Talk me out of building an eight foot bench please.

[Scott Winners]

Out of 42 comments, did anyone talk you out of it?

I am going to try Jim K's idea, the clamp 8 foot boards onto my 4 foot bench and see how much time spend walking around the new length. Old bench should be in the new space in about a week.

[Mike Mason]

The makers and purchasers (or employers of the makers) of the highboys were also making economic decisions. They did what they did but that doesn't mean that they did not understand wood movement.

I recall looking at some Maloof pieces in a gallery, and they had glue drips on the underside, but he undoubtedly understood glue drips.

I don' think you understand what I'm talking about when I say that they used cross-grain construction on the lowboys; it has nothing to do with an economic decision.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I am going to try Jim K's idea, the clamp 8 foot boards onto my 4 foot bench and see how much time spend walking around the new length. Old bench should be in the new space in about a week.

Scott - remember what I told you last time. Don't walk out of the store thinking about the pearls you did not get.

Oh - yeah - keep buying the smaller bottles of jojoba oil. Your questions are starting to have a tinge of rationality in them, so the program must be working.

See you in the funny papers.

[Jim Koepke]

I don' think you understand what I'm talking about when I say that they used cross-grain construction on the lowboys; it has nothing to do with an economic decision.

Mike, I think you may have answered your question in an earlier post.

for example, I've looked at a half dozen ca. 1750 highboys in museums with their cross-grain construction on the lower sides that allows the use of pinned mortise and tenon joinery with the legs, and I have yet to see one that isn't cracked on both sides. The reproduction that I built many years ago, using a Carlyle Lynch drawing of a museum piece, soon suffered the same fate, which makes it more true to the original. The finest craftsmen back then didn't fully comprehend wood movement and they didn't leave room in the mortises or slot the holes in their drawbored tenons.

"Back then" the profession of woodworking brought in young workers being trained by older workers who "had always done it how they were taught." The errors of the elders were handed down to the apprentices.

Not too long ago there was an article about how many older pieces used solid corner blocks for mounting legs that were often a source of failure. There were also examples of some makers who used glued up corner blocks which allowed for humidity induced movement, with less likelihood of failure.

The same "we've always done it this way" credo is still enforced to this day. There is and has always been a strong resistance to change. Those who argue for change are often labeled as radicals.

jtk

[Richard Coers]

They were too busy arguing about what wood was used....

Per usual. LOL

[John Kananis]

I had a really short bench at one point. I built an extension that was only a few boards wide (with dog holes) with one long board for the front that was clamped into my face vise. It worked really well. Hope I gave a good visual, I don't have that bench any longer so no pics.

[Cameron Wood]

I don' think you understand what I'm talking about when I say that they used cross-grain construction on the lowboys; it has nothing to do with an economic decision.

I think I understand what you are talking about. I looked at the over 40 photos of lowboys in Wallace Nutting's book, and you can see the cracked side panels in several of them.

In the text on the subject, he says:

"Artisans, however, are often prejudiced in favor of their own particular designs, and they are accustomed to develop one aspect of their art to an extreme. Further, nothing is more difficult than to lead the public taste. The consumer is even more prejudiced in favor of certain forms than the producer."


So they did it because that's the way it was done, as Jim Koepke points out, but those guys knew wood more intimately than you or I ever will, so to think of them as ignorant misses the mark, IMO.

[Eric Brown]

I think y'all missed another possibility, perhaps they wanted it to fail so they could build another in the future. You think planned obsolescence is a new thing?

[Mike Mason]

Mike, I think you may have answered your question in an earlier post.



"Back then" the profession of woodworking brought in young workers being trained by older workers who "had always done it how they were taught." The errors of the elders were handed down to the apprentices.

Not too long ago there was an article about how many older pieces used solid corner blocks for mounting legs that were often a source of failure. There were also examples of some makers who used glued up corner blocks which allowed for humidity induced movement, with less likelihood of failure.

The same "we've always done it this way" credo is still enforced to this day. There is and has always been a strong resistance to change. Those who argue for change are often labeled as radicals.

jtk

Good point, maybe it did have a lot to do with "doing it the way I was taught", whether or not it was the best practice. Thanks.

[Mike Mason]

I think I understand what you are talking about. I looked at the over 40 photos of lowboys in Wallace Nutting's book, and you can see the cracked side panels in several of them.

In the text on the subject, he says:

"Artisans, however, are often prejudiced in favor of their own particular designs, and they are accustomed to develop one aspect of their art to an extreme. Further, nothing is more difficult than to lead the public taste. The consumer is even more prejudiced in favor of certain forms than the producer."


So they did it because that's the way it was done, as Jim Koepke points out, but those guys knew wood more intimately than you or I ever will, so to think of them as ignorant misses the mark, IMO.

You make a good point.

I don't believe I ever called them "ignorant", however; in fact, I pointed out that they did incredible things with the tools and knowledge that they had. Calling them ignorant would be akin to calling Edison ignorant because he didn't know what we know now about electricity, etc. (In fact, he pushed vehemently for DC power distribution while Tesla pushed for AC, a battle that he obviously lost and for good reason.)

[mike stenson]

Late to the party, but I can't in good conscience argue against an 8' bench. I went from a 5' x 28" to an ~8' x 20" bench and it's been a massive improvement in work area.

[Bryan Lee]

Mine is 8’ and I don’t regret it at all. Once you add a vise, tools
on top, etc you will be glad to have more room
for working.

[Tom Bussey]

I build work benches for people and I did build an eight foot work bench. Actually it was a little shorter. I needed it to fit in my 8 foot truck bed with the tail gate up. Now I have a Ranger with a 7 foot bed so Now I cant go over 7 foot with the tail gate up. I had the room to build an eight foot top but in building it I found it a little unhandy for my taste. A bigger bench only allows for a larger flat surface to pile stuff on. Your actual work area will remain small no matter how big it is.

The bench should fit the invirement, but to long makes it a pain to walk around it and you will find your self working from one side.

[Scott Winners]

The bench should fit the environment, but to long makes it a pain to walk around it and you will find your self working from one side.

Fully agree. I built a free standing wall unit in this new rental place behind my workbench. On left and right I have 24x48 inch shelves, the middle 8 feet is just a stud wall with plywood sheathing to hang stuff from. Up top I have a 2x16 foot shelf to store and season incoming lumber.

I have been conscious and intentional about putting the tools I use regularly 'behind me' in the pics I am about to post, with seldom used tools on the visible wall accessible through a narrow passageway on the far side of the bench.

At the end of the day I think I can fit an eight foot bench in here (12x24 single car garage) but I cannot easily fit a 24x48 bench and a separate 24x48 assembly table.

To the left of my bench is a shelf with somewhat/ medium use items like router bits, spare shop vac filter, hard wax finishing supplies, current project small parts; on the floor under that is clamp world. In the middle behind my bench on the plywood wall are infrequently used items, handsaws, striking tools (there is no money to be had around here in rehabbing striking tools) and some art work. To the right of the bench, the 8 foot furring strip Jim K suggested reaches all the way to the island of the misfit benchtop tools, so those I will be able to just lift, twist and deploy.

The only downside here is the pile of lumber I have on the floor. I am deep in a new shop air filter build that is sucking up a bunch of furring strips. Once I get through that there is some QSWO I am probably going to send up to the top shelf so I can think a little bit longer. Under that is some beech that will become a low boarded bench for the mud room to sit on while changing shoes, and under that at floor level is the DF 4x6 and 4x7 that will be the legs for my next bench.

Once I have the floor clear I am going to move some floor machines around and then bring in the 8/4 birch I will need for the next bench top slab at 96 inches.

Jim K, great idea, I am gaining confidence. Kent, I am going for the pearls I really want.

20230923_203038.jpg20230923_203104.jpg20230923_203124.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

Jim K, great idea, I am gaining confidence.

Glad to help.

jtk