# What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

I have a serious question to ask as I am confused by what I am seeing lately

Just lately there seems to be many advocates of bevel up (i.e. Low Angle) bench planes and even jointers. Is there any reasoning behind this or is it simply a bandwagon and latest fad?

What's the deal here? As far as I am aware (and I could easily be wrong here), planes have been tested and developed to work very well over several hundred years. Surely Chippendale, to name one, must have used something akin to a 'standard' angle plane rather than bevel up to produce his rather impressive furniture?

If skilled craftsmen have been happy with the bevel down at the 'standard' angle, which must have been arrived at over tens or hundreds of years of R&D and practical use, why are we suddenly seeing a cry to favour LA planes? Often with re-ground blades to allow them to cut like bevel down planes? Especially interesting when one considers that high angle planes are _accepted_ as working better on 'difficult ' woods.

I have an LA smoother and a bedrock smoother (same manufacturer) and the bedrock generally works best on the woods I use (Pine, Oak, Ash, Mahogany(s), Sycamore, Maple, Beech). 

So why the favour towards LAs?


----------



## ike (28 Apr 2005)

I think the LV bevel up planes in particular, are very popular due to their versatility afforded by the low cost, high angle blade option. You get all round functionlity at a much lower cost than having separate planes or as with LN's, a seperate frog (£50+) :shock: 

Why earlier generations of planemakers never picked up on it and made a commercial success of the idea as LV have, is surprising.


Ike


----------



## dedee (28 Apr 2005)

Tony,
an interesting post. 
I will leave the technical side of the debate to others but as far as the historical aspect goes; does it necessarily follow that because nobody though about it hundreds of years ago that it is a fad or a bad idea? One could apply the same theory to Japanese pull saws for example.

Impossible to say of course but I suspect that Chippendale would have used these modern tools if they had been available to him.

Andy


----------



## ydb1md (28 Apr 2005)

Personally, I never have cared for the bevel down designs, at all. I've been working wood for a long time and bevel downs have always given me fits. They are a royal PITA to adjust and by design they have too many parts. Having so many parts leaves lots of surfaces that might not mate quite right. When I got my first bevel up plane, i wanted to scream hallelujah. Here was a plane that would do what I needed it to -- with a minimum of futzing.

LA designs are cheaper because they are simpler in design and execution, not because they're inferior. Less parts means less machining -- where the bulk of a metal plane's cost is. I don't see how Lie Nielsen can get away with charging $295 for a bevel up jointer -- it's almost criminal, really. They are so much easier for the manufacturer to produce. I imagine the only reason that Lee Valley prices their LA designs close to their bevel up counterparts is so that the LA's don't steal sales from the "old" designs. I imagine that, when you get down to it, a bevel up design costs maybe half what it costs to produce (manufacture) a bevel down design. The profit margin for bevel down designs, i'm guessing, is pretty low while the bevel ups should give the manufacturers a little more bang for their buck.

Where the metal hits the wood, all that really matters is the effective angle between the iron and the grain. If you use a bedrock-design bevel down plane with an effective blade angle of 50 degrees and compare the quality of cut to a bevel up LA plane with an effective blade angle of 50 degrees, the difference in the surface finish should be minute, almost academic.

The fact that an LA plane can function as two or three different planes simply by swapping blades is amazing. I can't imagine swapping out the frog on a bedrock design to get the effect of a york pitch when I can swap out my blade in a matter of seconds.

Personally, I can't stand the complexity of the bevel down planes. The chip breakers, the frogs, etc. It leaves me having to play with so many variables when I'd rather be working the wood. I imagine there will be purists that hold the traditional design in high esteem. I just believe that no one realized the full potential of the bevel up design when it came out in the early part of the last century. Somehow I can't imagine a woodworker in the 1920's grinding a micro bevel on his iron just to see what would happen. I kind of envision them doing things "the way it's always been done" without giving it a second thought.

just my two cents . . . .


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Apr 2005)

Tony

There are several reasons why the LA planes have recently become so prized. 

