Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

Thread: Bevel up or bevel down? Hope Rob Lee chimes in

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    866

    Bevel up or bevel down? Hope Rob Lee chimes in

    Like many other people, I am very excited about the new line of customizable bevel down planes from Veritas. I am far from being a neander, but have nearly all of the bevel up planes as well as a few specialized planes from Veritas. I use them where power tools are not the best. For example, recently I have been working on a dining table. During glue up, somewhere in the middle of the top on the down side a thick piece of paper got stuck between tow boards resulting a flawed joint. Of course I did not see it during glue up. I had to rip it back apart after drying using a track saw and then needed to joint these two very wide and long planks. Definitely no doable on my power jointer easily. So, I took out the Veritas bevel up jointer with a fence I bought nearly 8 years ago and easily jointed the two planks to perfection. I am ashamed to say it, but this was the first time I used this particular plane and it certainly earned its keep.

    I have read the passionate threads about the virtues of bevel down and the function of the cap iron. There is quite a bit of valuable information in those threads for sure and I really appreciate all the effort being put into the testing and sharing the information. I am a geek myself (engineering PhD background and now in sales and marketing) and enjoyed reading it all.

    I also read Rob Lee stating that they did a lot of their own research. So, for those who are trying to decide on which direction to go, what would Rob say about which style to choose and why based on their research? In other words, are the new planes categorically better than the bevel ups or do they just provide another option to people who simply prefer that style and why?

    I could have e-mailed Rob about this, I think there may be many other people interested in the topic. Hope it turns into a great discussion.
    Last edited by Frank Martin; 09-18-2014 at 1:10 PM.

  2. #2
    If you have a lot of planes already, I'd use them and see if you find anything that's a shortcoming with them. And then address that as you find it.

    Of course, I never would've followed that advice, though, and I would've bought both, but what you do is up to you, and the easiest way to find out what you really like is to use all of it and draw a conclusion. (that's not the cheapest way to go, though.)

  3. #3
    Hi Frank,

    Bevel up or bevel down.....the answer is....Yes!

    I personally don't believe in absolutes when it comes to planes type ....they all have different capabilities, hand feel, and one type may suit your needs better than another. I always suggest looking at the type of work you do first....size and type of work, scope, variety of wood species, and the applications you have for planes. How well do you sharpen? Is is part of your work flow, or an end of day ( or week!) task?

    You aren't just buying a tool, you are inserting it into your shop environment. What you are looking for is something that will enable you to most effectively express your skill/creativity without becoming a limiting factor.

    I use both styles - but my reach for first is the LA jack, as that's the plane I have the most experience with, and consequently have the most confidence in using. I don't mind switching and setting blades, and couldn't be bothered to swap frogs. I like the balance, the ease of set-up, and adjustment.

    I could just as easily have answered another plane (I have a few...) but each of us will all have one we use most.

    I,too, look forward to the discussion ( running into a meeting, so have to be short! ).

    Cheers,

    Rob
    Last edited by Rob Lee; 09-18-2014 at 8:32 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    866
    Thanks for the responses. Personally, my existing set of BU planes never felt incapable in any situation I have had so far. Specifically, I am curious about the research done in developing the Veritas BD planes and what objective insights gained from that. For example, are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    This:

    I am far from being a neander, but have nearly all of the bevel up planes as well as a few specialized planes from Veritas.
    and this:

    So, I took out the Veritas bevel up jointer with a fence I bought nearly 8 years ago and easily jointed the two planks to perfection. I am ashamed to say it, but this was the first time I used this particular plane and it certainly earned its keep.
    Lead me to believe you do not really need another plane.

    If you can afford one just to give it a whirl, that is another story.

    My experience with BU planes is limited enough to keep me from saying a BD is superior to BU. For me an LA BU plane is superior to a BD for trimming end grain. The LA sheers the end grain better and it is easier to push through.

    I have had a BU lift some grain in soft woods that normally works fine with a BD.

    One becomes accustomed to the nuances of the tools with which they work. Most of my bench planes are pre-1920 Stanley/Bailey models. Just a quick run through my brain on the cost... they likely cost me less than a new jointer plane from LV or LN. My planes are no where as nice as one of the new planes from either of the premium plane makers in North America. None of them have the bells and whistles. But they do their job and they do it well.

    My 125 year old #4-1/2 was doing a great job yesterday smoothing some cedar. Today it was a #6 that is a little newer at about 107 years old. I think they cost me $65 total between the two.

    If there is a size you do not have, give it a try in the BD configuration. You may be pleasantly surprised.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  6. #6
    Rob, I hear you have some pretty advanced equipement to test these things. Can you also measure forces? Do you ever publish about your research?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    'over here' - Ireland
    Posts
    2,532
    Suspect Lee Valley have already voted with their feet by covering both bases - but it'd be interesting to hear if this is for solid technical reasons (to close a gap in capability not covered by the other type) or just a tacit recognition that there are buyers out there that for reaons of personal preference (familiarity or whatever) will buy only one or the other type.

    One view based on a lot of reading of what gets written by users (including some seemingly very expert players) over several years is that both types of plane cover 99.9% of requirements, and that whatever differences there may be arise in very narrow parts of the working envelope indeed.

    Direct comparisons i suspect are made more difficult by the fact that each has its own needs in terms of set up, because most users are more familiar with one type or another and there is a learning curve, and because (to my relatively recent surprise) they do feel quite a bit different in use. Don't think i've ever seen one or the other definitively proven superior in even a given working situation, never mind in any overall way. Personal preference and familiarity are as above different matters - i happen to like the engineering minimalism of a BU.

    The odd blanket pronouncement gets made about BUs (e.g. the reduced clearance angle leads to increased wear and a need for more frequent sharpening) - and that might or might not be technically the case. It doesn't seem to surface as an issue with individual users though. One implied question that's current in the context of Kees' threads is whether or not in situations where tear out is a risk the wide range of cap iron and face micro bevel options available on a BD brings a little extra capability in extremis (possible ability to take a slightly heavier cut?) in addition to that available from the adjustment (when sharpening) of pitch angle and mouth opening on a BU. My guess from what people like Derek C have written of working awkward Oz woods is that the difference if it exists at all is minimal. One additional capability unique to BUs is the ability to run low pitches.

    Swings and roundabouts perhaps?
    Last edited by ian maybury; 09-19-2014 at 6:44 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    Rob, I hear you have some pretty advanced equipement to test these things. Can you also measure forces? Do you ever publish about your research?
    Hi Kees -

    Yes - we can measure forces. We also have fairly advanced modelling capability - and use that too. We have built many test fixtures for evaluating tools - mostly focussed on the mechanics of wear, or edge degradation. We do film planes cutting - and have looked at types of chip failure under varying conditions. No - we don't publish all of the work, as we we do this to inform the decisions we make. It is a significant expenditure, privately funded, and a competitive issue. Learning is built on many expensive wrong turns.


    Cheers -

    Rob

  9. #9
    Thanks for your answer. Sounds like a fun department (with the usual ups and downs of course).

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    (with the usual ups and downs of course).
    those would be the bevels, right? har har

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Martin View Post
    Thanks for the responses. Personally, my existing set of BU planes never felt incapable in any situation I have had so far. Specifically, I am curious about the research done in developing the Veritas BD planes and what objective insights gained from that. For example, are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?

    Hi Frank -

    Good direct question, that I will do my best to avoid answering directly.

    Planing is inducing controlled wood failure in a very complex system. To start with - wood is a highly variable material, and what a blade "sees" is different at virtually each point along the blade. Pith, knots, different densities of annular rings, voids, checks, moisture content, inclusions, grain reversal and direction changes, resins and .... all sorts of stuff at the micro level. Really tough on edges. Now - present the material at a high speed - the blade edge is subject to incredibly diverse forces at each point of intersection with the wood. I don't beleive anyone has a good handle on what happens at "speed", along the entire blade edge. Just as a piece of straw can be driven through wood with enough velocity, the failure modes of wood may change significantly with speed.

    Now - add to this environment a blade edge that is breaking down through both wear, and failure, and on both sides of the bevel; the geometry of the blade changes as you use it.

    Intellectually - the finished surface is complete as soon as apex of the blade has passed over it. Any change in surface quality must occur either at, or ahead of the blade apex. Bevel-up, or bevel down - the wood sees no difference at the apex.... only the included angle of the apex, an effective cut angle, and a relief angle - both of which wear, approaching an equilibrium that will be different for different materials. If the wood fails at the blade edge - that's where the surface charateristics are defined. If the wood is failing ahead of the blade apex - things get more complex, and then surfaces that interact with the wood relatively near the apex begin to influence failure. Fibre compression ahead of apex, constraining movement or limiting fracture modes. The compression and fracturing ahead of the apex can be influenced several ways - lowering or raising effective cut angle (skewing does this), narrowing a mouth, introducing a chip breaker, taking a thinner cut, or even cutting at higher speed. All work to treat the symptoms caused by failure ahead of the apex. Which method is most effective, may be different depending on the nature of the wood, and the grain direction (i.e. - lowering the effective cut angle works best perpendicular to fibers).

    I believe that the "ideal" plane induces controlled failure at the apex of the blade, along the entire edge. I also believe that it's unacheivable - the system is too complex. There are multiple ways to vary the mix of how you address the inability of any design to perform ideally - and there will certainly be one that each person will be comfortable adopting.

    I guess I personally prefer my bevel-up as being the simplest - as most of the variables I have to control are in my sharpening - edge quality and attack and relief angles. I can also add mouth opening and depth of cut to the mix. So few variables (but dependence on a gateway skill - sharpening) makes controlling failure for the work and types of woods I use most efficient, and repeatable.

    Then again... I like bevel down too.....

    Cheers -

    Rob

  12. #12
    Could it be possible to add a frog holder insert for wooden plane bodies to the LV line up (or simply have a frog shaped insert)? This would allow to use blades and setting mechanisms also on wooden planes. There nothing wrong with a self made Krenov style plane, but having more options for wooden planes may be better.
    Last edited by Damien Braun; 09-19-2014 at 9:21 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chevy Chase, Maryland
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Martin View Post
    Are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?
    Yes, in my opinion. But others would disagree ... and they would be correct ... for themselves.

    So why do I prefer BD planes most of the time for myself:
    - I like to work with a slight camber, and cambering a BD is much quicker and simpler; a BU takes grinding and so forth.
    - The Bailey design has the depth knob within reach from the tote, so I can dial in depth without a lot of trial and error - on the fly.
    - The Bailey design has the lateral adjustment lever, which I highly prefer to set crews and such.
    - I prefer the feel of the higher center of gravity of the BD models
    - I prefer the cap iron as it indeed makes for a more forgiving plane in my experience as far as avoiding tearout

    I also note that BU models existed back in the heyday of handplanes. Perhaps I make too much of it, but my suspicion is that it means something that they far and away preferred BD models. Maybe it was just a holdover from woody days as BU is and engineering challenge in wood bodies, but I think probably, they just appreciated the same stuff I do. YMMV
    ~ Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Hughto View Post
    (snip)
    I also note that BU models existed back in the heyday of handplanes. Perhaps I make too much of it, but my suspicion is that it means something that they far and away preferred BD models. Maybe it was just a holdover from woody days as BU is and engineering challenge in wood bodies, but I think probably, they just appreciated the same stuff I do. YMMV
    My take on that (as a manufacturer and a collector) is that :

    1) bevel-up planes are harder to make (higher tolerances) than bevel down
    2) the only appropriate period material for low angle planes was steel - not cast iron. No lack of low angle infills. Mass produced product failed quickly - the mouths blew out...

    Tools from earlier period are generally more robust, and "fail-safe". General education levels were lower, and no where near the access to resources we have today - sucessful tools had to work consistently across a broad spectrum of user skill levels.

    Rob
    Last edited by Rob Lee; 09-19-2014 at 10:36 AM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Damien Braun View Post
    Could it be possible to add a frog holder insert for wooden plane bodies to the LV line up (or simply have a frog shaped insert)? This would allow to use blades and setting mechanisms also on wooden planes. There nothing wrong with a self made Krenov style plane, but having more options for wooden planes may be better.
    Hi Damien -

    Yes - take a look at transitionals for that. Norris also did it with the adjuster mechanism - but no frog. (we have taken the same approach with our kit (soon to be plural).

    The other thing to consider - frogs are not what many people think they are... in steel planes, they should NOT be a bedding surface - the blade should make contact at mouth - and at the top of the frog somewhere... not the entire surface. In fact - frogs are often machined to ensure there is no unintended contact outside of those areas. Think of a three legged stool - no rocking. A metal plane uses a line of contact along the mouth, and a point of contact farther up the blade.

    Cheers -

    Rob
    (probably overgeneralized that a bit.....)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •