Another table question, help educate me

[Alex Zeller]

I've had a new dining room table on the back burner for several years now. I just haven't found a design that I think will work in my house. The table will be 42" x 84" (or less) but I want it to expand to maybe as long as 110". It has to have octagonal ends. I was originally thinking of leaves in the middle but now I'm debating making each end pull out and have a leaf that drops in between the main part of the table and the octagonal end. The design could mean the very end of the table when extended and in use could be more than 24" from the center part of the table.

The table will have an apron to hide any supports needed for the extensions. I'm thinking that I would just use two boards attached to each octagonal end that slide under the main part of the table. When not extended they could even go under the other end so the boards could be as long as possible. When extended there would be about 40" or more inches under the main table. If needed I'm not opposed to using table slides.

How much weight could I expect a design like this to hold? Being octagonal I would expect too much weight to be on the ends vs a full rectangle. The placement of the legs would need to allow three chairs outside of the legs. One at the end and one on each side. The idea is to sit 10 people if needed. Just how big with the leaf does the end need to be to sit 3 people? If the octagonal end was 14" and the leaf was 12" would that be enough? Being a bit tight isn't going to be too big of an issue because it's not going to happen very often but I would rather design it for a better fit. I'm thinking when both ends are collapsed it'll only set 6 people (because of where the legs are) with plenty of room.

I could expand just one side to seat 8 people. If one end was extended 26" (or possible more) how much of a risk would there be of the table tipping? I'm thinking the tabletop on the main table section would be 6/4 cherry. If needed I could make the leaves and ends out of 4/4 to lighten the weight. But, again, being octagonal, there shouldn't be a lot of weight out at the ends.

I didn't know what this design is called to try doing a search for it. It's kind of like a draw leaf is a table but nothing is hidden under the main table. Due to the octagonal design I don't think I can do a traditional draw leaf table.

[glenn bradley]

It is interesting how many people I run into that are having issues with overly large table designs. A solution that worked on two occasions for me was a pair of tables that when clipped end-to-end made up the smaller dimension. For the extended dimension a "bridge" was clipped between them. This is similar to a leaf that gets removed and stored except that each half of the table is self supporting relieving one of the issues of overly long structural supports. Just something to put in the old decision engine while you are percolating on ideas.

Table Bridge Idea-2.jpg

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Alex, I am in the middle of a dining table build. The one I am building will be similar to this. Fast forward to near the end of the video to see it's design and action. Mine will go from 66" to 90" and is being made with solid hardwood rather than a lamination. It won't have the inlay either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgUD...ndex=10&t=141s

[Jamie Buxton]

What do you mean "like an octagon"? Let's say you mean an octagon which fits into a 42" width, and all the angles are 145 degrees, and all the edges are about 17 1/2". If so, your diners are going to be extremely cramped. Try laying out the octagonal part of your table on cardboard or the like. Include plates, glasses, and all the stuff that goes on a table. I think you'll see that it doesn't all fit.

There's also an issue with chairs. Homeowners generally want to park chairs under the table when not in use. Chairs are generally 18" wide or more. If you attempt to park 18"-wide chairs under an octagonal edge that's 17 1/2" long, they'll collide even before you shove them under the table, where they want to park.

My usual rule of thumb when designing a dining table is that each diner gets 24" of space. That's enough for diners' elbows to not collide. You can cheat a few inches on the 24 for diners who are seated at a table end; their elbows hang off the end.

[Alan Rutherford]

Our dining table is factory-built, 36 inches wide and has ends like that. It's 84 inches long extended. I modified it by cutting off the corners so that it would be possible to seat more people at the ends. Also some other mods that aren't relevant here. In practice, 2 people at the ends is realistic, 3 is a crowd. We seat 8 with no problem. More width would be better but I'm not sure another 6 inches would allow for 3 at the ends.

When the ends are extended, there is enough play in the slides that someone needs to get under the table and slip wedges between the inner ends of the slides and the table. You would probably make or buy better slides than those but be aware of the potential problem. There's a lot of leverage on those ends. Weight on the ends has not been a concern but I hope no one ever sits on them.

I agree that 42 inches is a little skimpy and the hard corners of the octagonal design might not work in practice. Mock it up. But I'm in favor of anything that avoids right-angle corners on a dining table.

[Alex Zeller]

My dining room has a bump out with 45 degree side walls. This isn't to scale but hopefully will give a better idea.
table.JPG