10ER Restoration Detour

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Wed May 08, 2013 1:35 pm

JPG40504 wrote:BTW I used tie rods(about 3' apart) rather than glue/dowels for the 2x4s stood on edge. Planed the top flat. Still flat after 40 years.

That was my original thought but a guy at work whose opinion I generally trust said glue/dowels would be as good or better as long as I do a good job of clamping and letting the glue throughly cure.

Since I'm doing the trough with 2x3's I think dowels actually help me out. Especially if I do a 1 1/2" trough at front and rear rather than 3" at front. When I dry fit the top together I'll decide. I'm doing a a pair of dowels high and low rather than centered because of the shorter pieces, spaced every 2 ft, total of 10 dowels. That way I can start and stop when I get to a trough.

I'm also going to glue and dowel all the doubled up 2x4's in the base, but where 4 laps come together I am going to through bolt on account of the material being thinner.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed May 08, 2013 1:44 pm

frank81 wrote:That was my original thought but a guy at work whose opinion I generally trust said glue/dowels would be as good or better as long as I do a good job of clamping and letting the glue throughly cure.

Since I'm doing the trough with 2x3's I think dowels actually help me out. Especially if I do a 1 1/2" trough at front and rear rather than 3" at front. When I dry fit the top together I'll decide. I'm doing a a pair of dowels high and low rather than centered because of the shorter pieces, spaced every 2 ft, total of 10 dowels. That way I can start and stop when I get to a trough.

I'm also going to glue and dowel all the doubled up 2x4's in the base, but where 4 laps come together I am going to through bolt on account of the material being thinner.

Never any doubt there(as long as future disassembly not a goal), but I consider the tierod an 'easier' method.

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Wed May 08, 2013 2:12 pm

[quote="JPG40504"]Never any doubt there(as long as future disassembly not a goal), but I consider the tierod an 'easier' method.]

That was my reason for asking him if he thought tie rods would be OK, and also the exact explanation I was given.

Quick question. I want the top to overhang the base on all sides. I think I'm going 28 1/2" deep (24" working area, 3" trough, one more 2x4 in front of that). Surface height of ~36". How much overhang can I safely get away with and still be stable? If it matters, the wall it will be up against has a concrete footer and its a few more inches until you can lean up against the wall studs...which may affect how far the feet extend past the legs if contacting the wall is important.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed May 08, 2013 2:24 pm

frank81 wrote:That was my reason for asking him if he thought tie rods would be OK, and also the exact explanation I was given.

Quick question. I want the top to overhang the base on all sides. I think I'm going 28 1/2" deep (24" working area, 3" trough, one more 2x4 in front of that). Surface height of ~36". How much overhang can I safely get away with and still be stable? If it matters, the wall it will be up against has a concrete footer and its a few more inches until you can lean up against the wall studs...which may affect how far the feet extend past the legs if contacting the wall is important.

leg/base dimensions? Or is that yet to be determined(hence the question)?

I do not think a few inches would be a concern(lotta mass to counter balance).

Do think about vise mounting!!!!!!

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Wed May 08, 2013 5:04 pm

JPG40504 wrote:leg/base dimensions? Or is that yet to be determined(hence the question)?

I do not think a few inches would be a concern(lotta mass to counter balance).

Do think about vise mounting!!!!!!

I sketched dimensions out during a meeting just now. Errrr I mean I was taking a lot of notes on whatever they were talking about.

The top is the full 28 1/2" x 96" x 3 1/2" less planing/sanding. The surface is 36", so the height of the base is 32 1/2". The base would shrink inside the 28 1/2" x 96" footprint by the overhang, so my question is what is the appropriate balance to back into the length and width of the base?

And I guess part B was deteriming if I needed the trestles to be shorter than 28 1/2" to close the gap with the wall, but I'm pegboarding the wall and I just decided I would be better off mounting some timber in the gap that could then double as a backstop and stick screw drivers/chisels/beer holder.

The overhang is to accomodate vise mounting in the future (I don't own any woodworking vises, only big mechanical ones probably not going on this bench). Geography is limited but not bad. Its going fore of the shelves I just built, and total clearance for both sides is limited to around a foot, not sure how much clearance a face or tail vise need. But there is a window on the right side of the bench and the garage door at the left of the bench so great lighting. At this point I do not have any holes for dogs in the works, but could if I would kick myself for it later. Designing for multipurpose work, not woodworking specifically.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Wed May 08, 2013 10:20 pm

If I understand the 'trestle' legs, they can be as 'deep' as the table or greater. The leg/top overhang then becomes moot(anything goes). That leaves the 'end' overhang. I think there is enough mass in between the legs so tipping cannot be a problem.

Dog holes can be added any time, but would have to be hand drilled.

I just googled trestle legs. My initial concept was different. Your end grain comment has me confused.

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Thu May 09, 2013 9:35 am

Faster than sketchup.

Bottom 2 joints are the blind laps, doubled up to effectively create a blind mortise.

Top 2 joints are not blind, though I drew them that way.

[ATTACH]21340[/ATTACH]

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu May 09, 2013 11:57 am

frank81 wrote:Faster than sketchup.

Bottom 2 joints are the blind laps, doubled up to effectively create a blind mortise.

Top 2 joints are not blind, though I drew them that way.

[ATTACH]21340[/ATTACH]

That is how I initially visualized them. Those googled legs looked like saw horse legs!

I think if the horizontal foot extends to (or even beyond) the top that tipping will not be possible from horizontal forces front to rear. The wide width should effectively eliminate tipping from side to side forces.

You might consider relieving the center portion thus creating a foot at each end. It will act less like a sled then.

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Thu May 09, 2013 12:12 pm

[quote="JPG40504"]You might consider relieving the center portion thus creating a foot at each end. It will act less like a sled then.]

If you mean moving the legs inward, that creates the overhang in question. How far inboard should they go for functionality and stability?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu May 09, 2013 12:24 pm

frank81 wrote:If you mean moving the legs inward, that creates the overhang in question. How far inboard should they go for functionality and stability?

Nope! In your 'illustration', come in about 4" from each end and cut a relief between them. That places a 4" foot on each end. The portion between the feet then will clear the floor. A half inch should be sufficient.

Or tack a foot on to each end. The foot could be an 'impervious' to oil material.