Trestle Dining Table

[Derek Cohen]

I am in the process of planning out a trestle dining table. The design is essentially done, but I am having thoughts about the sizing/thickness of the parts.

The base is to be Jarrah, which is a particularly hard and stiff wood (from Western Australia, if you are unfamiliar with it). I have used in in many builds. One of the advantages this has given me is the option of building with thinner stock. This is where I begin to question myself.

I tend to find furniture built in the USA uses thicker stock than I do, and I suspect that would be used in Oz and the UK. Not certain about this ... perhaps it is because the pieces I design and build aim for a light feel. Here is a sofa table I built several years ago ...



And very recently, one of two chairs (which will go with the dining table) ...




What dimensions am I looking at (for your comment)? The horizontal base, legs and horizontal support. All mortice-and-tenoned together (substantial sizes). The horizontal base and supports are from 40mm thick x 80mm wide stock. The vertical legs are from 100mm (wide) x 30mm thick stock. Ignore for now the cross connections between the legs.

I am including a table made by Borge-Morgensen, which has similar dimensions for the parts. My design is different, but the construction is very similar, and I include this here to aid in visualising what I am referring to ...







The top will be made from Rock Maple, and 1825mm long x 900mm wide, and 30mm thick.

For those metric-challenged, consider 30mm = 1 1/4", 80mm = 5".

All mortices will be 30mm - 40 mm deep.

Thoughts on the thickness of both the Jarrah and Rock Maple?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[mike stenson]

Are you intending on tapering the top, or having it extend to the edges at 30mm?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Mike

At present my first choice is to use a shallow elliptical router bit, creating a pillowed (very slightly rounded) face to soften the edge. This is in keeping with the chairs, which are all curvy. The second choice - if this leaves the top looking too thick - is to use a shallow undercut chamfer. Note that the top will be curved along all sides.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[stephen thomas]

You are asking about the top - to get that out of the way, i like them tapered thin around the edge. But your idea should be good for your design.

what caught my eye is how wide (long?) the floor pieces are!
It is surprising how much they can be trimmed back and still not have even the hint of a tippy table.
Unless wanted for the looks.

[Jim Becker]

I agree with the previous comments relative to the top...I like edges that slim down in many cases. For the structure, you have three factors to consider...strength of the material (Jarrah is clearly strong), load from "people peopling" and proportion. While the desire for thinner structural pieces for the base is nice, the look could be quite spindly if you cut back to far, especially for a trestle design that is already quite simplified. I find the example photo relatively balanced, but you could "lighten it" a little by using two narrower verticals instead of one wider one.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Stephen and Jim.

The top is not really a concern as there are options to tweak the edges at a later date, if necessary. The worst case scenario is that the top (at 30mm) is too thin. But I think it will be okay. My thought at present is to use a similar taper to the ends as I used in the sofa table (above). This could be extended all around. The best way to decide is once all is done.

For more detail on the plan shape of the top, the outline is very similar to this photo I found of a Nakashima table ...





My main concern is the sizing of the leg parts. As I mentioned, the table needs to be sympathetic to the carver chairs. The base is Jarrah, the top is Rock Maple. The curved top links to the chairs via the common timber, and then the legs link through an oval shape I plan to give them (the legs of the chair are oval) ... both in the horizontal and vertical parts. Joinery is pinned mortise-and-tenon and not the bridle joint in the Nakashima photo.

Jim, the oval shape means that the legs need to be a single section, not two parts.

Also, the reason for a trestle table, rather than one with corner legs, is to minimise the number of "legs" under the table, as well as remove obstructions when seated. The table at 72" is for 8, and still on the smaller side for comfort. I am trying to maximise this.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Robert Engel]

IMO 25 -30mm thick is a good thickness for a table that size.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The horizontal base 40mm thick x 80mm wide stock. = app 1 5/8" X 3 1/4"

The vertical legs 100mm (wide) x 30mm thick stock.= app 4" x 1 1/4"

All this seems OK but I'd really have to see a full size scale drawing.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I think some curves incorporated into the trestle would complement the chairs.

I've heard all the wood in Australia is hard - is that true you have no soft wood?

[mike stenson]

Derek, I think that the dimensions will be visually fine. Especially as I suspect that the contrast alone will make the piece appear to be 'lighter', which would be in line with most of your work. I think that a pillowed edge may well work.

[Prashun Patel]

While my eye too likes a curved edge top, for me in the end I prefer a straight edge for function. It widens the ends, so in a pinch, you can fit 2 people on the ends, which I do on my own kitchen trestle table. In this case, I value the Shaker spirit over the Nakashima. Your legs and feet will sympathize w the chairs, so IMHO the top edge does not need to.

I love the trestle design because our chairs straddle the feet well, and a sitter is not obstructed.

[Jimmy Harris]

It's hard to say without seeing at least a full color, to-scale drawing or mock-up. If the top is maple and the base is jarrah, then the base will be much more heavy, visually speaking, due to the darker color. And because your chairs are all lighter in color, along with the table top, the darker jarrah won't be as visually prominent. It should almost act like a separate, secondary piece of furniture. By pushing the legs further under the table (going with a two post trestle design) you're going to make the legs even less important on the visual hierarchy. They'll be partially hidden. And with the lighter color of the top, it will want to float in space, separate from the base.

So all of this says that you've got some competing design elements going on here that will want to push the overall design either way. In other words, the design is becoming more complex. Which in this case, will probably gain you some latitude and make the design easier. Oddly enough, simplicity is usually more difficult to pull off than complexity. The less you have going on, the more important everything that remains becomes.

Ultimately, I'd try to figure out a way to do some to-scale, full color miniature models, drawings (colored pencils or even crayons would work), or CAD drawings, whatever you feel most comfortable with, to get a sense of the visual weight of your final design. It doesn't even have to be perfectly to scale or drawn well. You're just exploring relationships, not trying to sell something to a client here. All you need is a handful of rough sketches to show you how far you can push it in either direction before it becomes an obvious problem. That'll at least give you some limitations to work within. And if there's one thing I know about design, it's that nothing is harder than designing something with no limitations.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Prashun

I really like the clean lines of your table. It's a beautiful table. But this will not work for use as the rectangle creates a "larger" and harder look. My design needs to be more gentle for the space we have. I did run a number of shapes past my wife, and she vetoed square ends.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Jimmy

As you recognised, the light wood top will appear to float on the dark wood base. That is the intention.

When we were planning to build a larger table, it was necessary to add two more chairs. My initial thought was to find bentwood carvers to join the existing bent wood chairs ...



... but we did not like their looks, and went searching for something else. Much of our furniture is contemporary, Mid Century-styled (as you may have noticed from my builds), and so I decided to add two modern carvers (we do not mind a mix-and-match), and use the table to blend all the pieces together.

One of the advantages of building a trestle table is that positioning and proportions are easy to adjust. I have actually started with roughing out the top using a MDF panel. This makes it easier to determine where the legs will be positioned.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Cameron Wood]

I like the Nakashima leg/upright because it allows flexibility in sizing the post, and the foot can be thinner while still strong. Also used on Prashun Patel's (handsome) table.

[Jim Becker]

Also, the reason for a trestle table, rather than one with corner legs, is to minimise the number of "legs" under the table, as well as remove obstructions when seated. The table at 72" is for 8, and still on the smaller side for comfort. I am trying to maximise this.

THAT I get specifically as it's the same size table that I made for our three season porch last year and legs are an issue with the reused, reclaimed beam base that originally was under the kitchen table at our old property. (that top serves as my desk now)

With the Jarrah, you can certainly do a little sliming, but again, be sure it works visually with the size of the table top. I'll go so far as to suggest you do some scaled down prototypes out of scrap...'cause there is a "line" you can cross where suddenly that table just will not look right.

[Richard Verwoest]

I agree with Jimmy's words. I would take it a step further as the chairs play such a crucial role. I would clear out the older chairs and place the new chairs (amazing by the way) at the table. Then take a few photos from different angles. Then you could "white out" the old table. And using dividers sketch in the new table, using the old for reference as far as angles go.