Replies

1. 
   theRev | Apr 30, 2002 01:50am | #1

   I feel kind of silly asking this, but is this to be a dining table? Knowing waht a pieces function is helps them to design joinery and leg shape. One 4 inch to one inch taper seems a bit much, in my opinion, not only visaully but structurally for the weight proposed. Are chairs to be used? On all four sides? If not, then how can you strengthen the joinery/design on those "unused" sides? What about a trestle with an extra wide vertical member, or two or three vertical member to take out some of the sway?

   Perhaps a few more particulars...

   I recently did a Japanese style vanity with a granite top, no problem with weight, but then I didn't have to deal with chairs.

   Scott

1. 
   SgianDubh | Apr 30, 2002 03:09am | #2

   Like you Rev, I can't puzzle out exactly what feels wrong here with the given dimensions. One useful maxim I use is, "If it looks right, it is right."  150 lbs of table top suggests to me a substantial looking undercart. A big slab of stone gives people the visual impression of being heavy, which it is of course, so my instincts are to design a 'substantial' looking base that fits the impression given out by the top. That doesn't necessarily mean slabby or clunky, but perhaps 'engineered' --- intersecting light structurally triangulated elements give the impression of sturdiness just as well as a big crude lump of a base. I could just be opening my mouth and letting my belly rumble of course--- got the wrong end of the stick, barking up the wrong tree, etc.. 

   It's to be used as a gaming table from what I can see, although I'm not exactly sure what that means. Cards, craps, baccarat, roulette, snooker, etc.? Slainte

   http://www.RichardJonesFurniture.com

   Edited 4/29/2002 8:13:32 PM ET by Sgian Dubh

1. 
   Biscardi | Apr 30, 2002 04:25am | #3

   Sgian,

   Pretty impressive gallery. I would love to have apprenticed in your shop.

   My limited experience with marbel tops is that if you dont support them every couple of feet they are likely to crack eventually. I came to this conclusion while researching a side table I made. I crawled under several antique pieces. The on with the cracks were indifferently supported over longer spans.

   I would consider a turned leg. You can get alot of heft, yet lighten the overall look.

   Frank

1. 
   SgianDubh | Apr 30, 2002 05:38am | #4

   No you wouldn't like to be apprenticed to me Frank. I'm a nitpicking anusopening (can't swear much here) with some ability to give doctors a hard time. Pass the Marlboro Reds over, and pour me another beer, and don't stint on the bacon and eggs. Thankyou for the kind words. <g> Slainte.http://www.RichardJonesFurniture.com

1. 
   sschefer | Apr 30, 2002 06:01pm | #5

   Richard, the table is probably going to be used for chess and checkers, maybe some cards. I anticipate a lot of elbow leaning on the table. In anticipation of possible cracking, the carriage beneath is rock hard maple. It is attached at 8 points with 8" long hard rock maple blocks that are epoxied to the underside of the top with JB Welds, concrete to wood epoxy. Nothing about the carriage is weak at all. The legs are mortised and the skirt is tennoned. The skirt is black walnut and the legs are more of the same rock hard maple. The table is 29" high from floor to top which according to my reference material is the correct height for game tables.

   What seems to throw things off and makes heavy legs look bad is the 1/4" chamfer around the top. This takes away from the mass of the top and gives it almost a delicate appearance. Turned legs don't make it because of the dimensions and the general right angle appearance of the top. I know I have the appearance correct since just yesterday, a freind and local custom furniture retailer offered me $1,500.00 to reproduce it if I can get it stablized. I was going to take a picture of it and post it but the dang batteries were dead in the camera. I'll pick some up on my way home tonight and post a picture.

   It just dawned on me that maybe what I really need is to use a wood that has some minor flex to absorb impacts and change the grain orientation so that any flex would be directed towards the center of the table therby creating and arch effect. My thoughts are that flex in one direction would be resisted by the tendency not to flex in the oposing leg. This might allow for minor outward flex of all legs which would equally disperse impacts like a slamming fist over a lost game. Any thoughts ?Steve - in Northern California

2. 
   djpp | Apr 30, 2002 08:01pm | #6

   Steve,

      to help with any deflection look at rock maples stiffness using the modulus of elasticity. check out this website, it will give you strength properties, as well as definitions, of various types of wood.

    http://www.woodbin.com

                                    good luck, Davep.s. go to  The Woodpicker

   Edited 4/30/2002 1:03:39 PM ET by DJPP

   Edited 4/30/2002 1:07:51 PM ET by DJPP

3. 
   sschefer | Apr 30, 2002 08:16pm | #7

   Thanks Dave. Cool site, looks like rock elm or hickory. I'm not worried about color since these will be painted with high gloss black lacquer and polished to a brilliant shine. This blends with the skirt made of black walnut and offsets the top which is mixed dark and light green marble. I hate paint but in this case it really works well. Thanks again.Steve - in Northern California

4. 
   sschefer | May 01, 2002 05:09pm | #8

   Here's a picture of what I'm trying to deal with.

