Now that I have a small collection of handplanes, I need to make my
bench a little more planing friendly. Currently I use my vise and
benchdogs to hold a piece of wood to be planed. However, because I
built the bench before I fell in love with handtools, the benchdog
holes are not in the right place and I find my self not tall enough a
lot.
Anyway I thought I might add a mechanism to clamp a wood stop across
it lengthways. Not too difficult.
Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
I also learned that Fine Woodworking issue #54 (9/01/1985) has an
article "Body Mechanics and the Japanese Beams" by Drew Langston. I go
to the FWW home page and try to get that issue (for $3.50) but they
don't seem to archive back that far.
Popular Woodworking also had an article in issue #35 (2/1/1987).
Bob Bench Page shows one but somehow I don't think master Japanese
woodworkers use something like that....
http://www.terraclavis.com/bws/benches.htm fourth picture down.
So does anyone in this group have a picture, plans, etc.? Does anyone
have opinions about these beams/benches?
My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
A japanese planing beam is not knee high, nor do they sit on it. It
has a sawhorse-like brace on one end called a trestle (waist high) and
the other end is braced against the wall (knee high). It is used with a
pull motion plane, moving from the higher end to the lower end. The
worker is standing or leaning during the planing motion.
I think your idea of a knee high bench and planing while sitting is not
a good idea. I've seen pictures of Japanese man sitting on the floor
and planing but its with a very small hand plane doing some trim work.
He is using a pull style plane.
Bob
The more I think about this the better I like it: a bench about 18 or
20 inches high, about 10 inches wide, and maybe 6 feet long, with a
complement of vises (although the true Japanese beams do not have
vises).
I think one could get creative and use pipe clamps or even a bench
vise turned vertically for really strong hold-down clamps.
One could also _not_ go for the super heavy bench top so it's easily
moved - since you'd be sitting on the darn thing while planing, your
own body mass counts....
[snip]
Thanks for the reply, Mike. I checked my bench height against your
rule of thumb. It seems to be about 3 inches too high.
Regarding :knee high": it seems right to me because when I've built
decks I often find a place where I can lay a board about knee high,
then I can put my weight on the board to hold it...
I see myself sitting on it or kneeling on it, kinda above the wood.
BTW, Garrett Hack says in "The Handplane Book" in Chapter Five in the
section called "bench height":
"When woodworking was done by entirely by hand, workbenches were lower
than most today. Planing on a low bench puts more power into the
stroke, through the natural gravity of more of the body driving the
plane..... a bench a few centuries ago would have been less than 30
inches high."
Two (probably irrelavant) points: I'm old but not a few centuries old.
Second, my knees are 20 inches from the floor.
Garrett Hack goes on to say that tools today are less demanding
physically so the lower benches are not needed. The high bench is also
good for chiseling, routing, etc.
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
> > planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
> > room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
>
> I'm having a hard time seeing how having a bench "knee high" would do
> anything but screw up your back and quickly wear you out from using it. I
> do agree that for hand planing, you need a slightly different approach to
> bench height than if you're planning to use it in other ways. The rule of
> thumb I've always heard (and followed when I built my bench) is to stand
> with your hands at your sides, and then turn your hands out at the wrists
> with the palms down. The bench height should be at this height, so you
> would be able to put your palms flat on the surface.
>
> Keep in mind (as I've discovered), that there are several hand tool
> operations that this height seems less than ideal for. Namely, when I cut
> dovetails by hand, I almost constantly wish I had a taller bench. That's
> when I discovered that some people have so-called "dovetailing benches". It
> never ends.
>
> So, to reiterate, I'm still a little confused as to how exactly a knee high
> bench would do you any good for hand planing purposes.
>
> Mike
Thanks. I'll have to find a picture of the bench your describing. Is
it attached to the wall on one end or just leaning on it?
My idea may be bad, like most of my other ideas....but in this case it
will be easy to experiment. I'll just get a few boards, lay them
across some concrete blocks, clamp a board to be planed to the boards
and try planing it. I'll post my results later....
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> A japanese planing beam is not knee high, nor do they sit on it. It
> has a sawhorse-like brace on one end called a trestle (waist high) and
> the other end is braced against the wall (knee high). It is used with a
> pull motion plane, moving from the higher end to the lower end. The
> worker is standing or leaning during the planing motion.
>
> I think your idea of a knee high bench and planing while sitting is not
> a good idea. I've seen pictures of Japanese man sitting on the floor
> and planing but its with a very small hand plane doing some trim work.
> He is using a pull style plane.
>
> Bob
Thanks, Pete. I'll go get a copy.
Pete Martin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> FWIW, Woodworkers Journal, Oct 2004, the current issue, has a bit in in
> it. The ultimate workbench issue.
>
>[snip]
Ok. The low beam-like bench experiment is done. I used two chairs (18
inches high). I suppose these are analagous to trestles. Then I put a
1 inch thick board across them - the beam. The total height was about
19 inches. I then C-clamped a board to be planed to the board and went
to planing....seemed perfect to me. Am I wierd? (A rhetorical question
not a solicitation for additional postings.)
[snip]
Rathr than cut and paste various responses, I'll just answer a few.
One poster said two centuries ago people (men?) averaged five feet high.
Acctually it was closer to 5'6.
Then there is the old rule of thumb that the top of the bench should be at your
palms. I'm 5'8 and prefer a bench of around 34" high, at least for planing.
what is really useful is a stout stop, not dogs for holding both ends. It'
smuch faster with only the stop, and after a little practice, it does not need
to be held at both ends.
Good point. I'll check today. The library in my little town is
unlikely to have anything though.....
DArlyRos also made a good point: people were shorter a few centuries
ago. As I learn more and more about benches (including several Fine
Woodworking (FWW) articles and the latest one in Woodworkers Journal),
I think there's plenty of variations and personal tastes involved.
My general conclusion is that the flat palm height (see posting by
Mike in Mystic) is a the optimum height for "everything", but lower is
best for planing. Although one person said "use a step to get higher."
Thanks for all the feedback!
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Never Enough Money wrote:
>
> > Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
> > rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
> > a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
> > book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
>
> Does America still have anything as pinko as libaries?
>
> BugBear
Never Enough Money wrote:
> BTW, Garrett Hack says
> "When woodworking was done by entirely by hand, workbenches were lower
> than most today. Planing on a low bench puts more power into the
> stroke, through the natural gravity of more of the body driving the
> plane..... a bench a few centuries ago would have been less than 30
> inches high."
> Two (probably irrelavant) points: I'm old but not a few centuries old.
> Second, my knees are 20 inches from the floor.
It's worthwile remembering that 2 centuries ago, people were
averaging about 5' tall. They hit 5'8" average with our parents'
generation. If you're like many of us, you're well over 6', so
the difference is about 1' in height between us and the guys 2
centuries ago. That means the bench has to be a fair amount
higher. The bottom of my knees are 20" off the floor, barefoot,
so I suspect that we're close to the same height.
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
Never Enough Money wrote:
> Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
> rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
> a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
> book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
Does America still have anything as pinko as libaries?
BugBear
patriarch < wrote:
>>My general conclusion is that the flat palm height (see posting by
>>Mike in Mystic) is a the optimum height for "everything", but lower is
>>best for planing. Although one person said "use a step to get higher."
>>
>
>
> Just when I was considering RAISING my workbench, router table and assembly
> stands. Better viewing angles, better light, better working angles, less
> back strain.
Hand planing involves quite a lot of downward pressure; this
is more easily done on a (slightly) lower bench. Detail work
is easier if closer to you eyes; modellers tend to use
very high benches.
Hand sawing need the work so low that most people
use a completely separate workpiece support,
either saw horses (duh!) or a 2 level workmutt in "low"
mode.
Ideal height varies with individual AND task.
BugBear
Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
>
> I couldn't keep up with Oldtools and I just sort of drifted away when
> Badger Pond became WoodCentral. I guess the only thing that keeps me
> here is that it's usually pretty easy to find the handtool threads and I
> figure I'm helping keep alive the spirit of folks like O'Deen (who
> hepled me so much when I was starting down the slope).
And, boy, did you end up at the bottom :-)
BugBear
I think the bench book was worth the $15 I paid for it. years ago. You
can go to Amazon and still get it for $15. It is not just about
benches.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561582700/qid=1095516017/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-5755167-9601445
[email protected] (Never Enough Money) wrote:
>Now that I have a small collection of handplanes, I need to make my
>bench a little more planing friendly. Currently I use my vise and
>benchdogs to hold a piece of wood to be planed. However, because I
>built the bench before I fell in love with handtools, the benchdog
>holes are not in the right place and I find my self not tall enough a
>lot.
>
>Anyway I thought I might add a mechanism to clamp a wood stop across
>it lengthways. Not too difficult.
>
>Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
>rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
>a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
>book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
>
>I also learned that Fine Woodworking issue #54 (9/01/1985) has an
>article "Body Mechanics and the Japanese Beams" by Drew Langston. I go
>to the FWW home page and try to get that issue (for $3.50) but they
>don't seem to archive back that far.
>
>Popular Woodworking also had an article in issue #35 (2/1/1987).
>
>Bob Bench Page shows one but somehow I don't think master Japanese
>woodworkers use something like that....
>http://www.terraclavis.com/bws/benches.htm fourth picture down.
>
>So does anyone in this group have a picture, plans, etc.? Does anyone
>have opinions about these beams/benches?
>
>My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
>planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
>room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
>
> My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
> planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
> room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
I'm having a hard time seeing how having a bench "knee high" would do
anything but screw up your back and quickly wear you out from using it. I
do agree that for hand planing, you need a slightly different approach to
bench height than if you're planning to use it in other ways. The rule of
thumb I've always heard (and followed when I built my bench) is to stand
with your hands at your sides, and then turn your hands out at the wrists
with the palms down. The bench height should be at this height, so you
would be able to put your palms flat on the surface.
Keep in mind (as I've discovered), that there are several hand tool
operations that this height seems less than ideal for. Namely, when I cut
dovetails by hand, I almost constantly wish I had a taller bench. That's
when I discovered that some people have so-called "dovetailing benches". It
never ends.
So, to reiterate, I'm still a little confused as to how exactly a knee high
bench would do you any good for hand planing purposes.
Mike
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:43:47 -0500, Conan the Librarian
<[email protected]> wrote:
>bugbear wrote:
>
>> Hand planing involves quite a lot of downward pressure; this
>> is more easily done on a (slightly) lower bench. Detail work
>> is easier if closer to you eyes; modellers tend to use
>> very high benches.
>>
>> Hand sawing need the work so low that most people
>> use a completely separate workpiece support,
>> either saw horses (duh!) or a 2 level workmutt in "low"
>> mode.
>>
>> Ideal height varies with individual AND task.
>
> Exactly. I built my bench for planing, and it works nicely for
>that. However, when I'm doing carving, I wish it was much higher. I've
>even been thinking about building a small carving benchtop that I can
>place on top of my regular bench to ease back and eyestrain.
>
> For sawing (especially ripping), it's best to have a sawhorse that's
>low enough so you can stand above it
put your carving benchlet on the floor and stand on it to lower your
main bench?
I suppose ... *if the heights were right... *if you didn't do much
hand sawing... *if floor space was at a premium.... it might be the
right thing....
> and bend one knee and have it rest
>on the horse. That way you are above the work and can get your weight
>behind it, as well as using gravity to your advantage. (Just be careful
>you don't make it so low that your saw hits the floor on your
>follow-through.)
>
> BTW, welcome back, Paul. Where've you been? :-)
>
>
> Chuck Vance
Re read the thread. The short bench under discussion was a take off of a
Japanese bench. They typically sit on it.
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, to reiterate, I'm still a little confused as to how exactly a knee
high
> bench would do you any good for hand planing purposes.
>
> Mike
>
>
[email protected] (Never Enough Money) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
> rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
> a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
> book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
...
It's a good book. Helped me a lot when I was building my bench. Your
local library probably has it, or they can get it by interlibrary
loan.
[email protected] (Never Enough Money) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Good point. I'll check today. The library in my little town is
> unlikely to have anything though.....
>
> DArlyRos also made a good point: people were shorter a few centuries
> ago. As I learn more and more about benches (including several Fine
> Woodworking (FWW) articles and the latest one in Woodworkers Journal),
> I think there's plenty of variations and personal tastes involved.
>
> My general conclusion is that the flat palm height (see posting by
> Mike in Mystic) is a the optimum height for "everything", but lower is
> best for planing. Although one person said "use a step to get higher."
>
Just when I was considering RAISING my workbench, router table and assembly
stands. Better viewing angles, better light, better working angles, less
back strain.
Oh, well. Whatever works.
Patriarch
FWIW, Woodworkers Journal, Oct 2004, the current issue, has a bit in in
it. The ultimate workbench issue.
Never Enough Money wrote:
> Now that I have a small collection of handplanes, I need to make my
> bench a little more planing friendly. Currently I use my vise and
> benchdogs to hold a piece of wood to be planed. However, because I
> built the bench before I fell in love with handtools, the benchdog
> holes are not in the right place and I find my self not tall enough a
> lot.
>
> Anyway I thought I might add a mechanism to clamp a wood stop across
> it lengthways. Not too difficult.
>
> Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
> rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
> a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
> book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
>
> I also learned that Fine Woodworking issue #54 (9/01/1985) has an
> article "Body Mechanics and the Japanese Beams" by Drew Langston. I go
> to the FWW home page and try to get that issue (for $3.50) but they
> don't seem to archive back that far.
>
> Popular Woodworking also had an article in issue #35 (2/1/1987).
>
> Bob Bench Page shows one but somehow I don't think master Japanese
> woodworkers use something like that....
> http://www.terraclavis.com/bws/benches.htm fourth picture down.
>
> So does anyone in this group have a picture, plans, etc.? Does anyone
> have opinions about these beams/benches?
>
> My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
> planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
> room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
[email protected] (Never Enough Money) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Then someone told me about Japanese trestle beams. A search of
> rec.woodworking didn't reveal any pictures. It did reveal that there's
> a chapter in Landis' "The Workbench Book" but I'm not going to buy a
> book just for 13 pages I may not even build.
>
> I also learned that Fine Woodworking issue #54 (9/01/1985) has an
> article "Body Mechanics and the Japanese Beams" by Drew Langston. I go
> to the FWW home page and try to get that issue (for $3.50) but they
> don't seem to archive back that far.
>
> Popular Woodworking also had an article in issue #35 (2/1/1987).
>
> Bob Bench Page shows one but somehow I don't think master Japanese
> woodworkers use something like that....
> http://www.terraclavis.com/bws/benches.htm fourth picture down.
>
> So does anyone in this group have a picture, plans, etc.? Does anyone
> have opinions about these beams/benches?
>
> My intuition says that a bench about knee high with someway to hold
> planks down would be perfect for planing and not take up a lot of
> room. Perfect to complement my current imperfect bench.
Coming in late but here's another reference: the <Bench Tools> book
in *The Best of FWW* series has the piece by Drew Langston, though
titled "Body Mechanics and the Trestle Workbench". The article makes
reference to Japanese woodworking techniques as the souce of the bench
design. Accompanying pics show it to be above the knee, but not quite
middle of the thigh. Two trestles, with both a thick beam (to chop
against, etc.) and a thinner board (to hold tools) spanning them.
Langston pull-planes, chisels and saws at the bench, using different
postures. When chiseling, for instance, he half-sits on the bench,
clamping the work with thigh and shin. When planing, he uses a full
width stop to secure the work and stands at the end of the bench.
The book also features a piece on the 18th century joiners' bench, and
one on a more contemporary "classic" bench with shoulder and tail
vises.
I'm just beginning to move away from the tubi and plywood stage. This
book gave me much to think about. Got it on eBay for just a few
bucks.
Good luck, Never Enough; it's been fun reading about your experiment.
Dan
bugbear wrote:
> Hand planing involves quite a lot of downward pressure; this
> is more easily done on a (slightly) lower bench. Detail work
> is easier if closer to you eyes; modellers tend to use
> very high benches.
>
> Hand sawing need the work so low that most people
> use a completely separate workpiece support,
> either saw horses (duh!) or a 2 level workmutt in "low"
> mode.
>
> Ideal height varies with individual AND task.
Exactly. I built my bench for planing, and it works nicely for
that. However, when I'm doing carving, I wish it was much higher. I've
even been thinking about building a small carving benchtop that I can
place on top of my regular bench to ease back and eyestrain.
For sawing (especially ripping), it's best to have a sawhorse that's
low enough so you can stand above it and bend one knee and have it rest
on the horse. That way you are above the work and can get your weight
behind it, as well as using gravity to your advantage. (Just be careful
you don't make it so low that your saw hits the floor on your
follow-through.)
BTW, welcome back, Paul. Where've you been? :-)
Chuck Vance
bugbear wrote:
> Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, welcome back, Paul. Where've you been? :-)
>
>
> Why, thank you.
It's always nice to see your contributions.
> OLDTOOLS, Badger Pond, and its successor, WoodCentral.
That's what I figured.
> Not sure how long I'll be here; the power:hand
> ratio ain't good (from my POV)
I couldn't keep up with Oldtools and I just sort of drifted away
when Badger Pond became WoodCentral. I guess the only thing that keeps
me here is that it's usually pretty easy to find the handtool threads
and I figure I'm helping keep alive the spirit of folks like O'Deen (who
hepled me so much when I was starting down the slope).
Chuck Vance
bugbear wrote:
> Conan the Librarian wrote:
>
>> I couldn't keep up with Oldtools and I just sort of drifted away
>> when Badger Pond became WoodCentral. I guess the only thing that
>> keeps me here is that it's usually pretty easy to find the handtool
>> threads and I figure I'm helping keep alive the spirit of folks like
>> O'Deen (who hepled me so much when I was starting down the slope).
>
> And, boy, did you end up at the bottom :-)
I guess that's a matter of perspective. :-)
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) To borrow from a great blues song: I'm down so
far that it looks like up to me.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:19 -0700, Never Enough Money wrote:
> Thanks. I'll have to find a picture of the bench your describing. Is
> it attached to the wall on one end or just leaning on it?
You really need to read the workbench book. If you're too cheap to buy it
(I am), try interlibrary loan (I did).
Anyway, the trestle bottom end sits on a chunk of log, which stands in the
corner. The top end is held up by a pair of legs, a simple x-brace.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"