Table for U Shaped Dinette

[Zengranny]

Originally Posted by davedru

In general, people don't like the Springfield telescoping base in the regular dinette (not U-shaped)? Too much table for it?

This is what we are planning with our 21. What's a better option?

[phalaney]

Originally Posted by Zengranny

This is what we are planning with our 21. What's a better option?

The 21 we viewed had the standard table with the Springfield pedestal, he raved on it. We sat at it and it seemed stable to us. This is the option we have gone with in our 5.0TA that is on order -- so time will tell.

[Zengranny]

Originally Posted by phalaney

The 21 we viewed had the standard table with the Springfield pedestal, he raved on it. We sat at it and it seemed stable to us. This is the option we have gone with in our 5.0TA that is on order -- so time will tell.

Our plan as well with our '21 dinette. We like the ease of the Springfield when it comes to turning it into a bed.

[paulk]

Originally Posted by davedru

In general, people don't like the Springfield telescoping base in the regular dinette (not U-shaped)? Too much table for it?

I've come to the conclusion that the table in an RV is one of the weak points and there are no really perfect solutions. Fortunately, none of the available solutions are truly terrible, but they all have weaknesses, so what you pick determines which weaknesses you get.

Let's compare the Springfield to the regular dual pedestals that ETI supplies by default. To make this comparison, I'll use a little physics. Imagine a table with a pedestal in the middle and another pedestal at the extreme opposite edge. Now, imagine you put your entire body weight on the side of the table that doesn't have a pedestal. Let's further assume that the table is sturdy enough to hold you up, so that we have a static system. Let's say you weight 100kg, which is about 1000 newtons of force. If you looked at a force diagram of this configuration you'd find that there would be 1000 newtons of upwards force being applied at the opposite end of the table and 2000 newtons of downwards force being applied at the center pedestal. Now, if we move the pedestal on the far end a bit closer to the center we'll see both forces increase, and they will continue to increase as we approach the center. If our two "ideal" posts moved to the same point at the center there would be an infinite upwards force applied on one and an infinite downwards force on the other.

That, in a nutshell, describes the Springfield table, except that it isn't an ideal pedestal from the point of view of physics since it has some thickness.

To counter this problem, Springfield makes their pedestal rather thick, and very strong, but they can't completely overcome the drawback that physics imposes on them for a single pedestal system. Of all the table configurations, the Springfield will be most susceptible to damage if you applied a large force at one of the long ends. The ETI dual pedestal tables will be stronger at those far end point, and I think less wobbly at those points too.

The dual pedestal tables have their own drawbacks. Their wobble comes from slight movements at the base where they get inserted into the floor. They can't move much along the long end because there are two pedestals in that direction, but they are weak along the short end since in that direction they are essentially a one pedestal system as they can't help each other resist forces on the short ends. From what I remember, the ETI dual pedestal system was more wobbly along the short end than the Springfield.

For a U-shaped dinette, my impression is that both directions of the table are short enough that the burly engineering of the Springfield pedestal is sufficient to hold the table nicely in place.

I'm not saying that the Springfield table would be unusable with a long table. If I hadn't found the Snap 2 table base, I'd probably be on the fence if I had to chose between the Springfield and the dual pedestal system. I'm just pointing out that the Springfield is not a perfect solution and that it has some weaknesses compared to other solutions. The trick is to find which system works best for you.

The Snap 2 table base is similar to the dual pedestal system in terms of long edge stability since it is supported by two vertical steel tubes at either end. It's actually probably stronger in that direction since the steel tubes are welded at the base, so the far end ones can't lift out of the base like with the dual ETI provided pedestals. I haven't tried it, but I'm relatively certain that I could apply my entire body weight to the end of the table that faces the isle without it breaking. On the table's short end the Snap 2 table base has horizontal steel bars which helps with stability. In theory it has the same issues as the ETI dual pedestals, but in practice I've found it to be quite stable due to the strength of the steel tubing.

Lastly, I'll say that I actually somewhat liked the old tables ETI used to put in that hinged along the wall. Those were held in place at three points, so they had some naturally stability in all 4 directions with the most stable point being along the rear of the table where it was held to the wall. The main drawback there was that the available post was rather dinky, so in practice it wasn't as strong as as physics would say that it could be. I would have probably liked to have the underside of the table reinforced with steel tubes to make it more stable.

