As with anything in life you need to be smart about how you conduct
yourself. It seems the tipping danger would be in the forward
direction when on the top step. It also seems that usually you would
have the stool up close to a wall or lower cabinet door and that would
really minimize any problem. It would likely have to tip over quite a
bit before the bottom could slide out and a nearby wall would stop
that in the extreme case where you would tip forward. So just like any
ladder, generally stable if used correctly but standing on the top
step and juggling with one hand while bent over backward as far as
possible might be dangerous.
On Dec 17, 7:38=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:http://www.newya=
nkee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". =A0Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
To me, it looks just fine for stability. I have several similar, tall
2-step stools (made with scrap lumber, not nice pieces of furniture) I
use in the shop.
Consider what you would be using the stool for.
In my case, a stool as that is not for assisting in handling large
pieces of lumber or other heavy objects from above. It's for reaching
small items, which can be handled comfortably. Trying to handle
larger, heavy objects, to me, might be a more cautious effort on that
2-step stool.... or just about any small stool/ladder/5 gallon bucket
with an awkward or not-so-normal step. Common sense would dictate
what is safe or best.
The steps' rise does seem to be a bit tall, though. I can see it
being used in a pantry setting. I would prefer the 3 stepper for a
library setting. Asthetically, it doesn't look as desirable as the 3
stepper for an in-home setting. I would not make a fairly nice stool,
as that, for use in the shop.
For in-home use, I vote for the 3 stepper. For a 2 stepper, I would
a) reduce the rise of the steps or b) expand the base (my least likely
option).
Sonny
Hi, Phisherman
I guess I wonder if there might be some expansion on your "higher safety
standards" comment. Aside from the thinner stock on the 2-step model, what
would make it less safe than the 3-step version? In fact, looking at the
narrow top step on the 3-stepper and seeing how it is set so far behind the
centerline, I might suspect it would rotate under a person's weight unless
the unit was positioned square up to a supporting wall.
...keeping in mind I'm a total novice at wood design...okay?
Thanks
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:38:55 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
>a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:
>http://www.newyankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
>But it looks a little "tippy". Is the second step just for looks or
>would it be safe to use?
Unlike the early 1830's we have higher safety standards. Not a good
idea to call this a "step stool." They make a good book rack, shoe
rack or plant stand though.
You mean a 1 step stool, or are you referring to the 3 step version?
On Dec 21, 10:23=A0am, Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:38=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> > a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:http://www.new=
yankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> > But it looks a little "tippy". =A0Is the second step just for looks or
> > would it be safe to use?
>
> Omit the top step. =A0If you're average height and have 8 foot
> ceilings, a 2 step stool will let you reach anything.
Larry wrote:
> Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote in news:fcydnelnnp_
> [email protected]:
>
>> http://www.finewoodworking.com/ProjectsAndDesig
>
> I can verify this design is solid. It shows no signs of
> stability problems. I built one of these earlier this year and
> it has gotten lot's of use. While I did't follow the plans
> *exactly*, the overall dimensions are the same.
Made a SU model when it came out in preparation for doing one myself.
Not an exact copy either, but, like yours, the dimensions are the same
if anyone wants a Sketchup file as a go by:
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/ShakerStepstool.zip
Let me know if the link doesn't work. Thanks ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 12/17/09 12:53 PM, Swingman wrote:
> SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>> As with anything in life you need to be smart about how you conduct
>> yourself.
>
> Absolutely! "Smart" being the operative word.
>
> The top step of just about any stool, or ladder, is simply not smart to
> step on .. then again 50% of the population, by definition, needs to be
> constantly reminded of that. :)
>
That explains why the need for so many lawyers, warnings etc.
What the world needs is a simple test to see if someone is smart enough
to enter adulthood.
Here, hold my beer, watch this.....
;-)
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote in news:fcydnelnnp_
[email protected]:
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/ProjectsAndDesig
I can verify this design is solid. It shows no signs of
stability problems. I built one of these earlier this year and
it has gotten lot's of use. While I did't follow the plans
*exactly*, the overall dimensions are the same.
Larry
On Dec 17, 10:38=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:http://www.newya=
nkee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". =A0Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
I totally agree: it looks horribly tippy. Look at his hand on the
step. The step is a small multiple of the width of his hand. That
would definitely mean that it would be easy to move your center of
gravity enough to one side or the other (or forward!) to cause it to
dump you on your head.
I had the same nervous reaction you did when I saw it.
Father Haskell wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:38Â am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
>> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left
>> here:http://www.newyankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>>
>> But it looks a little "tippy". Â Is the second step just for looks or
>> would it be safe to use?
>
> Omit the top step. If you're average height and have 8 foot
> ceilings, a 2 step stool will let you reach anything.
But you're never supposed to use the top step of a stool or ladder. So if
you omit the third step, does that mean you can't use the second step? ;-)
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Dec 17, 10:38=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:http://www.newya=
nkee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". =A0Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
Omit the top step. If you're average height and have 8 foot
ceilings, a 2 step stool will let you reach anything.
On 12/17/2009 09:38 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:
> http://www.newyankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
There's a slightly modified design in the January 2009 issue of Fine
Woodworking. It has a back that slopes in to help make it more stable
when standing on the top step.
http://www.finewoodworking.com/ProjectsAndDesign/ProjectsAndDesignPDF.aspx?id=31925
Chris
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:38:55 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for a
> Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:
> http://www.newyankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
I made one much like this one that fit under the base counter. My wife of
the time took it as part of a divorce. Not because of any sentimental
reason. She truely used it to reach the upper shelves. It was stable and
the step folded up for storage.
http://www.maisiek.com.au/contents/media/l_p3220317.jpg
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:42:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Hi, Phisherman
>
>I guess I wonder if there might be some expansion on your "higher safety
>standards" comment. Aside from the thinner stock on the 2-step model, what
>would make it less safe than the 3-step version? In fact, looking at the
>narrow top step on the 3-stepper and seeing how it is set so far behind the
>centerline, I might suspect it would rotate under a person's weight unless
>the unit was positioned square up to a supporting wall.
>
>...keeping in mind I'm a total novice at wood design...okay?
>
>Thanks
A step stool should have rubber feet and the feet should extend beyond
the top to prevent tipping front-to-back and side-to-side. Either
stool might easily tip if not against a wall. From what I
understand, the 2-step model is a hardwood and the three-step is pine,
so thinner hardwood might have the same strength as the pine.
Swingman wrote:
> Not an exact copy either, but, like yours, the dimensions are the same
> if anyone wants a Sketchup file as a go by:
>
> http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/ShakerStepstool.zip
Looking at it for the first time in awhile, you might want to consider
making that first step 10 1/2" instead of 10" so that your muscle memory
doesn't kick in (or your building inspector doesn't red tag your
project!) ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f35b4924-56e9-4062-874b-2f697299d692@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> I'm looking to build this 2 step version of the Shaker step stool for
> a Christmas present, similar to the one on the left here:
> http://www.newyankee.com/photos/301.jpg
>
> But it looks a little "tippy". Is the second step just for looks or
> would it be safe to use?
I built one a couple of years ago. Once on the top step you need to be
cautious of not letting the center of your weight extend past the back side
of the top step. If you do, it will tip.
While this seems unlikely, if you use it to reach up high inside a cabinet
the center point of your weight will certainly go past the back of the top
step.
To help prevent tip you can have the bottom back of the legs extend past the
back edge of the top step 2-3 inches.
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> As with anything in life you need to be smart about how you conduct
> yourself.
Absolutely! "Smart" being the operative word.
The top step of just about any stool, or ladder, is simply not smart to
step on .. then again 50% of the population, by definition, needs to be
constantly reminded of that. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)