# Clifton Bench Planes one piece cap iron - anyone tried it



## Martingchapman (9 Jan 2017)

The Flinn-Garlick web site now states "The Cap Iron has a single piece design to offer rigid clamping" for the Clifton Bench Planes.
However several suppliers web sites still talk about the planes having a two piece Cap Iron.
Have F-G changed over to a single piece design (at last)?
If so are they are available and has anyone tried a plane with a single piece Cap Iron yet?

Martin.


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Jan 2017)

I think you can get them now, it'll work fine. You could fit an old Stanley one and it would work equally as well.


----------



## Peter Sefton (9 Jan 2017)

Thomas Flinn have now changes over to the one piece cap iron, I was involved with the bench testing and prototyping of the new ones last year.

We will change the product descriptions as stocks of the old style are sold off, we do have a description of the new one piece on our website if you need more information.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":6plzg9h6 said:


> Thomas Flinn have now changed over to the one piece cap iron



That's very disappointing. While it doesn't affect me personally because I have the two-piece (or Stay Set) cap irons fitted to all my bevel-down bench planes, it's a pity that they have stopped making what, in my view, is the best cap iron available.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Sheffield Tony (9 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":o8k4ziip said:


> Thomas Flinn have now changes over to the one piece cap iron, I was involved with the bench testing and prototyping of the new ones last year.



Go on then ... is it an improvement ? I can see that it avoids machining in favour of laser cutting, but what's in it for us ? I've not used the new style, but worry that it is one less distinctive feature to make one pick a Clifton plane.

I understand if you can't comment


----------



## Peter Sefton (9 Jan 2017)

Paul Chapman":paez7ptu said:


> Peter Sefton":paez7ptu said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Flinn have now changed over to the one piece cap iron
> ...



I also liked the two piece, but we have had several discussions on here with people who didn't like it, I guess they have listened to the masses. 

Cheers Peter


----------



## Peter Sefton (9 Jan 2017)

Sheffield Tony":2avw3aey said:


> Peter Sefton":2avw3aey said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Flinn have now changes over to the one piece cap iron, I was involved with the bench testing and prototyping of the new ones last year.
> ...



Is it an improvement? Good question, I think it depends on your view point.

I understand that the SS was made for a time in history when makers were paid by piece work, so giving the plane iron a quick sharpen without moving the chip breaker was a plus.

These days many of the customers of high end planes will not be professional makers so their needs are different and they also use honing guides so the main part of the two piece also needs to be removed.

Also the old style bent chip breakers have a bending effect on thin plane blades so the SS gave better stability to the blade, but again fashions have changed. Blades are now thick again and one piece chip breakers don't have the same bending effect on the blades as the old cheaper versions.

I have also had discussions on here about the three point rocking effect that was designed within the Clifton SS CB, but people would take the CB apart and refile it flat, I think the SS may have been mis understood.

Cheers Peter


----------



## woodbrains (9 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":28650j90 said:


> Paul Chapman":28650j90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Sefton":28650j90 said:
> ...



Hello,

I like the 2 piece as well, so they weren't listening to me! Let's be honest, it was an economising stunt advertised as an 'improvement' As was not forging the irons anymore. The only thing that distinguished Clifton from the other premium brands were the forged iron and Stay Set cap iron. Whether it was a real or perceived benefit, it was a USP which they now have none. I'll bet most who want that sort of plane with now plump for Lie Neilsen. They ( Clifton)seem to be the most expensive of the premium brands and have a much smaller range, so the completist tool buyer will opt for the brand that will furnish a set.

Mike.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":sbnbrwhq said:


> Paul Chapman":sbnbrwhq said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Sefton":sbnbrwhq said:
> ...



I say this in no snarky way at all, but it must be easier and cheaper to make a one piece cap iron than two.

Both types seem fine to me.

I think record's old slightly heavy stamped one-piece may be my favorite of all.


----------



## PAC1 (10 Jan 2017)

I have a plane with the new one piece cap. My initial response was disappointment. But when I looked carefully at the new cap iron it does show some design development. This is not your stanley bent iron, nor a large lump of steel. What Clifton have done is created a lip on the front edge by grinding it into the steel. The new cap iron can therefore form a tight connection with the blade close to the edge in a way that is guaranteed to maximise the fit and minimise any fettling.
So yes it is a change but I am not of the view it is all negative and can see what Clifton were seeking to achieve.
I have not had it long enough to decide but so far it is growing on me.


----------



## lurker (10 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":31hpl5k0 said:


> we do have a description of the new one piece on our website if you need more information.
> 
> Cheers Peter



Can you link this cos I have looked but can't see


----------



## Peter Sefton (10 Jan 2017)

lurker":1gqxkqcn said:


> Peter Sefton":1gqxkqcn said:
> 
> 
> > we do have a description of the new one piece on our website if you need more information.
> ...



That's a worry

https://woodworkersworkshop.co.uk/collections/clifton

Cheers Peter


----------



## Andy Kev. (10 Jan 2017)

I treated myself to a Clifton 4 1/2 for Christmas and it works like a dream. I have no experience of two piece irons but I can't imagine what degree of improvement they could deliver over this one. 

Incidentally it's clear that a lot of care has gone into the making of the plane as it is aesthetically beautiful and while I accept that that has nothing to do with performance, it is indicative of Clifton's approach to achieving quality.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jan 2017)

woodbrains":23urk8ph said:


> I like the 2 piece as well, so they weren't listening to me! Let's be honest, it was an economising stunt advertised as an 'improvement' As was not forging the irons anymore.



I suspect this is neither purely an economy drive, or listening to customers. I suspect that with the closure of Clico and the passing of the Clifton brand to Thomas Flinn, they are not equipped to forge parts. Hence an engineered solution. I guess subcontracted casting and laser cutting, leaving a bit of grinding and painting to do in house, maybe ?


----------



## Martingchapman (10 Jan 2017)

Peter Sefton":j1ecoi8y said:


> lurker":j1ecoi8y said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Sefton":j1ecoi8y said:
> ...




Peter,
I followed the link and thought I could not find the description, however it was because the photo of the new one piece chip breaker looks just like a plane iron, so it was not obvious.
However, once I clicked on the photo of the new cap iron the description is there, thanks.
I also looked at the No 4 plane page and it still mentions a two piece cap iron. Have you just not got round to updating it yet?
If yes, are your stock all one piece cap irons now?

Martin.


----------



## pedder (10 Jan 2017)

If you use waterstones to sharpen, a stey set doesn't make sense at all. The reason I sold mine (and Clifton is to heavy.)


----------



## Vann (10 Jan 2017)

woodbrains":tx2fbf5e said:


> I like the 2 piece as well, so they weren't listening to me! Let's be honest, it was an economising stunt advertised as an 'improvement' As was not forging the irons anymore. The only thing that distinguished Clifton from the other premium brands were the forged iron and Stay Set cap iron. Whether it was a real or perceived benefit, it was a USP which they now have none...


I have to agree with Mike ("woodbrains"). If I wanted a thick single piece cap iron, I had a choice of Hock, Lie-Nielsen (discontinued), Veritas, Quangsheng and PBC. But I didn't, I wanted the 2-piece for my existing Record planes - so I bought Clifton. If I wanted a new cap-iron now, why would I chose Clifton - what's their point of difference? I'd probably pick the Veritas.

I agree however, that the two-piece is not required for stiffening the thicker irons such as those fitted to Clifton planes. I heard that they were considering retaining the two piece as an option (or separate purchase), is that still the case?

I also lament the passing of the forged cutting iron, and it's deep stamped logo - and the passing of skills that were required to make them. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## iNewbie (10 Jan 2017)

Vann":1iec3c8n said:


> woodbrains":1iec3c8n said:
> 
> 
> > I like the 2 piece as well, so they weren't listening to me! Let's be honest, it was an economising stunt advertised as an 'improvement' As was not forging the irons anymore. The only thing that distinguished Clifton from the other premium brands were the forged iron and Stay Set cap iron. Whether it was a real or perceived benefit, it was a USP which they now have none...
> ...



Its not listed on their website - I think its safe to say its gone...

https://www.flinn-garlick-saws.co.uk/ac ... LANES.html


----------



## Martingchapman (11 Jan 2017)

Andy Kev.":2nugpucd said:


> I treated myself to a Clifton 4 1/2 for Christmas and it works like a dream. I have no experience of two piece irons but I can't imagine what degree of improvement they could deliver over this one.
> 
> Incidentally it's clear that a lot of care has gone into the making of the plane as it is aesthetically beautiful and while I accept that that has nothing to do with performance, it is indicative of Clifton's approach to achieving quality.



Andy,
Thanks very much, a comment from someone who actually has a one piece cap iron plane is what I was hoping for.
Think I will go for one as soon as finances allow.

In case anyone is wondering why I prefer the one piece cap iron, its because I use a honing guide to sharpen the blade, so the two piece is no advantage (and is a bit more of a fiddle to replace accurately).

Martin.


----------



## D_W (11 Jan 2017)

Vann":2nig0s33 said:


> and it's deep stamped logo - and the passing of skills that were required to make them.



Me, too. I especially liked the stamp. We get a lot of static about how the furniture doesn't know the difference and that the irons didn't hold up better (which is probably, true). 

The same sentiment gives us Ikea furniture instead of joined goods, too. They pretty much sit and store just as well, and in some cases, they have the potential for excellent longevity.


----------



## D_W (11 Jan 2017)

PAC1":txjqbdyk said:


> I have a plane with the new one piece cap. My initial response was disappointment. But when I looked carefully at the new cap iron it does show some design development. This is not your stanley bent iron, nor a large lump of steel. What Clifton have done is created a lip on the front edge by grinding it into the steel. The new cap iron can therefore form a tight connection with the blade close to the edge in a way that is guaranteed to maximise the fit and minimise any fettling.
> So yes it is a change but I am not of the view it is all negative and can see what Clifton were seeking to achieve.
> I have not had it long enough to decide but so far it is growing on me.



I looked at it, and again, not trying to snark - it looks like Lie-Nielsen's design development.

They all work fine, though.


----------



## David C (12 Jan 2017)

Well said David.

Despite some widespread prejudice, I can detect nothing but improvement in the new shape.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## matthewwh (14 Jan 2017)

The critical thing about the new cap iron is that it doesn't compromise Clifton's long held belief that the cap iron should not exert a bending force on the iron itself. The new cap is relief ground rather than bent, it inherits the accuracy of the heavy industrial precision grinding machines that are used to create it, and relies on lever cap pressure alone (of which there is plenty) to ensure a close fit with the cutting iron.

I have been to the Burton Weir works and watched them being made, the focus is entirely on producing a cleverly designed, high quality, British made product. Given the time, effort and care that goes into each one, I'm astonished that Clifton can sell them for as little as they do.


----------



## CStanford (14 Jan 2017)

In the short run companies un-differentiate products at some risk. In the future, however, the average purchaser will not know anything, or very little, about the two-piece cap iron of 'yore.' The task is to get to that point in the future.

It would be the height of embarrassment for a manufacturer of quality tools to produce a one piece design that doesn't work, given an over 100 year history of ones that do. The design work is essentially already done. To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.


----------



## Vann (14 Jan 2017)

CStanford":3umzmbf4 said:


> ...To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.


Yes I'm sure it works. As I said in a previous post, the heavy Clifton iron isn't going to bend in a hurry anyway.

As I see it, the great advantage of the Clifton (or Record) two-piece is they won't attempt to bend a thin cutting iron (as found in Record and Stanley planes), so they're an ideal retro-fit for an existing plane. Of course it's not in Clifton's interest to offer solutions that are an alternative to buying a new plane - although I suspect that's mostly two different markets.

What they've done is to wipe out their sole point of difference (and an important one) from the retro-fit market. However, if they weren't making any money on that design, then there's no point in staying in that market (except to please me :roll: ).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford (15 Jan 2017)

The chance that a one-piece cap iron will jump start demand is nil. They've given up a distinguishing feature. They should have simply offered a one-piece cap iron as an option (downgrade) rather than doing away with the Stay Set (to use Record's name) altogether. Best of both worlds, as it were.


----------



## woodbrains (15 Jan 2017)

CStanford":1cwhhuql said:


> The chance that a one-piece cap iron will jump start demand is nil. They've given up a distinguishing feature. They should have simply offered a one-piece cap iron as an option (downgrade) rather than doing away with the Stay Set (to use Record's name) altogether. Best of both worlds, as it were.



Hello,

Absolutely agree.

Mike.


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2017)

Vann":372i9l9g said:


> CStanford":372i9l9g said:
> 
> 
> > ...To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.
> ...



I'm somewhat curious about why it's so important to not bend the iron. The bending of the iron biases it so that it beds in the right places.


----------



## Vann (15 Jan 2017)

D_W":k58w27g1 said:


> ...I'm somewhat curious about why it's so important to not bend the iron. The bending of the iron biases it so that it beds in the right places.


Not according to Leonard Bailey's patent on his one-piece cap iron. He states that three points of pressure are required (as the two-piece achieves with ease). Unfortunately Stanley haven't made the one-piece to the patent design standard since maybe the 1910s or 20s.

See previous threads on this subject, on this site.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2017)

I'm not sure why bailey thought that, but I haven't noticed much difference on bailey planes with the cap set as he describes vs. set as most are. I have had a problem with one plane where set like bailey suggested, and the leading edge of the cap was just a little light on pressure, but I haven't had that on two points of contact. 

I never use a stanley plane with the cap iron set way off, though, and having the cap iron set close enough so that it's working the chip probably is the biggest thing in making a stanley plane stable and chatter free.


----------



## David C (19 Jan 2017)

I have prepared and used one of the new Clifton chipbreaker/capirons today.

It is very well machined with sharp edges eased.

I would like to refer you to Mathew's earlier post. This chipreaker does not bend the blade when it is fixed. Measurement of thickness shows that the space behind the front edge lip, has been created by grinding. Downward force (to prevent shavings from getting underneath is applied by the lever cap).

The front edge top surface is ground at 25 degrees, so a little honing and polishing at 45 degrees completes that surface.

This also removed the slight square edge which was present at the tip.

I would have preferred a slight clearance angle on the underside of the front edge. However this was easily created with some work on a red DMT diamond stone, using a suitable wooden prop to control the angle. 1 degree will suffice for me.

I set the c/b very close, maybe 4 or 5 thou, and took some tearout free shavings off some very difficult Yew.

Anyone who valued the two piece C/B for not bending the iron, should be well pleased with this new offering.

Best wishes,
David

.


----------



## ED65 (19 Jan 2017)

:? Call me crazy but at this price point I wouldn't expect to have to fettle the cap iron's leading edge to get it to function properly.


----------



## David C (19 Jan 2017)

Not crazy, but ...............................

There are no chipbreakers which I know of that come with fully prepared front edges.

David


----------



## D_W (20 Jan 2017)

David C":cff1884h said:


> Not crazy, but ...............................
> 
> There are no chipbreakers which I know of that come with fully prepared front edges.
> 
> David



I believe the original stanley and record cap irons already had relief cut, but it's certainly also true that they weren't all brought to a bright polish. 

It's also true that it's not very easy to find them unused.

I'm still confused as to why it would be such an advantage to have a cap iron that does not flex the iron a little bit. It's far preferable to a case of high centering (though I'm sure the modern premium planes wouldn't have that issue, and even if they did, the lever cap would bend the iron and cap iron into contact at the base of the frog.


----------



## David C (20 Jan 2017)

David,

I am inclined to agree with you. 

Many of the frogs I saw were far from flat, so the slight bending of the iron was a good thing.

It ensured that the heel of the bevel was well supported.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Sheffield Tony (20 Jan 2017)

Is is not that you want the iron to stay seated flat on the frog, to avoid the top of the bevel behaving as a fulcrum with the leverage of the cutting forces causing the iron to "arch its back" up off the frog ? Only speculating you understand, but I do think that the stay set cap did really inprove my #6. Thin cutting iron or thick one made little difference when using the stay set.


----------



## D_W (20 Jan 2017)

In my opinion, something that biases an iron fit at pre-determined points or lines is something that will be preferable to a flat all-bed fit. 

Sort of like the old woody irons with their hollowed out backs - they bed right at the bevel, and they bed at the top of the plane.

As far as whether or not the arch can create a spring (presume you mean one that could chatter or something?), it's possible, I guess, but the chatter doesn't occur with the cap iron set properly. I think any movement or springing around of the iron and cap iron pair above the frog would be very little.


----------



## Martingchapman (20 Jan 2017)

David C":3q7inomr said:


> I have prepared and used one of the new Clifton chipbreaker/capirons today.
> 
> It is very well machined with sharp edges eased.
> 
> ...



David,
Thanks for the comprehensive report, just what I was hoping for.


----------



## matthewwh (21 Jan 2017)

Some very interesting responses.

The difference between pressure, contact and gap is an important one. 

A point of higher pressure between two surfaces is sufficient to make it act as a fulcrum - stick your finger on a piece of paper and that is where it will pivot. It is not necessary for the rest of the surface to be out of contact for this to happen.

Clifton hold that when the hardened end of a cutting iron is sandwiched between (and maintain's contact with) a soft iron frog, a soft cap iron and the soft upper portion of the blade, it will be more effectively damped against vibration. 

As Tony mentioned, with a good cap iron fitted there is little difference between a thick iron and a thin one. The stay set was originally designed as an upgrade retro-fit item, on a thin iron, either of the Clifton cap irons behave more like the drawing in Bailey's patent than the original Stanley cap iron did - in other words maintaining full flat contact until it gets to the hollow. Clifton only fitted them in conjunction with their thicker irons because the cap iron already existed. They are the first to admit that it is an over engineered solution, so if you have a Clifton and another plane with the same width iron, try swapping the cap irons - you should find an improvement in the other one and no loss of performance in the Cliffie. 

With regard to value: LN £30.32, LV £30.66, Clifton £19.20, QS £16.50 (All 2-3/8" for comparison)
So we have a British firm, producing an innovative and arguably slightly superior product, to exacting standards, for two thirds of the price of the American or Canadian offerings, and giving the Chinese a very good run for their money to boot.

The reason that none of the manufacturers hone them is that, being soft, the edge produced is remarkably delicate - which is why they are carefully drawn back, twisted and lifted off for honing. Prepping a cap iron is a two minute job at most, especially when starting from two accurate and well ground surfaces. I have often wondered if preserving the prepared edge is the reason why some manufacturers (Norris and Mujingfang spring to mind) put the hole for the cap screw at the top of the slot rather than the bottom.


----------



## D_W (21 Jan 2017)

I'm still having trouble seeing a functional difference between this type of cap iron and a stanley cap iron - presuming they are both properly set.


----------



## David C (21 Jan 2017)

I don't see any difference either.

Matthew,

Katie informs me that the tip of the new cap iron is somewhat hardened.

Seems like a good plan to me! The persistent wire edge was not evident when honing the front edge.

David


----------



## essexalan (22 Jan 2017)

Never found any plane where tightening down the CB did not flex the iron that's from woodies, infills to Bailey type and some of those infill irons are pretty thick. Obviously it has been done that way for a reason and as long as the iron beds solidly at the bevel and the top then I have not had any problems. Whether tightening down the lever cap or it's equivalent has the effect of flattening the double iron against the frog or bed I have no idea, if it does then surely the CB would tend to move away from where you carefully placed it. Frogs that are out of flat I find give me less smooth depth adjustment so I flatten them. 
The Clifton CB appears to be a solution in search of a problem and why bother grinding behind the bevel? Of course this arrangement will work well with nice flat ground Clifton irons but how would they work with some of my decidedly wonky Stanley/Record irons? Would there not be a small gap present if you back bevel a blade or even use the ruler trick? The concept of a zero bend CB has already been examined here http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html ... lanes.html but still an amount of pressure is exerted on the iron sufficient to make it arc slightly.


----------



## D_W (23 Jan 2017)

David C":2i8cvh7g said:


> Seems like a good plan to me!
> 
> David



Agree. Even if it does nothing more than prevent wrestling with the wire edge, that's a plus.


----------



## matthewwh (23 Jan 2017)

DW, there are two separate problems and sets of solutions. 

The way that the cap iron is set relates to tearout - fibres lifting ahead of the cutting edge. This can be solved by several techniques, all of which amount to increasing the slope that the detatched shaving runs up after it has been cut, causing it to break nearer to the cutting edge thereby reducing the lifting and splitting forces exerted on the surface about to be cut.

One of these methods is to set the cap iron close enough to the cutting edge that it alters the effective pitch from 45 to vertical. Correctly it should be set back from that position for most work and only engaged when needed to control tearout. The downside of steeper pitches is that they make the plane harder to push, so like the gears in a car, you select the most appropriate setting for the conditions.

Flutter, or chatter, on the other hand is characterised by regular ripples or patterns in the cut surface the blade juddering across the surface because it is inadequately held. 

On mild timber you won’t see any difference, when you work on harder stuff with a standard thin iron bailey it becomes much more likely. Having either a thicker cutting iron or a thicker, flatter cap iron will extend the range of timbers you can use it on without experiencing flutter. 

The principle behind Clifton bench planes is a further extension of this - basically getting as close as humanly possible to casting the blade into a solid block of iron, whilst still maintaining the ability to adjust and remove the iron.


----------



## David C (23 Jan 2017)

I was informed today that the Clifton cap irons are hardened to approximately Rockwell C 48-50.

Not as hard as a blade but enough to make edge preparation much easier.

David


----------



## matthewwh (23 Jan 2017)

Just the sort of close attention to detail that makes life easier for the end user. 

In fact, I understand that this step was indirectly inspired by your work on cap iron preparation David.


----------



## D_W (23 Jan 2017)

matthewwh":y4y6a9vl said:


> DW, there are two separate problems and sets of solutions.
> 
> The way that the cap iron is set relates to tearout - fibres lifting ahead of the cutting edge. This can be solved by several techniques, all of which amount to increasing the slope that the detatched shaving runs up after it has been cut, causing it to break nearer to the cutting edge thereby reducing the lifting and splitting forces exerted on the surface about to be cut.
> 
> ...



Hi Matthew, I'm familiar with those things and the cap iron setting techniques, so far as that goes. I've noticed in the past that any time I get chatter on a surface (which in my case is always due to a plane skipping across a surface rather than an iron flexion issue - something that happens, say, when I'm planing the ends of a beech bench plane that I've just made), the chatter ceases to exist with a little bit of wax on the bottom of a plane. The hardest planes I have to use in that particular end-grain planing operation are the ones that are perfectly flat on the sole - they have such grip on the end grain of a board. Just as planing the endgrain on a panel is much easier with a smoother plane that isn't perfect on the sole than it would be with a low angle boutique jack plane (such a long perfect plane bottom that gets tremendous grip on endgrain that is otherwise very easily cut with an old metal smoother or even more easily cut with a continental wooden plane). 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I do agree that some of the modern planes are easier to use because they are just heavier in places where poor setup occurs, and thus the heft can throw a sheet over some poor setup issues, so to speak. 

But I haven't had any problem planing anything with a stock stanley. I had gobs of problems with the same years ago before I learned to set the cap iron. I'm trying to think of the "worst" thing I've planed, but there's just so many ways that you could define worst that it's maybe pointless to say. I have planed plenty, though, that is over 3k hardness on the janka scale (and even some of that planes quite nicely - my recent experience dimensioning ebony showed it to plane almost too easily for its hardness - brittle).

I don't say that to belittle the efforts of manufacturers trying to differentiate themselves. I believe the one solid block concept that you're describing is sort of a modern idealistic thing that isn't really necessary with proper setup, but it is intellectually satisfying when someone is early on in their planing. If each of us was given a stanley 4, never allowed to have anything else, and taught how the cap iron works to eliminate tearout, I think we'd all get so good with it that we'd really not want for much of anything else, except maybe a little more weight when working the absolute worst of stuff. But a little more weight is easily achieved by just reaching for a larger plane.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Jan 2017)

D_W":11vqdvay said:


> Hi Matthew, I'm familiar with those things and the cap iron setting techniques, so far as that goes. I've noticed in the past that any time I get chatter on a surface (which in my case is always due to a plane skipping across a surface rather than an iron flexion issue - something that happens, say, when I'm planing the ends of a beech bench plane that I've just made), the chatter ceases to exist with a little bit of wax on the bottom of a plane. The hardest planes I have to use in that particular end-grain planing operation are the ones that are perfectly flat on the sole - they have such grip on the end grain of a board. Just as planing the endgrain on a panel is much easier with a smoother plane that isn't perfect on the sole than it would be with a low angle boutique jack plane (such a long perfect plane bottom that gets tremendous grip on endgrain that is otherwise very easily cut with an old metal smoother or even more easily cut with a continental wooden plane).



Out of interest, what mechanism causes a plane iron to chatter when there is close contact, and high friction, between a plane sole and the workpiece? I can see how that higher friction would make the plane harder to push, but not how it makes the iron flutter.


----------



## D_W (23 Jan 2017)

Cheshirechappie":1w6i4qnq said:


> D_W":1w6i4qnq said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Matthew, I'm familiar with those things and the cap iron setting techniques, so far as that goes. I've noticed in the past that any time I get chatter on a surface (which in my case is always due to a plane skipping across a surface rather than an iron flexion issue - something that happens, say, when I'm planing the ends of a beech bench plane that I've just made), the chatter ceases to exist with a little bit of wax on the bottom of a plane. The hardest planes I have to use in that particular end-grain planing operation are the ones that are perfectly flat on the sole - they have such grip on the end grain of a board. Just as planing the endgrain on a panel is much easier with a smoother plane that isn't perfect on the sole than it would be with a low angle boutique jack plane (such a long perfect plane bottom that gets tremendous grip on endgrain that is otherwise very easily cut with an old metal smoother or even more easily cut with a continental wooden plane).
> ...



It's not the iron fluttering, it's literally the entire plane refusing to stay in the cut, and it bounces across the surface. It'll do that with a premium plane or a properly set up stanley.

I don't know for sure why it doesn't happen with wax (or is less likely to happen with wax), but every time I've ever had it happen, a bit of paraffin wax eliminates it. 

Other than that, I've never had a problem *except* the very occasional occurrence of something like ebony or cocbolo on it's "hard orientation" making its way under the cap iron just because the wood is hard enough (my belief, at least) to make its way under the cap iron when other softer woods do not. That's rare, though - something that happens once a year or so. 

I can still get a bit of chatter with a larger plane doing jack work (of the stanley type), but it is genuine chatter because the cap iron is not set that close. I'm not sure, but I think chatter in that situation might actually make planing a little bit easier as long as it doesn't turn into outright gawdy tearout.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Jan 2017)

D_W":3o7uoz7t said:


> It's not the iron fluttering, it's literally the entire plane refusing to stay in the cut, and it bounces across the surface. It'll do that with a premium plane or a properly set up stanley.
> 
> I don't know for sure why it doesn't happen with wax (or is less likely to happen with wax), but every time I've ever had it happen, a bit of paraffin wax eliminates it.
> 
> ...



Interesting. I've had planes chatter on me (usually, but not exclusively, whilst working harder timbers or endgrain), but never experienced any sort of vibration through the handle or knob, which I'm pretty sure you'd feel if the whole plane was bouncing up and down.

I'm inclined to think that Matthew was nearer the mark when he talked about the iron 'fluttering'. In some configurations of iron and capiron (most especially thin iron and bent steel sheet cap-iron in a Bailey-type plane), it has plenty of scope to do that.

Maybe there are more than one cause of 'chatter', but it would be odd for one woodworker to have experienced one and not the other, and for another woodworker to have experienced the other but not the one.

Whatever!


----------



## D_W (23 Jan 2017)

I have experienced chatter, too, like I mentioned - with an iron ground for jack plane work. I never thought too hard about what was causing it because in a metal jack plane, I can't think that it's necessarily undesirable. It leaves that tiny chattery look evidence on the wood, but not necessarily tearout. 

In my house-made wooden jack planes, I don't get any such chatter, though - the iron is too heavy and the lock the wedge has on the cap iron is too great since the planes are relatively new and everything is tight. 

The skipping that I'm describing leaves little waves on the surface of whatever you're planing. You likely have experienced it before without knowing (it's something that might occur when you're planing a drawer or something that isn't as easy to lock down tight. If the handles on the plane are tight, you don't feel vibrating through the handles. 

Paul sellers had a video where he was making a mallet that he experienced it (I think he did, at least). ...found it.

28:20 or so in this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31Ixu6mSHY

(in anything where the cap iron is set reasonably close, there will be no iron flutter, but you can still get this kind of skipping - paul resolves it the same way I do, except he uses oil).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Jan 2017)

I very much doubt that the whole plane 'jumping' or 'skipping' would give the effect Sellers experienced. The high-pitched squeak (and a pattern of little cuts on the workpiece about 1/16" or so apart) suggest a much higher frequency event than the normal human could induce just by pushing a rigidly set up plane over a piece of wood. I think the result of that would be marks much further apart. It can happen if a plane is set far too rank, or is significantly dull, or both, and usually is something people only experience in their very early days of woodworking, before they've become familiar with plane use.

The Sellers chatter is down to a thin iron fluttering. Here's how.

Consider a standard Bailey-type plane in normal factory spec - no after-market thick irons or cap-irons. When dissembled from the plane for sharpening, the iron is flat. When the standard bent-metal cap-iron is attached, it takes a very slight curve, the cap-iron contacting the blade over a fair area near the screw, and along a line just behind the cutting edge on the flat side of the blade. Between these two points, there's daylight between iron and cap-iron. Thus, when the iron and cap-iron assembly is installed in the plane, and the lever cap pressure is applied, the blade is in close contact with the top of the frog casting, held by the top of the lever cap. However, the contact point (line, really) at the bottom of the assembly is along the back of the bevel, or along the lower front edge of the frog if the latter is set forward of the sole aperture. Thus, the lever cap pressure, transmitted through the cap-iron, acts outboard of the contact between blade and sole or frog, thus tending to flex the blade even more. All this can readily be observed on any standard Bailey plane.

Thus, there's detectable daylight between frog and blade, and between blade and cap-iron, between the back of the blade's bevel and the top of the frog. Again - this can be observed, and checked with feeler gauges. The blade is unsupported between these points - not trapped and rigid.

Now - let's put the plane to work. As soon as the cutting edge enters wood, there's a force needed to push it forwards and take a cut, and thus, an equal and opposite force pushing the blade backwards. Because the blade is bedded at 45 degrees, pushing it back also pushes it slightly downwards, deepening the cut. The blade pivots about it's contact point at the sole (or bottom of frog) along the back of the bevel. It's got room to flex between the bevel and the top of the frog, since it's not firmly held, so it flexes, allowing the cutting edge to go a little deeper. For normal planning that's just about OK, but in very hard woods or on endgrain, the force is enough to flex the blade so far that enough energy builds up in it (as it does in a spring) that it eventually has enough to overcome the force applied to the cutting edge, and it springs up, out of cut. Since the plane is being held down to the wood, it immediately starts to cut again, and the cycle repeats. From observation, the frequency must be somewhere in the 50 to 100 cycles per second region, which is why we hear a squeak rather than a series of judders.

The effect, as we know, can be avoided by using a stiffer blade, or by stiffening the blade with a Stay-set type cap-iron. That transmits the lever cap force to the blade at three points - the same two as the bent metal cap-iron, but also, crucially, a third point at the joint of the cap-iron. That holds the blade tight to the frog, giving it much less scope to vibrate or flutter.

This can be demonstrated with a six-inch rule on the bench. Place the rule at right angles to the bench edge, with about 10mm-12mm (3/8"-1/2") overhanging the edge. Place a finger firmly on the inboard end - the clamp between top of frog and lever cap. The bench edge represents the back of the bevel, the rule end the cutting edge. Now apply some 'cutting force' to the rule end, and the 'cutting edge' deflects down. A point at about 2 1/2" also pops up, quite a bit. Now apply a finger to about the 2" mark, representing the joint of a Stay-set cap-iron, and then apply the same 'cutting force' as last time to the rule end. It's now far harder to deflect the rule at all - everything is much stiffer.

That's how 'chatter' or 'blade flutter' happens, I suggest - and that's how to avoid it, too. It conforms nicely with the effects many people have reported using different blade and cap-iron combinations.


----------



## D_W (24 Jan 2017)

I'm not sure how sellers solved a fluttering iron by putting oil on the bottom of the plane.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Jan 2017)

He didn't. If you watch the clip, he started off with a fairly straight-on planing stroke with a bit of skew, and the chatter developed as he flattened the endgrain. After stopping and oiling the sole, he used a much more 'round and round' technique, which would give the blade a very acute skew approach. I think that was what really made the difference.

I've done similar myself in the past. Started with a 'proper' plane stroke approach, and ending up with the plane skewed at 45 degrees or more to the board. You lose the registration that the sole length affords, but the screeching stops! Just got to be careful to watch your gauge lines and not cut a corner too deep.


----------



## D_W (24 Jan 2017)

I have done the exact same thing and solved the issue by waxing a plane sole. 

the skip marks left by my plane were probably four to the inch. I don't remember what the sound was like. 

The flatter the plane, the worse the skipping if not oiled (the premium LA bench planes were the worst for me with it, they're too flat and too finely finished and really grip). 

Still, behind all of this, I didn't know what a stay set cap iron was until a couple of months ago and I never had problems with chatter prior to that, and I use a stock stanley 4 a LOT. Let me revise - I did have problems with chatter when I was a beginner. Once the planes were set up correctly, I can say for sure that the planes will stop me in my tracks or skip before they chatter, unless the cut is intentionally rank and the cap iron set off a little.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Jan 2017)

It's a pity Flinn's have dropped production of the old Clifton two-piece cap-iron, because it'll now be more difficult for you to try one. Quite a few people on this forum and elsewhere have attested to performance improvements in Bailey planes so fitted, and as the only modification. It does this by the mechanism set out above - stopping the scope for the cutting iron to flex between the top and bottom of the frog, pivoting over the back of the bevel, and thus allowing the cutting edge to deflect more than a stiffer assembly permits.

To bring the thread back to the original point, the new one-piece flat design does pretty well the same job as the two-piece - stiffens the blade/cap-iron assembly. The small amount of relief ground behind the nose is only enough to ensure a good, tight, shaving-free fit between cutting iron and cap-iron at the working end, but not enough to allow the cutting iron flexure observable with the standard bent metal cap-irons. Thus, the scope for the cutting edge to deflect in cut is significantly reduced, giving better performance in adverse planing circumstances.

(The other way of stiffening up the blade/cap-iron assembly is to fit a thicker blade, but that can bring other problems such as engagement of adjuster yoke with cap-iron slot if taken too far. However, you don't need to go much thicker to get appreciable improvement. I certainly noticed a positive difference after putting a Clifton blade in my 07, many years ago. In fact, so many years ago, that the blade is stamped 'Victor', which was Clifton before they branded them Clifton.)

Most of the time, standard cap-iron and standard thinner blade will serve. If that's good enough for the planing you do, then that's fine. Some of us do appreciate the extra rigidity, though.


----------



## CStanford (25 Jan 2017)

The best smoothing plane I've ever used is a Record 08.


----------



## D_W (25 Jan 2017)

What are adverse planing circumstances? I've never had the stanley 4 stock fail at planing any of those. Doesn't last long in wood that has visible silica sparkles in it, though. 

Is it going to be difficult for people to try a two piece cap iron because the clifton version was markedly different than record? I've only tried record's version. I find the stay set to be about as good as their somewhat heavier than stanley's stamped curved version. 

I might find differently if I didn't set the cap iron in the right place. I used to think stanley planes were flimsy in a heavy cut.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Jan 2017)

David, the answers to your questions lie in earlier posts on this thread, I think. 

I don't really want to get involved in prolonged, bad-tempered circular arguments. I've set out my thoughts above, based on experiences I've had at the bench, observations I have made and conclusions I've deduced from them. I know from comments on this forum and others that I'm not the only person to have made those observations - and I certainly wasn't the first. 

Please note - I am not making ANY comment on cap-iron settings. Just on the relative flexibility of thinner blades paired with different cap-irons.

If you don't mind, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## D_W (25 Jan 2017)

I'm not into any bad-tempered arguments, either, though I could be accused of that in the past. I don't have the energy for it. 

My point in this case is that I think cap irons existed on bailey planes as they were for some large number of years, I don't know how large 75 years? And then the stay set came along, which is nice as long as it's not ill fitting, but things of that type only become needed if the cap iron isn't being used. 

I'll yield also that some bailey planes just feel better than others, even when they are generally relatively similar. I've got my favorite still, and I'll also admit that I have replaced the iron - but it's the only one I did that for and that's because it's a type 20 with the soft iron that David Charlesworth sometimes describes. (plus, I felt like it was stupid that I took hours to drill and hand file out an iron slot and harden the iron and then not use it). 

No ill will or bad temper, though. My take on it is that if someone is having chatter problems, they should probably concentrate on setting the cap iron. That will reduce chatter problems to the entire plane skipping. If the stay set works on its own and someone doesn't want to learn that, certainly that's fine, but the former is a cheaper solution.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Jan 2017)

Just to clarify something. There are two separate issues here - cap-iron settings used to control tear-out, and flexibility of cutting irons when paired with different cap-iron designs, and how that affects their behaviour in use.

Using a cap-iron to control tear-out by adjusting it's distance set from the cutting iron edge won't have any significant effect on a cutting iron's flexibility. It will affect the timber ahead of the cutting edge, and consequently the surface finish achieved. That's been discussed in great depth elsewhere, but is NOT the issue my comments above relate to.

How a cutting iron is supported in a plane when paired with different styles of cap-iron WILL affect it's response in use when the cutting edge enters the wood; in other words, when a load or force are applied to the cutting edge. The different details of clamping will directly affect how the cutting iron's flexibility is controlled - the way in which the cap-iron transmits the lever cap force to the cutting iron, and thus how the cutting iron beds against the frog surface. The lack of contact between cap-iron and cutting iron, and between cutting iron and frog surface, with some cutting iron/cap-iron pairings is what can lead to 'blade flutter' or 'chatter' from thinner, more flexible cutting irons. That's the subject of my comments.


----------



## D_W (26 Jan 2017)

I think the cap iron being set correctly reduces chatter, though, even though it doesn't change the properties of the iron and cap iron. That's my experience. I don't know why for sure but suspect it has something to do with evening out the cut behavior.


----------



## Vann (28 Jan 2017)

D_W":1h2089tx said:


> But I haven't had any problem planing anything with a stock stanley. I had gobs of problems with the same years ago before I learned to set the cap iron...





D_W":1h2089tx said:


> ...and I never had problems with chatter prior to that, and I use a stock stanley 4 a LOT. Let me revise - I did have problems with chatter when I was a beginner. Once the planes were set up correctly, I can say for sure that the planes will stop me in my tracks or skip before they chatter, unless the cut is intentionally rank and the cap iron set off a little.


I think here we have the problem. DW has lots of experience planing, and knows how to correctly set up a handplane to get the best from it and avoid chattering, fluttering, skipping, etc.

These days very few schools teach woodwork, and most carpentry apprentices hardly ever use a handplane for fine work. For the home hobbyist it's worse. It's hard to find how to set up a handplane and use it without problems (and remember that the two point contact between the cutting iron and the frog that Cheshirechappie describes a page back is NOT what Leonard Bailey's patent describes, but is what every "Bailey" plane has come with since ~ the 1930s). There's plenty to read about fine tuning and tecnique, but little access to those who can pass on what they know - in person (the best way).

The two-piece cap-iron achieves, what Leonard Bailey intended with his one-piece cap-iron - and so eliminates one of the many problems facing the inexperienced handplaner - who is scratching his head trying to figure out what the hell he's doing wrong, while having no-one to show him. You experts are so skilled you've forgotten the pitfalls that we learners face.

The two-piece has helped me.

I contributed to a thread on the poor seating of cutting irons on frogs, some time ago, with photos of ill fitting (by Leonard's standards) irons. I'll try to find a link.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann (28 Jan 2017)

Here we go: 2nd to last post on this page shows the patent.

about-thick-cap-irons-t80018.html?hilit=patent%20leonard&start=15

Five posts later (on the next page), pictures of a whole series of cap-irons that fail to meet the patent design.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## ED65 (28 Jan 2017)

Vann":id2sb2at said:


> The two-piece cap-iron achieves, what Leonard Bailey intended with his one-piece cap-iron - and so eliminates one of the many problems facing the inexperienced handplaner - who is scratching his head trying to figure out what the hell he's doing wrong, while having no-one to show him. You experts are so skilled you've forgotten the pitfalls that we learners face.


I really don't want to weigh in on this but I feel I must. Back when I was a rank amateur with a shiny new Bailey-style plane I think I experienced chatter a couple of times. That was early on (first few months) and as far as I can remember never, not once, have I had the problem since. Now from reading posts on all the woodworking forums I think I struggled much less than the average learn-as-you-go woodworker but I didn't magically jump from rank amateur to expert, yet the problem went away.

I can't say whether it was improved technique, better sharpening (I am sure by itself that's not it), tightening the cap-iron screw more tightly (v. doubtful) or all three that has avoided it but I can say it had nothing to do with set up/fettling since no extra work was done on any part.

And of course it had nothing to do with whether the cap iron matches the Bailey patent. 

So I think the thing about metal bench planes not conforming to the patent is "Interesting, but...". If you're correct that most/all Bailey-style planes since the 30s don't match the patent, and we can take it as a given that most of those sold were used by pros to earn their living, then by definition this is a Red Herring since clearly it doesn't appear to matter much in practice.


----------



## CStanford (2 Feb 2017)

My shorter planes chattered early on, years ago. Then they quit. I fettled nothing. Maybe it was a squiggle of candle wax that put it all right. Probably was. I always put wax on them now. Planes don't chatter. Don't have cap irons set uber-close either. Wooden ones I've used, even years ago, never chattered.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (2 Feb 2017)

CStanford":poip05hu said:


> My shorter planes chattered early on, years ago. Then they quit. I fettled nothing. Maybe it was a squiggle of candle wax that put it all right. Probably was. I always put wax on them now. Planes don't chatter. Don't have cap irons set uber-close either. Wooden ones I've used, even years ago, never chattered.



Perhaps Charlie, you just got used to how to plane correctly? Happens to all of us, sooner or later!


----------



## CStanford (2 Feb 2017)

Dunno Tony. I read all this 'stuff' and wonder if it's a skill that could be mastered in one lifetime.... :roll:


----------



## Corneel (3 Feb 2017)

I certainly believe that simple, regular skill in using a handplane plays a role in chatter. At least the kind of chatter you get when entering the cut, those skid marks on the front side of the board where the plane starts the cutting stroke. Putting enough pressure on the front end of the plane helps tremendously to reduce this skipping, as does a bit of skewing.

Other kinds of chatter, halfway the board are more rare. Here are some circumstances I can get this washboard effect.
- Rabbet planes in a deep cut. Especially my more modern wooden ones where the wedge only clamps down the blade high up. I have a newer Nooitgedagt like that. It's not a bad plane but in a deep cut it really likes to chatter.
- As mentioned, in end grain. And really, waxing the plane sole helps! For a while. It is also a sign of reduced sharpness. A sharper blade will cut easier so the forces don't build up so much. In end grain you sooner reach that point of too much resistance.
- I have two wooden jackplanes. One likes to chatter in deep cuts, the other doesn't. I should have a look at the bedding or the fit of the wedge in this plane, but it doesn't really mater in jackplane work.

With my old Stanleys I can't remember chatter in long grain planing. Even quite hard stuff like Jatoba. My Stanleys all have the frog pulled back so the iron rests in the frog and that little bit of the sole at the back of the mouth. I also set the capiron relatively close to the edge. 

A long long time ago :mrgreen: when I still was a rank beginner I had the usual troubles with my Stanleys. I bought a thick iron from Ray Iles and it cured a lot of problems, the plane felt much more sturdy. But since then I have slowly but surely replaced the original irons again. My #4 still has the Iles iron, but my #3 doesn't and I don't feel that much difference anymore.

So, all in all it is not rocket science, just some attention to details and gaining some skill in using a plane.


----------



## nabs (4 Feb 2017)

good news plane fans! Millers Falls solved plane chatter in 1929 when they introduced their new planes with a fancy two part _lever cap_. The mind boggles!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...plane april 1929&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have bought one to find out what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Corneel (4 Feb 2017)

Marvelous! I want one too!


----------



## ali27 (7 Feb 2017)

A plane blade should be thick enough to resist bending. A chip breaker should
do what it's name says. 

A thin plane blade with a thick chipbreaker does not perform as well as a thick 
plane blade with a thin chip breaker, at least not in my experience. I tried this
with the thin tsunesaburo samurai laminated plane blade and a 2 piece clifton
plane blade. The blade would get wicked sharp, but not perform as well as 
the thicker blade in heavier cuts.

I think for a stanley type plane 4mm would be a good thickness. 2 mm is clearly
too little. 3 mm is much better.

The chipbreaker should only be tightened slightly so it can stay put and do what it
is intended for, breaking chips. This way there is no bending of the plane iron and it 
will rest flat on the frog.

It's a pity modern tool companies are selling us plane 
irons that have the same hardness overall whereas the japanese are making 
plane blades that have a thin strip(1mm or so) of very hard(64-66 HRC) steel and
a thick(3-4mm) upper part of much softer steel. This makes maintaining the geometry
of the iron much easier. 

I think this is way more important than discussing a chipbreaker, yet there isn't much 
talk about it here. Don't tell me about hollow grinding. I don't like powertools and I 
don't want that grit floating in the air.

I have proposed this before. Toolmakers could just make plane blades of 1 mm thick and
glue a 3mm or so thicker piece of mild steel on top of it.

Ali


----------



## Corneel (7 Feb 2017)

Well, that has the been one of the subjects of this thread. It seems that plenty of people are happy with their 2mm thin Stanley irons (and all those other millions of craftsmen who bought Stanleys and Records and all that in the past). I feel no need at all to upgrade, and the thinner blade has the advantage of being super easy to sharpen.

I do like the early laminated Stanley planeblades though. Much better to have them forged like that then glued (imo).


----------



## ali27 (7 Feb 2017)

Corneel":397uli4l said:


> Well, that has the been one of the subjects of this thread. It seems that plenty of people are happy with their 2mm thin Stanley irons (and all those other millions of craftsmen who bought Stanleys and Records and all that in the past). I feel no need at all to upgrade, and the thinner blade has the advantage of being super easy to sharpen.
> 
> I do like the early laminated Stanley planeblades though. Much better to have them forged like that then glued (imo).



I'd like them forged as well, but I think that is too much hassle/time for companies like Lie Nielsen and Veritas.
That is why I thought glueing would be an easier/cheaper option.

My experience is that the 3mm blades perform much better than the 2mm. The 2mm performs ok when planing easy
wood and with a thin setting. I agree no need to update if the 2mm does the stuff for you.

Ali


----------

