Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 126

Thread: First and last Stanley handplane restoration

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Helensburgh, Australia
    Posts
    2,700
    I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?
    Last edited by Dennis Peacock; 07-11-2017 at 10:13 AM.
    Chris

    Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    This jointer was a total rust bucket when it came to the shop...
    jointer plane.jpg
    The iron was so bowed, it snapped when I went to straighten it out. Had the Globe logo-ed iron welded, honed up and away we went...
    IMG_0885 (640x480).jpg
    Was even using it tonight. Ohio Tool Co. No. 0-7....all original parts. Was jointing a bit of Curly Maple.

    As for weight of new planes....seems to be a Myth going round that heavier plane HELP you to plane, once you get the weight moving, that is. However,....then you have to drag the heavy plane back and start again. maybe good for a Cardio Workout.

    I like these BECAUSE they don't weigh a "ton" and are light and agile in use..
    IMG_0886 (640x480).jpg
    Bronze is soooo..Bronze Age.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Parks View Post
    I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?
    Because that's what the market demands. I've seen a stupendous number of articles and reviews that tout "heft" or "solidity" as if they are ends unto themselves. I don't agree with that perspective FWIW.

    With that said, I think that the heft of the modern planes is sometimes exaggerated in these discussions. The Stanley #4 was 3.75 lbs, whereas the iron-bodied LN #4 is 4.0 lbs and the Veritas Custom #4 is 4.25 lbs (I can't find the number for the older Veritas #4 and am too lazy to weigh mine, but it's lighter than the Custom). Similarly, the Stanley #7 was 8.125 lbs, the LN #7 is 8 lbs, and the Veritas Custom #7 is 8.5 lbs. These are not huge differences.

    There certainly are some notable offenders, though. The bronze-bodied L-Ns and the Cliftons are on the hefty side (4.5 lbs each for #4), and the Quanshang/WoodRiver planes are piggish (5 lbs for #4).

    EDIT: I checked the weights of a couple L-Ns and a few Veritas planes this morning. The Veritas planes are all spot-on at their spec'ed weights, but the L-Ns run heavy (for example 10 lb 6 oz actual for the #8 vs 10 lb claimed). Interpret my remarks above accordingly.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-11-2017 at 2:27 PM.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Chris Parks View Post
    I would have a new plane in a heart beat if they weren't so heavy. It is most probably something I would get over if I bought one but the old ones I have match my skill level anyway. Why do modern planes have to weigh so much, anyone got the answer?
    I think they make them thick so that they will have fewer q.c. rejects from machining to the unnecessarily high tolerances that the current market demands. Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive.
    Last edited by Dennis Peacock; 07-11-2017 at 10:15 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by bridger berdel View Post
    I think they make them thick so that they will have fewer q.c. rejects from machining to the unnecessarily high tolerances that the current market demands. Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive.
    The difference in machining tolerance amounts to a few mils, so the required amount of extra iron in a #4 is at most about 0.12 in^3, or about 1/2 of an ounce of iron.

    While your theory may validate your preexisting emotional biases about modern tools, from a mathematical perspective it's nonsense.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-11-2017 at 2:46 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Frank View Post
    Patrick Chase....I found the comment about coarse grained high alloy steels to be interesting. I had thought that most high alloy steels are made fine grain and only have coarse grain due to poor heat treating. Perhaps, you could give a reference or explanation of which steels you are mentioning. Thanks
    Yep, like many people I [mis-]used "grain" as a shorthand for "carbide distribution".

    In the sorts of hypereutectoid tool steels we're discussing here, my recollection is that carbides tend to form segregated networks (at least I think that's the proper terminology - it's been a long time), particularly at high alloyant fractions. I don't have a reference offhand, though I've seen plenty of micrographs of O1/HCS vs higher-alloy tool steels like A2, D2, or various HSS alloys that clearly demonstrate the effect. The entire point of PM processing is to inhibit the formation of said networks IIRC.

    Certainly microalloyants as in an HSLA steel do refine the grain size, so this is very much phase-specific.

    IIRC you have a backgorund in metallurgy, so by all means please correct where I've made mistakes.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 07-11-2017 at 4:31 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    The difference in machining tolerance amounts to a few mils, so the required amount of extra iron in a #4 is at most about 0.12 in^3, or about 1/2 of an ounce of iron.

    While your theory may validate your preexisting emotional biases about modern tools, from a mathematical perspective it's nonsense.
    Then that would add strength to Bridger's 2nd point, "Marketing the extra weight as a feature is all shuck and jive."

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Graham, NC
    Posts
    68
    If I am not mistaken newer planes are cast from ductile iron rather than gray cast iron in the Stanley case. Having never designed a casting for either, I wonder if the greater coefficient of thermal expansion for ductile iron necessitates different draft angles and web thicknesses for the mold. Even some subtle variations over the whole casting could account for the difference in weight.

    The heft argument sounds a bit like marketing spin to counter the lighter weight argument. Ductile irons greater impact strength is a definite advantage when it meets with the concrete floor.
    There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material.
    I don't use a plane all day every day. My shop time is a lot more limited than that. But when I am dimensioning rough lumber, and spend an afternoon working with a jack, try, and jointer, I certainly notice a difference. It may not matter much on any individual stroke, but over the course of the day it adds up. I used to use my Stanleys (7, 5, 4 1/2, 3), but now that I have a set of wooden planes (a jack, try, smoother) up and running, the Stanleys see a lot less use. A lot of that is because I just get more done with the wooden planes.

    For occasional use, I think it is hard to beat the wooden planes. Their disadvantage is that they wear compared to metal, but a hobbyist is not going to wear one out in a lifetime. If I were a gazillionaire hobbyist, I would seriously be looking at something like what Steve Voight is making. I am confident they are better than what I am using, and the ones I am using are pretty darn good. The adjustment thing bothers a lot of people I guess, but it really is pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

    On the other hand, if you use a lot of machines and are just looking smooth the occasional board, or do some light edge jointing, the extra weight in a Stanley (or LN/LV) probably is not noticeable.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,151
    The extra weight is in the heavier iron and cap iron. I don't "bear" down on planes or saws or fountain pens. If you find that you are doing so something is amiss.
    Jim

  12. Quote Originally Posted by James Pallas View Post
    [snip] I don't "bear" down on planes or saws or fountain pens. If you find that you are doing so something is amiss.
    Jim
    +1

    When you find it necessary to push down on the plane to take a shaving, it's past time to sharpen.

    If you avoid sharpening enough that you have to bear down a lot, it can become a bad habit. Planing is a lot more pleasant (and productive) if you avoid bad habits.
    Fair winds and following seas,
    Jim Waldron

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    I think the weight issue is a bit overblown both ways. A few ounces doesn't really make a difference in comparison to the force required to plane off some material. Heavier weight means maybe you don't have to bear down as hard but I doubt this is really a big deal. Lighter means, under no load, that its easier to push - someone should figure out the actual planing force as compared to sliding / static friction for a number 4 plane - my bet is the cutting force will be significantly higher. If you use a plane all day, every day, you may be sensitive enough to actually feel a bit lighter plane but most of us (80% maybe) don't care.
    Pat,

    I will disagree, weight can make a difference when working wood more than a stroke are two. After 15m or so with the LN #8 I'm nackered. With a Stanley #8 I'm good for 45 or so minutes, with one of the wood stock planes even longer. If your cutter is sharp you shouldn't need to "bear" down, the cutter should pull the plane into the wood.

    Lighter, even if it is just a few oz makes a difference. Heavier and thicker is a bill of goods....It is a shame that is all that can be found.

    ken

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by James Waldron View Post
    +1

    When you find it necessary to push down on the plane to take a shaving, it's past time to sharpen.

    If you avoid sharpening enough that you have to bear down a lot, it can become a bad habit. Planing is a lot more pleasant (and productive) if you avoid bad habits.
    Sounds good in theory.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Marina del Rey, Ca
    Posts
    1,934
    If lighter was necessarily better planes wouldn't be made of cast iron and bronze. And Lie Nielsen planes would not be in such demand.
    "Anything seems possible when you don't know what you're doing."

Posting Permissions

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