Noden Adjust-A-Bench cabinets and threaded rods

[Dan Case LR]

I've got a Noden AAB and I want to build a storage cabinet to utilize that space under it. I know that the threaded rods are structurally important, and the design I'm working on buries them in the cabinet. I've got an idea to use the top rods where they are (buried in the top of the cabinet) and move the bottom rod down to the lower of the two bolts that mount the caster sets (buried in the bottom of the cabinet). The carcase design is substantial and should provide more support than the original stretchers.

Anybody with an AAB tried this or seen it done? Suggestions? Experience-based "don't try to..." comments?


Thanks!

D.

[Mark Carlson]

I wanted that space also and originally went with the 90 degree angle supports which gives you an open front. Didn't like this option because it didn't feel very solid and the braces took a lot of the room. They also wern't even close to 90 degrees. So, in the back I use a full strecher with two rods. In the front I use a thinner strecher with one rod. This allows me to slide things in and out from the front. I think you'd be fine with two in the back and one in the front at the top. If your cabinets go from side to side you could also just screw bolts into the cabinets.

~mark

[Dan Case LR]

Mark, eliminating the lower rod on one side weakens the bench structurally. I suppose your usage determines whether or not that is acceptable. I don't think it would work for me, but I'm awfully persnickety about stuff like that. If it works for you, go for it.

No matter how beefy a cabinet may be, just bolting the legsets to the cabinet will never provide the strength and stability that results from those threaded rods and stretchers. My goal is to keep the threaded rods but get them out of my way. I think my design will do that:

246013

The cabinet will rest on the two angles of the caster set. The four holes you can see on the side are for the threaded rods--two on top that correspond to the top rod, and two on the bottom that line up with the bottom holes that attach the caster angle to the legset. Between the additional mass and the structure itself, it should be pretty sturdy.

D.

[Jim Neeley]

Dan,

I think so too. I've been contemplating something similar but I like your design better. I've been trying to decide if it would be feasible to beef up the cabinet sufficiently so as to use it as the rods (actually with bolts on each end, otherwise like yours) as it would permit me to have a taller cabinet by going higher and lower (with a cutout for the wheel support angle) but my vote is still out.

What are you planning for top and bottom to accommodate the rods? Two layers of 3/4" ply (or the equivalent hardwood) to mimic the standard cross-members or something else?

Jim in Alaska

[Dan Case LR]

Dan,

I think so too. I've been contemplating something similar but I like your design better. I've been trying to decide if it would be feasible to beef up the cabinet sufficiently so as to use it as the rods (actually with bolts on each end, otherwise like yours) as it would permit me to have a taller cabinet by going higher and lower (with a cutout for the wheel support angle) but my vote is still out.

What are you planning for top and bottom to accommodate the rods? Two layers of 3/4" ply (or the equivalent hardwood) to mimic the standard cross-members or something else?

Jim in Alaska


Here are a couple more views with a few things hidden so you can see the structure better:

246022



246021

The top is two pieces of 1/2" Baltic Birch plywood, and the bottom is two pieces of 3/4. I went bigger on the bottom to provide clearance for the caster bolts and drawers. I considered (and may yet) using 3/4 instead of 1/2 on top, but wanted to maximize drawer space. Rather than using fancy joinery, the sides just butt up against the top and bottom. Not great for a stand-alone piece, but the stronger structural option when the threaded rods are in use. The sides are 3/4" plus 1/4" to provide for the required notch to clear the angle iron caster mount. In my first design I used 3/4 with a 1/4" rabbet on the bottom, but I like this better.

In terms of strength and stability, I don't believe it's possible to build a cabinet beefy enough to replace the rods. I can't recall the technical jargon (old age, I suppose), but the tension produced by the rods (with an appropriate structure between the legsets) is hard to beat structurally. It's not just the structure, but the tension.

Consider this: If you removed the stretchers from the basic design but left the threaded rod and added nuts on the inside of the legsets, you'd have a structure that holds the legs where you want them. Would it be stable? Would it prevent racking? Would you like planing on that bench? No, No, and No. The tension of the rods with a solid structure between them--basically clamping that structure between the legs--is what gives the bench its stability and strength.

What do you think? See anything that could be improved?

D.

[Kevin Woodhead]

Dan,

If you were to tension a six-sided box between the legs, it would be about as rigid as you could possibly make it. With your current design, I think you've got the horizontal-axis racking forces covered by the top and bottom of your cabinet--if you pushed against your cabinet box from the front it wouldn't collapse. You still need to reinforce the structure against racking in the vertical axis--think of pushing hard against the cabinet (or the bench) from one end. For that you probably need a rigid face frame and a full 3/4 back. You might skip the face frame just to make it easier, but technically that would give you more rigidity.

[Dan Case LR]

Dan,

If you were to tension a six-sided box between the legs, it would be about as rigid as you could possibly make it. With your current design, I think you've got the horizontal-axis racking forces covered by the top and bottom of your cabinet--if you pushed against your cabinet box from the front it wouldn't collapse. You still need to reinforce the structure against racking in the vertical axis--think of pushing hard against the cabinet (or the bench) from one end. For that you probably need a rigid face frame and a full 3/4 back. You might skip the face frame just to make it easier, but technically that would give you more rigidity.

My design has a solid back--it's hidden in the views shown.

D.

[ed vitanovec]

Dan,
I think your idea will work just fine and the Bench will be very rigid. I looked on the Adjust Bench web page and there is a users gallery with pictures, there is some pictures of a Bench that looks similar to what you want to do. Show us pictures of your Bench when its done, I really like my Adjust Bench!

[Dan Case LR]

Dan,
I think your idea will work just fine and the Bench will be very rigid. I looked on the Adjust Bench web page and there is a users gallery with pictures, there is some pictures of a Bench that looks similar to what you want to do. Show us pictures of your Bench when its done, I really like my Adjust Bench!

Without a doubt, my Adjust-a-Bench is one of the best woodworking investments I've made.

D.

[Evan Patton]

Dan,
Did you end up implementing your design? Anything you'd change?

Thanks,
Evan

[Dan Case LR]

Dan,
Did you end up implementing your design? Anything you'd change?

Thanks,
Evan

Sadly, I have not yet built this. I came very close. VERY close.

Fortunately, just before I started ripping sheet goods I noticed that portions of the top and one side of the proposed cabinet would fall right in the middle of the mechanics of my end vise. Duh.

I'd still like to build this, and I hope to do so in time. The project has attempted to negotiate with my lathe for a share of my attention, but the lathe keeps winning. :)

D.