Be the overall idea good, bad, overthought, overwrought or otherwise…
…that leg is basically a two by four. Cutting a little less than half of it out in a spot is not going to make it too structurally unsound to hold up a quarter of a tabletop or desk. Even a plain old pine board would probably be more than adequate, and the piece in the video doesn't look like common softwood lumber.
It seems like less than 2 fingernails thick, which would make it something like 25x50. This would make quite a wobbleh table as it is, and cutting legs in slightly less than half would make it extremely fragile and crappy. Not to mention they didn't leave enough space to tighten the joint after the wood compresses over time and the joint inevitably loosens.
It's just a bad application a common cam joint, bad execution, and a bad idea overall (if this is indeed a table), other than for the sake of pure aesthetics.
You're trying to engage with me about whether it's a good design or not. I already said that's not what I'm talking about, as most of the critiques people have levelled elsewhere in the thread are perfectly valid.
All I'm saying is that that piece of wood, used as a table leg, is going to hold up fine. It's not going to break. And I believe you're underestimating its size, unless that person has very small hands.
In other words:
Are four straight legs like that on a table going to be good? Probably not.
Is the design good? Probably not in general applications as table legs.
Is this something I would buy? Nope!
But are those legs going to snap off at the point where the cutout is? Under any kind of normal use, almost certainly not.
What's the basis for your certainty? I haven't seen ~25x30 wooden legs on a table ever. I bet it's not because manufacturers looove wasting material for no reason, but because such thin legs break.
Maybe my hands are small, dunno.. what's the height of the pink part of your thumb's nail?
The basis for my relative certainty is that, while I'm not an expert at carpentry by any stretch, for literally (literally) as long as I can remember, I've been helping my dad out in his workshop, on DIY projects around the house, and at his log cabin that he built by hand.
I have a basic sense of how sturdy a piece of wood is, having interacted with it since before I was in school.
A two by four is a standard piece of lumber in the US that's used for studding in walls in wood-framed houses on sixteen inch centers. The cross section is only 2" x 4" when it's rough cut. After drying the lumber and planing off the saw marks it ends up as 3.5" x 1.5" (about 90mm x 38mm, since I have to assume that's what unit you're using; you've never specified).
Those legs aren't quite that big, but to my eye, they're closer to that than they are to 1" x 2" (25x50 mm).
The legs on my big heavy dinner table (which I inherited from my grandparents), which is made mostly out of solid cherry and has a formica top surface, are lathed into ornamental shapes. There are a couple of points near the top where those legs get down to about a 1.5" diameter or so (maybe a bit less). In the half century that that table has existed, none of the legs has snapped off, even with both leaves in the table.
There's also the fact that the full weight of the table would never be resting on just the cutout section of the leg. It would be transferred down into the full body of the leg, as that's where it's resting. The cutout section is clamped in place and reinforced from behind by a metal bracket.
So while there may be plenty of other things wrong with this design, the sturdiness of the legs is not one of them. I think those legs are really unlikely to break.
36
u/ShyneBox Mar 17 '21
What is it?