Folks,
There’s been a few posts about workbenches recently, so I thought I’d point out that on Monday (2/23), we’ll start a new video workshop that features a workbench (well, not just any workbench, my workbench).
This blog gives a preview: http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/item/5211/new-video-workshop-my-massive-bench.
I do all of my joinery and surface prep with handtools, so the bench is well-suited for that type of work. But I mill all of my lumber by machine. That allowed me to raise the bench a few inches (low benches are really only needed if you mill lumber by hand), which makes it good for powertools too.
I should stop before getting carried away (I really like my bench), and start to sound like that Sham-wow guy. I find that guy hilarious, but in a laughing-at-him kind of way (I know it’s not nice of me, but I can’t help it).
-Matt
Replies
I look forward to seeing the video on your workbench. After working for 25 years on a Tage Frid style bench and not liking many features, I built a Holtzapffel workbench last month, 3" x 24" x 96" hard maple top, a monster top to glue up, drawing below. I was careful in glue up so I had minimal hand planing to do as well. I love the Lee Valley twin screw face vise and opted for a 7" quick release end vise. It is awesome to work on.
View Image
That's definitely a big bench. I have no end vise, so the twin screw is on the front, like yours.This is my personal signature.
Matt,
Looking forward to the blog.
You mentioned in passing: "....low benches are really only needed if you mill lumber by hand...."
I built a bench (not dissimilar to yourn I suspect) a couple of years ago and made it 39 inches high, rather than the 34 inches tradition dictates via the "hands flat on the benchtop" idea. I am a mere 5ft 10in yet I find all work, including planing, goes better with this higher bench top as it avoids backache.
However, your remark did illuminate why this is so. I suppose a low 34 inch height might be necessary if one is scrubbing with a light plane and needs bodyweight to keep the blade biting. We lads with lovely planer-thicknessers only have to do smoothing or joint-fitting style planing. This doesn't seem to need much bodyweight, especially if an intrinsically heavy plane is employed.
Another case of tradition not keeping up with modern practices?
Lataxe
Lataxe,My bench is 34 in. high. Previous benches have been in the 32 in. range. Low benches are good for milling stock by hand because they let you get more lower body strength behind the planes. Cleaning up machine marks, smoothing, trimming with a shoulder plane, and similar planing tasks don't require as much lower body strength to get them done (as least that's been the case for me), so you can raise the bench up some and save your back. A higher bench also makes it easier to do things like saw dovetails and tenons (it's especially easier on your back). But it sounds like you know the benefits of a higher bench already.I've milled stock by hand in the past. I made my first bench with handtools only. It was not fun. Now that I am able to mill with machines, I'll never go back. I save my time and handtools for joinery and surface prep. I suppose that makes me a quasi-modern woodworker.-MattThis is my personal signature.
Matt,
Only quasi modern? Shurely "fully modern" as you live now not then, don't eschew the right tool for the job because it either has or hasn't got a power cord and don't dress up in a periwig (I assume)? :-)
Lataxe, who doesn't want a time machine.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled