Workbench height and width

[Gene Pavlovsky]

There are already some discussions on this topic, but I still didn't figure what to make of them.

I'm finishing Christopher Schwarz's book on Workbenches, and planning to build a Roubo workbench - my first bench.

I'm 6' 3" (well, 190 cm since I live in Europe), and mostly use hand tools (my workshop is a 10'x10' cellar also used to store various house stuff, my only machines are: bench grinder, drill press, small metalworking lathe). I use wooden hand planes.
According to Schwarz's book (pinkie rule), my workbench height would be around 34", and maybe 3" less because of wooden planes.
On the other hand, Paul Sellers recommends 38" for an average person, for a 6' 4" guy they built a 44" workbench. He also says it doesn't matter if metal or wooden planes are being used.
Jim Tolpin suggests using 4 hand-spans for the height (40" in my case), which mostly corresponds with Paul Sellers' advice.
At the moment I'm thinking about going for 40". Although the logic of being able to cut the legs down later escapes me a bit... If the legs are cut down, the stretchers are going to become lower, leaving no space for my feet. Or should I plan for this possibility and make the stretchers are bit higher?

As for workbench width, Schwarz suggests 24" or even a bit smaller, but Jim suggests 3 hand-spans (30" in my case). I understand this is based on reach. Is there a benefit to have a wider bench, though? According to Schwarz, 24" is wide enough for any work, anyway.

For the length, due to my space limitations, I will have to settle for 5', which I understand is shorter than what is normally mentioned as the minimum length (6-8').

Thanks in advance for nice advice :)

[justin sherriff]

I have a 5' long 24" wide bench in about the same size shop. The 5' length has not been a problem for me I could go to 4 1/2 and be ok most the time. But the 24" when I use the bench for glue ups I could use a bit more with. Most my of problems are with the small size of the shop when working on bigger builds I have to much stuff in the room. My next bench will be 5' long and wider than 24" maybe 28".

[mike stenson]

I am about your height (192). FWIW, my current bench is 35 5/8" and this is a comfortable enough planing height for me. It's not comfortable for close work, but the height is good to sit and work. My top is 24" x 65(ish)" that I built for a smaller shop. My next bench will be closer to 30" wide, since I can easily reach.

[Josh Robinson]

I’m 6’4” and built my bench 41 x 65 x 24 (including the tool well) thinking I could cut the legs if I wanted. I have a counter behind the bench that is 36” which I used to build the bench but I still opted for the taller bench height. I’d make it 40 if I had it to do over.

[Nathan Johnson]

My bench is 35.5H x 66L x 26.5W.

I'm 6' 1" with long arms. Next bench will be 2 or 3 inches higher. Same length and depth.

[Andrew Seemann]

It will depend on your preferred working style as well as your height, arm length, torso type, and other things. You probably won't know what height you really wanted it to be until after you have used it for a while. My first hand tool bench was a Frid style Scandinavian type, and I think I built it to the plan Frid provided. It turned out to be too high for me, despite the fact that I am at least a few inches taller than Frid. I probably have longer arms though. The second one I built about an inch and a half shorter, and it works much better.

Some folks apparently have a planing and chiseling technique different than me because they prefer workbenches far taller than I could ever use, even adjusting for my height. If it works for them, great.

I'd say if possible, allow for adjusting the height of the bench after it is completed either by having legs that can be taken down a couple inches or have blocks added under them.

[Jim Matthews]

If you're mostly planing, belt height is about right. If you're chopping and sawing more, higher is better.

I like to cut boards at roughly elbow height.
Easier to see and handle, there.

[lowell holmes]

Standing at the bench, the bench should be knuckles high.

[Derek Cohen]

There are already some discussions on this topic, but I still didn't figure what to make of them.

I'm finishing Christopher Schwarz's book on Workbenches, and planning to build a Roubo workbench - my first bench.

I'm 6' 3" (well, 190 cm since I live in Europe), and mostly use hand tools (my workshop is a 10'x10' cellar also used to store various house stuff, my only machines are: bench grinder, drill press, small metalworking lathe). I use wooden hand planes.
According to Schwarz's book (pinkie rule), my workbench height would be around 34", and maybe 3" less because of wooden planes.
On the other hand, Paul Sellers recommends 38" for an average person, for a 6' 4" guy they built a 44" workbench. He also says it doesn't matter if metal or wooden planes are being used.
Jim Tolpin suggests using 4 hand-spans for the height (40" in my case), which mostly corresponds with Paul Sellers' advice.
At the moment I'm thinking about going for 40". Although the logic of being able to cut the legs down later escapes me a bit... If the legs are cut down, the stretchers are going to become lower, leaving no space for my feet. Or should I plan for this possibility and make the stretchers are bit higher?

As for workbench width, Schwarz suggests 24" or even a bit smaller, but Jim suggests 3 hand-spans (30" in my case). I understand this is based on reach. Is there a benefit to have a wider bench, though? According to Schwarz, 24" is wide enough for any work, anyway.

For the length, due to my space limitations, I will have to settle for 5', which I understand is shorter than what is normally mentioned as the minimum length (6-8').

Thanks in advance for nice advice :)

Hi Gene

Christopher Schwarz has done a lot of good for those with interests in woodworking, including raising awareness about work benches. However his drive for a low bench, in his book, is misguided. There are so many variables to take into account in deciding the height of a bench, and his “pinky” test is over simplistic. I followed this as well when I built my current bench 7 years ago, and have since raised it 100mm (4”).

I am 178cm, and numbers for me will mean something different for you. Choose a height for the bench that suits the majority of the work you will do there. If this is hand planing, then decide what a comfortable height is for you. Keep in mind that one also should bend the knees when moving forward, and this drops the height a little, but essentially comfortable is when you can hold the handle of a plane with your fore arm parallel to the bench top.

One of the bench fixtures that Chris wrote about and popularised, the Moxon dovetail vise, has indeed been a game changer. This enables work to be raised up higher for sawing and chiseling than a face vise would otherwise permit. This is one way to increase the bench height (and demonstrates that one side does not fit all). Another is a bench-on-a-bench (for detail work).

The ideal width for my bench is 22”, however this suits me as I work from one side only and can reach across it. You will have longer arms, and may choose to work from both sides.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[chris carter]

I’m 6’ 6” and my bench is 42-1/4 tall and 23-1/2 wide. The new bench I’m building will be 42-1/2 tall and 26 inches wide. My arms are long enough that I can easily handle a 26 inch wide bench and I’ve had a few times where I wished I’d had an extra inch or two on my current bench. I mostly use wooden planes that are a couple inches taller than metal ones.

All these knuckle/wrist/thumb/belt guidelines only work within a relatively narrow height range. The more important factor is how much stress your spine and back muscles are under. There’s a massive difference between someone 5’10” bending over at a 45 degree angle and a 6’6” person bending over at the same 45 degree angle.

I would suggest stacking some lumber on your kitchen table, take the iron out of your plane, and see what height works best. Dome some imaginary mortises, some sawing, etc. When in doubt, leave some extra length on the legs below the stretchers. It’s easier to make a bench shorter than it is to make it taller.

[Derek Cohen]

.....
All these knuckle/wrist/thumb/belt guidelines only work within a relatively narrow height range. The more important factor is how much stress your spine and back muscles are under. There’s a massive difference between someone 5’10” bending over at a 45 degree angle and a 6’6” person bending over at the same 45 degree angle.

I would suggest stacking some lumber on your kitchen table, take the iron out of your plane, and see what height works best. Dome some imaginary mortises, some sawing, etc. When in doubt, leave some extra length on the legs below the stretchers. It’s easier to make a bench shorter than it is to make it taller.

Chris, I cannot see why there should be different strains on the body at different heights, given that the bend is the same in each case. It is all relative (although not everyone has the same length arms/legs/body at the same height).

Your suggestion of standing on blocks at a table of known height to experiment with various tasks is exactly what I did in my own case.

I mentioned earlier my rule of a parallel forearm for planing. The details are here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charles Guest]

If your intention is to build furniture and your bench has to do double duty as an assembly table, you can throw width rules out the window, and perhaps even the height rules to some extent or make the bench adjustable for height. Lots of ingenious devices and solutions for this out there.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Chris, I cannot see why there should be different strains on the body at different heights, given that the bend is the same in each case. It is all relative (although not everyone has the same length arms/legs/body at the same height).


Hi Derek,

Without getting too much into the math, if everything is indeed proportional, the stress on the lower back should be a little worse than proportional to height squared.

Best regards,
Michael Bulatowicz

[Oskar Sedell]

Hi Gene,

I read that same book and thought long about what dimensions I should use for my Roubo. Now I cant remember what I chose, but I´ll try measure my bench. I´m almost as long as you (192 cm). I do remember that I chose to build a bench that is good for planing, that is, I went on the low side for my length. For sawing joinery and detail work I have to either bend over, prop the work up or sit down. A moxon or bench-on-bench might be in the future for such work.

I use wooden handplanes as well, and do all dimensioning by hand.

[Phil Mueller]

I agree with Derek that CS’s guidelines are a bit too short. I’m 5’8” and built my bench to 34” tall. I’m planning to add about 3” to the height. But everybody’s body proportions are different, so I find the rule of thumb height recommendations are just a good starting point.

I find though, that I prefer a bit of a downward slope to my forearm to the plane tote. Plane totes lean down toward the iron and a slight angle to the forearm matches that angle well.

[Brian Holcombe]

My logic in this respect is that when I’m pushing a plane I want my wrist to be straight. This is affected by workbench height, work piece height and plane height.

[fritz eng]

I am 6'-2" and my bench is 34 1/2". when determining the height of my bench, my thought was to shim UP (instead of cut down) so that I wouldn't have to disassemble the bench to remove material. I built an auxiliary mini-bench about 6" high to use when added height is needed for cutting dovetails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjqWvpdNbms

[Steve Voigt]

My logic in this respect is that when I’m pushing a plane I want my wrist to be straight. This is affected by workbench height, work piece height and plane height.


Very true Brian, though I would stress that (as you imply) this is relative to normal planing position, i.e. leaning forward, legs bent and spread apart. Anyone assessing wrist position from a normal standing posture will be misled by several inches.
I notice that what the advocates of a tall bench have in common is that they mostly don't dimension stock by hand. For example Derek uses a combo machine and Sellers doesn't use any plane longer than a 4 or 5 because he claims (I am not making this up) that wood comes parallel and "square" from the lumberyard (https://paulsellers.com/2013/07/15446/).
Of course there is nothing wrong with using machines but it sounds like the OP is dimensioning stock by hand, and doing that on a tall bench will be fatiguing.
To the OP, I suggest you use a kitchen counter and some boards to mock up a surface that's 1"-2" higher than your proposed bench height (to account for stock thickness). Place your biggest wooden plane on top and assume a proper planing posture, which means leaning into the work, using your weight and legs, not your upper body, to propel yourself forward. I suspect that if you do this on a 40" surface, your elbow will be tucked up under your arm like a bird's wing, which is not a position you'd want to plane from.
There are lots of ways to raise the work up for daintier tasks like sawing dovetails, but if your bench is too high for planing, you're stuck with it, unless you build a planing beam or saw the legs off your bench.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Lots of good advice in this thread.

My current bench (the Nicholson design by Mike Siemsen) is shorter, narrower, and longer than what I started with. All in my view are improvements.

[William Fretwell]

Gene, I am 6’ 1” (used to be a bit taller), my bench is 38” tall. For you 40” sounds right. Low benches give you back ache and it’s harder to see what you are doing, especially dovetails.
As for width, my work surface is 22” deep, the back of the tool tray adds 7.5” to the available support. The width is plenty, I do have to reach a bit for the tool tray but that’s because it’s deep.
I have to chuckle a little as people reading that book often seem to make a Roubo bench afterwards. The smaller Tage Frid bench would seem to fit the space well and be much easier to move. Someone should ask Chris Swartz what height of coffee table he prefers the book to be displayed on!

[mike stenson]

I should have touched on this in my last post, but it's been a long weekend of dealing with rats.

My next bench will be a couple inches shorter, right now it's sized to my thumb joint (which is pretty much the old flat hand rule). It is 'comfortable enough' for planing, if I'm dimensioning I wish it was shorter (but it's passible, just less than ideal). As stated it'll be wider, but I'll have space all around it, and I can still easliy reach the width anyway. It'll also be longer. Since I have the space, I'm seriously considering making it 8', and without an end vise. I pretty much decided that I'll build a sharpening bench, that I will make taller as I find myself too hunched over. There are always trade offs.

This is like fitting a bicycle, general proportions and flexibility play into this. Making it completely unique per person.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Thank you everyone for your advice, and for sharing your own bench dimensions. The advice still a bit conflicting, but I think I'm getting a bit closer :)
I've tried taking my biggest plane (a 26" wooden jointer) and assuming positions similar to the photos in the article Derek had posted earlier, and also described in Steve's post.
The plane's bottom was 100 cm (39 3/8") off the ground. If I just stand upright with the plane in my hands and my forearm parallel to the ground, it would be a good 4" higher (~110 cm). That does suggest a 39-40" workbench height?

About the width (depth)... It was mentioned that the extra width will come in handy for assembly (I only have space for one bench so it has to multi-task). 30" wide shouldn't present problems with regards to reach. Would it have any other drawbacks?

Mike, good that you mentioned bicycles. I like mountain biking a lot and if I believe all the articles I've read, I should have a slightly bigger frame and much lower handlebar. However I hated riding a bike that was set up like this, and am enjoying a slightly smaller frame and a tall handlebar :) I am pretty flexible though, when it comes to yoga etc, so leaning down is not a problem for me. Good luck with the rats!

[Gene Pavlovsky]

I have to chuckle a little as people reading that book often seem to make a Roubo bench afterwards. The smaller Tage Frid bench would seem to fit the space well and be much easier to move. Someone should ask Chris Swartz what height of coffee table he prefers the book to be displayed on!

William, I had this thought actually. After perusing various forums I got an impression that a Roubo bench became some kind of "fad". After reading Schwarz's book, I found several other types of benches not mentioned in his book, and many of them look interesting. However, I often suffer from indecision, when I'm given too many choices. Sometimes I make a joke that in Soviet Russia (where I was born), life was much simpler, because many things were only available in one (maybe two or three) models, and people would be happy if they could just get that, and they would manage to live with that model's limitations and peculiarities. But these days when I need to buy something, I go to an online shop and find such a multitude of choices that I just get discouraged and decide to leave it for later. So, when reading Schwarz's book, I thought I would pick one design, and stick with it. I quite liked the plans for a knockdown Nicholson bench, and it would be handy when we decide to move to another place (we live in a rental apartment). However there's something nice about the Roubo design which attracts me. I guess I am just too tired of wobbly mass produced furniture that I've experienced during my life. It just would be nice to have something extremely solid and overbuilt, that won't budge no matter what I do at the bench. Again, perhaps these are my Soviet roots talking. In the USSR many things were over-engineered with 2-3x margin of safety. Not like modern stuff...

[Oskar Sedell]

Brian, a straight wrist sounds good, but I have problem visualising how this straight line relates to the workpiece, benchtop or to horizontal? Could you elaborate?

Gene: regarding a wide top. I too would love it as an assembly surface, but would also have concerns regarding flatness. A narrower bench top would move less and be easier to flatten. In the end most boards one is planing only need the 20 cm or so that are closest to you.

I seem to remember now that my bench is about 85 cm high.

[jeff norris 2011]

Have you considered both a short and tall bench in the same shop? Build your bench at the lower range, which is great for heavy planing etc and then build a moxon vice to bring fine detail work higher up.

just a thought.

[Derek Cohen]

Brian, a straight wrist sounds good, but I have problem visualising how this straight line relates to the workpiece, benchtop or to horizontal? Could you elaborate?.......

Oskar, I think that Brian and I are saying the same thing.

There are a number of photos in my article that explain and demonstrate how we hold and push a plane: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html

Here’s one of David Charlesworth (which is echoed by other well-known woodworkers) ... forearm is parallel to the bench top, and via the wrist/palm, this drives the plane from low down ...

https://i.postimg.cc/JzMtJw1v/Veritas-Custom-Planes3-html-m12d57880.jpg

Now this is what happens when your bench is too low! A photo of Chris Schwarz :)

https://i.postimg.cc/L8D53y5X/Veritas-Custom-Planes3-html-m114e109d.jpg

Guess who is putting more strain on their back ...?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

I have the belt buckle rule bench....top of the bench is right at my belt buckle....Not sure where the OP's buckle winds up...I'm 5'11"

Span? Was more about what size plank I had for the top.....IF I can reach the far side with ease, no stretching out, needing the other hand to balance me..seems to work. Maybe from elbow to the "Social" fingertip. aka, cubit.

Hold a plane, like you were using it....have somebody else there, to measure from the floor to the plane's sole....easy as that.

[Scott Winners]

Lots of good advice already. I don't disagree with any of it. I do guess Ken Hatch must be out on the golf course or at the beach this week--- I just got back from Hawaii myself.

The thing Ken and I see eye to eye on (that he hasn't posted already) is your first bench isn't going to be your last one. Once you get this one built and use it a while you will, via personal experience, cone up with some things to do a little differently on your next build.

The other part is what are you going to be doing or making at this bench? CS does go into this a bit in his book, at least the second one, about how Americans seem to want one bench to do everything but if you are going to do a lot of dovetailing the perfect bench height is different than if you are going to do a lot of planing with wooden planes. And etcetera ad nauseum.

I do think it is a good idea to make your height at the top of the reasonable for you range with the stretchers up off the floor some so you could shorten the legs without having to re-engineer the whole bench.

The other thing is once you have a bench and start working at it you'll either be delighted with it or change something for the next build. I like having four feet (I know, it sounds like a lot) all the way around my bench and I like to be able to get a thing clamped down and get at it form every angle. I personally don't use a tool well, but many may folks use then to advantage.

Sooner or later you will have to just build it.

[Oskar Sedell]

Derek, thank you! So straight means horizontal. I guess I have to watch my stance, it could be that my planing resembles the bottom pic more than the top.

[Charles Guest]

Lots of good advice already. I don't disagree with any of it. I do guess Ken Hatch must be out on the golf course or at the beach this week--- I just got back from Hawaii myself.

The thing Ken and I see eye to eye on (that he hasn't posted already) is your first bench isn't going to be your last one. Once you get this one built and use it a while you will, via personal experience, cone up with some things to do a little differently on your next build.

The other part is what are you going to be doing or making at this bench? CS does go into this a bit in his book, at least the second one, about how Americans seem to want one bench to do everything but if you are going to do a lot of dovetailing the perfect bench height is different than if you are going to do a lot of planing with wooden planes. And etcetera ad nauseum.

I do think it is a good idea to make your height at the top of the reasonable for you range with the stretchers up off the floor some so you could shorten the legs without having to re-engineer the whole bench.

The other thing is once you have a bench and start working at it you'll either be delighted with it or change something for the next build. I like having four feet (I know, it sounds like a lot) all the way around my bench and I like to be able to get a thing clamped down and get at it form every angle. I personally don't use a tool well, but many may folks use then to advantage.

Sooner or later you will have to just build it.


The Schwarz quote makes no sense. If you're making furniture entirely by hand, planed then joined, then joinery of some sort will inevitably ensue. Craftsmen did not have two benches and all craftsmen did not have Moxon vises. All that said, most guys didn't live much less work to the age of the 'experts' opining now -- it was more or less a young man's game and those who did work to a relatively advanced age, in a busy shop, hadn't had to plane significant amounts of lumber in decades. It's a quandary that might be best solved by getting or staying in shape. There is no perfect bench height for all the work you'll do building a piece of furniture entirely by hand from rough timber. If most of your stock is processed by machine, and you're worried about how a little jointing and clean up planing will play with your back, then it may be time for another hobby.

[Jim Matthews]

I find though, that I prefer a bit of a downward slope to my forearm to the plane tote. Plane totes lean down toward the iron and a slight angle to the forearm matches that angle well.

That should be pretty easy to measure; standing against a wall hold a plane and have someone take a mark.

Kudos

[Jim Matthews]

I've tried taking my biggest plane (a 26" wooden jointer) and assuming positions similar to the photos in the article Derek had posted earlier, and also described in Steve's post. The plane's bottom was 100 cm (39 3/8")

About the width (depth)... It was mentioned that the extra width will come in handy for assembly (I only have space for one bench so it has to multi-task). 30" wide shouldn't present problems with regards to reach. Would it have any other drawbacks?



It's a good starting height.

If you ski "cross country" that's a comfortable, "athletic" stance to emulate. Depth only matters when you can't reach the back of the bench.

Caution is warranted in this dimension - empty spaces tend to collect unused tools.

We're looking forward to see what you build.

[ken hatch]

Just a couple or three late thoughts:

I agree with Derek, C.S. has done a great service for woodworking in general and I find he is a hoot to read, but here comes the "but". His bench building book has led many first time builders to over think, over build and sometimes to build the wrong style/kind of bench. C.S.'s book goes through the build of both the English and the French bench and I can remember coming away from reading his book believing he favored the Roubo bench and I expect that is the major reason for the current Roubo fad. There is nothing wrong with a Roubo/French bench, the same can be said of a German/Scandinavian or English style bench but it may not be the best bench for a first build.

Here is the problem with a Roubo as a first bench, while it can be a very simple bench it is not an easy build and it can be an expensive bench to build. I've seen reports of folks taking a year or even up to six years to build their benches. A first bench should be cheap and quick to build because there are too many problems to work out that can only be worked out by building a bench, such as the questions the OP had to start this thread. My preferred first bench is well known but any style will work if kept simple and quick to build.

That said here is my take on height: For most work, sawing, planning, paring, or chopping it is best done with the forearm level. To achieve a level forearm on most operations my bench height needs to be about 250mm (10") lower than my elbow. As others have pointed out for the operations that need to be higher a Moxon is an easy appliance to use. As far as how wide, I stick pretty close to the two foot rule. If I need wider for say glue ups a sheet of 3/4" ply does a great job and can be stored when finished.

As always, YMMV and likely will :D,

ken

[ken hatch]

Lots of good advice already. I don't disagree with any of it. I do guess Ken Hatch must be out on the golf course or at the beach this week--- I just got back from Hawaii myself.

The thing Ken and I see eye to eye on (that he hasn't posted already) is your first bench isn't going to be your last one. Once you get this one built and use it a while you will, via personal experience, cone up with some things to do a little differently on your next build.

The other part is what are you going to be doing or making at this bench? CS does go into this a bit in his book, at least the second one, about how Americans seem to want one bench to do everything but if you are going to do a lot of dovetailing the perfect bench height is different than if you are going to do a lot of planing with wooden planes. And etcetera ad nauseum.

I do think it is a good idea to make your height at the top of the reasonable for you range with the stretchers up off the floor some so you could shorten the legs without having to re-engineer the whole bench.

The other thing is once you have a bench and start working at it you'll either be delighted with it or change something for the next build. I like having four feet (I know, it sounds like a lot) all the way around my bench and I like to be able to get a thing clamped down and get at it form every angle. I personally don't use a tool well, but many may folks use then to advantage.

Sooner or later you will have to just build it.

Scott,

LOL. All good advice. BTW a good time of the year to have been in Hawaii, it has even been cold and wet here in the desert.

ken

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Here is the problem with a Roubo as a first bench, while it can be a very simple bench it is not an easy build and it can be an expensive bench to build. I've seen reports of folks taking a year or even up to six years to build their benches. A first bench should be cheap and quick to build because there are too many problems to work out that can only be worked out by building a bench, such as the questions the OP had to start this thread. My preferred first bench is well known but any style will work if kept simple and quick to build.


This is an important point. I started to type a couple of questions/comments yesterday, but dropped it because I did not want to seem like I was trying to steer you away from what you seem to have thought about a lot and decided you want.

The Nicholson style can be built without a bench. Mike Siemsen has a video through Lost Art Press where he builds one from scratch, starting with a couple of five gallon buckets. The Roubos I see posted are glorious, but I think I would need a bench to build one of them. The old chicken or egg thing. How do you get the parts dimensioned properly without something to hold them?

If you want to get a look at the Nicholson in action, search for his youtube video "Workholding on a viseless bench." It is cheap and easy to build (here anyway, not sure about prices of 2 x 12s in Europe), works well, and would let you get some experience and answer questions like how high you want it to be without spending thousands of dollars and years of your free time first.

Or you could look through Ken's posts and see the ridiculous number of Moravians he has built. That one I think needs a vise, but I could be wrong because he has not taken me up on my invitation to park his RV in my driveway so I can test it out.

[ken hatch]

This is an important point. I started to type a couple of questions/comments yesterday, but dropped it because I did not want to seem like I was trying to steer you away from what you seem to have thought about a lot and decided you want.

The Nicholson style can be built without a bench. Mike Siemsen has a video through Lost Art Press where he builds one from scratch, starting with a couple of five gallon buckets. The Roubos I see posted are glorious, but I think I would need a bench to build one of them. The old chicken or egg thing. How do you get the parts dimensioned properly without something to hold them?

If you want to get a look at the Nicholson in action, search for his youtube video "Workholding on a viseless bench." It is cheap and easy to build (here anyway, not sure about prices of 2 x 12s in Europe), works well, and would let you get some experience and answer questions like how high you want it to be without spending thousands of dollars and years of your free time first.

Or you could look through Ken's posts and see the ridiculous number of Moravians he has built. That one I think needs a vise, but I could be wrong because he has not taken me up on my invitation to park his RV in my driveway so I can test it out.

Nicholas,

+1 on the Siemsen build and video.

Be careful what you ask, I expect to retire sometime around the end of the year and I will be looking for a cheap place to park the motorhome :D.

ken

[Oskar Sedell]

Nicholas: Just an added comment. While it is right it is easier to build a bench when you already have one it does not exclude one from building a roubo without having a bench to start with.

When I built mine I had no bench. I got the stretchers and leg stock cut by a friend with a table saw, but joining, glueing and dimensioning the top I did on a couple of horses. And all joinery as well.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Thanks everyone for very thoughtful advice. Yes I also got the impression that Schwarz prefers the Roubo bench (and I guess that's why he started with the Nicholsons and left Roubos "for dessert" in his book). I think the Nicholson style does have it's own advantages, and is a nice bench. I watched Mike Siemsen's video and it looks very functional. I still have my aim set at a Roubo, though.

As for the chicken-and-egg problem, I thought a lot about it :) I have a B&D Workmate and will first build a couple of sawhorses. It's pretty scary to hear some people spent years building a workbench. I'm guessing too many fancy features, desire for perfection, and not enough shop time available? I want to have a bench by this summer, so I will try to avoid the first two, and luckily I have two days a week when I don't work (and my daughter's at school). My current plan is to start with a leg vise, no end vise. I will use a couple of holdfasts and a doe's foot for workholding. I'll plan to add a crochet hook later. If later I feel like I'd like an end vise, I will probably make and retrofit a simple wedge-powered wagon vise (V8 wagon vise by Paul Miller aka shipwright). A Moxon vise sounds like a useful thing to build later.

I'll try to start with 40" or 100 cm (39.4") height, and somewhere between 24" and 30" wide, still have to think about it.

Now some off-topic question, if I may?
For the bench top, I'm going to use affordable 40 mm (1 1/2") thick laminated beech panels sold at a local constructions material store (they cut them to size and it costs about 90 EUR per square meter / 10.8 square feet). My plan is to glue two panels face-to-face for a total thickness of 80 mm (3 1/8"). How would I go about this glue-up, and what sort of clamping would I need? I have only a few clamps at the moment and will have to stock up on clamps at some point, I just don't know which kinds and in which sizes I would need, so I keep postponing it until I really need them. I've heard some advice to drill holes in the panel(s) and screw them together with glue, then remove the screws when the glue is dry. That would be a cheap solution, I guess but will result in a top which has a bunch of screw holes in it. I have also heard about split-top roubo benches, not sure if they have meaningful advantages in usage, but perhaps if it would be easier to glue up two half-tops? Or you may try to talk me out of this plan altogether :)

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Screws from the underside so the holes don’t show?

I think in my shop I would use a combination of clamps to get things aligned and then and random heavy objects (granite surface plate, barbell plates, etc.)

Good luck with the build and be sure to let us know how it works out for you. Guys around here drool over bench pictures like a bunch of women with baby pictures.

[Warren Mickley]

I have a dirty little secret for you, Gene. Andre Roubo didn't use any glue on his benches. And no clamps. His bench tops were 20 to 22 inches wide. I think 22 is ideal. He used a single plank for the top, beech or elm, pith facing up.

It sounds like you are thinking of spending over 200 Euros on timber just for the top. I think that kind of money might buy you a pretty nice plank at a sawmill.

[Brian Holcombe]

My workbench is way too wide, building it again I would likely be much closer to Warren's number at 20-22". I made the mistake of making my bench an assembly table in addition to a bench because my workshop is small. A workbench makes a lousy assembly table and vice-versa. Better yet one can use a pair of sawhorses as an assembly table and retain full use of their workbench for joinery and material prep.

I think one workbench is good enough, I can imagine in a very efficient workshop you might have multiple benches but in my case I think it unnecessary for a small one-man shop to have multiple benches.

[mike stenson]

My workbench is way too wide, building it again I would likely be much closer to Warren's number at 20-22"..

How wide is it, and how tall are you?

[Derek Cohen]

My bench is 7' long - that's as long as I could manage in my shop. It works well enough - I have never wanted longer. It is 22" wide. I can reach across and retrieve tools on the wall behind. I have never wanted wider.

I do not have an assembly table. I use my bench and, when needed, my table saw is alongside (for this reason).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Charles Guest]

For those with enough room, here's the ideal set up:

424268

Lovely Federal sideboard in the background.

[Jim Koepke]

For the bench top, I'm going to use affordable 40 mm (1 1/2") thick laminated beech panels sold at a local constructions material store (they cut them to size and it costs about 90 EUR per square meter / 10.8 square feet).

Another option you may want to consider is 'engineered beams.' These are often used here in the states by builders when they need a large beam for appearance or for strength. Here they are made by laminating 2X4s together. My last check on these at one supplier set the price at ~$25 (US dollars) a foot for a 21" wide beam.

jtk

[Steven Lee, NC]

my bench is 4' wide and was not intended to be used just for handtools but just now while writing this post I'm thinking now that I've moved and have a bigger garage, I might consider building a more traditional narrow bench for handtools. oooooo.

my current bench is 4' wide because Its intent is to have something to use as a base for 4' cauls for building interior doors, veneer pressing, etc...

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Screws from the underside so the holes don’t show?
I think in my shop I would use a combination of clamps to get things aligned and then and random heavy objects (granite surface plate, barbell plates, etc.)
Good luck with the build and be sure to let us know how it works out for you. Guys around here drool over bench pictures like a bunch of women with baby pictures.

Random heavy objects idea also came to my head, I am just wondering if that develops enough pressure for a strong glue joint. The objects might be relatively heavy, but since the surface area is very large, so the pressure wouldn't be that high even if I put 100 kg of stuff on top (I think).
I will post pictures in this thread, once there's something to post :) I have to admit that although I am a guy - father of a 4 year old daughter, I do also drool over baby pictures!

[Gene Pavlovsky]

It sounds like you are thinking of spending over 200 Euros on timber just for the top. I think that kind of money might buy you a pretty nice plank at a sawmill.

I'd love to get a single plank, but I couldn't find anything like that so far. I might just don't know where to look, as I didn't learn enough German (and no French at all) to confidently find relatively obscure (for average people) things in Germany, Belgium and France (all within half an hour drive). I will keep looking, though, I do try to ask around whenever there is a chance.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

My bench is 7' long - that's as long as I could manage in my shop. It works well enough - I have never wanted longer. It is 22" wide. I can reach across and retrieve tools on the wall behind. I have never wanted wider.


Derek, I understand that 22" or 24" should be enough for most things woodworking related. I am just wondering if extra width (which could be useful when I'm using the bench for purposes other than woodworking) would somehow cause problems or inconveniences not found when using a 22-24" bench? Schwarz mentioned something about being able to slip an entire cabinet over a 22" workbench - that would be impossible if the bench is wider than the cabinet's inner width, although I can't quite picture this (if bench is longer than the cabinet, how could it be slipped on it?). If there are real advantages to keep the bench relatively narrow, I will consider to do so. If that is the case, and if I would really like to have it wider sometimes for some other things, perhaps I could make an "extension" on the side that could be attached or detached as needed.

[Mark Salomon]

Sorry I'm late to this. I have nothing additional to add to the discussion regarding height. However, I think a narrow bench is better for a small space. Mine is 18 wide and about 6 ft. long. The narrow width allows me to easily reach my chisels and saws. I can more easily drag the bench out when I need to and work from both sides without reclamping or repositioning the work.

[Christopher Charles]

Hello Gene,

Here are a few thoughts on my experiences, mostly echoing what has been said by others. I'm in the "it took years to build camp" because 1) I had young kids and a demanding job at the time, 2) I already had a workable bench, and 3) see #1.

I went round-and-round about design and ended up deciding on a Roubo (search "Is the Klausz-Scan-Frid bench dead for the whole saga), in part because it is (relatively) straight-forward to build. I have a solid top now, but built as a split-top because I was able to handle the split top alone and that approach definitely eased the construction process.

As far as height, I was thinking about this thread this weekend as I was able get into the shop for the first time in a long time. I'm 6'0" and my bench is 35" (i.e., spot on the Schwarz guideline). The height is just right when planing for any length of time because my posture is as Derek describes, with the forearm parallel to the top, but the work is low enough that the power comes from my legs. It is too low for smoothing/sawing/joinery work while standing. However, I am in the process of building a joinery bench that will be considerably higher. I planned to have a separate joinery bench at the outset (a moxon or bench on bench are the same solution). In other words, I would recommend a low-ish bench for planing since it sounds like you plan to do quite a bit of dimensioning by hand and a moxon for joinery (you can make a perfectly functional moxon for almost no cost). For width, I've been very happy with 24" and wouldn't want it wider after having used both along a wall and out in the shop space.

Ken's advice is solid-go for something straight forward and functional as you can manage, get to work, and plan to build your 'lifetime' bench after getting some experience (and connections for good lumber at reasonable prices).

Best of luck and we'll all enjoy watching your adventure.

Best,
Chris

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Another option you may want to consider is 'engineered beams.' These are often used here in the states by builders when they need a large beam for appearance or for strength. Here they are made by laminating 2X4s together. My last check on these at one supplier set the price at ~$25 (US dollars) a foot for a 21" wide beam.


Jim, I've looked into this topic some more, and found that a product called "BSH" (Brettschichtholz ) in Germany is similar to what you mentioned. It is available only in softwood (e.g. spruce, larch or Douglas fir, but it seems most suppliers offer spruce). It's cheaper than beech... a 100x320x3000 (4"x12.6", 10' long) spruce beam can be bought for 97 EUR (https://www.hornbach.de/shop/Brettschichtholz-100x320x3000-mm-Fichte-SI-sichtbarer-Einbau/5955386/artikel.html). It is already planed AND chamfered... If I cross-cut it in half and glue the halves edge-to-edge, I would have to plane the edges until the chamfer is gone (to make it neat), OR just live with a little v-groove in the middle, that would get smaller and smaller as I re-flatten the bench. I would then get a 25" wide 4" thick board, 5' long. Even cheaper if I go 80 mm (3 1/8") thick. I would need to buy quite a lot of bar or pipe clamps to do the glue-up, but those should be useful in the future, and I like to invest in tools. Should I go for it instead of my beech panels glued faced-to-face idea? If yes, 80 or 100 mm thick?

[steven c newman]

80 would be my guess...you're the one that has to lift it.

[Jim Koepke]

My choice would be to choose the hardest of the woods available.

How often do you think you will need to flatten the top?

You could also have a split top bench. Some like this for clamping. My split top bench plan will have a tool tray in the middle with a removable bottom for cleaning and clamping.

With a narrow split in the top a fence can be fit in the slot for a stop when needed.

A v-groove might help keeping pencils and small tools from rolling away.

Pipe clamps are among my favorites. They can use different lengths of pipe for any size project that needs gluing.

jtk

[mike stenson]

It took a couple minutes to find that Hugo Kämpf in Thüngen sells oak planks cut to size and they speak English (which would be fairly common). I would search for sawmills, and contact them. :)

[Derek Cohen]

I'd love to get a single plank, but I couldn't find anything like that so far. I might just don't know where to look, as I didn't learn enough German (and no French at all) to confidently find relatively obscure (for average people) things in Germany, Belgium and France (all within half an hour drive). I will keep looking, though, I do try to ask around whenever there is a chance.

Gene, my bench is laminated rather than a single piece for the top. I would rather have a laminated top, although it is more work. Not only would a solid, single board be much more complex to transport, then thickness (as I recall, Chris Schwarz and Co, on their annual builds, use very large machines to joint, thickness and then mortice) ... and a solid, single board of around 3” - 4” thick would require a long time to dry, and even then would be subject to movement. The choice for a single piece in Roubo’s day was likely because it would have been more economical than laminations.

Incidentally, the top on my bench is European Oak, which means that it was imported from Eastern Europe (the base is reclaimed Jarrah, from roofing rafters).

Two additional points of dubious interest: I built my current bench over the course of 12 weekends, beginnjng January 2012. This is documented here (scan down the index page): http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/index.html

The bench was planed/re-flattened last year for the first time after the build. This was quick and easy as it was pretty flat to begin.

https://i.postimg.cc/NffdYGd3/D4a.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/8PD1YyCn/End-stop3.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I understand that 22" or 24" should be enough for most things woodworking related. I am just wondering if extra width (which could be useful when I'm using the bench for purposes other than woodworking) would somehow cause problems or inconveniences not found when using a 22-24" bench? Schwarz mentioned something about being able to slip an entire cabinet over a 22" workbench - that would be impossible if the bench is wider than the cabinet's inner width, although I can't quite picture this (if bench is longer than the cabinet, how could it be slipped on it?). If there are real advantages to keep the bench relatively narrow, I will consider to do so. If that is the case, and if I would really like to have it wider sometimes for some other things, perhaps I could make an "extension" on the side that could be attached or detached as needed.

Gene, I posted pictures of my bench so that you can see that it is close to the rear wall, and the 22” width makes it possible to reach across for tools.

On the few occasions where a wider top could be a help with support (it occurs infrequently), then I simply slip a board of MDF or ply over the bench top. I use MDF under work pieces when chopping waste from dovetails, and sometimes these case piece needs to be repositioned for a hold down.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

Derek, I looked at all the people planing in the blog you referenced on Monday. The various guys pictured with planes have one thing in common: they all use power equipment for most of their planing. And it shows. Further, your own bench was made using power equipment which Gene Pavlovsky lacks.

Workers in the 18th century used a solid plank because it was very much the easiest method. I worked on an 18th century bench at a historical site that was 13 feet long and three inches thick, one piece. Later when that shop burned down in 1980, I was brought back to make a new bench from a 16 foot plank. It is crazy to make up a bench out of little strips if one can possibly avoid it. And long term delamination is a worry.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, I agree with you that power equipment is needed for a laminated top. It can be done without power equipment - many have - but it seems a waste of energy. I was not aware that Gene lacks the equipment. Still, it may be a better alternative than one thick top when transportation and manual handling are factored in (he may be able to get some assistance here). Only Gene can make that call.

With regard possible de-lamination, there are numerous examples of benches that are many decades old to demonstrate that this need not be the case. Conversely, a recent blog by Chris Schwarz on the one-piece tops his group made, noted that they all needed significant re-flattening. So ... six or one and half dozen of the other. There is no perfect answer - it comes down to what one is looking for, a historical recreation/working tool or just a working tool.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Oskar Sedell]

I'd love to get a single plank, but I couldn't find anything like that so far. I might just don't know where to look, as I didn't learn enough German (and no French at all) to confidently find relatively obscure (for average people) things in Germany, Belgium and France (all within half an hour drive). I will keep looking, though, I do try to ask around whenever there is a chance.

Gene, I live in southern Germany and went to the local saw mill when sourcing wood for my bench top. Turned out they had douglas fir construction lumber about 10 cm thick. I bought one plank, and had enough for a ca 22´´ wide top with just one glue joint (not hard with hand planes and winding sticks). Don´t remember what I paid, but it wasnt even close to 200 Euros. The top is about 7.5 feet long and very solid.

I would not try to laminate a top out of two sheets. I cant see how to get enough pressure over such a big surface without spending a fortune on good (deep reach) clamps. I think the estimate is right, that even 100s of kilos of weights would not give enough pressure.

I also would stay away from "brettschichtholz" or engineered beams if you are working the bench with hand planes. These laminated beams are glued up of many pieces with grain running in all directions. Not nice to plane by hand. Keep the number of glue lines to a minimum, and orient the pieces for easy planing.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

I did mention this in my original post, but I will say it once more - I don't have a planer/thicknesser, table saw, circular saw, mortising machine. I have a drill press and a couple of drills (cordless and corded), plus a metalworking lathe (which I didn't plan to use for woodworking - one day I'd love to get or build a small woodworking lathe - perhaps a treadle lathe on the terrace?).

Spending a 100 EUR for a thick laminated spruce board that I would have to glue edge-to-edge to get the width, vs 200 EUR for a store-cut laminated beech panel which I would have to glue face-to-face to get the thickness, vs a single board which I would probably have to drive far away to obtain. 100 EUR or 200 EUR is not important, I'm more concerned with how tricky the build is going to be and how happy I will be with the result. I can always ask a seller to help me load, and a neighbor to help unload / handle it in during the build. Hardwood (beech) is traditional, and recommended by many (although it is supposed to move a lot), but people have been using pine benches with success (e.g. I just read Vic Tesolin's "Minimalist Woodworker", and he advocates a pine bench mentioning e.g. ease of flattening it - even though he could afford any kind of wood for the top, as on the photos in the book all his tools are fancy top-quality stuff). With both of these choices, one concern I have - are those commercially available laminated boards/beams have the individual pieces arranged with proper grain orientation to minimize warping, and also with grain running in the same direction (for avoiding tear-out when planing them flat)?

@Mike Stenson
I have heard advice not using oak (unless you already have it, or can get it easily, for example) due to it being open-pored wood (trapping and embedding metal chips that can randomly land there from my metalworking activities) and prone to splintering - therefore I'm not too eager (yet) to drive 700 km round trip to Hugo Kämpf's sawmill (although I did drive 800 km to get my lathe, so if it's worth it, I'd do it). How did you find it so easily, though? Maybe I can use your search skills to find something closer to me (I'm in Luxembourg - Steinsel to be exact), who would sell a wide and thick beech board. But Derek had raised concerns with drying that thick board?

@Oskar
I just saw your post after I wrote all of the above, and your advice already answers some of the questions/concerns I have. I'm using hand planes only and according to your advice will have to rule out BSH. I'm also not sure about the beech panel which is laminated from many pieces, what if those panels also have grain running in all directions? If I remember correctly, Schwarz mentioned Douglas Fir as quite suitable material for a workbench.
The construction lumber you bought, what is it called in Germany - Vollholz? Is it a thick solid board, not laminated? How wide was it? How did you find that local saw mill? I think I should follow your way (and Mike's advice) and find a saw mill not too far from me.

[Oskar Sedell]

Gene: I think any industrially produced laminated board or beam will have this problem. They are probably all finished with wide belt sanders and no care for grain orientation is taken. Correct me if I´m wrong here.

Also, I wouldn´t think too hard on the exakt species for the top. Pine is working well, oak would too. Take what you can get to a reasonable price, and you think you can work effectively with hand tools. Ash, beech, fir whatever. I had the choice between douglas and oak, but discarded the oak plank since it had very gnarly grain and chose a douglas plank with very few knots. Keep metal grinding and filing away from the bench top, or get a sacrificial plywood sheath that you put on the bench when working metal.

I´m not sure about the exakt german term for it. Could be Vollholz, Konstruktionsholz or Konstruktionsvollholz. Call any mill and describe what you are looking for and they can give you the exact term, and maybe where to find it. The plank I got was just sawed, not planed and/or chamfered in any way.

I dont know how it is around Luxembourg, but here (Freiburg im Breisgau) there is actually a lot more small saw mills or wood dealers than one would think. I just looked at google maps for nearby dealers.

Remember also to build the bench as a bench built with hand tools. Meaning don´t waste time and sweat on stuff that don´t matter. If you have a big planer you can make the top perfectly 4-side square. With hand planes only you dont have to true the underside of the top, neither the back edge if it is supposed to stand against a wall. (you do however need to take away twist where the legs are joined to the top, or adjust leg length to accomodate)

[Gene Pavlovsky]

If I understand correctly, Konstruktionsvollholz is solid wood, which is finger-jointed (end-to-end) to produce the desired length. And vollholz is just solid wood.
Was the wood you got already dried (do these small saw mills have kilns?), did you have to season it for a while?
Searching google maps for "saw mill" or "lumber store" revealed a few results, I will make a list and call them up tomorrow (when I don't work).
We were just discussing with my wife going for a weekend trip to Schüttesäge Museum - that's not so far from your town actually.

I was wondering about not truing the underside of the top. Thanks for mentioning that.

[William Fretwell]

Gene, this is a good time to go to a saw mill or two. That is where you will go to get your furniture wood.

You may be surprised when you get there what is on offer. They cut lots of wood, much is not furniture grade and is very hard for them to sell.

At my saw mill they had a pile of Black Walnut with many knots and imperfections for a very low price. The underside of my bench is very rough, I could have finished it but did not want to loose the wood!

The other benefit is they can do the rough cutting, leaving you to plane the edges for any joints.

Go to the saw mill and look for a surprise!

[Tony Wilkins]

I didn’t see this mentioned and I’m sorry if I missed it but I know I’ve read that CS has built and says it’s ok to build with fairly wet wood. Think it was on the blog but it may have been in one of his bench books.

BTW, my bench if 18” tall but that comes from his last book.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

William, I will take your advice and try to find and visit the local saw mills!
Tony, yes I think Schwarz mentioned this in his "Ancient Roubo" build. He said the shrinking of the top on that bench resulted in a slight "A-frame" shape of the legs, which he said doesn't give any negative effects.
18" tall bench?

[Jim Koepke]

18" tall bench?

That may be a Roman bench Schwarz wrote about.

My saw horses are ~21" tall. This is how it is to work on short benches:

424339

It can be a bit rough on an old back:

424342

jtk

[Tony Wilkins]

William, I will take your advice and try to find and visit the local saw mills!
Tony, yes I think Schwarz mentioned this in his "Ancient Roubo" build. He said the shrinking of the top on that bench resulted in a slight "A-frame" shape of the legs, which he said doesn't give any negative effects.
18" tall bench?
So I can work with my wheel chair. It was based on the Roman bench with some modern touches.

424349

[Oskar Sedell]

If I understand correctly, Konstruktionsvollholz is solid wood, which is finger-jointed (end-to-end) to produce the desired length. And vollholz is just solid wood.
Was the wood you got already dried (do these small saw mills have kilns?), did you have to season it for a while?
Searching google maps for "saw mill" or "lumber store" revealed a few results, I will make a list and call them up tomorrow (when I don't work).
We were just discussing with my wife going for a weekend trip to Schüttesäge Museum - that's not so far from your town actually.

I was wondering about not truing the underside of the top. Thanks for mentioning that.

ok, then you know which one to pick. Only solid wood. My wood was reasonably dry, and stored outside. The owner said that those planks had been lying stacked for a number of years, and therefore ready to use. Pretty dry and stable was good enough for me. I chose a board as close to quarter sawn as possible (more like rift, but at least not rings parallell to the bench top surface.). I did make the mortises for the back leg tenons in the underside of the top a bit wider, to give room for the top to expand and contract in the width dimension, while staying flush with the front legs.

[Doug Dawson]

My logic in this respect is that when I’m pushing a plane I want my wrist to be straight.

I would want some downward pressure. Would you care to clarify? Perhaps this has something to do with Japanese pull-type planes.

[Brian Holcombe]

‘Pushing’ should indicate western planes. :D The handle on all of my planes is slightly angled so pushing with a straight wrist does create some downward pressure.

I can plane all day with a straight wrist, introduce any angle and I won’t be working for days.

[ken hatch]

I would just add: If you need very much pressure you are working with a dull cutter.

ken

[steven c newman]

One other item...lighting the work surface, so you can see what you are doing. And, neither have any glare shining back at your eyes, or being blocked by you standing at the bench, casting a shadow over your work....

Bright, but not too bright. Sun light would be nice ( and cheap), but, not every shop has a window behind the bench ( doesn't help much, after sundown, though)And some shops are in a basement...

Task Lighting?

[Brian Holcombe]

I agree with Stephen on lighting, I put up 40k lumens recently. It’s been great.

[Jim Koepke]

I would just add: If you need very much pressure you are working with a dull cutter.

ken

Agreed, one of my tests when tuning up a plane is if it can just be pushed without downward pressure and take a shaving. If it requires pressure with a sharp blade, the sole is likely bowed.

jtk

[mike stenson]

I don't think those that favor lower height are looking for downward pressure, I'm not. I just want it low enough that I'm engaging my legs. That's going to be related to your proportions, and your flexibility. Both of which are pretty individual.

You will never make only one bench anyway.

[Doug Dawson]

Agreed, one of my tests when tuning up a plane is if it can just be pushed without downward pressure and take a shaving. If it requires pressure with a sharp blade, the sole is likely bowed.

All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)

[ken hatch]

All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)

Doug,

Check out this Paul Sellers video, he might disagree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10


ken

[Derek Cohen]

All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)

:D

Regards from Perth

Paul

[John Stevens]

Check out this Paul Sellers video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10


Thanks Ken. For me, it was as informative as entertaining—lots of both.

[Doug Dawson]

Doug,

Check out this Paul Sellers video, he might disagree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10


He's using pine, which is soft. Try that with a harder wood like oak. But more to the point, that's not how people actually use a plane. If you analyze the dynamics of a plane in normal use, there is significant downward pressure. I don't know what he's trying to prove.

[Derek Cohen]

He's using pine, which is soft. Try that with a harder wood like oak. But more to the point, that's not how people actually use a plane. If you analyze the dynamics of a plane in normal use, there is significant downward pressure. I don't know what he's trying to prove.

Doug, I’ve posted this a million times before - I am not exaggerating ...

Article here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html

Extract ...

During the course of my research I became aware that many do not actually push their planes as expected by the design of their handle. For example, experienced uses of Stanley planes often praise the handle for being comfortable and offering much control. This is a forward leaning handle, and is expected to direct the force vector towards the mouth.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m548c90b0.jpg


<snip>


The first hypothesis is that a vertical handle best suits a high bench and encourages one to push forward. This is shown here with a Veritas BU Jointer …




http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m2bbbbd0f.jpg


The second hypothesis is that the forward-leaning Stanley handle encourages one to push down towards the mouth, and that this is more easily facilitated by a lower bench. This is demonstrated below with a Stanley #7 …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_f46f12f.jpg


One of the interesting videos I watched was that of Paul Sellers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHrSmZQx10). In this he demonstrated that a smoother would cut without any downforce.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_56d578af.jpg


This was reinforced when Paul pushed the smoother from the base of the handle.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m39235af.jpg


In the next picture we begin to get a clue to what it is all about. Here Paul is pushing a #4. Notice the angle of his forearm – it is parallel to the bench. This means that he is not pushing down, but pushing on the horizontal …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m2ffdb52.jpg


This is a process repeated by all experienced woodworkers.
Below is Garrett Hack – notice his horizontal forearm. This is a Lie-Nielsen BU Jack (which has a Bailey-style handle) …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_3a39a39d.jpg


He does exactly the same on a Bedrock #604 ½.


Also note that all the planes so far have Bailey-style handles with a forward lean.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_79bf8e94.jpg

<snip>

Frank Klausz is a doyen among woodworkers. There are two elements to watch for here. The first is that he drops his arm to push forward (and this is not simply because he has reached the end of the board). The second is that he is not using the knob to generate forward movement – rather, it appears that he is lifting the toe up as the plane reaches the end of the board.
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m2bd23430.jpg http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m3ff064f2.jpg


David Charlesworth, teacher extraordinaire! – once again, a strong horizontal push with a Lie-Nielsen LA Jack, plus this time we see the knob being used to place downforce over the toe of the plane … the knob creates the downforce, not the handle.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_m12d57880.jpg


The pushing action is repeated on a BD Jack. The knob is ignored and the thumb is placed directly on the body in front of the mouth for downforce …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_5fdfbcd3.jpg


Here is a great shot of Konrad Sauer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fyWnPCACV0) repeating the same action of those who came before …


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3_html_5f60338d.jpg


Not one of these individuals is pushing down on the handle, only on the toe.

.... enough pasteing. read the article.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Doug Dawson]

[Lots of good pictures from Derek Cohen, tamped for brevity]

You're neglecting to resolve the angular ("rotational") component of the forces at play here. That's why the tote is shaped like it is, to counteract that. The Ancients were good at understanding this. (No tv, no interwebs, it's not like they had anything better to do with their time. :^) ) The physics doesn't lie, and none of the pictures you present contradict it.

Where the height of the bench comes into play is that it should be comfortable to exert enough downward pressure with "difficult" woods that you get a good result. You, with your Oz iron woods, should be at least subconsciously aware of this. :^)

BTW, even Sellers (with his contrived example of straight-grained pine) had things go haywire when approaching an area of more "interesting" figure.

[Derek Cohen]

Where the height of the bench comes into play is that it should be comfortable to exert enough downward pressure with "difficult" woods that you get a good result. You, with your Oz iron woods, should be at least subconsciously aware of this. :^)

Doug, I have analysed this to death. Death, I say! :) :o

You may wish to cure your insomnia by reading a few of my ramblings on ergonomics and Centre of Effort, here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

(these are not long articles - if you summon the fortitude to read them - and they will explain more of my thinking on the relationship between handles, bench height, and how we push a hand plane).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

There be some on here, that wish their bench to be rather high. Almost to the point others would feel like Mr. Baggins, sitting down for dinner at Beorm's Table.....there just isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to a Tradesman's Work Bench. Just mock one up...use it for a good day's work...if'n your back hurts,raise it up.....however, if'n your shoulders hurt...lower the bloody thing. Then try again.

Some tend to think too much, and work too little......

[Doug Dawson]

There be some on here, that wish their bench to be rather high. Almost to the point others would feel like Mr. Baggins, sitting down for dinner at Beorm's Table.....there just isn't a "one size fits all" when it comes to a Tradesman's Work Bench. Just mock one up...use it for a good day's work...if'n your back hurts,raise it up.....however, if'n your shoulders hurt...lower the bloody thing. Then try again..

You totally nailed it. That's what it's all about.

[Jim Koepke]

All plane soles are either bowed or bellied, there's no such thing as perfect flatness. I would rather have it bowed, because you're using the full length of the plane. Apparently the old manufacturers agree.

Also, I don't think you realize how much downward pressure you are actually applying when you use a plane (such as a #5 or a #7) normally. Otherwise you could just pull it along with a string tied to front of it and take a perfectly good shaving, which is ridiculous. :^)

My assertion wasn't of my plane soles being perfectly flat. There are some here on SMC where my expectation of what they can do to a plane with their machines is to be as close to 'perfect flatness' as can be achieved with a surface grinder or other metal working machines.

A few bowed planes have come through my shop. Some have been corrected and kept, some given away, some sold and some belonged to others when they brought them to me.

Also consider that a plane sole can be bowed in the center yet the toe and heel are still not touching the work i.e. a wavy sole.

If a plane is bowed enough to require downward pressure to stay in a cut, then in my opinion, it needs to be corrected.

When planing a piece, my forward hand is holding the knob with downward pressure to register the toe of the plane on the work. When my back hand is over the work, the downward force is taken off of the knob. When taking a light cut with a bowed sole the blade is likely to come out of the cut, most annoying.

If a plane has a bellied sole, that also would need correction.

Pulling a plane along with a string would not be an effective way to control a plane in use.

Paul Sellers is not being silly or ridiculous demonstrating how a well tuned plane works by pulling it with a string. It would surprise me if my favorite smoothers couldn't do this with a sharp blade.

Here is another silly thing:

424474

No one has practical use for such thin shavings. Just like no one has a practical use for a car that goes over 100mph, but people still buy Porches and Corvettes. Besides, that shaving is still twice as thick as achieved in kezurou-kai, a Japanese planing contest.

If you have read past posts of mine on the subject of Mr. Sellers, you would be aware of my lack of enthusiasm toward him. Just because he isn't held highly in my esteem doesn't mean he can not have a moment or two of brilliance.

jtk

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Guys, this is all very interesting, but we're getting a bit off-topic maybe?


No one has practical use for such thin shavings. Just like no one has a practical use for a car that goes over 100mph, but people still buy Porches and Corvettes. Besides, that shaving is still twice as thick as achieved in kezurou-kai, a Japanese planing contest.
I think both things you mention are done to tickle one's senses, not for practical reasons. It would be exciting to be able to take such thin shavings, or go very fast - even if it's done rarely. I live in Luxembourg, a coworker chose to live in nearby Germany, because there on the motorways he can ride his sportbike as fast as he wants (he told me that once he got it up to 300 km/h ~= 186 mph, it was quite scary). Well, that, and the rent is much cheaper.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

There are already some discussions on this topic, but I still didn't figure what to make of them.

I'm finishing Christopher Schwarz's book on Workbenches, and planning to build a Roubo workbench - my first bench.

I'm 6' 3" (well, 190 cm since I live in Europe), and mostly use hand tools (my workshop is a 10'x10' cellar also used to store various house stuff, my only machines are: bench grinder, drill press, small metalworking lathe). I use wooden hand planes.
According to Schwarz's book (pinkie rule), my workbench height would be around 34", and maybe 3" less because of wooden planes.
On the other hand, Paul Sellers recommends 38" for an average person, for a 6' 4" guy they built a 44" workbench. He also says it doesn't matter if metal or wooden planes are being used.
Jim Tolpin suggests using 4 hand-spans for the height (40" in my case), which mostly corresponds with Paul Sellers' advice.
At the moment I'm thinking about going for 40". Although the logic of being able to cut the legs down later escapes me a bit... If the legs are cut down, the stretchers are going to become lower, leaving no space for my feet. Or should I plan for this possibility and make the stretchers are bit higher?

As for workbench width, Schwarz suggests 24" or even a bit smaller, but Jim suggests 3 hand-spans (30" in my case). I understand this is based on reach. Is there a benefit to have a wider bench, though? According to Schwarz, 24" is wide enough for any work, anyway.

For the length, due to my space limitations, I will have to settle for 5', which I understand is shorter than what is normally mentioned as the minimum length (6-8').

Thanks in advance for nice advice :)

Hi there, Europe here too!

I'm 184 cm and my bench is 96 cm tall, 58 cm wide and 160 cm long. And maybe it is a tad taller for me but I'm lazy to change it now. Maybe I will shorten it by 5 cm, it has 15 cm under stretchers still (it was not apparent for me that it can limit how I much I can shorten legs afterwards, you are ahead of me here, hehe). I can also modify the legs and move stretchers up. My workbench is a mixture of styles and consists of 13 pieces bolted together. So I can replace them with new ones, longer or shorter. I can even make longer top if I need to.

I would say that body adopts to whatever you have, somehow. But there are other factors that can somehow constrain it and thus make it easier to decide. It would be nice to have higher small bench for sawing (or small bench on a bench or maxon vise or similar). So, you could think of that too, like workbench height is sawing height minus 20 cm for moxon vise. In this case maybe you don't want to make your bench too high, that it will be uncomfortable to put moxon vise on top of it for dovetailing and such. Another thing is to have at "compatible" with other tables or machines around. Can be useful, I think.

Jim Tolpin's approach didn't help me much, as my hand span does not divide my body height in 8 parts. Would be 21*8=168 cm, but I am 184 cm. Small hand, long limbs.

I use metal planes and plane when piece is resting on workbench. Recently planed 10x10 cm pine 8 pieces 150 cm long each which took a lot of time to plane, and it made my bench 10 cm higher for me. Still was not too high for me.

424477

Hell knows what it should be.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

Andrey, your bench looks neat. No face vise or crochet, though? How do you clamp long stock for planing the edges?
Yeah, these rules of thumbs that rely on body parts are only suitable for people of average proportions. I have monkey arms, for example (good for rock climbing, not too good for pull-ups).
--Gene

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Andrey, your bench looks neat. No face vise or crochet, though? How do you clamp long stock for planing the edges?
Yeah, these rules of thumbs that rely on body parts are only suitable for people of average proportions. I have monkey arms, for example (good for rock climbing, not too good for pull-ups).
--Gene

It is more like English workbench in this regard, no vise yet. I can clamp a board to wide apron. Apron is 15 cm tall and worktop is 5.4 cm thick. So, there is plenty of place to clamp to it underneath.

424484

But I usually do not plane edges like that. I prefer to shoot them, with the plane on its side (might not work for some wooden planes though).

424483

That means that my workbench is very flat (used that #7 to flatten it) to use like that. And I also use workbench to check boards for flatness. That means that it is good when it is slightly bigger than the biggest piece I try to plane. Much faster to use flat workbench to check for twist than winding sticks (which I don't have), for example.

I wanted to add leg vise to it but it didn't happen yet and it works for me even without it.

[Gene Pavlovsky]

I see. You have many expensive looking planes :)

[Steve Voigt]

Doug, I have analysed this to death. Death, I say! :) :o

You may wish to cure your insomnia by reading a few of my ramblings on ergonomics and Centre of Effort, here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

(these are not long articles - if you summon the fortitude to read them - and they will explain more of my thinking on the relationship between handles, bench height, and how we push a hand plane).

Regards from Perth

Derek

I'm sure I will regret weighing in on this, but I hate to think people are imagining they're planing all wrong just because their forearms aren't perfectly horizontal.
Derek, I don't think your pictures are a representative cross section--I think they are skewed toward supporting your claim. They are mostly (1) bevel up planes with their unusually straight handles, (2) unusual positions (Sellers is using one hand and is standing 2 feet behind the plane, Garrett Hack is planing a door edge that appears to be high above the bench top), or (3) people coming off the end of the board, which is indeed where the elbow will drop the most.
It's interesting that you criticize the pic of Chris Schwarz, who contradicts your hypothesis, and compare it unfavorably to Charlesworth. I'd take Chris's position any day, which is more representative of how someone working primarily with hand tools will work. Charlesworth is using a tight, four-fingered grip (not something I'd recommend) on his bevel up plane, and his front hand position, while occasionally useful, is not what one does most of the time.
In fact, of all the people in the pics, Schwarz is the only one using a BD plane to do heavy work.
Traditional handles have not changed much over 300 years for a reason. They are angled down slightly for a reason, which is as Doug Dawson suggested--to apply some down force at the beginning of a heavy cut, with the arm rotating through the cut and ending more horizontal as we come off the board.
Bringing this back to the original topic: Like Oskar, I built a Roubo style bench without a bench to work on. I used two 24"-high sawhorses, bracing the front one against a wall. Once I had a 4"-thick piece flattened, I used that as a work surface. I was surprised to discover how comfortable a 28" work surface was. I don't think I would have survived that bench if I'd had a Sellers-style 38" bench. A low bench and traditional handles on bevel down planes will be the best option for people using primarily hand tools, allowing them to use there legs and body weight, and to apply a bit of down force when needed.

[Warren Mickley]

Thanks for posting, Steve. I could not agree more. None of the people pictured in Derek's post work by hand to any extent. Some barely know how to use a plane.

The idea that a couple engineers and a few hobbyists might come up with a better handle design is laughable.

[Bill Carey]

Informative thread. I saved both pages so that when I build a real bench (still using the one I made 20 years ago from a store bought maple top and 3 1/2" sq oak legs salvaged from the old Dietzgen drafting table factory) I can refer to it. I made these bench horses that drop into the dog holes in the top to raise the ht of the bench when doing cut outs with power tools, clamping tops, fitting small pieces, eating pizza, etc.

424488

I wind up using them a lot - more than I thought I would. Certainly not stable enough to plane on but handy just the same.

[Charles Guest]

In the 'days of yore' so fondly being invoked if you hadn't moved on from four squaring lumber by the time you were in your late teens or early twenties then you were probably out of the profession altogether. Young backs are supple, and would have been able to perform with less than optimal bench heights, though generally speaking the preference would have been to be more on top of the work, more like the position shown in the Chris Schwarz photo. A forearm parallel to the benchtop has the bench a little too high for pure planing of board faces and four squaring stock for eleven hours a day, six days a week. Planing edges automatically presents the workpiece higher, but working edges requires more finesse than force so no big deal.

I think the George Seddon firm of London had over 200 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. Chippendale, dozens, but was not as big as the Seddon operation. Rest assured that the older master craftsmen were not four-squaring stock. What they needed was planed up and brought to them pursuant to a cut list. Anything else would have been the height of absurdity. We have tailed apprentices now, or a fool for a boss.

Go ahead and work for a year or so completely by hand, whatever it takes to get it out of your system. There's not all that much skill involved in four squaring rough lumber, and it seems such a waste of time if doing so keeps you from developing carving, veneering, doing more complex shaped work, and other skills. If you can't absorb the principles of preparing rough lumber within a week or so, something is wrong. After that, it's simply a matter of being able to physically do the work and still have some semblance of productivity - amateur or professional.

[Warren Mickley]

In the 'days of yore' so fondly being invoked if you hadn't moved on from four squaring lumber by the time you were in your late teens or early twenties then you were probably out of the profession altogether. Young backs are supple, and would have been able to perform with less than optimal bench heights, though generally speaking the preference would have been to be more on top of the work, more like the position shown in the Chris Schwarz photo. A forearm parallel to the benchtop has the bench a little too high for pure planing of board faces and four squaring stock for eleven hours a day, six days a week. Planing edges automatically presents the workpiece higher, but working edges requires more finesse than force so no big deal.

I think the George Seddon firm of London had over 200 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. Chippendale, dozens, but was not as big as the Seddon operation. Rest assured that the older master craftsmen were not four-squaring stock. What they needed was planed up and brought to them pursuant to a cut list. Anything else would have been the height of absurdity. We have tailed apprentices now, or a fool for a boss.

Go ahead and work for a year or so completely by hand, whatever it takes to get it out of your system. There's not all that much skill involved in four squaring rough lumber, and it seems such a waste of time if doing so keeps you from developing carving, veneering, doing more complex shaped work, and other skills. If you can't absorb the principles of preparing rough lumber within a week or so, something is wrong. After that, it's simply a matter of being able to physically do the work and still have some semblance of productivity - amateur or professional.

Sounds like a lot of fantasy to me. I can tell you from experience that it is a lot easier to teach a teenager to make neat dovetails or other joinery than to teach him to do stock preparation in an efficient manner. "not all that much skill in four squaring rough lumber"??? I cannot imagine a skilled person saying that.

[Doug Dawson]

In the 'days of yore' so fondly being invoked if you hadn't moved on from four squaring lumber by the time you were in your late teens or early twenties then you were probably out of the profession altogether. Young backs are supple, and would have been able to perform with less than optimal bench heights, though generally speaking the preference would have been to be more on top of the work, more like the position shown in the Chris Schwarz photo. A forearm parallel to the benchtop has the bench a little too high for pure planing of board faces and four squaring stock for eleven hours a day, six days a week. Planing edges automatically presents the workpiece higher, but working edges requires more finesse than force so no big deal.

I think the George Seddon firm of London had over 200 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. Chippendale, dozens, but was not as big as the Seddon operation. Rest assured that the older master craftsmen were not four-squaring stock. What they needed was planed up and brought to them pursuant to a cut list. Anything else would have been the height of absurdity. We have tailed apprentices now, or a fool for a boss.

Go ahead and work for a year or so completely by hand, whatever it takes to get it out of your system. There's not all that much skill involved in four squaring rough lumber, and it seems such a waste of time if doing so keeps you from developing carving, veneering, doing more complex shaped work, and other skills. If you can't absorb the principles of preparing rough lumber within a week or so, something is wrong. After that, it's simply a matter of being able to physically do the work and still have some semblance of productivity - amateur or professional.

Craftsmen of the ancient age were like movie stars are today. They're just like you and me, only shorter. Actually, built like fireplugs. Have you seen the recent pictures of Kumail Nanjiani? He's totally ripped! I think they would have laughed at the modernist's complaint that planing is hard work. It's true, productivity is enhanced with the fancy new machines. I think I'll start practicing putting my pants on two legs at a time, so I can be like everybody else. What was the question again? :^)

[Charles Guest]

Sounds like a lot of fantasy to me. I can tell you from experience that it is a lot easier to teach a teenager to make neat dovetails or other joinery than to teach him to do stock preparation in an efficient manner. "not all that much skill in four squaring rough lumber"??? I cannot imagine a skilled person saying that.

You don't have to imagine it, because I just said it. It's harder to dig a neat ditch quite frankly.

Who do you think did this work in a busy, well-staffed 18th century shop? The only fantasy involved is one that suggests a master craftsman four-squaring his own material. I can't come of with an adjective for that notion that's not an expletive. It's bloody silly.

I think I'm on the firmest of firm ground when I say that the 40 year old master cabinetmakers were not doing all the planing while the 15 year olds were doing layout, cutting joints, etc.

[Steve Voigt]

In the 'days of yore' so fondly being invoked if you hadn't moved on from four squaring lumber by the time you were in your late teens or early twenties then you were probably out of the profession altogether.

Is this true? I have never seen any evidence for it outside of large shops in London, where the degree of specialization was far higher than elsewhere. I imagine it was true in shops like the Townsend shop, but Townsend was about as typical a woodworker as Mozart was a composer…most shops were not doing elaborate carving for the super-rich.
I can certainly think of places where it was not true…so much of what we know of 18th c. American woodworking comes from the Dominy shop, where only one or two people were working at a time. There is no indication of such a hierarchical division of labor there.
The description in "The Joiner and Cabinet Maker" doesn't support your claim either. Apprenticeship was a two way street: The master was supposed to teach the apprentice to go out on his own after the contract was up. No way he'd be ready to do so if he spent all his time doing grunt work.




Go ahead and work for a year or so completely by hand, whatever it takes to get it out of your system. There's not all that much skill involved in four squaring rough lumber, and it seems such a waste of time if doing so keeps you from developing carving, veneering, doing more complex shaped work, and other skills. If you can't absorb the principles of preparing rough lumber within a week or so, something is wrong. After that, it's simply a matter of being able to physically do the work and still have some semblance of productivity - amateur or professional.

Most people today who work primarily by hand are hobbyists, and they do it for a wide variety of reasons. They may be doctors worried about their hands…people with PTSD…apartment woodworkers…SAPFM members who simply love working (mostly) without power. But there are lots of them, and stock prep will always be a part of what they do. Bringing it back once again to the original topic: the thread was started by a guy who works with all hand tools. That will inevitably color the sorts of projects he will do. Folks who do all their stock prep with machines will likely have different requirements and might prefer a different type of bench.
Oh, and I'd have to agree with Warren: if you think that all of stock prep can be learned in a week, you likely have missed a few things. I've been doing it for years and haven't figured it all out yet.

[Patrick Walsh]

Idk,

I work wood for a living. Both with power tools and by hand. But making a living yes mostly with power tools.

A bench well again o once upon a time was very hung up on these questions and the answers really mattered to me.

And not to sound like a snob or better than just because I work with wood all day as it’s not very romantic. I know what I. Gonna say will be viewed as elitist and snobby though.

Largely a bench is a bench is a bench. I remember when I was building my bench so many said to me I have never had a proper woodworkers bench. All I ever had. Was a couple sheets of plywood laminated together atop a few sturdy legs. No dog holes, no vises nothing. If you need a plane stop screw one into the dam bench yada yada.

So here goes my own revised opinion after about five years of full time shop work at nearly 60-70hrs a week. First I have yet to see a actual full time woodworker have a proper woodworkers bench like a Roubo and or whatever. Second all I have seen are plywood benches atop various bases of 4x4 and or more plywood. Everyone one seems to get along just fine. I have also not seen any of these shallow 21” deep things it’s actually the opposite build it as big as you can so you dint run out of room when you need it. Height well not to heigh and not to low. Heigh enough that when working your not slumped over and low enough that you can put something together on it. Most don’t get to have multiple benches in a shop environment.

Ok ok enough elitist I make a living working wood. Again there is nothing elite about it I’m kind lower middle class and will die with no teeth.

I have a beautiful ash Roubo 6” thick x 28” deep and 9’ long. The legs are 10x6” and I think it’s 31” tall for my girlish 5 10” 145 lb frame. I was advised when building it by another woodworker “furniture maker” who had been through all this to skip all vises, dog holes so forth and so on and just make a flat solid surface that would never move. I only half listened and this is what I have found.

I don’t use the vise much of ever I tend to you clamps and sacrificial strips as plane stops so fun and so in. The dog holes are as suggested “holes in the bench that will ultimately be more in the way then they get used”. What has held true is the bench is as flat as the day it was made and I can do anything on it and it won’t move so much as a mm in any direction. I could have a warehouse style dance party of elephants fueled by crystal meth and xtacy and at the end of a couple days it would be the only thing left in one piece.

Ok ok I digress again, what can I say I have to entertain myself.

I ignored all with the dimensions and I’m so glad I did. Be it making cabinetry or furniture boxes whatever the 28” depth and 9’ length are only ever a asset as is the 6” thickness and the monster 6x10” legs. So many say a waste of timber and I disagree totally as I’m gonna make the bench into a coffin shortly before my death and be buried in it. No wait, I want a sky burial fed to vultures atop a Himalayan mountain peak so I don’t know you can have my bench and wasted stock, make of it what you want when I’m in a birds belly.

What else has held true. The dam dog holes and leg vise. I wouldn’t remove them per say but if I built another bench I also would omit them. If I wan to cut joinery I use a moxon vise. I don’t regret the bench and honestly even though I slave away at a plywood melamine bench day in and day out if I had my way I’d work in my darn fancy pants bench everyday. I’ll say this when I do work on it I love every minute of it. Mostly it’s dead flat and I love that and it’s solid like the way I like my machines.

But do what you think suits you and you will enjoy as after all that’s what this whole silly Woodworking thing is about.

424495

And when bench building gets old..

424497

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Now some off-topic question, if I may?
For the bench top, I'm going to use affordable 40 mm (1 1/2") thick laminated beech panels sold at a local constructions material store (they cut them to size and it costs about 90 EUR per square meter / 10.8 square feet). My plan is to glue two panels face-to-face for a total thickness of 80 mm (3 1/8"). How would I go about this glue-up, and what sort of clamping would I need? I have only a few clamps at the moment and will have to stock up on clamps at some point, I just don't know which kinds and in which sizes I would need, so I keep postponing it until I really need them. I've heard some advice to drill holes in the panel(s) and screw them together with glue, then remove the screws when the glue is dry. That would be a cheap solution, I guess but will result in a top which has a bunch of screw holes in it. I have also heard about split-top roubo benches, not sure if they have meaningful advantages in usage, but perhaps if it would be easier to glue up two half-tops? Or you may try to talk me out of this plan altogether :)

I built mine from laminated beech panels, too. But I used 27 mm (1-1/16") thick ones and it was cheaper 5 years ago, like 35 EUR for 60x200 cm. I glued two panels together for top parts (I have 3 top pieces) and stretchers, and three panels for legs. I have bought some 40 mm too, that is much more difficult to glue and require more force when gluing them face to face to take out a bow or a twist in them. But you could slice them in long planks and then spin them 90 degree to put them on the edge and then glue together. Pretty much like you would do it from solid wood planks. At my local mill I can get steamed beech for a price of 780 EUR for cubic meter, or about 1 EUR per 1 kg of beech. And oh boy, it requires sharp blade to cut it. If it is somewhat dull it will not dig it, even with downwards pressure, that apparently became another topic in this thread.

It is not easy to hand plane those factory made panels - different segments of it might have different grain direction. It was at that time that I struggled to plane it with bevel up planes. Should be better with wooden planes with double blade though.

I drilled holes for dowels before gluing up as that makes it unlikely to move sideways when clamping. And parallel clamps with 7000N clamping force were able to close it with dowels in place. I would also do it in two split top pieces - easier, not so heavy, clamping is easy and possible to replace individually when worn or whatever.


I see. You have many expensive looking planes :)

It was a wall tool cabinet build and many planes there just for finding their place and arrangement of them. It took couple of years to acquire them.

[Graham Haydon]

We have enjoyed this discussion before. If you want to work without machines and power tools, like the op, listen to Warren, Stephen etc.

If you use machines like Sellers does and also power tools like Derek does to support their work, take their advise.

Last time we had a discussion, I posted a vid using a wooden jack plane taking deep cuts. The dynamic movements used in that process were very different than the light, refining cuts used by Derek.

If we could jump in our Delorean and pass over a bevel up jointer to a pre industrial woodworker, ground to a steep cutting edge, maybe gave a sales pitch demonstrating planing 18mm pine on edge with a rope and a power point on vector forces, just maybe the future of woodworking will be made good. Just before leaving we could lift up their workbenches and regulate the paralel fore arm.

I think they would of preferred penacilin.

[Patrick Walsh]

Hahahah

A man with a response clearly after my heart..

My point is it’s a dam bench just get to work. You will make anything work some better than others but a darn bench is not going to make or break you. With that said I’m spoiled and love me some excessive tool obsessing as much as the next nerd.


We have enjoyed this discussion before. If you want to work without machines and power tools, like the op, listen to Warren, Stephen etc.

If you use machines like Sellers does and also power tools like Derek does to support their work, take their advise.

Last time we had a discussion, I posted a vid using a wooden jack plane taking deep cuts. The dynamic movements used in that process were very different than the light, refining cuts used by Derek.

If we could jump in our Delorean and pass over a bevel up jointer to a pre industrial woodworker, ground to a steep cutting edge, maybe gave a sales pitch demonstrating planing 18mm pine on edge with a rope and a power point on vector forces, just maybe the future of woodworking will be made good. Just before leaving we could lift up their workbenches and regulate the paralel fore arm.

I think they would of preferred penacilin.

[Derek Cohen]

....
Derek, I don't think your pictures are a representative cross section--I think they are skewed toward supporting your claim. They are mostly (1) bevel up planes with their unusually straight handles, (2) unusual positions (Sellers is using one hand and is standing 2 feet behind the plane, Garrett Hack is planing a door edge that appears to be high above the bench top), or (3) people coming off the end of the board, which is indeed where the elbow will drop the most.

It's interesting that you criticize the pic of Chris Schwarz, who contradicts your hypothesis, and compare it unfavorably to Charlesworth. I'd take Chris's position any day, which is more representative of how someone working primarily with hand tools will work. Charlesworth is using a tight, four-fingered grip (not something I'd recommend) on his bevel up plane, and his front hand position, while occasionally useful, is not what one does most of the time....

Au contraire, Steve. Of the 12 pictures of planes shown (in that post), 9 were BD planes. I combed videos, some from YouTube, some from magazines, and some from DVDs, for demonstrations of how planes were used .. how they were held, how they were pushed, and so on. I did not want just descriptions in writing because not this may vary from what one believes they do. All the woodworkers involved were planing boards. All the woodworkers involved were well-known and considered (except by Warren, but that is no surprise) to be very experienced in this regard.

Why should it be relevant that Garrett Hack is planing a door - this is at bench height. The other photo is planing a panel, at that is on the bench top. The photo of Frank Klausz is taken from a video, and that he is coming off a board is irrelevant - this is just a photo, and I mentioned this point in the text.

Steve, I really respect your skills in building woodies, and I would like to believe that I remain am open to critique, but these comments of yours are way off the mark.

Edit to add: with regard the 4-fingered grip, I was also taken aback. However, it is a grip on a LN BU plane in each case, one which uses a Bailey handle. That is a commonality, but I don’t think that it is necessarily the factor. The fact is that, with all BU planes, the handle is further back than on Bailey designs, and their is no place for a forefinger. It has me thinking that both Hack and Charlesworth have found their way to accommodate. Hack has an atypical grip on his #604 as well. This does not interfere with their ability to wield a plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Maybe go ask a French Journeyman/Carpenter what he uses for a bench.....

[Steven Mikes]

Probably not much left to add to the discussion at this time, but let me try anyway. I originally built my bench at 38in (96.5cm) based on Seller's advice. Later when I discovered this forum and read some of the valuable comments on bench height here, I sawed off 3in to lower the height to 35in (89cm).

After using it that way for a while I found some operations difficult, like sawing dovetails and finer chisel work, so I raised the bench back up 3in by putting it on blocks. Had it that way for at least a year, until a few days ago when I started chopping multiple mortises for the first time ever. Then I found that the higher bench+work piece+mortise chisel was causing my shoulders to hurt by requiring the mallet to come from so high (oh by the way this would be a good point to mention my height, I'm 6ft 2in (188cm) so not really very short (although not as tall as some of you jesus what did they feed you?)

Anyway point is I've been back and forth a couple times now with the height and am about to start building a real bench of my own (Moravian ftw! Saw one of the originals at Old Salem btw, it's pretty low, probably around 32"), so this questions is very relevant for me too. Based on the tasks I've engaged in so far, the best choice right now seems to be a lower bench height, because I don't want to have to stand on a stool when chopping mortises to avoid shoulder fatigue. I can figure out a way to raise up work for sawing dovetails etc. (the fabled moxon vice may be in my near future).

[ken hatch]

Probably not much left to add to the discussion at this time, but let me try anyway. I originally built my bench at 38in (96.5cm) based on Seller's advice. Later when I discovered this forum and read some of the valuable comments on bench height here, I sawed off 3in to lower the height to 35in (89cm).

After using it that way for a while I found some operations difficult, like sawing dovetails and finer chisel work, so I raised the bench back up 3in by putting it on blocks. Had it that way for at least a year, until a few days ago when I started chopping multiple mortises for the first time ever. Then I found that the higher bench+work piece+mortise chisel was causing my shoulders to hurt by requiring the mallet to come from so high (oh by the way this would be a good point to mention my height, I'm 6ft 2in (188cm) so not really very short (although not as tall as some of you jesus what did they feed you?)

Anyway point is I've been back and forth a couple times now with the height and am about to start building a real bench of my own (Moravian ftw! Saw one of the originals at Old Salem btw, it's pretty low, probably around 32"), so this questions is very relevant for me too. Based on the tasks I've engaged in so far, the best choice right now seems to be a lower bench height, because I don't want to have to stand on a stool when chopping mortises to avoid shoulder fatigue. I can figure out a way to raise up work for sawing dovetails etc. (the fabled moxon vice may be in my near future).

Steven,


Good on you. I expect you will enjoy both the Moravian build and putting it to use. I think I posted earlier that a bench height about 250mm (~10") below the elbow is a good all around compromise with an added Moxon or bench appliances when you need a higher bench. As an example I'm 5'8" but with short legs and long body and arms. If I measure from the bottom of my arm at the elbow it is 44". My main bench is 34 1/2" from the floor to the top of the slab and it works well for most operations. Then again, as with all things wood, YMMV.

ken

[Gene Pavlovsky]

After using it that way for a while I found some operations difficult, like sawing dovetails and finer chisel work, so I raised the bench back up 3in by putting it on blocks. Had it that way for at least a year, until a few days ago when I started chopping multiple mortises for the first time ever. Then I found that the higher bench+work piece+mortise chisel was causing my shoulders to hurt by requiring the mallet to come from so high (oh by the way this would be a good point to mention my height, I'm 6ft 2in (188cm) so not really very short (although not as tall as some of you jesus what did they feed you?)

Have you considered trying sitting on top of the bench when mortising? When I lived in Thailand, I noticed that people like to do everything while sitting on the floor. With some practice I found that can be very convenient at times. Look at this Japanese woodworker (not mortising, but nevertheless can give an idea): https://youtu.be/W5pJxeT3rEo?list=RDQMfSwORfkAp8U&t=702
(https://youtu.be/W5pJxeT3rEo?list=RDQMfSwORfkAp8U&t=702)
I'm glad this topic has attracted such lively discussion, I just hope it doesn't devolve into flame war. Things were getting a bit heated...

[Brian Holcombe]

Au contraire, Steve. Of the 12 pictures of planes shown (in that post), 9 were BD planes. I combed videos, some from YouTube, some from magazines, and some from DVDs, for demonstrations of how planes were used .. how they were held, how they were pushed, and so on. I did not want just descriptions in writing because not this may vary from what one believes they do. All the woodworkers involved were planing boards. All the woodworkers involved were well-known and considered (except by Warren, but that is no surprise) to be very experienced in this regard.

Why should it be relevant that Garrett Hack is planing a door - this is at bench height. The other photo is planing a panel, at that is on the bench top. The photo of Frank Klausz is taken from a video, and that he is coming off a board is irrelevant - this is just a photo, and I mentioned this point in the text.

Steve, I really respect your skills in building woodies, and I would like to believe that I remain am open to critique, but these comments of yours are way off the mark.

Edit to add: with regard the 4-fingered grip, I was also taken aback. However, it is a grip on a LN BU plane in each case, one which uses a Bailey handle. That is a commonality, but I don’t think that it is necessarily the factor. The fact is that, with all BU planes, the handle is further back than on Bailey designs, and their is no place for a forefinger. It has me thinking that both Hack and Charlesworth have found their way to accommodate. Hack has an atypical grip on his #604 as well. This does not interfere with their ability to wield a plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Steve will perhaps comment on this, but I certainly use downward pressure when planing. My arms are not horizontal to the workbench, the wrist is straight.

I have David Weavers planes and LN planes (in the western category) and neither has a vertical handle.

Im not bearing my weight on the planes but I’m not using zero downward force either. Just enough force required.

[steven c newman]

424547
Hmmmm, since half of my user planes are by...
424548
And most were made long before LV or L&N existed....wonder where they got this style of handle from? ( this one is a Type 4, made about 1949)

As for downward pressure.....anyone use the dreaded "Death Grip" on the front knob?

USE your legs, people, that is where the power to shove a plane comes from.....otherwise, you will get a sore back.

[Brian Holcombe]

I hesitated to comment because it is nuanced. There is a range between standing on the plane and from pulling it with a string. Some pressure, just enough pressure, not too much pressure. Often enough I don’t comment in this regard becuase I find it near impossible to do so without providing an example, much easier to do in person.

[ken hatch]

I hesitated to comment because it is nuanced. There is a range between standing on the plane and from pulling it with a string. Some pressure, just enough pressure, not too much pressure. Often enough I don’t comment in this regard becuase I find it near impossible to do so without providing an example, much easier to do in person.

Brian,

Ain't that the truth.

ken

[Steve Voigt]

Steve will perhaps comment on this, but I certainly use downward pressure when planing. My arms are not horizontal to the workbench, the wrist is straight.

I have David Weavers planes and LN planes (in the western category) and neither has a vertical handle.

Im not bearing my weight on the planes but I’m not using zero downward force either. Just enough force required.


Brian,
Very well explained; I have nothing to add. You have a gift for brevity that I obviously lack. :D

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks, gents!

[Tom Bussey]

First off there is no perfect woodworking bench, there is only the perfect woodworking bench for me.


There is no perfect material to build a bench from, only what I chose to use. There are some choices for the top that are better than others but that is a different subject.


There is no one perfect style, or perfect sizes, not to mention number of vises or lack there of that can be included..


The following is a record of my present but 4th build. I know that for most people especially for the hand tool crowd, the Roubo bench is the only one to have. But about 25-30 years ago I saw a video on Wood Finishing by Frank Klausz and latter on Dovetailing a Drawer by again Frank Klausz. I watched him use his bench and heard him expound on it and I was hooked on the European style because it mirrored my style of woodworking. I did somewhat use the Roubo style, as best as I could, for the left handed side of my bench. And in jest, for the Roubo lovers out there I considered the back side of my bench


Anyway I thought I would take you through the steps I took to make my present bench.


I. I visualize very well but a lot of people don't, But visualizing and working through details
are two different animals.
A. First of all the space should define the size not built to a measured drawing and
then try to fit it in the space.
B. A mock up of bench size helps the bench fit the size.
1. Using cheap material saves money if design changed need to be made.
2. By using cheap material it can be reused else wear.
3. It maybe a mock up but you have a makeshift bench to use in the process..
4. Exact width is impossible to hit exactly because it is a glue up and wood
dimensions it.


II. The height of the bench is probably the most important dimension of the whole
project.


A. The thickness and type of material can affect height.
B. Type of work mostly performed at the bench determines height.
1. planning will require a certain height.
2. Assembly may require a different height.
3. spending a little time doing even mock up of different operation may eliminate
a sore back at a latter time.
C. If using a floor mat of some kind it can add over a half inch to height.
1. I use an interlocking floor mat because the required size is not available
2. glued to a 1/4 piece of plywood so it would stop being coming apart in use.
3. .In my case screwed to floor to keep it from sliding around.


III. Vises effect benchtop design.


A. A leg vise effects not only top design but length of leg also.
B. Shoulder vise effects the height of legs as well as design of the front leg design.
C. Tail vise and wagon vises effects length and placement of the stretchers.

[David Ryle]

I've recently finished a roubo style bench, 240cm long and52.5cm wide and 90cm in height. So far, no complaints. I'm 182cm tall.

[Jim Matthews]

"not all that much skill in four squaring rough lumber"??? I cannot imagine a skilled person saying that.

Amen, Reverend.

I suspect the rise of plywood construction mirrored the decline of apprentices - it filled a skill deficit (among other attributes).

[Gene Pavlovsky]

I've recently finished a roubo style bench, 240cm long and52.5cm wide and 90cm in height. So far, no complaints. I'm 182cm tall.

David what kinds of work do you do at your bench?

[steven c newman]

I seem to use the leg vise for a "third hand" when doing a glue up...
424926
As when such a panel is too wide to clamp up laying flat...
424927

[Dennis McCullen]

I built a moxon vise using the shafts of screw thread dumbells ($15) and it works great to quickly add a few inches so close work becomes, well, close. It clamps to my bench top and accommodates work up to 24-1/2 wide.


I am about your height (192). FWIW, my current bench is 35 5/8" and this is a comfortable enough planing height for me. It's not comfortable for close work, but the height is good to sit and work. My top is 24" x 65(ish)" that I built for a smaller shop. My next bench will be closer to 30" wide, since I can easily reach.

[Dennis McCullen]

Good luck, Gene, sorting through all this information and making a decision! Given all that was written here from various-sized individuals, I submit the notion that we all generally work with elbows bent, forearms sloping down to our hands and just a little less than parallel to the floor, and not at "knuckle height". The business end (saw teeth, plane iron) of tools we use may be a couple of inches below our grip on that tool (grip factor). Disregard other folks' height, bench height, etc. and simply measure how far your elbow is off the floor. Subtract 4" so your arm has a comfortable drop from the elbow to your hand and subtract another 2" to allow for the grip factor above. It may have been mentioned already since I'm late to this "party", but you should also consider how you will hold work to the bench. Can you drop a board far enough down and support with a sliding "deadman" so that edge planing an 8" board, for example, is an operation carried out just above bench height and not sticking up 3-4". In short, it's not just bench height but work height. Consider vise styles, leg, woodworking almost flush with the top, etc. Where will the tool meet the wood?

- I built a moxon vise that quickly clamps to the bench top if I need to work close. The most fun was modeling it after an article where someone used the threaded shafts and spin-on keepers from a set of dumbells ($15 ) for the hardware. It absolutely rocks! BEST OF LUCK!

-I bought a metal coffee table frame and added a top and shelf of plywood. I put it on casters and it's the handiest assembly table at 16" off the floor. It's also great for working on my bike. BTW, I recently converted a well-preserved 29-y.o. Marin mountain bike with 21 speeds to an upright cruiser with 5" riser sweep handlebars (cruiser-bike style) and a wider gel seat. It required longer cables so those are new and new brake pads. I got about two inches of room when I standover the frame and I'm not in a bent over posture. Obviously, I'm a bike rider for fun and fitness (age 69) and not an off-road racer.


Thank you everyone for your advice, and for sharing your own bench dimensions. The advice still a bit conflicting, but I think I'm getting a bit closer :)
I've tried taking my biggest plane (a 26" wooden jointer) and assuming positions similar to the photos in the article Derek had posted earlier, and also described in Steve's post.
The plane's bottom was 100 cm (39 3/8") off the ground. If I just stand upright with the plane in my hands and my forearm parallel to the ground, it would be a good 4" higher (~110 cm). That does suggest a 39-40" workbench height?

About the width (depth)... It was mentioned that the extra width will come in handy for assembly (I only have space for one bench so it has to multi-task). 30" wide shouldn't present problems with regards to reach. Would it have any other drawbacks?

Mike, good that you mentioned bicycles. I like mountain biking a lot and if I believe all the articles I've read, I should have a slightly bigger frame and much lower handlebar. However I hated riding a bike that was set up like this, and am enjoying a slightly smaller frame and a tall handlebar :) I am pretty flexible though, when it comes to yoga etc, so leaning down is not a problem for me. Good luck with the rats!