Workbench design III

Layout I

Dirk Vogel


>So this is the last layout variation series I came up with. I use three tail vises because of real wracking problems I experienced with a real workbench with wooden screws, like mine is going to be. The general Idea was born contemplating the David Charlesworth's bench (cf. Schleining p. 123). Bench thickness is 3 1/8" (big white surface) and 6 1/4" (Apron, e.g. everywhere you can see dark fancy wood). The twin vise is removable, I'll present it as a separated subitem.

Layout II

Dirk Vogel


>In this variation I added an apron on the left that is not pierced by dogholes. Makes the bench even longer, perhaps it's not necessary.

Layout III

Dirk Vogel


>Here I used a classic tailvise and two incorporated tailvises (the only ones you can build near the tooltray). A bit odd ?

Layout IV

Dirk Vogel


>And finally, I tried to change the tooltray position next to the Tucker vise. Maybe it's no good idea, because I think i'm giong to use this side more often, but the twin vise is easier to build this way because the screws can enter wood behind the 4 3/4" wide apron.

Tucker vise mounting

Dirk Vogel


>There was already a discussion about the Tucker vise flushing with several edges of the bench in the previous thread, but this time I'd like to know if it is a really bad idea to lower the vise the way you can see on the drawing (see arrow). The advantage would be that the Tucker would flush with the bench's heigth when tilted (then its jaws are parallel to the bench top).

Leveling mechanism

Dirk Vogel


>I thought about several possibilities of having my benchtop on various heights. Some would have been too problematic to build (e. g. with hydraulics), others would have had involved too much metal ... My latest idea is the one you can see in the drawing. What you see concerning my previous layouts I - III is the left corner of the bench's backside. I think things one want to see closely are things like dovetailing. So the idea is to have this sort of mechanism to raise just the piece of the apron with the screw holes for my twin vise. I think that a hinged heigth adjuster (see Landis p. 66) should stabilize this construction. What do you think ?

Re: Leveling mechanism

ThomD


>What is the grain doing in all of that? It looks unlikely to me.

Re: Tucker vise mounting

ThomD


>I don't see the harm in that, or much benefit. It would allow you to support pieces on the workbench top, something you could do with probably greater success with just a few blocks laid on the bench top.

It would also get rid of the problem of getting into the mounting bracket when you level the bench top. But the moment you do that you are no longer level with the vise position in parallel.

For me the main issue is what height you want the vise at most of the time, and for me it was higher than even my 35" bench top allows though that height is OK, it's just that if I was going up or down I would choose up.

Re: Leveling mechanism

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Thom ! Of course you're right. Grain direction is � unlike what you see on the drawing � horizontal. It's a part of the apron we're talking about, so grain is meant to go just in the other direction.

Re: Tucker vise mounting

Dirk Vogel


>Well, benchtop height should be about 37" for me (I'm 74 1/2"), so the Tucker would be around 35".

Re: Layout I

joel -( tools for working wood)


>I can't for the life of me think of any situation where two or more tail vices are useful. even a giant board only has to be clamped by one vice to stay solid.

(I don't buy the idea that you can work on mulitple parts of a project because to me that's just using a bench for storage. )

I also don't understand the double vice - they wrack and for dovetailing any work much narrower than the vice they are a pain to adjust and clamp solidly. It is far far simpler and more solid to clamp one side in a flush mount face vice and the other side using either a bar clamp across the bench or a C clamp on the apron. Or have a much smaller double vice really purpose designed for drawer sides. And of course holdfasts in the side of the apron are a tried and true method.

Dog holes should be in line with the screw on the face vice - else it will wrack.

I have two benches: my big bench with no tool tray and my small bench with a tool tray. The tool tray is worse than useless as it just collects crap. The best solution for tools for me is a proper tool box located right next to the bench for easy access and I suppose if I put it on wheels it would be even better. I have an undermount set of drawers on my big bench - useful for measuring instructuments but otherwise gets in the way.

Over the years (my big bench is about 20 years old) my major mistake in design - my bench is basically the Klausz design with a Record face vice - was not putting in enough holdfast holes. THis can be rectified I just haen't gotten around to it.

Over time I find I use my vice less and less except for odd jobs and clamping the sides of boards for dovetailing or milling.

And I found that the tailvise which is extremely handy because of the clear clamping hole in creates in the front of the bench for clamping legs and things like that - is less useful as a long clamp because it can easily bow the loard. Inceasingly I find myself planing against stops or battens. My smaller bench which is newer - has holdfast holes which also double as holes for planing stops.

Re: Tucker vise mounting

ThomD


>That doesn't change anything , because you are taller than my 6'1", and you don't want to build your whole bench 2" high just so your vise is the right height. But again, I say the driving factor should be the comfort of vise height, which you could mock up. Real info is a lot more important than theory, when you get down to fit. I can't help you that much with the size of shoes you should wear or the size of pants, even though I have a few opinions on shoes or pants.

Re: Leveling mechanism

ThomD


>hat i am worrying about isn't the shading of your drawing, but how the various grain direction required there will work together, Like that piece at the end that goes vertical looks like the grain should go vertical which could cause fit and stength problems in that situation. Like you I like wood, but thqat looks like a metal design.

wood choice and bench dogs...

Dave Thompson


>Hi Dirk, Interesting choice of woods.... all very hard. While I know of people who have built the top of their benches out of pine and have been happy, I chose maple, and have found it more than adequate for the past ~7 years. I believe maple and guatambu are similar hardness, and horbeam harder. I wouldn't consider any of these dark woods which I gathered you were looking for, for the bench dog runs. Jatoba (Brazillian cherry) might be a choice worth considering for contrast. Janka is ~2400, and price that I'm familiar with is $3.50-$4.50/bf.

I haven't followed any of your earlier threads on your workbench, so I don't know if this has been covered.... I think there are some minor advantages of going with 3/4" round bench dog holes. Both Veritas and LN make nice bench dogs for these holes. Vertias also has some very nice screw down hold fasts, and wonder dogs/ wonder pups. I use all of these very often. Sometimes, I will rotate the bench dogs to something other than a right angle so that I can clamp curved or mitred boards to my bench. Ofcourse, these minor advantages can be compensated for with square bench dogs, though I haven't seen any advantages of square dogs over round. my $.02

Good luck

Dave

Looks great but...

Vlad


>...why so many vises?

Will there be 4 craftsman on the bench?

I look forward to seeing the finished product

Vlad

Re: Looks great but...

Warren in Lancaster, PA


>Dirk, I think you should design a car with four steering wheels: one on the left, one on the right for Englishmen, one for the backseat driver, and one on the roof for sunny days.

Re: wood choice and bench dogs...

Dirk Vogel


>Hi Dave ! Thanks for your interesting comments on my questions. Well, a workbench is not going to be handled with kid gloves, so I thought the harder the better ... Guatambu is a bit harder than sugar marple, probably that'll be my choice. Jatoba and Janka aren't woods I could easily find here where I'm living (Germany), so I opted for European walnut.

Of course there were discussions about round benchholes :-) I think they're quite cool, but I'm going to make my own wooden benchdogs, because my entire bench will be made of wood (with the exception of the Tucker), so I won't have to build my dogholes with dimensions depending on compatibilities. There will be some round holes for holdfasts on the bench's back side, however. I gave up on round holes for dogholes the moment I renounced the idea of using the holes in two directions, for instance with dogholes in my twin vise.

Cheers, Dirk

In reality there are two vises :-)

Dirk Vogel


>Yeah, I knew there were going to be people who didn't follow my previous discussions about vises, and who feel invited to post some smart remarks (don't we, Warren), so let this get straight with : I have a front vise (Tucker) and a tail vise. My tail vise is a sort of Veritas twin screw vise, you know, the one that people normally furnish with four rows of dogholes crossing the entire length of their benchtops. As my vises are going to be of wood, they'll rack. I discussed a bunch of tailvise designs here, and I got convinced the only way to have a functional all-wooden tail vise is lining up its doghole exactly with the screw. So I made do with three rows of dogholes instead of the classical four, each with its screw behind. Let's name them A, B and C, from top to bottom. Small shelves should be fixed with screw A or C, bigger ones with A and B, even bigger ones with B and C, biggest ones with A and C.

Concerning the twin vise on the back side, that's a sort of a bench accessoire. A photo was posted here two weeks ago, I'm putting it once more in this message, so you can get the idea of my twin vise (it's just a little wider).

Re: Leveling mechanism

Dirk Vogel


>I got your point, Thom. Thanks for your comment about the metal design, you're right as always ;-) Ok, I think I'm going to abandon this kind of level control, and try to invent some accessoire (like the twin screw itself) I'll have to put on the benchtop, to get my ideal dovetail sawing height.

Re: Less vises - more holes

Barryvabeach


>Dirk, I agree with Joel 100%. I built my bench 15 years ago. At first, I would put the wood on the bench against a wooden dog and used the tail vise, with a long peice of scrap, the clamp the board. I almost never use the vise to secure wood for planing horizontally anymore, I let the wood lie flat on the bench up against an end stop. ( I added a cheesy peice of plywood at the end of my bench with two slotted holes so I can adjust the height to be slightly below the wood and use that as a stop 90 % of the time) If I am planning at an angle, I usually will place the wood up against the end stop and pin one of the other corners with a holdfast and that works great. For holding the wood vertically, clamp one end in a vise and use a pipe clamp as Joel suggests. It is a lot easier and cheaper to install holdfast holes than a vise. Barry

Re: Less vises - more holes

Joel


>I should mention another use for a real tail vise.

About a year or so when the Tage Frid DVD came out I saw it and

his method of sawing blind dovetails really caught my eye.

He clamps the pin board in his tailvise at 45 degrees with the top edge tipped in. This way he can trivally see both the top and inside cuts at the same time without having to bend down and saw at a weird angle. He just saws with the saw level, straight down , at the bevel angle to the board. It's makes the sawing much easier and it makes clamping trivial - no vise and clamp arrangement like I used to use, or no double vise heartburn. Really fast and no fuss. And of course the average tail vise opens at least 14" or so, so for everything except the widest carcasses this works brilliantly.

Anyway when I tried it I was instantly sold and I think the best way now to clamp even through dovetails is just in the tailvise.

(I forgot when I posted my last post that I had changed methods. the old way is so deeply ingrained in me. )

note: since the boards are marked out if the board bows a bit during clamping it isn't a big deal.

Re: Less vises - more holes

ThomD


>I caught that too and thought it was pretty neat. Of course since Dirk has bought his Tucker, under most circumstances he can spin it 90 degrees, loose most or all of his drawer side in there and tip it to whatever angle he wants.

Re: Less vises - more holes

Joel


>THe tucker will flip 45 degrees but you can only clamp on one edge - and of course there is no way of clamping the other side. THe tail vise has no obstructions like a metal vise so you clamp solid.

Re: Square dogs

ThomD


>There are advantages to non round dogs, other than the fact the round ones are so ugly. Even lee valley doesn't seem able to stop them from falling out of the holes periodically. What is cool about round holes is the way LV has set stuff up so you can swiss cheese the universe, and drive everything from bench dogs to steam bending apparatus into the bench. This is pretty cool stuff, and if i had more space I would probably have a bench to take advantage of some of these functions.

On the other hand I don't have any trouble turning out joinery on a standard bench. The square dog:

- can be quite a bit larger/stronger/less likely to split out or enlarge holes:

- Stronger dogs mean wooden dogs, which don't enlarge holes or nail your plane iron, look nasty;

- Metal square dogs can have flat springs that don't create lines catch become fouled in their grooves,and they move very smootly without moving after you leave them.

- Square dogs don't necesarilly mean no rottation, while round dogs pretty necesarilly mean they are going to rotate, which isn't always desireable.

- If you take the 3/4" inch hole and devide it in two you have a pretty nasty bite to put on stuff, and you can't have much control over angle, because you run out of stock, so taping down is a problem.

- You can't ahve much control over the face height or it gets too flexy, so again you have these tiny little things.

- If you extend it up you to grab high on a think uneven piece you don't have a positive hook angle;

- Round holes in the LV system etc.. are not angle directional, so they don't control trust forces down, or tap down.

- Etc... I'm sure nobody is reading any more of these

At the aesthetic level, which I am not trying to push on anyone, square holes speak a little about joinery, in a cabinetmaker's bench. It's laregely a rectalinear process, even if it ends up a bombay chest. Wood breaks along lines and glues along lines, and squared up benches kinda reflect the process. If I am planing choping or sawing, I'm oretty mucg working on square force lines, not circular ones. A carvers bench is a different thing.

I also like the look of quality, it's harder to chop a mortice, or different anyway, than to drill a hole. Maybe my dowel and biscuit Joinery bench will have a bunch of holes drilles in it. And my Milwaukee hole shooter will have nearby storage.

All that is just a vibe thing, and I'm not trying to psuh it on anyone. I just think it is some of the silent language in the traditional bench.