stabilize it and resist racking. Here's a link to a version of this using modern tail vise hardware, from Lie-Nielssen.

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=L-tail


Jeff Greene's wooden vise plans

Re: Interesting comments (very long)

Dirk Vogel


>Hi there Thom,

I can't stop admiring your detailed explanations you're willing to share here ... I think I must consider myself lucky to have found someone disposed to answer as well as competent to do it :-)

Ok, so i'll try to get that Tucker vise if it's remotedly possible ... You're right, my bench is going to cost a sum that would be considered luxury by a large amount of people ;-) And it's evident one should use wood to permit it to show his strenghts. I'm sure I'll have learned something about those when I'm finished with your messages ...

What you're stating about the double vise is a new point of view for me. Look, I'm not saying that before the discussion of my original project I felt happy because I thought I had an answer to every woodworking technique with all my vises, and that I' panicking now because during this discussion I'm forced to admit that it'll be better giving up some of those. :-) But nevertheless, if I'm thinking of the situation of a shelve I want to dovetail ... Well, I discarded the scandinavian shoulder vise solution because I didn't like the idea of that dogleg sticking out of the general contour of my bench, so I studied how people do this kind of thing, especially on large boards, and I imagined the solution of one fix face vise, classically put on the left edge of my bench, where I would insert the left edge of my wide board, and a second face vise I may shift left- or rightwards, meaned to fixate the right edge of the board. But then I was advised that that second vise should at least be removable, because it would be in my way when planing long shelves.

Now, if the construction of a shifting front vise is quite something, the construction of a shifting and removable face vise seems VERY complicated to me � especially trying to do it all without metal :-) I have come up with a project, but frankly, it is too difficult, even for me ;-) I mean, I would love to have such a vise, if at least it was simple to use. Crazy projects are my speciality, I would try to build this vise � but using it wouldn't be any fun. Consider : a front vise of the length of maybe 15" � 18" (and that would be only the part under the table !) would need three, better four wooden screws to be fixed under the table in various positions � or you'd have to use a quite complicated system of wooden hooks or noses (no idea how to call them) to insert in holes with very particular forms, cut into the wood under the benchtop, with a system that secures the final position, preventing the vise from moving while you use it � do you see what I mean ? This is not a safety belt to close here, one gesture and you did it. To speak in your terms, the whole idea seems to work if you build it in metal, but in wood it would not be natural. I thought it over, tossing and turning, and came to the conclusion that it's not worth the price � except you can offer me a much simpler version of what I described above ? :-)

But let's go back to our original situation : me dovetailing a broad shelf. Of course you can secure the shelf on his left edge with your classic front vise, and if you need it, you fix it with a simple clamp against the bench apron (using the clamp horizontally). But somehow I think about this solution without enthousiasm � it seems like a bit tinkered to me. So my last hope was indeed a double screw vise, large enough to contain most shelves I'm going to work on. That was the reason why I shifted the twin vise to the length of the bench : even on the larger version of my original project, where the twin screw vise gets the whole width of the bench, wich is 35 1/2 inches instead of 32 (which I'd prefer), the best distance between the screws would be 21 1/2 inches, and I esteem that this is not enough. The second try proposes a twin vise where this distance is nearly 27", and I find that reasonable.

Now you're telling me to remove the twin vise to the small side of the bench, and you use only 2/3 of it ! :-) So for my dovetailing situation I'll have to use a holdfast horizontally, in a hole I drilled in the apron, or I could use a benchdog � but only with a classic tail vise on the same side as the front vise is, and there is none right now ...

Well, I know that a twin screw vise offers also that possibility of the double (triple, quadruple ...) row of benchdogs. But if I wanted to use that possibility, wouldn't it be better to have the twin screw vise as large as the short benchside is ?

