I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as to
anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance between
the "legs" and depth of the legs.
Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and 36"
wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd have
to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This would only leave 7"
on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if anyone wanted
to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would look with only
that much overhang on the ends.
But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did that
work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a side?
The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back from the
edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get the
12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs are
only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
Anyway, any input is much appreciated. I am trying to get this done for
Thanksgiving next week (wife's family is in town)!
Chad
I believe the preferred overhang for any table type situation is 12-14", the
latter being optimal.
"firstjois" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chad Richardson wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that
>>> they'd have to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This
>>> would only leave 7" on each end, which would necessitate putting in
>>> the leaves if anyone wanted to sit on the end. Also not sure how the
>>> aesthetics would look with only that much overhang on the ends.
>
> [snip]
>
> What's the standard overhang for an eat-on kitchen island? 12" ?
>
> Josie
>
>
Alan,
Thanks for the feedback. That's a great point about the overhang with the
leaves. I did just finish drawing up a scaled drawing and the wider trestles
look fine. Besides, 95% of the time seating for 4 is what is required. So I
think I'll go with the 48" spaced trestles with a 7" overhang on the ends.
I need to go back to the Stickley store and check out the leaves. But from
what I remember, there are two wooden rails that slide out from under the
table that support the leaves. Then the leaves have pegs that fit into holes
on the rails. You'd have to make the rails pretty wide to avoid tipping the
leaf from the side. Or I may put a through tenon down through the support
rails that can be pegged in place....
I'm also contemplating on how to attach the top to the trestles as I want it
to be a total knock down table...
So far considering hidden dove tailed rails or tenons that are perpendicular
and come down from the top along side the trestles, and peg them into the
the trestles....
"Alan Ciemian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:opshmm39jf2li424@dell8400...
>
> I've been kicking around the exact same problem for a few weeks now; I
> could have written the same post.
>
> There are trade-offs in every config. If you push the legs out toward the
> end, you can sit 4 comfortably with 2 per long side. If you pull the legs
> in so you can sit at the end, you can sit 4 confortably with 1 per side or
> end. Putting 2 on a long side means both need to straddle a trestle foot.
> But it does allow squeezing 6 without the leaves, although I think you'll
> be a tad tight on space.
>
> If you regularly want to seat 6 without leaves, a standard non-trestle leg
> config will probably be more comfortable. If you can live with 4, the
> trestle location depends on how you would rather sit, 1 per side or 2 per
> long side.
>
> In my case, due to the target space, a 2 per long side seating is required
> so I'll probably opt for the wide spaced trestles. FWIW, I was also
> concerned this wouldn't quite look right so I made a small 1/4 scale mock
> up of foamboard and it didn't look that bad at all. Also keep in mind if
> you go with the closer spaced trestles, you're going to have some serious
> overhang with the leaves attached.
>
> BTW, how are those leaves attached/supported on that Stickley, that's
> another issue I haven't settled on.
Very good point! Thanks for the input!
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chad Richardson <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote:
>>I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as to
>>anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance
>>between
>>the "legs" and depth of the legs.
>>
>>Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
>>table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and
>>36"
>>wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
>>
>>In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd
>>have
>>to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person.
>
> *FAULTY*ASSUMPTION!!!
>
> The 'place setting' for a person can 'spill' _across_ the leg position, as
> long as the chair will fit 'inside' the leg position.
>
> Mark off a point that is 12" from the center of the table.
> _center_ the chair width on that point.
> Put the leg just outside of the chair width.
>
>
> Note: you _can_ cheat on the 24" spacing, _considerably_, for 'casual' to
> even 'semi-formal' dining. I built a D.R. table, that was, in the base
> configuration, 60x42(!). it seats 6 comfortably (2 on each side, plus 1
> on each end). there are four 9" drop-in (in the middle of the table)
> extensions. Each leaf provides seating for *TWO* additional people. With
> an odd number of leaves, you seat 2 people on each end of the table -- 21"
> space, _plus_ 'nobody on the outside' *does* work. With an even number of
> leaves, you seat one person on each end, and one extra per 2 leaves on the
> sides.
>
> This table has _fixed_ legs/frame, the entire tabletop 'floats', and can
> be positioned 'as desired' relative to the legs. for the 10/12 person
> configurations, we tend to put the top 'off-center' with regard to the
> legs,
> so that all the 'expansion' is effectively outside the legs on _one_ side,
> and sit the 3rd 'side' person thusly.
>
> Actually, in 30+ years, it's turned out that the 10/12 place
> configurations
> were _rarely_ needed for sit-down dinners. We usually had 'less than 5',
> '8',
> or '15-16' people at the table. OTOH, the 12 place configuration was
> ideal
> for buffet serving table, for stand-up eats, when we had a _large_ crowd
> over. <grin>
>
>> This would only leave
>> 7"
>>on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if anyone
>>wanted
>>to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would look with only
>>that much overhang on the ends.
>>
>>But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did
>>that
>>work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a side?
>>The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back from
>>the
>>edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get
>>the
>>12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs
>>are
>>only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
>
> Do the math with the chairs you'll be using. An 18" (or less)
> side-to-side
> dimension is *not* uncommon. This lets you 'cheat' the legs in by 3" on
> each
> side. Hey! Guess what? That makes for 42" between the legs. <grin>
>
>
>
Swingman wrote:
>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>>
[snip]
>> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
>> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
>> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
>>
>> --
>> www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 11/06/04
LOL
Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a door and
some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and some long time
use!
I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
Josie
Wed, Nov 17, 2004, 11:08am (EST-2) chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com
(Chad=A0Richardson) claims:
Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and
36" wide <snip>
24"? That'd be quite a bit of a squeeze, I'm about 22" across the
shoulders. If I was making a table, I'd set my own "standards" on
seating width. My kitchen table is 36" wide, and sitting on the ends
give 36" of seating width. A Hell of a lot more comfortable than 24".
I'd say whoever called 24" the "standard" is a total idiot.
I'd put the legs whereve I thought they looked good. On the other
hand, I do like Stickley. Ah, I'd still put 'em wherever I thought they
looked good.
JOAT
Measure twice, cut once, swear repeatedly.
"firstjois" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
>
> >> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
> >> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
> >> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
> LOL
>
> Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a door
and
> some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and some long time
> use!
>
> I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
>
> Josie
Ditto on the LOL ... you just described my decidedly non-european,
unconventional, one-of-kind, poor man's, slapdash-but-hey-it-works, one and
only, work bench!
... which, it so happens, also had a self designed trestle table built upon
it. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
In article <[email protected]>,
Chad Richardson <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote:
>I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as to
>anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance between
>the "legs" and depth of the legs.
>
>Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
>table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and 36"
>wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
>
>In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd have
>to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person.
*FAULTY*ASSUMPTION!!!
The 'place setting' for a person can 'spill' _across_ the leg position, as
long as the chair will fit 'inside' the leg position.
Mark off a point that is 12" from the center of the table.
_center_ the chair width on that point.
Put the leg just outside of the chair width.
Note: you _can_ cheat on the 24" spacing, _considerably_, for 'casual' to
even 'semi-formal' dining. I built a D.R. table, that was, in the base
configuration, 60x42(!). it seats 6 comfortably (2 on each side, plus 1
on each end). there are four 9" drop-in (in the middle of the table)
extensions. Each leaf provides seating for *TWO* additional people. With
an odd number of leaves, you seat 2 people on each end of the table -- 21"
space, _plus_ 'nobody on the outside' *does* work. With an even number of
leaves, you seat one person on each end, and one extra per 2 leaves on the
sides.
This table has _fixed_ legs/frame, the entire tabletop 'floats', and can
be positioned 'as desired' relative to the legs. for the 10/12 person
configurations, we tend to put the top 'off-center' with regard to the legs,
so that all the 'expansion' is effectively outside the legs on _one_ side,
and sit the 3rd 'side' person thusly.
Actually, in 30+ years, it's turned out that the 10/12 place configurations
were _rarely_ needed for sit-down dinners. We usually had 'less than 5', '8',
or '15-16' people at the table. OTOH, the 12 place configuration was ideal
for buffet serving table, for stand-up eats, when we had a _large_ crowd
over. <grin>
> This would only leave 7"
>on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if anyone wanted
>to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would look with only
>that much overhang on the ends.
>
>But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did that
>work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a side?
>The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back from the
>edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get the
>12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs are
>only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
Do the math with the chairs you'll be using. An 18" (or less) side-to-side
dimension is *not* uncommon. This lets you 'cheat' the legs in by 3" on each
side. Hey! Guess what? That makes for 42" between the legs. <grin>
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> firstjois <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
>>>>> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
>>>>> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.e-woodshop.net
>>>>> Last update: 11/06/04
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a
>>> door and some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and
>>> some long time use!
>>>
>>> I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. _WHAT_ are the 2x4's for?
>>
>> A slab door, and 2 (or 3) 2-drawer file-cabinets. Done!
My first trestle table was supported by two cardboard packing boxes. File
cabinets are a BIG upgrade!
Alan Ciemian wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:08:56 -0700, Chad Richardson
>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating.
>>> The table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62"
>>> long and 36"
>>> wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
>>>
I've been looking at an Ethan Allen table that is about 40 years old -
Early American or Colonial or maybe a Americanized mutt. It's 70" long x
38" wide and the distance between the ends of the table and the feet is
13". The ends of the table run across the table like the ends of a
breadboard and this is where the table opens for inserting leaves at both
ends. The center of one foot to the center of the other is 42" and the
feet are 28" long. So, if you are thinking of the people who will be
sitting on the sides of the table, there is only 5" between the sides of
the table and the feet. The feet don't look skuffed so I guess people had
enough foot room. And they didn't seem to care if the side sitters has 24"
of foot room each.
Because of the 5" bread board ends they were able to attach sliding wooden
tracks to the bread board ends and another set on the table itself. These
slide out far enough for 2 leaves on each end - each one 12" wide. I guess
that is why there are 12 chairs instead of 8 or 10. This simple (?) slide
system then supports 29" of leaves per end? Maybe your 15" leaves are
reasonable?
Joise
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>
>> edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get
> the
>> 12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs
> are
>> only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
>
> One of the biggest problems with a table that is 36" wide, or narrower, is
> the lack of room to put serving dishes on the table between two seated
> across from each other ... this is a bigger gripe than leg room in daily
> use, particularly in a more formal dining situation, like during holidays.
>
> You need to take that into consideration and add a little width to your
> design. 42" is a MUCH better width for comfortable dining. It also solves
> some of your leg room worries.
>
> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot of
> advice
> based on book lore, but damn little from experience in actually designing,
> building, then using, a trestle table.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 11/06/04
>
Obviously you do not show the due reverence to the golden mean, no doubt
generated by the god of table design Plate -o, or his protegy Faberiacci,
the god of screwing rabbits......mjh
"Chad Richardson" <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as to
> anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance
> between the "legs" and depth of the legs.
>
> Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
> table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and
> 36" wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
>
> In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd
> have to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This would only
> leave 7" on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if
> anyone wanted to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would
> look with only that much overhang on the ends.
>
> But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did
> that work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a
> side? The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back
> from the edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order
> to get the 12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that
> the legs are only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
>
> Anyway, any input is much appreciated. I am trying to get this done for
> Thanksgiving next week (wife's family is in town)!
>
> Chad
The width per seating really is not that arbitrary but is dependant on the
seating you are using . I usually allow the width of the chair plus say 3"
to allow egress from the table by the person seated .
As far as the legs go the person seated on the side of the table at the ends
[adjacent to the legs can straddle the legs comfortably].
If I were you I would not strictly adhere to the original size specified
but use it as a guide and re-layout the size according to how many you want
to seat and what kind of seating you have ....mjh
"Chad Richardson" wrote in message
> Anyway, any input is much appreciated. I am trying to get this done for
> Thanksgiving next week (wife's family is in town)!
Google a thread here earlier this year: Subject: trestle vs double pedestal
table
I anguished over the design issue myself for some time last year, and put it
into reality earlier this year. The following was posted by me a few months
back"
"I recently designed and built a 70" X 42" Mission style trestle table that
seats 8 fairly comfortably. It would be easy to increase the size of the top
to accommodate two more. Although I had no plans, there is a simple shop
drawing of sorts, and photo's of most of the process ... you are most
welcome to use what you can. Project Journal, page 5 on the site below."
My overhang ended up being 12".
After some months of use, it is comfortable and the issue of overhang depth
completely forgotten as ever being an issue. I am 6' tall, and it has never
been a problem. That said, 14" overhang would be my preference if I could
get it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
In article <[email protected]>,
firstjois <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>>>
>[snip]
>
>>> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
>>> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
>>> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 11/06/04
>
>LOL
>
>Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a door and
>some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and some long time
>use!
>
>I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
OK, I'll bite. _WHAT_ are the 2x4's for?
A slab door, and 2 (or 3) 2-drawer file-cabinets. Done!
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:08:56 -0700, "Chad Richardson"
<chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> calmly ranted:
>I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as to
>anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance between
>the "legs" and depth of the legs.
>
>Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
>table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and 36"
>wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
The 599 was 84" long with just over 50" between the legs
according to Lang's book.
>In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd have
>to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This would only leave 7"
>on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if anyone wanted
>to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would look with only
>that much overhang on the ends.
The Golden Mean would give you 39ish width (62 x .618). Stickley used
a .66 ratio (55/84) and .625 is the usual rounding of the Fibinacci
numbers. Yeah, mock it up and look at it. What looks good to you and
how does it "sit."
>But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did that
>work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a side?
>The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back from the
>edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get the
>12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs are
>only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
Your best bet is to mock it up in cheap wood or cardboard. Have
some people sit at it and then determine the best width. Either
way, 2 people are going to be angry. If it's narrow, the stretcher
kickers are pissed. If it's wide, the end sitters are knocking
their knees into solid trestle ends. I'd design it for the most
frequently used configuration. Dinner for 2 or 4, narrow, then add
leaves for more.
>Anyway, any input is much appreciated. I am trying to get this done for
>Thanksgiving next week (wife's family is in town)!
G'luck!
--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design
Chad Richardson wrote:
[snip]
>> In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that
>> they'd have to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This
>> would only leave 7" on each end, which would necessitate putting in
>> the leaves if anyone wanted to sit on the end. Also not sure how the
>> aesthetics would look with only that much overhang on the ends.
[snip]
What's the standard overhang for an eat-on kitchen island? 12" ?
Josie
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:38:04 -0500, "firstjois"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>>>
>[snip]
>
>>> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
>>> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
>>> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 11/06/04
>
>LOL
>
>Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a door and
>some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and some long time
>use!
>
>I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
>
>Josie
>
You mean the Thanksgiving Specials?
When I was growing up we used to do that, plus the card tables for the
kids. The rest of the year those spare doors sat against the back wall
of the stroreroom. Crowded the living room and dining room, but fun.
(The dining room table was where the extra food was laid out.)
--RC
Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?
[email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:38:04 -0500, "firstjois"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>> <chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot
>>>>> of advice based on book lore, but damn little from experience in
>>>>> actually designing, building, then using, a trestle table.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.e-woodshop.net
>>>>> Last update: 11/06/04
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Well, if he'd asked how to design and build a trestle table from a
>>> door and some 2x4 s, I bet a lot of us would claim experience and
>>> some long time use!
>>>
>>> I know of tables like this that are still in use after 40 years.
>>>
>>> Josie
>>>
>> You mean the Thanksgiving Specials?
>> When I was growing up we used to do that, plus the card tables for
>> the kids. The rest of the year those spare doors sat against the
>> back wall of the stroreroom. Crowded the living room and dining
>> room, but fun. (The dining room table was where the extra food was
>> laid out.)
>>
>> --RC
Spot on! LOL You got to eat in from the dining room table if you were
fast and a lot of grown-ups weren't paying attention!
It got so crowded here one July 4th that I took used the hallway door as
the much needed extra table and put a bow on the door knob.
