Thread: Home-built vises Part 1

Ian

That looks good. I might cut the shafts off mine and re-drill them at your angle. That would also eliminate the problem of short grain in the beam.

You didn't mention the type of timber you used. Unknown hardwood?

If it works, it doesn't matter.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... I might cut the shafts off mine and re-drill them at your angle. That would also eliminate the problem of short grain in the beam....

When prototyping, don't hesitate to make any modifications you think will help!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... You didn't mention the type of timber you used. Unknown hardwood?....

Pretty close. I know what the shaft is, it's "White Mahogany" which is one of the names for a Stringybark (E. acmenioides) which grows in isolated patches along the ranges from northern NSW to Nth Qld. - you've probably come across it? It's one of the favoured fencepost woods on the old farm I was raised on, very durable in the ground. It's also a long-fibered and tough wood, which is not as dense as S.G., and made good hoe handles, among other things. I was searching my nondescript hardwood pile for some Spotted Gum & came across a stick of this, so I thought I'd give it a try - it turns a little bit better than SG, too...

The head is something I picked up off the woodpile (literally) when up north a few years ago. It could be Cadagi (Corymbia torreliana) but I wouldn't go to court on my id. It was a bit softer & less dense than most of the other scraps I shuffled through, and when I saw that one end of it has a wavy bit of grain that will almost exactly follow the shape of the holdfast head I had in mind, that settled it. I saved the wavy bit for a 'production' head, and am using the straighter pieces for my test heads. Actually, by keeping the curve in the head fairly modest, I can have long-grain running right through the centre, so there shouldn't be any problems from that direction in any case.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... If it works, it doesn't matter....

My philosophy to a T (or should than be a 'P'?) ....

My plan is to make a couple of pairs (at least) of these things, one with 3/4" shafts and one with 1" shafts for really heavy-duty work. I'll drill a few more strategic holes in the bench top, but I don't need many, and I would rather restrict the number because I find too many holes in your bench top can be a right pest. They hold chips & shavings, then little pieces roll in, get covered with more shavings, and cause me many minutes of searching! Since I want the hold-downs especially for gripping things toward the back of the bench, I'm going to drill a series of holes in a 50 x 50mm strip and bolt that along the back board of the tool well, which is very solidly dovetailed into the end pieces. Not quite as versatile as a 'Groggy bench', but it should cover most of the remaining 0.5% of jobs I do that my bench doesn't handle well in its current form.

So my thanks again to you both, this is the best 'workshop tip' I've had in many years!
Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

So my thanks again to you both, this is the best 'workshop tip' I've had in many years!
Cheers,

The Luddite Dilettante humbly accepts your thanks and awaits the 'production model' with scale drawings, photos and faq's so he can make a propper one.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Holdfast	Clamping Pressure
Gramercy	102KG
Gramercy (with F clamp)	113Kg
Berlin	71Kg
Bushmiller	47Kg

71kg... That's not bad

I reckon the Grammercy is at an optimal angle and if our versions corresponded more closely we'd get clamping pressures that got pretty close. I mean, if the angles are the same, you hit them all with the same force and they don't break then they should all arrive at roughly the same clamp force, no?

I love that test method, by the way .

Cheers
Matt

That's what I'm calling them:

BD-1.jpg

Well, they look like duck's heads to me. Maybe I can train the bench dogs to retrieve them when they get lost..

I tried different head angles, & they work well enough if the angle of the centre-line of the head & the shaft is anywhere between 70 & 75 degrees. The 70 degree one seems a bit better at setting, while the flatter angles have a tendency to spring back & not catch easily in an over-sized hole, but are fine in their 'proper' 3/4" holes.

These are the 3 that work well, so they'll be the working prototypes. You can see the variation in the head/shaft angles:

BD-2.jpg

I think the higher angle will be my choice for any future replacements. I also used Spotted gum on one of them, to see if it's any tougher than the Stringybark.

I've added a row of dog holes to the back of the bench:

BD holes.jpg

And I'll drill some holes in the bench top, eventually, but I'll wait 'til I need some, so that I can put them in the best spots - if I just guess, I'm sure to sink 'em in the wrong places!

I haven't tried to measure the force these things can develop, but two of them can hold a piece of wood plenty firmly enough for me to attack it with any tool I'm likely to want to use on it. As you say, Matt, the same setting force should develop the same pressure on the work piece, but I think there would be a deal more friction with our wooden ducks, so they probably need to be hit a bit harder, to get the same pressure. The steel would have to be capable of holding a fair bit more tension & therefore applying more pressure, but it's moot, because the wooden gadgets seem to give me all the pressure I need. It's also distributed over a wider area, which is better still....

So I'll update you in a few months' time on how they stand up to a bit of heavy use.
Cheers,

Hi Guys and Gals

Just to let you know that I have been following this thread with interest. Nothing of substance to offer, so no comments.

Ian, "bench duck" is the name I gave to the new Veritas holdfast, although they don't call it that - so you are free to use the name



My concern about this style of holdfast is its durability. It is not that wack to seat it that I think about, but the wack to unseat it. I really cannot imagine them holding up for long.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

..My concern about this style of holdfast is its durability. It is not that wack to seat it that I think about, but the wack to unseat it. I really cannot imagine them holding up for long.

Derek, I'm not sure how you whack metal holdfasts to release them, but if you can reach them, a tap on the shaft from underneath does the trick with these wooden ones. As I'm going to be using mine mostly at the back of the bench, it means an awkward stretch to hit them from below. I tried whacking one sideways to take the pressure off the shaft & allow it to loosen. That seemed to work ok, and there is plenty of wood there to take the blows, so I'm hoping they'll be ok in that regard.

I have made one discovery already. I had some linseed oil sitting on the bench that I'd been using on another project, and for some reason I decided to give the 'ducks' a good slather. This afternoon, I was showing them off to a friend and found they no longer grip in the square dog holes - the oil has made them slippery. They still seem to catch ok in the 'proper' round holes, and so I hope they'll be fine when the oil has dried off in a week or two.

As to their durability, I have no idea how they'll stand up to regular use. They are clearly capable of exerting useful pressure, but for how long will only become apparent in time. I don't intend cosseting them, they have to be practical to earn a place in the shed. It takes about 10 minutes to knock one up, and I have a pretty rich supply of scraps for heads & shafts, so as long as they don't break easily & often, I won't be too upset. I was very dubious about the screws in wooden clamps when I first made them. I made some just because it looked like a fun project, but didn't expect them to be capable of any serious work. However I soon found they are well up to the task, and some of my clamps have done yeomen service for 30 years, now. This gives me some hope that the all-wood holdfasts will be useful.

What appeals to me, apart from the fact I can cobble them up from scraps, is that there is a relatively large area of wood in contact with the work piece, & by deliberately choosing a softer wood for the head, there is a lower likelihood of marring the surface of the work than with a metal holdfast.

Will let you know pretty soon if they turn out to be duds, & a year or two if they are winners.....

Cheers,

The Veritas Bench Duck locks and unlocks with the cam lever (top bill). No tap/whack required AFAIK.

Ian, I reckon a little patch of non-slip rubber at the head would be the go (you could even use it loose if you didn't want to glue it on). Won't yield any more pressure of course, but will increase the grip on the timber substantially.

Love the whole idea . Solves the problem of seemingly having to source incredibly heavy tools from overseas.

Derek, I'm not sure how you whack metal holdfasts to release them, but if you can reach them, a tap on the shaft from underneath does the trick with these wooden ones. As I'm going to be using mine mostly at the back of the bench, it means an awkward stretch to hit them from below. I tried whacking one sideways to take the pressure off the shaft & allow it to loosen. That seemed to work ok, and there is plenty of wood there to take the blows, so I'm hoping they'll be ok in that regard.

Hi Ian

Joel at TFWW, who designed the Gramercy holdfasts, says, "You hit them on the top of the arm to lock them and on the side of the stem to loosen". That is how I do it, and have done it over the years.

How thick is your bench? That may make a difference. Mine is 3 1/2" thick, which is ideal for holdfasts, such as the Gramercy. I also have the Veritas, which is a screw down type. Both are excellent designs. Here is the Veritas ...



If you treat the wooden holdfasts here as you would a metal type, I am certain that they will not hold up for long. Wacking the rear of the holdfast will stress the intersection with the dowel shaft, the short grain is likely to give way. You method of tapping from below the bench seems intelligent, but hardly the thing for a good WA boy to do! All that bending upsidedown is likely to upset the gizzards somewhat, and then I'd be forced to lie down and miss my woodworking!

Anyway, just because I am analyising the design does not mean that I do not consider that this concept lacks merit. I think that this is a great opportunity to invent something new!

So I did put on my WA thinking cap and came up with another idea: why not make a one piece wooden holdfast with all the grain going in the correct direction? To do this we would either have to bend the wood or laminate it into shape. I decided to do the latter.

I built a form from some scrap MDF. Here you can see it with the Gramercy holdfast ...



The completed version, oiled and waxed ...



I rescued some scrap Jarrah offcuts (from the chair I am building) and used the tablesaw to thickness them to 1/16" x 1" strips. These were glued together with hide glue (longer open time and flexible when dry), and then the whole mess was clamped in the form ...





It will remain there for a few days. More on this later - it may be a glorious failure.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek

are you going to turn the 'shaft' down to 3/4"?

Hi Nick

Yes, the shafts need to fit the 3/4" holes I use for my holdfasts. I am not sure how to do this with a lathe, so (unless someone can advise here) planned to use rasps and scrapers. These should create a pretty accurate round shaft (I've done this before). The plan is also to evaluate the flex and, if the structure needs to be stiffened up, add reinforcing (a few more layers). It is a prototype, so once the dimensions work, I could make more (or you could make them from my dimensions). Of course, it may not go anywhere.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, I reckon those screw down holdfasts from Veritas look like the go (always have) except that they are $79 + about $10-15 in freight each. I'll be planning for a bench build next year sometime, and I'll likely be using Tallowood which is stupidly heavy (already have the timber which is drying atm).

I've developed some clamps and some clamping ideas, but before I go out on a limb, what I'd like to know is: are there other reasons for having a 3.5 to 4" thick benchtop besides heft and using holdfast/downs? I'm wondering if just having a 2" thick top will in dense hardwood detract from anything else? I would have thought that 2" thick Tallowood would provide significant heft (comparable with say 4" Douglas Fir). I'm concerned about a vastly overengineered top making it difficult to construct (even if it's a split-top).

I'll be using an HNT Tailvise (which I have found very satisfactory over the last 18 months) and more than likely the Hovarter face and/or leg vises (although I may have a very sneaky idea for a leg vise that could be "nearly" quick release).

Another thing Derek, do you have some scales that could measure the force that the V screwdown yields please (so it can be compared to the previous measurements taken)?

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The plan is also to evaluate the flex and, if the structure needs to be stiffened up, add reinforcing

You could achieve that by gluing a steel rod into the the middle of the shafty bit when you are assembling the layers for glue up. Maybe around 5/16" to 3/8" rod should do the trick.

Struth, Derek, that is a very elegant thing - I made a duck, and you've made a swan! While it is a fun thing to do, and should work fine, the ducks are more in the spirit of something rough & ready that works for someone like me who only needs this kind of holding once in a while. Of course, if they keep working, I will no doubt find more uses than those I envisage at present.

I'm not too worried about whacking the ends to loosen them. I don't get your drift about short-grain problems, whacking the thick end of the head to loosen it is just like one mallet head meeting another. I left plenty of meat in that end, & the dowel shaft is firmly banged into the head for about 3/4 the depth of the wood (plus I pinned it with a treenail for good measure). I avoided glue because glue & impact never make a happy combination, in my experience. It seems solid enough, but this could well be the weak spot, and may be where a split begins after a bit of use, but I sized it to what I intuitively felt would cope with the likely stresses.

I predict that the main weakness is going to be the shaft. You can bash these things down more than I anticipated, and develop more pressure than I thought they would. I whaled into my prototype with gusto, expecting a loud splintering sound and some extra kindling wood after a few blows, but it just kept tightening up to the point where there was more than enough pressure on the piece of wood under it. What I have noticed after a few heavy tightenings is that there are small dents where the shaft bears against the top edge of the hole. The marks were more evident from bashing them into the square dog holes, & that figures, as they slew over at a greater angle and the edges of the square holes are quite sharp. I reckon that over time, there is going to be crushing at points along the shaft where it gets set (we tend to work on standard thicknesses of wood) & these will make a fulcrum for eventual shaft failure. I'm going to ease the tops of the holes in the strip along the back of the bench in an attempt to alleviate the crimping - I don't think it will reduce the holding much, if at all. In fact, the wooden shafts grip far easier than any metal shaft is likely to do (when I turned mine, I ran 120 grit paper over them, so they are not super smooth). I've found I can set these by simply pushing down on the head with my hand. Given the nice broad head to press on, that alone applies enough pressure in some cases, but if you need more, give it a whack with a mallet.

Brett: I reckon the usefulness of all-wood hold-downs will depend heavily on what you want them for & how much holding power you need. If you often need heavy-duty holding, steel is probably the more sensible way to go. The main use I have for mine atm, is to hold boards steady when laid across the bench. Holding them by the front dogs & tail vise is frequently not enough, and I've crimped an occasional board by twitching it too tightly when I was too lazy or in too much hurry to put a clamp on the back. I tried my new ducks yesterday, and they work an absolute treat for that - that's when I found that just pushing one down hard with my hands on each side was enough to hold the board very firmly, and even with the front dogs lightly tightened, I could lean on the overhanging board without it budging a mm. So as far as I'm concerned, I have got just what I wanted, something quick & easy to apply & release, which is what I want when cutting profiles on ends that need constant flipping.

As to depth of bench top, I tried my hold-downs in various thicknesses, and they hold fine over the ~30mm to 65mm thicknesses I tried. I'm thinking that possibly, the shallower holes crimp the shaft a little more, but that's based on very little experience. I decided to make my add-on dog-hole strip 45mm deep, which works very well so far (again, extremely limited experience!). If all goes well, the new bench top I plan to make in a couple of years (I slabbed up a bewdiful Bluegum last week, which I think will make the spiffiest bench) will be around 50-55mm thick. For me, that's plenty thick enough for mass, stiffness & rigidity, but shouldn't be so bulky that more than a couple of fit blokes will be required to lift it onto the legs.....

Cheers,