Ideal thickness for Maple Workbench Top

[Lyndon Graham]

Before I started this project, I checked out FOUR books from the library to decide on the design I wanted. There seems to be a lot of differences in the required thickness of the maple laminated (glued up 2x4's) top.

The designs I hace seen in the 4 books have thicknesses ranging from 2", 2.5" 3", and 4".

Now I do not want to waste $, but I want to do it right. If it makes any difference, I am planning square dog holes on most of it to use on the end vice and round for the front vice.

Thoughts on how thick I should make it?

Thanks

[Matt Benton]

Have the best of both worlds, make the front half 4" thick and the back half 2" thick, and wrap with a 1" X 4". Should save close to 20% on material...

[Marcus Ward]

Bollocks to saving material! It's a workbench. You only have to build it once if you build it correctly. Go 4" thick all over and be done with it. Read Schwartz's book before you go building a bench. It'll make you think about what you're about to do in a different way. Very illuminating. I highly recommend it.

[David Keller NC]

Lyndon - What Marcus said. It would be a mistake to put 40 hours and several hundred dollars into building a bench without spending the $25 on Chris' book first. I promise that you will be pleased with it, and it will save you time and materials, plus perhaps some frustration during use from a design shortcoming.

To answer your question, though, requires more information. You can use a much thinner top if there is structure directly underneath the surface and the span is not very long. The "english bench" in Chris Schwarz' book is an example - it has a thin top and a torsion-box design underneath. On the other hand, it would be foolhardy to build an 8' long bench in the Roubo style with a 2" thick top. Since the legs are directly mortised into the top with no stretchers underneath, it would flex badly in use. No big deal if you're just using it as a bench to sand birdhouses on, but a very big deal if you're trying to 4-square boards with hand tools.

[Robert Rozaieski]

How do you work? If you work mostly by hand and plan to do a lot of pounding on it (i.e. chopping mortises) and heavy planing of rough stock then thicker might be better (but then again the English/Nicholson bench had a relatively thin top of 1½-2" :confused:). If you are more power oriented but do some hand work for finish planing and cutting joinery but not major pounding or heavy planing, then thinner would be fine.

How do you plan to build it? You may have already settled on the laminated top but if you are planning on building the top by hand then I'd recommend against this route (I ask since this is in the hand tool forum). It may be slightly more stable but laminating a 24" wide top from 1½" thick boards is not done easily without having to remove a lot of twist and unevenness later. If you plan to build the top with hand tools, then you might consider 3 wide planks 2-3" thick edge glued so you only have to get 2 joints right instead of 15. If you will be using power to make the top, laminated will be easier but still a lot of work. After using a laminated bench top for a number of years, I'm not sure there is much advantage to the extra work. It still needs reflattening every year or two and was much more difficult and time consuming to get the top right, even with the assistance of power. If (when :rolleyes:) I build another bench, it won't have a laminated top.

[Marcus Ward]

I aligned all my boards with a mallet so they were very close. I found flattening the top with hand tools to be completely underwhelming, as I had been planning for days of torture planing it. It took under an hour if I remember correctly. Also, I glued on one or two boards at a time, building the lamination up over time, rather than all at once, so I was able to get them very close, or adjust the last glue-up before the next, so that the overall job was not bad.

[David Keller NC]

I've a similar experience to Marcus in flattening the top. In my case, I used shop-made panel clamps to keep the 8/4 boards in line during glue-up, with the result that they were only out by about a 32nd of an inch. I took lots of pics of the top-flattening process, so I might be able to post a newbie tutorial (after christmas - Santa's workshop is in full panic mode about now).

Regarding what Robert said, though - I agree. After having done the lamination process (with power tools - I would not have even attempted this without a lunchbox planer), I would instead have done it with a single board. It takes some looking, but here in NC very large slabs of white oak, red oak, and occasionally maple are available. There's a premium on it (about double the regular b.f. charge), but that means only an extra couple of hundred bucks, and that's well worth it in my opinion - even figuring my time at $10 an hour.

One other idea, Lyndon - There are quite a few companies that make inexpensive maple laminations for table tops and counters. You have to do some looking, but someone posted a link to a material-handling company a while back that made 1-1/2", 2", and 3" thick tops in any length and 24" width. The price was lower than the lumber cost, if I recall correctly.

[Robert Rozaieski]

I agree that flattening was easy after all the glue up was done. The trouble is getting to that point by hand. I did my first laminated bench by hand and it took weeks to get the top laminated as you need to plane each joint to a perfect fit before laminating the boards together, then laminate, then do another board, then wait, another board, etc. It's just not worth the effort to do it by hand. Plus, without a bench to work on, planing the faces of all those 8' boards before laminating is an exercise in frustration.

I could do a three board top in a single day (not the flattening, just the glue up). Plus, this could be done without a bench as the large timbers are heavy and stiff enough to plane up on a pair of low saw horses. You can't do this with a 1½" thick board. Laminating was not historically done. Laminating is a contemporary solution to the limited availability of thick wide boards. If I were to do it today, I'd get 3 8" wide 2-3" thick pieces and edge glue them to make the top.

[Greg Cole]

To pick up on David's pre-made bench top...
I bought a 2 1/4" thick hard maple top from McMaster Carr. $300 including delivery. Had the slab in 2 days from when I ordered it. FWIW, the slab was a Boos Brothers, which is a rather well known manufacturer of these type of slabs. I also skirted my bench to add some stiffness as a 2'ish inch thick top can flex some in heavy use. I went this route for one reason only... expediancy.
If you are set to make the slab, I'd take Marcus n David 's advice and make the top the same thickness across the width. You will not regret a full thickness top, but may live to regret one of multiple thicknesses.
And in my not so humble opinion, using tailed apprentices is very much acceptable for this.;)

[Lyndon Graham]

Here is how I plan to make it:

For the base, I am going to use construction lumber. The base will be built like a tank and every jount glued and bolted. Not pretty but it will cost be $50-75 and be very funtional.

Fot the top, I plan to laminate hard maple by buying 8/4, jointing on my 6 " jointer 2 perpendicular sides flat, planing one side flat, then using my table saw to cut the peices. The end result of each peice is it will be 7' long by about 1.75" thk, by the width I decide on. (Let's say for now it is 7' x 3" x 1.75".

I will then glue up two sections 13" (which is the max my Dewalt planer can handle)using biscuits for alignment as well as clamps in each all 4 directions. I willplane flat each 13" section and then do a glue up of that section. I am a little nervuous of putting a 13" wde peice of wood through a planer rated for 13". So I may break it into 3 sections.

For the final flatness, I hope to locate a cabinet maker and rent a drum sander for final flattening.

You can see the one I am hoping to build in the link below. But as I said above, to save $ and time my base will be sturdy, rigid, and heavy from contruction lumber. But I want the top to be 1st class. The plans for this one call out a 2.5" deck.

http://store.taunton.com/onlinestore/item/essential-workbench-project-plan-011066.html

[Marcus Ward]

I have put 13" of 8' of bench through my planer (the big grizzly 15"). It almost tipped it and it weighs 400 lbs. I'd be wary about putting one through a lunchbox. Although I suppose you could support the board, feed the lunchbox and let the planer crawl the length of the benchtop, moving supports out of the way as you went! :)

I misunderstood about getting the lumber square before glueup. I thought you meant afterward. I don't think I jointed mine and they're fine, but I got good square straight lumber when I started. I did plane them, however. My base is made from construction lumber too, and it's pretty as well.

http://www.f-64.org/bench/1.jpg

[Marcus Ward]

Don't build the bench in that link. It's not good enough. The legs aren't flush with the front so you can't clamp boards to them that are in the vice. the vise is the kind where the hardware is in the way on any sort of long cut. The twin-screw is a good vice for all kinds of work, but it's not an end vise. Seriously seriously seriously please heed this advice. Buy schwartz's book and read it before you do this. You don't have time to make all these mistakes, let other people make them for you. The book is the same price as the plans, and includes plans for 2 benches.

edit - yes mine violates the flush legs rule too! I didn't know this when I built it, and so now I get to build another base for it. Wish I'd had that book when I built it.

[David Keller NC]

"Seriously seriously seriously please heed this advice. Buy schwartz's book and read it before you do this."

I'm going to second this - I rarely post "absolutes" in threads on WW forums - but not this time. It is a severe mistake to build a workbench for hand tool work without buying and reading this book. There are those that have said "plenty of people have built workbenches before this book came out", and that's true. Many of these benches have real screw ups in the design because they were based on benches designed for manufacturing expediency in the early 20th century.

Many of the particulars of the forms shown in old texts such as Roubo, Moxon and Nicholson were there for very good reasons, and these reasons were abondoned by big manufacturers when power tools came into vogue and no one could imagine a reason to use a handplane to 4-square a board any more. Chris picked up on this, and added his own (and very convincing) logical analysis for why benches should be made in particular ways.

On the lamination method - take the time to build some panel clamps. You can build these for next to nothing - off-cuts from your maple, and threaded rod, nuts and bolts from the hardware store. The only tools you need other than your jointer, planer and drill is a hacksaw and a triangular file for cleaning up the threads on the threaded rods after you hacksaw them to length. Build them so that they will accomodate 24" in width - you will use them frequently for making furniture, if that's your thing.

Regarding biscuits - don't. It's a waste of time and potentially an exercise in frustration. They won't add any strength to the joints in the laminated top, and unless you're really careful, they won't help in aligning things all that much. Moreover, it will add considerably to the stress of a glue-up, because you've a bunch of slots to get glue into, as well as biscuits inserted into the slots, and glue to spread down the faces of the boards.

It's highly likely that by the time you get glue on all of those surfaces, the water in the glue will have swollen some of the biscuits, and you'll have real trouble pulling the joint closed, even with clamps. Build the panel clamps - they'll only take a couple of hours in the shop at most, and will make your life a whole lot easier.

[James White]

I have and read Chris's book. I am no Neander but, wanted to build a solid versatile bench. My vote goes for the one built by Bob Lang. He is Chris Schwarz colleague over at Popular Woodworking. Therefore I am sure he had some input on the design and it does not break any of the rules layed out in his book. What I like is it will save some lumber and the tool try is a nice feature. You can see it on the the thread below. Anyone have any comments on this design?

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=91427&highlight=21st+Century+Workbench

James

[Marcus Ward]

I'll try to make this point again. It's a marginal return to try to 'save lumber' over the course of ownership of the bench. It's just a few board feet difference. If you don't have the money now, it makes sense to save and build it right ONCE, instead of wrong once and right once, or 10 times, like Chris Schwartz did.

Since this is posted in the neanderthal forum, it's safe to assume the guy is using handtools. Or maybe he just wants to talk to guys who do because he knows they build workbenches, not worktables.

The 21st century workbench looks good, I don't care for the end vise, it looks like something a powertool guy would use. ;) The tool tray - I have one - Is very handy. I enjoy having mine but it's like a religious debate. If you let it fill up with shavings it's useless so you have to be the kind of person who would keep it clean. I am. Some aren't. Be honest with yourself about this.

[Lyndon Graham]

I have and read Chris's book. I am no Neander but, wanted to build a solid versatile bench. My vote goes for the one built by Bob Lang. He is Chris Schwarz colleague over at Popular Woodworking. Therefore I am sure he had some input on the design and it does not break any of the rules layed out in his book. What I like is it will save some lumber and the tool try is a nice feature. You can see it on the the thread below. Anyone have any comments on this design?

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=91427&highlight=21st+Century+Workbench

James


That was my runner up, but I am not the kind of guy that likes to keep a tool tray clean. Blow is off the tables and out the barn door with a leaf blower is the normal way I handle this. I had planned to put a removeable center tray on the backside of my bench. 99% of the time it would stored away, but could hook it on if I so desired.

Now I need to rethink this whole thing :confused:

[Lyndon Graham]

I have put 13" of 8' of bench through my planer (the big grizzly 15"). It almost tipped it and it weighs 400 lbs. I'd be wary about putting one through a lunchbox. Although I suppose you could support the board, feed the lunchbox and let the planer crawl the length of the benchtop, moving supports out of the way as you went! :)




I have about 4 rollers on each side. Fingers will be crossed and there will be several dry runs (with power off).

[Lyndon Graham]

Bollocks to saving material! It's a workbench. You only have to build it once if you build it correctly. Go 4" thick all over and be done with it. Read Schwartz's book before you go building a bench. It'll make you think about what you're about to do in a different way. Very illuminating. I highly recommend it.

Of the 4 book's I checked out of the library last weekend, I rated Schwartz's book 3 of 4 and actually returned it last night. I check it out agin and re-read it, but I thought there were two toehrs that were more useful. I am still at work and will post the other 2 books tonight.

[Marcus Ward]

Lyndon, have you done a lot of handtool work? I get the impression from your previous posts that this may be semi-new territory for you (and forgive me if I am mistaken!). If that is the case, some of Schwarz's ideas may not make perfect sense to you. Trust me as a guy who does most of the work with handtools, the benches he advocates, and the designs he is in favor of, definitely are the real mccoy in the realm of serious handwork. The middle portion of the book where he details each operation on the various bench styles is a bit rough to wade through and that may be why you didn't take to it so well. Read the beginning up to where he starts on the operations, and then read the end where he talks about the roubo bench, I think those are the important parts for you.

[Tom Hargrove]

I am just about finished (all but the tool tray) building a modified version of the 21st Century Workbench. It is to the point that I can use it for limited purposes, and I can say the following from fresh experience:

1. I am a fan of biscuits for many applications, but they really won't help align the top. I tried biscuits on the first laminations that I did, and it became an exercise in frustration. I then built a simple jig that used dowels to align the laminations for the the balance of the top, and it worked much better. If I had it to do over (and more patience), I would have built panel clamps and used them.

2. I put the individual slabs (11" and 13" wide in my case) through a lunch box planer. The slabs came out very flat. However, this is by no means a one man job, and I needed extra infeed and outfeed support as well as the assistance of my son to get it done. Without this, I would not have been able to run the slabs through the planer. Using a lunch box planer for slabs of this size was unnerving, if not scary. The process of setting up the extra support mechanims and flattening both sides of the bench using a lunchbox planer took over two hours, which is roughly the amount of time it would have taken with handplanes. If I had it to do over, and had decent planes and a decent platform to work from, I would have used handplanes.

3. I would not buy plans, or even follow the plans of others. Read books on the subject, and design something that fits you and your style of work. I planned this project for months, and was about to get started when Bob Lange's bench design was revealed. I liked everything about it other than it was too long for my space, too narrow and too low. The wood I already had didn't fit his plans exactly, so I modified his ideas to fit my space, my body and the material on hand. If I had followed his plans religiously, I would have been disappointed in the end result.

4. Be prepared to make mistakes and re-do those portions of the bench that don't come out to your liking. My old bench was too high, but I wasn't sure how much lower the new one needed to be. So I made the base first, mocked up a top and messed around with it. I recall that Lange recommends making the tops first, but that wouldn't have worked in my case, since I needed the base to use as a flat, level reference for gluing up the top. I ended up changing the height recommended by others for someone my size, and what I have now is wonderful, at least to me.

Good luck.

[Lyndon Graham]

I'll try to make this point again. It's a marginal return to try to 'save lumber' over the course of ownership of the bench. It's just a few board feet difference.

four inches it is for thickness

[Lyndon Graham]

Lyndon, have you done a lot of handtool work? I get the impression from your previous posts that this may be semi-new territory for you (and forgive me if I am mistaken!).

You are not mistaken. I am going to stop and reread the book.

I had plan on using four Woodriver Clamping System 4 directional clamps as shown in

http://www.woodcraft.com/family.aspx?familyid=321

we well as a 1/2 dozen regular clamps.

but I will start making panel clamps as soon as I find a good design. Thanks

[David Keller NC]

Anyone have any comments on this design?


I incorporated one of the features of Bob's bench in my latest effort - the dovetailed, long-edge support board below the top. It was a lot easier to engineer than a sliding board jack, and I wanted a bench that would be easily transportable, and I wondered about re-aligning the tracks for a sliding board jack on re-assembly.

There are some things I didn't like about Bob's bench, but my one of my dislikes have more to do with the work I want to accomplish than a core dislike for the feature. One was the tool tray - under no circumstances was I willing to give up solid bench surface for a tool tray in the middle. Part of this is that I regularly use boards more than 18" wide, and I wanted a 24" wide, solid bench top to plane them square and smooth. The tool tray would've significantly interfered, as there would be no support under the board in the middle of the bench. Not good. And expanding the width to both incorporate the support I needed for wide boards and the tool tray was a bad idea - Chris makes a very convincing case in his book why a bench wider than 24" is inappropriate - I think he's right in that regard.

The other strong dislike isn't a result of the way I work - I despise tusk tenons. To my eye, they're intensely ugly and suggest a certain laziness on the part of the cabinetmaker (though I fully realize that's a false suggestion - it's a lot of work, I've made a bunch of them). Moreover, I think they're a lousy way to achieve knock-down ability in the modern age of powered drills and Veritas bench-bolt hardware. They loosen under force and with changes in humidity, they stick out from the sides of the legs, so you can't use that as a clamping surface (which is the case on my latest bench - the tail vise opening is aligned flush with the side of the right front leg) - they just suck all around, IMO, and I'm really not a fan of "craftsman" furniture, so I want nothing that even suggests that style.

That's Bob's stock in trade, though, so the use of that type of joinery is appropriate to him.

One other thing that I liked about the design but wound up not using is putting a quick-release vise in the tail vise position. I can confirm that fooling around with a tail vise is a boatload of work, and it's finicky and fussy to get all of the necessary parts correctly lined up. I doubt I'll do another tail vise (this one's my third, and it was the first to use a metal slide and vise screw arrangement; it still took a lot of work) - his route to an end vise makes much more sense.

[Lyndon Graham]

I wanted a bench that would be easily transportable, and I wondered about re-aligning the tracks for a sliding board jack on re-assembly.

That is one of the reason's I am going with construction lumber underneath: It is quick and cheap, PLUS if I ever move my intention is to cut the underneath support structure up and send it to the landfill. I can rebuild it in 3 hours. The top deck however, will go with me.



One other thing that I liked about the design but wound up not using is putting a quick-release vise in the tail vise position. I can confirm that fooling around with a tail vise is a boatload of work, and it's finicky and fussy to get all of the necessary parts correctly lined up. I doubt I'll do another tail vise (this one's my third, and it was the first to use a metal slide and vise screw arrangement; it still took a lot of work) - his route to an end vise makes much more sense.

Having never used a real cabinet makers workbench, I find discussion on advantages/disadvantages regarding the location and types of vises confusing. That is why I will reread the book. Unfortunately, someone else has checked it out.

[Lyndon Graham]

Don't build the bench in that link. It's not good enough. The legs aren't flush with the front so you can't clamp boards to them that are in the vice.

I have been thinking about this part all day. Since I am building the foundation from scratch, the flush part is easily fixable.


the vise is the kind where the hardware is in the way on any sort of long cut. The twin-screw is a good vice for all kinds of work, but it's not an end vise.

This I do not understand due to my inexperience. What makes a good versus bad end vice? The twin-screw vice is in the mail. Send it back? move it to the front?

[David Keller NC]

"Having never used a real cabinet makers workbench, I find discussion on advantages/disadvantages regarding the location and types of vises confusing. That is why I will reread the book. Unfortunately, someone else has checked it out."

Lyndon - Buy a copy. It will be one of the best investments you'll make in WW books. There's a fair amount of other stuff in the book besides the nitty gritty of how to make a bench. For example, there's a chapter on "bench appliances" that's very useful - things like shooting boards, bench hooks, etc... Chris also wrote up an auxillary chapter the book on the subject of bench portability - it's a free download from his blog (I think it's the Woodworking Magazine blog - but it might be the Lost Art Press blog).

From the standpoint of vises, re-reading Chris' chapter on workholding is illuminating. One of the points he makes (and he's correct) is that there is no such thing as a perfect bench, nor a perfect vise for all applications.

Generally, though, what you need to know is that there must be a face vise. If you're right handed, the place to put that is on the left-hand front side of the bench, with the back vise jaw either mortised into the front of the bench so that it sits flush, or the use of the front of the bench itself as the rear jaw. An end-vise is just what it sounds like. For right-handers, that's on the front right corner of the end of the bench, and it's optional. It allows you to pinch a long board between a dog sunk into the left of the bench, and the dog in the jaw of the vise. Why it's optional has to do with the purpose of doing the pinching - many prefer to plane a board's face that way. The disadvantage of doing so is that you can inadvertently put too much pressure on the board, and bow it slightly upward. Your handplaning takes away this bow, so when you release the vise the board will relax and be concave.

The alternative is to plane with the board nudged up against a planing stop on the left side of the bench - the force of the plane's stroke keeps it tight against this stop, with the right end remaining free. It takes a bit of practice to get the hand of this method - if you put diagonal force on the plane, the right end of the board can go skittering across the benchtop.

That's not all an end-vise can do, it's also useful for taking apart things by putting a dog through an opening on a frame assembly or chair, and backing off of the vise to pull the assembly apart. By the way - I mis-spoke earlier, a quick release "standard" iron vise is not what you want in this position - a standard "standard" iron vise is what you want, because when you back off the screw on a quick-release, it disengages from the screw thread, so it's not possible to pull an assembly apart with this set-up.

An end-vise can be a veritas twin-screw, a "standard" iron bench vise (like an antique Record, an Anant, or a Jorgensen), a "tail vise" that's a rather complicated arrangement of wooden and iron parts, or a "wagon vise" that's completely enclosed in the right end of the bench.

[Joe Close]

I've been studying the bench building aspect of this hobby for a bit. I still have not built one. :confused: I've been using a maple slab and saw horses for the interim. Doing so makes one appreciate some of the ideas Chris has. I find a lot of what Chris Schwarz says about benches to make good sense. Particularly if you plan on using hand tools.
Chris has a blog, along w/ more info on benches, vise, etc. Lots of good reading and ideas. There is also an amendment to his book in the second link.

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/CategoryView,category,Workbenches.aspx

[Yuchol Kim]

Don't build the bench in that link. It's not good enough. The legs aren't flush with the front so you can't clamp boards to them that are in the vice. the vise is the kind where the hardware is in the way on any sort of long cut. The twin-screw is a good vice for all kinds of work, but it's not an end vise. Seriously seriously seriously please heed this advice. Buy schwartz's book and read it before you do this. You don't have time to make all these mistakes, let other people make them for you. The book is the same price as the plans, and includes plans for 2 benches.

edit - yes mine violates the flush legs rule too! I didn't know this when I built it, and so now I get to build another base for it. Wish I'd had that book when I built it.

I don't get this. Not good enough for what? All our bodies and mind work differently. I can think of simple fixtures that would allow you to clamp boards to benches that don't have legs flush. Sometimes I think we make things too complicated, I am guilty of this too.

[Alan DuBoff]

As many have pointed out, Chris Schwarz's book is excellent.

http://www.lostartpress.com/images/productimages/DVD/Dvd6.jpg
(http://www.lostartpress.com/product/3513e08a-2f07-4616-8f2f-74017f296377.aspx)
The biggest advantage with it is to read it and start to understand just what it is that you need for yourself to work the type of wood you desire. To be able to have a bench that will allow you to work the way you want, it doesn't have to be to work wood by hand, all people don't want that. That said, if your not doing handwork you might not have a need for the type of benches that Chris depicts/builds in his book.

Lyndon, you seemed to have missed that with the book, it didn't get you to think about those things, nor did it get you to understand what you need as a woodworker to accomplish the type of work you do wish to take on. You are in the minority of folks that read Chris's book, from what I have seen of folks in the woodworking community. Lucky for you that you have it at the library, especially since it doesn't appear to have been a very good value for you. I paid for the book, but don't feel cheated at all.

I've never seen new books like this at the library in my area, although I have seen Chris's book at Barnes & Noble on the shelf. Just goes to show how slow things move down here in Cali...

I have a solid maple workbench, the top is about 2.75" after said and done. I laminated it in sections and used a bench top planer (DW735) to get all the sections the same approximate thickness. Each section was about 8" wide, and I could have gone wider, just that the weight becomes more difficult to sling around by one's self.

[Eric Brown]

I suggest you get the vices and other hardware before determining the final thickness. For instance, a L-V Tucker vice fits a 2 3/4" top. A thicker top would need to be relieved and a thinner top built up. The L-V twin-screw requires clearance for the screws. I got the wider set so that the screws would be outboard the Noden adjustable legs which in turn helped determine the width of the bench. Other hardware probably has similar considerations.

[Casey Gooding]

To quote the Schwarz "Always overbuild your workbench". Follow this advise and you won't go wrong.

[Marcus Ward]

I guess you haven't read schwarz's book. I'm not going to go into ufficient detail to explain it as it would be a paraphrasing of the book.

Simple fixtures to clamp things flush is more complicated than just building it properly the first time and not having to build fixtures.



I don't get this. Not good enough for what? All our bodies and mind work differently. I can think of simple fixtures that would allow you to clamp boards to benches that don't have legs flush. Sometimes I think we make things too complicated, I am guilty of this too.

[John Schreiber]

I don't get this. Not good enough for what? All our bodies and mind work differently. I can think of simple fixtures that would allow you to clamp boards to benches that don't have legs flush. Sometimes I think we make things too complicated, I am guilty of this too.
I know we must sound like we have all been drinking Chris Schwarz's koolaid, but I've been planning a new bench for a long time and had done a bunch of drawings, but when I read Chris's book a lot of my ideas changed.

For each procedure I do on my current (soon to be old) bench, I try to visualize how I would do it with various bench designs. Chris's Ruobo style seems to me to solve many problems before they start. One of his philosophies seems to me to make your bench as simple as possible, but make it work for as many tasks as possible without having to add any additional gizmos or jigs. And make it stout. Or stouter.

[Alan DuBoff]

If you don't have Chris Schwarz's book, not to fret, you can watch the video that Al Navas took at WIA, it is pretty much the same information he gives in his book. In fact, I probably would have felt like I got nothing from the session because it is pretty much what he outlines in his book.

Part 1 (http://sandal-woodsblog.com/2008/12/04/6-wia-part-1-of-3-forgotten-workbenches-and-workholding/)

Part 2 (http://sandal-woodsblog.com/2008/12/11/37-wia-part-2-of-3-forgotten-workbenches-and-workholding/)

[Yuchol Kim]

I guess you haven't read schwarz's book. I'm not going to go into ufficient detail to explain it as it would be a paraphrasing of the book.

Simple fixtures to clamp things flush is more complicated than just building it properly the first time and not having to build fixtures.

I own this book and have read it many times. Keep in mind, even though Schwarz is an expert woodworker, his opinions and what he said in his book represent are just that, one man's opinion. Just because he thinks having a flush leg is a good idea, doesn't make others "not good enough". Thank you.:)

[Marcus Ward]

I think perhaps you might want to read the book again. He makes the point that the benches of old, used by guys who used handtools for a living, had legs flush with the front. It's not like he invented this idea.

[Alan DuBoff]

I own this book and have read it many times. Keep in mind, even though Schwarz is an expert woodworker, his opinions and what he said in his book represent are just that, one man's opinion. Just because he thinks having a flush leg is a good idea, doesn't make others "not good enough". Thank you.:)
I completely agree with you, although his opinion is pretty spot on for folks that work with hand tools. This doesn't mean that much great work hasn't been done on benches that do not have flush legs, far from it.

Sometimes folks put a bit too much weight in one person's view, and this is a case where that is easy to happen.

Using a bench that doesn't have legs flush with the front hasn't prevented folks like Frank Klausz from creating some great work.

That said, I had most of my cut list ready to build the workbench by Lon Schleining from FWW #167, when Schwarz created his Holtzappfel style bench. I saw that bench, redesigned mine to be similar, with my own modifications, and ended up with my workbench I use now. Chris Schwarz doesn't recommend folks use a pattern maker's vise either, but I used one on my bench.

As you say, one man's opinion is just that, one man's opinion.

[Steven DeMars]

Of the 4 book's I checked out of the library last weekend, I rated Schwartz's book 3 of 4 and actually returned it last night. I check it out agin and re-read it, but I thought there were two toehrs that were more useful. I am still at work and will post the other 2 books tonight.


You have a library with books published after the mid-sixties . . . ?

Steve

[Alan DuBoff]

Of the 4 book's I checked out of the library last weekend, I rated Schwartz's book 3 of 4 and actually returned it last night. I check it out agin and re-read it, but I thought there were two toehrs that were more useful. I am still at work and will post the other 2 books tonight.
I still find it quite amazing that you were able to find this new print in your local library, lucky for you.

But after reading your other post Lyndon, where you just bought your first hand plane, I have to ponder how you know what you would need for working with hand tools?

Probably not much I can help you with if Chris Schwarz's book couldn't help you out. :o

[David Keller NC]

"I own this book and have read it many times. Keep in mind, even though Schwarz is an expert woodworker, his opinions and what he said in his book represent are just that, one man's opinion. Just because he thinks having a flush leg is a good idea, doesn't make others "not good enough"."

Actually, this is incorrect. While there's no doubt (and I wouldn't argue) that Chris' book contains a heavy dose of one man's analysis and opinions, the designs presented in the book and the reasons for the way they're built are the result of thousands upon thousands of woodworkers, and several hundred years of the evolution of benches to suit handwork.

The flush legs are just one example. If, for example, you surface the edges of all of your boards on a power jointer, and you don't build cabinet doors a touch too big and then plane them to fit, flush legs will be unnecessary. However, if one's intent is to use hand tools to 4-square wood, building the legs flush with the front of the bench is essential, as is either a board jack, a sliding board jack, a sliding leg vise, or a substitute arrangement (Bob Lang's dove-tailed extra stretcher with dog holes is one example of a suitable substitute).

I'm not familiar enough with Franz Klaus' methods of working to know, but there's an excellent chance that he uses power tools to 4-square wood, as I do know his focus is entirely on the "get 'er done" attitude, and it's hard to argue that a big power jointer isn't going to be as efficient as a sharp hand plane.

But the single most important point Chris makes in his book that is an over-arching concept is that a correctly-designed bench makes handwork possible, and all work easier. The second most important point he makes is in the "Invent Nothing" chapter - because a bench is a very simple, though critically important tool, almost anything you can imagine has been tried before. Very, very few of those trials have made it into French, German, or English bench traditions, and there's good reason for that.

When one looks at a "continental design" bench like the ones that are in countless plans that have been published over and over again (and very much like the Taunton plands that Lyndon linked to), and examine their history, one finds that they are largely based on commercial antecedents from the early 20th century - and those antecedents were designed to be manufacturable in factories and shipped across the country. This is one big reason for the "sled-trestle leg" support that results in the legs not being flush with the front of the bench - it makes breaking down the bench to be shipped possible and inexpensive. It has little to do with the needs of the hand-tool worker.

[Lyndon Graham]

You have a library with books published after the mid-sixties . . . ?

Steve
and they tax the hell out of me for it, I would rather buy the books and have less taxes :D

[Yuchol Kim]

But the single most important point Chris makes in his book that is an over-arching concept is that a correctly-designed bench makes handwork possible, and all work easier.


Correctly designed bench (even a perfectly designed bench for that matter) is one that fits the user. That's all I am saying. People work differently, and need different tools to get the same task done. My one and only disagreement on this thread is that one should not make statement so general that "....is not good enough". Remember, lots of newcomers read this forum and I think the best approach is to share pros and cons of different design rather than "build this because it's the best". :)

[Marcus Ward]

I didn't say anything was the best, I just said that one wasn't good enough.

Yes, lots of newcomers come here, it's important that they don't learn any ridiculous ideas from the powertool users that sneak in here from time to time. ;)

[John Schreiber]

You have a library with books published after the mid-sixties . . . ?
When Chris's book came out, I asked the library to buy a copy. They did and called me when it came in so I got to read it first. Now they have two copies in their collection and both are almost always checked out. Rather than me having a copy on my shelf, dozens of people are benefiting from it.

I own few books, but I go to the library about once a week.

[Bill Fleming]

I am just about finished (all but the tool tray) building a modified version of the 21st Century Workbench. It is to the point that I can use it for limited purposes, and I can say the following from fresh experience:

1. I am a fan of biscuits for many applications, but they really won't help align the top. I tried biscuits on the first laminations that I did, and it became an exercise in frustration. I then built a simple jig that used dowels to align the laminations for the the balance of the top, and it worked much better. If I had it to do over (and more patience), I would have built panel clamps and used them.

2. I put the individual slabs (11" and 13" wide in my case) through a lunch box planer. The slabs came out very flat. However, this is by no means a one man job, and I needed extra infeed and outfeed support as well as the assistance of my son to get it done. Without this, I would not have been able to run the slabs through the planer. Using a lunch box planer for slabs of this size was unnerving, if not scary. The process of setting up the extra support mechanims and flattening both sides of the bench using a lunchbox planer took over two hours, which is roughly the amount of time it would have taken with handplanes. If I had it to do over, and had decent planes and a decent platform to work from, I would have used handplanes.

3. I would not buy plans, or even follow the plans of others. Read books on the subject, and design something that fits you and your style of work. I planned this project for months, and was about to get started when Bob Lange's bench design was revealed. I liked everything about it other than it was too long for my space, too narrow and too low. The wood I already had didn't fit his plans exactly, so I modified his ideas to fit my space, my body and the material on hand. If I had followed his plans religiously, I would have been disappointed in the end result.

4. Be prepared to make mistakes and re-do those portions of the bench that don't come out to your liking. My old bench was too high, but I wasn't sure how much lower the new one needed to be. So I made the base first, mocked up a top and messed around with it. I recall that Lange recommends making the tops first, but that wouldn't have worked in my case, since I needed the base to use as a flat, level reference for gluing up the top. I ended up changing the height recommended by others for someone my size, and what I have now is wonderful, at least to me.

Good luck.
Hi Tom

Just curious - what height did you set for your bench and how does this relate to your height?

Thx Bill

[Lyndon Graham]

But after reading your other post Lyndon, where you just bought your first hand plane, I have to ponder how you know what you would need for working with hand tools? :o

I read, A LOT. I bought about a dozen books on woodworking and from the library read 3X that. I look for consensus from multiple authors When I have 3 of 4 authors saying this is how do do it and these are the tools you need to do it, that is probably what I will do.

When I buy a tool, I google the hell out of it and read opinions from the "experts" and numerous blogs like this one. When the consensus is that this is the tool to get, that's the one I get.

(sorry, the boring engineer in me over analyzes everything to death).

[Lyndon Graham]

Hi Tom

Just curious - what height did you set for your bench and how does this relate to your height?

Thx Bill

Here is what one of the workbench books said. Stand flat footed with your arms down by your side. Hold your hands level with the ground (arms are still pointed down). Measure that height. For most people that height is 34-36" and that is the height your bench youd be.

[David Keller NC]

"For most people that height is 34-36" and that is the height your bench youd be."

A note - 34"-36" would be very, very high for hand planing for the average male height (about 5'-10" in the US). At that height, most of the muscles used in planing will be your arms and upper back, and you'll tire very quickly. Ideal planing height is generally about 4" lower, or 6" lower if you prefer wooden-bodied planes (the grip points for these planes are generally 2-3" higher than Bailey-style planes).

My bench is 30" high for that reason, but I'll also note that the ideal height for chiseling, carving, and joint cuting operations is generally about the 34-36" cited. It's one reason Roy Underhill has two benches on his show - one at "planing height", one at "joinery height".

[Marcus Ward]

My bench is 34" floor to top and I'm 6'2".

[Thomas Knighton]

The method Chris Schwarz suggests is to let your hand hang straight down, then measure from the floor to where your pinky joins your hand. This is supposed to be the ideal height for hand planing.

Me? I'm still making do with a Workmate for the time being, so I'm not all that picky. However, as a newbie myself, here's my thoughts on a workbench. Yes, they are heavily influenced by Chris Schwarz, but mostly because what he said made a lot of sense.

If you're going to use hand tools, I feel it's far, far better to build a bench for hand tools. By this, I means to overbuild the heck out of it. Massive legs, big stretchers, and a huge honking top. Build the legs flush with the sides, at least in the front. Try and avoid aprons and such. Why would I say this when I use a workmate?

It's very simple. A hand tool focused bench will generally work well for power tools, but the same isn't true. New people have plenty of things in woodworking to get flustered and frustrated about. Their bench needs to be one thing that won't do that. Eliminate as many potential frustrations as possible and then what's left are primarily overcome by experience. This is true in many other disciplines, and in my limited time as a woodworker, I feel it's just as true here.

Yes, "good enough" might actually be "good enough" for you. However, it might not and your woodworking may suffer.

Think of my advice as the same advice that is usually given in reference to buying power tools. Buy the best you can. In this case, it's build the best that you can.

YMMV of course.

Tom

[Tom Hargrove]

"Hi Tom

Just curious - what height did you set for your bench and how does this relate to your height?

Thx Bill"

Bill -

I'm at work right now and don't remember where it ended up heightwise. I will measure this evening and respond.

[David Keller NC]

"My bench is 34" floor to top and I'm 6'2"."

