[OP]
Contributor
So true, Gary! It is indeed a clear response once the last sentence (casually added by RobOriginally Posted by Gary Muto
) is discounted...
Thanks again to all for sharing the ideas, experiences and biases. And to Rob for giving as much information as possible. I may still get one of the new BD planes, just because I love all my Veritas planes and the company behind it. I doubt it will become my favorite though given how simple the BU planes are and I never felt they were lacking for my use.
Contributor
In the wooden jointer thread Judson directed a question to me about the more vertical (e.g. LV) versus low (e.g. Bailey) style handles and which was preferable. My reply was brief and may have appeared offhand, since I provided a link to 4 articles I had written on ergonomics and design of handles, and then offered a simple summary. What I should have written was that I deliberated for a very long time over what to write, and then deleted a long reply. The problem for me is that there is no simple answer and always comes back to "it depends ...". There are just so many variables involved, and any one can change the game. I avoid categorical statements - although I also dislike long-winded replies (such as this!) - and the question of bevel up versus bevel down is one such area where you will get more of "it depends".
It is pertinent that I note that I do not have a preference for one plane type over the other, but that I use both (probably bevel down more). I am also likely to respond like an oppositional child when I read someone proclaiming "chip breakers solve everything", which happens here a lot. It is not only boring - it is simplistic. I now switch off and find something else to read (I am tired of the same old debate with the same people). At the same time, when someone proclaims (as often happens on another forum) that high angle bevel up planes are where it's at for interlocked grain, I explain how the chip breaker may be used on a bevel up plane to achieve the same effect. Again, the point is that there will always be different preferences, which is not the same as proof that one is better than the other - it is more likely reflecting that the big picture has not been grasped.
There are very few big performance differences between bevel up and bevel down planes in practice, that is, where one completely outshines the other.
Some will argue that they find it easier to adjust "on the fly" a Stanley smoother (e.g. #3 or #4) more easily than a LV smoother (e.g. LAS or BUS). This is incorrect in my experience. Adjusting the blade side-to-side is easier on a Stanley, but adjusting for depth of cut is the same or easier on the LV. For the latter (edit - for both) you must avoid over-tightening the lever cap, and you must ensure that the mating surfaces of the adjuster/bed of the adjuster are waxed to ensure smooth and free movement. Then it is easy-peasy.
The obvious debate: on hard and interlocked hardwoods the aim is it easier to avoid tearout with a high cutting angle or adjusting the chip breaker? Well clearly if all you have is a Stanley smoother, then you will learn to adjust it efficiently. The chip breaker works, and I have some excellent results with it - however, for me it is not as reliable as a high cutting angle, and reliable is important when you are about to complete the final smoothing. I am trying to figure this one out. I do find the rigid LN/LV type chip breaker easier to adjust than the flexible Stanley. I have not used the production version of the new LV bevel down planes, only an early version which was (from memory) sans chip breaker. That was in January last year.
The related argument is that the common angle (45 degrees) of the Stanley will leave a cleaner surface than from a high angle plane, be it BU or BD. My reply to that is "it depends" and "irrelevant". I get shiny surfaces on soft pine with a high cutting angle. I can get shinier surfaces with a lower cutting angle, however unless I am only finishing with wax (which I do not do), then you will never know once a coat of shellac is added. I cannot tell the difference in shine on hardwoods. And if there is, well, as I said before, once a finish goes on it is not evident which plane was used. Keeping the surface tearout-free is more important.
There are issues about ergonomics and the feel of BD vs BU planes. As I mentioned earlier, there are too many variables and I have no desire to be reductionistic. However I will mention that it is about force vectors and how they are manipulated. The feel of a plane will be altered by the angle of the handle, the height if the bench, your height at the bench, the position of the mouth in relation to the handle, how you push the plane - with forearms, shoulders or hips, the angle of the bed, etc etc. The new LV planes offer many choices and I suspect that there will be some confusion among those making a decision which combination to purchase. I expect this to be a discussion point on forums in months to come. My immediate advice is to not overthink these issues - just about any combination will work. It is not about getting the plane(s) to work - in the end it may be about getting a plane to work optimally for you.
For myself, the choice between BU and BD is swayed by which one is easier to keep working. For myself this comes down to sharpening and re-sharpening. I prefer to freehand blades, and all are used with some degree of camber. For a bevel down plane this is a simple matter - hollow grind a 30 degree primary bevel and then hone on that. A few degrees here-and-there are unimportant. For bevel up planes, where the cutting angle is directly linked to the bevel angle, it becomes necessary to be more exact in what you do. This is even more the case when adding camber since the efficient way to so so is a high secondary bevel on a low primary bevel. To do this one needs a honing guide. I have many types of honing guides and am proficient with all, but my personality is too impatient to fuss with these. I prefer to freehand sharpen, which I can do quicker than honing with a guide. This factor pushes me towards a bevel down plane. If you want to take this a step further, that is, reducing setting up factors to a minimum, this could take one to a single iron bevel down plane. And of course, if you prefer using a honing guide, then all the above is to be ignored.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Last edited by Derek Cohen; 09-20-2014 at 7:30 AM.
Member
This one almost slipped through! (It's from the first page in this thread).
When you look at vintage tools from the 19th century you'll see that many of them were more elegant and less robust then todays offerings. The Stanley #4 and #604 were lighter then most of the modern copies (I don't know how heavy the LV #4 is). The blades were thinner too. You see the same with chisels, modern ones are thick when compared to the 19th century British bevel edge chisels which were remarkably elegant. The same goes for saws. The Seaton chest saws have the same plate thicknesses or even less compared to many modern saws.
The real craftsman of those days (there were plenty of drunken woodbutchers too) didn't have the same education we have, but their knowledge of wood, their tools and design was outstanding. The work they produced was remarkable and often finished in astonishing short time. I would call their knowledge to be intuitive, based on wide experience and tradition.
Just saying
Last edited by Kees Heiden; 09-20-2014 at 4:36 AM.
Member
I don't believe the woodworking experience is the same for everyone. In other words, I do not believe there is only one way to set the cap iron. Say there are a million woodworkers, then there are a million ways to set the cap iron. The process of finding what works for me is the goal; seeing what works for you is only a small part of that process. If there is only one way to do it, where did all these tools come from?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "You don't have to give birth to someone to have a family." (Sandra Bullock)
Member
That's what education is about. Telling what works, how it works and how to get there. It's about providing information, that can be multi faceted of course.
Member
That is an awful lot of variables. I think that if you really like few variables there is no way you would pick a bevel down plane. As a double iron plane user, I do not have to change a mouth opening. I haven't fooled with mouth opening or high angle planes since 1976. I haven't altered a cap iron since I bought my most recent plane (1983). I have one variable and that is cap iron placement, which I only alter when I already have the plane apart for sharpening. Some of my planes have the original iron and some have replacements (If you are really using a plane the irons eventually wear down to nothing). I don't need five different irons or five different smoothing planes. Four or five bench planes is plenty for a professional woodworker and one iron per plane is plenty.
If you like simple you might learn to use a double iron plane.
Last edited by Warren Mickley; 09-20-2014 at 7:15 AM.
Member
From Derek: "you must ensure that the mating surfaces of the adjuster/bed of the adjuster are waxed to ensure smooth and free movement"
That's valuable. Thanks.
Contributor
I like my bevel-up planes, especially in the smaller block plane format, but for larger planes I generally find bevel down to be less finicky.
Member
+1 on the benefit of waxing the surfaces. (Renaissance applied by brush in this case) Veritas BU's after polishing the back of the blade and waxing all the surfaces (blade, body and cap) seem to adjust perfectly happily without any need to loosen the lever cap knob. Deceptively so, it almost seems that the blade can't be properly held - but it's fine.
This may be worth doing on BDs too. The plan was just to ensure proper bedding/stability of the chipbreaker to prevent the possibility of chips jamming under it, but flattening the back of the pressed out upper part of the chip breaker on a Clifton no. 5 last week on waterstones so that it rested flat on the blade under the slot that locates the auxiliary/front end of the two part chip breaker, and under the screw that clamps it to the blade and waxing up the whole lot transformed the ease of adjustment.
It went from stiff and a struggle to single finger on the depth of cut knob, and likewise minimal pressure is now required on the blade tilt lever...
Last edited by ian maybury; 09-20-2014 at 11:33 AM.
Member
In the grand scheme of things, "on the fly" adjustments don't really matter for most woodworkers, certainly not for those who don't have the habit of "adjusting" a tool on the fly. It won't be a factor for consideration at all in my handplane purchase decision.
Simon
[OP]
Contributor
Same here. The other one that was brought up was ease of cambering for a BD plane, which again I never had a problem in a BU plane, although I always did slight cambers using a power sharpener.
Member
Suit yourselves, but for those reading along, Derek has done a nice job of explaining the details:
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Woodwor...aneBlades.html
" It is accepted that, owing to the geometry involved, a BU requires considerably greater camber ground to a blade to achieve the same profile of a cambered shaving than achieved by a BD plane."
~ Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.
Contributor
Honest question: how do you keep from adjusting the plane's blade while you're working?
As you plane, the blade gets duller (either exponentially or linearly). As the blade gets duller, it will take less and less of a cut, so you need to advance the blade to substitute for the loss of the edge.
Now, I agree, you shouldn't be doing 4 turns of the blade adjustment knob every time you pick up the plane (but hey, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round). But to think you can "set and forget" between sharpenings is a little. . .tough for me to grasp.
The Barefoot Woodworker.
Fueled by leather, chrome, and thunder.
Member
So let me be clearer about what I mean by "on-the-fly" for me. I was using my LN smoother last night. To start, I backed up the blade to take little or no cut and took a pass on the panel. On the back stroke, my index finger came off the tote to advance the wheel a hair and took another pass. On the next stroke I made one more similar adjustment and was off to smooth the entire panel, including backing off the blade slightly in in just the same way in the last stages to take ultra thin finishing strokes.
With a BU plane, I would have to stop, take a guess with adjustment and take another pass. In my experience this often involves more trial and error and time- like often happens with a wedged wooden plane or simple spokeshave. It's not like this trial and error is that big a deal. But I do appreciate the convenience of being able to adjust and test a setting without even stopping.
Last edited by Sean Hughto; 09-23-2014 at 8:49 AM.
~ Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.
Contributor
That's close to what I was thinking. For whatever reason, I just find this to be second nature. The only plane I don't do this much on is my LN 50* 4 1/2. I might advance the blade once or twice, but after that, I go back and sharpen it since it's a smoother and for me, the final cut with a smoother should be extremely clean and smooth (you can tell when the edge starts going to the hot place as it just feels different and the surface left feels different).
The Barefoot Woodworker.
Fueled by leather, chrome, and thunder.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote