# who has veritas bevel up smoother or low angle smoother?



## dann (8 Dec 2013)

Im after some thoughts on bevel up and low angle smoothers, yes i have both no 4 and 41/2 smoothers but i really fancy a veritas having got the low angle block plane and being so impressed with it......


----------



## Vann (9 Dec 2013)

The BUS has a very good reputation. And if you get hooked on bevel-up planes, it shares it's iron with the LAJ* and BUJ.

*another plane with a very good reputation.

The LAS is on it's own when it comes to the size of the iron.

But then it depends on what you're hoping to work on, to choose a plane of the size you're likely to need.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Harbo (9 Dec 2013)

I have the BU Smoother, Jack and Jointer - they all take the same blades.
Excellent planes, no messing about with them or needing fettling - they work wonderfully well.
Buy them and your fixed for life.

Rod


----------



## Jacob (9 Dec 2013)

There's no particular advantage in the low angle - the effective cutting angle is going to be much the same as a bevel down plane. 
The Stanley SW 4 is a good alternative - 1/3rd of the price, cuts just as well but not quite as pretty.


----------



## bugbear (9 Dec 2013)

dann":31qvfl2m said:


> Im after some thoughts on bevel up and low angle smoothers, yes i have both no 4 and 41/2 smoothers but i really fancy a veritas having got the low angle block plane and being so impressed with it......



Here's a fairly detailed and careful review (sadly un-dated) from Derek Cohen.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/toolreview ... other.html

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (10 Dec 2013)

I have the Veritas low angle 'smoother'. 

It is a mitre plane. Great for mitres, end grain, taking paper thin shavings to finish - in short it is the best finishing plane I have. The blade can be left dead square ( no camber) and it can be trusted to perform. A good buy even at the price they are now; mine cost £150 a few years ago ....


----------



## cagenuts (10 Dec 2013)

Jacob":3duoepae said:


> There's no particular advantage in the low angle - the effective cutting angle is going to be much the same as a bevel down plane.



Do you actually know anything about low angle bench planes?

To the OP, the advantage of the bevel up bench planes is the ability to take blades with varying degrees of bevel. The bevel-up smoother is sized like a 4-1/2 and comes standard with a 38 degree blade which equates to a 50 degree angle of attack (york pitch). As mentioned before, the blades are interchangeable with the jointer, jack and new shooting plane.

The low angle smoothing plane has parallel sides so this can be used as a shooting plane but does not share the blade with any other bench plane.

Overall whichever model you choose, there is the option of purchasing the toothed, 25, 38 and 50 degree blades to give you a most versatile and beautiful plane.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2013)

cagenuts":j3eqmpbd said:


> Jacob":j3eqmpbd said:
> 
> 
> > There's no particular advantage in the low angle - the effective cutting angle is going to be much the same as a bevel down plane.
> ...


You can put a "back" bevel on a bevel down plane for just the same effect.


----------



## bugbear (10 Dec 2013)

Jacob":3kcs8dag said:


> cagenuts":3kcs8dag said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3kcs8dag said:
> ...



That only effects EP (which may be enough improvement in some circumstances, see the "oak" thread). In a BU plane the force relationship between the blade and the bed is quite different, due to the angle between the bed and the cutting forces.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2013)

It may well be, but what effect this has on performance is not clear.


----------



## Corneel (10 Dec 2013)

That interests me too. What is the difference in force relationship? Bearing in mind that in both cases the blade is pretty rigidly attached to the plane. The only difference I can see is the extra support of the iron closer to the edge. But the bevel down plane has a chipbreaker, which gives support even closer to the edge. It is completely possible of course that I am overlooking something, but as yet I don't see a different power vector.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2013)

It'd take some very thorough experimentation to show a difference as in practice there appears to be none. Stanley SW4, LVLA smoother, Clifton 4 all perform very similarly in my experience. Which means the Stanley is the winner as it is 1/3 of the price of the others!

NB they are all heavy bug|gers - it's much nicer to use a normal plane.


----------



## dann (10 Dec 2013)

I really like heavy planes and the momentum that comes with them.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Dec 2013)

I also have the Stanley SW. It really is HEAVY. Perhaps too much so. I reserve it for the final finishing of gnarly or difficult timbers, on which it performs as good as anything out there. I wouldn't want to use it for much more than 10 minutes at a time though. For your average density, well behaved hardwood a standard lighter weight Stanley/Record is a better option IMO.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2013)

dann":1uvh917u said:


> I really like heavy planes and the momentum that comes with them.


It doesn't though- the momentum comes from you. What comes with the plane is inertia. More effort to shift the thing however you look at it.

Or to put it another way - if there was any advantage in weight people would have added it e.g. lead inserts in a woody. Has anybody ever done this? I doubt it.


----------



## dann (10 Dec 2013)

Jacob":1bx2hn1t said:


> dann":1bx2hn1t said:
> 
> 
> > I really like heavy planes and the momentum that comes with them.
> ...



Haha yeah that's what I mean.
Wood butcher not physicist (hammer)


----------



## Corneel (11 Dec 2013)

Everybody has of course been thinking long and hard about the difference between bu and bd, but couldn't find a reason why they would cut fundamentally different at similar cutting angles. There are other differences of course like centre of gravity, handle position and all kind of practical differences, but they do cut the same.


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2013)

The biggest difference is that the BU planes are much easier to set up. Not quite silly person proof (you still have to sharpen a very thick blade :shock: ) but usually can be relied upon to work out of the box. Hence the popularity especially with beginners.


----------



## Peter Sefton (11 Dec 2013)

The BU do have a different feel to them, they are not as heavy as standard bench planes mainly due to the lack of the frog. I do like to swap and changer between my BU and BD planes I use the BD for more timber prep and my BU for fine finishing particularly if the high angle is required for interlocked grain. I do have a back bevel set up in my Clifton no 5 Jack for working tricky timbers but I find students and beginners find it difficult to maintain a small back bevel. 
I had all the planes out on the bench yesterday for a short course I am running to show the guys, I find the students buy which ever feels most comfortable in their hand and once that are either Clifton or Veritas fans that's the way they tend to stay. 
Both are great planes, Dann if you need any help with your choice of Veritas smoother please do PM or call cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2013)

Do you offer the Stanley SW 4 Peter? It's a serious contender and a third of the price!


----------



## Corneel (12 Dec 2013)

Peter, just a question. Do you ever use the chipbreaker on difficult timbers to prevent tearout?


----------



## Peter Sefton (12 Dec 2013)

Jacob":3a3zz800 said:


> Do you offer the Stanley SW 4 Peter? It's a serious contender and a third of the price!



Hi Jacob
We don't currently carry any of the Stanley range although I am hearing good things on here about some of the planes. We do stock the latest versions of the Quanshengs, the Cliftons and the Veritas. We like to sell the tools we use and have confidence in from experience, and although the Stanley is probably very good and value for money, to carry another range in stock is just not possible at present. Maybe it needs to go on to do list for next year.
Cheers Peter


----------



## Peter Sefton (12 Dec 2013)

Corneel":ozt94j44 said:


> Peter, just a question. Do you ever use the chipbreaker on difficult timbers to prevent tearout?



Hi Corneel
I set my chip breaker to within .5 to .75 on fine work and possibly up to 1.5mm on heavy stock removal, also depending on how much camber I have on the blade for the job I am undertaking. The chip breaker will possibly offer some advantage on tricky timbers to prevent tearout, but I don't find it can compete with either a back bevel or a high angle on a BU plane.
Cheers Peter


----------



## Corneel (12 Dec 2013)

At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Dec 2013)

bugbear":383f1plb said:


> dann":383f1plb said:
> 
> 
> > Im after some thoughts on bevel up and low angle smoothers, yes i have both no 4 and 41/2 smoothers but i really fancy a veritas having got the low angle block plane and being so impressed with it......
> ...



Hi BB

The article is now dated January 2006.

Here is a recent article I completed titled "Centre of Effort in a HandPlane". Read it at your peril. Read it if you are suffering insomnia. Or a masochist wishing for a headache. Or curious.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary ... Plane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Here is a recent article I completed titled "Centre of Effort in a HandPlane". Read it at your peril. Read it if you are suffering insomnia. Or a masochist wishing for a headache. Or curious.
> 
> http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary ... Plane.html
> 
> ...



Seems simple enough. I don't see why C of G is relevant at all - the weight/mass of a plane is quite low compared to the forces acting on the handle and cutting edge.

reductio ad absurdum - in a full size plane of weight 10g, the C of G would be perfectly well defined, and absolutely irrelevant to the tool's use.

Bugbear


----------



## Corneel (12 Dec 2013)

I've discussed this before with Derek, but I am still at a loss what centre of effort exactly does in a plane.

Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2013)

Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means _more_ effort. :shock:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Dec 2013)

> Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.



Hi Kees

The BD and the BU feel very different in use. 

The Bu will feel lighter and more agile than the BD. It will require less effort to push. The BD may feel more powerful as a greater degree of force is needed to more it forward. All these are in a sense illusions as they should produce identical surfaces.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Dec 2013)

Jacob":2xa4nkhm said:


> Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means _more_ effort. :shock:



Hi Jacob

That is essentially what I am saying. It is _where_ the weight is directed that is important, and how the differing designs of a plane direct it there.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2013)

Corneel":1rhougcq said:


> I've discussed this before with Derek, but I am still at a loss what centre of effort exactly does in a plane.
> 
> Compare for example an LN #4 and a LN low angle smoother with a 33 degree honing angle. Do they feel different in use? They are both exactly the same length, handles have the same place and angle. They even weigh almost the same.



Derek is battling with jargon here - I'm fairly sure I know what he's trying to say, but he's using terms that have a very specific meaning in their original context - out of context.

I think what Derek is talking about is the same as what saw buffs call "hang", which is really the relationship 
between how the force is applied (in terms of location, magnitude and direction) and where the work is done.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Jacob":8gghsyen said:
> 
> 
> > Wherever (whatever) the "centre of effort" is, more weight means _more_ effort. :shock:
> ...


Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane. More mass means a slightly smaller vertical but a greater horizontal vector overall. But as we know, in use we direct force as we choose - e.g. towards the front at the start of a cut, and at the back near the end.



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ..... The BD may feel more powerful as a greater degree of force is needed to more it forward......


Why would it need more force?


----------



## bugbear (12 Dec 2013)

Jacob":2wkl0b0r said:


> Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane.



Yes, but the plane design is a factor.

If you consider hypothetical planes with very deep bodies (so the handle is very high) and very long bodies (so the handle is very far back), it is obvious that in the former case directing force horizontally becomes difficult, and in the latter directing force vertically becomes difficult.

With the principle understood, it is then easy to apply it to less extreme (and more realistic) cases. One design option clearlt driven by such consideration is the wooden razee jack.

BugBear


----------



## Peter Sefton (12 Dec 2013)

Corneel":4clwowte said:


> At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.



As I said it depends on how much camber you have on the blade, if I was getting students to try setting to within .2mm I would need an extra Tormek for all the damaged blades, but it sounds like a good idea if it works for you.


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2013)

bugbear":2hwjkv5r said:


> Jacob":2hwjkv5r said:
> 
> 
> > Surely the user directs the force, whatever the plane.
> ...


There aren't any planes like that are there?


> and very long bodies ..... latter directing force vertically becomes difficult.


Easy - one hand each end and you can direct forces how you like


> With the principle understood,


What principle? "Planes with handles in the wrong place"?


> it is then easy to apply it to less extreme (and more realistic) cases. One design option clearlt driven by such consideration is the wooden razee jack.


I always understood the Razee to be school model for smaller people.
Armchair theorising is a bottomless pit!


----------



## Corneel (12 Dec 2013)

Let me try some armchair theorising. 

The Lie Nielsen #4 benchplane is a bevel down plane. As much a BD as a BD can be. Let's move the chipbreaker up a bit so it doesn't interfere with our theories. Now we have a very simple design. More or less single blade, 45 degree frog, bevel down. The cutting angle is 45 degrees too.








Now we get us some of these modern industrial super glues and glue the blade to the frog so it becomes one. Because of the inclined bedding of the frog we can adjust the depth setting of the blade with the frog adjusting screw. There might be one or two practical limitations to such a setup, but in theory this is a workable situation. We can even put the chipbreaker and levercap back on, allthough they don't have a function anymore, they won't harm either.

What we have created is a low angle, bevel up plane. The bevel in this creature is very long of course, and the face of the blade is a bit irregular, but in appearance and function it is exactly the same as the Lie Nielsen BU smoothing plane.





Of course, with just a few drops of glue, we didn't actually change anything at all. Which means that BU or BD doesn't change the plane, as long as the cutting angle is the same.

We have allready seen that the two planes, the LN #4 and the LN BU smoothing plane are very similar. Same length, same handles, same handle position, almost the same weight. And from the armchair theorising above we can conclude that the bevel up or bevel down configuration doesn't matter either. The only thing obviously different is the centre of gravity. And our own brain, which sees a different plane, thus expects a different behaviour.

I still don't know what makes a BU feel different then a BD. I wonder now if you would also feel a difference if you would use the planes blindfolded. Derek, you are the psychologist here, how about a test with some innocent volunteers?

Ps: Should have made the comparison with the #5 and the BU jack. They are even more similar. The BU smoother has a slightly more upright handle.


----------



## Corneel (12 Dec 2013)

Peter Sefton":vll5dj76 said:


> Corneel":vll5dj76 said:
> 
> 
> > At .5 to .75 mm he is too far from the edge in a smoothing plane. That's more a setting for a jack plane. Try 0.2 mm or as close as you can get. You will be surprised how effective the chipbreaker can be.
> ...



Hai Peter, 

I sharpen freehand and have no problem to keep the edge quite straight. A little bit of camber doesn't harm though. In the cambered corners, the shaving thickness is less too. In my foreplane the chipbreaker is even projecting a bit beyond the edge in the corners.


----------



## Jacob (12 Dec 2013)

Corneel":nhn2p7hb said:


> .....
> I still don't know what makes a BU feel different then a BD. I wonder now if you would also feel a difference if you would use the planes blindfolded. Derek, you are the psychologist here, how about a test with some innocent volunteers?


But in any case it doesn't matter a jot what it feels like - what matters is the quality of the planed surface, how quickly you can get what you want, how convenient the plane in terms of fiddling time etc etc.
On that basis I thought there wasn't anything to chose between LV LA smoother, Clifton 4, Stanley SW 4. They are all flawed but the Stanley is a third of the price!!

If any plane makers are out there IMHO the perfect plane would be the Stanley SW4, but with: 
a conventional Bailey pattern adjustment,
a two piece cap iron,
the mouth set screw of the LV plane,
less weight.


----------



## bugbear (13 Dec 2013)

Jacob":8v9u243d said:


> bugbear":8v9u243d said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":8v9u243d said:
> ...



link to meaning of hypothetical

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2013)

There are an infinite number of hypothetical planes - are you going to consider them all?
Might be simpler to stick to real ones.


----------



## bugbear (13 Dec 2013)

Jacob":33fziu3n said:


> There are an infinite number of hypothetical planes - are you going to consider them all?



Oh for crying out loud, are you being deliberately obtuse just to cause an argument?

The hypothetical planes were carefully chosen to illustrate the mattter at hand.

BugBear


----------



## nev (13 Dec 2013)

sharpening-and-other-fun-things-t75308.html


----------



## J_SAMa (13 Dec 2013)

Deja vu?
This came up a while ago...
Again i think the only advantage that a BU plane has is it rides much lower and therefore better for one-handed block planes (easier to hold than a bevel down).
Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?

+1 on Kees' blindfolded test idea


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Dec 2013)

I don't think the blindfold idea will work. On a bevel down Plane it's easy to feel the frog/blade with the back of the fingers. Even on a No.6 my index finger touches the lateral lever and my hands are relatively small.
Maybe that's why the Razee developed the step at the back, to give more clearance from the top of the blade by dropping the position of the hand. Just a thought.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

J_SAMa":ly8kvijl said:


> Deja vu?
> This came up a while ago...
> Again i think the only advantage that a BU plane has is it rides much lower and therefore better for one-handed block planes (easier to hold than a bevel down).
> _Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?_
> ...



I'm afraid that you are way off understanding how a BU smoother works with a statement like this. Just to educate you, the cutting angle of a BU plane can be made much steeper with a high microbevel. For example, a 50 degree microbevel would create a plane with a 62 degree cutting angle. This would smooth just about any interlocked grain without tearout.

I have wanted to reply to Kees but do not know where to start. Corneel, I'm sorry, but I do not understand any of your writings. They just do not many sense to me. Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding 

To BB, I think that you and I are on the same wavelength - whew! My use of a windsurfing term is to try and describe that (let's call it "gravity") can be shifted around, that we do this either by designing it in or we do it in the way we hold or use a tool (in this particular case, a handplane). "Hang" may indeed be an alternate term. I use "hang" to describe the relationship of a saw handle to the saw plate. I can see how you would use it with a handplane -the relationship of the handle to the cutting edge. 

Mignal, the razee design is intended to lower the centre of gravity.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Vann (14 Dec 2013)

J_SAMa":u0mxmer3 said:


> Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?


Which is why I have an O1 iron with a primary bevel at 25 degrees, and a microbevel 2 degrees higher. 
Bedding angle 12 + bevel 27= 39 degrees. 6 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch (worth it for end grain).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> J_SAMa":1d8cpx9l said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...


Just to educate you - you can do much the same with a bevel down plane


> ....Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding


Is that what it is! :lol:


> To BB, I think that you and I are on the same wavelength ...


 I think this is very true :lol: :lol:


> My use of a windsurfing term is to try and describe that (let's call it "gravity") can be shifted around, that we do this either by designing it in or we do it in the way we hold or use a tool (in this particular case, a handplane). "Hang" may indeed be an alternate term. I use "hang" to describe the relationship of a saw handle to the saw plate. I can see how you would use it with a handplane -the relationship of the handle to the cutting edge.


Have you tried attaching weights and counterbalances to a plane (like archers do with modern bows). I think you should, rather than theorising from the armchair. Let us know how you get on - photos please :lol:


> Mignal, the razee design is intended to lower the centre of gravity.
> .....


Hm, taking an ounce or so of wood from the body, that'd lower the centre of gravity by what, 1/8" perhaps? Not even that. Work it out Derek instead of just guessing!
As I understand the razee was the school model - for smaller people. Nothing to do with gravity. PS changed my mind about that after looking at this http://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013 ... ee-planes/
I guess they are just another tool makers fashion, with no particular strengths or weaknesses except in the minds of salesmen.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

> Hm, taking an ounce or so of wood from the body, that's lower the centre of gravity by what, 1/8" perhaps? Not even that. Work it out Derek instead of just guessing!
> As I understand the razee was the school model - for smaller people. Nothing to do with gravity.



Jacob dear fellow, one description (not my own) of a razee plane is ....

_The name is derived from the nautical term razee, a sailing ship that has been cut down to reduce the number of decks. The name is derived from the French vaisseau rasé, meaning a razed. In a similar context, the rear part of the wooden plane is lowered in a cut-away style, lowering the totes position on the plane. Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. It also aligns the force being applied right behind the blade._ (more here: http://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/2013 ... ee-planes/)

Back to school for you 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

Posts crossed! Same link.
_Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity._ - toolie talk, largely meaningless.The bit about gravity clearly nonsense.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

Vann":181vna7l said:


> J_SAMa":181vna7l said:
> 
> 
> > Despite what a lot of people have been saying LA planes aren't better shooting planes than BD's. Bedding angle 13+ bevel 30= 43 degrees. 2 degrees lower than 45 degrees common pitch, why bother?
> ...



Hi Vann

Just an addition to this, in the review I completed of the Veritas Shooting Plane there was a comparison with the LN #51 (which I own). The Veritas has a 12 degree bed and is BU, the LN is a BD plane with a 45 degree bed. Both planes are skewed at 20 degrees.

In addition to comparing PM-V11 vs A2 steel, it was possible to compare both planes using A2 steel. One of the most interesting results for me was how the BU orientation reduced blade wear over the BD orientation.

Briefly, both A2 blades were used with a 25 degree bevel. The Veritas proved to retain its edge significantly longer than the LN. The LN was also tested with its blade at 30 degrees. The BU Veritas at 25 degrees (37 degree cutting angle) continued to last significantly longer than the BD LN at 30 degrees (45 degree cutting angle).

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

Jacob":1ux4yxg5 said:


> Posts crossed! Same link.
> _Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity._ - toolie talk, largely meaningless.The bit about gravity clearly nonsense.



Oh sure, Jacob ... clearly nonsense :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek

:lol: :lol: :lol: ..............................................


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Jacob":25ezdqr1 said:
> 
> 
> > Posts crossed! Same link.
> ...


If you bothered to think about it (and kept off the christmas pudding) you would see that it'd shift the CG by a few mm (AOTBE) i.e. an insignificant amount. It's not even clear that a large movement would be significant anyway.


----------



## Corneel (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I have wanted to reply to Kees but do not know where to start. Corneel, I'm sorry, but I do not understand any of your writings. They just do not many sense to me. Perhaps it is too much Christmas pudding



That's disappointing Derek, I thought you would have a stronger imagination. To make it easier for you I will give numbers to my ideas, so you can just quote the number when you don't understand something.

1. BU or BD makes no difference for the wood. The wood only cares about the iron where it actually touches the iron. How far back from the edge does the wood touch the iron? 1mm? Maybe it slightly glides over the iron at 2mm from the edge? Any further the shaving curls away from the edge, and the cut surface dwindels back behind the edge. For the wood, the bevel orientation is just semantics.
Edit: Just had a peek at the Kato video. http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html From 4:20 you can see how the shaving leaves the iron after no more then 0.2 mm!

2. The only difference for the wood is the cutting angle. 45 degree in a standard BD plane. 45 degrees in a BU plane with a 33 degree bevel. Exactly the same.

3. The low angle (in the name "low angle plane") at which the iron is presented to the wood is a matter of perception. When you glue the iron to the frog in a Bedrock plane, thus laminating them together, you instantly transfer that plane into a low angle plane. The bedding of the frog now becomes the bedding of the new laminated iron.

4. You say that you compared BU versus BD in your shooting board test. But you don't mention that you also compared high versus low cutting angle in the exact same experiment. An experiment with two variables at the same time. So you cannot conclude that the bevel orientation was the major cause for the differences in wear. Because the wood doesn't know about the bevel orientation of the plane, you can just as well conclude that the cutting angle was the major cause.

5. Look at these two planes. Bearing in mind the points discussed above, what differences do we see? Exactly what difference in the planes make them feel different?












The rear handle is a little bit more upright in the BU plane, and it is positioned a little bit more to the rear. The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane. And the center of gravity is lower in the BU plane. And now I am curious which one of these details make a real difference in the experience of using the plane.


----------



## tim burr (14 Dec 2013)

Corneel":p9xi8ogd said:


> The rear handle is a little bit more upright in the BU plane, and it is positioned a little bit more to the rear. The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane. And the center of gravity is lower in the BU plane. And now I am curious which one of these details make a real difference in the experience of using the plane.



For me it's purely the 3 finger v's 4 finger grip. I have a veritas low angle jack and a stanley 5 1/2 so both similarly sized, however I prefer the stanley purely because I rest my index finger on the frog during use, something I can't do with the veritas. As a result I don't really like using the veritas all that much as it feels awkward in use and in the real world there is very little to separate the two planes in terms of results.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

> 1. BU or BD makes no difference for the wood. The wood only cares about the iron where it actually touches the iron. How far back from the edge does the wood touch the iron? 1mm? Maybe it slightly glides over the iron at 2mm from the edge? Any further the shaving curls away from the edge, and the cut surface dwindels back behind the edge. For the wood, the bevel orientation is just semantics.
> 
> 2. The only difference for the wood is the cutting angle. 45 degree in a standard BD plane. 45 degrees in a BU plane with a 33 degree bevel. Exactly the same.



Hi Kees

OK, this is easier to explain - still theoretical, but hopefully someone qualified can interpret my thoughts and support or reject the notion.

Firstly, none of the above is relevant. Misses the point completely (as you will hopefully recognise in a short while). I'm not dismissing what you have written, just that it does not relate to the issue of Centre of Effort.

Both BU and BD planes plane wood. The wood cannot determine if they are BU or BD. Ignore cutting angles. Tis is also irrelevant in this topic. The wood cannot tell if the cutting angle comes from a B or BD plane.

The issue of C of E is not what happens on or to the wood. It is about what happens to the user of the plane. It is the experience the planer has when using a BD or BU plane. It is not just these planes, but the experience of planing when the hang of the handle is changed, when the handle is raised or the body is lowered.



> 4. You say that you compared BU versus BD in your shooting board test. But you don't mention that you also compared high versus low cutting angle in the exact same experiment. An experiment with two variables at the same time. So you cannot conclude that the bevel orientation was the major cause for the differences in wear. Because the wood doesn't know about the bevel orientation of the plane, you can just as well conclude that the cutting angle was the major cause.



I did compare BU and BD in the shooting plane review. And I compared low verses high beds. And I compared different bevel angles. 

Of course you can draw conclusions (about BU and BD) with multiple variables involved - I am a trained researcher (as well as a clinician), and controlling variables is bread-and-butter to me. There was absolutely no doubt that the BD orientation, with the blade bedded at 45 degrees, created greater force on the edge of the blade than did the blade in the BU orientation, which was bedded at 12 degrees. 

You have perhaps only read the one review. There was a second, a follow up. Look at the conclusions. 

Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html



> 5. Look at these two planes. Bearing in mind the points discussed above, what differences do we see? Exactly what difference in the planes make them feel different?
> 
> Image
> 
> ...



Thank for these pics, Kees. These again allow me to show you what I have been referring to all along.

What you will see below are vector lines. The single blue line represents the Centre of Effort, and the red line is where this is increased.

Please keep in mind that I am just theorising. I am trying to find a way to both convey what I have observed for some years and translate it into something that may be explained scientifically. Vectors and engineering are not my area of expertise (and it shows!). However, I recognise that if we can understand what is happening here, it may just contribute to plane design ergonomics. 

There must be a reason why pushing horizontally (with the more upright handle on the BU) creates less resistance than pushing down (with the more forward leaning BD handle)

Look at this picture of the BD plane ...






When you push down on a forward leaning handle, you direct weight over the mouth. If you raise the hand (handle) higher, the weight is increased, and resistance increases with it. (Keep in mind that both BD and BD also place pressure on the front knob. For the argument, let us just assume that this is the same for both planes).

Here is the BU plane with the more upright handle ...






Now the weight is lifted off the mouth. Of course, if you add a handle with more forward lean, then you increase the weight over the mouth, and thereby increase resistance.

I experienced this when I changed the handles on my LV planes from the original to Bailey-style.






Keep in mind that there is also the angle of the bed to take into account. From my earlier experiments, the lower bed exerts less force on the edge of the blade, and the higher bed exerts greater force on the edge of the blade. 

The combination of lower C of E and lowered force combines to make the BU plane feel lighter in the hand as if it were "floating". Conversely, the increased resistance when pushing the BD plane makes it feel more "powerful". 

These are features that are part of the ergonomics of plane use. They do not directly change the way the plane impacts on the wood.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

All that blue line stuff is completely over ridden by how you actually push the thing. Without moving your hand from the handle you can pull/push it backwards, forwards, downwards, or even lift it upwards. All directions of effort are possible. The blue line diagram for the "C of E" should be a blue blob! Add to this the effort applied to the front knob and could find yourself in another space time continuum! :shock: 
Are you still on the christmas pudding Derek?

PS and then what happens if you add candlewax to the sole? All bets are off. It doesn't bear thinking about. :roll:


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Dec 2013)

Derek I have been reading these posts with interest, thanks for taking the time to expand on your articles. It has been hard to follow sometimes as this has turned into BU vs BD. Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting that a more upright tote makes for easy planing as you push forward more than forward and down like we do with a Bailey type tote. Some day I might get my mits on a BU plane so I can contrast the two.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Dec 2013)

I don't really want to enter this debate, but I'll just add a couple of thoughts based on my professional experience as a design engineer.

Derek states in his 2006 article that 'Centre of Gravity' and 'Centre of Effort' are not the same thing. He is absolutely right. 'Centre of Gravity' is fixed for any given plane, and could best be described as the 'balance point' of the plane; the point at which the plane will balance fore and aft, side to side, and up-down. Once a plane is built and set up, it's C of G will be fixed, and won't change unless you add bits on or take bits off.

Any analysis of the forces acting on a plane must consider ALL the forces acting, including (as Jacob correctly points out) any forces applied to the front of the plane. Also, there will be friction between the sole of the plane and the wood, the effect of gravity acting downwards (the 'weight' of the plane - it's mass times acceleration due to gravity), resisted by the supporting force of the wood acting upwards; the forces applied to the wood by the cutting iron (mostly horizontal, but with a small vertical component) and the forces acting on the plane's rear handle. That latter force will be complex, depending on whether the user is pushing with the heel of their hand, the top of their hand, or evenly - the 'centre of effort' will vary. There will also be a vertical component of force applied by the handle hand at some parts of the planing stroke, and the vertical force applied to the front of the plane will also vary as the planing stroke progresses.

Good luck analysing that lot.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

CC, that is exactly right. The C of G is fixed and the C of E will vary.

I was on the point of answering Graham when you posted.

Graham wrote:


> Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting that a more upright tote makes for easy planing as you push forward more than forward and down like we do with a Bailey type tote.



Graham, that is the issue. While this was not really about BU or BD, these plane orientations make it easier to understand the C of E concept. It helps one understand why the planes feel different in use. 

There is an analogous situation with sawing dovetails: If you angle the saw downwards, you effectively increase the pitch of the teeth, and the saw will be harder to push. If you raise the angle at which you saw you will lower the pitch and make the saw easier to push - and then one needs to raise the work piece to facilitate this option. That is where a Moxon vise comes in.

The height of a work bench also changes the angle at which we plane. A high workbench will encourage one to push the plane on the horizontal with the heel of the hand. That lowers the C of E. A low bench will cause an upright handle to be uncomfortable (as the wrist is too cocked), and a lower handle that allows one to push down will be preferred. That increases the C of E.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

So what you are saying is that;
1. a badly designed handle is uncomfortable
2 a handle for normal use might not be comfortable at say knee level, or above your head.
I think I get it now.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

Jacob, you're being deliberately obtuse. You are like a child in a classroom that must be heard but has nothing to say.

Off to the corner you go! 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ............
> 
> The height of a work bench also changes the angle at which we plane. ....


What if you stand on a box? 
So if you raise the bench it's equivalent to having a bevel up plane, or have I got that wrong?
What about tilting the bench?


----------



## Corneel (14 Dec 2013)

I see your point about the hang angle of the rearhandles. A given handle kind of dictates how you push it, but like Jacobs sais, you still have a lot of freedom. Push a bit more with the heel of your hand and the direction of your blue arrow becomes immediately a lot more horizontal. In fact we do that all the time, pushing harder on the front onthe start of the cut for example. The frontknob is an essential part of all this and can't be left out of the equation.

You can't leave out the wood though. The wood presents the resistance. The cutting blade plowing through the fibres. The fibres pushing down on the sharp blade and presenting a downward force until the blade dulls and the wearbevel at the back of the blade presents an upwards force. We, at the other end of the plane must resist these forces and overcome them. With all types of planes which came to us from history this is possible without too much difficulties. So somehow we adjust how we push against the handle and the frontknob, despite the shape they have.

At this point we need real meassurements to see what a difference another handle really makes.

One thing for sure, the bedangle doesn't make a difference. At all. I allready demonstarted that with the Bedrock example.

The saw anology isn't comparable. On the one hand we can't tilt the plane like you did with the dovetail plane. You would pull the edge out of the cut. A comparison could be made with the hangangle from the saw. With a more horizontal sawhandle, you can press the teeth harder into the wood, thus making the saw more agressive. But in a plane you can't push the edge harder into the wood. The planesole prevents that. The only thing happening is that the resistance increases, like you allready wrote. The lesson we can learn from this is that we shouldn't push any harder on the plane then neccessary to keep the edge into the cut. With a sharp blade we don't need to push down very hard. And a bit of wax on the sole helps a lot too.

Regarding your shooting board test, yes I read both articles. In both you are testing the BU plane at 37 degrees, the BD plane at 45. So any increase of wear at the edge is a result of that increase in cutting angle. The wear on the edge is a result of the woodshavings against the edge, and because the wood doesnt see more then 0.2 mm of the iron, the bevel orientation is completely irrelevant.


----------



## CStanford (14 Dec 2013)

Jacob":1bbq5ao5 said:


> So what you are saying is that;
> 1. a badly designed handle is uncomfortable
> 2 a handle for normal use might not be comfortable at say knee level, or above your head.
> I think I get it now.



On the one hand Derek informs us about how easily these planes are pushed then in other threads/posts discusses the logic of using machines to do the "donkey work." Why not simply use these beautiful, easy to push planes and let the machinery go? In what context does 'easy to push' apply, when taking half thou shavings on the last few smoothing passes? When was that ever hard work with any kind of plane? Are we hogging off end grain now? I'd love to see that. In what context is all the physics even being applied? Certainly not the "donkey work," Derek uses machines for that. One presumes, then, smoothing and maybe tickling up and tidying end grain.

I have a Marples Razee jack and it's really no easier to push than a standard wooden jack by the way. It's cute though, sort of reminds me of a whale when looked at from the side. It would be kind of neat to paint it blue, give it eyes, and a blow-hole. Maybe paint it white and name it Moby Razee.

I can give a shout out to LV customer service while I'm at it. I ordered a plane a while back and it accidentally shipped without the little packet of magic pixie dust (maybe magic powdered metal pixie dust?) that comes with each one. I called customer service and the FedEx'd one to me the next day. Makes all the difference in the world, this pixie dust.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

Hi Corneel

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't think we are on the same page. I am not sure what "Bedrock example" you provided. I have actually measured the effect the bed angle has in edge wear. I am not sure what you base your comments on. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Corneel (14 Dec 2013)

The one you didn't understand.


----------



## G S Haydon (14 Dec 2013)

Thanks for the response Derek, this is an interesting area of tool design.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Dec 2013)

That is the one where you superglue a blade to a BD frog and call it a BU plane? Yes, i can see why you believe that is proof. Of what I am not sure :lol: 

No, Kees, I think that we are done.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That is the one where you superglue a blade to a BD frog and call it a BU plane? Yes, i can see why you believe that is proof. Of what I am not sure :lol:
> 
> No, Kees, I think that we are done.
> 
> ...



The easier a plane is to push from behind (due to handle position, etc.) the harder it has to be pushed down on the nose to keep it cutting.

It's basically a wash. You aren't accounting for the pressure needed on the front knob, or the front of the plane on a wooden jack, for instance.

Anybody who gets over the initial change in 'feels' (which aren't terribly significant themselves) of the BU vs. BD cannot honestly say with anything resembling a straight face that there is a material difference in the physical effort needed to use one vs. the other. There just isn't. 

Tool catalog sales puffery makes for bad physics - whether the latest printing from Lee Valley or vintage catalogs from 100 years ago.


----------



## Corneel (14 Dec 2013)

Am I really the only one who sees a low angle plane when looking at the inclined bedding of the frog of a Bedrock?


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

Don't know but my bevel down Stanley SW 4 feels like a bevel up Plane!


----------



## J_SAMa (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> J_SAMa":tkc7lxe9 said:
> 
> 
> > Deja vu?
> ...



What about a back bevel on a BD plane :?
Also I think the ability to use a chipbreaker in a BD plane makes up for it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for "razee" (this is the first time I've heard of the term per se, but I have seen planes of that style), I think the lowering of the tote is to allow for a *center of thrust* closer to the cutting edge rather than for a lower center of mass.

Sam


----------



## J_SAMa (14 Dec 2013)

Corneel":125eej8m said:


> The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane...


Wait wooot? BD planes are meant for 3 finger grips and not 4 :shock: Are my hands that small


----------



## J_SAMa (14 Dec 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That is the one where you superglue a blade to a BD frog and call it a BU plane? Yes, i can see why you believe that is proof. Of what I am not sure :lol:
> 
> No, Kees, I think that we are done.
> 
> ...



I think Kees is saying that gluing a BD plane's iron to its frog is like directly bedding it on the frog bed (since the iron and frog has become one piece), just like how a BU plane's iron is bedded to a bed directly and there is no frog...


----------



## David C (14 Dec 2013)

"Am I really the only one who sees a low angle plane when looking at the inclined bedding of the frog of a Bedrock?"

Probably yes.

The details of blade support near to the edge seem to have escaped you? Also the clearance angle will be different if the BD blade is sharpened at the conventional 30 degrees.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2013)

David C":7t02ztuj said:


> "Am I really the only one who sees a low angle plane when looking at the inclined bedding of the frog of a Bedrock?"
> 
> Probably yes.


Yes Dave you are on your own on this one.
It's a very silly fiddly design the bedrock. You have to loosen and tighten 3 screws and then re-set the blade. Adjustable mouths are the future IMHO.


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2013)

J_SAMa":1uasi76h said:


> Corneel":1uasi76h said:
> 
> 
> > The BU plane has a four finger grip versus 3 finger grip of the BD plane...
> ...


Seems so. Finger fattening exercises? Count yourself lucky that you don't have 6 fingers! (per hand that is).
Have you thought of supergluing your head to the tote?


----------



## Jacob (15 Dec 2013)

Corneel":3reovvpw said:


> I see your point about the hang angle of the rearhandles. .....


Should that be the hand dangle of the rearhangles? it's all very confusing.


----------



## Corneel (15 Dec 2013)

David C":ww3p5uzg said:


> "Am I really the only one who sees a low angle plane when looking at the inclined bedding of the frog of a Bedrock?"
> 
> Probably yes.
> 
> ...



It was a mental excersize David, to demonstrate that BU or BD don't make a difference in the amount of force you feel when pushing the plane or how the force of pushing the plane is presented to the wood. If one and the same plane can be regarded as both BU and BD without actually changing anything, then there is no difference.

I don't mind to explain once again. Look at this picture. Imagine that blade and frog are one thing. And because the don't move relatively to each other during a planing stroke, that is a valid assumption. The green line is the new face, the red line is the new bevel. Now you have a bevelup, low angle plane. Which cuts exactly the same as the BD plane before this mental excersize. Conclusion, BU or BD doesn't matter.





In how far the extra support under the blade in a BU plane makes a difference is something which should be tested. I suspect the difference is minimal because the BD plane has a chipbreaker, giving support even closer to the edge. At some point the amount of support is enough. When you get a smoothly planed surface, any extra support doesn't help and is just along for the ride.

Nobody cares anymore, but I am sick so I have nothing better to do.


----------



## David C (15 Dec 2013)

Well, just trying to inject some tiny facts into this fruitless wrangle.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Dec 2013)

I did say earlier that I didn't want to take part in this debate, and most of me still doesn't. However, I have been thinking about the forces acting on a handplane during use. I've ended up with a question to pose, which I ll come to in a bit.

A planing stroke usually consists of a start (accelerating the plane) a middle (plane moving steadily, so the forces acting on it are in equilibrium) and a finish (decelerating the plane, lifting it off the work, and returning to the start point). For now, let's forget the start and finish, and just consider the middle, steady planing at a constant pace, bit.

The forces acting on the plane are fourfold:
1) The user will be applying a force to the handle, to move the plane forward and overcome the cutting resistance of the wood, and possibly also slightly downward to keep the plane sole on the wood.
2) The user will be applying a force to the front of the plane, mostly downwards to keep the plane 'in cut'.
3) There will be some friction between the plane sole and the workpiece, resisting the forward motion of the plane.
4) There will be a force exerted by the wood on the tip of the plane iron.

All these forces will vary, depending on such things as the resistance to cutting of the workpiece, the width and thickness of cut being taken, the sharpness or otherwise of the cutting iron, the position of the user's hand on the rear handle (pushing low down with the heel of the hand or higher up), the coefficient of friction between the plane sole material and the workpiece and the area of contact, the mass of the plane and the load applied by the user to the toe end of the plane.

Also - and here's the question - what exactly is happening where the tip of the plane iron is engaged with the wood? There's a resistance to forward motion - a horizontal force opposing the user's push - but is there also a component of force acting vertically upwards on the plane iron tip trying to force it out of cut? If so, how large is it relative to the horizontal force? Does the angle at which the plane iron is bedded relative to the plane sole affect the way the horizontal and vertical components of force acting on the plane iron tip are absorbed by the plane, and does the user notice the difference between high and low bedding angles?

The problem with questions like this is that there are too many variables. What sort of plane - jack, try, smoother? Planing a face or an edge? What species of timber? Does thickness of iron affect results?

Must admit, despite my engineer's analytical mind, I'm more inclined to go along with centuries of practical experience and set the planes up and use them according to long-held knowledge of what usually works rather than bother about quantifying forces acting.

Still, might give someone something to mull over as they're digesting their Christmas pud.


----------



## Corneel (15 Dec 2013)

The Japanese professors actually meassured the forces in their planing setup. So that should answer your question about the vertical and horizontal forces. The complete article: http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html





The bedding angle of course makes no differences to the forces involved, but the cutting angle certainly does. But I can't quantify how.


----------



## J_SAMa (15 Dec 2013)

Before you know it some genius in Japan is gonna make a model of the forces on a plane with different weights, sharpness and tote angle and whatnot...


----------



## Sgian Dubh (15 Dec 2013)

Cheshirechappie":2znuuqh4 said:


> ... I'm more inclined to go along with centuries of practical experience and set the planes up and use them according to long-held knowledge of what usually works rather than bother about quantifying forces acting.


Sounds like the plan I've been following on hand planing techniques for all my time in the industry. It saves a lot of angst and tedious nitpicking along with unnecessary navel gazing over what seems to be very little of consequence. I'm a simple "sharp'n'go" man myself - it gets the job done, and done quickly I've found.



Cheshirechappie":2znuuqh4 said:


> Still, might give someone something to mull over as they're digesting their Christmas pud.


Not me, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Corneel (15 Dec 2013)

Been thinking hard all evening while muddling around in my pudding. Maybe I'm completely wrong on all points I've said in this thread, so if someone can point out a fundamental mistake in my meanderings, I'll be the first to acknowledge that.

What happens with these forces on the edge of the plane? Let us assume an extreme example. You are hitting a knot and the plane comes to a sudden halt. Because of the momentum the plane wants to move forward and starts to turn around the edge. What happens next? What is the fulcrum point? Is it trying to bend the blade? Probably but when everything is clamped down tightly would that make a difference? Or would it just pull the plane tighter against the wood? Maybe the length of the sole in front of the edge is the most important part in the equation.

The same thing happens to a much lesser extend when the plane just meets resistance but continues to move.

Time to let things rest and go to bed. Tomorrow I hope to be healthy again and do something usefull.


----------



## Vann (15 Dec 2013)

The frog seat of a bedrock is machined at 20 degrees to the sole (your green line). The iron sits at 45°, and it's bevel is ground at 25°. So the clearance angle at the cut is 20° (not your green line), whereas on a low-angle plane it's 12°. Of course if you honed a microbevel at 33°.... 

Probably makes no difference - just saying :roll: 

Cheers, vanN.

Now back to my Christmas pudding, hagelslag, zoutdrop & speculaas.


----------



## Richard T (16 Dec 2013)

I'm so sorry dann. 

Bevel up planes are great. Try one, you'll like it. 

It's paring with a plane rather than scraping.


----------



## Jacob (16 Dec 2013)

Vann":xa61ycni said:


> The frog seat of a bedrock is machined at 20 degrees to the sole (your green line). The iron sits at 45°, and it's bevel is ground at 25°. So the clearance angle at the cut is 20° (not your green line), whereas on a low-angle plane it's 12°. Of course if you honed a microbevel at 33°....
> 
> Probably makes no difference - just saying :roll:
> 
> ...


If bevel is 30º to 35º then clearance angle is 15º to 10º . Just saying! 
25º is too fine - makes a thick blade into a thin one, just where it matter most.


----------



## Corneel (16 Dec 2013)

Because it was a mental exersize, you could imagine that the Bedrock angle is 12 degrees....

The face of a plane blade doesn't need to be flat. It can be concave too. Then you could say that a Bailey plane has a 0 degree bedding angle, when you imagine that the frog and blade are one. In order to be able to cut this imaginairy blade has a very concave face.

Jacob, yes 25 degrees sharpening angle is a bit low. But I use it in several planes and found no adverse effects. The planes don't chatter or skitter. Maybe I'll raise the angle a bit in subsequent sharpenings. 30 degrees has the advantage that the bevel is shorter which also helps in reducing grinding time.


----------



## bugbear (16 Dec 2013)

I think one of the difficulties of this is that applying 'O' level grade mechanics to planes is too simple. The mental habit of assuming that rigid things are _perfectly_ rigid, flat things are _perfectly_ flat, and inelastic things are _perfectly_ inelastic is great for making the maths simple (or at least simpler) but inadequate in the real world.

Engineering design is all about making items that function well despite real world manufacturing limitations.

One of the notable benefits of a BU plane is that is has a lower manufacturing cost than a Bailey (or Bailey-a-like), and can thus be made either cheaper, or better for the same cost.

BugBear


----------



## dann (26 Dec 2013)

Peter Sefton":22eeg4cg said:


> The BU do have a different feel to them, they are not as heavy as standard bench planes mainly due to the lack of the frog. I do like to swap and changer between my BU and BD planes I use the BD for more timber prep and my BU for fine finishing particularly if the high angle is required for interlocked grain. I do have a back bevel set up in my Clifton no 5 Jack for working tricky timbers but I find students and beginners find it difficult to maintain a small back bevel.
> I had all the planes out on the bench yesterday for a short course I am running to show the guys, I find the students buy which ever feels most comfortable in their hand and once that are either Clifton or Veritas fans that's the way they tend to stay.
> Both are great planes, Dann if you need any help with your choice of Veritas smoother please do PM or call cheers Peter



Cheers Peter, ill be in contact in the new year about one once i get back to work after the holidays.


----------



## Peter Sefton (26 Dec 2013)

dann":1n45ymod said:


> Peter Sefton":1n45ymod said:
> 
> 
> > The BU do have a different feel to them, they are not as heavy as standard bench planes mainly due to the lack of the frog. I do like to swap and changer between my BU and BD planes I use the BD for more timber prep and my BU for fine finishing particularly if the high angle is required for interlocked grain. I do have a back bevel set up in my Clifton no 5 Jack for working tricky timbers but I find students and beginners find it difficult to maintain a small back bevel.
> ...



That's great, we reopen on the 2nd but in the meantime you are more than welcome to PM or Email us [email protected] it would be good to know what you already have and what you are trying to achieve or do with your new years treat.
Cheers Peter


----------

