# The chip breaker is as important as the blade



## ydb1md (5 Mar 2006)

I've got some older Stanleys that had been tuned up but were still chattering on difficult woods. Having exhausted all the usual fettling tricks, I ordered a Hock blade for each plane. The hock blades helped a lot but I was still getting chatter. 

I had done all of the other important stuff like checking the frog's bedding area and tuning the chip breaker to seat properly on the blade etc but it didn't help. So, I ordered a Hock chip breaker to see how it improved things. Ai Carumba! Night and day difference! 

If I were getting chatter and on a budget and had to choose either a blade or a chip breaker, I'd choose the chip breaker hands down. While the blade offered a noticeable difference, the chip breaker's improvement was like night and day. I need to try the chip breaker on the factory blade to get a baseline but I'm too busy right now -- I need to get some more chip breakers for the rest of my Stanleys!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Mar 2006)

Hi Dave

You are absolutely right. About three years ago I reviewed the LN chipbreaker. I don't think it had been out long. I was interested to see what it added to the performance of a plane. In a nutshell, the differences were significantly large enough to be seen. I wrote an article on this, which is still on Roger Nixon's website, but the pictures appear to be missing. http://www.traditionaltools.us/lnchipbreaker.htm

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Evergreen (6 Mar 2006)

Hi Dave

I'm not familiar with these upmarket chipbreakers although I've seen the LN model on the LN website. Are you able to analyse why they're so good. please? Does their virtue lie in their thickness or the angle of their curve? And I guess the crucial question is - what do they cost?

Regards.


----------



## George_N (6 Mar 2006)

Evergreen":34u5wo17 said:


> And I guess the crucial question is - what do they cost?



Axminster sell the 2 part Clifton one for £12.61.
http://www.axminster.co.uk/recno/7/product-Clifton-2-Piece-Cap-Iron-21769.htm

cheers

George


----------



## Paul Chapman (6 Mar 2006)

I'm no engineer and can only speak with experience of the Clifton two-piece cap iron, but here are my views for what they are worth.

Knowing what we know today about the importance of rigidity and the avoidance of chatter in plane design, it is doubtful that many plane makers would opt for the conventional bent metal design of chipbreaker when designing a new plane (Veritas still use this design in some of their planes, I believe, and I am surprised about that given that in other respects they have gone for unconventional designs).

The Stanley and Record type blades are very thin. The bent metal type chipbreaker is, in my experience, crudely made. It usually doesn't fit very well at the cutting end of the blade without re-shaping by the user. The design means that it touches the blade at the point where the screw attaches it and again at the cutting end of the blade. There is potential for this design to put the blade under tension and possibly to bend it. The lever cap then tends to bend it straight again (on to a frog assembly that might not be machined very well) All in all a very poor design. It does little to add to the rigidity of the blade assembly and, if anything, probably detracts from it.

By comparison, the Clifton design, because the fixed part of the chipbreaker is thick, flat and screwed to the blade, has the effect of making the blade far more rigid. The lower, lift-off part of the chipbreaker does not put the blade under tension and fits well.

Overall, a good design and well engineered.

I have no experience of the LN and other modern designs but, like the Clifton (originally designed by Record) I suspect that they are well made and designed with a view to reducing chatter as well as doing their primary job of chipbreaking.

Paul


----------



## ydb1md (6 Mar 2006)

Evergreen":34arsijv said:


> Hi Dave
> 
> I'm not familiar with these upmarket chipbreakers although I've seen the LN model on the LN website. Are you able to analyse why they're so good. please? Does their virtue lie in their thickness or the angle of their curve? And I guess the crucial question is - what do they cost?
> 
> Regards.



I haven't tried the LN's but I love my Hocks -- they are easy to find online.

To answer your questions, I'd have to say: Yes, both, I just paid $20 each for a #3,#5 and #6.

They have a higher mass than the original chip breaker, they don't have as aggressive a profile as the original chip breaker (which causes less bending of the blade and they contact the blade over a larger area) and they are more finely machined which means better contact w/ the blade.

They cost less than a new blade which means more value for your $.


----------



## Evergreen (7 Mar 2006)

Thanks for the info, guys. I find it encouraging that even relatively simple components can be constantly improved. 

Regards.


----------



## ivan (13 Sep 2008)

The mariage of standard Stanley type blade and chipbreaker bends the blade away from the frog so it's floating whilst planing, The cutting load on the tip causes the blade to bend, pivoting about the heel of the bevel. This lets the blade dig in round difficult grain or a knot, for eg. You can measure this with a dial gauge. The vibration of the iron causes the plane to cut with more noise than a Clifton or LN. This vibration, which puts the cutting tip microscopically in and out of the wood as it cuts, could well promote tearout. An upmarket capiron can change all this by better control of the blade. (if the frog is flat)


----------



## quickthorn (14 Sep 2008)

I found that one of ray Iles' 50% thicker irons made a lot of difference on some very variable sycamore..with the original iron, it was very difficult to get the plane from one end of the work to the other, on any combination of settings. The thicker iron cured that..I wonder if replacing the original chip breaker would improve things even more?


----------



## lurker (16 Sep 2008)

I'm possiblily missing something here but........

Is there any reason why I can't ( just) replace a thin stanley chip breaker with a thicker lump of flat steel suitably threaded & "holed".


----------



## DaveL (16 Sep 2008)

lurker":2egem8jl said:


> I'm possiblily missing something here but........
> 
> Is there any reason why I can't ( just) replace a thin stanley chip breaker with a thicker lump of flat steel suitably threaded & "holed".



Only that a Stanley chip breaker (cap or back iron) is not completely flat, there is usually a curve and they have a bevel on the end that beds on the iron.


----------



## Racers (18 Sep 2008)

Hi,

Jim set me off asking about a lump of flat steel, its some thing I have planed to do for a long time so tonight I went in to the garage and made one, it took about 3/4 of an hour to cut it from some 3mm plate file, drill the holes tap (5/16 whitworth) etc. I clamped it the vice with about 20mm below the jaws and bent it so I had about a 1mm gap. I had to do some filling to get it to fit flat to the blade, then I chucked it in my favorite Record 5 1/5 (yes it has been welded up) and tried on some pine with a knot in and it just sailed through hardly any tear-out either side of the knot just a little roughness, it feels different to push more in contact with the wood somehow. Then I got some oak and tried planing it the wrong way and it worked, it did feel smother plained the right way but it didn't tear done the wrong way, I need to do some more testing but it looks very good.
The oak and plane





The cap iron






Pete


----------



## DaveL (18 Sep 2008)

Pete,

Come on now show us the side profile of the cap iron you made, how does it meet with the iron?

I can see that having a much thicker cap iron will improve the blade stability which should improve the cutting action.


----------



## Racers (19 Sep 2008)

Hi, DaveL

Here you go the only way I could get a good pic was by backlighting it, it looks more of a gap bit it measures only 0.5mm at the 255mm point of the ruler.






Pete


----------



## Anonymous (19 Sep 2008)

Chipbreaker only matters with a thin blade.


----------



## Racers (19 Sep 2008)

Hi, Tony

Define thin for me. 

I will try my cap iron on one of my 3mm O1 steel blades over the week end and let you know if it changes anything.

Pete


----------



## tnimble (19 Sep 2008)

Racers":7280r9ut said:


> Hi, Tony
> 
> Define thin for me.
> 
> ...



Would be very interesting. Especially on very hard woods with changing grain or extremely hard spots / knots present.


----------



## PeterBassett (14 Mar 2009)

Did anything come of this? How did the plane perform?


----------



## ivan (28 Mar 2009)

Re my earlier post regarding the flexing of standard blades, thicker blades are stiffer, double the thickness=8x stiffer, but the bevel is now twice as long, so mounted in a plane, 8/2=4 times stiffer. For a really stiff blade, think Japan!
The 2 piece cap iron was designed specifically to prevent the blade lifting from the frog as I described, but personally I have come to prefer a 'flat lump of iron'. Chipbreakers can have an effect on cutting action, provided the breaker is set very close (a few thou): see
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html ... aking.html
you cannot easily reshape a 2 piece cap iron to match a crowned blade whilst avoiding a shaving trap between the blade/cap iron. The answer is a completely flat cap iron (gauge plate) 'sharpened' to a bit below the correct angle, and a tiny burr raised (as for a scraper plane) to keep shavings out. If you like you can match a 4mm cap iron with a 4.8mm LN blade and emulate the cutting parts of a heavy infill plane. Other threads here tell how to make the adjuster work with thick blades.


----------



## bugbear (30 Mar 2009)

Racers":3b921uvh said:


> Hi,
> 
> Jim set me off asking about a lump of flat steel, its some thing I have planed to do for a long time so tonight I went in to the garage and made one, it took about 3/4 of an hour to cut it from some 3mm plate



IIRC Someone a long time back (Badger Pond forum) made a 1/4" (!!!!) chipbreaker.

I think (functionally speaking) all that matters is that the cap-iron/blade assembly has sufficient mass, makes accurately contact with the frog below, and the lever cap above. If these condition are met, the edge is well supported, and stable under cutting loads.

it doesn't appear to matter wether the mass comes from the blade or the cap iron (or, for overkill), both. If the mass comes from the iron, it makes the cap iron/blade contact less critical.

BugBear

BugBear


----------



## ali27 (10 Jun 2012)

Bumping this three year old thread.

One could just use a very thick blade(4mm or more I think) and you 
wouldn't need a chipbreaker. BUT, This creates a bigger bevel so sharpening
takes a longer time.

I was thinking could we not use a very thin blade(1mm?) with a very thick 
chipbreaker(5mm or more)? A 1mm thick blade can be sharpened very
quickly. Would the very thick chipbreaker give enough rigidity to the very
thin plane iron?

Thanks


----------



## Vann (10 Jun 2012)

George_N":pdkbqvf0 said:


> Evergreen":pdkbqvf0 said:
> 
> 
> > And I guess the crucial question is - what do they cost?
> ...


Isn't inflation wonderful :roll: - now £17.26 (2") or £18.46 (2 3/8"). That's a 50% increase in 6 years  .

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

ali27":2jyvez6f said:


> ..... A 1mm thick blade can be sharpened very
> quickly. Would the very thick chipbreaker give enough rigidity to the very
> thin plane iron?
> 
> Thanks


Probably, if the blade was well enough seated. It's whole basic principle of the Bailey design, and the Gillette razor; tight fitting blade assembly permits thinner blade for easier sharpening, or in the case of the razor permits the use of a cheap throw-away blade.


----------



## David C (10 Jun 2012)

For thicker chipbreakers see;

L-N, Veritas, Quangsheng and Clifton and IBC.

David


----------



## andersonec (10 Jun 2012)

Also the cap iron distance from the cutting edge of the blade makes a huge difference, I have approx one millimeter, maybe less.

Andy


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2012)

Andy, with the experiments I and others have recently completed (lots of posts on various forums), a distance of 1mm is not going to make a difference. You need to get this down to about 0.3mm

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## James C (10 Jun 2012)

Has anyone tried the Cosman/IBC offering from Classic Hand Tools?

In the spiel it talks about have tabs that better engage with the yoke through the blade. I know that one or two people have had issues with the yoke when using the ultra thick blades and chipbreakers in their stanleys.

Is it much of an issue? I have a Clifton Stayset Cap Iron and a thin unbranded and bent iron but want to upgrade to a new thicker one. Will the yoke be able to engage through the thick iron?


----------



## David C (10 Jun 2012)

James,

I have tuned up and fitted IBC blade & chipbreaker sets, to two Stanley planes recently.

The results are very pleasing. Throats needed slight widening, about 0.5 mm, hardly surprising for these 3.6mm thick blades.

The tabs fitted to the chipbreakers ensure no issues with yokes engaging.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## ali27 (10 Jun 2012)

Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
thin iron(1mm) with a very thick chipbreaker(5mm or more).
Would it work well? If the answer is yes, why bother sharpening 
thicker (2-3mm) blades?

A 3mm thick blade is I think 27 times more rigid than a 1 mm thick
blade.Could a very thick chipbreaker solve this?


----------



## Gerard Scanlan (10 Jun 2012)

Workshop Heaven sell the clifton 2 piece cap iron too. I was astounded by the difference it made to my Stanley planes. I was considering buying new blades for my planes but Matthew at workshop heaven suggested cap irons which were a fraction of the cost of replacment irons. I know not everyone agrees that these retro cap irons are worthwhile but in my ignorance and with no expectation that they would make a real difference I was amazed. I used to have to hone my plane blades after half an hour of planing now every couple of days of intensive use. So in real life they work for me at least, even if the experts that dispute this is the case. In my hands they make a big difference. Perhaps if you were born with a plane in your hands you can do fine without anything but an original Stanley or Record.


----------



## János (10 Jun 2012)

Hello,

The thickness of the blade is not that important, really. In traditional Occidental wooden planes the blades were tapered, and about 3 millimetres thick at the working end, and even thinner in narrow moulding planes, around 2,2~2,5 millimetres. Properly sharpened, fitted and set they worked equally well. 
In the Bailey pattern the slight lengthwise bend of the blade introduced by the cap iron was intentional, I think: it helped to hold the blade in place on the frog. In a wedged plane, the blade is held by the well distributed pressure of the properly fitted wedge. In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs. Adding mass to the blade assembly, or fostering the rigidity in some or the other way, could help, but the flaw is not in the blade or breaker iron...

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jun 2012)

ali27":1hzo5s7x said:


> Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
> thin iron(1mm) with a very thick chipbreaker(5mm or more).
> Would it work well? If the answer is yes, why bother sharpening
> thicker (2-3mm) blades?
> ...



Hi.

You have more or less answered your own question. A 3mm blade being so much more rigid, it is a no-brainer which you would use. Also, it is much more difficult to sharpen a thin blade as the area in contact with the stone is harder to 'feel' the bevel on the stone. If you are going to hone a micro bevel, as many of us do, then there would be no difference in sharpening either as the metal removal would be the same. A thick cap iron will certainly dampen vibration (chatter) but is is probably better to minimise the introduction of chatter in the first place. A 1mm blade would positively hum like a plucked string and I doubt a super thick cap iron would damp it all out, as it is a separate component and subject to its own clamping problems in a Bailey type plane. Also, a dead flat cap iron will not work, shavings are likely to slip between the two and cause all sorts of problems. Therefore, even a slightly 'sprung' one will bend such a thin blade that it would not bed firmly enough onto the frog to be able to gain any advantage from the thick cap iron, anyway. I think a super thin iron would open up more problems than it would solve. In a wooden smoother with its very rigid wedge to hold the blade assembly, it might fare better, but then again, a thick blade even without a cap iron, works superbly in these, so why upset the apple cart?

Best improvement is a thick iron which is maximum about 3mm to still use the planes adjuster and a thick cap iron combo. If only the cap iron is to be changed, then I favour the Clifton 2 piece, as it does not curve the blade, and I think keeping the whole assembly flat is important. I do not have any confidence in the lever cap flattening things back out again, the whole system gets too complex, with too many opportunities for the introduction of errors.

Whay I would like to see an experiment in, is a super thick blade in a Bailey plane, without a cap iron. It would not be hard to imagine something added to the back of the blade so the adjustment pawl can be engaged, that was not part of a cap iron assy. Perhaps an old cast steel iron could be modified to fit. Some of these are more than 6mm thick at the business end and would not need any cap iron to ad rigidity.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jun 2012)

János":705dd7xp said:


> ..... In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs.....


Completely wrong. The (cast, rigid) lever cap distributes the pressure to the cap iron immediately behind the edge of the blade, just where it is needed as it helps nip the blade tight against the frog close to the mouth. A huge theoretical and practical advantage and , together with thin blade for ease of sharpening and the speed and ease of blade removal, the whole point of the Bailey design. Another incidental advantage being the highly effective tilt mechanism - the best there is (the clever looking norris adjuster doesn't work half as well).


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jun 2012)

Jacob":czq2scn9 said:


> János":czq2scn9 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs.....
> ...



That is what he just said! The only pressure is along a very small area and this is not enough to eliminate chatter. That is why, in anything other than mild mannered softwood, they can chatter like crazy. In fact the Bailey design was only intended for softwood of mild hardwood, they were not meant as fine cabinet makers tools but for American joiners and housebuilders who did not need 'good' planes. Unfortunately, then as now, people prefered to buy inferior tools for less money and the fine toolmakers were put out of business. Only lately are we realising the horrible mistake and can get better fitments to improve these planes and indeed better made and designed tools, fit for purpose. Thank the lord.

Incidentally, the Stanley RB10 and a Paramo variant (I think came first, actually) was a thin, replaceable blade rebate plane. The blades were about 1mm thick, if memory serves, and locked down into an alloy housing, which had a lot of mass. The one I was unfortunate enough to try was about the most dreadful thing I ever used on wood and saw the bin quick smart. Thick blades chatter less, plane and simple!

I would have to disagree about occidental planes generally having thinner irons. Since Bailey, perhaps, by its copiers and competition, but before that, all the fine British and American cabinet makers planes had thick irons. The few continental ones I have come across were thick too, though I would not generalise as to this being the norm. I'm sure someone here knows more.

Mike.


----------



## ali27 (11 Jun 2012)

woodbrains":1m3i3rvd said:


> ali27":1m3i3rvd said:
> 
> 
> > Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
> ...



It is not more difficult to sharpen a thin blade if you use a honing guide. Even if you
use a microbevel, every time the bevel gets bigger after a sharpening, which forces
you to go back to the grinder or very course sandpaper to get that primary bevel again.
A 1mm thick blade would not need this as you would not need any microbevels since
the sharpening is very quick. A very thin blade has a great advantage in terms of sharpening
speed compared to thicker blades.

Answering the last sentence, well because I want sharpening to be as easy and quickly as
possible. A thick blade(4mm+) will not need a cap iron, but takes a long time to sharpen.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jun 2012)

ali27":1t9ap3ne said:


> ........A very thin blade has a great advantage in terms of sharpening
> speed compared to thicker blades....


Absolutely. That's the whole point of the Bailey design. Speed, ease of blade removal, no "micro bevel" nonsense, no need ever to grind. Mind you 1mm is probably a bit on the thin side.
I see references to the dreaded "chatter" above. It's not something I've particularly experienced - I'm slightly mystified about it. Any photos of "chatter" would be interesting.


----------



## bugbear (11 Jun 2012)

János":169629mm said:


> Hello,
> 
> The thickness of the blade is not that important, really. In traditional Occidental wooden planes the blades were tapered, and about 3 millimetres thick at the working end, and even thinner in narrow moulding planes, around 2,2~2,5 millimetres. Properly sharpened, fitted and set they worked equally well.



In the wooden bench planes I have, around 3/16" (4.7mm) is more normal. 3 mm is more of a "thick" Bailey iron.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (11 Jun 2012)

18the century blades were about 3mm thick at the edge. Later in the 19th century they went thicker to 4.5. Then the bailey design came along with the 2.5mm(more or less) blades. 

The Bailey design does work surprisingly well, also on hard tropic woods. It does help a lot though to set it up properly. Frog pulled back, so the blade rests on the sole too. Caprion close to the edge helps a lot too. When needed to avoid tearout it should be very close to the edge indeed. Tighten the screw for the lever cap a bit so it snaps positively in place.

I'm not an expert on chatter. I did get it quite often on the start of a planing stroke (sorry no pictures). That was frustrating. Indeed a thicker blade helped a lot. But now I've learned a bit more about planing, I see it's mostly a technique thing. Putting pressure in the right spot and so on. And sharp blades of course.

And because I have and use a power grinder I don't care at all about a thick blade taking a little more effort to sharpen. I love my wooden planes and they have thick blades, so I just use the grinder and be done with it. It's even historically correct. Ever seen these huge standstone grinders? They were all over the place and could grind a blade in a hurry when the young apprentice cranked it fast enough. The usual method was to make a primary bevel with the sandstone wheel and then hone a secondairy bevel on the oilstones. I've never read about the convex bevel in the old handbooks, but if that's what rocks your boat, be happy I'd say. 

So that's my opinions and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Vann (12 Jun 2012)

Corneel":2jlzqyap said:


> ...Then the bailey design came along with the 2.5mm(more or less) blades.


Mostly less :mrgreen: 

1.9 to 2.4mm in my experience of over 100 planes hidden in my workshop  

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Corneel (12 Jun 2012)

That's what you get when not checking everything before you post!


----------



## Togalosh (16 Jun 2012)

I've just had the same light switched on in my head only today.

All this week I had been feeling right p&^%$ ff with myself & my woeful planing skills & then I watched the David Savage DVD yesterday about planing & eureka ! .. a few hours of jiggery pokery with my cheapo plastic handled Stanley's , a good file & usual sharpening kit & I litterally went from leaving my knotty English Oak looking like a muddy field to leaving it silky smoothe ! ..I cannot believe the difference it's made - I am so chuffed.

I couldn't understand how my (equally cheapo Stanley) Block plane was doing the business but my bench planes were awful (I thought it was the sharpness of the blades to blame although I had sharpened them all to the same standard). It was only when I kept perservering with getting the chipbreaker & mouth to be as shown in the dvd did it all suddenly improve - the diffrence between poor & perfect was virtually immeasurable.

I now know why these tools were cheap but am dead chuffed that I do not have to fork out £100's on new planes.. mind you I've a few more hours work to get the soles truely flat.


----------



## Benchwayze (19 Jun 2012)

Guest":2vh93g9h said:


> Chipbreaker only matters with a thin blade.


*No profile tag? No PM tag? 

Have we a dual ID poster here? 
*


----------



## Corneel (19 Jun 2012)

That was posted in 2008, John.


----------



## Benchwayze (19 Jun 2012)

Well.... That was a bump ... and a half!


----------

