Thread: Table project design questions

The design u posted i would have some reservations about. It may be ok for an occasional table (as shown) but im not sure it would stand up to the rigours of dining.

1...the legs dont appear to be thru mortised into the top (i cant see underneath) or have any type of stretchers so i would be worried about the whole shebang racking....this will be made worse at the height of a dining table.

2...apron maybe neccessary to avoid the above or the trestle ends need to joined via stretchers.

Once u add stretchers/aprons u will lose the clean look that your sister may have been drawn towards......imo nothing worse than a wobbly dining table though

I share O2zi3's concerns. Those legs could probably be reduced substantially in thickness and still carry the weight, but they will need something to stop them racking - perhaps a stretcher between the feet. If you extend the legs and mortise them into/through the top, you will run into problems of differential expansion as the top expands and shrinks.

To attach the top to the legs, I'd use 3 coach bolts through the top of each leg frame - the middle one done up tight through a snug hole, the ones at each end done up not quite so tight in slots, to allow for expansion/contraction. Also, the leg frames look mitred, but they are probably a mitred bridle joint for strength.

IMHO, the top looks too heavy. If you wanted to, you could reduce the appearance of chunkiness by putting a bevel on each side and end.

I don't think a stretcher is needed. This is how I have made similar tables at work:
The top piece of the leg is 35mm thick and at least 140mm wide dowelled (70mm x 1/2" dowels) between the uprights; doesn't matter if it's wider than the rest of the leg as it won't be seen and the extra width will minimise racking.
The bottom is mitred (just a straight mitre will do, no need for a bridle join) to the uprights and fixed with 2 coach bolts up in each end.
The whole leg is fixed to the top with a row of screws around 25mm in from each edge of the extra wide top piece. You can use coach bolts if you want, but not really necessary.

I'm with Elanjacobs

the thick top provides stability.
the top can be made to look lighter by bevelling the underside of the long and short edges to about 30°
I'd stay away from a slab top -- a glue-up will be fine

I'd stay with the heavy legs as otherwise IMO the legs will be too spinterly.

the legs in the picture look to be made from rough sawn 6" x 2" which would finish around 40 mm x 130 mm

remember the table needs to moved so how the components are assembled is important

thanks for the input peeps,
Helps alot with the decision making. (or at least my persuading)

I actually made a sketch-up model with the dimensions she was after. (she was looking for flat steel legs) and at dining table height it looks way to spindly. She agree's, and as she was originally attracted to the design (not the one pictured) for it's minimalistic and 'industrial', i'm not sure she will go with either a) a lower table height to better suit the legs, or b) a thicker more rigid design like pictured.
If we did go with a slab top, obviously it's going to be alot thinner and then racking would be a problem/would have more cause to need rails?
I personally actually like the heavy feel to the one pictured, but that's probably our difference in taste.
I also personally think this whole industrial design thing happening at the moment will date rather fast once the next trend comes along. But, at least i can present these options to her. She is the end client after all.
Thanks very much for the help, and especially for the engineering info re: leg fixing and construction. I'll take this in heed even if she goes with a completely different design.

Cheers,
Lachie

Originally Posted by zilberi

thanks for the input peeps,
Helps alot with the decision making. (or at least my persuading)

I actually made a sketch-up model with the dimensions she was after. (she was looking for flat steel legs) and at dining table height it looks way to spindly. She agree's, and as she was originally attracted to the design (not the one pictured) for it's minimalistic and 'industrial', i'm not sure she will go with either a) a lower table height to better suit the legs, or b) a thicker more rigid design like pictured.
If we did go with a slab top, obviously it's going to be alot thinner and then racking would be a problem/would have more cause to need rails?
I personally actually like the heavy feel to the one pictured, but that's probably our difference in taste.
I also personally think this whole industrial design thing happening at the moment will date rather fast once the next trend comes along. But, at least i can present these options to her. She is the end client after all.
Thanks very much for the help, and especially for the engineering info re: leg fixing and construction. I'll take this in heed even if she goes with a completely different design.

Cheers,
Lachie

The thickness of the top is unlikely to have any major impact on racking, nearly all the stability will come from the width of the top piece of the leg. However, go too thin with the top and it may end up sagging through the middle.
With no apron or stretchers, the top has to support it's own weight, plus everything else. The minimum thickness will depend on the size of the top and how far in from the ends you set the legs (we normally do around 500mm set-back), but for a 2.4x1.2m top I'd suggest 40-42mm (you could probably go to 35mm if you have to) as the lower limit.