Hand planing white oak.

[Warren Mickley]

Do you just use a single setting for your cap iron setback? Is this because you target a certain shaving thickness? If so, what do you target for the shaving thickness?

We tend to use a tiered approach. That is to say for each plane we tend to have a range of shaving thickness and a corresponding camber that keeps the shaving at near full width at the thickest shaving and somewhat narrower when at its thinnest shaving. Likewise we tend to keep the cap iron in an appropriate range for the thickness we most often use. Then when we are working a piece of wood that falls outside the norms (too hard, too crossgrained or figured, etc.)we make slight adjustments. Usually we are working a piece long enough that we get a feel for it. If we prepare a board or series of boards with jack and trying plane, we know a lot about it by the time we are finishing off with the smoothing plane, so in practice there is little or no adjusting except for when the plane is apart for sharpening.


I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.

[Patrick Chase]

Yes my cap is set properly. The definitive piece on cap setting is in Japanese from a college. Their microscopic camera looks at no cap and cap setting at various microns, cap angles etc. It explains why the back pressure from the cap is generated and how it works. The best bit is you can see it in real time. Never again will you question cap setting.

Yes, everybody knows about the Kato/Kawai video these days. David Weaver's article that I referenced in an earlier post goes into that in a fair bit of detail. There is also an earlier German video that shows basically the same thing,

My planes are not set up as scrapers, I like to actually remove wood when I plane. So Patrick I say again, when all is working well it's the grain direction that screws things up.

If the grain direction causes hairs/fuzz with the mouth closed and tearout when you open the mouth, as you described in a previous post, then your setup is poor. You may think it's working well, but that just means that you don't know what's achievable.

I have been using the double iron since 1973. If you can't plane either direction, your plane is not well set up.

I think it fitting that Warren have the last word here. He's right.

[Patrick Chase]

The new Clifton's have one piece cap irons which seem identical to Lie Nielson. Their new manufacturer has set an incredible lapping standard for the blade and cap iron. The precision with which you can set the cap is most impressive. Not even wood dust gets between blade and cap!

In addition to the setback, the angle of the "breaking face" (the part of the cap iron that the shaving first impacts) is also a hugely important variable. While I don't have experience with the new Clifton design the L-N cap irons have a ~25 degree primary bevel which is basically useless for preventing tearout.

These days I use a progressive tip bevel starting at ~55 deg for the first ~1/64" and then gradually decreasing until it meets the cap-iron's primary bevel. That's actually a pretty conservative setup compared to some others. IIRC Warren has estimated that his initial angle is around 80 deg.

Have you reprofiled the leading edge of your Cliftons?

[Normand Leblanc]

I do not have Warren's experience but I'm using the technique that Patrick and him describe for ~3 years and it's absolutely true that, once the capiron is set properly, you can plane against the grain. I have found that anything more than 0.3 mm or 0.01" is too much. I like to be in the range of 0.2 mm with a capiron bevel of ~ 50°.

When I get everything right I can plane very tick shavings against the grain with no tear-outs. I have a difficult to plane board that I keep just to test if I've set it right.

[Pat Barry]

We tend to use a tiered approach. That is to say for each plane we tend to have a range of shaving thickness and a corresponding camber that keeps the shaving at near full width at the thickest shaving and somewhat narrower when at its thinnest shaving. Likewise we tend to keep the cap iron in an appropriate range for the thickness we most often use. Then when we are working a piece of wood that falls outside the norms (too hard, too crossgrained or figured, etc.)we make slight adjustments. Usually we are working a piece long enough that we get a feel for it. If we prepare a board or series of boards with jack and trying plane, we know a lot about it by the time we are finishing off with the smoothing plane, so in practice there is little or no adjusting except for when the plane is apart for sharpening.


I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Warren. Merry Christmas!

[William Fretwell]

In addition to the setback, the angle of the "breaking face" (the part of the cap iron that the shaving first impacts) is also a hugely important variable. While I don't have experience with the new Clifton design the L-N cap irons have a ~25 degree primary bevel which is basically useless for preventing tearout.

These days I use a progressive tip bevel starting at ~55 deg for the first ~1/64" and then gradually decreasing until it meets the cap-iron's primary bevel. That's actually a pretty conservative setup compared to some others. IIRC Warren has estimated that his initial angle is around 80 deg.

Have you reprofiled the leading edge of your Cliftons?

No, I have not re-profiled my Clifton's I need far more wood time with them. I guess the breaker angle is about 80 deg.

If a plane works equally well with and against the grain then clearly you are not maximising the with the grain efficiency that is available.
If you take thin enough shavings you don't even need a cap iron as the video shows. What you describe is an academic exercise only.

In real work planing when wood has to be lost working with the grain is what wood workers do whenever possible. The last few strokes with a smoother on a piece will always be with the grain for the best finish possible.

[William Fretwell]

Yes, everybody knows about the Kato/Kawai video these days. David Weaver's article that I referenced in an earlier post goes into that in a fair bit of detail. There is also an earlier German video that shows basically the same thing,



If the grain direction causes hairs/fuzz with the mouth closed and tearout when you open the mouth, as you described in a previous post, then your setup is poor. You may think it's working well, but that just means that you don't know what's achievable.



I think it fitting that Warren have the last word here. He's right.

I'm sure 'everybody' including the OP has not seen the video.

I'm sure Warren can plane many woods in both directions, so can I. Difficult grain is a whole different thing, I'm sure some grain is so difficult the direction is meaningless.

[Stewie Simpson]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings

• 
  
  Richard May 11th, 2015
• Warren,
  Don’t worry, I left the concerns of tear out behind with puberty. As David said, this is a great topic worth further discussion, but is beyond the scope of this video and this post. I aim for clarity on subjects for my audience so try to cover one point at a time, but I have mentioned previously that I don’t simply class a plane by it’s length but how I’ve chosen to set it up for use. 90% of my work is finished off the try which is set up closely to my smoother (I don’t do any of the whispy, thin gravity defying shavings).
  If I’m hogging off material however then I won’t concern myself with the cap iron, I don’t have problems with tear out since I’ll read the wood, make judgement and alter my approach on the fly, but that’s a whole other subject. I’ll not just judge every piece of wood as being the same, I’m working it by hand so I can respond as a human.
  When I look for the positive point in what you’ve written I do find that we’re almost on the same page… almost.
• https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com...ear-out-video/

[Patrick Chase]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings

That's actually the part where Richard is deeply confused. Tightly-set cap irons add the most benefit with thicker shavings, not "wispy thin" ones.

Very thin shavings have less propensity to tear out to begin with, as a thinner shaving acts as a weaker "lever" on the wood ahead of the edge. High angles are also feasible with thin shavings, as the planing forces are low enough to begin with that the penalty for increased angle is manageable.

As David (back when he participated here) and Warren have repeatedly pointed out, the biggest benefits come when you need to take a thicker shaving as in roughing or trying. In those cases there really aren't any other viable options without thinning the shaving and sacrificing productivity.

[Patrick Chase]

I'm sure Warren can plane many woods in both directions, so can I. Difficult grain is a whole different thing, I'm sure some grain is so difficult the direction is meaningless.

As Normand and Warren have both pointed out above, a plane with a properly set cap iron does not tear out, period. It's important to note that "properly" implies adjusting the cap iron based on the situation, and may involve VERY close sets (potentially on the order of a few mils) on difficult grain.

Certainly we obtain the very best quality (highest sheen etc) when the grain is favorable, but the worst you should be seeing is a certain amount of dullness. Certainly not tearout.

[Patrick Chase]

I went four decades without ever measuring a shaving. I can tell you now that I often use the trying plane in the .001 to .002 range, the smoother in the .0005 to .001 range, and the jointer around .001. The jack plane thickness varies quite a bit depending on species. I have never measured a cap iron setback. I would expect the effective amount to vary by the shape of the cap iron, so numbers are no so helpful.

For what it's worth (probably not much) my numbers are similar with one exception: I sometimes take thicker shavings than that when trying.

As an example, I recently worked a somewhat twisted piece of undimensioned sugar maple stock. I roughed with 0.02" diagonal/traversing cuts (with a cambered iron of course), and then started my try plane with at ~0.005" to knock down the scallops. I reduced the shaving thickness as the try plane took more complete cuts, until it was taking ~0.002" end to end shavings. I think this sort of thing largely comes down to subjective preference though (impatience and a tendency to "go big" when roughing in my case).

[Warren Mickley]

That's actually the part where Richard is deeply confused. Tightly-set cap irons add the most benefit with thicker shavings, not "wispy thin" ones. Very thin shavings have less propensity to tear out to begin with, as a thinner shaving acts as a weaker "lever" on the wood ahead of the edge. High angles are also feasible with thin shavings, as the planing forces are low enough to begin with that the penalty for increased angle is manageable. As David (back when he participated here) and Warren have repeatedly pointed out, the biggest benefits come when you need to take a thicker shaving as in roughing or trying. In those cases there really aren't any other viable options without thinning the shaving and sacrificing productivity.

Richard has made a number of statements which suggest that he did not have much experience with the double iron. He has very good hands and colourful speech.

[William Fretwell]

If you go back to the English Woodworkers video link on the subject and read further down in the comments section Richard has a good message for those that get too engrossed in a tightly set cap iron and wispy thin shavings

• 
  
  Richard May 11th, 2015
• Warren,
  Don’t worry, I left the concerns of tear out behind with puberty. As David said, this is a great topic worth further discussion, but is beyond the scope of this video and this post. I aim for clarity on subjects for my audience so try to cover one point at a time, but I have mentioned previously that I don’t simply class a plane by it’s length but how I’ve chosen to set it up for use. 90% of my work is finished off the try which is set up closely to my smoother (I don’t do any of the whispy, thin gravity defying shavings).
  If I’m hogging off material however then I won’t concern myself with the cap iron, I don’t have problems with tear out since I’ll read the wood, make judgement and alter my approach on the fly, but that’s a whole other subject. I’ll not just judge every piece of wood as being the same, I’m working it by hand so I can respond as a human.
  When I look for the positive point in what you’ve written I do find that we’re almost on the same page… almost.
• https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com...ear-out-video/

Thanks Stewie, that pretty much describes my approach. The 4 1/2 and 7 are set the same, the 5 a bit further back. I remove high spots with the 4 1/2 then the 5 1/2 across and with the grain then the 7. To finish I use the 4 1/2 again if needed.

[Stewie Simpson]

Richard has made a number of statements which suggest that he did not have much experience with the double iron. He has very good hands and colourful speech.

Warren; Richards approach to the cap iron may vary from your own, but that doesn't make him the fool. His experience is also backed by a traditional trade apprenticeship and includes a wealth of knowledge that's been passed over 3 generations of craftsmen within his family owned cabinetmaking business.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Stewie, that pretty much describes my approach. The 4 1/2 and 7 are set the same, the 5 a bit further back. I remove high spots with the 4 1/2 then the 5 1/2 across and with the grain then the 7. To finish I use the 4 1/2 again if needed.

William; seek your own direction, and ignore those that continually disagree with your approach.