Josie
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
>*FAULTY*ASSUMPTION!!!
<snip>
> Do the math with the chairs you'll be using. An 18" (or less)
side-to-side
> dimension is *not* uncommon. This lets you 'cheat' the legs in by 3" on
each
> side. Hey! Guess what? That makes for 42" between the legs. <grin>
You're absolutely right. 42" between the trestle legs is the dimension I
settled on using the same reasoning and, in practice, it seats 8 more
comfortably than you would imagine using arbitrary "table design standards".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:08:56 -0700, Chad Richardson
<chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote:
> I've read some posts related to trestle table design, but am curious as
> to
> anyone's experiences after building it with relation to the distance
> between
> the "legs" and depth of the legs.
>
> Specifically, table design standards specify 24" width per seating. The
> table I am building is modeled after a Stickley 599 that is 62" long and
> 36"
> wide with 2 15" leaves that can be attached to either end.
>
> In designing where the legs will be mounted, I was assuming that they'd
> have
> to be 48" appart to account for the 24" per person. This would only
> leave 7"
> on each end, which would necessitate putting in the leaves if anyone
> wanted
> to sit on the end. Also not sure how the aesthetics would look with only
> that much overhang on the ends.
>
> But I've seen some others designs that have them at 42" apart. How did
> that
> work out? Did they get in the way when trying to seat 2 people on a side?
> The answer to this could also lie in the distance the legs are back from
> the
> edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get
> the
> 12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs
> are
> only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
>
> Anyway, any input is much appreciated. I am trying to get this done for
> Thanksgiving next week (wife's family is in town)!
>
> Chad
>
>
I've been kicking around the exact same problem for a few weeks now; I
could have written the same post.
There are trade-offs in every config. If you push the legs out toward the
end, you can sit 4 comfortably with 2 per long side. If you pull the legs
in so you can sit at the end, you can sit 4 confortably with 1 per side or
end. Putting 2 on a long side means both need to straddle a trestle foot.
But it does allow squeezing 6 without the leaves, although I think you'll
be a tad tight on space.
If you regularly want to seat 6 without leaves, a standard non-trestle leg
config will probably be more comfortable. If you can live with 4, the
trestle location depends on how you would rather sit, 1 per side or 2 per
long side.
In my case, due to the target space, a 2 per long side seating is required
so I'll probably opt for the wide spaced trestles. FWIW, I was also
concerned this wouldn't quite look right so I made a small 1/4 scale mock
up of foamboard and it didn't look that bad at all. Also keep in mind if
you go with the closer spaced trestles, you're going to have some serious
overhang with the leaves attached.
BTW, how are those leaves attached/supported on that Stickley, that's
another issue I haven't settled on.
<chad@NIXSPAM_chadrichardson.com> wrote in message
> edge of the table. But since mine will only be 36" wide, in order to get
the
> 12-14" depth from the table edge to the leg, it would mean that the legs
are
> only 12" deep, not sturdy enough.
One of the biggest problems with a table that is 36" wide, or narrower, is
the lack of room to put serving dishes on the table between two seated
across from each other ... this is a bigger gripe than leg room in daily
use, particularly in a more formal dining situation, like during holidays.
You need to take that into consideration and add a little width to your
design. 42" is a MUCH better width for comfortable dining. It also solves
some of your leg room worries.
I am getting a chuckle out of this thread. There seems to be a lot of advice
based on book lore, but damn little from experience in actually designing,
building, then using, a trestle table.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" wrote in message
>
>> Obviously you do not show the due reverence to the golden mean, no doubt
>> generated by the god of table design Plate -o, or his protegy Faberiacci,
>> the god of screwing rabbits......mjh
>
> LMAO! ... Indeed, but shouldn't that be "rabbets"?
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 11/06/04
>
>
Sorry about that I was a hare off, with the spellin that is ......mjh
"Mike Hide" wrote in message
> Obviously you do not show the due reverence to the golden mean, no doubt
> generated by the god of table design Plate -o, or his protegy Faberiacci,
> the god of screwing rabbits......mjh
LMAO! ... Indeed, but shouldn't that be "rabbets"?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04