In a message posted here recently a memeber referred to Norm’s furniture as being overbuilt. I am not a Normite, but is overbuilt bad? I am just now starting to build furniture of my design and tend to choose and overbuilt detail when I have more than one likely choice. What are the possible disadvantages of this approach?
Roger
Replies
Underbuilt vs. overbuilt is entirely a matter of opinion. It's a comparison of function and customer expectations vs. cost. A more demanding environment or higher client expectations alter what is "overbuilt". So, too, the joy and satisfaction of the artist. So, the only disadvantage of overbuilt is contained within its definition, that is, more cost, time, and resources went in to it for the benefits obtained.
>What are the possible disadvantages of this approach?< ...They swell up with time and don't fit anymore, causing you to rush and cut yourself with a chisel, when you attempt to put them together? (I have a couple more but I get your drift!)- ogee
LJ
Overbuilt isn't bad, it's just not the only way to make things that last. My first furniture projects were a bedroom set that was all framed in 1 1/2" red oak. It will last but it sure is heavy!!
Regards,
Mack
"WISH IN ONE HAND, #### IN THE OTHER AND SEE WHICH FILLS UP FIRST"
Loose Joints,
Personally, overbuilt is ignorant. One of the things I relish about shaker style is how they design in concepts that enhance strength, minimize resource consumption and provide a durable outcome. Most fine furniture that I'm aware of has an efficiency and an unusual amount of strength for its dimensions....and relatively light weight.... There are exceptions of course, Arts & Crafts, in my opinion, are over built but it is intended...it wants to look very strong.
I'm not sure, but I think you just called me ignorant. Well from some people that is to be taken as a compliment.
Loose joints,
You can be assured, this close to Easter...and the Easter bunny probably monitoring this thread....I did not intend or imply you were ignorant.....lol.
BG's earlier post on the definition of "overbuilt" is about as good as I've seen.And I agree with that.
For purely aesthetic reasons can something be overbuilt. An example would be Federal period furniture with tapering delicate legs. They just wouldn't look as graceful if they had thick legs.
As someone that has to build more entertainment centers than he cares to, I can also attest to the fact that for transporting purposes, some things are better off not being overbuilt due to size and weight.
Hi there! New to this site, but if you are referring to New Yankee Workshop guy Norm Abrams, then yes, I would have to say his stuff is overbuilt. Also, he goes to great and unnecessary lengths to build projects, and and his opinion is very high-minded like his is the only way to do things. I personally don't think that's true. Also, being new to woodworking myself, I would have to say that I find it annoying when "experts" in magazines and on TV instruct you how to build a project and assume you have about $50,000 worth of tools to do it. That's just not realistic for the average home woodworker.
Oh boy, here we go again on the Norm thing.
You know what, I think we should have a forum that is set up like one of those old Miller Lite commercials: Tastes Great... No, Less Filling. It could be Norm Hate.... Norm Great. Let's all get Tshirts made ...
Uh oh,
I didnt mean to open the Norm is god / devil can of worms. I was merely referring to another post that claimed that Norm's stuff is overbuilt. That made me wonder about others thoughts on "pverbuilt".
Roger
Can overbuilt be bad? Years ago, I build a shop stool from thick oak. I could park a car on if it fit. This year, I build a slim light new stool based on Mike Dunbar's great article. Quess which one I pick up and move wherever I'm working?
Which one will last longer? Windsor chairs are spare and light, but can last hundreds of years. My stool? Well, wait a few decades.
Working on the shop or the house? I overbuild, then overbuild somemore. Mobility is not a criterion for a building.
If you don't mind learning from the failures of your projects, then underbuild.
If you are building a chair that you intend to sell, then overbuild. You'll never know who might sit on it so unless you want to be sued, then make sure it will withstand the ever increasing width and weight of us "americans".
If you are not a structural engineer, and don't have a good basic understanding of structural properties of the material, joinery, and hardware/fasteners you'll be using, then do your best to overbuild and hope you've guessed well enough to never see the project fail.
If you DO have an education in structural engineering, and a known and reliably consistant client who will never change, then build the project only exactly as strong and uncomplicated as it needs to be.
What's my point? Of the three options "overbuilt, underbuilt, and perfectly built", underbuilt is easy but sure to see the project fail. Perfect built is hard, and nearly impossible if you consider that your client might change over time. So overbuilt is the only option left that makes any practical sense.
Norm builds projects that plans are sold for others to build. He (his production/publishing company) assumes some responsibility that the project built from those plans will not fail. The safe way to assure this is to design the project to exceed the loads and uses it is intended for.
4DThinker ;-)
When one understands the principles of stucture and good joinery, often gained from experience, a person can build lightweight yet well made,durable furniture. Conservation of materials is one benefit, the other is pleasing aesthetic proportion.
If we all built according to what lawyers tell us should be built to avoid lawsuits, we'd have nothing but crude " viking" style furniture. So, as has already been posted on this thread, it's possible to build great furniture for generations to come without a heavy, bulky look.
Whether something is 'overbuilt' or 'underbuilt' can only be determined from the design criteria which are based on the expected use of the item.
I spent 20 years designing and building nuclear power plants and some of the design criteria were almost comical - but we did it anyway (and people wondered why they cost so much and took so long to build). One of my favorites was the requirement that the reactor containment structure withstand a crash by a fully loaded airliner. We rolled our eyes and did it thinking it was a major case of overkill. After 9/11, it doesn't seem so silly anymore.
When I design a piece of furniture, I try to determine how it will be used and what kind of stresses it will be subjected to. My designs attempt to have plenty of strength where needed and still look graceful.
Someone mentioned Windsor furniture and I totally agree that it's sturdy and beautiful. But I also suspect that a lot more of it has been destroyed than exists today.
That's true; the design has to meet the user's criteria. Chairs are prone to far more racking and internal stesses than tables, for example. So yeah, to each his own I guess. But when a piece is light and superstrong, I get more of the "wow" reaction than if it were superstrong but made out of 4x4's.
Hey, what's wrong with 4x4's?? I'll bet you also think that caulk doesn't count as trim, either. - lol
My dear old Dad thought that 16d was a finish nail.........drove my Mom nuts. Her most frequent comment about my stuff is "Where in the world did you learn that.......certainly not from your father".
I'm gettting ready to build a table for use as a desk, and this thread may be the place to post my question. I don't want it to be overbuilt:
The table will be 66" long by 30" deep by 30" high. The top will be 7/8" thick. The apron will be 4-5" and will have two three drawers in the front (one with fold down front for keyboard/mouse, the others for junk.)
I want to use tapered legs, but am struggling with dimensions. I'm thinking I should use 2 1/4 stock and taper it to 1 1/2. Or should I start with 2 1/2 stock and taper to 1 1/2? Or just use a 4X4 as suggested earlier...
Do any of you have rules of thumb for this or is it trial and error?
here's one possible answer to obtain strength and a more delicate appearance - here's a pict of a leg of a table I built 15 years ago - 2 1/2" at the top, tapering to 1 1/2" - I don't see where you would lose much starting with 2 1/4"...
also, considering 'strength', remember specie makes as much difference as dimension - these legs are ash, a relatively low weight/high strength specie..."there's enough for everyone"
Thanks, David. I did fail to mention I'm using cherry for this project (and unless it's a commission for someone else, all my other projects for that matter!). Your proportions look good. I'm planning tapers only on the inside edges.
Here's a piece I did a year ago (my computer table). The top is cherry and the base poplar (which is now painted a dusty navy blue). The dimensons are 30" x 17" 27. The legs are 1 1/2 at the top and 7/8 at the base. I don't like the cutout on the front...
Edited 4/9/2004 9:33 am ET by Lofton
I don't like the cutout on the front...
ya, but there's the form vs function issue - - I'm assuming you have a cutout so your legs fit, so I'd say it's beautiful - -
we kinda have a similar situation at our library right now, we put on an addition and have re-arranged and are thinking about commissioning some computer furniture that would complement the arts/crafts/craftsman style of our building - compromises will have to be made for the sake of utility - - a conundrum, with tech changing so rapidly, how do you design a station to hold several terminals that will still work 20 years from now? - -
good luck with your project - "there's enough for everyone"
David-the nice thing about computers is they're getting smaller, not larger. My current system is an IBM NetVista that's 2+ gigihertz. The system unit is 3 1/4" by 12" by 14". The monitor is a flat panel. In the new desk my system unit will go into the same drawer as the keyboard/mouse. Both will be invisible when not in use. That leaves the monitor which is 7" deep and 15" wide, which isn't too much real estate compared to the old stuff.
You should have lot of flexibility to design your new furniture. Good luck with it and thanks for your feedback.
I think we are speaking at cross purposes.
To me overbuilding something means, for example- pegging a mortise and tenon joint. You don't need to do it, but it makes it stronger. Also dovetailing drawer dividers into a carcase is good practice, though it will probably work with a rabit.
Overbuilding doesn't just mean using heavy stock. 4x4 legs that are held to a table skirt with biscuits alone doesn't mean its overbuilt.
Having just had a 5 year old project catastrophically fail *(for lots of reasons) I think special attention to joinery and wood movement is really important- more so than stock dimensions.
Frank
* Yes I know it is not macho to admit to this.
* Yes I know it is not macho to admit to this.
au contraire...sorry about the failure, but admitting to it indicates a healthy self-esteem, which is at least passingly related to macho...
Overbuilding doesn't just mean using heavy stock.
your point is well taken - 'over' to me means a waste of resource - material or labor - - on anything meant to be durable, a worst case scenario needs to be concieved and some safety factor applied - - a tavern table would have different parameters than a tea table in a formal room - - it wouldn't be redudant for the tavern table to have pegged thru tendons, cross stretchers, diagonal bracing and be made of oak - that said, 2 1/2" stock for table legs is within a reasonable range for a durable table -
regards, DOUD"there's enough for everyone"
Lofton,
I don't have an answer for you but the first question that goes through my mind in your situation is 'how thick can the legs, apron be (or should be)with a 7/8" top?' Does the golden formula pertain? Perhaps some others can enlighten.
I suspect David's table (picture) has a thicker top?
How does the golden formula go? Maybe that's what I'm in need of...
Lofton,
The formula is 1:1.618...but I really don't know how to apply it...
I've read several articles but most of them show how the built piece fits into the rules....not how to design a table going forward.
Kind of like, pi are squared...or is it, pi are round? I'll look around. Thanks for the direction.
Yes, pies are round. lol . The golden section 1: 1.618 is a proportion.This ratio is also described by the Fibonacci series.For example 1,2,3,5,8,13 etc. and is quite abundant in classical furniture, and well-designed furniture. The golden section is most closely related to the ratio 5:8.
If you want to become adept at design, I strongly encourage you to read more on this subject.
Lofton,
Pi are round, cornpone are square.
Ray
I suspect David's table (picture) has a thicker top?
actually, the top is 7/8", as proposed for Lofton's project - the table is 34" wide, 73"long, 29" high w/ a 4 3/4" apron - produced in a frenzy of manic activity over a couple of days without plans or drawings, altho I had spent considerable time contemplating the situation - this seems to be the nature of my approach to a lot of things - I don't really recommend it to others - -
"there's enough for everyone"
Edited 4/9/2004 12:59 pm ET by David Doud
meant to add this pict of the table to the previous post - -"there's enough for everyone"
David,
Thanks for clarifing that measurment...that is very helpful.
Before I "decide" on any dimensions for any project I build I try and take my best shot at drawing them up to scale first. I prefer using graph paper and simply sketching front, side, sometimes top, and usually a 3D view of the piece. The graph paper helps me size the parts accurately and quickly, and so I can easily draw several variations of the design to compare. It's not unusual for me to fill several pages in order to explore the broadest variety of "looks" for the project. And it's important to not be critical of any of these sketches until you've drawn several. Looking back at an array of drawings it's very easy to find the one(s) who's details are the most pleasing in proportion and look. In every case the process leads me to far nicer solutions than my first sketch would have produced.
So you're wondering if 2 1/4" is better than 2 1/2". I say you should have a look at 2", 2 1/8", 1 7/8", 3", and several other dimensions for the top of the leg, and explore tapering to as little as 3/4" square at the bottom. I don't "know" which set of dimensions would look best. But you can find out by sketching a variety of them out on paper.
OK, I confess to being "teachy". Luckily (for me, anyway) that's my job.
Hope that helps.
4DThinker ;-)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled