Replies

1. 
   bww_maryland | Mar 02, 2008 08:07pm | #1

   i'm not experienced enough / qualified enough to answer you question directly, but I'm investigating building my first real workbench as well. I found another article from Chris Schwarz for a $175 bench (link below). I'm going to build the legs thicker (~3.5") out of FIR and bring them out flush w/ the top - roubo / Holtzapffel like). I may beef up the stretchers too. Other than that, I believe I'm going to copy the dimensions on this plan.

   I hope this helps.

   http://www.popularwoodworking.com/projectplans_display/?planid=11098

2. 
   saschafer | Mar 02, 2008 08:42pm | #2

   I don't know how to change the "jbtx." I tried changing my own handle, but couldn't figure out a way to do it. As far as I know, the only thing you can do is re-join with a different one.

   I think you've got stuff figured out pretty well. As for the length of the base, the rule of thumb would be, "as long as it can be without interfering with the vises." So, a foot shorter on each end should be okay, unless you plan to someday install a long-throw tail vise. The Veritas twin-screw vise needs a little bit more than a foot, for example. Don't forget to take into account the thickness of any end caps in your calculations.

   -Steve

    

1. 
   tuolumne7 | Mar 02, 2008 09:58pm | #3

   For what it's worth, I built a similar bench, with a top about 7' long.  I have a 14" cantilever on one end to allow for the vise, and leaning hard on this end can raise the other.  With a 6' bench that tendancy would be even greater.  To do the math, a 3-1/4" thick x 24" wide top would need to be just over 7' long to remain stable with a 150 load on the end.  The weight of the legs and tressels can alter this number a bit.  This shows my bench to be  borderline...maybe that's why an 8' bench of this style prevailed over the centuries.  When I added a face vise at the opposite end of the bench (around 30 lbs) I could no longer lift the end in this manner.  With a shorter bench, you may need to store materials on the tressels or otherwise add weight to your bench for stability.

1. 
   TampaTom | Mar 02, 2008 11:15pm | #4

   Weight is definitely the key - the heavier the bench, the more stable.I like the Rubio design, but there are plenty of others out there to look at - search the bench design ideas out there before you lock into one...Tom Iovino

   Tom's Workbench

   http://tomsworkbench.com

2. 
   saschafer | Mar 03, 2008 02:02am | #5

   A lot of people use sandbags, etc. for exactly that reason.

   -Steve

    

1. 
   jbtx | Mar 03, 2008 07:28am | #6

   Thanks Steve, BWW, Tom, and tuolumne7 for the links and advice!
   There are so many excellent designs out there it is difficult to settle on one. Chris Schwarz's discussion of the Roubo bench made it sound and look really appealing to me. So for better or worse a simplified version of this bench is my plan. I hadn't thought of the cantilever issue - that's an important point to consider. I'm going to take that into account and see if I can get the Record face vise to give up a few inches to the length of the base. Looks like I'll be jbtx for the immediate future.Thanks to all!
   Vivian

1. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Mar 03, 2008 06:50pm | #7

   jbtx,

   Hey, it's easy to type too!  I doubt that anyone will connect jbtx with Vivian. :-)

   Anyway, I'm not all that familiar with the Roubo bench but I'm curious as to why no overhang on the bench?  Most benches that I've seen have this as I suspect it affords better clamping capabilities.  What are your thoughts with regard to no overhang?

   Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

2. 
   saschafer | Mar 03, 2008 06:58pm | #8

   Chris Schwarz is a big proponent of the no-front-overhang design. It allows you to easily clamp a panel to the front of the bench. Imagine holding a large panel against the front of the workbench. The leftmost part can be clamped in the front vise, and since the rest of the panel is lying flat against the front of the leg(s), you can clamp the rest of the panel to said leg(s).

   -Steve

    

    

3. 
   nboucher | Mar 03, 2008 07:56pm | #9

   Bob, I think the reason for Chris's no-overhang approach is the bench is really intended for hand-tool use. His approach is all about holding the work down so you can plane every edge and face of any size board or assembly, which means relying on bench dogs, hold-downs, planing stops, and vises. I could be mistaken, because Chris does use power tools too, but that's what I remember from his book. Norman

4. 
   bww_maryland | Mar 03, 2008 08:11pm | #10

   disclaimer: I'm a newbee too:My take on why no front / back overhang is good. I do believe there are hangovers on the right and left side of the roubo:1. allows you use the legs to do clamping
   2. allows use of deadman easilyAlso, since i don't believe there are front/rear top rails, you can still use the top to clamp to.- Brad

5. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Mar 03, 2008 08:26pm | #11

   Brad,

   there are hangovers on the right and left side of the roubo

   Man don't you just hate hangovers!  Especially on Monday mornings. :-)  That's another reason I stay away from roubos.................

   Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!