Workbench design II � Conclusions

Re: Tucker vise details

Thom D


>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 ?

White lithium is a good grease. for moving parts. Really I use my vise pretty much dry THere isn't any part of the vise that would leave some grease on me or the wood. Probably the screw needs some lubrication but it works smoothly and I;m not worried about it.

"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."

I'm 6'1", and my bench is about 35 inches tall, I have never felt I wanted the vise horizontal at a different height, is hasn't been an issue.

"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 ..."

I doubt many have done that, but it does make some sense since I am facing a bench redress myself and The vise would then be a little higher. In a perfect world the vise could be moved incrementally up or down, but it can't really. One could plug holes etc...s but that doesn't appeal much.

"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 ?"

Sounds like a lot to me, It's just a vise. Usually I find the Veritas instructions are so complicated they scare the heck out of me. One reads six pages, the sumary version of which is, "instal 4 screws"

"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 ?"

Some of the pedastal mounted units have been mounted on things like Dentist chairs. I guess the equivalent here would be Adjustabech, or an integrated adjustment that allowed vertical movement.

"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 ?"

Well I;m sure they only mean it directly behid the vise, which is somethign I ignored anyway, probably accidentaly. I haven't had any problem nor can say I have used them a lot. It' only about 2 dog holes out of many. It should show up in the picture I posted.

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 ?

I think the rods etc.. would rust, though there isn't any reason to touch them in use. Just keep your hands on the vise body, manual release, or the three scrwe adjusts.

Do not overthink.

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3

Thom D


>I think you are starting to get down to personal things, that you can sort out for yourslef, except:

1) 7-8" is way too far appart for dog holes. Mine are 4 inches apart. Nothing sacred about that measurement, I probably copied it somewhere.

It is one of those rules, like one is always cycling into the wind, that the next piece of wood you instal will require the maximum movement of the dog. 7 inches might be OK if you had quick releases.

You also want your tail vise as close to closed and to be able to insert as short a piece as possible. I would finalize these kinds of detail from something like the Klausz bench, or other similar bench. One shouldn't be frightened to try new things, and some new things like the Tucker may impose some new patterns, but one doesn't have to re-invent everything. Those hole arangements, initial spacings and so forth are pretty well optimized. Of course, if you are drilling your holes, not using square ones, then I suppose you can shoot further holes just about anywhere. Though you want to get the initial spacing and where it all falls for your tucker or double screw, set up in advance so that further holes will be able to fall in a pattern.

2) I probably wouldn't bother to put such a huge vise centered on the front (back)of my bench, and a tail vise since you will not have much access to the dog holes unless you remove the face vise.

3) I think it's a difficult situation to figure out what end of the bench to put your tail vise on. The way you have it set up at opposite ends is like a partner's desk. Two people working at opposite sides of the bench would each have their own bench to work on. But the two vises don't work together to hold a big pieces (which isn't really necesary, but if you have two vises...)

4) I don't have anything against having two different styles of tail vise. There is an argument, that I don't particularly buy, that the non-L style you have is a better style of vise for thin stock. So you can make an argument for it, even if it doesn't make much sense. On the other hand it risks looking like you just couldn't make up your mind, which I understand is a point in terms of wanting to research different styles of vise. That will take 10 minutes then you are left with a very big thing that has a kind of indicisive tone to it. None of that maters as long as you are really positive about the direction you are going in.

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3

Dirk Vogel


>1) "7-8" is way too far appart for dog holes."

Well, that's the distance given by the Tucker ... I could, of course, take a completely different spacing where it comes to the central dogholes for the twin screw vise, or even those in the tail vise. But for now, I thought that aesthetics, at least for the tucker vise bench edge doghole row, required a hole every 7 3/4", as you told me some day ago. And redouble them would mean to have a hole every 3 7/8", that's a bit too much, isn't it ? I understand that my wooden screws can't have quick releases, but well ...

Once I had a foolish idea n. 2, that was doghole distances that increase little by little, according to a geometric series. It would make sense because the bigger the workpieces are, the rarer you should have to need them (well, if you're not specialized in some kind of furniture). So you could have very small distances near to the tail vise, and bigger ones in the direction of the front vise. But this concept won't work if you're planning to use your dogholes also in the other direction, like I am with my twin screw vise ...

"Of course, if you are drilling your holes, not using square ones, then I suppose you can shoot further holes just about anywhere."

Well, this is the first time I drew round dogholes. I think I'd like square ones better, like you, Thom, but with the Tucker being sold with round dogs, to be coherent, I just tried this time the round version. Yeah, it's a lot easier to build them, and you can use holddowns (what I'm planning to do, too), but well ... I haven't decided yet.

"Though you want to get the initial spacing and where it all falls for your tucker or double screw, set up in advance so that further holes will be able to fall in a pattern."

This is one of my first priorities, Thom, in case you didn't notice yet ;-))

2) "I probably wouldn't bother to put such a huge vise centered on the front (back)of my bench"

This is because of my dovetaling of large shelves, what I'm sure to have to do. We discussed that issue earlier. That's because I want the twin screw to be easy to dismount, because then I have my holddown-Roubo-dog-and-benchstop side of the bench.

3) "I think it's a difficult situation to figure out what end of the bench to put your tail vise on ... the two vises don't work together to hold a big pieces"

That's true, but I don't know how to resolve this puzzle. I'm not that strictly right-handed, but the idea was to have a side where to fix the work with vises, and one where to fix it with holddowns etc. � and so both tail vises are on the right of their side. Since I probably won't use Japanese planes, my planing direction will be the same in both cases. Now, you're totally right, it would be nice to be able to unify the two tail vises, in order to fix big pieces � but how can I satisfy both necessities ?

4) About the different styles of tail vises : for now I simply imagin (due to lack of experience) that every kind of tailvise is going to work better in certain circumstances, and worse in other. As long as my project is diversification, I'm glad about that. For me it would be different if both tail vises went in the same direction. If I find a vise distribution even better than this one where both tail vises aren't in opposite corners, I would chose one kind of vise only, probably the big one :-)

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3

Thom D


>"1) "7-8" is way too far appart for dog holes."

Well, that's the distance given by the Tucker ... I could, of course, take a completely different spacing where it comes to the central"

What spacing are we talking about? I'm talking about the spacing of the dog holes that line up with the tail vise, WHat does that have to do with the tucker? It's sorta too bad the picture of this flagship vise on their weebsite has it mounted on the end of the bench to a flimsy piece of 3/4 wood lined up with the tool tray!

"dogholes for the twin screw vise, or even those in the tail vise. But for now, I thought that aesthetics, at least for the tucker vise bench edge doghole row, required a hole every 7 3/4", as you told me some day ago."

I told you that was the spacing, I neve intended you to line up you tail vises with that. If you want to clamp across the bench as some do that is another mater. I don't do that, as I mentioened, but there isn't any reason why one shouldn't, as long as you can actually reach what you are working on.

And redouble them would mean to have a hole every 3 7/8", that's a bit too much, isn't it ? I understand that my wooden screws can't have quick releases, but well ...

"Once I had a foolish idea n. 2, that was doghole distances that increase little by little, according to a geometric series. It would make sense because the bigger the workpieces are, the rarer you should have to need them (well, if you're not specialized in some kind of furniture). So you could have very small distances near to the tail vise, and bigger ones in the direction of the front vise. But this concept won't work if you're planning to use your dogholes also in the other direction, like I am with my twin screw vise ..."

The point of the spacing is so you don't spend all your time scrweing thereby given the ROubo people a big laugh. That requires narrow spacing near the tail vise for short pieces, and narrow spacing in the tail vise and far end for the greatest granularity.

"Of course, if you are drilling your holes, not using square ones, then I suppose you can shoot further holes just about anywhere."

"Well, this is the first time I drew round dogholes. I think I'd like square ones better, like you, Thom, but with the Tucker being sold with round dogs, to be coherent, I just tried this time the round version. Yeah, it's a lot easier to build them, and you can use holddowns (what I'm planning to do, too), but well ... I haven't decided yet."

Think of the round holes in your vises as that little flaw that sets off the greater beauty of your oveall concept. It's just that little design feature they come up with at LV to make it seem OK to be a woodworked, cause it's not pretty.

"Though you want to get the initial spacing and where it all falls for your tucker or double screw, set up in advance so that further holes will be able to fall in a pattern."

This is one of my first priorities, Thom, in case you didn't notice yet ;-))"

Yeah but your priority appear to be clamping rather than structural.

2) "I probably wouldn't bother to put such a huge vise centered on the front (back)of my bench"

"This is because of my dovetaling of large shelves, what I'm sure to have to do. We discussed that issue earlier. That's because I want the twin screw to be easy to dismount, because then I have my holddown-Roubo-dog-and-benchstop side of the bench."

Righ but if yo are right handed there isn't much to be gained by having it in the middle.

3) "I think it's a difficult situation to figure out what end of the bench to put your tail vise on ... the two vises don't work together to hold a big pieces"

"That's true, but I don't know how to resolve this puzzle. I'm not that strictly right-handed, but the idea was to have a side where to fix the work with vises, and one where to fix it with holddowns etc. � and so both tail vises are on the right of their side. Since I probably won't use Japanese planes, my planing direction will be the same in both cases. Now, you're totally right, it would be nice to be able to unify the two tail vises, in order to fix big pieces � but how can I satisfy both necessities ?"

Purely aesthetically that's the uncertain vibe your design still has...

4) About the different styles of tail vises : for now I simply imagin (due to lack of experience) that every kind of tailvise is going to work better in certain circumstances, and worse in other. As long as my project is diversification, I'm glad about that. For me it would be different if both tail vises went in the same direction. If I find a vise distribution even better than this one where both tail vises aren't in opposite corners, I would chose one kind of vise only, probably the big one :-)

In other words it's a design based on what you guess...

That's OK, but maybe if you want to build this perfect thing, then you should sort it out before with a mockup. You're not making a untilitarian bench, where you can shrug it off and say It's all practical. Your using 2 tone wood, and a weird strutural concept, so it would be nice if having drawn attention to it, you had something to say. (tough love segment)

Re: Beautyful clamping

Michael Recchione


>Dirk, it's getting closer. I'll draw it on paper and scan it in. Will be later tonight or tomorrow.

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3

Dirk Vogel


>"I'm talking about the spacing of the dog holes that line up with the tail vise, WHat does that have to do with the tucker?"

Well, I thought like this : there is the given distance of the Tucker (A) I'll have to repeat on the bench top to ensure a clamped piece recieves aligned presure, and at this point I'll use the same distance also in the other direction (B). And with this beginning I 'll have to repeat the distance in the direction of the tail vise, because I already placed two dogholes on its row (C). If I chose another distance for the tail vise row, there would be a problem for the tucker dogholes (D). And otherwise I'd have to change the distance after the two holes for the Tucker, and that's not very nice (E). That's my reason ...

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3, 2nd part

Dirk Vogel


>"That requires narrow spacing near the tail vise for short pieces, and narrow spacing in the tail vise and far end for the greatest granularity."

Ok, there I may get something better than what I drew. That's not a problem.

"Think of the round holes in your vises as that little flaw that sets off the greater beauty of your oveall concept."

That's a possibility, but nevertheless, ig I want to try holddowns, I fear there'll have to be also some round holes ... Or does square holddowns exist ? Veritas' ones are round.

"your priority appear to be clamping rather than structural."

Quite the contrary : As my priority is structure, I pay all that attention to distances, even if they're not ideal for clamping. That's what you made me aware of just now, telling me that 8" are too much, that spacing has to change and so on. My whole structure, including twin screw placement and even dimensions of the bench top, are the result of a structural decision : the use of 7 3/4" of distance everywhere.

"if yo are right handed there isn't much to be gained by having the twin vise in the middle."

Well, I agree as far as all those dogholes in the benchtop behind the vise are concerned, they clamp something in the middle of the bench, and that's not very useful. But for fixing a shelf vertically in the twin vise in order to dovetail it, it's quite indifferent where the screw is placed, because I'll stand in front of the vise with a saw, and that's possible everywhere :-)

"it's a design based on what you guess"

Of course ! I'm telling that since three weeks :-)

"if you want to build this perfect thing, then you should sort it out before with a mockup"

A mockup ? Do you mean I should built a little version of the bench, to see how the building process works ? Or do you mean I should try those vises before building them ?

Vise lube

Bob Hackett


>I would recommend either paste wax or a product like Dry Slide(by Sandaro) to help with the vise.The grease will only attract sawdust and sooner or later become a gummy mess as well as causing finishing problems if it comes in contact with whatever projects and stains them.

MB

Re: Benchtop design with Tucker 1-3, 2nd part

Thom D


>Mock-ups:

It wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, 90% of the work is transferable to the main bench, so if you have any uncertainty, try a mock-up it's amazing what one can do with a few bits of lumber and some clamps.

Before the recent interest in hold downs, a number of people would have a single hold down where it does the most good for the kinds of work people wanted to do usually either near the face vice on in the mortising position over the right leg. Thus the popularity of the record hold down. Go bars are a nice alternative to hold downs. They can be placed anywhere on the survace and don't require that any holes be made.

For myself I have never had much need for any of these things. If one believes the gang that say that with a couple of hold downs, a hook and a few battens, one has it all, then I fall into the camp that with the right vices one has it all. Certainly seems reasonable. I like trying stuff out though, so have at it.

Re: Screw and garter

Thom D


>As I mentioend in my earlier post on this it makes a three hand operation a two handed one. The problem isn't in removing the workpiece, it is during insertion. You open the screw, you use another hand to back off the jaw, and a third hand to insert the workpiece. With a garter you only need the first and third hand. It's just a convenience.

Re: Beautyful clamping

Dirk Vogel


>Ok, Mike, whenever you want :-) I'm still curious.

Re: Tail vise and apron (Thom)

Dirk Vogel


>Thom, re-reading your message, I found you told me :

"When I built my Frid ench I built the L, then I considered converting it with standard metal hardwar. They LV introduced their bolt on version where the whole thing could be just hung like a face vise. What I think it had going for it was that it was quick release, and that is worth it if you can find some harware that supports it (is the new LN hardware quick release)."

But I can't find any hardware useable as a classic tail vise that has a quick release system ! I looked up LV, and their quick release vises have large cast-iron faces. All the smaller ones you build into a wooden block don't have quick release, and as far as I can see, any LN vise uses that feature either ! What hardware were you thinking about ?

Re: Screw and garter

George Makowski


>Dirk, Sorry for the delay. It is as Thom says, it is a convenience that the jaws move away from the work automatically as you retract the screw. It also allows automatic adjustment to the size of the next piece of work.

Good clamping!

George in AL

Then I would like to know ...

Dirk Vogel


>... why there isn't a fix garter system with this kind of vise. The only reason I can imagine is that with a removable garter, you can easily separate screw(s) and jaw. Is that it, or am I missing something ? Same question in other words : in what kind of occasion does the vise be of use without the garter ?

Re: Tail vise and apron (Thom)

ThomD


>The LV one I took, back was only made for a few months it seemed like. I don't know of any other, though I am not up to speed on the LN and so forth hardware.

There are a lot of quick release face vises. so one wonders why there aren't any similar vises for the tail poistion, other than using the face vise there. i guess that was what LV thought too, though they haven't come up with a revised version of that original failure (?)

Re: Then I would like to know ...

ThomD


>All vises have this kind of mechanism, basically. The metal hardware has it the metal vises have it, the Tucker vises have it, etc... The drawing you originally made of a possible wooded vise that had no garter pin is similar to the way the metal ones work, and woul work fine in wood if you could deal with the various problems pointed out but isn't a simple solution.

Re: Then I would like to know ...

George Makowski


>Dirk, If you don't have a garter(s) then you simply retract the vise jaws by hand when you loosen the screw. This can work in any vise application though it would be inconvenient in some. The older garter designs I have seen specify a garter that is relatively wide and thin rather than a pin. The garter engages a groove in the screw shaft through a mortise in the jaws. On thought, I believe that there is likely no reason that the garter must be internal. You could cut the groove for it so that it is on the outside of the jaws and simply screw the garter to the jaws so it is engaged in the groove.

Clamp them down,

George in AL

I'm late to this thread and haven't read it all

Bill Houghton, HOT Summer in Sebastopol, CA


>but my old leg vise did not have a garter or any other method to retract the jaw with the screw when winding it out, and it was not a big deal; I just reached out and yanked when it was needed. Added perhaps one second to the process of using the vise. In a production setting, it might matter; in a home setting, hardly.

Re: I'm late to this thread and haven't read it al

ThomD


>You're better organized than I am. I usual have a board in one hand when I realize the vise is not set to the right opening...

Re: Then I would like to know ...

Dirk Vogel


>George, thank you for your renewed explanation of the garter function. I think I have no problem to imagine what that garter is about. I intended my question a bit different, but I understand now that one use the external garter for simplicity. It'd be possible to build a fix garter into the jaw, but one would have to glue several parts of the jaw around the screw with its groove, and that's not easy. So the reason is convenience when building the whole thing. I can live with that :-)

I'm not saying it's perfect

Bill Houghton, HOT Summer in Sebastopol, CA


>but one of the things about most leg vises is that you have to put the pin in the bottom strut anyway, so you need to have your hands free when adjusting. And, if the vise is already set properly for the board thickness, it's just a matter of moving the hand on the screw's handle to the vise body and yanking.

Given the choice, I'd prefer a vise with a garter or other method of pulling the jaw open as you open the vise; I'm simply pointing out that it's still possible to work effectively without this feature.

Re: I'm not saying it's perfect

ThomD


>I think if I was building a leg vise, and I hope to some day, I might fritz around with a scissor. On the other hand I would't worry about it as much maybe for the reason you mention.