PDA

View Full Version : OK, My answer to BU vs. BD smoother



Roger Barlow
03-28-2009, 12:22 AM
My answer, your results may vary:D

In my unscientific experiment, I used my LN 4, LV BUS w/38 main bevel and +2 degree secondary bevel, and a Bedrock 605 1/2 with a hi carbon Hock blade and chipbreaker. The Bedrock was run with a 7 degree backbevel and then no backbevel. The LN is 45 degree frog and no backbevel.

Stealth gloats for the LV and the Bedrock.

I used ribbon and flat sawn Sapele, and a piece of cherry that had a grain reversal right in the middle of the board.

After honing all the blades sharp on spyderco stones (and my definition of sharp is arm hairs cut when the blade touches hair, not by scraping the blade on your skin) I gave the boards a whirl. I was not pleased with my backbevel sharping, I remember now why I don't do this very often. That's why I put a std bevel on the Hock blade after the first run.

Sapele Ribbon:
Best - LV no tear out
2nd - LN almost undetectable, but ever so slight tear out in the light ribbons where the rays are - really had to search for it
3rd - Bedrock with STD grind - more tearout than the LN, but you had to look for it in the light
4th - Bedrock w/bbevel - small but consistant tearout in the light ribbons

Sapele Flatsawn - more interlocked grain & reversals than domestic wood
Best - LV no tear out - LN no tear out
2nd - Bedrock with STD grind - one or two small pockets, almost as polished as above
3rd - Bedrock w/bbevel - same but not as polished, has rougher feel

Cherry
Best -LV and LN no difference in surface
2nd -Bedrock STD grind - had a little trouble just behind the eye of the grain reversal, shallow pea sized tearout - about the same level of polish
3rd - Bedrock w/bbevel - tearout in same place, but not as polished

So, clearly I had some issues with my back bevel grind on the Bedrock- it wan't quit as sharp. But I only gave it the same about amount of time in the sharpening - If double or triple my sharpening time is needed to use one plane over another, I know I'll rarely use to fussy one.

The other issue I may have had is the Bedrock sole itself. I lapped it, but I didn't go as far as I might want to, the leading edge of the mouth had a rounded edge and a slight depression. I lapped until I got a clean 1/16 of metal in front of the mouth, but more lapping would eliminate the small depression. I'll give that plane some more tuneup work later.

Which do I like better? That's a real tough one - All three made crazy thin see through shaving. And pure performance goes to the LV, it left a beautiful polished surface. But I think the LN does it for me by a hair due to familiarity, and depth control on the fly, and grip/feel. But I'd get my next one with a higer frog. Don't get me wrong, I'm keeping the LV, it cut a tad better than LN. And with the wide bevel, I can freehand sharpen it. I'll set it up and leave it at a superfine shaving. It needs to be a little heaver though. That is what I really liked about the 605 1/2, it was heavy and once it got going, it didn't stop. I'll work on the Bedrock some more, but if I can't get it dialed in as good as the others, I'll sell it and get a LN 5 1/2.

Jim Koepke
03-28-2009, 1:53 AM
It is always good to have a real world test of the different plane options. Most likely, a BUS will not be in my future unless a lot of extra $$$ come my way.

jim

Eric Brown
03-28-2009, 3:39 AM
http://www.marcouplanes.co.nz/index.php/home

Get the BU and heavier weight. Looks good too.

Maybe next year I can aford one.

Eric

Roger Barlow
03-28-2009, 10:33 AM
http://www.marcouplanes.co.nz/index.php/home

Get the BU and heavier weight. Looks good too.

Maybe next year I can aford one.

Eric


+1 for me, but I can't pry my wallet open that far!

Will Blick
03-28-2009, 1:44 PM
Great report....

Do others who back bevel produce inferior results ?

I would think a back bevel would produce an equally sharp edge if done properly. Its advantage is, faster re honing, i.e. removing less metal to re establish the edge... Agreed?

Roger Barlow
03-28-2009, 3:46 PM
backbevels, for me, are difficult due to how I sharpen thinner blades. I use a veritas honing jig, and when I backbevel, it's hard to reposition the jig repeatably when switch sides going from grit to grit. I almost always get impatient and freehand the backbevel. I would have to change how I reference the blade angle. That's why I'd rather have the correct frog angle instead - easier sharpening.

Will Blick
03-28-2009, 4:53 PM
Roger.... I should have been more clear.... I mistakenly did not differentiate between BU and BD blades....


The OP poster did back bevel a BD blade. I assume he did this to compare BD with no bb, vs. BD w/bb.


Instead, I was referring to the a 2 deg back bevel used on BU blades....for the sole purpose of faster re-honing. The 2 deg back bevel does not significantly change the overall angle of attack. I was curious if the the back bevel in general, provides inferior shavings, as the OP results seemed to suggest. thoughts?


Also, to the OP.... what grit stone do you sharpen to produce an edge that cuts forearm hair with no skin contact? That is a VERY sharp blade.... Kudos....

Danny Thompson
03-28-2009, 7:11 PM
I don't think the OP put a backbevel on a BU blade. Instead, the BU blade has a 2º secondary bevel (or microbevel) on the same side of the blade as the primary bevel.

The backbevel was on the Hock blade used bevel down in the Bedrock. Right?

Derek Cohen
03-28-2009, 7:52 PM
Hi Roger

It is always good to see someone thinking about woodworking.

I do have two comments:

Firstly, you need to use wood that will challenge even the best plane. That means interlinked, reversing grain. When a plane - even a cheapie - is only faced with straight grain, as long as the blade is sharp, then it will produce as good a finish as an expensive, high performance plane. Straight grain is not a challenge. This is one of the reasons I use woods like Jarrah in my tests.

Secondly, you must compare apples with apples, otherwise you cannot draw meaningful conclusions. The main issue I see in yiour test was that the cutting angles differed. 45 degrees for the LN, 50 degrees for the LV, and 52/45 degrees for the Bed Rock. There is not a lot of differences here (in practice - on tough grain - 45 and 50 degrees is not significant), but this comes down to the wood you are using. They may or may not be helping you see differences.

Thirdly, the remaining difference is "feel" - the BU and BD planes feel different. Spend some time with both a report your preferences in this area.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Roger Barlow
03-28-2009, 9:38 PM
Thanks for reading and posting guys. Let me say I intentionally dumbed down my test based upon my current work that I do. Ahh, I think I just implied that I do dumb work.:D

I'm really one of those, eh, tailed woodworkers, sorry. I use CNC and edgebanders and panel saws and firing up the shop requires 25 hp of phase converters. I know, I know, one of these things is not like the other....:rolleyes:
But like I said n my older posting about BU vs. BD, I was needing a bigger smoother for a table I'm making for a client who wants an old world look. The woods I use are domestic cherry, walnut, maple (both figured and non), mahogany (genuine, african, and sapele). Typically anything out of that relm and I'll use veneer. I do realize that I certainly didn't challange any plane with the woods I used for test.


So about my test, clarifiying,

The BUS had a secondary bevel on the bevel side - I would have cambered it like Derek's tutorial, but for the purposes of determining if I liked the plane, I left it essentially straight, whatever finger pressure I could get for a camber is what it got (read not much). Attack angle was about 52 degrees.

The Bedrock had a micro bevel on both sides, so it increased angle of attack, trying to mimic a LN 5 1/2 with a 55 degree frog. This LN plane was what I was about to pull the trigger on. The bedrock with a Hock iron and cap 180 bucks, certainly worth a look at the size and heft - but the wrong frog angle. If it didn't feel right then I'm sure I wouldn't have liked the LN.

The LN 4 had normal sharpening, micro bevel on bevel side. I used this because I already owned it and was familar with it, so it's a control variable.

The bedrock and the BUS had about the same angle of attack, and I wanted to see if the standard 45 frog would give me the same results. And even more important for the BUS, how did it feel. So anyway, I really liked the 605 1/2 feel, but I didn't get the planed comletely tuned or the blade as sharp as I did on the BUS. I've only had it a couple of days so I'll spend more time with it. But I really really like how easy the BUS cut with simple blade honing, no fiddling around with the plane at all.

Will, my sharpening is done with carbide sandpaper on glass for rough bevel shaping, then Spyderco stones with designations on the boxes simply Med, Fine, Extra Fine. The Extra Fine gives the steel a mirror finish. Interestingly enough, the LV blade (A2) and the LN blades were easier for me to sharpen than the Hock hi carbon steel.

Will Blick
03-29-2009, 7:19 PM
Thanks Roger, I never used or researched these Spyderco stones before, this is from Woodcraft....

> The fine and ultra fine (white) stones do not wear at all and have a grain structure that excels polishing the edge of any steel.

> Spyderco stones do not require any special maintenance such as flattening, simply an occasional cleaning with any powered cleanser is all that's needed to refresh the surface and keep these stones in top shape.


I find it interesting the ultra fine stone can produce a mirror finish, which is only 2000 grit? Also, is it possible a stone can not wear when rubbing a metal edge on it constantly? Sure sounds great.....but I am a bit befuddled... none of my 2000 grit stones will produce a mirror finish or cut arm hair at 2000 grit (certainly not the way roger described it) ...and all my stones need flattening? Is this a breakthrough in stone technology? Not being sarcastic, I am really curious....

Fred Krow
03-29-2009, 10:44 PM
Many of the Spyderco ceramic stones are not flat. They are very difficult to flatten, even with the DMT diamond hones.

Regards,
FK

Roger Barlow
03-29-2009, 11:10 PM
Thanks Roger, I never used or researched these Spyderco stones before, this is from Woodcraft....

> The fine and ultra fine (white) stones do not wear at all and have a grain structure that excels polishing the edge of any steel.

> Spyderco stones do not require any special maintenance such as flattening, simply an occasional cleaning with any powered cleanser is all that's needed to refresh the surface and keep these stones in top shape.


I find it interesting the ultra fine stone can produce a mirror finish, which is only 2000 grit? Also, is it possible a stone can not wear when rubbing a metal edge on it constantly? Sure sounds great.....but I am a bit befuddled... none of my 2000 grit stones will produce a mirror finish or cut arm hair at 2000 grit (certainly not the way roger described it) ...and all my stones need flattening? Is this a breakthrough in stone technology? Not being sarcastic, I am really curious....

Not sarcastic but it was funny. I don't know what they are made of, but they are very hard and long wearing. And they load up with the steel and also the brass from the veritas guide, that might help them polish the steel - don't know. They cut very very very slowly, which is why I'm thinking of trying a shapton stone. I have let them get a little cupped so my irons have a little camber simply from the stone profile. I do occasionally clean up the stone loading with a DMT fine diamond and it has a hard time cutting the spydercos. I've had these stones for at least 12 years maybe more. They will certainly last another dozen years. I should also mention that I have a delta slow speed grinder that I use to hollow grind iron and then I use paper and the spydercos.

As for how sharp they can get the iron, well, you gotta have really good steel for starters. Not all of my tools can get this sharp. The LN's and the new LV iron can, so can my good bench chisles (but not he job site set), but certainly not the stanley irons in my baily planes. They can shave hair but only when the blade is scraped on the arm. Good steel can grab a hair and cut it without scraping - puts the scary in scary sharp. I have cut myself accidentlally during sharpening. Here's a pic of the LV iron after I have cut a bunch of cherry, sapele, and maple. Still looks pretty shiny on the microbevel but it's not as sharp or clean as when freshly off the stone.

Will Blick
03-29-2009, 11:25 PM
Roger, just to be sure, I was not criticizing the spyder stones.... but as Fred mentioned, I question how flat a stone can remain. I think these stones would dominate the market if they stayed flat without re-honing them. And if they really sharpened well.....they would be the ultimate sharpening stone, specially considering their modest price. The fact Spyder claims ultra fine is 2000 grit is troublesome to me. Most stone makers consider ultra fine grits in the 8k+ range.

I am still impressed how you can shave arm hair though.... Without making contact with the skin, (or getting real close to it) I can not accomplish this, even when I go to my 30k stones.... and / or 1/2 micron diamond paste. I don't produce a shing surface.... at 30k, I produce a true mirror.

As the blade gets near my skin, of course, it cuts everything. I found it interesting, in a book I read on sharpening, it mentioned the difficulty of an edge to cut hair. It turns out, this forearm test is a simple and reliable test of sharpness, for any blade, not just irons. But, not all forearm hair is created equal.... I have very coarse hair, which is more challenging on the blade :-)

Anyway, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it....

Roger Barlow
03-30-2009, 12:34 PM
Hey Will, I'm fine with what you've said about the stones, heck, I've also wondered why they cut do darn slow, and shine up steel so readily. It's got to be the surface loading. I'm getting a couple of shapton glassstones this week or early next week. I put something out there on how they compare. Since I've only used carbide paper, or my delta slowspeed wet grinder, or arkansas stones, and these spydercos, I don't have any other reference. Funny, when I called spyderco a long time ago about the issues of surface loading, they said to put the stones in the dishwasher. Wife said no.

Chris Setla
03-30-2009, 7:46 PM
About those Spyderco hones.

Spyderco hones are a piece of ceramic material cut from a slab. The initial particle size of the slurry used to make the ceramic material may have been in the range of what we think of as 2000 grit but has little bearing on the hone after firing. Imagine slicing a piece out of your home toilet and using that for honing. It's the pattern left from the cutting blade that does the honing. Being one step down from the hardness of diamonds, these solid chunks of ceramic material will wear slowly, but they will wear. Some gents have flattened these types of hones using a diamond hone (as have I) and some have reported improved performance, others such as myself have noted little improvement in the ceramic hone and a marked wear factor on my DMT diamond hone! :mad: The DMT leaves it's own set of scratches on the surface of the Spyderco and it's these scratches that appear to do most of the honing.


As for hones such as the Shaptons which are also "ceramic" hones, they are made by a different process. Here, Shapton creates a fired chunk of ceramic material, just like Spyderco but then takes that chunk and crushes it into very small, glass like shards. This crushed ceramic is then carefully screened and graded for size. Now they take this ceramic *grit* and bind it together with a resin based binder (something similar to epoxy glue, I have no idea what resin they actually use) and then form it into it's final hone shape. Shapton hones wear like the more conventional water stones and thus need to be flattened regularly and indeed you also refresh the surface/grit when doing so, thus rejuvenating the remarkably fast cutting rate that Shapton hones are famous for.

Further to the Spyderco hones, the coarse (dark colored) hone is indeed made from a coarser slurry and the grains in that one does appear to make the hone cut faster, but it should be noted that these hones were designed for honing edges on pocket/sheath knives and NOT for the day in and day out honing of woodworking tools which is far more intensive, and done far more often than a set of knives for home use.

Regards

Chris

Eric Brown
03-31-2009, 7:44 AM
I use the following Shaptons:
200-500-1,000-4,000-8,000

I always start with the 200 just to make sure the blade is in the guide properly. Not many strokes on each of the other stones. I get a nice mirror edge. Use water for lube and wipe down between grits.

I use either a Veritas MK-II or Richard Kell guide.

I test for sharpness with my thumbnail. If it doesn't slide it's sharp enough. It's also safer than testing hair.

Eric

David Keller NC
03-31-2009, 10:10 AM
Roger - Thanks for taking the time and trouble to do this. While it's true that any (and I mean any) test can be "picked apart" on specifics, it's still much better than no information at all.

Interestingly, your comments about which you'd choose mirror my own opinions. I've never really found any difference between a BU and BD smoother operated at the same cutting angle, and I prefer the look, feel, adjustability and center of gravity on a traditional Bailey design. That said, there's lots of folks out there that would passionately disagree (which is good, because otherwise there would be only one plane design out there from which to choose).

One comment about back-bevels, though. I've found by doing lots of off-hand tests that it does not make sense to go through a progression of grits to hone the primary honing bevel on a hollow-ground blade, nor the micro-bevel on the back (if that's to be used). This is, of course, antecdotal, but going straight from the (in my case) wet grinder to the 8000 grit japanese water stone gets the very small honing bevel just as mirror-bright and sharp as going through a 1000, 4000, and 8000 grit progression, and the advantage of skipping the intermediate grits is that there's a lot less risk of rounding one of the bevels due to inconsistent angles on the stones.

You might want to try this for your back-bevel - in my opinion, this back-bevel only has to be barely visible on the iron to make quite a difference in planing figured material (and also increasing the required planing effort!)