Bench height

[Chris Griggs]

I'm 6'2 and have borderline freakishly long arms. My bench is a little under 34". I deliberately built it on the lower side of what I thought would be a good height figuring that it would be easier to prop it up than to recut the legs. The height works well for hand planing with metal planes and also chopping with chisels, but thinking about it, I could easily go a few inches higher and still have plenty of downward force on my planes. For just about everything other then handplaning I tend to wish it were a bit higher. Perhaps I'll make some slippers for it and try using it at more like 36". I think that would be just about right.

[Sean Richards]

My favorite bench is 40" high.

The height is very beneficial for horizontal paring and sawing, I do not find it too high for handplaning.

I used to be 6' 1" but my recipe is approx 4 1/2" below underside of elbows, when fore arms are held horizontal. This measurement is averaged as we are mostly somewhat crooked.

My students always remark on the height when they arrive but are converted by the time they leave.

The lowness of historical texts bothers me, I'm sure they were shorter!

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Some more interesting data points in this thread and David I agree with you on the issues of using data from historical texts and applying it to today without normalising for increases in average height etc. On a personal note to you David I hope you are recovering well and best wishes.

[Zach Dillinger]

Fellow bench-Auxologists,

My research into historical heights has led me to the following information about the average male height, gathered from a variety of sources.

Medieval England: 5 '6"
17th century England: 5'6"
18th century America: 5 '7 3/4"
Post-revolution America: 5' 8"
mid-19th century England: 5' 7 3/4"
Current: 5'9"

So, as you can see, average male height has increased less than two inches since the time of Nicholson. If you add 1 or 2 inches to the bench height listed in Nicholson, you get 33" or 34". However, I can see why today's people would want to raise their bench, given the prevalence of iron planes. That, and I'm sure a fair number of hobby woodworkers today are significantly older than a professional joiner / cabinetmaker of the 18th century. With age comes back problems, so a higher bench is needed.

[Sean Richards]

I'm 6'2 and have borderline freakishly long arms. My bench is a little under 34". I deliberately built it on the lower side of what I thought would be a good height figuring that it would be easier to prop it up than to recut the legs. The height works well for hand planing with metal planes and also chopping with chisels, but thinking about it, I could easily go a few inches higher and still have plenty of downward force on my planes. For just about everything other then handplaning I tend to wish it were a bit higher. Perhaps I'll make some slippers for it and try using it at more like 36". I think that would be just about right.

It will be an easy quick way to find out ...

[Leo Passant]

My favorite bench is 40" high.

The height is very beneficial for horizontal paring and sawing, I do not find it too high for handplaning.

I used to be 6' 1" but my recipe is approx 4 1/2" below underside of elbows, when fore arms are held horizontal. This measurement is averaged as we are mostly somewhat crooked.

My students always remark on the height when they arrive but are converted by the time they leave.

The lowness of historical texts bothers me, I'm sure they were shorter!

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Fellow bench-Auxologists,

My research into historical heights has led me to the following information about the average male height, gathered from a variety of sources.

Medieval England: 5 '6"
17th century England: 5'6"
18th century America: 5 '7 3/4"
Post-revolution America: 5' 8"
mid-19th century England: 5' 7 3/4"
Current: 5'9"

So, as you can see, average male height has increased less than two inches since the time of Nicholson. If you add 1 or 2 inches to the bench height listed in Nicholson, you get 33" or 34". However, I can see why today's people would want to raise their bench, given the prevalence of iron planes. That, and I'm sure a fair number of hobby woodworkers today are significantly older than a professional joiner / cabinetmaker of the 18th century. With age comes back problems, so a higher bench is needed.

These opinions make the best arguments for bench heights yet. I've always thought Schwarz at his bench looks like a giraffe at a watering hole.

[daniel lane]

I'm getting ready to build a hand tool workbench and have been experimenting with the current 34" bench I use - I expect I'll be one of those that works on a shorter bench. It looks like the 'pinky test' will be appropriate for me, and will wind up with something like 31-32". I'm just under 6 feet but have an ape index of +4 or 1.06, depending on which style you use. Per Chris, I think this means "freakishly long arms".

I see a lot of discussion about bench height, and I believe that arm length is something that isn't considered often enough in the discussion. In my family, I'm marginally taller than the other males (dad, brother) but my arms are significantly longer and therefore my hands are much lower. Even though we're close on height, our workbench heights would be very different.



daniel

[Jim Foster]

There are optimum conditions for any mechanical system and looking at the tasks woodworkers do using hand tools, the mechanical advantage presented by lower benches surpass higher benches, it's simple physics and physiology. Once you add in requirements beyond mechanical advantages, I think bench height becomes more of a preference based on the tasks most performed and personal decisions.

There are always outliers like the horizontal paring mentioned, and I have come to think that's what bench appliances are for.

One example is using power tools like a router, since it does not require a lot of force to move around, having your eyes closer to the workpiece (a higher bench) may be best for most users. An extreme example of physiology; try screwing a 3-4" screw into a board 6' up on a wall, then try putting the same screw into the wall 32" up. In both cases if the only leverage you have is your body and your feet on the ground, the 32" high screw is a much more reasonable task.

Disclaimer: I'm a fan of shorter workbenches, and took numerous classes on statics and dynamics (basic mechanical systems)many years ago. But do not have nearly the time in the saddle (or at the "bench") that most forum members do.

[ray hampton]

If I am sitting down then a screw or nail at one yard height will work for me BUT IF I AM STANDING,my eye sight gets in the way and the accurate placing of the screw hole suffer

[James Carmichael]

I'm 5'10" with stubby arms and a to-be-replaced 36" bench. The only issue I've had is chopping straight mortises, I finally realized the bench height was causing me to approache from the side instead of standing directly over the workpiece. I've contemplated 32" for my next bench, but my back aches thinking about it.

I may go to a mortising bench I've seen, basically just a couple of beams stacked on the floor to sit on & chop mortises.

I'm a woody-user and the the other consideration is tool weight. Being lighter, they need more oomph. If the Nooden wasn't so expensive, I'd go that route.

[Peter Pedisich]

This is a very interesting and informative discussion, quite helpful.

I'm in the middle of a bench build, not my ultimate bench, but a first hand tool bench so that I may learn through actual use just which features I really need based on the type of work I do. I will be building it from scraps I have on hand to minimize cost. I designed it with a 35" height as this is what the Lie-Nielsen and some other commercial benches are. At my height of 5'-10 this seems high, yet I did do some tests with sawhorses and boards of wood to test out different heights, and when it was down in the 31-33" range, I felt my wrist was at an unnatural angle, and this was uncomfortable with an iron plane. 36" was too high, 34.5-35" was at the right spot.

One good thing about this being a sort of working prototype is that I won't mind cutting it down if I find it's too high after a few months.


-Pete

[Shaun Mahood]

In Jim Tolpin's new book ("The New Traditional Woodworker") he suggests a block attached with hinges to change your bench height from "planing height" to "assembling height / dovetailing height" (right after he shows his shop with half a dozen nice benches for different things and makes you all jealous).

Before this thread I totally thought I had my bench height nailed down, now I think I'm going to have to build something adjustable and build a test bench first. The "Roubo's Slippers" post by Steve Branam also has a lot of potential, I may end up building a borderline too low bench and use those to figure out the rest.

If anything, all of these bench height discussions really tell me that I better be able to adjust things in some fashion in the future, since the likelihood of getting everything right on the first kick is pretty low even when I kind of know what I'm doing!

[Peter Hawser]

I hate to be an outlier but I am 6' 1" and my bench is 36.5" and is working great for me for planing and other things one often does at a bench like sawing, chiseling... If you aren't sure, why not build high. You can always take wood off a set of legs, but you can't put it back on.

[linke combs]

I am currently in the process of building my first bench and this is a very timely subject for me. The pinky test shows 32 inches for me and I have played around in the kitchen which is a 36 inch countertop height and that is clearly to high for me. I would be planing with nothing but my arms at that height. I am actually not building a Roubo, but a Holtzappfel bench. Mine will be very similar to Chris S.'s, but a little longer and with a homemade wagon vise as well. My current thinking is to build it somewhere in the 33 to 34 inch range. I am 6' tall, but apparently have longer than average arms for my height. I have always had to buy long sleeve shirts with longer sleeve lengths. I guess my current thought is I build it somewhere around 33 inches then by the time I lay the wood on the bench for face planing or clamped above the plane of the bench for edge planing, then I will be somewhere around 34 inches in actual use. Then again, I may be over thinking the whole thing. I has happened before.

Linke

[Jim Foster]

I am currently in the process of building my first bench and this is a very timely subject for me. The pinky test shows 32 inches for me
Linke

I tried the pinky test again last night on my bench and I noticed it's pretty easy to try it with my shoulders slumped a little, (I think someone mentioned this in a previous post on this thread) altering the test by and inch or more. When I stand up at attention, pinky test is close to 32". When I'm slumping a little it drops several inches pretty easily. I like the current height of close to 32" and I'm 5'10" with long arms. An inch lower would somewhere between better and fine, an inch or so higher would not be for me, because my old shop table was 34" and it was not pleasant at all to work on. I notice in our kitchen, 36" counters, that my back gets really sore, really easily. So far on my bench, it does not. Could be because I don't have any extended periods at it yet, but I think I do. It could also be, because I'm not in a prone position for any length of time, like standing at a counter washing dishes, etc. Or it could be, the height is keeping my lower back muscles more relaxed.