Bench height

[Sean Richards]

Have recently read a few threads on workbenches including this current one http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?179662-Bench-questions. A standard reply is "X said in his book that you should use the pinky test"

So where did this "pinky test" idea come from? I have used a few different benches in various shops (over 20+ years) including one that was ~120-30 years old and I don't think I have ever seen a bench as low as what the "pinky test" would give for the average adult male. Most older benches I have seen have been around the 32" height. Did a quick review just to check my gut feeling and came up with the following points(nothing new here I know).

Scott Landis in his workbench book quotes heights for period Nicholson and Roubo benches at 32" and 31 3/4" respectively with 18th and 19th century American benches ranging from 28 to 33".
If these early benches were optimised for hand planing it was for wooden planes so the above heights are too low if you are using Bailey style planes.
There is statistical data to suggest that in general todays population (in the western world at least) is higher than that of the 18th and 19th century.

If we use the premise that 18th and 19th century wood workers worked on benches that were perfectly tuned to their stature and the nature of work carried out (this seems to be a popular idea but also slightly flawed I think), and that the heights quoted by Landis for period benches are correct then those same 18th and 19th century woodworkers would I think be a bit bemused by the idea of the "pinky test"

So enough theory and having tried it in practice - (being a pretty fit male of average height and proportions) I would hate to work (and that includes planing) on a "pinky test" bench. Personally I think the "pinky test" is at best a non-ideal way to to choose your ideal bench height and at worst a crock.

Discuss ...

[Chris Griggs]

So are saying you want something higher or lower? I think your saying the picky test puts most benches too low? What do you think a better way to determine bench height is? Just curious....

[Sean Richards]

So are saying you want something higher or lower? What do you think a better way to determine bench height is? Just curious....

I thought I was reasonably explicit in my original post but just so it is clear - for me the so-called "pinky test" will produce a bench height that is way too low. That is based on personal experience.

As for a better way to determine bench height I don't think there is a magic "rule-of-thumb" that determines an ideal bench height - if such a thing exists.

[Chris Griggs]

I thought I was reasonably explicit in my original post but just so it is clear - for me the so-called "pinky test" will produce a bench height that is way too low. That is based on personal experience.

As for a better way to determine bench height I don't think there is a magic "rule-of-thumb" that determines an ideal bench height - if such a thing exists.

Yes you were explicit, I read through it a couple times but in reading through the historical stuff guess I missed the initial point. Just read through it again you did indeed state that you had never seen a bench as low as the pinky test would put one. Thanks for reiterating nonetheless...

[Joey Chavez]

I'm looking to build a Roubo and did the pinky test and I'd be looking at 30" which seems too low and awkward. However for planing I keep reading the lower the better. I can see the benefit in that, being able to use my legs more to drive through the cut. Only way to know for sure is to stack some wood on the floor and stand on it next to my definitely too high current bench.

[Chris Vandiver]

Hey Sean,

What exactly does the "pinky test" consist of?

[David Posey]

Pinky test and historical examples are equal to each other for me. Either way I go, I end up with a 32" bench height, which has been pretty comfortable to me so far. I actuall worked for a while on a makeshift bench that was about 30, and that really wasn't too bad as far as height went. Lack of stability made it pretty miserable though. I'm 5'11" if that helps you place this height at all. I do seem to have freakishly long arms, however, and always end up buying 36/37 arm length dress shirts.

As best as I can tell, Schwarz for his part emphasizes that this is only a guideline given because people will inevitably ask "How high should I build my bench?" I don't have his workbench book, but in The Anarchist's Toolchest he spends 2.5 pages explaining other considerations before giving this guideline, not rule, with the qualifications that it's a ballpark and what worked for him. There's an implicit YMMV in there, and, as with pretty much all advice, you can take it or leave it as you will.

[Sean Richards]

Hey Sean,

What exactly does the "pinky test" consist of?

Hi Chris, I believe (and I will give myself a slap on the wrist for quoting second-hand information) that you are supposed to determine your 'ideal' bench height by measuring from the floor to the knuckle of your pinky finger - for me that gives just under 30" yet the bench height I have iterated to over quite a few years is probably 4" inches higher at least - I should actually measure it.

[Mike Holbrook]

The pinky test is suggested By Chris Schwarz, both in his workbench DVD and maybe in Hand Tool Essentials too. The tests calls for one to allow the arms to fall to the side, measuring from the floor to the joint between the hand and pinky. I believe Chris makes his suggestion based on the idea that the bench in question will be used most for planing. The idea is to be able to plane without bending the arms as much, reducing fatigue. Actually I believe the suggestion is to adjust the height to the specific type of planes one uses. I for instance made 4 wooden planes. Wooden planes are often an inch or two taller than metal planes, placing hands using those planes that much higher. If you read Derek's post, mentioned by the OP above, he actually pilled bricks beside his current 34" bench to get him to the level suggested by the pinky test. Derek seemed to find the suggested height for him of 30" more comfortable.

[Sean Richards]

Wooden planes are often an inch or two taller than metal planes, placing hands using those planes that much higher.

My toted wooden planes would be 4" or so higher

[Jim Koepke]

I am not worried as much about arm fatigue as I am lower back fatigue.

My current bench is a little tall by way of the pinky test. I also know that my lower back doesn't get as bothered by edge planing wide boards as much as it gets fatigued planing the edges of narrow boards.

This tells me that my bench should be a few inches taller.

I do not care about rules of thumb as much as using what makes my body ache less.

jtk

[Curt Putnam]

For me, a bench that feels good planing edge grain is too high for face planing a panel that is 24" wide. The converse is also true. Both heights are impossibly low for any other kind of work requiring that I actually see what I'm doing (sawing, carving, other detail work.) My experience factor is not great but my back is old and arthritic. When I can bring my (over) weight to bear, lower is good, otherwise it is bad. Lacking room for two major benches, I'm working at designing elevated solutions; i.e., Moxon, Bench-on-Bench, etc.

I think the pinky test involves averages of leg length and arm length as well as back structure. I think the empirical approach is best. The think, perhaps, that face planing a panel, with the full width of an iron (as opposed to heavily cambered) may be the worst case (requiring the lowest bench height.) Detail sawing or chiseling may be the best case (highest bench height.) Where will you spend the majority of your time and effort? Adjust from there.

[Jack Curtis]

I have a fairly low bench, and any back problems, which btw are independent of the bench, are cured by yoga, or modified yoga as in Robin McKenzie's very cheap paperback "Treat YourOwnBack (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0959774661/ref=wms_ohs_product)" Its exercises work very well, and keep on working.

[Steve Branam]

Here's my writeup on tuning the height of my Roubo bench: http://www.closegrain.com/2011/04/roubos-slippers.html.

The biggest challenge is committing to a height when you build it!

[Jim Foster]

Who knows, maybe it was originally devised around the Golden Mean, which would put this idea on a divine level of consciousness in the old days. That being said, it works pretty well for me.

[Chuck Nickerson]

Ideal bench height is probably determined by a matrix of factors: personal hieght, tasks performed, and other appliances available.

I built my Roubo to pinky-height and it works for me. Why?

I'm doing more thicknessing by hand, so I'm spending more worktime with handplanes.
I've adopted the planing style where my body movement provides the motion, not my arms.
This stock prep is done with wooden bodied planes.
I have a Moxon vise and chiseling bench-on-bench available.

In other words, I do lots of work low, and have applianes to move precision work closer to my eyes.

[Zach Dillinger]

Just a data point. I'm 6'5" and I like a 33" bench. This was determined on advice from Roy Underhill's book "The Woodwrights Apprentice", where he mentions that the benchtop should just brush your knuckles if you make a fist if you use wooden planes. I use them exclusively so I like a bench thats a bit lower than most, despite my height. However, I find myself sitting down for tasks like chiseling dovetails, sawing on my bench hook, etc. I'm also only 28, so I'm not sure how my back will hold up at a lower height. I suspect I might increase my bench height as I age, but we'll see.

[Prashun Patel]

My current bench @ home is 'pinky joint' height. Good for planing and sawing; bad for most other things if you have a bad back. One of these days (read, 'probably never') I'd like to make a bench-on-bench for other tasks that require closer proximity to my eyes.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Chuck brings up a good point - it seems a good idea to focus on what tasks you do, not just your height. - a bench designed very low to make hand surfacing a lot easier might not be the best fit for you if you don't do much more than a bit of smoothing with hand planes, but if you surface a lot of rough lumber by hand, that can be a pretty exhausting task if the height is wrong for how you work.

A big help for me as I work on my bench, is having the top complete, trying different heights by stacking it on the sawhorses at different heights. Right now it's very very low, and just the difference I feel between working the faces of the stock for the legs before and after I laminated the two pieces of 8/4ish stock, I can see how a couple of inches can make a *big* difference.

As others have mentioned, appliances can make a huge difference.

I may still be a bit more flexible than other folks, but one thing I've noticed is it's easier to me to make myself shorter than it is to make myself taller! To avoid back pain, I do the same thing I did playing guitar in rock bands when I needed to sing some backup vocals at a mic stand set for someone else - spread my stance, and bend at the knees. Think Johnny Ramone (http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_hookups/122316665/) playing guitar. (Okay, that picture might be a little much - not the best stance for planing, and you probably don't want to twist your ankle like that . . . )

This has proved especially helpful in hand planing, as it lets me get my legs into the force, not just my back. I do it for sawing sometimes too - it's a lot less painful for me than bending or stooping with my back for a long period of time. I tend to do more of a split when sawing, and more of a pitchers stance (mid throw - one leg forward) when planing.

[Carl Beckett]

One other consideration (at least for some of us) when considering bench height - and that is just how well we see.

For me, as I have aged, I have found that I need to keep the distance to my work at a certain focal zone. (and sometimes this varies).

What this means is that if I make the bench too low, I am bending over it a lot trying to SEE what the heck is going on. Even though for the mechanics of hand work it might be good lower, I am better off overall bringing it up a bit and closer to my face (which is better for my back because I dont have to hunch over as much all the time just to see)

Just a thought. Ya, it sucks getting old but I still have a ways to go. Maybe a power lift would allow it to be raised and lowered (lower it, do some planing - raise it back up to see what it did... lower it back for more planing.....)?

(as a side note I made my router table quite high by general standards - just for the purpose of improved visibility. And Im happy I did so. Uh oh... did I just mention a power tool in the Neander forum?) Ok, I will shut up now....

[Jim Koepke]

I like Steve's approach of the "Roubo Slippers."

It makes it easier to raise a bench height than it would be to lower it.

These could actually be a bit decorative with one side being able to slide off to allow placing more shims.

Thanks Steve, that will certainly be something to consider when I get a round tuit for my bench.

jtk

[Mike Allen1010]

FWIW I worked on a bench that was 2" higher than the pinky test for 25 years. I just built a new bench that is pinky height and I find hand planing to be MUCH easier! I have a lot more power to push planes through cuts and become much less fatigued.

I'm 6', 51 years old and have average length arms and legs (according to my tailor) and use metal Baily style planes. For me this has not been trival issue and a change very much for the better.

As others have suggested, it may be worth doing a few trials with different height saw horses before deciding on a final height.

Mike

[Dave Anderson NH]

I am short at 5' 9" tall. When I started as a woodworker I was primarily a power tool guy and used hand tools only for those operations that either couldn't be done by electrically powered tools or where I didn't own the appropriate power tool. At that point my 28" x 72" bench was 36 " high. Over the years as I evolved and got more and more into hand tools my bench height got lower and lower as I became primarily a hand tools guy. Since the metal legs of the old bench had 1" adjustable increments it slowly crept downward over the years in 1" increments until it reached its final height of 30". When I built my new bench 2 1/2 years ago I stacked lumber in front of the old bench at various heights and did some informal testing as I stood on the various stacks. The height of my new bench ended up at 29 1/2" which is appropriate to me for planing and many other functions. Like Zack though, I sit at a stool when doing a good bit of my work and it prevents most of the problems associated with my lower back. Crosscut sawing is done at my saw bench which is also the right height for me to use for sitting on the other side of my bench and prevents me from having to move the stool back and forth all of the time. The old bench is now lowered as far as it will go and is used as an assembly and finishing table.

I think that everyone will agree that there is no single on solution for bench height and it matters not whether we ar talking absolute height or height relative to your particular body. Everything has to be based on a combination of your body size and the kind of work you do. Worse than the one size does not fit all, is the fact that one size doesn't even fit one person for all tasks. Bench design has to be a compromise.

[Sean Richards]

3Interesting replies. Just to clarify I am happy with the height of bench (based on 20+ years experience) I use, I was just curious about the origins of this "pinky test" idea.

Had a quick look in Nicholson (Mechanical exercises, 1812) last night and read - "For the convenience of planing, and other operations a rectangular platform is raised upon four legs, called a bench" and "Benches are of various heights, to accommodate the height of the workman, but the medium is about 2 feet 8 inches"

So in 1812 we have a benches made for planing operations with an average height of 32". Repeating myself - that is using wooden planes, so add 3" or so if you use metal planes. Interestingly enough I measured my bench last night and it is just under 36". I am bang on average for a male of European descent and I use metal planes 99% of the time. So if I used woodies Nicholson's bench height would be just about spot on, and the "pinky test" would work quite well, hmmm ......

[Jim Foster]

Sean, have you used a bench that's 30-32 inches for any extended period?

[ray hampton]

time for a stupid question, let say that your bench are at the max. height and you get a job to plane something 12 inches thick [that a foot ]or more, explain how you will this ?

[Sean Richards]

Sean, have you used a bench that's 30-32 inches for any extended period?

I used a late 19th century Scandinavian style bench for a few years that was probably 33" or so. It was fine then and I would probably still be using it if it wasn't on the other side of the world.


time for a stupid question, let say that your bench are at the max. height and you get a job to plane something 12 inches thick [that a foot ]or more, explain how you will this ?

No such thing as a stupid question - so if I HAD to plane something 12" thick I would of course stand on a suitable thickness block of wood or similar. Since 95% of the stuff I face plane would less than an inch thick and 95% of the remainder less than two inches that question is pretty moot. What would you do? ...

[ray hampton]

If I knew the answer , I would not need to ask the ?

[david charlesworth]

My favorite bench is 40" high.

The height is very beneficial for horizontal paring and sawing, I do not find it too high for handplaning.

I used to be 6' 1" but my recipe is approx 4 1/2" below underside of elbows, when fore arms are held horizontal. This measurement is averaged as we are mostly somewhat crooked.

My students always remark on the height when they arrive but are converted by the time they leave.

The lowness of historical texts bothers me, I'm sure they were shorter!

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[Matt Bickford]

This thread sure makes me appreciate my Noden Adjust-a-Bench. I will change the height of my bench 5-10 times every single day.

[Chris Griggs]

I'm 6'2 and have borderline freakishly long arms. My bench is a little under 34". I deliberately built it on the lower side of what I thought would be a good height figuring that it would be easier to prop it up than to recut the legs. The height works well for hand planing with metal planes and also chopping with chisels, but thinking about it, I could easily go a few inches higher and still have plenty of downward force on my planes. For just about everything other then handplaning I tend to wish it were a bit higher. Perhaps I'll make some slippers for it and try using it at more like 36". I think that would be just about right.

[Sean Richards]

My favorite bench is 40" high.

The height is very beneficial for horizontal paring and sawing, I do not find it too high for handplaning.

I used to be 6' 1" but my recipe is approx 4 1/2" below underside of elbows, when fore arms are held horizontal. This measurement is averaged as we are mostly somewhat crooked.

My students always remark on the height when they arrive but are converted by the time they leave.

The lowness of historical texts bothers me, I'm sure they were shorter!

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Some more interesting data points in this thread and David I agree with you on the issues of using data from historical texts and applying it to today without normalising for increases in average height etc. On a personal note to you David I hope you are recovering well and best wishes.

[Zach Dillinger]

Fellow bench-Auxologists,

My research into historical heights has led me to the following information about the average male height, gathered from a variety of sources.

