Tell me how to build the easiest workbench possible

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

So Derek, how high is your workbench and how high from the bottom of your elbows to the floor?

Hi Paul

Bench height is an interesting issue. I suspect that there are UK and US "schools" in this regard.

Here is an extract of a post I made at WoodCentral very recently. David Charlesworth later replied, which I shall tack on afterwards...

I was asked why I chose the Benchcraft tail vise.

The choice of tail vise was made on a number of factors, one of which was the space available for the bench. My bench is placed against a rear wall in my garage/shop. The length of the bench is limited by a cabinet, to the left, and a door, to the right. It comes down to the longer the bench, the shorter the tail vise ... or, the longer the tail vise, the shorter the bench.

The Benchcraft tail vise is notable in that the handle remains in one position, that is, does not "screw out" or "screw in" in length. This translates into a short vise, which means I can build a longer bench. The bench size increases from a little under 5' to a little over 6'. This may not sound a lot, but it is a massive change for me.

I was initially planning on building my own version of the Benchcraft wagon vise. However, when Chris Vesper visited with me last year, he mentioned that he had purchased the BC tail vise. When I asked why he had not simply built his own - since he is a top class machinist - he explained that the design of the vise places great stresses on the mechanism (it screws at the side of the captured dog so as to run close to the edge of the bench), and that to accommodate this, the steel work needed to be heavy duty ... and that the BC was built like the proverbial tank. He did not believe he could replicate it. That sold me on the BC for the tail vise.

I hope to get to the bench dogs tomorrow. These will be rectangular, not round, so I have to prepare them before I glue up the bench top. Why rectangular? Simply because I believe that they will hold work more securely than round dogs. They have a broader face and will not twist. Plus, I wonder how many bench (dog) builders realise that the dogs need to incline slightly (I am using 2 degrees) towards the work piece? This is difficult to do if drilling for a round dog. Yes, it is possible to cut and angle a flat upper section of a round dog, but this thins and potentially weakens the dog, making it more susceptible to bending under stress. A rectangular dog is more work, both in planning and build, but it worth it. This does not preclude one from adding holes for bench accessories, such as hold downs.

So today I plan to finish off the legs. Their dimensions are 5" wide and 3 5/8" deep. I have cut the tenons, and what is left is to prepare one for the leg vise and all for the mortices for the adjoining stretchers. While I will not complete the base until after the top is done (as the length of the stretchers is determined by the dimensions of the top since all facing edges will be co-planar), I need to have everything ready to receive the top once it is glued up just so that I can work on the top.

To decide the length of the legs I first had to finalise the height of the bench. The present bench, which I built 18 years ago, was a remnant from a pre-handtool era. Much modified over the years to better deal with the demands of handtools, it still retained that one feature of the powertool user - height. It is 34" high. Too high for comfortable handplaning at my 178cm/5'10".

Chris Schwarz recommends the "pinky test", that is, the height of the bench should be situated where your pinky joins your hand when your arm is held at your side. I did this and the result was a bench height of 30". To test this out I place a double layer of bricks in front of the bench, and planed a board while standing on the bricks ...

Interestingly, this did feel so much better. It moved the focus of strength from my arms and shoulders to my hips and legs (which is what one is taught in karate). So the length of the legs was calculated for a bench top of approximately 4" thickness (it will end up a little under that), and the tenons were cut. Pictures of the legs tomorrow.

One other point: One change begets other changes. With the lowering of the bench, I shall need to build a new Moxon dovetail vise. The whole idea of the Moxon is to raise the work up high. The existing vise was built for a 34" high bench. To work with the same ease, the new Moxon will need to work 4" higher. Hence a new, taller Moxon.

David's reply ...

I find this bench height question very interesting. My favorite height is 40 inches and I used to be 6'1" tall.

The recipe I came up with, some time ago, was about 4 1/2 inches below the average height of underside of elbows when forearms are held horizontal. People tend to be lopsided ! In fact Jim Kingshott said that cabinetmaking made people lopsided. (and deaf in one ear. machine shop side.)

I can see that wooden plane users might like a couple of inches lower, but if we think of making tasks more height seems generally preferable. Sawing, and horizontal chisel paring both need height and I like to sit on a stool for chopping..

I try to plane almost exclusively with my legs and my right elbow fixed to my ribcage. How else are we to manage long stuff? If a plane is sharp it does not need much downward pressure.

Over the years many students have felt my benches were a bit high when they arrived, but none when they left.

The picture of John Hoffman planing on page 21 of the Lost Art Press reprint of Robert Warings splendid book "The Essential Woodworker" will demonstrate why I disagree whith Chris Schwarz about bench height.

Best wishes,
David

One other relevant post (otherwise you may as well read the entire thread!) was that of Wilbur Pan, who is a physician as well as woodworker ..

I remember the first time I saw one of Jim Kingshott's videos, and noted that when he was using a hand plane, that he mainly moved his body and not his arms, especially when planing longer boards. Using your legs for planing is a really good technique, and lowering a bench helps with that a lot.

I built my bench using the pinky joint rule, and I think it could stand to go down another inch. This is probably because I'm using wooden planes for the most part, which means that my hands are a little higher in relation to the board I'm planing than when I'm using Stanley/Lie-Nielsen type planes.

I will post pics of my build once enough is done to call it a bench.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

I avoid holding workpieces as far as possible as it can leave marks on things being manipulated, particularly when morticing which is always best done loose on the worktop...

Surely this depends on the size of the workpiece.

If it's massive enough not to move all over place during striking or levering, fine, but smaller pieces need holding.

Timber framers don't have many workholding issues

BugBear

 

[Webby]

i am building this one

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=WL ... re=mh_lolz

Dave

 

[Jacob]

I avoid holding workpieces as far as possible as it can leave marks on things being manipulated, particularly when morticing which is always best done loose on the worktop...

Surely this depends on the size of the workpiece.

If it's massive enough not to move all over place during striking or levering, fine, but smaller pieces need holding.

Timber framers don't have many workholding issues

BugBear

If you are hitting or paring downwards e.g. mortices or DT sockets, then the workpiece isn't going anywhere so doesn't need holding whatever the size. Sawing against bench hooks or in the vice, planing in the vice or against stops and so on. What does need holding down?

 

[PaulO]

This means you won't be able to put any weight behind your planing - so yes your back will find it easier but also your planing will be slower and your arms should ache.

I apply weight through posture, using the legs, not by bending the back. Besides I don't need to put much weight behind my planing. Stock is prepared to near dimensions with machinery, I'm not a scrub plane masochist. Planing for me is to clean up, achieve hollow and refine square, all achieved with shavings of a couple of thou.

Sitting down??? :shock: Not allowed. Not efficient unless you are doing very small things just in front of you

This is a hobby, not a commercial enterprise. I enjoy taking my time and producing the best I can, not producing volume within cost and time constraints.

NB the refectory table style bottom rail is no good as it prohibits future adjustments. No point in it anyway - better (more solid) if the legs hit the floor direct..

Not sure if that was aimed at me, but the legs aren't refectory table style, there are four legs all contacting the floor directly. Are you referring to the wedged cross rail? If so that isn't sitting on the floor.

Here's a drawing:

and a photo

I can shorten the bench by 3" before I need to make more structural changes, as I have already established that 37" is too low for me I should be fine.

 

[David C]

A bit more browsing in "The Workbench Book" will reveal that none of the featured benches have aprons. Kirby, Klausz, Fortune/Nelson and Shaker. I suspect there are no aprons in the whole book. However there are many pictures of craftsmen clamping all sorts of things to the tops.

I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.

best wishes,
David

 

[Jacob]

A bit more browsing in "The Workbench Book" will reveal that none of the featured benches have aprons. Kirby, Klausz, Fortune/Nelson and Shaker. I suspect there are no aprons in the whole book.

Third picture?
It seems to be a national thing and fashion comes into it, so boring British style benches wouldn't have made it into the book. There are plenty in other books however, such as C Schwarz's.
If the apron is of value to a joiner then it certainly would be to a furniture maker also - but in this book they make up for it's absence with sliding deadmen. I haven't seen anywhere, in any old books, any distinction between benches for joinery or furniture making. Why would there be?

However there are many pictures of craftsmen clamping all sorts of things to the tops.

Holdfasts though, not G clamps, so aprons don't come into it.

I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.

best wishes,
David

I m sure you are right. BR (Derby) was the place for a lot of fine woodwork until about 50 years ago so they would certainly know how to design a bench! I'd be interested to see photos if you have the time.
It seems to be lightweight benches for light work which omit the apron, or sliding deadman support thing e.g. many of the off the peg benches for sale.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have two joiners benches made as apprentice test pieces in the British Rail workshops. They have aprons as have every joiners bench I have ever seen.

I've often wondered why aprons seem to predominate on joiners benches. I wonder if it stems from having to construct a bench quickly and easily on site from available materials, such as scaffold boards? Incorporating an apron would be an easy way of making the bench rigid and preventing the top from flexing despite the relatively thin material :-k

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

I think they predominate on all (British?) benches. It stems from the fact that it makes a good bench - provides a vertical surface for clamping and supporting - adds weight and stiffens the top of the bench - braces the legs. If it isn't there then you start needing the sliding deadman or other contrivance to support the end of long pieces, and you also need horizontal bracing such as a rail. The apron replaces the rail.
The "other" design seems to be more European, hence in the States you get both.
Just different traditions.

 

[David C]

Aprons were not featured on the COSIRA bench design which I started with in 1972, and have not been a feature of furniture makers benches in my lifetime. I really don't know where these Jacobean fantasies come from.........

Similarly misleading is the idea that rubbing two stones together will create flatness.

best wishes,
David

(council for small industries in rural areas).

 

[Jacob]

Aprons were not featured on the COSIRA bench design which I started with in 1972, and have not been a feature of furniture makers benches in my lifetime. I really don't know where these Jacobean fantasies come from.........

Similarly misleading is the idea that rubbing two stones together will create flatness.

best wishes,
David

(council for small industries in rural areas).

I've seen a lot of benches, from school up to the present, in various establishments. They were nearly all the common Brit pattern with an apron and a Record vice, and not distinguished as "joiners" or "furniture makers" as they are equally suited to both.
The books show all variations but the aproned "English" bench in Nicholson's elements is very typical, the non apron variety with an end vice often being referred to as "continental" or German etc. Perhaps for no good reason, just different traditions.
The point is - there is nothing about the aproned bench which precludes it from furniture making, quite the opposite - it has several advantages.
I am taking a wild guess here but I think most furniture and other wood workshops in Britain for many years would have used the Brit style of bench. Could be wrong of course, but it make sense in that it's a very practical and economical way to make a useful bench.
"Arts n Craft" woodworkers trailing after the Barnsley tradition may well prefer fussier, less common, expensive, foreign styles of bench (they would wouldn't they :roll: ) but they are not the mainstream.
I don't know about the Cosira bench - probably bought in from a tool dealership as a "furniture makers" bench?

I'm surprised you can't manage the stone flattening thing - you shouldn't give up so easily!

 

[Alf]

I could throw myself at the books and work this out for myself, but after the result of the cricket in Dubai I find myself listless, unhappy and generally can't be ars- er, bothered, so I shall ask the multitude instead: Am I right in thinking that the general trend of aproned benches feature neither bench dogs or tail vices? I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with that thought, but, ya know, if any wants to extrapolate from that, knock yourselves out.

 

[Jacob]

Tail vices; nasty foreign things. :roll:
Dogs are in though, but usually just one or two as there is no tail vice to work against them

 

[Harbo]

Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.

Rod

 

[Jacob]

Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.

Rod

Sounds spot on, the bees knees. Who needs a tail vice? Only foreigners. :roll: Not sure about "aproned" the spell checker doesn't like it. apronned? Nope. Aperonied? Nope. Apronionied? Could be here all night.

..the result of the cricket in Dubai..

They play cricket in Dubai? (Where is Dubai?)

 

[Paul Chapman]

Well my traditional British school bench is aproned, no tail vice but facilities for a vice on two opposite corners and rectangular dogs on each corner secured by wing-nutted bolts.

Rod

Sounds spot on, the bees knees. Who needs a tail vice? Only foreigners. :roll:

Sounds just like the workbenches we had at school in the 1950s. The design of school workbenches was more about providing the minimum necessary for a large number of pupils to learn basic woodworking skills. The average class size in those days (at least in the south east) was about 40. The design of the workbenches with a Record vice and sliding planing stop on opposing corners and a tool rack at each end meant that you needed only 20 benches for 40 pupils. If tail vices had been fitted as well, it would have been difficult for one boy to use his tail vice while the other was using his front vice - they would have got in each other's way.

I found that when I made my own bench and moved on to a wider range of cabiner making and joinery, the limitations of the single front vice and planing stop arrangement soon became apparent. I soon fitted a tail vice and several rows of dog holes and found that it greatly increased the usefulness of my bench. I really can't understand your aversion to tail vices, Jacob. As you have often said, you can nail on pieces of wood to support the work when necessary but that seems a very inefficient way of working.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

..... I really can't understand your aversion to tail vices, Jacob.

I was exaggerating really, it's not an aversion. More a case of defending the basic bench, which like a lot of basic stuff is much better than they say. Certainly ideal as a first bench i.e easy and quick to make and an answer to the OPs question.

As you have often said, you can nail on pieces of wood to support the work when necessary but that seems a very inefficient way of working.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Quite efficient and very adaptable. The tail vice, useful no doubt, isn't the answer to everything, especially if you haven't got one.

 

[bugbear]

It appears that almost any bench can be used for almost anything (with greater or lesser convenience), and the lack of almost any feature can be worked round.

Jacob finds his apron useful - I find clamping down to the worktop with versatile G cramps (that I own anyway...) useful

The entire point of Landis' book it that there is no such thing as the ultimate bench, which is why he shows so many different ones.

Benches are also subject the rule that specialised features are great - but not versatile. That stems from the definition of specialised.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Agree.
But Landis does omit the apron style bench which we all know so well and, to get back to the OP, is the probably the best answer to his question.
There is a big fashion element with benches, as with so much other woodwork kit, which can be misleading.

 

[marcros]

Agree.
But Landis does omit the apron style bench which we all know so well and, to get back to the OP, is the probably the best answer to his question.
There is a big fashion element with benches, as with so much other woodwork kit, which can be misleading.

Its not about the bench?