   Steve - in Northern California

   
5. 
   SCFrankland | May 01, 2002 05:34pm | #9

   Steve after looking at your picture I figure your best plan to forget the idea of building the table and send the marble to me. I have a place in mind that will look real nice with your marble top.

   If that is not a option than I don't think you should have to may problems with your design. As long as it is well constructed and the joints are all good in the fit department than you should have nothing to worry about.Scott C. Frankland

   Newfoundland Wood Worker

6. 
   sschefer | May 01, 2002 06:11pm | #10

   Hi Scott, thanks. I really like the design, its obviously simple so as to keep from distracting the beauty of the top. I used that horrible Gorilla Glue througout. Knowing how that stuff expands, I made the m/t joints just slightly loose fitting. They are solid as a the rock they are supporting. The problem is flex in the legs around mid length. Fortunately, I think I found some Hickory that will work much better and I'll just make up new skirts. The skirts are screwed to a rock hard maple frame that is in turn screwed to a series of 8 blocks that are epoxied to the top. The prototype legs were made from doug fir and I expected slop in them but when I made the real ones out of rock hard maple I got nearly the same results. Disappointing, but a lessen learned.

   Steve - in Northern California

   Edited 5/1/2002 12:53:02 PM ET by Steve Schefer

7. 
   SgianDubh | May 01, 2002 08:53pm | #11

   Steve, I have a feeling the legs are too slim for the weight. Use the clue provided by the chamfered top, beef up your legs, and chamfer the corners in a similar manner. This reflects a design feature already in the piece and, like the top, the chamfered legs will look slimmer than they are. You might also add a wider rail to create a longer M&T. Curve the underside of the rail upwards to create sufficiant thigh room, or work some other feature here perhaps picking up a clue again from the existing chamfer- a stepped rise on the underside of the rail with 45° transitions, for instance. 

   Looking at the picture, I see what appears to be a vertical line about a third of the way along on the rail from the left. Is that the end of a drawer or something, or just a trick of the light? I ask because if it's a drawer you must have a narrow rail or two somewhere there in the structure, and this could contribute to weakness. Slainte, RJ.http://www.RichardJonesFurniture.com

8. 
   sschefer | May 01, 2002 09:11pm | #12

   Thanks Richard, yes that is a drawer there is one on both sides, but the skirt is tied to blocks that are epoxied to the top. The ties run nearly the full length of the skirt pieces and I don't see any movement there at all. When I exert side pressure you can clearly see the flex in the legs. I've got a chunk of hickory and I like your idea of making the legs heavier with the chamfers. Also, since there is not enough room to seat two on the long side, I can easily extend the big end of the legs to 6" before the taper, increase width of the skirt and curve it upwards. This would also give me a place to add some detail. That might help to keep the look of delicacy that I'm trying to achieve. My whole objective is to make the top the main focus of attention and keep the wood portion as simple looking as possible. Judging from Scotts comments, I think I've got that accomplished. LOL.

   Thanks Again for sharing your skills, talent and great advice !Steve - in Northern California

9. 
   SgianDubh | May 02, 2002 09:22am | #13

   Steve, You seem to have identified the source of the 'wobble', that is the legs are flexing, so sturdier legs look like they might be the answer. Mind you, there are certain frame structure that encourage the wobbles, such as the X type frame with a leg in each corner of the X, but obviously that is not the case here. Anyway, with a bit of luck you'll work out a satisfactory solution. Can you move the drawers in a bit from the very end of that rail? It might help. Slainte, RJ.http://www.RichardJonesFurniture.com

10. 
    sschefer | May 02, 2002 04:36pm | #14

    Well, the customer came by yesterday to see the table and was perfectly happy with it the way it is. I showed him the wobble but he said it looked so nice that he was now going to use it as a display table in his living room. He didn't care about the little bit of wobble. Go figure.... Well at least thats one problem solved. Thanks for all the help... If I ever need to do something like this again, I'll know what to do.Steve - in Northern California

2. 
   LCHN | May 03, 2002 08:42am | #15

   1.5" x 2 "legs tapered starting at 25 inches above the floor (four inches from the top you said, right?) will be pretty flexible under such a heavy table top, I would think. And of course, thats what you just said.

   Some suggestions:

   1. use a somewhat heavier leg if possible. maybe 2 x 2 or 3x3 - it will look OK with a heavy table top.

   2. Start to taper closer to the floor getting more beef in the legs. (I made a 30" high side table with 1.75" sq. legs and the taper starts about less than halfway up and it looks OK. I have a commercially made side table about 48 x 15 top with 3" square legs that start the taper about six inches from the floor )

   3a. make an H-brace bewteen the legs. If this is a game table and will have peole sitting on all four sides, try

   3b. Make an x-brace between the legs - At least 1/3 the way down from the top maybe halfway if there's enuf leg room. Better (easier) if the legs not tapered at that point.

   HTH