Medieval England: 5 '6"
17th century England: 5'6"
18th century America: 5 '7 3/4"
Post-revolution America: 5' 8"
mid-19th century England: 5' 7 3/4"
Current: 5'9"

So, as you can see, average male height has increased less than two inches since the time of Nicholson. If you add 1 or 2 inches to the bench height listed in Nicholson, you get 33" or 34". However, I can see why today's people would want to raise their bench, given the prevalence of iron planes. That, and I'm sure a fair number of hobby woodworkers today are significantly older than a professional joiner / cabinetmaker of the 18th century. With age comes back problems, so a higher bench is needed.

[Sean Richards]

I'm 6'2 and have borderline freakishly long arms. My bench is a little under 34". I deliberately built it on the lower side of what I thought would be a good height figuring that it would be easier to prop it up than to recut the legs. The height works well for hand planing with metal planes and also chopping with chisels, but thinking about it, I could easily go a few inches higher and still have plenty of downward force on my planes. For just about everything other then handplaning I tend to wish it were a bit higher. Perhaps I'll make some slippers for it and try using it at more like 36". I think that would be just about right.

It will be an easy quick way to find out ...

[Leo Passant]

My favorite bench is 40" high.

The height is very beneficial for horizontal paring and sawing, I do not find it too high for handplaning.

I used to be 6' 1" but my recipe is approx 4 1/2" below underside of elbows, when fore arms are held horizontal. This measurement is averaged as we are mostly somewhat crooked.

My students always remark on the height when they arrive but are converted by the time they leave.

The lowness of historical texts bothers me, I'm sure they were shorter!

best wishes,
David Charlesworth



Fellow bench-Auxologists,

My research into historical heights has led me to the following information about the average male height, gathered from a variety of sources.

Medieval England: 5 '6"
17th century England: 5'6"
18th century America: 5 '7 3/4"
Post-revolution America: 5' 8"
mid-19th century England: 5' 7 3/4"
Current: 5'9"

So, as you can see, average male height has increased less than two inches since the time of Nicholson. If you add 1 or 2 inches to the bench height listed in Nicholson, you get 33" or 34". However, I can see why today's people would want to raise their bench, given the prevalence of iron planes. That, and I'm sure a fair number of hobby woodworkers today are significantly older than a professional joiner / cabinetmaker of the 18th century. With age comes back problems, so a higher bench is needed.

These opinions make the best arguments for bench heights yet. I've always thought Schwarz at his bench looks like a giraffe at a watering hole.

[daniel lane]

I'm getting ready to build a hand tool workbench and have been experimenting with the current 34" bench I use - I expect I'll be one of those that works on a shorter bench. It looks like the 'pinky test' will be appropriate for me, and will wind up with something like 31-32". I'm just under 6 feet but have an ape index of +4 or 1.06, depending on which style you use. Per Chris, I think this means "freakishly long arms". :p

I see a lot of discussion about bench height, and I believe that arm length is something that isn't considered often enough in the discussion. In my family, I'm marginally taller than the other males (dad, brother) but my arms are significantly longer and therefore my hands are much lower. Even though we're close on height, our workbench heights would be very different.



daniel

[Jim Foster]

There are optimum conditions for any mechanical system and looking at the tasks woodworkers do using hand tools, the mechanical advantage presented by lower benches surpass higher benches, it's simple physics and physiology. Once you add in requirements beyond mechanical advantages, I think bench height becomes more of a preference based on the tasks most performed and personal decisions.

There are always outliers like the horizontal paring mentioned, and I have come to think that's what bench appliances are for.

One example is using power tools like a router, since it does not require a lot of force to move around, having your eyes closer to the workpiece (a higher bench) may be best for most users. An extreme example of physiology; try screwing a 3-4" screw into a board 6' up on a wall, then try putting the same screw into the wall 32" up. In both cases if the only leverage you have is your body and your feet on the ground, the 32" high screw is a much more reasonable task.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of shorter workbenches, and took numerous classes on statics and dynamics (basic mechanical systems)many years ago. But do not have nearly the time in the saddle (or at the "bench") that most forum members do.

[ray hampton]

If I am sitting down then a screw or nail at one yard height will work for me BUT IF I AM STANDING,my eye sight gets in the way and the accurate placing of the screw hole suffer

[James Carmichael]

I'm 5'10" with stubby arms and a to-be-replaced 36" bench. The only issue I've had is chopping straight mortises, I finally realized the bench height was causing me to approache from the side instead of standing directly over the workpiece. I've contemplated 32" for my next bench, but my back aches thinking about it.

I may go to a mortising bench I've seen, basically just a couple of beams stacked on the floor to sit on & chop mortises.

I'm a woody-user and the the other consideration is tool weight. Being lighter, they need more oomph. If the Nooden wasn't so expensive, I'd go that route.

[Peter Pedisich]

This is a very interesting and informative discussion, quite helpful.

I'm in the middle of a bench build, not my ultimate bench, but a first hand tool bench so that I may learn through actual use just which features I really need based on the type of work I do. I will be building it from scraps I have on hand to minimize cost. I designed it with a 35" height as this is what the Lie-Nielsen and some other commercial benches are. At my height of 5'-10 this seems high, yet I did do some tests with sawhorses and boards of wood to test out different heights, and when it was down in the 31-33" range, I felt my wrist was at an unnatural angle, and this was uncomfortable with an iron plane. 36" was too high, 34.5-35" was at the right spot.

One good thing about this being a sort of working prototype is that I won't mind cutting it down if I find it's too high after a few months.


-Pete

[Shaun Mahood]

In Jim Tolpin's new book ("The New Traditional Woodworker") he suggests a block attached with hinges to change your bench height from "planing height" to "assembling height / dovetailing height" (right after he shows his shop with half a dozen nice benches for different things and makes you all jealous).

Before this thread I totally thought I had my bench height nailed down, now I think I'm going to have to build something adjustable and build a test bench first. The "Roubo's Slippers" (http://www.closegrain.com/2011/04/roubos-slippers.html) post by Steve Branam also has a lot of potential, I may end up building a borderline too low bench and use those to figure out the rest.

If anything, all of these bench height discussions really tell me that I better be able to adjust things in some fashion in the future, since the likelihood of getting everything right on the first kick is pretty low even when I kind of know what I'm doing!

[Peter Hawser]

I hate to be an outlier but I am 6' 1" and my bench is 36.5" and is working great for me for planing and other things one often does at a bench like sawing, chiseling... If you aren't sure, why not build high. You can always take wood off a set of legs, but you can't put it back on.

[linke combs]

I am currently in the process of building my first bench and this is a very timely subject for me. The pinky test shows 32 inches for me and I have played around in the kitchen which is a 36 inch countertop height and that is clearly to high for me. I would be planing with nothing but my arms at that height. I am actually not building a Roubo, but a Holtzappfel bench. Mine will be very similar to Chris S.'s, but a little longer and with a homemade wagon vise as well. My current thinking is to build it somewhere in the 33 to 34 inch range. I am 6' tall, but apparently have longer than average arms for my height. I have always had to buy long sleeve shirts with longer sleeve lengths. I guess my current thought is I build it somewhere around 33 inches then by the time I lay the wood on the bench for face planing or clamped above the plane of the bench for edge planing, then I will be somewhere around 34 inches in actual use. Then again, I may be over thinking the whole thing. I has happened before.

Linke

[Jim Foster]

I am currently in the process of building my first bench and this is a very timely subject for me. The pinky test shows 32 inches for me
Linke

I tried the pinky test again last night on my bench and I noticed it's pretty easy to try it with my shoulders slumped a little, (I think someone mentioned this in a previous post on this thread) altering the test by and inch or more. When I stand up at attention, pinky test is close to 32". When I'm slumping a little it drops several inches pretty easily. I like the current height of close to 32" and I'm 5'10" with long arms. An inch lower would somewhere between better and fine, an inch or so higher would not be for me, because my old shop table was 34" and it was not pleasant at all to work on. I notice in our kitchen, 36" counters, that my back gets really sore, really easily. So far on my bench, it does not. Could be because I don't have any extended periods at it yet, but I think I do. It could also be, because I'm not in a prone position for any length of time, like standing at a counter washing dishes, etc. Or it could be, the height is keeping my lower back muscles more relaxed.