Thread: Bed design question

Originally Posted by russ57

Rather than the 90x90mm rails, I think i have some 160x40 pine. Would that be better?

What does sagulator say? What look are you after?
I reckon a 90mm deep side rail on a 1m high bed would look odd. Personally I'd use the 160x40.

More thoughts:

1. Your proposed design will be very wonky without some diagonal bracing.
2. I don't see how you're going to squeeze four 10mm bolts into a piece of timber 90x45x45. Or did you mean two bolts in total (one through each rail)?

Originally Posted by russ57

Assuming this description makes sense, does it seem reasonable?
The design requirement is there needs to be 1000mm clearance under the rails.


Rather than the 90x90mm rails, I think i have some 160x40 pine. Would that be better?

All advice appreciated..

Russ

I agree with Jack on 160 x 40. It will look better, be stronger and give more space for your bolts. I would only let the rails sit on the post by about 20mm or half the rail width. Effectively there will be four bolts in each post so you will need all the space you can get. An alternative to bolts (coach?) would be coach screws or batten screws. They can be recessed to allow timber "buttons" if you wish to disguise the fixings. I have typically used batten screws. With the post rebated to allow the rails to bear on the post there will be no weight on screws: Only positioning.

The bed is sitting very high at 1000mm? That will give too much leverage on the legs without some bracing at each corner. I would suggest at least two triangles on each corner from your 160 x 40 rail material as a minimum.

Regards
Paul

Thank you Jack and Paul

Yes, racking was what I was concerned about.
I was thinking of bolts at 25, 35, 45, 65 from the top, with adjacent holes at right angles. Or maybe the end frames glued and screwed and only the side rails bolted for disassembly.
I'll have a think about bracing.



The height is to allow for a chest of drawers underneath.

Work continues on the drawing board..