Veritas Bevel Up Smoother Or Low Angle Smooth Plane?

[ian maybury]

Pardon me Jeffrey, seems it's me that was confused. I meant the OP...

This is moving beyond the original question, and I've no view as i haven't explored the territory, but is it really the case/is there any clearly informed consensus that a BU smoother are at any disadvantage compared to a BD with a chipbreaker on difficult woods?

It may not be representative, and for all i know there's a huge body of contradicting opinion out there - but there's hints for example in the Elliott material recently linked by Kees that a high bevel angle does better than a closely set breaker to prevent tear out on really difficult woods, but that a chipbreaker may produce a clearer finish on slightly less difficult woods.

It's i think been suggested too that a bevel down plane with a breaker generates a bit more 'hold down' effect in certain situations (that this implies superiority), but viewed through a force balance lens this might suggest that a high bevel in those same situations actually applies more downforce to the chip - which might explain the above.

There seems likely to be some difference given the differing layouts, but has the issue really been run to ground? Might not familiarity, personal preferences and situation specifics not play a part?

[Jim Koepke]

is there any clearly informed consensus that a BU smoother are at any disadvantage compared to a BD with a chipbreaker on difficult woods?

If there were a "clearly informed consensus" this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Until there is a controlled test done in a scientific manner of the kind done for setting a chip breaker we will only have individual experiences.

Derek Cohen has some of these done at inthewoodshop.com.

My own experience is based mostly on one plane, an LN #62, unless you want to also count block planes.

It's i think been suggested too that a bevel down plane with a breaker generates a bit more 'hold down' effect in certain situations

This doesn't coincide with my experience. A heavy shaving would seem to be pushing the chip breaker up, causing lift on the plane.

A bevel up plane would be similar to using a chisel. The bevel of the chisel works like a wedge pushing the chisel into the work. Think of chopping out dovetails and what happens when chopping on the line.

A chip breaker works against the lever action of the shaving lifting wood in front of the blade. On a bevel up plane, there is nothing other than the front edge of the plane's mouth to counter the leverage force of the shaving.

Everyone works in different woods and with different methods.

My results may be different than other's results. For me, it is easier to get a highly polished surface with a my bevel down jack than with my bevel up jack.

jtk

[ian maybury]

Guess Jim i was thinking there might be some great concensus about the relative merits of BU vs BD reached in the background that i had missed. Controlled testing sounds so difficult - such a huge undertaking by the time all of the variables and all of the wood varieties and conditions get trialled.

The suggestion that a BD with a chipbreaker might generate a bit more hold down force came from data posted by Kees some months ago: Topic: New data. High angle versus chipbreakers. 9-29-14 From the post: 'That brings us back to diagram 1 and to the 18th century woodworker who was testdriving one of these new double iron planes. And this diagram sais it all. A proparly adjusted double iron handplane is easier to push, has a stronger negative normal force which pulls the blade into the wood and this advantage doesn't change when the edge wears.'

My thought is that this may not be an advantage in terms of tear out reduction, and may explain the Elliott suggestion mentioned above that a high bevel angle may do better than a chip breaker in preventing tear out in very difficult woods. i.e. A plane with more hold down force may well be subjectively more pleasant to use, but that hold down force (since it's mostly generated by the cutting edge wedging under the surface of the wood as it cuts) presumably has to result in more tear out.

For sure quite a sizeable component of the force of a stiff chip hitting the nose of a chipbreaker will tend to generate an upwards lift, but equally the effect of the exposed section of the actual face of the iron driving under the surface to cut/shear away the chip must be to pull the plane down. I'm not sure in what proportions the two may combine - the resulting nett normal force (Kees' Fn) could depending on the set up presumably be positive (downwards) or negative. (upwards)

The BU situation is perhaps quite similar. If very steep then it's going to be hard to push the plane forward, and an only moderate amount of 'hook under' is going to occur (in what is actually close to a scraping action) - with the result that the plane may not be pulled down so tightly to the work and may require user assistance. A shallow bevel angle on the other hand will produce a lot more hook under, and more tendency to pull the plane down - but at the expense of more tear out.

There are other factors in play. Kees has mentioned that the formation of a wear bevel on the clearance side of the cutting edge can result in sharp increases in normal/upwards force, while the requirement to hold the plane tight down on the surface so that the edge of the mouth prevents tear out must also generate an opposing upwards force.

The user's experience will presumably depend on how this whole lot (and more variables too - including friction of the sole on the wood, weight of the plane, geometry of the handles for example) plays out. Kees' material possibly suggests that likely even quite small changes in set up and/or wear will significantly change the 'feel'/the user experience.

In summary and as above: more 'hook under'/hold down effect might create a subjectively more pleasant user experience, but it probably will not maximise tear out prevention. The extra force required to drive a very steep bevel or a steep iron and closely set chip breaker though the wood and also to hold the plane down tight on the surface might likewise not be so pleasant for the user, but it could maximise tear out prevention.

As before though only speculating...

[Warren Mickley]

In 1973 I read about the double iron in historic texts. It took a few years to really get the hang of it, but I have not had any trouble with any wood since 1977. I have never seen a high angle plane that produces a surface of the quality of a double iron plane that is well adjusted. Planing with a double iron is an art; like anything else it requires observation, experience, judgement.

[ian maybury]

Hi Warren. The art/the skill is always in the background, isn't it? It'd be so easy to run tests and because of e.g. a less than optimiun test set up (maybe only off by the tiniest of margins) to miss the last bit of potential available from a tool.

To be fair i don't think it's a case of arguing (pending better information anyway) that one type of plane is 'better' than the other. We may have preferences, but whatever differences there are at the extremes of performance (and there's other not strictly functional factors like how good it feels and ease of use in play as well) it seems likely that the distinctions are pretty highly nuanced, and that in either case they require command of the art for them to become relevant...

[Andrae Covington]

Kinda confused as to what the difference is. Be gentle...I'm new to planes. How are these two planes different and which is preferred?

I've had the Low-Angle Smooth Plane, which is the one with milled sides, for a few years. I chose it over the BU Smoother Plane because the milled sides would allow using the plane for shooting. The two problems with that idea have already been mentioned in the thread: for smoothing many prefer a cambered blade and that's not so ideal for shooting, and the small size and weight of the plane doesn't lend itself to shooting larger workpieces. Also the blades are narrower than the LV jack and jointer, so they cannot be interchanged like with the BU Smoother.

As far as smoothing goes, I've been happy with the plane. I've sometimes wished for more mass, but not more width; however everyone has different preferences and ways of working.

Recently I bought the Low-Angle Jack Plane primarily to replace the smoother on the shooting board. It definitely has more "oomph" for that task. I can swap blades with the jointer so that one could be straight and one cambered, or a higher angle. I considered the dedicated shooting plane, which is very nice, but it's more money and really only does the one job, whereas the jack is a jack-of-all-trades. If I could go back, I'd probably buy the BU Smoother, Jack, and Jointer as a system with interchangeable blades.

[Jim Koepke]

A proparly adjusted double iron handplane is easier to push, has a stronger negative normal force which pulls the blade into the wood and this advantage doesn't change when the edge wears.'

I am not familiar with the study sited. Also it isn't clear of what "a stronger negative normal force" may be referencing.

It seems curious that a blade being pulled into the wood, in other words more engaged in the wood, "is easier to push."

My question would be is the determination based on scientific measurement or is it based on a user's opinion?

As with many things it may all come down to what we feel most comfortable with using. Some of my tools feel better in my hands that others that may be their equals.

jtk

[george wilson]

Shorter learning curve on BU? That may be true,but becoming a good craftsman is not usually about taking the easiest way out. The best thing to concentrate on is developing good skills and work habits.

If I was planing curly maple,and had mastered the art of getting the chip breaker set properly,I'd feel so much more reassured of not taking a hunk of curl out and either ruining the wood,or making myself a lot of extra work.

I used to get round the problem of curly maple(and many instruments are made of it!),was to plane straight across the grain,or use a toothing plane. Now that Warren and David and the Japanese video have shown us the lost art of the chip breaker,I think it is well worth practicing at it till it is learned.

Look at drawings of 19th. C. craftsmen pushing planes. There was a picture I recall that a child drew. The chips were long and straight,sticking up out of the throats of the wooden planes. Not those pretty,curly chips that we are so familiar with. Those straight "sheets" of chips are the kind of chips you get when you have set the chip breaker correctly. It was there all the while,if people had noticed it.

[ian maybury]

I'd don't know Jim, in that i might have taken the wrong meaning from the material - although the negative normal force is pretty well explained in the piece. So far as i know it was a result from his testing.

Realistically i'm only floating possibilities as to what the material might point to here, the core message of it all if anything may be that when we get into the rare extreme situations requiring realisation of the very last bit of capability a tools has there is no simple/universal this or that is always better. As in there's the potential for such tiny differences in specific sitiation, skills and set up to determine what works and what doesn't - in terms of both performance and feel.

The other basic is the likelihood that it's probably quite rare for most of us to get into such a situation. (my suspicion is that we more often run into issues, but that the tool still has quite a bit to give in many of those cases) That being the case we likely have freedom the vast majority of the time to go with the tool that feels best or easiest for us, because there's no need to extract the very last bit of capability. You probably hit the nail on the head with this: 'As with many things it may all come down to what we feel most comfortable with using. Some of my tools feel better in my hands that others that may be their equals.'

Even the 'easier' bit is probably fairly subjective. The being 'pulled in' part is pretty much an inevitability in any iron that's set at a fairly normal angle around 45 deg, and where the chip breaker is not so steep and close as to overcome it. It might not require much pushing if the chip splits away fairly easily though.

Against that a BU iron set at a very high/steep angle would likely be a bit different - in that the close to scraping action would be quite hard to push forward, but it wouldn't generate much 'pulling in' effect. Even if it had some slight advantage at avoiding tear out in a few very difficult situations, it'd in keeping with what you said likely feel like it needed more man handling too. As in it might need more holding/pushing down on to the work as well as the extra shove.

For sure there's something very appealing, crisp and easy about the feel in use of a well set up bevel down plane...

[Pat Barry]

For sure there's something very appealing, crisp and easy about the feel in use of a well set up bevel down plane...

This is true for any plane!

Happy St Patricks day.

[glenn bradley]

I'm another who went with the BU Smoother but, I did this because I have the BU jointer and BU low angle jack and they all take the same iron. I bought one each with 25*, 38* and 50* plus a PM-V11 at 25* when that became available but, I digress. The logic is that I can have many different combinations without a set of irons for each. The BU Smoother only has a small area at the front of the sides that is milled so the LA smoother would be better for operations using the sides as a reference surface. The LA Smoother, as mentioned, is lighter and narrower. I agree that a trip to a local member's shop or an event where you can get your hands on some planes would be your greatest benefit.

I was fortunate enough to end up at a show where LV and LN were kitty-corner from each other. This allowed me to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. The guys working the booths may have thought I had early onset dementia but, I learned a ton in under an hour. I will always be thankful to the shop-gods that made that weird coincident scheduling occurrence happen for me ;-)

[Stewie Simpson]

There are woodworkers out there that have formed the belief that wood grain is now so sensitive, it can detect a Bu plane (with an accrued approach angle of 60*), as being different to that of a BD plane that is bedded at 60*. IMO

[Derek Cohen]

There are woodworkers out there that have formed the belief that wood grain is now so sensitive, it can detect a Bu plane (with an accrued approach angle of 60*), as being different to that of a BD plane that is bedded at 60*. IMO

Wood may not be sensitive enough to do so, but most woodworkers certainly are. Actually, it is pretty obvious much of the time at high cutting angles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Same result to the wood surface, but the Bd will feel a little harder to push. Big deal Derek. Lift some weights and build up your arm muscles.

regards from Portland;Victoria

Stewie

[Jim Matthews]

Shorter learning curve on BU? That may be true,but becoming a good craftsman is not usually about taking the easiest way out. The best thing to concentrate on is developing good skills and work habits.

While this is correct, it bears mentioning that most of us learning today have no breathing resource to seek out when things go awry.
It is my opinion that the beginning student is best served by having an instrument that is properly tuned, fully functional and reliable.

A poorly set up handplane can be a result of multiple factors that must all be managed at once. With no one to ask, that's a stumbling block.
Any one of those factors acting as a variable can derail the beginner and discourage their interest.

My advice to beginners is to find a mentor to get started.

I think any tool search should start with a box no bigger than you
can carry in two hands - if it won't fit in the box, it's too large to handle
and probable too expensive to justify.