That would be about right on the "30 inch rule" - you're 4 inches taller than the average that rule was based on (5'-10").

[Alan DuBoff]

I read, A LOT. I bought about a dozen books on woodworking and from the library read 3X that. I look for consensus from multiple authors When I have 3 of 4 authors saying this is how do do it and these are the tools you need to do it, that is probably what I will do.

When I buy a tool, I google the hell out of it and read opinions from the "experts" and numerous blogs like this one. When the consensus is that this is the tool to get, that's the one I get.

(sorry, the boring engineer in me over analyzes everything to death).
Not to dis your analysis, but woodworking is an area where it pays to actually do the work rather than read about it.

At least speaking for myself, it's too easy to become an arm chair woodworker. Before long you'll know exactly how to do everything, without ever cutting a piece of wood.

This is also what makes Chris Schwarz's book so good, it's all derived from practical experience.

It is like buying your first hand plane, you can read about sharpening it until the cows come home, but you will find that taking the time to learn how to sharpen the edge will go a lot farther than reading about it. Putting the metal to a stone and understanding how to keep it at the right angle, how many strokes it takes to clean the edge up, making sure the edge is straight after, or that it is sharp...you can learn a LOT by doing it.

That said, we're all different, we all work differently, and go about things different ways. All the more reason to do it rather than reading about it.

The bottom line is that there is no perfect bench, and one can pontificate over the virtues of what will be the perfect bench and end up wanting to change it after they build it. There are no perfect tools, all work just fine to accomplish the same task in many cases. There are no special machines that will magically keep your edges sharp while you work, so you will need to sharpen them (all your edge tools, including hand saws). When you use a tool, it will require sharpening, this is true of all tools that are used to work wood.

OTOH, you can read up on this stuff, the inet is good for that, I'm not suggesting there isn't a lot of great info out there, just that it is easy to fall prey at being an arm chair woodworker, and being an engineer it is something I struggle with all the time, speaking for myself. I guess what I am saying is "Don't forget to apply all those ideas you read about", it's all too easy to let it pass by and think you've retained all that knowledge, but the equalizer is in doing the work to really understand it.

This is very similar to engineers, there are people that walk into a job and know how to do it, they have read most everything about it and know what they need to do for that application to run 24x7 without failure, but somehow as they start working on the application they start to find out that return codes need to be checked on device accesses, because devices fail...race conditions prevent applications from completing their tasks, failure to test will bite you in the end...these are tasks that seem to be learned the hard way...and woodworking is no different, there's a lot of tasks that will just be learned better by doing, so you can see how the wood cuts, how the wood cleans up, how the grain runs, how the joinery fits...there are some things that are better learned by doing it, as it becomes clearer in performing the task. Knowing which woods are difficult to work with, when not to force a dovetail together since they will split, how tight to make a mortise so a tenon doesn't blow it out, why removing a scratch before final finish is important...these are all things that are learned better by doing, IMO, and have been some of the most educational to me for learning how to work wood.

Good luck with your journey, we all take a different approach in many cases, but it is the knowledge from doing that helps us grow the most. As someone that is also an engineer, and someone that can easily fall into being an arm chair woodworker, it's something for me to be aware of. Those same pitfalls might not be a problem for you and reading about it without doing the work might work fine for you, but be warned...there is nothing that beats practical, real world experience.

[Lyndon Graham]

Not to dis your analysis, but woodworking is an area where it pays to actually do the work rather than read about it.

At least speaking for myself, it's too easy to become an arm chair woodworker. Before long you'll know exactly how to do everything, without ever cutting a piece of wood.

This is also what makes Chris Schwarz's book so good, it's all derived from practical experience.




True, but:
A dumb man keeps making the same mistake over and over
A smart man makes the mistake once
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others
- author unknown

and another one from an old professor of mine:
"Two hours in the library can save you 2 months in the lab"

I have already changed by bench design in several ways based on the comments in this forum. And there still is not one wood chip on the ground.

and soon the metal will meet the grindstone, but not until I have done a reasonable job of seeking advice of those who know more than me (and as a novice, threr are plenty to learn from).

;):)

[Chris Padilla]

I'm sure the wood chips are just being safely stored in the board, Lyndon! ;)

[Eric Brown]

With the Noden legs you can adjust the height to fit the task. Mine works great, There is another post about vices where a contributor has a similar bench and I gather he likes his as well. The height may be more important than bench thickness, as long as the bench is stiff and heavy most any wood 2"-4" will work.

[Richard Niemiec]

Phew.... after reading all of this thread, I'm very glad that I bought me a Sjobers elite 2500. Great bench, by the way.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/3066502772_f00743a528.jpg

Sorry for the drive by .........

rn

[Lyndon Graham]

Phew.... after reading all of this thread, I'm very glad that I bought me a Sjobers elite 2500. Great bench, by the way.

rn

The thought has crossed my mind :confused:. But with every project, I want to build my skills. Even though this project could cost me >$1000 if I screw it up, I have plans to build things with worse ramifications. This project is part of the journey and is the reason I did not buy one ready to go.

[Richard Niemiec]

The thought has crossed my mind :confused:. But with every project, I want to build my skills. Even though this project could cost me >$1000 if I screw it up, I have plans to build things with worse ramifications. This project is part of the journey and is the reason I did not buy one ready to go.

I hear you. I clearly have <he says modestly> the skills needed to build the bench, and I too read all the books and settled on a design, but after I priced out the materials (first class) and all, the difference came down to about $700, and the time became the issue. Believe me, I agonized over buying versus building, but bought. Some compromises, but not all that many. Follow your heart, that's where satisfaction can be found.

RN

[Tom Hargrove]

Bill -

My bench ended up at 34 1/2" high. I am 74" tall, but my legs are long. If I had used the Chris Schwarz method, or the method mentioned by Lyndon, the bench would have ended up being about 32" tall. After using it at this height for the past couple weeks, I wouldn't want it any lower. But if I realized later that it needs to be lower, I can always cut the legs shorter.

I agree that it is a bit low for chopping. I may make an auxillary top for this purpose.

[John Sanford]

Okay, I'll toss in my zwei pfennig here.

First, I've got to agree with most folks, get Schwarz's book. It is illuminating to say the least, in large part because it really focuses on analysing what a workbench is designed to do, and how to evaluate whether a particular design or feature meets its functional goals. I've likely read most of the same workbench books you've read, and Schwarz's is IMHO the best of the lot as far as approaching the workbench as a tool goes.

I have a basic bench, built from a design in IIRC Sam Allen's book, with a second generation top. My first top was a 36" wide solid core door on a four foot long by 2' wide base. It had some real advantages, namely pretty much anything I wanted to assemble would fit on it, I had two sides I could work on when I wanted to, and I could easily stash my shop vac under the overhang. It also had some real drawbacks, mostly related to the base to top interface. I did not have a flush front, which started to haunt me when I began trying to do edge work. The back jaw of the vise did not set flush with the front edge of the top. The long overhang on the end ended up sagging, since the top was solid particle board core. The "apron" effect of having a 1.5" top sitting on a stretcher would cause me no end of grief when clamping things.

I tossed that top when I moved, and purchased a ready made solid maple top from Jorgensen when I got my shop out of storage. It is better, but I still have the "apron" effect. The vise is now mortised back.

What I've learned, having worked with two incarnations of my bench, as well as plenty of time with workmutts, is that Schwarz's book managed to distill my dissatisfaction with my bench, allowing me to critically analyze it and aim for improvements. I had been working on a new design, and have decided to make a few key changes. My new bench will have a thicker top so I can ditch the stretchers, 3"-4" thick. The only downside to the thicker top is I'll have to bulk up my arsenal of 12" Mini QuickGrips as the dozen 6" ones will be much more limited. It will be 7', maybe even 8' long, although I will go for 24"-30" wide. The width is because I don't put my bench against a wall, but much prefer to have access all around, and I work on all sides. No tool tray, because I have a bench brush hanging on a nail right behind me. I was planning on drawers, but now if I do have 'em, they will be a slip-in case, rather than integral to the structure. I will have a sliding jack or some such. I'm still undecided on the matter of vises, aside from the fact that I won't have a tail vise. Having finally broken down and purchased the Veritas Hold Down I can only say "man, was I an idjit for waiting so long on this one!"

The key thing though is now, I evaluate every design feature from the perspective of "how will this address some of the woodworking challenges I have faced and will likely face?"

I am a thoroughly hybrid NeanderNorm. I've cut mortises with routers, with hollow chisel attachments, with the drill press, with a handheld drill, and with chisels. I plane with both my lunchbox planer and with an assortment of handplanes. I've yet to cut any dovetails by hand, but do all sorts of other things, including airbrushing at my bench. My drill/driver is my friend, but so are my bench stops. I want a bench that is unmoving except when me and three or four Mr. Universe contenders persuade it otherwise, because I've had too many "bad things" happen when the workbench goes skittering out from under a workpiece.

Think through the work you'll be doing on the bench as best as you can, and the tools you'll be doing it with. Finally, remember that if Bench v 1.0 isn't exactly what you want, it can always serve as an assembly table after Bench v 2.0 comes along. :D

[John Schreiber]

. . . Even though this project could cost me >$1000 if I screw it up . . .
Don't worry too much. It can't really cost that much money. Even a total screw up will still leave you with the vises and any other hardware you bought. And anything less than a total screw up still leaves you with a bench which works very well, but which might have some ugly spots or features you don't want.

Also, I've never heard of any store-bought workbench with the mass necessary for hand tool work. (Although I heard that Lie Nielsen was going to offer a Ruobo - fear the cost - even more, fear the shipping cost.)

[David Keller NC]

"Even though this project could cost me >$1000 if I screw it up, I have plans to build things with worse ramifications."

Lyndon - assuming you're not calculating for your time involved (I realize that's not free, it's just difficult to put a price on), you shouldn't spend anywhere close to this. If so, you're really paying way too much for wood. The vises, of course, are removable and can be re-installed on another bench if you're not pleased with the outcome, so you're not out anything there. Worst comes to worst, you could sell a vise you didn't like for 75% of what you paid for it.

One of the things in Chris' book that's worth paying attention to is to use reasonably-priced materials. You've already noted that you're going to use "construction lumber" for the base. I'm not sure what species that is where you're from, but you might want to consider using it for the top as well. Chris makes convincing arguments for the use of southern yellow pine in his locale, but mentions that there are other suitable species in different parts of the country. On the West Coast, douglas fir might be the best choice.

The bench Chris built with SYP, the Roubo, is still in use 3 years later, which says something for someone that's built so many benches.

[Lyndon Graham]

"Even though this project could cost me >$1000 if I screw it up, I have plans to build things with worse ramifications."

Lyndon - assuming you're not calculating for your time involved (I realize that's not free, it's just difficult to put a price on), you shouldn't spend anywhere close to this. ...

On the West Coast, douglas fir might be the best choice.

Twin screw Vice: $225
Front Vice: $80
Dog legs: $80
Just the Deck: 75" x 26" x 4" assuming a 30% waste rate= 77 board feet. At $6.7 for Maple = $518.
Sub-Structure from construction lumber < $100

No Southern Pine here. Fir had crossed my mind, but I want to do it right. Purple Heart is actually $5 per board foot and being from LSU I love the color purple, but the idea of a dark bench is just not right. Patton once said, "I hate paying for the same real estate (in blood) twice".

[David Keller NC]

Hmm - Not sure what you're describing as "dog legs" - do you mean "bench dogs"? The vises don't count on the cost of screwing something up (unless you damage them somehow, but that'd be hard to do).

But - you're really paying a lot for maple. Here, utility maple is around $3 a b.f. for 8/4, though of course figured maple can run up to $20 b.f.

If you haven't bought it yet, I'd reconsider on using maple, at least from the source you're quoting. Here's a couple of alternatives - look up some guys that have Woodmizer sawmills in your area. Most of these small operators will saw to your specifications, and the wood is a whole lot cheaper - many of them in my area have air-dried stock ready to go.
Second alternative - seriously consider using doug fir or another common softwood species from your area; there's nothing wrong with using wood like this, and it will be MUCH easier to keep your bench flat - hand-planing really hard wood is a real drag.

[Lyndon Graham]

Hmm - Not sure what you're describing as "dog legs" - do you mean "bench dogs"? The vises don't count on the cost of screwing something up (unless you damage them somehow, but that'd be hard to do).

But - you're really paying a lot for maple. Here, utility maple is around $3 a b.f. for 8/4, though of course figured maple can run up to $20 b.f.

If you haven't bought it yet, I'd reconsider on using maple, at least from the source you're quoting.

You do have me thinking. One thing I am considering is Western Maple.
Here is the comparison


Modulus (Mpa) Hardness (N) Specific Gravity
Hard Maple 12,600 6,400 0.63
W. Maple 10,000 3,800 0.48
D. Fir 12,600 2,900 0.50
S Pine 13,700 3,900 0.59

I can see why S Pine works. Thoughts on Fir and W Maple?

[Chris Padilla]

Just about any local cheap hardwood will make a fine bench. I think folks agonize over the wood too much. Some guy on here posted an "endgrain" plywood top! I thought it was very cool. :)

Keep a lookout on craigslist to find some local ~100 bf lots of hardwood and seriously consider it. I picked up ~120 bf of some rough maple down here (dunno what *kind* of maple) for $4/bf. It was 10/4, 10" wide, 10' long. One day it might be a bench but I'm not sure. :)

[Lyndon Graham]

I found a source at S Pine. Grade D at $4.50 a board foot. Grade D means knotty as hell and I would have to order it sight unseen in the form of a 2x12.

I am leaning against it do the the sight unseen part. It could show up bowed, twisted, etc

[David Keller NC]

Lyndon - that's a bad deal on SYP - give it a pass. If worst came to worse, you could have SYP shipped to you across the country for less than that, and have FAS graded stuff to boot.

DON'T buy "hard maple" just because it's labeled that - it's not worth it. If you really, really want maple for a benchtop, you might consider giving Steve Wall of Wall lumber a call. It's a long way to ship it, but you still might come out ahead considering you'll need 100 b.f. or more (you might consider buying more - maple's always good to have around to use as a primary/secondary wood, shelving, jigs, etc...). You should be shooting for bench material that's about $2-$3 a b.f., maximum. I'm not familiar with your area, but I'd think you could get B and better douglas fir for that, and at a 4" thick top, you will never notice any flexing.

And don't dismiss finding some wood on Craig's list or through the WoodMizer network (you can look up owners at the Woodmizer site). A little bit of legwork might save you several hundred dollars.

[Alan DuBoff]

I found a source at S Pine.
Why would you use that on the west coast? We use douglas fir for dimensional lumber.

[Lyndon Graham]

Why would you use that on the west coast? We use douglas fir for dimensional lumber.

I am going to give S Pine a pass because of the $ and the fact I can't see it before I buy it.