[Patandlinda]

Originally Posted by paulk

I've come to the conclusion that the table in an RV is one of the weak points and there are no really perfect solutions. Fortunately, none of the available solutions are truly terrible, but they all have weaknesses, so what you pick determines which weaknesses you get.

Let's compare the Springfield to the regular dual pedestals that ETI supplies by default. To make this comparison, I'll use a little physics. Imagine a table with a pedestal in the middle and another pedestal at the extreme opposite edge. Now, imagine you put your entire body weight on the side of the table that doesn't have a pedestal. Let's further assume that the table is sturdy enough to hold you up, so that we have a static system. Let's say you weight 100kg, which is about 1000 newtons of force. If you looked at a force diagram of this configuration you'd find that there would be 1000 newtons of upwards force being applied at the opposite end of the table and 2000 newtons of downwards force being applied at the center pedestal. Now, if we move the pedestal on the far end a bit closer to the center we'll see both forces increase, and they will continue to increase as we approach the center. If our two "ideal" posts moved to the same point at the center there would be an infinite upwards force applied on one and an infinite downwards force on the other.

That, in a nutshell, describes the Springfield table, except that it isn't an ideal pedestal from the point of view of physics since it has some thickness.

To counter this problem, Springfield makes their pedestal rather thick, and very strong, but they can't completely overcome the drawback that physics imposes on them for a single pedestal system. Of all the table configurations, the Springfield will be most susceptible to damage if you applied a large force at one of the long ends. The ETI dual pedestal tables will be stronger at those far end point, and I think less wobbly at those points.

The dual pedestal tables have their own drawbacks. Their wobble comes from slight movements at the base where they get inserted into the floor. They can't move much along the long end because there are two pedestals in that direction, but they are weak along the short end since in that direction they are essentially a one pedestal system as they can't help each other resist forces on the short ends. From what I remember, the ETI dual pedestal system was more wobbly along the short end than the Springfield.

For a U-shaped dinette, my impression is that both directions of the table are short enough that the burly engineering of the Springfield pedestal is sufficient to hold the table nicely in place.

I'm not saying that the Springfield table would be unusable with a long table. If I hadn't found the Snap 2 table base, I'd probably be on the fence if I had to chose between the Springfield and the dual pedestal system. I'm just pointing out the that the Springfield is not a perfect solution and that it has some weaknesses compared to other solutions. The trick is to find which system works best for you.

And let's not forget pulling out the double poles scrap up your legs and damage the paneling , both of what we have done to make the bed up , which for us needs to be done every night . Love the marine pedestal for our situation . We did cut table down a little bit though . Pat

[davedru]

Awesome reply Paul - thank you.

I think I have come to the conclusion that the snap 2 is the way to go. What seems like the most versatility to me (and the right size) is to have a regular dinette and build the table for the snap 2 about 12-18" shorter than normal. Was also thinking about filler strip against the wall that could convert it to a U shape area when I don't have the table inside. Seems like the best compromise / use of space to me. What do you think?

[davedru]

Hey Paul- was it you that did some modifications to the snap 2 to beef it up?

[paulk]

Originally Posted by davedru

Awesome reply Paul - thank you.

I think I have come to the conclusion that the snap 2 is the way to go. What seems like the most versatility to me (and the right size) is to have a regular dinette and build the table for the snap 2 about 12-18" shorter than normal. Was also thinking about filler strip against the wall that could convert it to a U shape area when I don't have the table inside. Seems like the best compromise / use of space to me. What do you think?

That can work, but I preferred the filler strip in my build to be in the front. The tables on my trailer were 0.5" farther apart on the frontwards side than the rear. I think for whatever reason there is some variability between individual trailers and they build the table to your particular trailer after they're done with the trailer. As such, you need to decide whether the strip goes at the front or in the back ahead of time, unless you are lucky and the front and rear have the same dimensions. The Snap 2 table base has a locking mechanism that you want in the front for access, and the table swings forwards in that direction. If you put the table in front then in it's natural position it can't swing forwards due to the cabinetry at the front. It's not really a big deal as you can move the table backwards when you're putting it in place. If I thought I'd need to seat 5 people and I didn't want anyone to sit at the front dinette, I'd put the filler strip in the back and deal with the slight inconvenience of having to move the table when raising/lowering it. My conclusion though was that 5 people at the table would be very tight and that it wasn't something I was likely to do, so I opted to put the table at the rear where it was closer to where I would swing it, and the filler strip was at the front where it was easier to place after/before swinging the table.

[paulk]

Originally Posted by davedru

Hey Paul- was it you that did some modifications to the snap 2 to beef it up?

Nope. I think it was Iowa Dave. It's in the thread I linked to above.

I haven't found a need to modify it myself yet.

[davedru]

Thats my new plan- thanks again Paul!

[paulk]

Originally Posted by davedru

Awesome reply Paul - thank you.

I think I have come to the conclusion that the snap 2 is the way to go. What seems like the most versatility to me (and the right size) is to have a regular dinette and build the table for the snap 2 about 12-18" shorter than normal. Was also thinking about filler strip against the wall that could convert it to a U shape area when I don't have the table inside. Seems like the best compromise / use of space to me. What do you think?

I did some cardboard mock ups and found that a 10" filler strip was too short to get in/out for me comfortably. The old ETI table had a 10" filler strip, but it was 2" away from the wall at the hinge, so you effectively got 12" of space when the table was raised. For a while ETI was making 12" filler strips on the new non-hinged table.

I might go up to 14" of space, but that would be more than enough for most people. If you want to try different configurations mocking it out with cardboard is fairly easy. I wouldn't go to 18" though since you loose a bit more table that I liked and you'd need to push the plates in a bit closer than was comfortable for me when seating 4, but it would work I suppose.

The 12" filler strip, in my case at least, was almost exactly the width of the upper cabinets which gives you a few additional storage options.

In any case, for a fee ETI will make you a new custom table if you want to switch it up later, so this isn't as critical as some other build decisions.

[davedru]

Paul - extra storage options? Not sure I am following- do you mean I would have ETI build additional storage space below that 12-14" at the back of the trailer where I plan to put my filler strip? Sounds kind of like a custom mini version of a U dinette??

[paulk]

Originally Posted by davedru

Paul - extra storage options? Not sure I am following- do you mean I would have ETI build additional storage space below that 12-14" at the back of the trailer where I plan to put my filler strip? Sounds kind of like a custom mini version of a U dinette??

I'm not suggesting storage below the 12-14" at the back. Just a filler strip which sits on the rails along the benches, similar to how the table sits on the bench rails.

[davedru]

Got it- I'll mock it up and see what works

[slipspe]

Originally Posted by paulk

ETI is now provisioning their trailers with a single huge 49"-ish long table with 2 pedestals below. I also didn't like this configuration. I asked them to build me a table that was 39.5" long with 3" corner cut-outs and a separate 12" filler strip. The table is much easier to get into and out of, and doesn't require sliding every time someone wants to get in/out. I then asked them to use a Snap 2 table base that can be moved outside for places that don't have picnic tables. You can read about that table base here:

http://www.escapeforum.org/forums/f8...iler-9988.html

I really like this configuration. As a bonus, it slides a few inches in any direction so you can slightly push or rotate it when getting in/out if you desire.

We are finishing our build sheet and going with the u shape but also have concerns about the size of the table. Do you have a picture of your set up you could share?

[paulk]

Here are some pictures.

[davedru]

Thanks for the pics Paul!! That will be very similar to what we landed on. Our filler strip will go against the back of the dinette, and ETI is making us a cushion to go against the back wall and one for the filler strip. I like the idea of have a u shaped dinette that isn't permanent.

I'll let you know how it turns out-

Dave

[phalaney]

Originally Posted by davedru

Thanks for the pics Paul!! That will be very similar to what we landed on. Our filler strip will go against the back of the dinette, and ETI is making us a cushion to go against the back wall and one for the filler strip. I like the idea of have a u shaped dinette that isn't permanent.

I'll let you know how it turns out-

Dave

That's a good idea. We have decided (after much angst) to go with the standard dinette set up with the idea that we can convert it later to a u-shaped dinette like you describe if we change our minds. More flexibility for us.

[davedru]

Originally Posted by phalaney

That's a good idea. We have decided (after much angst) to go with the standard dinette set up with the idea that we can convert it later to a u-shaped dinette like you describe if we change our minds. More flexibility for us.

Bob - yeah, I considered doing it myself as well.... cutting the table and adding the new pedestal system certainly isn't a big project. Nice to have them make the cushions though.

[TheWanderers]

We used this exact mod in our old 16' Scamp and it worked wonderfully. In our case, we left the corners of the insert squared and stored the insert in place against the back wall, under the installed table, without actually having the completed "U" shaped area, but chose to simply drop the insert/extension into place when making up the bed. The Snap 2 is a great table base that never failed us and I can highly recommend this base.

Originally Posted by paulk

Here are some pictures.