Ok, change of subject : the gap on your classic tail vise. I didn't know that this short side of the vise is normally not used to clamp anything. A pity, if you look at it. If the short part of the L form of that vise is needed only to give his whole structure force or stability or whatever, I would see a major default in it. Didn't you say that complexity must be earned ? Well, I think that passing from an I form to an L form only because of stability issues and without offering further functions like p. e. giving the space to add a doghole is not enough. :-)

That said, I must admit that I discarded certain solutions to build a bench only out of aestethic reasons. (By the way, I think this attitude was determinant also in my choice not to use the Tucker : al lthat metal structure under the bench you can't hide ... I hoped that if I ever couldn't avoid metal in my bench, I would ad least try and hide wherever it would be possible.) That's also the main reason I planned my apron like it is : I couldn't stand situations like in the photo above, where the vise doesn't go against an apron with the same dimensions. But this is another story ... So I'll have to rethink the situation about dogholes not to be put in joints ? That is very bad indeed. Well, I'll present you my solution when it comes up.

Be well, Dirk.

Re: Simple bench (long)

Dirk Vogel


>Hi James, thank you very much for your extensive comments. I already know now how to use holdfasts, and lots of people tell me that one side of a bench without anything is something great to have. By the way, if you build a bench like this, and your only possibilities to secure wood there would be using holdfasts or clamps, why won't you get at least a tail vise with a bench stop ? A tail vise doesn't disturb the plane and accessible surface, and you could secure boards horizontally, too ...

About the character of the bench : I already stated that I need a beautiful bench (and useful, of course, but I know me good enough to say that without beauty I will not work well). So I fear that, for my personal reasons, I'm already part of the "fancy bench craze" :-)

Imagination in three dimensions is required to work out a bench project, and I'm trying my best. Only I have to consider certain facts like vise positionning first, then I'll try and include board-jacks and so on. I also thought about shop space and tool chest questions, but I didn't want to mix up everything in one thread :-)

Your bench you're describing must be very nice to use. I see where you want me to give some more thoughts. Probably the way to woodworking (and using benches) that you describe is the best. But what I want is something else. I understand your arguments to build something simple on the beginning, but I invite you to read my message "George, Roy and Pam ..." in this thread, where I explain my position about this counsel. About documentation : I already have a certain collection of internet sites dedicated to workbench construction (more than 30) and about a thousand photos :-) That doesn't mean at all that I'm feeling like a specialist, but well, at least I know the models.

Thank you again,

Dirk

Second tail vise dog row

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom ! This is the moment to discuss that tail vise problem. I'll post you a drawing. You speak about the "loading on the vise". Tell me please where do you think that might be an issue, and why there's danger ! I agree that what I designed there does not correspond to any specific vise I planned so far for my bench, it's only to get the idea. This way, I thought, you may use the tail vise as such, with a row of three dogholes, and also to clamp something on the other side ...

About the relation to tools in the case of an island workbench used from both sides : well, every time I do new drawings, my project is going simpler. First I thought it too complicated to add even a tooltray under the bench, but let's continue this way, and my bench will finally be that simple that I might reconsider a chest of drawers that opens at both sides put under the bench ... ;-)

3" to 4" was approximately my idea of bench thickness, too.

Oh, and I forgot ...

Dirk Vogel


>... what are the two lines in your new drawing to be meant that cut the benchtop in halfs, but are not wide enough to symbolise a tool tray ? Why did you change the position of the tail vises (1/3 � 2/3) ?

Re: Tail vise plans

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Michael ! Thanks for your links, I already knew them. As to Jeff Green's screws, it's like you said : dogholes are possible where your screw ends if they're lined up. But I would not like to consider a tail vise where dogholes can start only after 15" or so from the edge. I like more what you showed me as a Lie-Nielsen solution. It's very elegant, but he uses metal, so dimensions of everything can be reduced. With my 2" wood screw, I can't possibly do the same he does :-) The photo of your second link shows exactly the kind of tail vise Thom has in mind, but actually I'm struggling with him about certain details, so we must postpone a discussion about it for a little while ;-)

A little correction

Dirk Vogel


>In my message "Second tail vise dog row *PIC*" I wrote :

"I thought it too complicated to add even a tooltray under the bench"

but I meant

"I thought it too complicated to add even a chest of drawers under the bench"

Sorry, my English is a bit confused sometimes :-)

Catastrophy and hope

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Michael, this gets worse every time I open messages ... ;-)

You said :

"In Dirk's picture, the length of the moment arm was the same for both rows of dogholes, i.e. the screw is centered between them. I believe that design will load and rack no matter which row is used."

