Workbench design II � Conclusions

Re: Vlad's clone

Denny


>Vlad, thanks for the input. Sounds like a new Christmas present to myself...

Denny

Re: elegance

Thom D


>They could have easily managed that stop with a wedge which is just a linear screw.

Re: elegance

Michael Recchione


>These are bad examples. I said, "What I don't like is a design that comprimises function for some (perhaps ill-advised) esthetic benefit." In each of these cases, a prettier (and no more expensive, really) solution could have accomplished exactly the same end. For example, the sliding stop could have used a wedge instead of the off-the-shelf "jig hardware", as Thom suggested, or could have used a wooden screw threaded into the leg. Even substituting one of those bronze fixtures for the plastic one would have let it do exactly what it does and look nicer while doing it. It would have functioned just as well with any of these more aesthetically pleasing solutions.

Similarly, the tail vise could have been made prettier and still done exactly the same thing - we've seen many examples of these over the last week or so in the course of this thread. The same applies to the strap iron or whatever that was used in the leg vise in the picture.

However, the concept of a movable vise than can only be moved to a set of discrete positions on the bench, and then only by boring and tapping holes in the top is functionally different from (and inferior to) the concept of a movable vise that can be placed anywhere without modifying the benchtop in any way. In the former case, you've sacrificed function in order to avoid using a clamp, rather than using your imagination to come up with a prettier way of clamping. In my own value-system, the second solution (i.e. finding a prettier way of clamping) is the more elegant - it does more, and does it more simply. (Of course, YMMV).

One thing you could envision to improve the looks of the design in the workbench book is to make the clamping mechanism out of wood, and to make it an intrinsic quality of the vise. For example, you could extend the back jaw down below the bottom of the bench top and have another piece like the one that rests on the top of the bench riding under the top so that the top piece, the back face and the new bottom piece are wrapped around the top like the letter "C". Then you could bore one or two holes in the bottom piece, thread them and use wooden screws to clam it to the bench. Now you'd have a vise that you could mount anywhere, but that didn't require C-clamps. There are many other ways you could incorporate the clamping mechanism in the design of the vise so that it wouldn't require external clamps, and you could make them pretty.

Personally, I wouldn't do that. The C-clamps (or handscrews, or holdfasts) or whatever I used to hold the one in the book onto the bench) have the additional advantage of being reusable for other purposes - another factor that contributes to the "elegance" of that solution for me. It also results in something lighter and, most importantly in my small shop, smaller to have to store, mount and dismount. FWIW, I mounted a couple of Record holdfasts, the big ones, on my little bench in the garage. They're used for, besides the usual purpose of holding work onto the top, holding things like this vise (and other add-ons) onto the bench. They serve many purposes, carry them out really well, and they look way cool, too. For me, that's "elegance".

So again, our definitions are different.

Bottom line: if you decide a function is desirable but can't think of a way to accomplish it that satisfies your aesthetic sense, don't just give up on the function - keep thinking.

Beautyful clamping

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Mike ! I knew it, this is Pandora's box I was opening :-) Ok, this will be the last message about elegance as far as I am concerned, the thread has other themes anyway.

"These are bad examples. I said, "What I don't like is a design that comprimises function for some (perhaps ill-advised) esthetic benefit."

The examples were not chosen to contradict you. They were chosen to express my position. I shall formulate it like this : I don't like a design that respects function without any concern for beauty (because that's the point of my examples : they work surely well and are simple ! But how do they look like ...). Now we can go on : what is beauty ? ... :-)

So for me, elegance is the result if I can see beauty and moreover something works, you may see elegance where something works and it is easy and simple. It's just a question of priorities.

"In the former case, you've sacrificed function in order to avoid using a clamp, rather than using your imagination to come up with a prettier way of clamping."

That is exact ! I understand your criticism. You're saying that my solution does not compete with yours because I gave up functionality. So I looked at your description, but I'm afraid I understood it up to a certain point. Look at my drawing. I think the wrapping "C" structure is what you had in mind, but where am I supposed to "bore one or two holes in the bottom piece, thread them and use wooden screws to clam it to the bench" without making holes in the bench apron, too ? The apron is the dark part in the drawing, of course.

You said, "The concept of a movable vise than can only be moved to a set of discrete positions on the bench, and then only by boring and tapping holes in the top is functionally different from (and inferior to) the concept of a movable vise that can be placed anywhere without modifying the benchtop in any way." I agree. Show me how to finish your idea, please ! :-)

Tool tray spanning

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Pam,

it makes several days now that I try to understand a sentence you posted :

"They had special inserts for the tray which extended the front-to-back dog holes by spanning the tray, also pretty cool."

I hoped I was intelligent enough to catch its meaning, but no :-) Could you please explain yourself ? Maybe with a drawing ?

Flushing the Tucker, once more

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom, there was a misunderstanding, and even I didn't notice it immediately.

I asked you : "Why didn't you flush the Tucker and twin vises to the lateral bench edges ?" and I did not intend it the way that made you answer "I think it will look like you beavered into the beam". I thought about a difference shown in the drawing below. So I renew my question :-)

Re: Flushing the Tucker, once more

Thom D


>Flush to the left edge doesn't bother me one way or the other. I think it is just a different reference point I picked as a CAD "snap", when I moved vises from one drawing to the new drawing with your new dimensions and tool tray.

What does mater is that you have clearance relative to your bench's: Legs; any through tenons or wedges from the stretcher; stretchers;dog holes on the bench top, relative to bolts in the vise. Also you need to be bolting it into the sidegrain of the front rail, You can pot fittings into epoxy into endgrain if you want, but it is simpler to mount it into the sidegrain.

Re: Tool tray spanning

Thom D


>I haven't seen them but could be as simple as a tightly fitted block of wood you could drop in the tray area, slide along the bench as required, with a few holes in it for short dogs, "pups". If you apply force to the dog they would brace against the rear of the tray.

One thing you should be considering as you plan out your bench is how the bench gets used with standard very useful accessories, like bench hooks shooting boards. Standard ones work pretty well on most benches but trick ones are best integrated from the begining. I have some options with my crack that are fun.

Different heights

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom, I drew your solution n. 1 ("Split height permanent. Just different height sides to the trestle. I think that would work fine") of the foolish idea n. 1 (this time with an incorporated tail vise, as you seem to prefer it to my classic one). As far as your solution n. 2 ("One half folds down. I would make it so it lowered lengthwise with a windlass") is concerned, I saw several windlass photos on internet, but I cannot imagine how you'd proceed in this case. As to solution n. 3 ("A lower panel that folds up. When in the down position the dog holds could hold edge planing boards to the correct height"), there are not even photos on internet to contemplate ... ;-)

So, maybe if you have yet some patience left, can you explain a little more ? Maybe with drawings ?

Thank you so much !

Re: Tool tray spanning

Dirk Vogel


>Ok, this explains that, you're probably right ... I can't understand, though, how the needed wood block can be tight to the tray's walls, if they're the ends of the bench top being supposed to expand or retract.

"I have some options with my crack that are fun"

Like what ? :-)

Bond, rod and stud

Dirk Vogel


>"You can laminate the top and because the apron needs glueing on too, as do the dog hole strips, you can bond everything with epoxy which limits moisture uptake. Your central beams need to be planed also So that rather than be solid 3xlumber only the top cm is exposed to the the weather the rest is really all boxed in epoxy."

Ok Thom, now I read something about this epoxy glue. The concept seems fine, although epoxy must not be too healthy from what I understood ... Since I'm the guy, like you said, who wants to use the top of the 18th century technology :-) would you consider bone glue an option if I'll have two benchtop halfs with a tooltray in the middle ? Or would it be preferable to use that epoxy stuff anyway ? My experiences with different sorts of glue equal precisely those with different sorts of wood : I haven't any ...

"I'm surprised you didn't jump all over the epoxied studs. If you had you could bond in epoxy threaded rods connected to rod connectors and mount your vises all over the place and move them with ease."

This is another case of riddle for me. Bond, rod and stud have dozens of meanings in my dictionary, so I'm not able to guess what you want to tell me. Could you try once more ? :-)

Screw and garter

Dirk Vogel


>About wooden vises : there's a question left I never managed to understand. With wooden screws in front vises, normally a system with a garter is adopted. I imagine that this garter is responsible for the transmission of screw pressure on the vise jaw. And I suspect one uses an external garter because it's going to distort or break someday. But otherwise there would be the possibility of an "internal" garter, like in the right drawing below. Is this a good idea to build, or is there too much danger that the wooden ring will break inside the jaw, and it'll be difficult to repair the structure ?

Re: Beautyful clamping

Michael Recchione


>Dirk, I wish I had a good way to create jpegs from drawings! I'll try to do it with words, and if that doesn't work, I'll draw something on paper and scan it in tonight or tomorrow morning.

The example I described (which is not necessarily the way I'd do it, but was just one alternative to the C-clamps in the book) involves extending the back jaw down below the bottom of the bench by about 1.5". Then, imagine another piece of wood like the one that currently rides on top of the bench, riding just below the bench. So the back part of the vise has a verticle face and two horizontal beams, one riding on top of the bench and the other riding right under the benchtop. The bottom one of these is bored and tapped to accept one or two wooden screws to clamp it to the bench. There is no separate "C" as shown in your drawing. The "C" is formed by the back jaw and the two horizontals. Is that at all clear? (I guess this is why they say a picture is worth a thousand words :-) ).

The disadvantage this scheme has, if it is a disadvantage, is that the rear jaw of the vise is not flush with the benchtop, but is offset by the thickness of the jaw. However, this doesn't have to be a disadvantage, and if the face vise jaw is made proud by the same amount, actually enables a lot of other cool ways of doing things as shown in the Wearing book.

If the rear face has to be flush with the benchtop, I would probably extend the horizontal piece (i.e. make it wider) and use holdfasts to fix the vise where I wanted it.

Re: Tool tray spanning

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>The spanners were simple blocks of wood as thick as the tray was deep with a couple or three dog holes that would match up with front-to-back dog holes in the bench.

Pam

Re: Tool tray spanning

Thom D


>Your bench top has more severe problems due to the width and apron configuration. On my bench half the expansion goes to the front and back and the other half to the center. So I Have about 6 inches of material expanding to my crack from both sides for a total of 12". On your design you have 32 inches of material expansion. Still if you environment is fairly consistant it may not be too bad. I thik it will work even if the blocks are loose.

Re: Different heights

Thom D


>By the way the Tucker does not have a plate you see from the top when it is mounted so you want see what you have there.

I'm not too worried about either of your tail vises, I think your inset L one is fine as long as it gets structured properly, since it has multiple dog holes it would probably be my favorite.

OK, the top part of the drawing shows how you could hinge a lower bench off the upper one like a gate leg table. When it is in the vertical position you could use the dog holes to support the edge of edge planed boards. when folded up as the blue piece is half way to being folded up, it would work as a table in this case 4 inches lower. My high low table is 35 inches and 29 inches.

The lower design show how to do it with a windlass. you would actually have povoting legs in metal or wood, for about the upper half of the bench, though I made mine look as though they were tipping over. Get some fine spectra yacht line and wrap it around the spool from a handle mounted to the end. To get that to wrap up you would need a shive to route the rope through so it wouldn't just pull of the end of the windlass spool. Like a Karabiner. Spectral looks like nice rop but has zero stretch. This would be useable at some angles other than purely up and down.

Re: Bond, rod and stud

Thom D


>"Ok Thom, now I read something about this epoxy glue. The concept seems fine, although epoxy must not be too healthy from what I understood ... Since I'm the guy, like you said, who wants to use the top of the 18th century technology :-) would you consider bone glue an option if I'll have two benchtop halfs with a tooltray in the middle ?"

If you do the tool tray then I think you can certainly proceed in an all wood no lamination way. Hot bone glue is wonderful stuff but I think a lot of modern glues are better for projects like this one that require large pieces to be bonded. Epoxy would be a great result but it is anoying stuff to work with compared to wood glues because it behaves exactly like a layer of grease. If it is just being used as glue it isn't all that necesarry. IF you laminate the top correctly with epoxy the epoxy layers are like wrapping the beam in a plastic bag as far as the migration of weather is concerned. Epoxy won't do you any harm as long as your exposure is limited, you don't let it get on your skin.

"I'm surprised you didn't jump all over the epoxied studs. If you had you could bond in epoxy threaded rods connected to rod connectors and mount your vises all over the place and move them with ease."

This is another case of riddle for me. Bond, rod and stud have dozens of meanings in my dictionary, so I'm not able to guess what you want to tell me. Could you try once more ? :-)

The objective is to bond threaded nuts into the wood so you can screw in and out bolts with maximum strength.

http://epoxyworks.com/indexprojects.html

Check "articles by subject", and then find "testing large bonded-in fasteners"

The cheapest bonded-in nuts is a section of threaded rod screwed into a rod connecter, which is a nut about 10x longer than normal.

Re: Screw and garter

Thom D


>"About wooden vises : there's a question left I never managed to understand. With wooden screws in front vises, normally a system with a garter is adopted. I imagine that this garter is responsible for the transmission of screw pressure on the vise jaw."

No, it is there to allow the jaw to move in and out with the screw, so that you don't need three hands to insert a piece of wood.

" And I suspect one uses an external garter because it's going to distort or break someday."

No, it is done that way so that you won't undermine the whole area under the shoulder of the screw, so that when you tighten down hard the screw doesn't pounch into the jaw. For tracking a single tooth is all that is required. What you have drawn would be very difficult to cut, and would weaken the jaw.

Re: Screw and garter

George Makowski


>Dirk, I know you didn't care for my repsonse below, but here goes again. You are confusing two design elements in vise construction with wooden screws; the head of the screw and the garter. In many wooden vises, where pressure comes from the screw pulling the jaws closed pressure to the jaws is transmitted by the large shoulder turned on the head of the vise screw. This is one reason that the heads of wooden vise screws are so large. The garter should not transfer any pressure during clamping. It serves only to catch a groove in the unthreaded portion of the upper screw shaft and retract the jaw as the screw is moved away from the work. Not all "pull" wooden vises use garters. Adam's two screw system doesn't, for example. Shoulder and tail vises push against the jaws. Here the "nut" is outside of the jaws so the pressure is taken against the threads themsleves. The garter in these serves, again, only to allow the jaws to retract with the screw.

Garters were typically slid in to engage the groove in the screw shaft through a mortise in the vise jaws and were rather thin in keeping with their no-load function.

The Ten-Speed Press reprints of CA. 1900 woodworking instructions have good diagrams illustrating the construction of wooden "pull" vises. Have fun with your search for the perfect bench.

George in AL

Re: Screw and garter

Dirk Vogel


>Hi George ! It's not true I didn't care for the response you gave me three weeks ago, I just had already decided otherwise on that special subject ;-)

Thanks for your kind explanation of wooden screw operation. You told me what I suspected, but was not sure of. I understand now that it's no good idea to test my second drawing about screws I posted above. There's only one point I don't understand. If that garter exists only to "retract the jaw as the screw is moved away from the work", why bother building it ? I mean, it's the head's job of the screw to apply preasuer when you're clamping your work. But if you're releasing it, preasure goes away, and you eventually have to hold your piece to avoid that it falls down, and that's all, isn't it ? The position of the vise jaw at this point should be indifferent, or does it matter to have the jaw far away from the workpiece during the release, instead of having it near to your work (where it would remain without garter) ?

Tucker vise details

Dirk Vogel


>Hi there,

this weekend, I spent time to study my new tucker vise. For now, I have several questions :

1. Everywhere on this vise there's some white grease smeared around everything that moves. Now, I'm sure the vise need grease to be able to work correctly, but must it be this white stuff ? Can I clean it and use some oil, for instance ?

2. Thom, I understood why you did prefer not to flush the vise with the apron edge of your bench; you told me the hole one would have to chisel out of the benchtop would have an awkward form, and the rotating process would have to be taken into account. Now, let's consider tilting the vise, up to a position where the jaw attached to the bench runs parallel to the benchtop. It seems to me that the jaw will be an inch or so higher than the benchtop if the vise is mounted as shown in its manual. Would it be a good idea to lower the vise when planing its mounting position, in order to have the jaw exactly at the benchtop's height ? That would also permit to flatten the benchtop without interfering with the mounting plate of the vise ...

3. I'm a bit surplussed about my manual. Maybe I was delivered an old version, but it's only 8 pages thick. Is there more to get ? Should I write to Veritas ?

4. Thom, I read you told someone, "The one thing I wish it did do was adjust for height. One can spin it so it rises 4" above the bench. I'd like to have one attached to an actuator collumn as quite a few people seem to do with patternmaker's vises." What's an actuator column and how could you integrate it in a bench ? You told me once that you "like having something really stiff I could lift the whole bench by if necesary". If that column should provide height adjustment, wouldn't the tucker vise risk to wobble around because of a sliding mechanism with some slackness ?

5. The vise manual tells me not to dig dogholes in the apron. I'm planning that since the beginning now, and nobody seriously discouraged me to do so. Is there something to know I still ignore ?

6.Which parts of the vise can be treated without fear to generate rust by moisture ? I'm quite sure everything that's black won't rst, but can I touch e. g. guide rods or the lever arm of the foot pedal release system with my bare fingers without danger ?

Re: Beautyful clamping

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Mike ! I tried to read carefully what you described me, and I made a new drawing. Does it show what you're talking about ? I think I got it till your sentence, "The bottom one of these is bored and tapped to accept one or two wooden screws to clamp it to the bench". I drew an arrow where I suspect you'd have other holes for the screws, but wouldn't that still mean I'd have to bore holes into my apron to fix this vise to the bench ?

Benchtop design with Tucker 1

Dirk Vogel


>Hi there,

finally I'm quite sure about the vise distribution of my benchtop. Now it's the measures I'm studying. I did 2 drawings. Here's the first, based on multiples of 3.5", like some others I posted before. As I didn't like the width differences of the dark wood parts, I'm going to post another design immediately after this one. Note that the twin screw vise can be dismounted. Benchtop dimensions are 32" x 96", the tool tray is 6" wide and 3 1/4" high.

I think there's too much dark wood involved.

Benchtop design with Tucker 2

Dirk Vogel


>Now, this is the second bench, this time I used distances given by the Tucker vise. Bench dimensions are 36" x 104" (they get bigger every time). That's because distance between dogholes now is 7 3/4" and not 7" as before. There would be the possibility to shrink the bench to 4 x 13 holes instead of 5 x 14. But the bench wouldn't have a tool tray then. Maybe I'll post that version, too.

Benchtop design with Tucker 3

Dirk Vogel


>This is it � a slightly smaller version of my bench n. 2. Dimensions are 28 1/2" x 96 1/2". A bit more human :-) Tell me your criticisms as always, please.