In article a7Y7f.305784$oW2.117378@pd7tw1no,
Alan Smithee wrote:

Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article Dyz7f.307213$tl2.158103@pd7tw3no,
Alan Smithee wrote:
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.


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

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.

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").

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)

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.

"That depends". grin

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.