Table Slides For Three Leaf Expanding Dining Table

[Alan Smithee]

I need to build a 14 person dining table. The final dimensions will be 156" by 44" when three additional 24" leaves are put in. When the table is compacted it will be an 8 person table. It will hopefully expand as an 8,

10, 12 and 14 person table. (Two people can be seated across the ends). What is the best way to configure the table slides? I need the table to open to at least 61 inches so I can fit the last leaf in. Does someone make slides this big, or do I gang smaller slides together to achieve this length. Thank you.

[no(SPAM)vasys]

Try Rockler. Their "Wood Equalizer Table Slides" #70334 are 38" closed and accommodate up to 36" of leaf extension (2-18" or 3-12"). They worked well for a similar sized table I made. See:

Docs:

[no(SPAM)vasys]

I just reread your post and noted you what to have THREE 24" leaves. The slides I mentioned above won't work for that.

[Joe Gorman]

This page has a set that will take 60" of leaves

I think you'll need 72" for 3 24" leaves. Joe

[Robert Bonomi]

First off, you need to re-figure your dimensions -- 3 24" leaves will not fit in a circa 60" opening.

Second, you can seat 14 people at a 44"x 134" table, using 22" spacing per place setting. (8 at a 44"x68" table.) Depending on the situation, you _can_ get away with a narrower dimension for the place setting -- down at about 18" is about the minimum workable seating; assuming that you have chairs that don't require more space than that.

I once built a D.R. table that was 42"x60" in its minimal form -- seating

6 comfortably -- two down each side, and one at each end. It expanded with up to 4 drop-in leaves that were each as I recall) 10" wide. Each leaf effectively added 2 places to the seating capacity -- seating two people across the end of the table when one had an odd number of leaves in, but only one person, when there were an even number of leaves. The math looks screwy (to put it charitably), however the intended use for the larger capacity was informal family gatherings, _not_ fancy formal dinners. as such a somewhat 'cosy' seating was tolerable. And it did work out, we've had 12 at the table with only 3 leaves in.

[Alan Smithee]

oh crap you're right thx.

[Alan Smithee]

Holy Cow! Yes I realize my error now. Thanks. Ouch 72 and change. For seating I was using numbers suggested by Terrance Conran (The House Book) as a mininum of 24" per person and a min of an additional 19" on each of the ends (which I trimmed to 18"). So I get 156" long or exactly 13 feet. The max width they recommend is 44" because after that you need to do a Hail Mary to pass the gravy. I like your idea of calling it a six person when closed rather than an eight person. I'm going to try ganging two 36 inch slides together, this should work right? Ganging I mean. Thx.

[PAUL KETTERER]

Alan, I recently completed a modified trestle based dining table that measured 44" x 80" and expanded to 110" with 2 15" leaves. I read somewhere about Watertown steel equalizer table slides, which were supposed to be the best in terms of not sagging when opened fully. I had a hard time finding where to buy them, but finally found a hardware supplier in Long Island, NY and ordered them. The pair I bought open to 56", (more than I needed, but I wanted the length to make the table sturdy when open). I think larger sizes are also available. They worked out great, and are truly sag-free and rigid even when opened fully. Do a Google search for "Watertown Table Slides" to find the dealer. If you can't find them, e-mail me and I'll look for my receipt and send you their phone# and address. Paul

[John Girouard]

OK, bear with me if this is beyond stupid, but I just had a little light bulb go off. Perhaps you could have the table top proper be 3 sections rather than 2, and have 2 leaf sections. I'm gonna try an ASCII art view from the top with the slides extended but no leaves installed to show you what I mean:

************ ************ ************

• * * * * *

• ***** * ***** * *

• * ***** * ***** *

• * * * * *

• * * * * *

• * * * * *

• * * * * *

• * * * * *

• ***** * ***** * *

• * ***** * ***** *

• * * * * *

************ ************ ************

Basically, I guess it would be using a middle section of table top to 'gang' together 2 sets of slides.

Disclaimer: I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. :)

-John

[PAUL KETTERER]

The dealer I bought my Watertown table slides from is Moin Hardware Company, tel: [phone]. Their e-mail is: [e-mail]. You can see an example of a table with these slides at:

To seat 14 people, you could make your table 44" x 80" closed (easily seats

8 with one person on each end), and 120" long when two 20" leaves are installed (5 people per side and two on each end). The table I made (110" long open) was designed to seat 12, (4 per side and 2 per end), and has already been used to seat 9 with room to spare.

[Alan Smithee]

[Alan Smithee]

[Robert Bonomi]

There are assumptions 'buried' in those numbers that may not be applicable to your situation. Starting with the fact that if you're not seating anybody on either of the table, an additional 3-4" on each end is generally more than' sufficient.

You start off considering the width of the chairs you'll be using at the table. You *cannot* seat people any closer than that. (obvious, but it does have to be considered, if you're using big, fancy, _wide_ chairs.

Then you consider what kind of use you'll be making of the table. "Fancy" formal dinners -- the 'seven course' variety, where the

expected attire is evening gowns and "white tie" -- are one thing; and do call for minimum 24" width/place setting, and probably a minimum

16"-18" 'depth'.

For 'casual' dining -- e.g., equivalent to going out to International House of Pancakes, Outback Steakhouse, etc. -- you can get away with a setting 'footprint' as small as 18" wide, by 12" deep. This does get you 8 people around a 42x60 table. two people on each side gives 12+18+18+12 down the

60" dimension.

At that spacing, for 14 people, you need a length of 12 + 5*18 + 12, or 114" (assuming you're seating 2 people on each end).

We've had 12 people at my table in it's 96" configuration -- definitely "cozy", but it was workable.

22" seatings will be "comfortable" for all but the most elaborate dinner settings. This gets you a table size of over 11', (134" minimum, more like 138" -- 11'6" -- if you postulate a 14" depth to the place setting)

"That depends".

There are all sorts of issues that arise when the 'expanded' size is more than about 75-80% larger than the 'closed' size'. The design of the expansion mechanism gets a *lot* more complicated. more moving parts, more flexing issues, etc.