But the reason S Pine is better than Fir is the modulus and hardness (see above)

[Thomas Knighton]

Douglas Fir should work fine for a bench. Again referring to Christopher Schwarz, he actually recommends Douglas Fir in areas where SYP isn't available. Hardness isn't the most important part for a workbench, but stiffness. You want the wood to remain stiff over long spans. On page 15 of Schwarz's book, he has a table for the stiffness value of various woods. Of the woods listed, SYP is third highest for stiffness. Hickory is the highest. Between the two? Douglas Fir. This table is actually from the book Understanding Wood by R. Bruce Hoadley.

Hardness of a wood may make the top more damage resitant, but you will eventually have to reflatten it regardless of what you make it out of. A Douglas Fir bench will be easy to flatten and cheap to make.

Just something to keep in mind.

Tom

[Lyndon Graham]

Douglas Fir should work fine for a bench. Again referring to Christopher Schwarz, he actually recommends Douglas Fir in areas where SYP isn't available. Hardness isn't the most important part for a workbench, but stiffness. You want the wood to remain stiff over long spans. On page 15 of Schwarz's book, he has a table for the stiffness value of various woods. Of the woods listed, SYP is third highest for stiffness. Hickory is the highest. Between the two? Douglas Fir. This table is actually from the book Understanding Wood by R. Bruce Hoadley.

Hardness of a wood may make the top more damage resitant, but you will eventually have to reflatten it regardless of what you make it out of. A Douglas Fir bench will be easy to flatten and cheap to make.

Just something to keep in mind.

Tom

Looks like Fir it is, thanks

[Thomas Knighton]

That should definitely save you a lot! ;)

Tom

[Lyndon Graham]

That should definitely save you a lot! ;)

Tom

Yup, I can do the entire top for less than $100 (versus > $500 for Maple).

Having said that, here is what I found at 3 lumber yards.

I can get Kiln dried fir but it is actually Western Hemlock or Hem-Fir. This wood has a very low stiffness (20% less than D Fir) and is soft (1/2 as hard as D Fir) So this is probably not acceptable

So Surface Dries D Fir it is.

Now maybe I can afford a #7 joining plane with the difference :rolleyes:

[Alan DuBoff]

But the reason S Pine is better than Fir is the modulus and hardness (see above)
If you only need to worry about numbers, black and white works best, all the answers are there. Another reason to be working wood rather than reading about it.

You have obviously never worked with SYP. It is tough, and it is known to be able to lift an entire log home wall up as it has a problem with twisting. It will do the same with a bench over time, plan to be flattening it.

There is really not a lot of good reasons to work with SYP, other than cost alone. It is cheap, it grows fast, and most of the dimensional lumber is not made out of old growth, it's the young/new growth that is used for that. It is only cheap where it grows plentifully, like the mid-west. It doesn't grow on the west coast, AFAIK.;)

Fir is strong also, twists less, and is dimensional lumber on the west coast, so it is cheap here. Price around, as it will vary. It is used for joists, because of it's strength. Most log craftsmen I know will use red pine for joists rather than SYP, since it twists less and is strong as well.

Kinda interesting that you were not impressed with Chris Schwarz's book, but are seeking SYP, he is the one that advocates that...:rolleyes:

[Lyndon Graham]

Kinda interesting that you were not impressed with Chris Schwarz's book, but are seeking SYP, he is the one that advocates that...:rolleyes:

Only because that is the majority of advice that I receive; to heed his advice. As a novice, when 9 of 10 tell you to turn left when you were going right, what would you do? :confused:

Oh Yeah, the engineering properties do not predict twist. That is what I call experience.

[Rich Marzec]

The thickness of the top really depends on the design of the bench and the type of vises you will be using. If the top is too thick then some vises will be a lot lower then the top of the bench. It is best the keep the force of the vise as close to the top as possible. This means you may have to route out a shallow area in the bottom of the top for the vise. It all depends. Buy the vises first before you start designing. I had to completely redesign mine after I purchased the vises.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. As many of you know, I recently completed a bench to replace the one I'd used for the past 20 years. That old bench has been lowered again to 30" and is now my 30" x 74" assembly table.

The real point of this post is to warn folks about the dangers of using rules of thumb to decide upon the height of their bench. To provide folks with a point of reference, I am 5'9" tall with a 30" inseam. I also am long armed to the point where my sleeve length in a shirt is 35-36". Back in the days when I was a rock climber and mountaineer, my wing span or "ape index" was +5" which is to say my wingspan was 5 inches more than my height. Classic Neanderthal you might say. On my old bench, the original height when I was mostly a power tool guy was 36" and it seemed to work fine. Over the years as I transitioned into more and more hand tool work and spent less time with the fork tailed devils, the height of my bench steadily decreased. Just before starting my new bench, my old bench was at 32" high and I was pretty well satisfied. The new bench finished off at 31.5" and has been all I hoped for and more. The point of this rambling discourse is simple. Go to a store with some benches, a friend or better yet several friend's houses, and do some hand work with benches of various heights. I don't mean take half a dozen strokes with a plane, I mean spend as much time as the bench owner will allow. The real test is how you feel (particularly your arms and back) after an hour or two working at a particular height. Be suspicious of rules of thumb which imply that all folks are of the same body build and the same proportions. Obviously, this is not the case and one size does NOT fit all.

One major argument against the standard European style trestles for the leg sets is that it is difficult to shorten the legs. If you need to choose a bench height with little chance to test out various heights, err on the high side. You can always shorten the height in 1" increments over a period of time. That is the way I progressed over the years and I now have a bench perfect both for my particular body form and for the style of work I perform.

[John Sanford]

I would like to offer a caveat for those saying that flattening a Douglas Fir benchtop will be easy. Not so. DF's wildly varying hardness between the earlywood and latewood can play havoc when planing. This can be minimized by insuring that you're planing a quartersawn face, not face grain.

There was recently (within the last year or so) an article in one of the woodorking magazines on western hardwoods. It might be worth chasing down.

[Alan DuBoff]

I am 5'9" tall with a 30" inseam.
...
Just before starting my new bench, my old bench was at 32" high and I was pretty well satisfied. The new bench finished off at 31.5" and has been all I hoped for and more.
My arms are not as long as yours, but I about 5'10" with a 30" inseam.

My bench is 31.75", and it works out great.

I was worried to make it so short, my old dimensional bench in my garage was 38". 31"-32" is what comes up when I use Chris Schwarz's method to measure the proper height of your bench.

This is really a great height for me to plane. Great height for chopping, and by flipping my pattern maker's vise, I can have a comfortable height to attach an old saw vise to sharpen saws.

I have a 2nd bench that is 36" high, but it is currently on some flimsy metal legs, it's a 1 3/4" thick laminate maple slab, 6' long, 28" wide, which I bought for $40 off craigslist with the legs. I am using it for some assembly, working light items and assemble (saw work also).

For all of my hand work I find myself using the 31.75" high bench. It is by far the best bench I have had to work wood on, but that means nothing, it is the best bench I have ever owned, period! :p

[Chris Padilla]

Noden's adjust-a-bench legs will take care of such "trivial" issues. ;)

[Lyndon Graham]

Noden's adjust-a-bench legs will take care of such "trivial" issues. ;)

It ain't pretty, but a great way to be able to change height is with plain old steel bolts.

Get 1/2. or 3/4, or 1" Dia Bolts. The bigger the better. Drill a corresponding hole in the bench leg. Nuts with massive washers go on each side of the bench leg. Grind the bolt head to increase friction. Adust up or down as desired.

I am going to build my at a target height of 31" and use the bolts to raise it betwen 32 and 33". But you must start low.

Since my barn concrete flow is not level, this also solves that issue.