The question about building/selling workbenches started me thinking Went back through some old stuff and old thoughts – workbenches at the Wharton Esherick museum and Winterthur. They are nothing like what is being sold today. Think that I would pay for a bench designed to be placed against the wall, with a top made from a single piece of 4” or 5” thick slice of wood cut from the center of a tree. It would have a horizontal vice in the middle of the long side; and both vertical and box vices on either the right or left ends depending upon handedness.
<!—-><!—-> <!—->
I suspect that no amount of bracing or sandbags on the bottom can make up for mass in the top. A woodworking bench is no different than a blacksmiths anvil – weight matters in the efficiency and ease of working. When buildings were built by hand, building size mattered and no one could afford a freestanding bench.
Thoughts or comments?
Replies
Not to nitpick, but I don't think mass is/was the issue. It's stiffness. You can achieve stiffness is many ways. Of note, the Dominy benches in Winterthur are only thick in the front 10" or so. A thin piece makes up the width in the back.
An edge member in the front of a bench like an apron is/was a popular design. The problem is that the stiffness is local to the apron. As you move in, toward the center of the bench, you get more trampolining.
Also, thick boards and thin boards may have cost the same in the 18th c. The advantage o a thick board is that it's easier to join to the legs in a stiff joint. It might be that we are over doing our benches. I'm currently working on a Nicholson bench made up of two fir 2x12's from Home Despot. This bench works fine and I have been able to do some good work upon it.
Adam
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled