On Mockups and Wood Gloatery

[Trevor Walsh]

Since I do a lot of talking on my blog, I'll cut the chatter a bit and show the goods... Here is some nice old mahogany I scored at a garage sale cleanup (in addition to two sheldon style quick action vises) and a 1/4 scale mockup I built for the table I'm intending to build with it. I'm borrowing heavily from Mario Rodriguez's Providence Writing Desk.

This type of model is also a project that I teach in my model making class, which involves scaling a photograph into usable dimensions, then building a scale model from that plan.

[george wilson]

We just don't have the right kind of garages around here!! Good score. Hope you got it cheap!

[Jason Paris]

Your models look great. Can you go into detail on how you make them. Maybe a blog post or two?

[Rob Fisher]

I'm an architect and I think physical models are excellent for building scale and urban scale projects. But with modern 3-D drafting programs they are becoming increasingly obsolete. At the furniture scale I would think that something like a sketchup model would be more desirable. It is quick,easily changeable and as detailed as the user desires. Ultimatly the SU model can be used as the plans to build the piece. I wonder what you gain from physically modelling at the furniture scale. It seems to me that the piece being built is the model as I am sure a good woodworker will adjust things in real life to suit needs or desires. Now if these students are not the ones building the full scale piece then maybe the physical model helps them. And if these are ID students then they definitely need to learn how to actually build things, even if only in model form. When I was in school the ID guys and girls were having all of the fun making cool looking computer and hand rendered drawings/models, with less of an understanding of how it would actually be made. For what is worth too many of the architecture students had similar problems.

[brian c miller]

I think Allen Peters would mock up his work around 1/4 scale. He'd even go so far as to use the same species of wood the actual table would be constructed from sometimes cutting in the dovetails to drawers.

~Source: The Alan Peters Approach

[Trevor Walsh]

George, Those garages are getting harder and harder to find, when I walked in I immediately knew luck was shining down that day. I payed $130 for the two vises, 14ish BF of the mahogany and about 12 BF of 1/2" thin maple and perhaps mahogany boards. Considering what the vises might cost on Ebay I'd say it was a good haul.

Jason, I will do a post about that, I'll put it on the blog and maybe in the articles section on here... It might coincide with the model I'll build in class to demo... so that might take a few weeks to get together. I may do something out of Tom Fidgen's "Made by Hand" book. I really like his style. The tutorial will have scaling from a photo and everything.

Rob, I completely disagree with the notion that physical models are becoming obsolete. For the very reason that designers are getting less time on material, and they become increasingly dependent on CAD. Handmade models allow for very rapid visualization of forms to test with, If we were doing hairdryers for example. I could sketch, and build a handful of models that we could touch, hold and evaluate based on actual use, while I would be able to only build an approximate model and render it in CAD during the same time, resulting in something that can't be held or related to in scale very easily. It looks pretty, but doesn't have a lot of value after that. The computer is also bad at helping a person to understand how a form works, one needs to understand 3D space very well to build something complicated virtually, otherwise you start taking shortcuts because you can't "see" something. Working in the real world makes this easier to learn.

I get students that ask if they can draw the individual shapes for a model built out of plastic, which has different wall thicknesses, many dimensions change subtlety depending on where a maker decides to overlap certain parts. You just can't get an understanding of those relationships making parts on the computer and hitting "Print".

On the plus side, CAD is great for taking a finished design and getting it ready for manufacture. Software can calculate the flow of cast metal or plastic for optimum mold making, do stress analysis which is very helpful with large objects like buildings, calculating all the torques, tension, heat expansion on a structure is vastly easier with a computer. The takeaway is computers are good at math, they can't make things look better, work better or fit your hand, that's what a designer's job is.

And on something like furniture someone has to actually use it. If a student shows a glitzy CAD model of a chair, it's still worthless. I can't sit in it and see if they have "done" it right. An angle might be wrong, the seat too high, maybe it pinches the nerve in your leg and it falls asleep. You need a physical model. I agree that there is a bit of a disconnect between designers of objects and the process used to build them. Many consumers will talk about how easy it is to "just put something" on a certain spot of a product, not realizing it could be an impossible manufacturing detail, or increase the unit cost.

This is getting to be a long post, but this is what I think about all day while teaching about products and building furniture for myself, I suppose I've got a lot to say. The other major difference between product designers and architects is that product designers work is produced by the tens of thousands, an architects work (in many cases) is built once and used by many people. There is some fussiness to products, hairdryers again... Who uses a hairdryer? How big are their hands? How much weight can you hold above your head for how long? What does the "click" sound like when you select a setting? How long should the cord be? Where could it be plugged it it? How hot will the housing get? Will the easy to color plastic that I'd like to specify withstand that heat? What will someone pay for this? What does the packaging look like? That's a lot of questions for something so simple, a lot of work, and a lot of prototypes.

Thanks for reading, if you've stayed with it this long.

[Trevor Walsh]

Brian, I have seen some people that do things like that, I sometimes do this, mostly this is for making sure a setup or group of setups will perform, or to see how certain details work together. I will probably make a 1/2 scale mock up in dyed poplar or pine of the apron/leg/top connection. I'm not sure if I want a flush apron with a little moulding or a 3/16 or 1/4 recessed apron with a bead detail, that's something I could do with CAD I suppose (I do use Sketchup sometimes), but it's nice having a physical part (I put these into a box that I can use as samples to clients or students). I also like doing the drawings by hand too, I can sketch all the joints and orthographic views with dimensions fast enough. I don't see an advantage to the CAD. It's not like I'm just old school either, I'm 23. Some of us in school didn't like CAD, we stuck to paper and the shop. I'm not exactly sure why...we were told to draw a lot first, prototype then go to cad to get appearance photos. Many of the CAD types, who didn't build a lot, wind up as CAD Monkeys building CAD models of other people's stuff.

[Trevor Walsh]

Brian again, I just pre-ordered a Bridge City Toolworks HP-8 plane with depth skids. It is a tiny little bugger, but the depth skids allow for very accurate, small-scale thicknessing. I'm excited for it. I'll use it for models and tiny box parts, maybe small mullions and muntins.


For all, If there is a particular furniture piece you would like a demo on place pictures here! I'd love to work on something chosen instead of what I find.

[Pam Niedermayer]

... (I do use Sketchup sometimes), but it's nice having a physical part (I put these into a box that I can use as samples to clients or students). I also like doing the drawings by hand too, I can sketch all the joints and orthographic views with dimensions fast enough. I don't see an advantage to the CAD. It's not like I'm just old school either, I'm 23. Some of us in school didn't like CAD, we stuck to paper and the shop. I'm not exactly sure why...we were told to draw a lot first, prototype then go to cad to get appearance photos. Many of the CAD types, who didn't build a lot, wind up as CAD Monkeys building CAD models of other people's stuff.

As a software developer for 35 years, I'm real fast at picking up the paradigms of software product categories. If I wanted to understand how a software product worked, I'd design my own version quickly. However, CAD always befuddled me, even Sketchup. I just don't get it, even though I understand graphics, 3D, etc. Besides, building models is more fun. There is a lot to say for the 3D printers, though, design in CAD and print the model.

Pam

[Trevor Walsh]

Yes 3D printed models do have advantages, like visualizing something, exactly how it will come out of a mold without investing $50K-200K on injection molding tooling or $10K or so on low run resin castings. Even better is if that print helps find a change that needs to be made before final production runs.

[Rob Fisher]

Trevor,

Thanks for the response and great discussion. I will try to keep it going. In Architecture, physical models are almost completely gone. I am not saying this is good or bad, just that it is the reality of the handful of firms that I have worked in, and most of the rest of the industry from my understanding. There are definitely still a few firms and/or projects that use physical models but they are by far the exception not the rule. Physical models are almost exclusively relegated to high end project, big money stuff. I think that physical models can be helpful, but they are costly to make. With modern 3-D drafting software, many projects are designed in 3-D, instead of just in plan and section. This means that at any point in the design process the computer model can be rendered and shown to the client, no costly or time consuming physical modeling required. Final renderings can be made with photo like realism or even incorporating real photos. I personally still like seeing and making physical models, but the reality is they are incredible costly and take more time than a computer model.

In product design, I would think that you are right, there is definitely still a need for some (or maybe a lot of) prototyping but at full scale. Given the hairdryer example I find it hard to believe that you could work out many of the details you mentioned in anything but full scale, and in some instances real materials too. Now with the table model, at 1/4 scale (3"=1') if the table is to be 30" tall the model is only 7.5" tall. What do you gain from this size model that could not be gleaned from a sketchup model with the same level of detail? The way I see it a sketchup model would be infinitely more informative as you can add whatever detail you want and try many different schemes fairly quickly. Making a model of the table would make sense to me if it were full scale or partial detail at full scale (or maybe half scale) to test the edging for the top, the apron detail or beading detail you mentioned.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are instances when models make sense but they usually need to be full scale and these I would call prototypes. The rest of the time it seems a computer model would be the more efficient model to make.

Rob

[Tony Shea]

I'm going to have to go with Trevor on this one. I personally gain so much more from an actual model than I can from a CAD drawing even in 3D. Even if the model is only 1/4 scale such as this table I still feel like I can visualize it's appearance and feel in a room better than if I was looking at it on a computer screen. I agree that full scale would be much more revealing but even a 1/4 scale version gives me some sense of how the design is working especially if I'm able to take the model to its' intended location. It's just much more personal for me to actually have some sort of physical example. I just can't see everything I want at the same time with some computer drafted peice.

And I think Trevor does crazy good models that really show what a peice might turn out to be. I've actually followed his lead and started creating my own before actually cutting wood. The other peice to that is I've never been all that excited by drawing a design up on CAD or Sketch Up. I have a hard time sitting there pointing and clicking. much rather break out some tools, even if they're only a razor knife, tape, and elmer's glue. Call it adult A.D.D.

I second that you should post on your blog or here the process you go through for your models.

[Trevor Walsh]

Rob, I'm liking this discussion too. I see the reason architecture moved into more CAD, they are building one thing and the expense is hardly justifiable.

In my furniture example I like the cardboard over CAD because it's fast for me it seems more tangable and I'm not particularly fond of sitting in front of a comuter (unless I'm on SMC, ha). It's good to work with my hands and wind up with something physical as a result of my work. I also have a good grasp of furniture scale so I can visualize a piece at full size (while working small) and see how it works visually, is it too small or too chunky in the leg? A drawing doesn't show the volume so well and CAD get's a little lifeless. The models are more interesting to me. Some to many things I do mock up full scale, chairs have this particular need. It has to "sit" right to work, you get a lot of mileage about the form with a scale model before making a prototype to sit in.

What my big beef with CAD boils down to is, I think a lot of students see being a good designer as-making a nice CAD model. Which may be difficult to build, hold, or use; while a handful of physical models give a lot more information while teaching the student about shapes. They seem to think good CAD can make a design, but only good design can make good design.


Thanks Tony, can we see some of yours too? I like how you put "breaking out the tools" over pointing and clicking, I much agree. Any thoughts on the piece I should do?