I’m presently building a bench based largely on this design from the workbench book. As I prepare to plow the dog holes, I had a question for anyone with insight or who might have built this bench themselves:
Is it really necessary to have the holes so close (like 3.25 inches)? I know that if they are closer, you can save yourself some cranking on the tail vise, but these seem a tad closer than necessary and I’d like to potentially use a slightly wider cross member to support the top (which could crowd the closely spaced holes). Is there soemthing I’m missing in the design that will make me sorry if I don’t plow them according to plan (i.e., space them slightly wider)?
Replies
If your doing round holes you could always add more holes, harder to fill them than add more.
Troy
Thanks for the thought, but I'm going with square holes as per the design - already have the dogs in fact. I'm 90 percent sure that adding a little more space between them will have no ill effects, but just wanted to check with those with experience (perhaps even building this particular design) to make sure I wasn't overlooking something that made the actual design measurements crucial BEFORE I began actually cutting.
Clearly you won't want to space them farther apart than your vise throw. :)
Bless you, Father, but that is one sin I knew enough to avoid. ;-)
Perhaps I should rephrase my question to make it more straightforward: Is there anyone out there who has built the Fortune vice from Taunton's "Workbench Book?" If so, can you see any reason why 4.5" spaced dog holes (as opposed to 3.25) would affect the efficient use of the vice? (I can see/imagine none save a couple extra turns on the tail vice from time to time.) THANKS!
I built a very similar bench using what I believe to be the same tail vise mechanism (which was no picnic). The throw on the vise is pretty large, so there's no compelling reason why you need such a tight spacing. I put three holes down the length of the vise itself. So if the holes in my bench were 5" apart (they're not) the holes in the vise were 4" apart, I could, for a given vise opening, hold 8 or 9 or 10" stock (or something like that) by switching which vise dogs were used. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
After a few years, the vise began to sag, so I only used the left (front) vise dog. I've since fixed this somehwat, but still don't tend to use the rh vise dog. I don't like pushing down on this vise.
I wisely increased the dog spacing close to the vise for clamping short stock. Its not great to work over a huge gap. Ditto, the left end spacing is pretty wide, maybe 6" or so.
In the end, I don't like this bench and wouldn't build it ever again, nor would I recommend it. I thought (stupidly, arrogantly) that the tail vise was essential for hand work. Not only isn't it essential, it gets in the way of my bench hook which IS essential for me. The whole concept of the tail vise seems flawed to me. It seems like a solution to a problem solved long ago and subsequently forgotten. As a concept, I much prefer the western version of the japanese trestle, which allows you to plane across the grain. In its defense, as a vise for holding stuff in the jaw, I find it unparalleled. But as a vise, its size limits its usefulness.
Just to put all this in perspective, I work exclusively with hand tools. People like Tage Frid who work(ed) occasionally with hand tools may find this bench perfecly adequate. I couldn't say it offered Tage any distinct advantages other an English for French 18th century bench however. The trestle is a system that's tough to beat which is probably why so many people used that design for so long.
Hopefully I've answered the question (in a round about way, sorry). The spacing near the vise should be tight. As is gets farther away it can approach the throw/travel of the vise. I suspect that in year's to come you won't care. At least that was my experience.
Adam
Thanks, Adam. This is my second bench, and I have to say that I'm beginning to think that no vise has all the answers or works well forever. I thought I'd try a tail vise this time, as using a front vise at the end of the bench was not optimal for a variety of reasons including play/sag/misalignment developing in the vise. You may be right hat a tail vise will be no better, but I'm in for a penny already, so I guess I'm in for a pound.
I bit the bullet and bought a decent tail vice (small welded German model from L-N), so hopefully it will work as well as such things can (assuming I can install it reasonably well)?
How exactly does the tail vise get in your way? It seems like aprat fromt he handle on the end it would functionally be just more top?
Assuming the tail vise is flush with the end of the bench (and it probably won't be), the problem is primarily the screw directly under the path of the saw. In my case, where the vise adds several inches to the end of the bench, cantilevering the bench hook compounds the problem. You can't get the pressure you want where you want it, plus you have the ever present steel screw to concern yourself with. A long bench hook helps somewhat, but this is how I cross cut any stock narrower than 1' so if you think about how often you cross cut, you can see why I'd be frustrated. (BTW, I'm of the belief thanks to my friends on the internet that everything I say needs some degree of qualification for it to be useful to you. Thus the detail in these posts. By comparing your approaches with mine, you can validate or nullify my remarks. And as it should be.)FWIW, the troubles I've encountered with workbenches are:
1) That "The Workbench book" is a pathetically unscholarly, unanalytical coffee table book
2) That very few woodworkers actually work wood by hand so the majority views or consensus approaches don't work for me.With that stone thrown, let me just add my recommendation to design around processes especially sawing, face planing and edge work. Very few benches in T WB B adequately address jointing operations. My guess is because those woodworkers do all their jointing on machines and much of their surfacing as well. Oh and all their sawing. So the benches are good for coffee drinking blah,blah,blah (this is just a bunch of rhetoric, but you get the idea! I get tired of hearing my own droning voice.Hey good luck with the bench and e-mail me if you need any help or if there's anything I can do.Adam
Adam, thanks for posting your experience and thoughts.
I think I like the Workbench Book more than you. Probably just points up my intermediate level woodworker status, but some of the discussions in the book were news to me such as: the comparison of 4 legs versus trestle bases; the intricacies that make Record style vices superior (such as the threading of the screw), and many comparisons of features for different ends. It definitely is not a step by step building instructional, and that can be frustrating especially for things like tail vice installation and fettling, but it is nevertheless worthwhile (at least for me).
As far as hand work, I do a good deal of it. I started off several years ago in woodworking in a small corner of my basement with literally no room for any stationary power tools. So I bought planes and old saws and learned to use them. A recent home rennovation has finally given me the room for a medium sized dedicated shop. I love having a real (as opposed to benchtop) table saw. I really love my band saw. I find the planer convenient for thicknessing boards, but I am still finding the jointer less reliable than my 7 for edge jointing - but I strongly suspect it's my technique and not the machine. As for sawing, I used to use a Nobex (Swedish) hand miter box set up for all my cross cutting, but frankly, my Makita slider now does all that work. As far as making joints, I hand cut my dovetails and chop and cut mortise and tenon joints by hand as well, for the most part. I do like my router from time to time for certain dado and other excavation tasks - though my 78 for rabbets, 248A for grooves, and my beader and spokeshaves. etc. are fun and make lots less of a mess. So I guess I'm pretty much a hybrid woodworker who uses it all as best I can. I like to surface plane with my smoothers and joint with my 7 as I said, so I thought the front vise, tail vise combo of the Fortune bench would fit my needs pretty well. Guess I'll live and learn as always.
Thanks again.
In my mind, that was a very fortuitous little shop! I think you are in an enviable position woodworking wise (if i may say so). I think its extremely beneficial to have a choice in whether you do an operation by hand or with power tools. I myself do not. Again, good luck with the bench and don't hesistate to ask if you need anything.Adam
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled