Crushing tiny sawhorses
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2024
- Testing some scale model sawhorses for strength using my strength testing machine.
Craftwrigth's workshop
/ @craftswright
Sawhorse video: • The PERFECT folding sa...
My sawhorses
woodgears.ca/sawhorse
Video: • Building sawhorses - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
What is this? A workshop for ANTS?!?
Mice.
The sawhorse has to be at least three times bigger than this.
It's the Matthias Wandel workshop for viewers who can't cut real good and who wanna learn to build other stuff too!
Oh the files are INSIDE the computer!
That Hansel is so hot right now.... Hansel.
This should be the start of a whole series where you strength test doll furniture lol
With a stop-motion animation of a mini-Matthias jumping on to the table?
Gotta admit, the models exploding "up" out of the shot when they fail is pretty hilarious.
Absolutely, it appears as if they're exploding from the base
It's actually great you said that! I completely forget he flipped the image, and every time thought the release of tension was just exploding the benches upwards!
The problem with the I-beam horses was that the load path from the top plate of the beam went directly in to the legs. The web and lower plate of the beam weren’t carrying any load. A design that loaded the full beam would probably fair better.
Agreed, the I-beam needs support from below.
"That went to pieces" -- the bit of joy in your voice brings me so much happiness.
There's a little Hudralic Press in all of us.
Well one of the things this test definitely tells us that it matters a lot how we treat the feet of our sawhorses, and how flat they sit on the floor. Thanks a lot Matthias for a great video!
I love that you customized everything for our viewing experience! The upside down camera and numbers are awesome! Thanks! It made it that much more enjoyable
Great testing! Even knowing that the test footage is upside down it still looks so funny when things fall upward!
I really appreciated the inventive simplicity of your problem solving. Just turn the apparatus upside down! Make the program output text upside-down, why not! Hilarious AND utilitarian
I wonder why he didn't just turn the monitor upside down.
Pretty nice :)
Tiny wood things are not very representative of larger versions, even if copied perfectly however. The grain of the wood doesn't scale down, and the difference in the material properties of the early and late wood in softwoods that sawhorses are usually made from are immense. It would work better if a wood with more uniform properties were used, such as beech or cherry. But of course, no one uses those for sawhorses these days.
My dad ran a framing crew for decades. For as long as I can remember, they (we) used a very specific sawhorse design. Our horses had a double top-plate and angled plywood gussets attached to all four sides. With splayed legs (around 15°), these required compound cuts to make. One side had a full-length 2x4 step that connected its front legs to its back. Those things were beasts. It was not uncommon to crane-drop an entire bundle of plywood right onto them.
I-beam horses can't compare. Since their top plate is the only part transferring the load, the design ends up being unnecessarily heavy, and they always end up wobbly because they're so difficult to gusset. Your simple design, if gussets were added, would make a great approximation to that old design, and it would be much lighter!
Please repeat the test using miniatures of your saw horses with the gussets !
Would only make a difference on a slippery surface in these tests. It was the beam that failed.
Sawhorses are comically overengineered, to make them fail you basically have to get the wonkiest one you can find and park a heavy vehicle on it.
I can't find the video, and I don't remember the channel, but one TH-cam woodworker once tested his saw horses by having his lumber supplier stack several whole bunks of lumber on a pair. If I recall correctly, they got up to a little over 10,000lbs across the two saw horses with no signs of strain or damage. (They didn't test to failure, as that would have made a mess, and probably damaged some of the lumber.)
@@jsax01001010I think it was nextlevelcarpentry
@@jsax01001010
Next Level Carpentry: Build These Super Strong Sawhorses
Great video. They got up to just shy of 16K pounds, and the sawhorses showed no signs of stress. His are a version of the i-beam style, but significantly better build than these test models. And even then, the style he recommends is actually a lightweight splayed-leg design.
So happy you did the slippery plate tests, seeing the initial test setup I couldn’t stop thinking about sawhorses on smooth concrete
I would be curious to compare the weight of each sawhorse vs the amount it held. When I was in high school, we did a project of making bridges out of balsa wood and wood glue, with the goal of creating the bridge that held the most weight for the lowest cost in material. So both building a strong structure, but using less material were both concerns. It feels like unfortunately, the I-beam style sawhorses failed on both accounts. Very cool video!
There are a few other factors that are important for sawhorses besides load capability.
Are they easy to transport, how heavy, how stable when loaded on the ends, do they stack or fold?
Load usually is only a few hundred pounds not tons. Hardwood and bigger fasteners could make them stronger if needed but who can afford that?
I think the beam was stronger in the simple design because it was glued to the legs. Thus they could exert a torque onto it rather than just a vertical force as in the case of the folding design.
Now make a workshop labyrinth for your shed mice. Maybe they build a tiny bandsaw 😄
We did this, in 7th grade 'advanced' student workshop. I'm 65 now ... Built mini sawhorses from balsa and tested them on a scale. Simple block structures did batter than arches ... mine needed some cross bracing I was too lazy to add. Teacher, Richard 'Dick' Mitchell, Redwood City CA, said it would have made a huge difference.
That was interesting and a little surprising. Maybe remove the beam as a source of weakness and redo the tests with a metal beam instead? That would then test the support structure. Just a thought.
This was awesome! 💕👏👍 Keep making minatures and testing. There actually is big money in making high quality furniture miniatures for people who build those miniature houses. My neighbor does it, its quite amazing the details go into them
Sawhorsies. Or maybe even sawponies!
Pretty interesting testing and results, Matthias! Thanks! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Eye opening. My sawhorses are all the I-beam style and the lack of support under the bottom flange is definitely a weak point. I do tend to put things on my saw horses that are more than plywood so I'm definitely going to do some re-engineering to put the force onto the bottom flange instead of hanging it from the top.
Even if I got a bunch of new vid notifications on Sunday morning, Matthias' one is always my first pick, as always, very entertaining and inspiring.
I think it's a great idea to test designs by miniature mock-up.
I love these videos!
Those sawhorses made me flash back to watching "Friendly Giant" as a kid!
Look up! Waaaaaaay up!
I especially like the videos where you have fun!
the way they seem to completely explode because they're upside down is so funny
👍 I wonder how the results would differ if the load was distributed over the entire top of the sawhorse rather than in the middle of the beam. Very cool.
much better, obviously. But it would be hard to set up a test that way.
@@matthiaswandel Just the beam is easily tested by placing across any two stronger supports. The only way it 'works with the horse' is by being placed *above* the 'X'!
@@matthiaswandel curious why. You can use a scrap 2x4 that’s wider than the sawhorse. I’d like to see the differences in the stand design, not purely the beam size / material. Most failures were the beam itself. Which there’s no reason one can’t increase the size etc. I don’t think beam size is inherent to any sawhorse design. So to test the design, the failure needs to be taken to the legs where the gussets and connections can show their differences. Thanks for the video!
Without seeing the title, and only the thumbnail, I knew that crushing sawhorses was gonna be a Matthias video
Those upside down failures are entertainingly dramatic
Even though they look strong I didn't think those I-beam ones would do that well considering they're not supported on the bottom.
Yeah, that was my take too. The I-beam supposed to replace a solid piece with less material. And that I beam is also supposed to have support underneath not just under the edge of the top panel.
So, Matthias spent a whole day just horsing around to make this video....
Oof
Finally the answers I've been waiting for!!!
I think I’d bet money against a sawhorse being able to support 9 tons.
I love your thumbnail!
Outstanding! I've seen simple sawhorses cobbled together with 3' cutoffs from I-joists. I bet they are way up there on the strength scale as well.
5:28 Now that's a pretty spectacular failure. 😸
Those are really cute. I thought about building a set of those folding sawhorses, but ended up scrapping them in favor of a variation of your design. I built a small 4ft wide set out of some treated 3x12 scraps I was able to get. I'd like to do it again, but I'd like to change some things. One thing is adding a bolt or threaded rod through both legs directly under the beam. I've seen some sawhorse with them up much higher, using them to fix the legs to the beam, but I think placing them lower would be better.
I would like to send you a tiny picnic table.
Things like this always interest me. Is the floor friction scalable? Are the fastener? Is the glue. I genuinely don’t know but it’s a fun experiment. Probably generally correct.
I’d like to see you test a mini version of your saw horse to see if it is the champion. Though it looks like the extra plates would not be at the failure point of the others. Maybe yours would stop the slippy slide issue??
What would you have to do to make the central beam stronger?
Welcome to the mechanic press channel, I'm Lauri and this is... Oh wait!
I almost forget the saw horse and the software are upside down until it breaks and falls "up".
I'm wondering if this would be a good way to demonstrate the value of going with larger beams for the cross beams. I can't really see a need for a sawhorse that supports greater than 9 tons in even residential construction, but I also don't see anyone setting even 5 tons of material on the center of a sawhorse, the load is far more likely to be distributed across the length of the sawhorse, and I'd expect far more of the load to be going almost directly to the joint with the legs, rather than the cross beam.
Perhaps a way to test that would be to set up the test to distribute the load with a metal beam along the length of the cross beam. Say a 4x4 mm brass or steel beam. Unless you want to mill up and make some dimensionally reduced plywood for doing the testing... :-)
Saw horses often have a label that says "Do not stand on this". I've never seen one that said "Do not place a motor vehicle on this".
What is the relationship of the span of the miniatures vs. the span of full sized horses in regard to pressure required to break them. Aren't the miniature spans (shorter thus less deflection) actually stronger?
Shorter spans makes smaller ones stronger, but the cross sectional areas of bigger ones more than makes up for it. Generally, scaling a structure up by N makes it N^2 stronger. Problem is, it ends up weighting N^3 as much. Which is why stuff where gravity is a big factor doesn't scale all that well.
@@matthiaswandel Thank you for explanation
The I-beam failure strength being lower was due to the way the legs were attached. To get a equal comparison they would need to be attached in a way the places the force thru the entire top/ bottom & web structures. Similar to the way the folding ones beam is attached. I bet it will make them the strongest.
Given the observed failure modes, do you think the gusset adds any strength to your design of sawhorse? Good video. Thank you for sharing.
it insures against failure of the leg to beam joint. Also keeps that joint from craking wen its banged around
Someone has to make a tiny version of those folding saw horse brackets
That was cool. Support the I-beam from the bottom. The initial test was the glue and the top rail, not the I-beam.
I wish you had added a miniature set of your simple saw horses that included the gussets to see the relative strength they would add.
Instead of a single force over the center of the beam, place the force over the length of the beam and see what happens.
Your testing machine should have its own channel. Like the hydraulic press channel. I think the viewers will not run of suggestions for things to break.
The I-beam ones failed because only the top flange is bearing the load, so the web and other flange are doing nothing and just part from the top flange.
In Germany the traditional Carpenter saw horses looks like the stronger ones you tested. But the legs gets a slightly bevel sidewise too and a plywood triangel underneath the beam that is screwed to both legs.
I think this would be the strongest when you about to test other Designs. PM me i'll send you plans how they are made.
so I guess the lesson is, don't re-invent the horse?
Love it!
Saw-Ponies!
Would the glue joints scale up in strength the same way? What I mean is the glue has a max strength that I'm not sure scales up the same way the wood would scale up by just making the wood bigger.
I wonder if the I beam sawhorse would hold up better with mechanical fasteners along with the glue. I know you mentioned that they all fail on the I beam so gussets wouldn’t really help but the I beam seems a better candidate for some sort of fasteners.
Goodbye horses!
I'm flying over you
Would have been interesting to see what happens, when the load isnt applied to the middle of the beam, but rather via a load distrubutor in form of a plate that is bigger than the sawhorse itself. This way, the whole saw horse rigidity is taking into account and not mainly the beam structure.
Any ways, very interesting!
The beams of the complicated designs giving at much lower pressure than the simple sawhorses kind of shows the beams of the latter were much stronger (ie different wood)? Weakest link principle should still apply?
I-beams were not glued or supported in the best way, which is why they failed.
Could any of these survived your typical jump test? That's what really matters.
I can imagine- if you have a testing machine then you start looking around the house for things you can crush.
👍great video
He should sell the small ones, they're Cool !!
The Ken and Barbie woodshop!
the i-beam sawhorses were poorly designed: an i-beam's strength comes from the depth of the web between the flanges. in order to use that strength, the load has to act from one flange, THROUGH the web, and into the opposite flange. in other words, the i-beam needs to sit wholly on top of the sawhorse legs. cody had only the top flange supported by the legs, so only the top flange had to break in order for the whole beam to fail.
Really interesting test method, nice work.
Maybe that I-beam design could be improved somehow so the web stays attached better.
Matthias- Next Level Carpentry (YT channel) has a video building journeyman’s sawhorse which is of the I Beam construction - without the lower leg banding, and at the end if the video he takes a pair to his lumber yard and the load them up with full bunks if 2x4 (the 20 foot long bundles strapped for delivery from mill to lumber yard right off the truck) if memory serves me they get 4 of those bunks stacked before they stop at which point the legs of the horses have punched through the asphalt yard.
The difference between his real world load test and your test is load distribution- spread across beam versus point. Although in a point load situation, your test clearly shows where the weak point is for the I beam…. And highlights the need to select the “best” 2x4 for the beam web
I wonder if replacing the screws used to hold the top an d bottom caps on (though your test rig horses were glued) with some of the modern hardware which is intended for assembling beams and such ( the Headlock (tm) bolts and all the others like them - or carriage bolts, washers, and nuts) which go all the way through both top and bottom cap plates are worth the effort/cost for the increased carrying load that linkage should provide ????
I love these tests you run, don’t stop !❤❤❤❤❤
*que buenas pruebas has hecho muchas gracias*
😎😎😎😎
I-beam style is missing a crucial end support just under the beam.
Ohhh - I was so hoping you'd retest "your" sawhorse with the little side plate on!
By not having a flat surface across the top, it seems as if you were just testing the strength of the top beam under a point load and not the strength of the saw horse as a whole.
A "you cant tell me what to do" video noice
It seems like the I beams only broke because glue failure, which I don't think you'd see at a full sized sawhorse. I'd be curious if it would be much stronger if the beam were held together with screw and nut instead of glue
It would seem that "failure" is a variable marker in experiments like these. A more elastic wood would require more movement to reach "failure" and thus be more resilient . A hard/brittle wood would be less yielding, but when it does fail it would be useless and give no warning. In other words, failure would be application based. I know this is not an earth shaking comment, but I think wood workers like me often over-engineer materials toward the hard end of the scale ($)... often when not needed and even detrimental.
the wood actually yielded quite a lot before failing. But the glue joints failed spontaneously. But for a real sawhorse, there's always nails, which fail more gradually.
These saw horses need to be at least 3 times this size
More miniatures! How can you get your mice involved?
Matthias, why do you square the size factor when scaling the maximum force?
cross sectional area goes up with the square
@@matthiaswandel can we assume max force is linearly dependent on cross sectional area
It always seemed to me Craftwright's sawhorse design was flawed for having downward force on the sawhorse want to open its cradle for the beam. I'd like to see an all-wooden sawhorse that stores compact with quick height adjustment, but most designs seem like they make you fumble around with pins and bolts and loose boards instead of being easy & efficient. This was definitely enlightening on the strength of a good basic sawhorse.
Ah Matthias! k is kilo. K is Kelvin.
I would be interested to know about the wood grain in these tests. Does a change in grain direction change the results?
Was expecting you to mill up some pieces of steel to make a tiny metal saw horse ;)
Crazy these tiny horses could hold two average Canadians or one American.
I can tell you it doesn't scale. If you lay a one tonne log over two sawhorses it goes straight to the dirt. Starling, but it failed before the lift strap was off so no big deal.
Interesting test, I think the i-beam design could fare better at large scale, depending on a couple of factors, such as:
Is the i-beam assembled with glue or not and is the i-beam assembled with nails vs screws.
Obviously, those things can’t reasonably be tested on this tiny scale, but they would make a difference!
if they weren't scaled down quite as far it could be tested, but even at 1/3 size, they might be stronger than my tester can crush.
Did you practice your Finnish accent for this?
"Today I’m going to show you how I made this one-to-twenty-six scale diorama of an incident involving Matthias Wandel, ten wooden sawhorses, and a Raspberry Pi -controlled crushing machine, upside down." With apologies to @BobbyFingers.
you know how some people can carve amazing things on a grain of rice? how hard would it be to make an extremely tiny milling machine to make similarly tiny things
Parabéns.... ótimo trabalho 🇧🇷
I've loaded up full lifts of plywood and 2x4 on the first style of saw horse with gussets and a stringer between the legs. Easily 3-4 thousand pounds with no issue on two of them.
I'm a bit confused as to why you'd do this. It seems like that stack would be at a decent height to pull from if just left on a pallet on the ground and would make it so you couldn't work on the sawhorses.
@@jameslawrence8734 We stack it vertically against a wall to save space in a narrow area. Having it on the saw horses to unload it is much easier as gravity works to our advantage when sliding off a sheet to the ground. Means we don't have to pick up 150~ sheets from a low position on the ground. Work smarter not harder.
As usual, very interesting. Having said that, I've long wondered about the TH-cam fixation with the sawhorse that will support the most weight. In reality, most of us have different criteria for what constitutes a 'good' sawhorse: ease of construction, economy of materials, cost of materials, weight, compactness (storage, transportation), versatility, rigidity, etc.
well, weight bearing is the thing that can be measured.
How did u cut yourself mate?
Now do it with a simulated slippery concrete floor so the legs can't bite in.
Oops, lol that was your next step lol
mount the i-beams so the load is on the lower beam rather than the upper beam?
and pin them with toothpicks.
otherwise, this was quite interesting... but yeah, those i-beams bug me...
i'm sure if you open source your testing code, there is a fair few people who can help make it configurable and improve on it, I for one would!
it IS already infinitely configurable. Think of the whole thing as one big configuration script. And its much more fun working with a known language than learning some configuration system someone has come up with. And its unlikely that someone would anticipate my needs, so now the whole process of customizing for a test becomes more difficult. Which is to say, I'd go for the quickest path to the solution, which is to not use your configuration stuff.
You should just write your own code and release it.
Where’s the slo mo exploding horses. When we work a different side of a building and I say I’ll go get the horses I feel I’m flashing on a Western. The simple horses that did well are like some of mine with the addition of a PT plywood collar tie up against the top rail.