That would be catastrophic ! I especially designed the guides to try and avoid racking, and you're telling me it's not enough ! Of course I believe your experience, that's not the question. But it seems that I'm seriously mistaken on that matter, I'll have to rethink the tailvise completely ! The drawing I posted in my "Second tail vise dog row *PIC*" message was meant to be simply a development of the Nyquist tail vise as it's described in Landis, page 132.

But there are good news, too � you stated that you were "picturing a vise that can be locked to the benchtop at the position you need. I wouldn't even make it part of the bench, just a specialized clamp that I'd pull out when I needed to. Robert Wearing has a couple of simple ones in "Making Woodwork Aids & Devices", but you could get a little fancier if you wanted to." Now, I tried some solutions of this problem that seemed very complicated to me. Could you explain better what you have in mind � maybe with a drawing ? That would be very helpful ... :-)

Now, about the bench beckside, I frankly don't understand. There're some woodworkers that tell me it's wonderful to have a side of the bench without any vises, but I don't get what they do there. On the other side there're people like you who simply don't use the backside. That will surely not be my case, I do want to work on both sides of my bench, and different things with different techniques too, but when I propose projects that reflect this attitude, somebody comes to tell me that I should leave one side of my bench clear of anything ... and so on. Well, once and for all, I'd love to be told what specific use one shall make of a cleared bench side, and why I should not use both sides to integrate different vises or other equipment ! ;-)

Your turn again ... Greetings, Dirk

Free standing bench

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom, here it continues (I hope you already read my "Re: Interesting comments (very long) *PIC* " message) :

My concerns regarding a simple solution of the removable and shiftable front vise issue are already expressed. However, the field is open, and I agree with you to prefer a vise to clamp handling. But one point is for sure : I'll definitely "stick with the freestanding all around thing". This is one of the most fundamental starting points of my project. If it weren't, I could have thought a quater of what I thought over so far. (I'm a guy of simple solutions only when the complicated become ugly.) So don't be worried, this is not going to change.

"I have a biggish shop but it is totally full and I never really get to use the back of my bench which was designed to be used."

Well, Thom, as far as I can see my career as a woodworker, I may add a shelf to stock wood, maybe a very low table for glueing, but apart from that, my shop will consist in my workbench and some kind of chest for the tools. End of story. There won't be machines, or even ten of the two thousand things � or "doodads", how I learned recently :-) � people seem to accumulate in their shops. What do I need ? Paper, a pencil, an eraser, a ruler. At least I hope so. :-)

Well, we'll see, that's not the point here. The important thing for me you said is that "I probably wouldn't ever use a two sided bench continuously within a day, but I can imagine doing different kinds of work on opposite sides, in sequence." That's what my ideas are all about. Thank you for formulating it this precisely. And maybe I understand your last drawing now. You say, "Actually the top on my bench is two separate pieces". Is that the reason for the parallel lines in the middle of your bench you drew in your "Re: Much better! *PIC*" message ? Then tell me, was it your intention do give the wood room to expand ? How did you fix the pieces on your rack ?

Thanks and bye, Dirk

Re: SECOND TRY - details

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom, I imagined my end cap to be attached on the top like on the photo. Only you should imagine the left part with the two dovetails to be of darker wood :-) I'd like to have the end cap in the dimensions 3 1/2" on the doghole side, and 7" on the front side, with bench holes of 1". That would let 1 1/4" of wood on each side of my hole. Isn't that enough ? Should I plan 4" x 8" for the end cap's (and for the whole apron's) dimensions ?

Re: SECOND TRY - more details

Dirk Vogel


>If it's true you cannot put anything in the gap where your red line is, why not have a tail vise like this ? If anyway I can't build a second doghole row, wouldn't it be easier to renonce of the L form ?

Re: SECOND TRY- last detail

Dirk Vogel


>Thom, this time your assumption about grain directions was different from what I thought, look at the drawing below. I set arrows to show "my" directions.

I can't make the wood of your blue box white, because it's part of my apron, and the apron is going to be dark ;-) If for some really bad reason (e. g. incompatible grain directions) I won't be able to have an apron in some point, I would abandon the whole apron idea. But you seem to think that European walnut wouldn't be the worst of choices, so ...

I have another questino to you (and everybody else). In my workbench's case (that is to say, using wooden screws), is there any particular reason why I should prefer a normal front vise to a leg vise ? I begin to think that a leg vise without guides in the way could be a serious alternative ...

Thanks and bye, Dirk.

Re: Interesting comments (very long)

Thom D


>As mentioned I'm not pushing the idea of two separate tail vises unless you want them for whatever reason. And I thought you needed some aspects of each from you wrap around version.

I use the tail vises for holding flat work on top of the bench, and I use the pocket part fot stuff like mortices and resawing. If you want a wide double vise put it on one of your sides. I think that's a fine idea. In some respects what you want in a wide vise is different than what you want in the tail vise. The tail vise for dogs, really needs to be pretty well aligned, it is certainly preferable to me if it is adjustible from one end only. The Veritas is pretty much the only option, and it is a copy of something in the Landis book I believe. The best tail vise is probably the L, but the double Veritas works very well and works well for both sides of the bench which was my concern since I wanted push and pull planing sides. I had an L tail vise on my Frid bench and it worked fine. What I would want from the wide board vise is: good flat clamping space, two wooden screws would work fine; a slightly cambered piece of wood to provide even pressure; lots of width between the screws (based on your use expectations as to work size, probably not a lot of travel. Doesn't need to be all that aligned since it will square up when everything comes together (tail vise will rack on closing).

I never thought of doing wide board on the end of the bench because it would tend to make access to tools in my situation impractical. If you really do make you bench all around useable, you could put your wide board vise on the other end, or on the side. I prefer the side since one can thread into side grain more easily.

If this wide vise at the end thing was driving your bench width them maybe you could aford to drop it to more practical widths if you settled on mounting it on a side. A really wide workbench is not practical in my experience. At least for me.

Attached is a sleek 2'x8' bench with two face vises and one tail vise. Of course this is excesively like mine...

Re: Catastrophy and hope

Deirdre Saoirse Moen


>"There're some woodworkers that tell me it's wonderful to have a side of the bench without any vises, but I don't get what they do there."

For some of us (many of us?), that's where the wall is.

Re: Free standing bench

Thom D


>"And maybe I understand your last drawing now. You say, "Actually the top on my bench is two separate pieces". Is that the reason for the parallel lines in the middle of your bench you drew in your"

I can't really remember everything I was thinking at the time, but I think partly it was a reference to the idea that benches evolved from putting a post or two on sawhorses, and using that as a work surface. Add a stretcher and a vise and you have the workbench. So I didn't want a tool well this time and went with two big beams joined across the ends by breadboard joints. These are open at then ends like a really elgant bench I saw in FWW, though my version was stockier. The ends of the beams have full width tenons that fit into groves in breadboards. Each beam at each end has a piece of threded rod epoxied into a 3/4" oversize hole, so that to remove the end cap on undoes two nuts and slides the end off. No captured nut, no jammed parts. The pieces are free to expand.

I left the crack between the parts fairly large I can place chisels along the crack as though it were a rack, and I occasionally do so. Parts occasionally fall down the crack but it is more rare than you might think. The crack could be much finner, it could be splined or otherwise closed. I also daydream of hooking it to a vacuum to make sweeping up bits a little easier, or to allow vacuum clamping pieces to the top. But I don't do anything about it.

"Re: Much better! *PIC*" message ? Then tell me, was it your intention do give the wood room to expand ? How did you fix the pieces on your rack ? "

Does that answer your question? Are you talking about tool racks or supporting the top?

Re: Second tail vise dog row

Thom D


>I haven't built one of these with a wooden screw. The way I assumed they were built was like the Klauzs or Frid bench except replacing the metal screw with a wooden one. I found an end on picture in the one of Krenov's books and that seems correct. Krenov has/had a bench that was all wood right down to the vise parts. i love th pictures of his stuff, wood for everything one could have in wood.

The back dusjacket of my copy of the Landis book shows an exploded diagram of a tail vise with wooden screw. It has the screw in line with the dogholes, and there is only one doghole as a result, also the tail jaw is pretty hollowed out. This is the vise off the shaker bench, and it's possible they didn't know the correct proceedure, even though they were geniuses in most regards of woodworking. Anyway, they had the ultimate comunal Island bench so the size was not an issue.

My computer vise drawings are just sketches and should not be assumed to carry perfect mechanical details.