This little folding table should have taken no time to build if the plans were right.  The design came from a recent magazine and at last count there were 9 errors.  Some glaring and some compounded because of another error.  My stubborn streak showed on this one because I going to get it to work regardless how much kindling I made.   It's a little more top heavy than I like but Monday's version will be more stable.

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

Your folding table turned out very nice, in spite of the problems with the plans.  Nice job!  I need to make a little table to set the laptop on when sitting on the couch.  Would be handier than having the computer in my lap or on the end table. Might even improve my typing.     Weekends are just not long enough.

 

SQ

 

---

It it can't be fixed with glue and sawdust - it's not worth fixing.

that's a nice table Ron. too bad that magazine didn't do a fine job with the plans. I have that magazine also and had planned to build a few.

I also have a pair of aluminum tables similar to those that I plan to replicate so now I definately will not be using any dimensions from the magazine article.

John, after a rant to the builder I got a corrected PDF that I'll share with you if you friend me.  However, it was short a leg dimension that I had to "trig" out to get the length.  BTW, counting the fact thet the bolts for the pivot on the legs were 1/2" too long, there were 9 total errors in article between the print and cut list.  I just became a subscriber to that mag but I'll not make the mistake of re-subscribing to it.  Again, send me an email and I'll send you the PDF.
John Hechel said:

that's a nice table Ron. too bad that magazine didn't do a fine job with the plans. I have that magazine also and had planned to build a few.

I also have a pair of aluminum tables similar to those that I plan to replicate so now I definately will not be using any dimensions from the magazine article.

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

Sounds pretty rough Ron. They had one bad plan, sounds like they they took care of ya pretty good. I'd say most if not all mags lay an egg now and then with a bad plan. What separates the good mags from the bad ones, are the ones that back up their product with customer service, and it sounds like these guys went out of their way to get you what you needed, a revised PDF to make it right. What am I missing? Are you throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one?


Ron Dudelston said:

John, after a rant to the builder I got a corrected PDF that I'll share with you if you friend me.  However, it was short a leg dimension that I had to "trig" out to get the length.  BTW, counting the fact thet the bolts for the pivot on the legs were 1/2" too long, there were 9 total errors in article between the print and cut list.  I just became a subscriber to that mag but I'll not make the mistake of re-subscribing to it.  Again, send me an email and I'll send you the PDF.

John Hechel said:

that's a nice table Ron. too bad that magazine didn't do a fine job with the plans. I have that magazine also and had planned to build a few.

I also have a pair of aluminum tables similar to those that I plan to replicate so now I definately will not be using any dimensions from the magazine article.

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

John Morris
The Patriot Woodworker

Like I said John, shoddy is shoddy not matter how you dress it up.  We don't know how many bad plans there have been.  This plan came out in the October issue and there were no revisions, apologies or changes in the November edition where the corrections should have been made.  The online version had one correction that ended up being wrong.  Even the corrected PDF was incomplete.  Had I received the plan for free, then I would have expected the errors.  However, as a paying subscriber I expected more.  Guess I was wrong......Just once.
John Morris said:

Sounds pretty rough Ron. They had one bad plan, sounds like they they took care of ya pretty good. I'd say most if not all mags lay an egg now and then with a bad plan. What separates the good mags from the bad ones, are the ones that back up their product with customer service, and it sounds like these guys went out of their way to get you what you needed, a revised PDF to make it right. What am I missing? Are you throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one?

Ron Dudelston said:

John, after a rant to the builder I got a corrected PDF that I'll share with you if you friend me.  However, it was short a leg dimension that I had to "trig" out to get the length.  BTW, counting the fact thet the bolts for the pivot on the legs were 1/2" too long, there were 9 total errors in article between the print and cut list.  I just became a subscriber to that mag but I'll not make the mistake of re-subscribing to it.  Again, send me an email and I'll send you the PDF.

John Hechel said:

that's a nice table Ron. too bad that magazine didn't do a fine job with the plans. I have that magazine also and had planned to build a few.

I also have a pair of aluminum tables similar to those that I plan to replicate so now I definately will not be using any dimensions from the magazine article.

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

John Morris
The Patriot Woodworker

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

Valid points Ron, it the corrections were wrong, then it's definitely a toss away. While on the subject of plans, any one know of a great place to get accurate plans???


Ron Dudelston said:

Like I said John, shoddy is shoddy not matter how you dress it up.  We don't know how many bad plans there have been.  This plan came out in the October issue and there were no revisions, apologies or changes in the November edition where the corrections should have been made.  The online version had one correction that ended up being wrong.  Even the corrected PDF was incomplete.  Had I received the plan for free, then I would have expected the errors.  However, as a paying subscriber I expected more.  Guess I was wrong......Just once.
John Morris said:

Sounds pretty rough Ron. They had one bad plan, sounds like they they took care of ya pretty good. I'd say most if not all mags lay an egg now and then with a bad plan. What separates the good mags from the bad ones, are the ones that back up their product with customer service, and it sounds like these guys went out of their way to get you what you needed, a revised PDF to make it right. What am I missing? Are you throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one?

Ron Dudelston said:

John, after a rant to the builder I got a corrected PDF that I'll share with you if you friend me.  However, it was short a leg dimension that I had to "trig" out to get the length.  BTW, counting the fact thet the bolts for the pivot on the legs were 1/2" too long, there were 9 total errors in article between the print and cut list.  I just became a subscriber to that mag but I'll not make the mistake of re-subscribing to it.  Again, send me an email and I'll send you the PDF.

John Hechel said:

that's a nice table Ron. too bad that magazine didn't do a fine job with the plans. I have that magazine also and had planned to build a few.

I also have a pair of aluminum tables similar to those that I plan to replicate so now I definately will not be using any dimensions from the magazine article.

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

John Morris
The Patriot Woodworker

 

---

Ron Dudelston
Above and Beyond WoodWorks

 

---

John Morris
The Patriot Woodworker