Also, it is much more difficult to level four legs.
Also, it is much more difficult to level four legs.
A few points you might want to consider.
1. 3 legs are easier to stabilize on an uneven surface than 4 legs, but are uneven floor surfaces a practical concern indoors? If not, the most significant advantage of 3 legs is entirely lost.
2. Assuming an even surface, 3 legs are significantly less stable than 4 legs. Easily calculated. This instability increases the higher the stool's center of gravity above the floor. The seat is the heaviest dead load. But a person is a large and constantly moving live-load that inconveniently applies horizontal forces on the stool. Falling off a low stool is embarrassing. But falling off a high stool can be dangerous, especially for children with their shorter limbs and relatively heavier heads. And with fewer spreaders, children will have a hard time climbing up onto the stool, requiring them to create unstable conditions. There is a good reason few commercial furniture makers produce 3-legged bar stools. It's spelled "liability."
3. Even if occupants of the high 3-legged stool never drink adult beverages (whiskey and tacos?), it is easier to accidentally tip over a 3 legged stool than a 4-legged stool when squeezing between them, or when standing up from a seated position. You should plan on this happening, and avoid fragile edges on the seat that can be damaged when impacting the floor.
2 cents.
Many thanks for the comments Stanley.
The dominant reason for using three legs is that it is a better aesthetic, in my opinion. It looks lighter and more streamlined than four legs.
The question is really whether it is a good move in terms of stability. Well, the information about centre of gravity, as in the video I posted earlier, seems to support this. I am building a stool to test out the design.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Tools for carving a seat
In the spirit of offering information to others who are also looking to take their first steps carving seats, I have a run down of the tools I have used so far. Not all of these tools are necessary, but as I am learning to carve a seat, I am interested in the tools that make this happen.
It is also hoped that others, especially those with experience, will comment on the tools - which they find useful and which not.
I shall return to discuss my experience of marking drilling and tapering the legs at a later time. That deserves a topic to itself.
In the background I am making a prototype three-leg counter stool in Radiata Pine (construction timber - dry and a little brittle ... but the smell when cut is strong!). The seat is 12" deep and 15" wide. The blank is 1 3/4" thick.
Roughing out with the Ray Iles scorp: this is the only scorp I have used, so I cannot make comparisons with others. Apparently - I read somewhere - that Pete Galbert came across a vintage scorp which he loved, and sent it off to Ray Iles as a model. This is the result. To a newbie like myself, this was well-balanced and easy to sharpen - it came beautifully hollow ground and pretty sharp to start. It was easy to keep sharp with a strop. I liked the handles and the blades continuous curve (I've seen some, like Two Cherries, which are a curved square). It surprised me how it was possible to use this to make precise cuts, both thick and fine.
The Veritas Pull Shave is an alternative to the scorp, however I did not find it as aggressive. Instead it was more like a jack plane than a scrub - capable of removing waste but not cut as deeply as the scorp. I like using if after the scorp to refine the surface. It offered more control than the scorp. I am comfortable using drawknives, but someone who is not may prefer it to the scorp.
I managed to find two cobbler (shoemaker) shaves of differing radii. These came with blades that were nearly worn out. They were reground and sharpened up. The handles were cut off as they were limiting the angles they could be used at. These shaves really surprised me. Dark horses. They managed to get into tight angles ...
The LN round bottomed spokeshave was used later at the front of the seat. This is a reliable, old friend.
These are two travishers I built. One has a radius of 5 1/2", and the other a radius of 11". The latter is to remove the hollows left by the 5 1/2", or where a flatter surface is needed. To be blunt, the 11" is overkill. I have seen Pete Galbert used just the one (5 1/2") travisher (made by Claire Minihan), and do so immediately after the scorp. As mentioned earlier, I am feeling my way ... and anyway I made them. It was just a little more time.
Jarrah and Rock Oak ...
It was very satisfying to find these two planes working well.
Lastly, the surface was finished with a scraper. This is one I made from the rear end of an O1 1/8" thick plane blade. It is prepared very simply, hollow grinding to create a fine wire at the edges.
That is sufficient to scrape and leave a surprisingly fine surface .... even in Pine.
The seat is still a work in process.
Comments?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Derek Cohen; 01-18-2018 at 11:04 AM.
"Anything seems possible when you don't know what you're doing."
There are some really wonderful four legged stools. These aren’t bar stools, but counter stools. Seating height is 12”~ less than the surface height. So a bar seat is 30”~ tall where a counter seat is 24”~. For reference dining height is 18”~.
Personal preferences or rather industry preferences cause these heights to vary. Personally I prefer 1” shorter than industry standards.
Given that Derek is making these for his own home, Id suspect he knows what’s in store for them. I’ll secobd Stan’s comments however and mention that new family members usually find the delicate things in a hurry.
Bumbling forward into the unknown.
I don’t know,
I much prefer the low back black four legged Windsor style stool with four legs to the three legged Bern stool.
That’s me though I often like simple classic tried and true design.
I also prefer the look of four legs over three.
I’m also not a fan of the Bern stool however I like many of his other pieces.
Last edited by Patrick Walsh; 01-18-2018 at 7:14 PM.
How did/do cobblers use the curved shaves? I know you can shave leather but I can't think of a concave area that would benefit from a curved blade. I can't remember seeing scalloped surfaces on shoes. Maybe they were use for making the lasts?
Derek, nice exploratory thread here.
As I recall Roy demonstrates a method to tell you where the center of gravity is if the chair / stool / table is tipped. The centerline of any two legs of your three legged stool is the fulcrum point. When the center of gravity goes past the fulcrum point then the stool will tip. The thing to keep in mind (obviously) is that having more splay in the legs improves the stability of the stool. Adding more splay serves to increase the distance from the fulcrum point to the center of gravity. The problem is that if the legs splay outward from the seat too much then they become a trip hazard or a nuisance. Making a bigger seat allows you to have more separation of the legs at the floor thereby allowing for less splay angle in the legs. Making a full size model and experimenting with it is the best solution. Therein is the problem for most hobbyists (non chair professionals). You don't have personal history of all these dimensions therefore, don't deviate too far from proven models.
And....maybe relate the famous reason there is always a brass rail to rest a foot on, while standing at the bar....
Steven, this is not a "bar" stool, but a counter stool for the kitchen. A bar stool is taller.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I agree ,fine looking tools.
The cobblers shaves are also called heel shaves. My understanding is that the curved ones were used in the shaping of the side of the heel, which in handmade shoes has a convex profile. They came in a dozen or so degrees of curve. Cobblers also had a flat shave for tapering the edges of leather.
Bill
Last edited by bill howes; 01-19-2018 at 4:22 PM. Reason: spelling
Prototypes for the stools
The stool is 26" high, and the seat is 14 1/2" wide and 12" deep. Eventually, the three counter stools planned for the kitchen will have a Black Walnut seat and Hard Maple legs.
The prototype is incomplete - missing the stretchers. These are planned to span between the legs, in other words, there will be three stretches (ala Esherick). They are not added in these photos since I was experimenting with the number of legs (and there is a limit to the number of holes one can drill before everything just looks like Swiss cheese!).
The model was made from Radiata Pine. That is OK-ish for the seat, but a word of warning - it is horrible for legs. The wood is soft like tissue paper and fragile. I would have liked the legs to be a snitch thinner. That will be possible with the Maple.
The seat received 8 tapered mortices: 5 at the front and 3 at the rear. I played around with the placement of legs - 2 at the front and 2 at the rear, legs in line and legs wider at the front, 1 leg at the front and 1 leg at the rear. At the end it came down to four legs vs 3 legs.
I showed the four-legged version to my wife first ...
Then I showed her the three-legged version ...
What do you think she preferred?
Regards from Perth
Derek