My First Impression of Woodriver Planes

[Andrew Homan]

I agree with Chris. One of the uses of a hand plane is to remove wood. At .002" it would take 62 passes to remove 1/8". How fun is that? I love to "see" through thin shavings as much as the next guy, but this is a tool also.

Actually, I don't give a flying fig about "seeing through thin shavings," as you imply!
Sometimes I wonder whether people here are using planes as I do, to work lumber down from rough boards to fine finish.
0.001" shavings are, for fine smoothing, far too chunky, especially if you consider that the mic is probably compressing the shaving. I also wouldn't be taking 0.001" shavings to remove 1/8" of stock -- I would go for far woodier shavings than that. (Achieved with a cambered blade.) For me, 0.001" shavings might be the desirable thickness for correcting an out-of-square edge. (Any thinner = too many passes, any thicker = losing too much stock and risking missing the target width of a board).

As far as I am concerned, all other factors being equal, the thinnest possible shaving that a plane can get is a reflection of the flatness of the sole. If someone can't manage to get shavings thinner than 0.002" or 0.003", I would seriously recommend examining the sole. If the mouth is in a concave hollow that is 0.002" deep you are never going to get finer shavings than 0.002". Even if the plane is intended for rougher work, to me, that degree of out-of-flatness is unacceptable. (And I don't believe that I am fanatically in pursuit of elusive flatness -- but come on folks, you need to get within 0.001" over 12 inches.
I fully understand that super-fine shavings are not practical for any purpose other than smoothing (especially difficult wood). However, I have never had a vintage Stanley in my hands that wasn't capable of a sub-0.001" shaving (unless the blade was cambered). So a new plane that can't handle that kind of shaving needs some effort to be put into flattening the sole.
I believe that David Charlesworth also indicates 0.001" shavings as being considered to be "medium" in his workshop.
-Andy

[george wilson]

If the plane iron is made of any common grade of carbon steel,like water (W1),or oil hardening (O1),the absolute hardness level should be 60 R.C.. Even then,58 would be better. I found over many years that the plane iron that could BARELY be filed a bit with a new Nicholson SMOOTH file,would hold an edge the best.

It is also possible that the iron is made of a lower grade of carbon steel that will fully harden.But it cannot have the wear resistance of a higher carbon content steel,plus was left too hard(if the hardness they advertise is correct).

It has been my experience that any specifications you get with a Chinese metal lathe,or milling machine as to accuracy,spindle runout,parallel cutting,etc. are BOGUS. This could also apply to the stated hardness of the blade. Crumbling that you actually describe is indeed very severe. I'd like to have a blade to test myself.

The steel,if water hardening,should have .95% carbon. If oil,should have a bit over 1%.The steels used in those cheap Chinese wood chisels can be .50%,or even .45% It will harden,but isn't good steel as I have described.

If the rest of the plane is decent,a better blade might be o.k.,considering the low cost of the plane. Hopefully,old Stanley irons,or new blades will fit the plane.

If I had the iron,I'd heat it slowly to a medium brown color,which would draw some of the hardness,but add toughness,and then see if the edge held up better. The down side is,if the blade is of cheap steel,it might come out too soft. Then,you are stuck unless you have the know how to re harden. If the blade has a bevel already(which it does), that causes the iron to warp across its width because there is different amounts of surface area on each side of the blade. Best to grind the bevel off before re hardening. But,this is getting too technical.

[Paul Atkins]

Andrew, Sorry to put you off a bit - I was just reading along -probably too fast- and had an image in my head of a friend of mine who tunes up his tools to the nth degree and then puts them up on the shelf. It wasn't aimed at you personally. I've spent plenty of time flattening, sharpening and tuning up my planes to know finer is better and the way to check the results. I do appreciate precision and quality workmanship and efficiency is one part too. I've never measured my shavings , so maybe I'll have to check my thickness intuition just for the heck of it. I have a piece of Port Orford cedar 10' long I make ribbons for presents with - now I'll check my planes again with it. Also sorry this got off the original topic.

[Sue Wise]

Back on the topic of the thread. I just bought the Jack plane on Monday. I will probably be able to get to setting it up this weekend. I will also give my report but because I am not as experienced, it will not be as detailed. However, I do plan on hollow grinding the blade first, then flattening the back and then honing.

-Sue

[Chris Friesen]

Sometimes I wonder whether people here are using planes as I do, to work lumber down from rough boards to fine finish.
0.001" shavings are, for fine smoothing, far too chunky, especially if you consider that the mic is probably compressing the shaving.....I believe that David Charlesworth also indicates 0.001" shavings as being considered to be "medium" in his workshop.

You indicated a "medium" shaving, without limiting it to smoothing. If you're limiting it to smoothing, then I'm not going to disagree too much.

In general though, if you get to quote someone, then so do I.

In his workbenches book, Chris Schwarz suggests starting with a shaving of 0.006" for a jointer plane. He also suggests aiming for a 1/32" shaving for crossgrain work with a fore plane, As for smoothing, here's a quote:

"You want to be able to take the thickest shaving you can without tear-out, chatter or requiring you to bulk up like Thundarr the Barbarian. A thick shaving will get you done with fewer passes of the smoothing plane over your workpiece. Not only does this get the job done faster, but it also helps increase your accuracy. Huh? Think about it. If you make 20 passes over a board with a smoothing plane, you are much more likely to plane that sucker out of true than if you used only four passes."

[James Owen]

Results of follow-up planing, as promised:

After re-honing the iron to 8000 grit on water stones last night, I ran the plane back over the same pieces of red oak and maple used before. After a total of about 3 dozen passes on each, I examined the edge under 10X magnification. There were a handful (about 5 or 6) of much smaller deformations -- not sure that I would really call them "chips", almost more like tiny indentations -- randomly scattered along the edge. It (the iron) looked much better than on the previous night. The surface of the wood was also much cleaner looking and feeling.

My speculation -- and that's all this is -- is that the chipping was caused, at least in part, by the "spongy" layer of steel often left on the surface after heat treating. Once that is removed, you get to the "good stuff" and can put a good, resilient edge on the iron. [Those of you who have more extensive metallurgical knowledge/experience than my admitedly very limited bits and pieces, please feel free to correct anything I've gotten wrong here.] Regardless of whether I've gotten that part right, based on this very, very small sample, these appear to be reasonably good quality irons -- certainly no worse than currently-offered Stanley, etc., -- once they have been "broken-in."

To get the best-possible performance from this plane, one might consider replacing the iron (and perhaps the chip breaker) with an LN or a Hock, although I'm not sure that it would really be necessary for the jack plane, since it is normally used for rough or medium work. The cost of a replacement iron (and chip breaker) will certainly reduce the cost advantage over a premium plane, but would, IMO, still be a really good value, especially given the high quality of the machining on the casting and frog.

All in all, I like the plane and -- aside from the relatively minor problems previously mentioned -- am very impressed with its quality, fit & finish, and performance. As it stands, I would recommend it to customers, along with the caveats mentioned in previous postings. If Woodcraft fixes the problems previously mentioned, I would have no problem recommending the planes without reservation.

[I won't be doing any more testing on this plane, as I had to return it this afternoon. However, I will be happy to try to answer any questions anyone has about the results I got from the testing.]

[Andrew Homan]

You indicated a "medium" shaving, without limiting it to smoothing. If you're limiting it to smoothing, then I'm not going to disagree too much.

Even in the rest of your post, I don't think that anything contradicts what I wrote, it just speaks of different uses. I think that anyone who needs 20 passes with a smoother set at 0.001" or below is either not paying attention to what he is doing, or he is doing something else wrong. Anyone who suggests that 0.002" is adequate for fine smoothing work either has very low standards for finish or hasn't yet worked with more difficult varieties of wood.
I didn't state the full range of shavings that I consider useful for medium work -- I don't think that it's relevant here. The relevant point is that 0.002" is a pretty chunky minimum shaving for a new plane that is posing with finicky features like a Bedrock frog. My other point, perhaps less explicit but relevant to the review posted above, is that the indications about sole flatness are out-of-synch with the measurement of thinnest possible shavings.
I don't think that this is off-topic at all: whenever a review is being discussed, the standards of the review should be open to discussion.
-Andy

[John Dykes]

but come on folks, you need to get within 0.001" over 12 inches.

I'm not sure that a few of the well-known premium plane makers would agree with you.

[James Owen]

.....My other point, perhaps less explicit but relevant to the review posted above, is that the indications about sole flatness are out-of-synch with the measurement of thinnest possible shavings.

I don't think that this is off-topic at all: whenever a review is being discussed, the standards of the review should be open to discussion.
-Andy

Andy,

It would appear that you perhaps misinterpreted my statement about the customer's plane: with sharpening to approx 3000 to 4000 grit equivalent, we got the stated thickness shavings (about .003" - .004"); I never said that those were the thinnest possible with that plane/iron.

If you look a couple of posts under that one, you'll see that the #5 -- with an iron honed to the 8000 grit level --- was not only able to make shavings in the .001" +/- range -- which is entirely consistent with the measured flatness of the sole -- but was also able to peel off shavings thin enough that they would barely hold together.

I suppose that we could debate shaving thicknesses, etc., but I'm not sure that there is a point to that: except in planing competitions, the thickness of the shaving is pretty much irrelevent to the work being done. From my view point, what is important is the quality of the surface the plane creates.....

Besides, the thickness of the shaving is merely one indicator of a combination of the sharpness of the iron, the flatness of the sole, the tightness of the mouth, several other settings on the plane, the general quality/condition of the plane, etc. Once you have used that indicator, along with others, to help determine the quality -- or lack thereof -- of the plane, shaving thickness, IMO, is largely unimportant, even though it is useful as a shorthand method of describing plane quality/condition.

YMMV!

On another note, I completely agree that the standards (and methodology) of a review should be open to discussion and, if lacking, subject to constructive criticism. I welcome constructive criticism; it's one of the more effective ways to learn and improve....

Cheers! and Happy Planing!

[george wilson]

Well,now that you say the indentations in the iron look more like little dents than chips,that changes everything. Good descriptions would help. It sounds like the iron is too soft,rather that being too hard. I can tell you that steel at 60 to 64 RC is not going to make little dents in the edge. It would degrade by chipping. It would help if you took a smooth file in really good condition-without any shiny teeth,and tried to file the edge,and report back. A smooth file will cut harder steel than a coarser file,so it is important to use one.

[Matty O'Brien]

Hi all, I am a long time lurker here and I just registered to throw in my 2¢ on these planes. First: thanks to all who have posted stuff to this entire forum, when I have a question about something, I can almost always find the answer here by searching. amazing resource!

Granted, my comments are from a newbie to the forum, so take them for what they are worth... I am new to woodworking (about 2 yrs.), currently studying furniture/woodworking at a school here in MI.

The first plane I bought was a Gros #4 two years ago. Let's just say it doesn't make it out of the box much. The second was a Stanley junior jack #5 1/4 I got off eBay, which I use considerably more, even though it is pretty beat up (the pictures looked so nice on eBay!). The third was a LN low angle block, which I practically sleep with under my pillow.

My teacher suggested a #5 with two cutters, one set up for scrub, one for small area jointing and overall smoothing, so I've been on the lookout. He has a tuned old Stanley which he lets me use, so it is my reference to how a good #5 should preform. My dilemma: LN is out of price range, I don't want another Gros and eBay is a risk. Enter Woodriver...

Based on the reviews here (thanks you guys!), I went to Woodcraft and picked up a Woodriver #5.
First impressions: the heft (wow it's... hefty! ), the really nice casting (not LN but hey it's pretty nice), the tote and knob are actually beautiful in appearence and very well formed, all of the machined parts actually fit and function smoothly, nice fat cutter. It also comes in a wooden box, which isn't really a selling point for me but it's a nice touch.

At the shop: I wanted to see how it would preform out of the box with just a quick hone on water stones to 8000 grit and some paste wax. Actually, pretty decent. The Gros is now officially a doorstop. It was clear though that I would have to spend some time tuning it before I could compare it to my teacher's #5. Hollow ground the bevel to about 27 or 28 due to the comments here about edge crumble. flattened/honed again to 8000, carefully this time. Lapped the sole (it was pretty close out of the box, but concave). The tuning took a good 1.5 hours. A bit of wax and then I almost passed out when I started taking beautiful blade width shavings out of a 2' ash board! I have never planed a board that well before even with Teach's Stanley. I then started to mess around with the frog a bit, opend the mouth for a scrub cut and nice thick curlies! Closed it and tissue fluff! All this and a minimum of tearout with no edge issues after about an hour of working some pretty tough wood.

Ok, so it does have its cheapo side, namely the lateral adjustor. The soft mushroom rivet that attaches it to the frog is incredibly low grade and deformed almost immediately causing the adjustor to clack around loosly while I worked. So I drilled it out and replaced it with a brass machine screw/nut and put a rubber washer sandwiched between it and the frog. Now it stays where I set it.

To sum up:
Would I buy this plane again? Absolutely.
Will I own a LN #4, #5 and a #7 (and maybe a #1 just for grins) someday? You bet.
Will I keep the Woodriver after getting the LNs? Yep. If I ever have a student, do you think I'd let him/her monkey with my LN?

Woodcraft hit the mark with this line of planes. Woodworker on a budget who is just building their skills and can't yet justify an LN splurge, yet also can't afford to drag a home fix-it quality tool accross expensive stock. That's me.

Thanks to all who posted to make this topic an interesting coversation especially Greg and James for the in depth analysis!

-Matt

[jerry nazard]

James and Greg,

Thank you. I am following this thread with great interest!

-Jerry

[John Meikrantz]

I was looking at the planes in my local Woodcraft store, and first impressions were positive. However, the block plane appears to be a standard angle, and not a low angle 60 1/2 equivalent. Can you check and see what the actual plane angles are at your location? I know the manufacturer makes a standard angle size as well, just wondering if there was a shipping/labeling mixup.

[Matty O'Brien]

However, the block plane appears to be a standard angle, and not a low angle 60 1/2 equivalent.

I noticed the exact same thing. Made very obvious because it was sitting in the case right next to an LN 60 1/2. The blade was clearly at a steeper angle. Mike at the Woodcraft here just kept saying "nope, it's a low angle". I'm glad someone else noticed... I thought I was seeing things.

On another note, I am liking my Woodriver #5 very much. Anyone else??? I would like to read more reviews based on actual experience at the bench. Even a bad one.

On yet another note, I won a #7 type 11 on eBay yesterday. My first jointer. I hope it's a good one.

-Matt

[James White]

I picked up the Wood River low angle block plane yesterday. To my surprise it is not a low angle plane. It is a bevel up. But the angle of the bed is 19.5 not the claimed 12.5 on the box.

James or anyone who has one,

Could you please measure the angle and report back to us. I am hoping that it is a new model that just ended up in the wrong box.

James