It's interesting to see someone taking something that I try to avoid where possible - basing my cuts on measurements and calculations, heavy reliance on perfectly dimensioned stock - and going over the top with it. The guy wants to make some simple stacking sawhorses:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:33:30 -0400, Gordon Airporte <JHoo...@fbi.gov> wrote:
>It's interesting to see someone taking something that I try to avoid >where possible - basing my cuts on measurements and calculations, heavy >reliance on perfectly dimensioned stock - and going over the top with >it. The guy wants to make some simple stacking sawhorses:
>Of course, he did get just the product he wanted, and obviously this is >fun for him.
He's too in love with his math to see it was a waste of time even when someone pointed it out to him, and doesn't seem to quite grasp what parallel means.
But that's the beauty of woodworking, you can go about things all ass-backwards and not see the forest through the trees and still end up with something right. There's just usually more cursing and fixing that this guy had to go through. Not that I would know anything about that.
>Of course, he did get just the product he wanted, and obviously this is >fun for him.
I've yet to see a metric 2x4. Where did he get them? Or are they really 2x4 (1 1/2 x 3 1/2 nominal) . Every time I buy wood in inches, I lay it all out in inches particularly when my tooling is in inches .
> I've yet to see a metric 2x4. Where did he get them?
Look at the pictures. Ever seen Parfix glue around here? Look at the box in the background. Healthy choice cholesterol free something. 13mm strait cut. Look at the text. Do you spell mitre or miter? Rebate or rabbet? Could be the UK going by the above but he stated prices in dollars. That says Australia.
> > I've yet to see a metric 2x4. Where did he get them?
> Look at the pictures. Ever seen Parfix glue around here? Look at the box in > the background. Healthy choice cholesterol free something. 13mm strait cut. > Look at the text. Do you spell mitre or miter? Rebate or rabbet? Could be > the UK going by the above but he stated prices in dollars. That says > Australia.
> Or are they > > really 2x4 (1 1/2 x 3 1/2 nominal) . Every time I buy wood in inches, > > I lay it all out in inches particularly when my tooling is in inches .
I do not think it is a very good design. There is very little wood left between where the legs are attached to the horizontal member. The cleat strengthens that up a bit. It would be a much better build if a piece of 2x6 was used for the horizontal bit.
On 23 Sep 2006 03:06:50 -0700, "Robatoy" <des...@topworks.ca> wrote:
>I do not think it is a very good design. >There is very little wood left between where the legs are attached to >the horizontal member. >The cleat strengthens that up a bit. It would be a much better build if >a piece of 2x6 was used for the horizontal bit.
>Just a hunch.
I worked with a crew once that used a similar design that used 1x6 pine for the legs, and a 1/4" ply gusset on each end. Like you, I thought it was a poor design, but I saw a whole lot of lumber piled on those things time after time, and they seemed to hold up ok. As with anything, the older ones were a little rough looking, but for the cost of materials and the average use a saw horse gets, the design is a good balance of cost and value.
That being said, my personal horses are all the steel folding type. $20 apeice doesn't seem excessive for the convenience and load rating on them. Having a small stack of steel boxes with 2x4s screwed to the top takes up a whole lot less space than any other design I've seen.
> That being said, my personal horses are all the steel folding type. > $20 apeice doesn't seem excessive for the convenience and load rating > on them. Having a small stack of steel boxes with 2x4s screwed to the > top takes up a whole lot less space than any other design I've seen.
>>It's interesting to see someone taking something that I try to avoid >>where possible - basing my cuts on measurements and calculations, heavy >>reliance on perfectly dimensioned stock - and going over the top with >>it. The guy wants to make some simple stacking sawhorses:
>>Of course, he did get just the product he wanted, and obviously this is >>fun for him.
> He's too in love with his math to see it was a waste of time even when > someone pointed it out to him, and doesn't seem to quite grasp what > parallel means.
Most of hobby woodworking is a waste of time, depending on your definition of waste. For some of us the math IS as much fun as the woodworking, especially when both are done together and done right. (Done wrong and it can be a nightmare!)
I did the same thing when I built my shed, since I didn't have clue one how to build a roof. It was blazing hot outside so I spent the time before breakfast indoors, deriving all the angles and measurements I'd need for the day. Then I went outside and made the cuts and assembled them. My father, who was there to help, told me my brother-in-law carpenter school graduate was taught to make a template by trial and error. I wasted time, not wood, and my birdsmouths were in the correct spot and correct angle, and I kept my trigonometry fresh for the next project. I wasn't trying to impress anyone, just get the job done. I learned later that my father was really impressed and that meant more to me than anything.
<nos...@iosphere.net> wrote: >> He's too in love with his math to see it was a waste of time even when >> someone pointed it out to him, and doesn't seem to quite grasp what >> parallel means.
>Most of hobby woodworking is a waste of time, depending on your definition >of waste. For some of us the math IS as much fun as the woodworking, >especially when both are done together and done right. (Done wrong and it >can be a nightmare!)
>I did the same thing when I built my shed, since I didn't have clue one how >to build a roof. It was blazing hot outside so I spent the time before >breakfast indoors, deriving all the angles and measurements I'd need for the >day. Then I went outside and made the cuts and assembled them. My father, >who was there to help, told me my brother-in-law carpenter school graduate >was taught to make a template by trial and error. I wasted time, not wood, >and my birdsmouths were in the correct spot and correct angle, and I kept my >trigonometry fresh for the next project. I wasn't trying to impress anyone, >just get the job done. I learned later that my father was really impressed >and that meant more to me than anything.
And he should be. It's one thing to say, well there's probably an easier way of doing this, but I'm going to stick with what I know and it'll get done right the first time. It's another thing entirely to make a false assumption at the beginning, come up with an elegant solution to a non-existent problem and then be so in love with your solution that you miss the obvious. And it need not be a math solution that gets you in trouble. You could, for example, and I'm just making this up mind you, think that there's going to be a problem with a joint somewhere in a project and then come up with a really cool solution to avoid the problem. And then when you go put the thing together it doesn't actually meet the way you thought it was going to and your elegant solution that you spent hours coming up with is actually weaker than if you'd just butted the pieces together and nailed it. Not that that has ever happened to me. Nope, not ever.
>>> He's too in love with his math to see it was a waste of time even when >>> someone pointed it out to him, and doesn't seem to quite grasp what >>> parallel means.
>>Most of hobby woodworking is a waste of time, depending on your definition >>of waste. For some of us the math IS as much fun as the woodworking, >>especially when both are done together and done right. (Done wrong and it >>can be a nightmare!)
>>I did the same thing when I built my shed, since I didn't have clue one >>how >>to build a roof. It was blazing hot outside so I spent the time before >>... > And he should be. It's one thing to say, well there's probably an > easier way of doing this, but I'm going to stick with what I know and > it'll get done right the first time. It's another thing entirely to > make a false assumption at the beginning, come up with an elegant > solution to a non-existent problem and then be so in love with your > solution that you miss the obvious. And it need not be a math > solution that gets you in trouble. You could, for example, and I'm > just making this up mind you, think that there's going to be a problem > with a joint somewhere in a project and then come up with a really > cool solution to avoid the problem. And then when you go put the > thing together it doesn't actually meet the way you thought it was > going to and your elegant solution that you spent hours coming up with > is actually weaker than if you'd just butted the pieces together and > nailed it. Not that that has ever happened to me. Nope, not ever.
Yeah, me neither. Like the time I didn't plan all these extra corner braces for my drill press stand. I didn't start to put it together to find that there just wasn't room for them. (That was back before scale drawings had been invented.) Nope, I just went ahead and built it without them, having not even thought about putting them in, and found that it was strong enough to hold three drillpresses without them. It took less time to build and design than if I had ever considered such a thing, which I didn't, because that would have been an embarrassing waste of time.
On 23 Sep 2006 05:09:48 -0700, "Jay Pique" <JayPi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Prometheus wrote: >snip >> That being said, my personal horses are all the steel folding type. >> $20 apeice doesn't seem excessive for the convenience and load rating >> on them. Having a small stack of steel boxes with 2x4s screwed to the >> top takes up a whole lot less space than any other design I've seen.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:33:30 -0400, Gordon Airporte <JHoo...@fbi.gov> wrote:
>It's interesting to see someone taking something that I try to avoid >where possible - basing my cuts on measurements and calculations, heavy >reliance on perfectly dimensioned stock - and going over the top with >it. The guy wants to make some simple stacking sawhorses:
>Of course, he did get just the product he wanted, and obviously this is >fun for him.
Nice. Math was my strongest subject in college and it comes in handy at times in the shop. My two sawhorses were made from ShopNotes. They are collapsible and adjustable, made from 2x6 and 2x4 lumber, knobs, and some hardware. I use them a lot.
