As a woodworker who loves to make chairs, I always try to use components that are as light and strong as possible. Thin spindles look better and can help a chair conform to the body of the sitter.
But wood has its limits.
Today I started assembling some folding campaign stools that were based off an original that had 1”-diameter legs. The original had a thin 5/8”-diameter ankle and 7/8”-diameter foot. They looked fantastic, so I decided to build the project as-is.
Unfortunately, we moderns are lard-butts.
In comparing the new stools to my old ones (which had a 1-1/8”-diameter legs and chunkier ankles), I definitely preferred the feel of the chunkier stools.
I weigh 185 pounds, and the stool with the thin legs was just too flexible to be comfortable. Every time I shifted my weight, the stool would give a little bounce. That’s not good feedback in the buttocks region.
So if you are building this stool before the book comes out, I recommend you beef up the legs. Use 1-1/8”- or 1-1/4”-diameter legs. Tomorrow I’m going to turn some more legs and try to get the look of the skinny leg on a thicker component.
Indeed: Spanks for stools.
I’ll let you know how it goes.
— Christopher Schwarz
Oh boy! If you are having trouble at 185 lbs., I’ll have to really beef the legs up for me!
I’d very much like to see the rivet pattern for the stool in the background. It is hard to tell, but is the seat and pocket also stitched?
Oh, and it doesn’t look like you put the finishing washers on the second stool. Is it just not finished, or are you considering not using them here?
They both have finishing washers.
On the front stool, the pocket is stitched. On the rear stool it is riveted. Five rivets equally spaced. Both approaches work fine in my experience.
Folks are always looking to make projects without a lathe. So an off-the-rack solution for no lathe and a big butt — buy three baseball bats. They even come in different lengths.
Ah, I see, you’re talking about something to sit on not…uh… something…uh..never mind.
I haven’t been 185 since high school, May be you can make a chart for different weights? Lets see 1 1/8 for 185, 1 1/14 195, etc, Is it linear?
The stiffness of a rectangular beam on edge like a 2×6 increases roughly as the cube of the depth, times the thickness. A 2×8 would be (2*8*8*8/2*6*6*6) or about 2.37 times stiffer than a 2×6. Basically this says that wood can be incredibly stiff, and the stiffness increases very rapidly, with a relatively small increase in thickness. Now a turned leg is not a rectangular beam, so these calculations would not be exact, but it does explain why such a very small reduction from 1 1/8 to 1 inch had a drastic effect on thickness when Chris tried it.
So no, the relationship is not linear. If these were rectangular beams, the step from 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 would go from being good for 185 pounds to a leg good for about 280 pounds. (Width times the cube of thickness becomes diameter raised to the fourth power). But since they are not rectangular, that number needs to be adjusted downward. At a guess, 1 1/4 might be good for about 225, and 1 3/8 would be good up to, say, 260 or more. Your mileage may vary, but the message is wood is pretty stiff, so legs do not have to be humongous.
Ian,
Well done thank you for the information.
I think that if the legs are split from a log and then worked on a shaving horse to a round shape that would increase resiliency and they would flex a bit but not break.
I am really having a difficult time understanding why, no matter where I go for information, potty humor eventually rears it’s ugly head. Remember the days of old when boys actually grew into manhood and set aside childish things? Apparently, now there is boyhood from birth to ten years old, adolescence from age ten to mid forties and finally manhood (occasionally) sometime around fifty years old.
I love the history and the practical teachings, but I am embarrassed to share this blog because of the childish content; minimal compared to many blogs and resources, but grown men should never be using it. Especially when connected to such a noble profession. We strive for excellence in our craftsmanship, so why should we not strive for excellence in our speech and manner? Are we to “reward” ourselves with the occasional indulgence in vile speech after much adherence to higher things?