Split top bench downsides etc?

[Curt Putnam]

Ian - my thinking is that using a QR metal vise (Record style or equivalent) offers some advantages that a wagon vise does not. A 7" vise on a 12" section is only 5" short of coverage - a 12" chop only hangs past each edge by 2.5". Wracking can be controlled by simply adding the appropriate sized chunk of wood to the non loaded side. So you can put a dog(s) wherever you want in the chop. Tail vises don't seem to need super clamping force - they just keep stuff from wiggling around the bench. You get to clamp stuff in the vise and can do things like saw into the split where you won't hurt anything - whereas a tail vise merely clamps something ON the benchtop. A lot depends on the work you will do and your methods of work. My bench will wind up looking a lot like Paul Saffold's. If you haven't already, read Bob Lang's description of his bench. The thought processes around make clear some of the choices and tradeoffs that are involved.

If your's will be a walk around bench, you can easily set up a Moxon style twin screw on the back side (that's my plan). Chisels and saws are equally accessible from either side with a rack using up the middle - replaceable modules

[ian maybury]

The metal vise is eases installation too, plus the long jaw offer the potential for more than one dog hole location/clamping mode. Wagon versus metal vise on the end of a split top is a bit of a conundrum. Does the (reputed) excellence in use and solid build of a wagon (don't hear comment about technical downsides) warrant giving away the additional functionality (and also some potential but not necessarily significant technical downsides) that the metal vise brings?

The leg vise and deadman or other means of long work holding versus twin screw call is perhaps less clear cut, in that there's a fair amount of overlap in capability.

Perhaps the lucky bit (given the way that different workholding and other solutions seem to come in and out of widespread use as they get popularised) is that the vast majority of users seem pretty happy with what they have. Decision time.

Thanks again..

[ian maybury]

A PS in the form of another question. Sliding deadmen (? ) seem generally to be set up so they run on a triangular bottom rail - with the upper end running in a groove in the bench top. The latter is often deep enough to make it possible to lift the deadman off the bottom rail, and to remove it.

Guess I'm wondering if leaving the deadman free to lift (it could be set up otherwise) has ever caused difficulty for anybody, and if so how? e.g. might it tend to lift if work is clamped to it for planing under the horizontal force? I'm thinking not if the leg or whatever vise holds it firmly, but that the deadman is probably not much use in isolation because it's so free to move. Perhaps this requirement doesn't arise in practice?

Against that lateral/sideways stability must surely become an issue if a deadman is made too narrow?

Bob L's high level stretcher with dog holes (and the types with a deep front apron) are perhaps in some respects less flexible solutions, but they have the advantage of being rock solid stable...

[Brian Holcombe]

My bench is rather large and a solid top. If I were to make any changes to it, it would have been a split top and slightly narrower.

The top on mine is 1-3/4" with a 4" thick skirt on one side. This design required a spline and battens to remain stable and flat through seasonal changes. A 3-4" thick split top likely would not require battening.

[ian maybury]

Additional stability (re wood movement) sounds like it should be another definite benefit of a split top Brian. Thanks for that...

[Thomas love]

Flattening should be no different than non split top , I use a number 8 .

[ken hatch]

Flattening should be no different than non split top , I use a number 8 .

Same here.

I was wondering if I had missed the memo, happens often these days ;-).

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Four years ago I built a split-top Roubo from the Benchcrafted plans. The only negative in my work is getting both top pieces level with each other after a move; it's also my assembly table. It takes an extra five minutes each time I move the bench, perhaps four times a year.

Having the split top means I can break it down by myself to take the bench to club meetings and for demos. I don't regret the decision.

I never thought of the issue with getting both tops level. I plan to build one and use the center board that flips to become a planing stop.

[Bob Lang]

I think flattening both is a non-issue. When I made mine, both pieces went through the planer consecutively so they were flat and the same thickness. If power weren't available I would have clamped them both together. For all the ink that's spilled (and pixels wasted) on flattening tops on a regular basis, it's not something that comes up very often. I've done mine a couple of times in the last six years, but mostly for cosmetic reasons. There is a space of 7+ inches between my tops and a #5 or larger plane bridges the gap so it isn't any different that planing a wide board with a hollow down the center. Worst-case scenario would be to take out the bolts that hold down one side and shove it over to butt the other half. I haven't seen the need for that, but I'm just lazy and have better things to do.

Bob Lang

[Prashun Patel]

I cannot argue with the theory that both split and non-split should flatten equivalently.
I offer this though:

I have two benches: one split, and one not split. My solid ash top is flat. My split maple top has crowned. I can only theorize that two halves are able to move independently, whereas the solid halves keep each other more honest.

I used to like my split top for it's clamping ability. But if you're a handplaner, even if your top stays flater than mine, you're going to HATE all those shavings that fall through the slot; I'd rather have a row of dog holes and some holdfasts. I'm working up the energy to join the two halves into a sold top.

[Curt Putnam]

I'd rather have a row of dog holes and some holdfasts.

Why do you see a split top as being inimical to dog holes and holdfasts? Or did I misunderstand what you said?

[ken hatch]

I cannot argue with the theory that both split and non-split should flatten equivalently.
I offer this though:

I have two benches: one split, and one not split. My solid ash top is flat. My split maple top has crowned. I can only theorize that two halves are able to move independently, whereas the solid halves keep each other more honest.

I used to like my split top for it's clamping ability. But if you're a handplaner, even if your top stays flater than mine, you're going to HATE all those shavings that fall through the slot; I'd rather have a row of dog holes and some holdfasts. I'm working up the energy to join the two halves into a sold top.

Shavings don't bother too much, pencils, pens, hardware, and knifes do. I almost never use the split for clamps, most of the time that job is done better and faster by holdfasts and that is the biggest problem with a split top. The split is where most of the dog holes should go for my holdfasts. I expect that could be fixed by better planning of the build but the up sides of a split do not overcome the down, my next build will not be split. YMMV. BTW, there is a 140 BF of 8/8 Beech waiting to be glued up into a solid top as I type. The old split top bench will become my secondary bench once the new one is built.

[Prashun Patel]

I guess it's not; I could still put dog holes on either side of the split. All I meant was that dog holes + holdfasts would have negated the need for the split.

In fact, I underestimated the size of things I typically work on; I find myself flattening large panels and slabs fairly often. In this case, the split is poorly placed for clamping. Holes near the back would suit me better. For me the split made for marginally easier construction (although I have to be honest, I HARDLY had to flatten my ash bench after joining) but is just a nuisance for me now on a couple different levels. YMMV.

[Pat Barry]

What is the big advantage of a split top bench? It seems that it would be more of an annoyance and problem maker than problem solver. I personally like the big flat benchtop and am happy I have that.

[Prashun Patel]

The only advantage I can feel is perhaps speeding construction and perhaps ease of moving.

This latter point might a phantom benefit, though; seems like we're all looking for excuses to build our next "last bench of a lifetime."