Yes, you're right on many aspects... I'll have to do some redesign. I'm kinda new at this, and this is just my second "virtual" table design.BWD wrote:OK as a devil's advocate, I have more comments.
A great design principle is, build from the fewest, strongest possible components.
This principle may or may not be very well aligned with your renderings. I am not sure it is.
But it is a useful principle, if coupled with the other most important things for your project,
for example, "lightest" or "cheapest" or "more impact resistant" or "easiest to assemble."
Of course, common sense plays a role too....
With 20-30 bolts, you could float the surface on bolts and not need the stringers. With stringers, you could dispense with all those bolts.
With a solid base made of thick plywood, you wouldn't need to worry about knocking a corner of the table and throwing it out of line, and the base would be about the same size as the top, so not much more storage space needed.
60cm is a good width.
Finally, a devilish comment: it's more fun to copy and paste in CAD than to drill and align 20 or 30 bolts.
It's just a preliminary design also. Some channels conjugated with rocker and concave. If I take out the channels, it's jut a regular board with simple concave and rocker, so there's not much science there. I just want to make it more stable without fins.not annonymous wrote:You have a very unusual bottom shape.
But if the computer says it will work....
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests