houstonwoodworker Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 I Am building a round breakfast table and doing a pedastal style base, not sure if design yet, but my question is .......is there some ratio that I should go by to determine the width of the base relative to the top so that it will be stable?? In other words, if the top is 52" across, does the pedastal base need to be 1/2 of that (26") or more? What is the rule of thumb for this?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhighlander Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Is the base made of wood? Can you add weight to the bottom? Lowering the center of gravity can let you have a smaller footprint and remain stable. If the table is all one species, and has a relatively light base, I'd tend to stay around 2/3 of the top diameter. If you can add enough mass to the bottom, 1/2 the top diameter, maybe a bit less,should work fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonwoodworker Posted February 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 I haven't designed the base yet so not sure if I will do wood or buy a metal base. The top will be pretty heavy as it will be solid red oak and about 1 1/8" thick and planning to do about 52" top. Would a metal base be better for support?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhighlander Posted February 19, 2017 Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 Metal or wood will be fine, although you might find metal parts that give you more strength and better balance for less bulk. Do you plan on using radial feet at the bottom of the pedestal, or a disk? A disk base gives you the full radius of supprt from every direction, while feet that radiate from the pedestal give support at a shorter radius between any two of the feet. So keeping the center of gravity low makes such a table less "tippy". Kyle Toth used barbell plates attached under a table base to help this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonwoodworker Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 i will probably go with metal legs and I will have a local fabricator make it so I can have them add additional weight to the bottom of it. Great idea thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdwerker Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 1/2 the width is as small as I would go with a heavy weighted base. Somewhere between that to 2/3 is safer. I played with a number of width legs/base " x" on pedestal tables. And prefer to err on the safer side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonwoodworker Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 Thanks for advice. For a 52" wide top I was thinking I would go with a 28"-30" weighted base. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, wdwerker said: 1/2 the width is as small as I would go with a heavy weighted base. Somewhere between that to 2/3 is safer. I played with a number of width legs/base " x" on pedestal tables. And prefer to err on the safer side. I read the first time that you played with a number of legs under the table but knew that couldn't be right, so I re-read it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.