Timeline for How to (removably) connect these pieces of wood for a chair/stool thing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9 at 20:52 | comment | added | stanch | Also a matter of whether you want the stabilizers to be in the way of the sitter’s feet 🙃 | |
| Aug 9 at 18:32 | comment | added | Matthew | Yes, the difference isn't great, it's more a matter of principle and aesthetic. (Technically, you are sacrificing some stability, but whether the difference matters... With the stabilizers on the outside, the footprint — i.e. the 'stable as long as the center of gravity is within this shape' area — is a rectangle with the stabilizers as two sides. With one in the center, it's a diamond with the stabilizer as one of the diagonals. So, smaller, but probably you'd still be within that area under normal use.) Anyway, not saying it's a bad answer. 🙂 | |
| Aug 9 at 18:04 | comment | added | stanch | I think the pillars already prevent the chair from tipping from back to front, so a shorter distance between stabilizers should be fine. In fact, you could probably get away with just one chunky one in the middle. What I like about this idea is that you can try it out without making any holes in the H-structure (although of course the stabilizers would be ruined, but they are easier to replace). If it does not work, you can then always switch to screws/bolts. | |
| Aug 9 at 17:50 | comment | added | Matthew | Ah, I thought you meant to slot the pillars, not the stabilizers. I guess this seems plausible, though it has the disadvantage that the stabilizers are 10" closer together. (The seat actually doesn't have the same stability requirements, both because the lever arm is much shorter, and because falling off the seat doesn't bring the whole piece down on top of the user. So recycling that attachment won't work.) | |
| Aug 9 at 12:14 | history | answered | stanch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |