Maybe a dumb questions? Engineering vs pure mass for workbench (Paulk vs Roubo)

[Matt Lau]

Dear fellow Neanders,

This may be a dumb question, but it won't be my first. :D

Over the past few years, I had to be pretty much a nomad (due to hunting for work, relocating, etc).
While I longed for a Roubo or Nicholson to work off of, I simply didn't have the space or capability to get/make/carry the material in my trusty Corolla.

After 3 failed attempts to make a folding underhill workbench (first attempt: beetle infestated wood from craigslist; second attempt: beetle infested wood from BORG; third attempt: beetle infested wood from a reputable lumberyard), I finally bought a Blum workbench (which works pretty good). It has minimal racking, much less wobble than any Sjoberg, and is relatively light.

More recently, I've been messing around with a japanese workbench (not done yet) on sawhorses based on Stan's suggestion (check post on beach woodworking, beer, and tacos). I've found it to be remarkably capable, nonfussy, and sorta fun (like a lowtech version of a Paulk bench).


Now here's my question: How much is it mass vs resistence/stiffness/lateral support a key variable in workbench design?


I have a 2"x18"x70" thick maple butcherblock that's been air-drying for at least 40 years.
It's the perfect size for a workbench (I focus on mainly guitars).
Any thoughts on this?

I'm tempted to splay the legs outwards a bit like a Moravian bench, or just use a quickly screwed together 2x4 base. Ideally, I'd like to stick my shopvac + dust deputy underneath it.

[Karl Andersson]

Hi Matt,
I built a Scandinavian-style bench out of doug fir several years ago, and it's fairly light (probably under 200 lbs). It gets its lateral stability from the left-side trestle being about 3' wide (the main bench is about 18" wide), and from having softwood feet on a rough chip-board floor. I meant to put a shelf on it that I could load with heavy tools, but it really hasn't been needed. In my experience, you just have to use some extra thought about what you're doing and a lighter bench works just fine. Its primary job is workholding, you just have to take some responsibility for how you apply force and plan a little.

The only time my bench moves a little is if I get sloppy and push too hard while ripping a board held vertically in the shoulder vise. Allowing the saw to do the cutting solves that problem.

Mortising and endgrain chisel work just need stiffness, and your block sounds like it would have plenty. For planning, you might want a little more base width, but I'd only do it in one direction (i.e. plumb legs in the front, angled in the back) so you're not tripping over the legs. Maybe I'm just clumsy, but the thought of working around 4 canted legs sounds like aggravation to me. You might consider knockdown trestles instead of mortised legs - they can be extended to the rear also. If you think you'll have a problem with the bench skating away from you while planing cross-grain or sawing on the benchtop, you could put a stringer right at floor level that you can step on to help hold it still. Sharp tools and some finesse usually keep things from moving around with a lighter bench - and your butcher block sounds like it would outweigh mine by quite a few pounds.
Karl
342958

[Jason Dean]

ETA: Karl pretty much said it all already.

The mass of the bench (and friction between the feet of the bench and floor) needs to be great enough to oppose the pushing force you are applying to your plane otherwise you are going to be chasing the bench all over your shop.

The stiffer your bench is the more energy from your mallet blow will go into chopping your joinery and the less energy will be absorbed by the flexing/wracking of the bench resulting in more efficient cleaner joinery.

[glenn bradley]

I think the "innovative technology" benches are cool. For me however, in cars, stereos, bandsaws and workbenches nothing beats raw mass and horsepower. ;-)

[Patrick Chase]

I think the "innovative technology" benches are cool. For me however, in cars, stereos, bandsaws and workbenches nothing beats raw mass and horsepower. ;-)

Mass is king if you've got a fixed location for your big, heavy bench. Clever engineering come in handy when you're space-constrained or when you need to do work on site.

I'm pretty tightly space constrained and am in the early stages of building a torsion box benchtop (with "filled cells" for dog holes and vise) and accompanying sawbenches/legs. We'll see in short order how clever my engineering is (and I might even post pictures!). Designing to accommodate expansion of the solid (poplar) fill has actually been the most interesting part so far.

[Stanley Covington]

Now here's my question: How much is it mass vs resistence/stiffness/lateral support a key variable in workbench design?

I have a 2"x18"x70" thick maple butcherblock that's been air-drying for at least 40 years.
It's the perfect size for a workbench (I focus on mainly guitars).
Any thoughts on this?

I'm tempted to splay the legs outwards a bit like a Moravian bench, or just use a quickly screwed together 2x4 base. Ideally, I'd like to stick my shopvac + dust deputy underneath it.

Matt:

A bench that is useful for all hand woodworking operations needs to be stiff.

One important aspect of this is a stiff top, one that resists impact forces of hammering, chiseling, and sawing, thereby allowing those forces to be transmitted to the wood being worked instead of making the top deflect, vibrate, and bounce. Torsion box designs can easily produce the necessary strength and resistance to deflection, but they lack resistance to vibration of a solid thick top. Most lightweight benches fall short in this criteria, even though they look good on the computer screen and in promotional photos. I think your maple butcherblock will be adequate.

Another important criteria for a useful workbench is resistance to racking forces. Planes and saws put a lot of horizontal forces into the workbench and unavoidably make it rack to some degree or another. The longer the bench's legs, the greater the racking forces a given amount of horizontal force will produce. This racking matters because every minute movement of the benchtop in response to these forces equals wasted energy and potential decreases in accuracy. Accuracy suffers most when racking forces induce eccentric movement (rotation in the horizontal plane) of the benchtop and not just back/forth/right/left movement.

So how does one minimize racking movement?
(1) Minimize the length of the legs. This is the solution the traditional Japanese bench used while sitting on the floor employs.

(2) Add shear panels. Boards or plywood rigidly secured between the legs. This is one of the engineering solutions I believe you referred to, and is relatively modern. This method is what keeps most modern 2X4 wood structure buildings from falling over during high winds and earthquakes. It is the most cost-effective method of increasing resistance to racking. Don't forget that if one is to avoid eccentric displacement/movement, the shear panels must be installed uniformly at front back and sides. This is not always convenient. In a workbench, this method limits access to the space underneath, and gets in the way of one's knees.

(3) Add diagonal bracing between legs, or between top and legs. This is another engineering solution, but is by no means modern. This method can be especially lightweight, but if one is to avoid eccentric displacement/movement, the bracing needs to be installed at front back and sides, just like shear panels. This is not always convenient, and has the same downsides as shear panels.

(4) Use moment-resistant joints between legs and top, and between legs and spreaders. This is the classical solution for workbenches. A moment-resistant joint resists racking forces because the joint itself is stiff and flexes very little. A through-tenon at a thick benchtop is a very reliable method of producing such a joint. Tenons at the end of deep spreaders between legs, either secured with glue/pins or bolts, are also a proven solution to racking forces that works very well. This method does not obstruct access to space underneath the workbench, nor does it get in the way of legs and knees. With some thought, a knock-down workbench can be made. This solution is easiest to accomplish with a thick top, and thick legs, and deep spreaders. I don't think great weight is an absolute necessity, but weight is natural consequence of making the joints effective.

BTW, the semi-dovetail tenon joint of the Roubo bench may look good, but from structural viewpoint, it is greatly inferior to a simple through-tenon.

The reason traditional workbench designs have endured is because they actually work in practice and not just in AutoCad.

Matt, you need a stiff, solid top. With some planning, and if you can accept some compromises, you can make legs and/or a base that are lightweight and effective. The screwed-together 2X4 base will work, but storage underneath will be difficult. I have made several of these over the years, but they were only temporary.

Splayed legs are nice, and can reduce the effects of racking forces to a degree, but are more difficult to make with precision. They will not compensate for a bouncy top.

If you are finally settled down, and are tired of the temporary halfway solutions, I recommend you develop some performance goals for your workbench, choose a classic design that is most likely to achieve those goals, adapt it to your needs (lots of planning and drawing are helpful, I promise), and do it right instead of over and over again.

Stan

[Curt Putnam]

Stan, I am of the opinion (based on zero research) that the semi-dovetail/tenon joint in a Roubo bench evolved because, with that arrangement, the leg vise bears on the leg and not the benchtop. The tenon portion serves to keep the bench from wiggling when planing and doing other such work. I suspect that the folks of old did not do intricate bench joinery for looks. JMO

[Patrick Chase]

A bench that is useful for all hand woodworking operations needs to be stiff.

One important aspect of this is a stiff top, one that resists impact forces of hammering, chiseling, and sawing, thereby allowing those forces to be transmitted to the wood being worked instead of making the top deflect, vibrate, and bounce. Torsion box designs can easily produce the necessary strength and resistance to deflection, but they lack resistance to vibration of a solid thick top.

As I said before, mass is desirable if you can dedicate the space.

With that said, if you've ever worked with honeycomb engineering materials you'll know that they can be made surprisingly damp and vibration/bounce resistant. I'm relying on a couple tricks to mitigate that:

1. I do much of my serious pounding in line with the dog holes, so I'm planning to fill the torsion box cells with solid wood (except for strain-relief slots to accommodate expansion) along that "track". That also makes the dog holes much more useful/effective.

2. In other parts of the box I'm planning to use thin (probably 1/8") diagonal cross-reinforcements in each cell, such that every point on the top surface is within 1" of an internal stringer, reducing any "trampoline effect".

I'm working on a smaller proof-of-concept box right now to test those out. You're absolutely right about racking - I'm assuming I'll need diagonal anti-rack members as you describe.

[Pat Barry]

As I said before, mass is desirable if you can dedicate the space.

With that said, if you've ever worked with honeycomb engineering materials you'll know that they can be made surprisingly damp and vibration/bounce resistant. I'm relying on a couple tricks to mitigate that:

1. I do much of my serious pounding in line with the dog holes, so I'm planning to fill the torsion box cells with solid wood (except for strain-relief slots to accommodate expansion) along that "track". That also makes the dog holes much more useful/effective.

2. In other parts of the box I'm planning to use thin (probably 1/8") diagonal cross-reinforcements in each cell, such that every point on the top surface is within 1" of an internal stringer, reducing any "trampoline effect".

I'm working on a smaller proof-of-concept box right now to test those out. You're absolutely right about racking - I'm assuming I'll need diagonal anti-rack members as you describe.
Interesting. I hope you can post a few pictures of the concept to help visualize it.

[Stew Denton]

Stanley,

I appreciate your post a great deal. I hope to build a bench someday, but it will be after I build a shop (hopefully). I have also thought a lot, as have lots of other folks here, on what sort of bench to build. Your post explains a lot as to the "why" of traditional designs, and as such will certainly have an impact on what I may eventually build.

Again, thanks for the very insightful post.

Stew

[Derek Cohen]

Matt, I have used two types of benches (not including the doors over trestles). The one I have at present is a really heavy Roubo style. It is thick and stiff, and it stays put when I work on it. It is stationed about 12" from a rear wall, but I can move it back a little (with some effort) if needed.

My previous bench was used for about 20 years and was lightly built in hardwood. It was stiff, but was capable of racking. However, it was bolted to the rear wall (just an L bracket at either end), and this caused it to be rock solid. Really solid.

The point is, light is OK as long as you can lock it down.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stanley Covington]

Stan, I am of the opinion (based on zero research) that the semi-dovetail/tenon joint in a Roubo bench evolved because, with that arrangement, the leg vise bears on the leg and not the benchtop. The tenon portion serves to keep the bench from wiggling when planing and doing other such work. I suspect that the folks of old did not do intricate bench joinery for looks. JMO

I understand why you feel that way, Curt.

Let's analyze the Roubo leg design using as few engineering terms as possible and without any of the mandatory diagrams.

In a workbench that employs a leg vise, a twin tenon is an excellent, time-proven way to deal with the torsion forces that the leg vise applies to leg and joint. The Roubo design has this feature. Check. Is it necessary for all four legs? No. The other 3 legs could be made with more efficient joints.

Looking a little closer at the twin tenon concept, we notice that the Roubo joint is not exactly a twin tenon, but rather a rectangular tenon combined with a dovetail tenon. Making a dovetail tenon is more work. Does replacing one of the twin tenons with a dovetail tenon add strength to the joint? No, it does not. The dovetail tenon is strictly decorative.

Notice that the dovetail tenon is not entirely housed, but is exposed at the benchtop's edge. Does this strengthen the joint? No, clearly it weakens it. Does it make the benchtop's edge, which is the most-used and abused portion of the workbench stronger? No, clearly it doesn't. Rather it weakens it.

So looking at the dovetail tenon as a part of the leg joint, we can conclude that, while decorative, it takes more time and skill to fabricate, and in return for that effort, the workbench is made weaker. Whether or not this weakness is critical or not is another matter, but I suggest you refer to Mr. Schwarz's account of breaking off a part of his workbench top adjacent this dovetail tenon.

You mentioned the benefit of having the leg exposed at the vise jaws. This looks like a positive thing at first, but a close look reveals that this detail is helpful only when the workpiece being clamped in the vise is either centered on the exposed dovetail tenon, or spans the exposed dovetail tenon and bears equally on both edges of the benchtop to the left and right of the exposed dovetail tenon. A less-than-ideal situation arises when a narrow piece of wood is clamped at the edge of the vise's jaw while bearing only on the benchtop edge, and is not bearing on the face of the exposed dovetail tenon. The resulting off-center force will tend to cause the angled faces of the dovetail tenon to spread out and break off the weakened edge of the benchtop. Clearly, the exposed dovetail tenon at the vise is not an improvement over a plain double tenon housed entirely in the benchtop, and with the vise jaws bearing on a continuous uninterrupted benchtop edge.

Another problem arises when the width/thickness of the leg/tenon shrink/expand due to water content change (humidity), and these dimensional changes do not closely match those of the benchtop. These dimensional changes may be identical, but that is unlikely. If not identical, a step will develop at the benchtop's edge within the vise's jaws. This is not good. But if the benchtop edge is left continuous instead of having an exposed mortise cut into it, no problem.

So while most people will agree that the Roubo leg joint detail with its exposed dovetail tenon is interesting and quite craftsman-like, a simple analysis shows that it is not a functional improvement over a conventional housed twin tenon joint.

Those considering using the Roubo detail will need to decide for themselves whether or not the enhanced appearance and novelty are worth the increased time, effort, risk, and possibly reduced strength and functionality inherent in the design.

Nothing at all wrong with making functional tradeoffs in the name of tradition and fashion IMO. We all do similar things all the time. For example, I wear a necktie more than I like, and while neckties are both traditional and fashionable, they are uncomfortable and have NO functional value.

Stan

[Stanley Covington]

As I said before, mass is desirable if you can dedicate the space.

With that said, if you've ever worked with honeycomb engineering materials you'll know that they can be made surprisingly damp and vibration/bounce resistant. I'm relying on a couple tricks to mitigate that:

1. I do much of my serious pounding in line with the dog holes, so I'm planning to fill the torsion box cells with solid wood (except for strain-relief slots to accommodate expansion) along that "track". That also makes the dog holes much more useful/effective.

2. In other parts of the box I'm planning to use thin (probably 1/8") diagonal cross-reinforcements in each cell, such that every point on the top surface is within 1" of an internal stringer, reducing any "trampoline effect".

I'm working on a smaller proof-of-concept box right now to test those out. You're absolutely right about racking - I'm assuming I'll need diagonal anti-rack members as you describe.

Please do a write-up for us. It would be invaluable.

Stan

[James W Glenn]

As a child I occasionally heard my father muttering about new lightweight steamrollers....

[Kees Heiden]

My bench certainly isn't heavyweight. It's made of fir/spruce in the Roubo kind of model. Top is just shy of 4" and the legs are similar. It totally suits my needs, it isn't bolted to the wall, but leans against it which helps with sawing. It sure doesn't move when planing, either it doesn't groan when chiseling.

So, I guess, it doesn't need to be a 10-tonner.

[Curt Putnam]

Stan, thanks for that excellent analysis although I don't buy it entirely. For example, how often does one load in material that clearly off-center so as to weaken the joint? Not arguing, just raising an eyebrow. Ok. not wanting to beat an irrelevant baby, what is your opinion of: a split top bench (don't argue about the split top) with leg vise on left (I'm a righty) with one housed tenon (square, round, or rectangular) and an exposed rectangular chunk of leg. Since it is a split top the housed tenon would have to be part of the transverse bearer upon which the top sits.

I like the exposed tenon idea because less than perfectly executed mortises and/or their tenons would probably result in a weaker bench than my "proposal" (I'm quite sure that no one has done a formal study of the various loadings and likelihoods of resisting damage.) Twin tenons at the other corners make sense although a 1" square spline across the transverse bearer would totally stop movement in the long dimension and a couple wedges would stop it the other way. I might even have to spring for the Benchcrafted plans to see how they do it.

[Stanley Covington]

Stan, thanks for that excellent analysis although I don't buy it entirely. For example, how often does one load in material that clearly off-center so as to weaken the joint? Not arguing, just raising an eyebrow. Ok. not wanting to beat an irrelevant baby, what is your opinion of: a split top bench (don't argue about the split top) with leg vise on left (I'm a righty) with one housed tenon (square, round, or rectangular) and an exposed rectangular chunk of leg. Since it is a split top the housed tenon would have to be part of the transverse bearer upon which the top sits.

I like the exposed tenon idea because less than perfectly executed mortises and/or their tenons would probably result in a weaker bench than my "proposal" (I'm quite sure that no one has done a formal study of the various loadings and likelihoods of resisting damage.) Twin tenons at the other corners make sense although a 1" square spline across the transverse bearer would totally stop movement in the long dimension and a couple wedges would stop it the other way. I might even have to spring for the Benchcrafted plans to see how they do it.

Curt:

I clamp material off-center in my leg vise frequently. For instance, when cutting a tenon at the end of a stick, the leg vise screw gets in the way of clamping the stick both plumb and centered. Or, when cutting dovetails in a drawer side, the screw gets in the way again, and clamping it off-center is the only option. Same situation occurs when using the leg vise to hold a wide board for edge planing.

Any of these scenarios will cause eccentric loading at the vise. If the stick, for instance is clamped on the right side of the vise jaws, it may bear only on the edge of the benchtop and not on the exposed dovetail tenon. The force of the screw will cause a reaction force to the right of the screw, which will cause the screw to bend. This is obvious. So what does that bending force do to the the leg? And what resists that bending force, Curt? Obviously, it is the wood between the dovetail tenon and the vise jaw combined with the wood between the rectangular tenon and the dovetail tenon that must resist the tendency of this force to twist and tear the leg through the edge of the benchtop. A continuous edge at the benchtop is obviously stronger than one severed to accommodate a decorative dovetail tenon.

Of course, so long as one does not get carried away with the torque applied to the vise screw, and the benchtop's edge is strong, straight-grained, and without much runout, the rearward tenon will probably be strong enough to resist these forces without popping off the left side of the benchtop edge. But the simple fact is that the exposed dovetail tenon, especially at the vise, is not an improvement, but a decoration.

I understand why the exposed tenon at the vise face is attractive. I felt the same way until I sat down and designed my last workbench with my first leg vise and looked at the forces in play. My reading of other's experiences led me to realize the actual danger of popping off the benchtop's edge. The problems with the "steps" at the benchtop's edge, and the difficulties they cause with clamping, are both obvious and something others have warned me of. An exposed tenon is not an improvement IMO.

Sorry, but I don't follow how you plan to use splines and wedges. Nor do I understand your proposed design. By "transverse bearer" do you mean the spreader, or beam, rigidly connecting front and back legs?

If so, and assuming the tenons would penetrate completely through the benchtop, the mortise and tenon joints would be located below the split bench, and would not be cut into the tenons penetrating the benchtop. This will weaken the leg's tenons a bit, but if you size your spreader tenons right, and the legs are made of a strong wood with straight grain and are big enough, it should not be a problem.

I am not fond of split tops. They handicap a workbench used to plane wide panels. Fine for working narrow pieces of wood, I grant you. In any case, I will defer a discussion of the structural details to those that have made and used them.

Do you plan to glue the leg tenons to the benchtop, or leave them dry so they can be disassembled for moving?

Stan

[Matt Lau]

Thanks for the tips...particularly, thanks Stan!

This post is particularly to avoid doing things in a half-way, haphazard manner.
My particular challenges will include:
1. Must not move when being used--no racking or twisting during use.
2. Must be moveable-- my workshop/garage is pretty small. It'll be helpful to move this workbench down a bit
Sometime down the road, I may want to make some cabinets.
3. Must have a vise-- I've tried going viseless ala crochet, but found a vise to be immensely helpful for small parts (like neck billet, bridge work, etc).
Thankfully, I have an old Record Quick release that I can bolt to the future bench.
(as in many things, you were right stan)
4. Hopefully not ugly? :)


Anyways, I'd love to run some more ideas past you'all:
1. Use the laminate maple for the top. Have a few dog holes
2. Have some beefy truss braces to avoid racking
3. Have a big piece of plywood on the floor with a mortise to set the legs into.
4. Maybe some wheels that flip under bench, ala Schwartz http://www.popularwoodworking.com/workbenches/schwarz-workbenches/the-easiest-way-to-make-your-bench-mobile

Anyways, I've been thinking a lot about stuff like dust collection, tooling, etc.
I'd like to pattern my workshop some operatory rooms that I've seen in the past:
1. most crap easy to reach, but out of the way..
2. The area clean, sterile, uncluttered.
3. Tools readily organized for quick deployment.
4. Bigger, heavier tools moved out of the way until used: bandsaw, planer, table saw, etc.
5. The workbench being the "operating table" with an auxiliary workbench for tool holding.

It probably won't be the best place for a few dudes to pull out a beer, but it'll allow work to be done in a efficient, safe, comfortable manner.
(Since alcohol + sharps + untrained dudes = bad idea, that might not be a bad thing.)

[Curt Putnam]

Stan, once again, a hearty thank you!

Transverse bearer = 4 x 4 or 4 x 6 connecting two legs (same end) at the top and upon which the 4" top rests. A spline could rest in dados in the transverse beam and the top. A couple wedges on either side of the spline would stop all movement except in the up direction. That's about as far as I've gone in thinking about connections.

I think I need to order Bencrafted's plans before I go much further. I do have the wood. Several hundred feet of curly soft maple that I got at a killer price.

I am well aware that benches get built a certain way because that way has worked well over the centuries. What the split top will do me: Each 12" half will something I can handle by myself. Each half will fit through my planer if need be. The space in the middle gives my saw a place to go (too arthritic to use a saw bench) Then there is tool storage and a planning stop. Since it will be a walkaround bench, on Rockler's bench casters, I can use each half for different projects or different phases of the same project.

Matt, my apologies for the detour I've caused in this thread.

Thanks, Curt

[Stanley Covington]

Stan, once again, a hearty thank you!

Transverse bearer = 4 x 4 or 4 x 6 connecting two legs (same end) at the top and upon which the 4" top rests. A spline could rest in dados in the transverse beam and the top. A couple wedges on either side of the spline would stop all movement except in the up direction. That's about as far as I've gone in thinking about connections.

I think I need to order Bencrafted's plans before I go much further. I do have the wood. Several hundred feet of curly soft maple that I got at a killer price.

I am well aware that benches get built a certain way because that way has worked well over the centuries. What the split top will do me: Each 12" half will something I can handle by myself. Each half will fit through my planer if need be. The space in the middle gives my saw a place to go (too arthritic to use a saw bench) Then there is tool storage and a planning stop. Since it will be a walkaround bench, on Rockler's bench casters, I can use each half for different projects or different phases of the same project.

Matt, my apologies for the detour I've caused in this thread.

Thanks, Curt

Thanks for the clarification, Curt.

Your reasons for the split top are indeed sound.

Stan

[Curt Putnam]

Reviewed what I could on Benchcrafted's site. Ordered plans. Appears as though BC uses a pair of square, rectangular tenons off the leg. Have to read the plans but it seems as though their transverse bearer is not as major a player as I'd envisioned. Once again, I want to thank you for your excellent exposition of the leg vise / leg /top connection. I think you may have saved me from a major faux paux. Take care. :)

[David Dalzell]

I don't know how common this is, but I have a decent/heavy workbench that I have augmented with 4 ea 25 lb bags of #8 lead shot. I put one bag in each corner of the lower support members. So I have added 100 lbs to the bench weight; this takes up no additional storage room and does not interfere with any work/storage that I need. This does wonders for stability and eliminates movement when planing or doing any other hand work.

[john zulu]

I am going to receive a lot of hate mentioning this idea..... Here goes.

Top solid hardwood. 3" to 4" thickness.
Legs welded metal...... 1/4 thickness tubing. Weight can be increased by placing sand into the tubes.

I would build this if one intends to change the bench over time..... But in pure fairness, I would rather build a solid roubo bench any day. Sourcing material for that bench can be difficult as
one needs to hunt proper wood stock for it.

[peter Joseph]

I think a standard Roubo fits all of your requirements. I have a massive one in my 9 x 10 ft shop that sits against the wall. A local sawyer advertised KD 12/4 white oak for 3$/bf at the time I was drawing up the plans so that is what it is made of. The top is 28" by 7ft, 4.5 inches thick. Legs are 6x6. Shop floor is oak so I can slide it if I need to but the need seems to arise very sparingly.
PJS

[Scott DelPorte]

Hi Matt,
Let me suggest that if you primarily are going to build instruments, that your needs may be slightly different than those of someone primarily working on furniture. My experience is with acoustic guitars, so it may be different for solid body guitars, but most of the guys I know aren't using a typical woodworking bench with leg or tail vises etc. as their primary work surface. For instance much of the planing you do on an acoustic guitar involves boards that are 20 to 30 inches long, but really thin (<1/8" thick), and have to be clamped to a flat surface rather than be held in a vise. And the work you do in a vise often involves smaller or irregularly shaped pieces that dont always fit well in a regular woodworking bench vise. I ended up with a large (60x60) laminated maple top mounted on a storage cabinet with generous overhangs all around the top. There is one regular woodworking vise mounted on one of the four corners. I have large overhangs to make it easy to clamp stuff to the bench top, and that is the primary way I hold wood for planing. I also use a parrot vise mounted on surface that is bolted to the wall for irregular or small parts. My main bench is heavy enough that it doesn't move, but I have seen people use lighter tables successfully for planing by connecting one side to a wall, and relying on the wall to keep the top from moving. It works well, but makes it more difficult to move your bench around.

If I had your bench top, and wanted to use it as my main bench for guitar building, I might consider mounting it on legs so I could still clamp to as much of the underside as possible, and fix one of the smaller sides to the wall so I could plane toward the wall without it moving around. I would probably try to figure out a way to mount a regular woodworking vise to it while leaving plenty of room to clamp things to the underside of the top.

Thats just my suggestions. Lots of more experienced people on the forum. You can also look around at the pictures of guitar builders workshops on their websites and get some other ideas. I hope this is helpful.
Thanks
Scott

[Matt Lau]

Scott,

Thanks for the post! You nailed it. I think it's sort of hard for non-luthiers to understand the more delicate, fragile nature of the craft of acoustic guitars.
In terms of your workbench, a few questions:
1. Why 60" x 60"? I have short stubby arms, so I have a hard time reaching past 22"
2. Ever try holdfasts? I became a convert after getting a pair of Grammercy's on a blum bench.
3. If you get a chance, please look at kiyond's videos on youtube. He's a Japanese luthier with a rather different approach than the western workbench.
Granted, it seems like a specialized planing beam on a traditional workbench. https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+workbench+luthier&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu3IOwqv7OAhVH52MKHcCFA90QsAQIHQ&biw=1907&bih=892&dpr=0.9#tbm=isch&q=japanese+workbench+kiyond&imgrc=k1jLU27FbkJZjM%3A

[Scott DelPorte]

Hi Matt
I watched the video, and he uses his workbench in much the same manner as you could do with your bench top. He mounts it to a regular workbench so he can clamp underneath it, and you could do the same (if you had a bench) or just fix one end to a wall. He uses a bench stop thats built into the top sort of like bench dogs, and then clamps the really thin stuff. On my bench, I will clamp thin scrap boards to the top, and use them in a similar manner to the stops he uses. A wide board used as a bench dog seems to support the work better for me. That works pretty well for me for things like fingerboards or bridge blanks. I know one guy who has built hundreds of instruments, who keeps a 1/8 inch aluminum plate that he clamps to his top to use as bench stops for thin stock. And then with really thin parts like tops/backs/sides, I clamp one end with 2 big C clamps, and have to flip the board around and measure with calipers a lot to get an even thickness. If you were clever with hole placement, I imagine you could do the same with holdfasts, but I haven't tried it. One thing worth noting is you really need a good deal of clamping pressure to hold the wood for planing. You may want to plane in the direction of the grain, and also scrub across the grain, so it has to be held tight enough to resist forces in both directions and not crush the wood. Finally, for planing tiny parts like saddles and nuts or rosette tiles, I have specialized jigs that get clamped in the vise. All the tiny pieces of the rosette in my profile picture were shaped and held in little jigs and dimensioned with a block plane.

The 60X60 is a fairly new bench (about 3 years old) for me, and may have been in response to having worked so long on tiny cramped benches. I like the large surface area, because there is enough room to leave something in the assembly stage while working on parts, and I like the large overhangs because I rely on clamping to the underside so much. Some people have a different assembly table and a workbench, I sort of have it combined. In use, I never reach across it, its more like I am working on a few different things along the four sides of it. It takes up a good deal of real estate in the shop, but it suits how I work. There are a bunch of other guitar builders here too that might have other good suggestions for you. Lots of different ways to skin the cat, and if you build for a long time you will probably adapt your setup a few times along the way to suit how you like to work.
Thanks
Scott

[Matt Lau]

Thanks!

I'm assuming that you're a pretty tall/big dude.
Ironically, all the guitar builders around my area use a thickness sander (Michi Matsuda, Ervin Somogyi, Lewis Santer, Randy Angella, Leo Beundia).
They just look at me funny when I mention that I just want to use planes!

Anyways, I'm still in my prepubescent phase as a neander.
There's always something new that seems to be less messy, less fussy, more "right" that I've found people have done before!

Mind posting a picture of your workbench/fixtures sometime?

On the planing front, I started with Grizzly indian planes (horrible-> LV bevel up Jack, small smoother (excellent) --> Mujingfang (rough, but tune up nice and take a ton of abuse --> Japanese (still need to tune up other planes, really appreciate the attention to detail). Do you have a particular favorite? I know a guy in SF that almost does everything with one homemade Krenov frankenplane with two slots for his blade--one place for thicknessing, one place for dimensioning the fretboard, one place for scraping, one place for jointing...all in one plane.

[Megan Fitzpatrick]

Just a note on the breakage on Chris' cherry Roubo...that slab glue-up was _really_ punky and had a split there (filled with black epoxy). His original SYP one and the oak one he uses now, and my eastern white pine Roubo, remain solid as a rock (OK...my EWP one is a quite light-weight rock; I pile heavy stuff on its shelf to keep it from walking across the floor when I use a jack plane).

[Scott DelPorte]

After building for many years using just hand tools, I spoiled myself and got a drum sander for thicknessing. It is quicker, but by no means necessary, especially when you are starting out. I save a couple hours per guitar, but I dont make nearly enough guitars to justify saying I need it. Its more of a luxury for a hobbyist like myself. Some of the luthiers you mention are really well known professionals who can probably more easily justify the cost. I usually taper parts of the soundboard a little, so I have to plane it by hand anyway after I get it close with the sander. I have also used a drill press "safety" planer to hog off wood before final thicknessing with a hand plane as a way to save time. I might take a board from 1/4 inch to 1/8 inch and do the rest with hand tools. It saves a little time, but I have never felt great around those "safety" planers.

For guitar making, I do 90% of the planing with a LN 4.5 smoother and a LV low angle block plane. I have other planes that I use for certain things, but for the most part I could get by with just those two. Key thing is get good at sharpening, and spend time setting up your planes well. One builder I know does pretty much everything with an old #4 Stanley and a low angle block plane, but his old plane is well set up and he keeps the iron sharp. I always end up needing a low angle block plane for end grain, otherwise I could probably do it all the planing a smoother. You really dont need a lot of tools to build guitars other than lots of clamps. There a hundreds of specialty tools in the StewMac catalog, and it sort of gives a false sense that you need lots of special tools for every procedure. Its not really true, and it sometimes add confusion. Here is a picture of my bench with a bunch of walnut on it that is now in the shape of a table. You can sort of see the size of the overhang on it. A lot of professional luthiers I know also will give classes in guitar building. If you have the funds for that, its a good way to get started.

343721