cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20965205

This is the story of how I turned a 15" Titan adjustable dumbbell to be 80 cm (31.5 inch) long. Why? Because I have a space-constrained home gym but still wanted a leg press, and so I had to remove its original barbell.

In its place, I built a pair of wood mounts for a normal barbell to rest upon, covered in that earlier post. However, since this machine is wall-adjacent, such a barbell would have to fit inside the width of the leg press, so about 80 cm. But must also be wider than the spacing from outside-edge to outside-edge of the wood mounts, which is 60 cm.

Such a short barbell -- or long dumbbell -- does not readily exist commercially, with the narrowest one I've seen being 48 inch barbells, which are still too wide. So I decided to build my own, using my spare Titan dumbbell as the base.

To start, the Titan dumbbells are excellent in this capacity, as the shaft diameter is 28 mm -- not 32 mm as the website would indicate -- which is a common diameter, if I am to cut short a cheap barbell to replace this dumbbell's shaft.

In keeping with my preexisting frugality, I purchased a cheap 1-inch barbell, hoping that it adopts the Olympic 28 mm shaft diameter, and not the 29 mm deadlift bar shaft diameter, as the Titan collars have small clearances. Matching neither, I find that this bar is closer to 23 mm, which although will fit into the existing collars, poses its own issues.

Nevertheless, this 7 ft barbell can conveniently be cut in half to yield two 42 inch segments. And then the included bar stops can be loped off, and then the length further refined to 77 cm, thus hiding the marks from the bar stop within the Titan collars, and also centering the (meh) knurling from the cheap bar.

But perhaps a picture will be more explanatory. Here, the original collar is dismantled at the top, showing the original shaft with a groove cut into it, about 1/4-inch from the end. Into that groove would fit two half-rings with an inner diameter of 20.4 mm and an outer diameter of 40 mm. In fact, all the parts inside the collar use 40 mm outer diameter, except the spacer cylinder, which is smaller at 37 mm. All of these parts are held captive within the collar using the C-ring and the geometry of the collar itself.

To deal with the difference between the collar expecting 28 mm, and the cheap bar's 23 cm, I designed an ABS 3d printed part in FreeCAD to act as a bushing, upon which the original Titan brass bushing will ride upon. This ABS bushing is held captive by way of its center bulge, which fits within the dead space inside the collar.

As for how I cut the groove into the end of the new shaft, I still don't own a lathe. So the next best is to mount an angle grinder onto a "cross slide vise" taken from a drill press, with the shaft secured in a wooden jig to only allow axial rotation manually. The vise allows precision control for the cutting wheel's depth, with me pausing frequently to measure how close the groove is to the desired 20.4 mm inner diameter. This is.... not a quick nor precise process. But it definitely works.

After reassembling both collars onto the new shaft and lubricating with white lithium, the final result is a long dumbbell (or short barbell) with Titan's 3.5 inch collars on the end, with 63 cm of shaft exposed and 80 cm from end to end. The ABS bushing is remarkably smooth against the brass bushing, after some sanding with 180 grit. The whole dumbbell weights 5.48 kg empty.

Here is the comparison with the stock Titan dumbbell. It's pretty amazing how the knurling conveniently lined up. It fits well onto the wood mounts of the leg press.

But why would I do all this just to add a weirdly long 3.5-inch collar dumbbell to a leg press, when it already can accept weights underneath the carriage? I will answer that in a follow-up post.

This is the story of how I turned a 15" Titan adjustable dumbbell to be 80 cm (31.5 inch) long. Why? Because I have a space-constrained home gym but still wanted a leg press, and so I had to remove its original barbell.

In its place, I built a pair of wood mounts for a normal barbell to rest upon, covered in that earlier post. However, since this machine is wall-adjacent, such a barbell would have to fit inside the width of the leg press, so about 80 cm. But must also be wider than the spacing from outside-edge to outside-edge of the wood mounts, which is 60 cm.

Such a short barbell -- or long dumbbell -- does not readily exist commercially, with the narrowest one I've seen being 48 inch barbells, which are still too wide. So I decided to build my own, using my spare Titan dumbbell as the base.

To start, the Titan dumbbells are excellent in this capacity, as the shaft diameter is 28 mm -- not 32 mm as the website would indicate -- which is a common diameter, if I am to cut short a cheap barbell to replace this dumbbell's shaft.

In keeping with my preexisting frugality, I purchased a cheap 1-inch barbell, hoping that it adopts the Olympic 28 mm shaft diameter, and not the 29 mm deadlift bar shaft diameter, as the Titan collars have small clearances. Matching neither, I find that this bar is closer to 23 mm, which although will fit into the existing collars, poses its own issues.

Nevertheless, this 7 ft barbell can conveniently be cut in half to yield two 42 inch segments. And then the included bar stops can be loped off, and then the length further refined to 77 cm, thus hiding the marks from the bar stop within the Titan collars, and also centering the (meh) knurling from the cheap bar.

But perhaps a picture will be more explanatory. Here, the original collar is dismantled at the top, showing the original shaft with a groove cut into it, about 1/4-inch from the end. Into that groove would fit two half-rings with an inner diameter of 20.4 mm and an outer diameter of 40 mm. In fact, all the parts inside the collar use 40 mm outer diameter, except the spacer cylinder, which is smaller at 37 mm. All of these parts are held captive within the collar using the C-ring and the geometry of the collar itself.

To deal with the difference between the collar expecting 28 mm, and the cheap bar's 23 cm, I designed an ABS 3d printed part in FreeCAD to act as a bushing, upon which the original Titan brass bushing will ride upon. This ABS bushing is held captive by way of its center bulge, which fits within the dead space inside the collar.

As for how I cut the groove into the end of the new shaft, I still don't own a lathe. So the next best is to mount an angle grinder onto a "cross slide vise" taken from a drill press, with the shaft secured in a wooden jig to only allow axial rotation manually. The vise allows precision control for the cutting wheel's depth, with me pausing frequently to measure how close the groove is to the desired 20.4 mm inner diameter. This is.... not a quick nor precise process. But it definitely works.

After reassembling both collars onto the new shaft and lubricating with white lithium, the final result is a long dumbbell (or short barbell) with Titan's 3.5 inch collars on the end, with 63 cm of shaft exposed and 80 cm from end to end. The ABS bushing is remarkably smooth against the brass bushing, after some sanding with 180 grit. The whole dumbbell weights 5.48 kg empty.

Here is the comparison with the stock Titan dumbbell. It's pretty amazing how the knurling conveniently lined up. It fits well onto the wood mounts of the leg press.

But why would I do all this just to add a weirdly long 3.5-inch collar dumbbell to a leg press, when it already can accept weights underneath he carriage? I will answer that in a follow-up post.

As is their custom, FortNine delivers a two-wheeler review in the most cinematic way possible, along with a dose of British sitcom humor.

I'm not sure I'd ever buy one, but I'd definitely borrow it from a friend haha. I've said before that I like seeing what novel ideas people will build atop two wheels, and this certainly is very unique.

The title describes the gist of things. In 18 months of owning my Bikonit MD750, I've traveled over 2100 km (1300 miles) in day, night, and rain; swapped out four sets of tires trying to lower the rolling resistance; built my own new set of 29" wheels with ebike-speed rated tires; and have taken it on mixed-mode adventures by using light-rail as my range extender.

It's the latter where the weight is a small issue, as the light rail train has three stairsteps onboard, which I have to carry the bike up and onto. 43 kg is kinda a lot, although that does include all the things I will need for a day out. I can pursue getting stronger to lift it more easily, or convincing the transit department to acquire low-floor trains, but I'd like to know my options:

What are some Class 3, mid-drive ebikes currently available in the USA, that weigh less than 43 kg (95 lbs)? Ideally, less than 25 kg (55 lbs) too, as that's the most common weight restriction for buses. I want to see what y'all can recommend, irrespective of price or range or other considerations.

I'm not likely to terminate my investment in this current ebike, as it's provided sterling service thus far. But I wonder if maybe what I have has already been outmoded by the latest developments in this ever-changing slice of the mobility space.

TY in advance!

One thing I've always wanted for my space-constrained homegym is a leg press. But even the most compact leg presses occupy a lot of space lengthwise and width-wide. I had my eye on the Force USA 45 degree leg press/hack squat combo machine, because it has so much capacity for me to grow into. So I picked one up and modified it so it can be placed up against the wall.

The primary issue is the barbell that attaches to the carriage (the part that moves up and down). This barbell extends about 45 cm (18 inch) beyond the left and right sides of the machine, taking up stationary space as well as dynamic space when the carriage is in motion. Eliminating that barbell would reduce the width requirement from the bare minimum of 162 cm to 80 cm, assuming the weight storage pegs are also removed.

But of course, the barbell is how the leg press is loaded, with 34 cm on each end for Olympic-spec plates. It also provides some structural stability for the hack squat shoulder pads, where they attach to the carriage. However, dangling underneath the carriage is a much-smaller space for loading plates, with 20 cm on left/right for plates.

As an aside, this is a fairly substantial machine that arrived on a pallet, taking a few hours to assemble. The build quality is exemplary, and everything about it evinces durability and stability.

My approach was to remove the original barbell, loading only the under-carriage bar. To retain structure, I cut 1"x2" rectangular steel tube to the width of the carriage (59 cm), capped the ends, and drilled holes to reuse the same bolts as the original barbell. The reason for 1"x2" is because the backrest for the hack squat requires clearance; the stock barbell solved this by bending around that area, whereas 1x2 just barely clears the backrest, and that's good enough for me.

Later, I added a pair of wooden mounts where a conventional barbell can be rested. This is not my proudest woodworking achievement, but it's certainly the most unconventional. Each mount is made from three layers of reclaimed 2x6 lumber (from a bed frame) glued together, then a 3.5-inch diameter hole bored through axially, then sanded, stained in cherry, and finished with Polycrylic clear coat for durability. I'll explain the point of these mounts in a different post.

The result of all this is a leg press that needs only about 1 meter by 2.4 meter (39" by 96") of floor space, and that's including weight storage pegs on the side away from the wall, plus space to swing the safety stopper bars in/out of place. And everything can be reverted back to the factory configuration.

The caveat is that I'm consigned to the 40 cm total barbell space under the carriage. To maximally load this machine, I would need to invest in thin iron plates, which apparently only are made to precise values, and are thus expensive. Examples: Rogue calibrated KG plates, and Hansu Power calibrated plates, both of which are 22.5 mm wide for 20 kg plates. Sixteen such plates would make 320 kg (700 lbs), and I'd be thrilled if I could get there one day. The tradeoff is reasonable to me, minimizing floor space today in exchange for requiring expensive plates in the future, until I upsize my space.

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20133956

With the exception of the weight stack for my functional trainer and its change plates, I wanted all my subsequent equipment to be metric. To that end, I saw some cheap 45 lbs CAP bumper plates, and figured that I could make them into metric with not too much effort.

Some rough math prior to purchasing suggested that these plates -- with a width of 68 mm -- could be slimmed down from 20.4 kg (45 lbs) to nearly 20.0 kg, by boring two 2" holes (51 mm). To keep balance, the holes should be on on diametrically opposite ends. And should be neither too close to the edge, nor too close to the center, since the plate still needs to absorb a drop without deforming. That the bored holes are 51 mm is a fantastic happenstance, nearly identical to the center hole for Olympic-spec plates.

Examining each plate before drilling, I found that the silkscreen letter A in "CAP" is well-centered diametrically, although it doesn't line up with the matching logo on the back side. Also, since these are cheap CAP plates, the initial weight tolerances are pretty poor. 45 lbs should be 20.41 kg (2 sig figs), but my first four plates registered at 20.58, 20.51, 20.64, 20.56. That's nearly an extra half pound!

To drill the holes perfectly plumb, I did the work on a drill press using a 2-inch hole saw. Because the saw wasn't deep enough to go through the full width in one pass, I started with a 1/4-inch (6 mm) pilot hole straight through the tip of the letter A in "CAP". Then I drilled from both sides with the hole saw until a ~200 gram rubber core fell out. Repeat for the second bore.

To finish, I took some sandpaper to remove the old "45 lbs" markings, then used my label maker to affix new values. All plates are still high, but ranged from 20.030 kg to 20.105 kg. Not too shabby, I think.

In a happy coincidence, the position of these bored holes is perfect for one's thumbs when grasping the plate like a steering wheel, making it easier to pick up when laid flat on the floor. I also added a strip of blue electrical tape around the perimeter to make it easy to identify these as 20 kg.

In the end, I got the cheap metric plates I wanted, and it came with a usability improvement as well. I've not dropped these yet, so time will tell how they hold up.

With the exception of the weight stack for my functional trainer and its change plates, I wanted all my subsequent equipment to be metric. To that end, I saw some cheap 45 lbs CAP bumper plates, and figured that I could make them into metric with not too much effort.

Some rough math prior to purchasing suggested that these plates -- with a width of 68 mm -- could be slimmed down from 20.4 kg (45 lbs) to nearly 20.0 kg, by boring two 2" holes (51 mm). To keep balance, the holes should be on on diametrically opposite ends. And should be neither too close to the edge, nor too close to the center, since the plate still needs to absorb a drop without deforming. That the bored holes are 51 mm is a fantastic happenstance, nearly identical to the center hole for Olympic-spec plates.

Examining each plate before drilling, I found that the silkscreen letter A in "CAP" is well-centered diametrically, although it doesn't line up with the matching logo on the back side. Also, since these are cheap CAP plates, the initial weight tolerances are pretty poor. 45 lbs should be 20.41 kg (2 sig figs), but my first four plates registered at 20.58, 20.51, 20.64, 20.56. That's nearly an extra half pound!

To drill the holes perfectly plumb, I did the work on a drill press using a 2-inch hole saw. Because the saw wasn't deep enough to go through the full width in one pass, I started with a 1/4-inch (6 mm) pilot hole straight through the tip of the letter A in "CAP". Then I drilled from both sides with the hole saw until a ~200 gram rubber core fell out. Repeat for the second bore.

To finish, I took some sandpaper to remove the old "45 lbs" markings, then used my label maker to affix new values. All plates are still high, but ranged from 20.030 kg to 20.105 kg. Not too shabby, I think.

In a happy coincidence, the position of these bored holes is perfect for one's thumbs when grasping the plate like a steering wheel, making it easier to pick up when laid flat on the floor. I also added a strip of blue electrical tape around the perimeter to make it easy to identify these as 20 kg.

In the end, I got the cheap metric plates I wanted, and it came with a usability improvement as well. I've not dropped these yet, so time will tell how they hold up.

This September 2023 report by staff at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission compiles injury and fatality data involving micromobility devices, using data that was available at the time of publication. As the report notes multiple times, the aggregate data is fairly coarse and CPSC staff could only follow up on so many reports.

Nevertheless, the report offers some rather interesting insights on e-scooters, hoverboards, and ebikes, although at 42 pages, some might prefer to just read the Executive Summary -- which is just 4 pages -- and skim the figures and tables.

Some of my takeaways from the report:

• ER visits for e-scooters have been at least double that of ebikes, although ebike data was below the reporting minimum so that data was estimated (page 10)
• E-scooters and hoverboards ER visits by female/male are 35%/65% and 55%/45%, but ebikes are disproportionate at 24%/76% (page 12)
• Two-thirds of hoverboard ER visits are for 5-14 year olds, the largest group of any age range for any micromobility device (page 13)
• The vast, vast majority of ebike ER visits were incurred while riding on a public road or public property. No surprise there. (page 14)
• July has the most ebike ER visits (14% of annual total), and January/February the least (3% each of annual total) (page 15)
• The report has a whole section dedicated to e-scooters, starting at page 17
• One-third (32%) of treated e-scooter injuries indicated the rider was carrying or holding onto something, with 61% indicated not holding, and 7% unspecified (page 21)
• 13% of treated e-scooter injuries indicated the rider was wearing a helmet, with 51% unspecified (page 22)
• Between 2017 and 2022, using available data, CPSC found 104 deaths related to ebikes. These deaths skew heavily male (84 deaths) and 25+ years old (87 deaths) (page 23-24)
• 58 of 104 ebike deaths involved collisions with motor vehicles, the leading cause. The data does not specify whether the ebike or motor vehicles or both were in motion at time of collision (page 25)
• 8 of 104 ebike deaths involved pedestrian collisions, composed of six pedestrians and two ebike riders
• 2 of 104 ebike deaths involved fire by the ebike batteries
• 18 of 104 ebike deaths involved collisions with terrain, roadway features, or wayside obstacles (page 25)
• Of 59 ebike injury reports that CPSC staff followed up, 28 identified fire hazards, the leading cause. 24 of 59 involved non-brake mechanical issues, such as bicycle components failing or detaching (page 28)

Additional coverage: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/outdoors/article286750940.html

USDA press release: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tahoe/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD1168193

A new trail in Tahoe National Forest in California would permit Class 1 ebikes, after the Forest Service (part of the US Dept of Agriculture) concluded that:

Class 1 e-bikes are equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches the speed of 20 mph. Studies completed during project analysis indicated that Class 1 e-bikes are similar to traditional mountain bikes in terms of components, relative speeds and impacts to trails.

The inclusion of Class 1 e-bikes as an approved use on the trail expands access to individuals that may not be able to walk or ride a traditional bicycle as far or long.

As the new trail sections to be constructed would create a 72 mile (115 km) route, ebikes will prove useful to those hoping to make the full trek as a day trip. Other trails parallel to or intersecting this new trail would remain subject to their existing rules regarding ebikes, equestrians, and automobiles and motorcycles.

While writing a comment on a different community, I figured I would post my homemade plate-bearing pegs here. These were made for my Body Solid BFFT10R functional trainer's weight stack, to allow loading 50 mm Olympic fractional plates.

This first one is a simple wooden peg made from a scrap 4x4 block, turned on a router -- because I don't own a lathe -- and with a threaded rod (3/8-inch; 10 mm) through it. The rod is mild steel, but that caused some minor bending when loaded with a 15 lbs plate.

So for my second and more permanent attempt, I attached two back-to-back pegs directly to the weight stack's center point, using a Grade B7 threaded rod, in lieu of the original bolt that was there. This helps keep the weight stack balanced front-to-back, makes it run more smoothly, and there's a reduced risk of the plate slipping off.

(long time lurker, first time c/bikewrench poster)

I have a Bikonit MD750 ebike that currently wears its stock wheels with its third set of tires. The front is a 26" wheel (ETRTO 100-559) with 203mm brake rotors and 15x150mm thru-axle. The rear is also 26" (ETRTO 100-559) with 203mm brake rotors ans 12x197mm thru-axle. Both tires are 26x4.0, inflated to the max 30 PSI (~200 kPA), with a measured outside diameter of 74cm. On the rear is a 9-speed SRAM cassette and its matching HG-style splined freehub.

My problem: I use this ebike as a fast (40-45 kph, 25-28 MPH) inter-city cruiser on paved roads, rather than off-road as the manufacturer might have intended. The long stretches of road shoulder I ride on have all manner of debris, and the wide tires are constantly hitting things. In 1400 km (~860 miles), I've had four rear-wheel flats (with two in the span of 12 hours!), presumably from both sharp objects and pinch flats due to hitting protrusions at speed. These tires are also a drag, since under human power only, I can barely hold 20 kph (13 mph) but on my acoustic bike with 700x32 tires, I'm closer to 28-32 kph (17-20 mph). At higher speeds under electric power, this drag can only get worse. The original tires were Kenda Juggernauts (too loud on pavement), and the second set were Origin8 Supercells (too easily punctured above 32 kph (20 mph)). So I'd like to change to narrower tires, which also implies narrower rims.

Preliminary research: Since the weight of this ebike is around 40 kg (88 lbs), I know I cannot run narrow tires -- like the aformentioned 700x32 -- since it might concentrate the wheel forces on too little of contact area. Also, I want to keep the tire widths manageable when taking public transport: the buses and trains here have a tire width limit of ~2.5 inch (64 mm), and I will retain the stock wheels for mounting any tires wider than this. Two different references suggest that 23mm rims might be my sweet spot, giving me a range of possible tire widths to later purchase, from about 1.5" to 2.4".

For wheel diameter, I would prefer to retain or exceed the existing 74mm outside diameter, since it's not clear if I can easily reprogram this ebike's computer to acknowledge a different wheel circumference. A smaller outside diameter would cause the speed governor to engage prematurely, whereas a larger diameter is limited primarily by the frame around the rear wheel. By my measurements, this frame has clearance for an absolute maximum rear-wheel outside diameter of 82 cm. This reference indicates that a 29" wheel has a rough outside diameter of 29" (73.6mm), give or take. One size smaller is the 27.5" wheel, with a slightly smaller outside diameter of 27.5" (69.8mm).

Since my goal is to equate or exceed the existing 74cm outside diameter, I'm inclined toward a 29" wheelset. There may also be operational efficiencies, since a 29" wheel and my acoustic bike's 700C wheels have identical ETRTO diameters of 622mm. For example, I could possibly stock a single size of 700C spare tubes at home. Also, within mountain biking, there seems to be a trend of seasonally switching between fatbike wheels and 29" or 29"+ wheels, so I don't feel my desire is out-of-place.

Finally, I wish to leave the 9-speed shifter alone, so that I can swap between this new wheelset and the stock wheelset at-will. This means the new rear wheel must also be compatible with 9-speed HG-style cassettes. This compatibility chart indicates that if the new hub is Shimano 8/9/10 or SRAM 9/10 speed compatible, then I'm set. And if the new hub is Shimano 11/12 or SRAM 11 speed compatible, then I can use a 1.85mm spacer with my existing 9-speed HG cassette, which should be easy enough to find.

What I've found so far: With a search criteria for a 29" wheelset with 150mm front and 197mm rear, with a 23mm inner rim and HG-style splines, I've found very few results that aren't custom builds. The first (and least expensive) wheelset is from Bikesdirect.com but it doesn't actually exist in stock, and its 29mm rim width is more than desired. The next from Biktrix is significantly wider, at 60mm rim width. The third and fourth are from Ican and Fyxation, at 50mm and 40mm respectively, and both wheelsets run into $700 territory.

Of those four, two use Novatec D201SB-15/D202SB hubs, one uses Fyxation's own hub, and one is unspecified. All appear to support 15x150mm thru-axle in the front and 12x197mm thru-axle in the rear. Other search efforts showed that a bit more variety exists if I went with a 27.5" wheelset, but I'm trying to keep to the criteria from earlier.

Hub variety: While researching 150/197mm hubs, it seems that various brands are relabeled, of varying quality. It seems Framed and Novatec are the same, Pub is made by Bitex, and DT Swiss is generally well-liked but expensive. I'm led to believe DT Swiss is on the higher end of the market, while Novatec and Pub are entry-level, with sporadic reports of years of life or months before failure. Certainly, on eBay, Pub and Framed sell for $40-60 while DT Swiss seems to be $300-400.

I need help: First of all, thank you for reading this far. What I would like is to know whether I'm so far off the mark that I need to start over, or if this is a mostly solid criteria and it's just that no ready-made wheelsets for my use-case are available and that I should build or commission my own wheelset. To guide toward an answer, I wrote out some questions:

1. Are there alternatives I haven't considered for reducing punctures on an off-road style ebike currently wearing fatbike wheels?
2. Is a 29" wheelset right for my bike?
3. Is there some reason I shouldn't pair a 23mm rim width with 15x150mm/12x197mm hubs?
4. With no experience building or specifying wheelsets, should I first build a cheap custom wheelset as a beta version, then later commission a "good for lifetime", YOLO, high-quality wheelset as the final goal? Or should I cut straight to the chase?
5. Are there other -- ideally less than $1k -- wheelsets that I didn't find from my search efforts?
6. Is 12x197mm thru-axle really that rare? Is it rare because I'm looking for such a narrow rim? Or because I'm making a grand tourer out of an off-roader?
7. Is wheel-building difficult to do at home? Sheldon Brown makes it sound straighforward, although there was a post here earlier about computing spoke lengths.
8. What 29" tires might be well-suited for speed, lower rolling resistance, reasonably high air pressure, and debris resistance on an ebike?

Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I'm trying to remind myself of a sort-of back-to-back chaise longue or sofa, probably from a scene on American TV or film -- possibly of the mid-century or modern style -- where I think two characters are having an informal business meeting. But the chaise longue itself is a single piece of furniture with two sides, such that each characters can stretch their legs while still being able to face each other for the meeting, with a short wall separating them.

That is to say, they are laying anti-parallel along the chaise longue, if that makes any sense. The picture here is the closest thing I could find on Google Images.

So my questions are: 1) what might this piece of furniture be called? A sofa, chaise longue, settee, something else? And 2) does anyone know of comparable pieces of furniture from TV or film? Additional photos might help me narrow my search, as I'm somewhat interested in trying to buy such a thing. Thanks!

EDIT 1: it looks like "tete a tete chair" is the best keyword so far for this piece of furniture

EDIT 2: the term "conversation chair" also yields a number of results, including a particular Second Empire style known as the "indiscreet", having room for three people!