It is important to recognise that the original Stanley #62 and #164 were

(1) relatively specialised tools in their day, used for surfaces such as smoothing chopping blocks. That is, dedicated to end grain surfaces only. 
(2) They were only available with 25 degree bevel blades and used in low angle mode, which made them unsuitable for most hardwoods and especially anything with reversing grain. 
(3) The cast iron from which they were manufactured is a far cry from the ductile iron used by LV and LN. The design of these planes is such that the bed is thin and, thus, the mouth is fragile. Most of the original Stanley (including my #62) have damage to the rear of the mouth. I t is not a significant factor in practice, but the planes obtained a reputation as being unsuitable for the type of robust usage for which the bench planes excel. This problem was eliminated with the introduction of ductile iron.

In the area of bevel down planes it is now accepted that the Bed Rock design is superior to that of the standard bench plane. Here we are talking about the frog design of the Bed Rock, which extends to the beginning of the mouth, so supporting the blade much further than the standard frog. Manufacturers such a LN, Clifton and (in their own unique way) LV have adopted these design principles.

Following on from this is the advantage offered by the bevel up planes. The most important issue here is that the blade is supported over an even greater area than even the Bed Rock design. As a result, the bevel up planes offer the potential for performance greater than ever before. 

But wait .... there is even more! The bevel up planes offer great versatility since it is easy to change the cutting angle from LA to HA simply by using a blade with a different bevel angle. This is only possible with bevel down planes to a very limited extent (if you use back bevels), and is considerably less convenient in this particular format.

The irony is that bevel up planes are not only better design, but they are simpler in construction, and therefore cheaper to manufacture, than bevel up bench planes. No doubt we are going to see the growth of this design in the future. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

Really interesting points and reasoning so far. Thanks for the responses, they make very interesting reading. 

However, my LN4.5 still performs better than my LN #164 which suggests to me that the only real advantages are the price due to simplicity, and possibly the greater blade support area :? 

I do not really see that having two blades ground to a different angles is an advantage as it takes too long to swap and set up a blade correctly and there is plenty of scope for error in the initial setting. I am personally happier to have 2 planes, one high angle and one standard/low angle - both set up correctly all the time

On the blade support front, I believe that it is only crucial near the cutting edge and would have expected a bedrock design to be perfectly good enough here when used with a blade of decent thickness? Is this not the case?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Apr 2005)

> it takes too long to swap and set up a blade correctly



Tony, this may be so for the LN, but it is not the case with the LV. I know of several LN-users who have since swapped their #164s and #62s for LV's.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (28 Apr 2005)

Okay, so you're sick of me on this subject, but never mind, here's my take on it... :roll: 

So the first question is; if they're so d*** great, why didn't the old timers use them then? Where are all the old #62's and #164's

I believe the answer to be; materials. When planes were first made, it soon became apparent that the favoured material - wood - was frankly hopeless below a certain angle. Make your bedding angle too shallow and it flexes (if you're lucky) breaks etc etc. No good at all. That's why metal planes first came to be; for mitre planes and such. But even metal planes weren't always the answer. What does Blood & Gore tell us is one of the main problems with old Stanley #62's? Chipping at the back of the mouth. The idea was there, but the cast arn wasn't up to the task - and no old timer worth his tool chest wants an expensive plane chipping behind the mouth. Now I'm no metals expert, but I assume the steel soles of infill mitre and shoulder planes were better able to take the required low angle, so they were the popular face of the low angle plane. But expensive. So the old timers all got used to the idea that bevel up planes, unless they were infills, were never any good - and we inherited that view. Nowadays we have ductile this and that, and chipping behind the mouth is not an issue. Suddenly a cast low bedding angle is economically viable, and we're having to unlearn the knowledge we inherited from the old timers.

Also, the materials we're all planing have changed. The vast proportion of planes sold in the past were for carpenters and joiners. Pretty undemanding softwood. A 45deg bevel down plane is just dandy for that, with the added advantage that you don't have to worry about the angle you're sharpening your bevel to - great for site work. And for the difficult woods for the cabinetmakers? Why, there were infills of course. Expensive infills. One task, inflexible infills. Okay if you're doing the same task day in, day out, and the plane is your living. Perhaps more of an issue to a lot of hobbyist woodworkers these days - particularly if they already have many hundreds or thousands of pounds tied up in machinery. How many times does someone say they "want to get into hand tools. What plane (singular) should I get?" So yes, a sort of bandwagon if you like. And we're planing even more difficult woods these days, as the long, clear boards simply aren't available any more. We're asking more of our planes; better performance, lower cost, easier to adjust, less taking up of space (a router and cutters can replace whole shelves of moulders, why shouldn't one plane replace whole shelves of bench planes?) etc etc. It's an ideal situation for the bevel-up plane.

Why favour a bevel-up against a bevel-down? Putting aside the flexibility of changing the bevel to change the pitch (which is a big put aside!), firstly the blade is solidly on a bed which is part of the plane body. Don't let the whole "adjustable frog" thing fool you. My guess is the best (only?) way to get a 45 deg, or higher, pitch frog is to cast it seperately from the main body of the plane. I'm also guessing only later did it dawn on anyone to claim it was a "feature". It's just another place for things not to bed down correctly, shift out of square etc etc. What's one of the feature of infills that people go on about? The solid bedding of the blade. Secondly, the adjustable mouth. Why that never caught on as an option on bevel down planes, I don't know. Would have given away the frog thing I s'pose... :wink: It's _sooooooo_ much easier to just loosen the front knob, move the mouth, tighten again. A 2 second job. Even on an L-N Bedrock, you're looking for a screwdriver before you even start. 

There's probably lots more that I'll remember I wanted to say once I've hit "Submit", but that's more than enough conjecture and guessing for one afternoon... :lol:

Cheers, Alf

Okay, everybody else's beaten me to it, 'cos I got kicked off my connection, but heck, I've typed it all up now... :roll:


----------



## ike (28 Apr 2005)

> However, my LN4.5 still performs better than my LN #164



So is the performance of the former "superlative" and the latter "bloody good"?. How do you quantify the performance? Arguably, the performance of an LV LA is as good as an LN 164. The quality modern planes are all so good, don't you think that for most people it comes down to bang for bucks?


----------



## Alf (28 Apr 2005)

ike":202jdqls said:


> > However, my LN4.5 still performs better than my LN #164
> 
> 
> 
> So is the performance of the former "superlative" and the latter "bloody good"?. How do you quantify the performance? Arguably, the performance of an LV LA is as good as an LN 164. The quality modern planes are all so good, don't you think that for most people it comes down to bang for bucks?


Wrong question, ike. You should be asking at what effective pitch angles? For what tasks? I can stand up and say my LN _#164_ performs better than my LN _#4.5_ and I wouldn't be lying, and it doesn't make Tony wrong either (hey, gotta be a first time, right? :wink: ) FWIW, _I'm_ talking about on end grain with the supplied, standard frog/blade angle. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

ike":3rxk2tkx said:


> > However, my LN4.5 still performs better than my LN #164
> 
> 
> 
> So is the performance of the former "superlative" and the latter "bloody good"?. How do you quantify the performance?



The performance of a plane is VERY easy to quantify. Simply use it!!

Yes, both are exceptional tools - but that has nothing to do with the question I asked when I started this thread and is irrelevant.

The 4.5 is easier to use than the #164. The extra mass helps it to take long fine shavings and I find the #164 sometimes seems to 'skip' over areas when I am at a long reach on , for example, a large table top.

I get less breakout on most of the woods I plane using the 4.5. I prefer the grip on the 4.5 as my finger rests against the frog, I still cannot feel comfortable with the lack of frog and all fingers around the handle.

I find the mass of the 4.5 is also useful on the shooting board and often resort to using it in preference to the #164. The #164 does give a better finish on the shooting board and I often start with the 4.5 to get the bulk planed away and then finish with the #164.

I use the #164 to plane dovetail joints after assembly where it excels way beyond the 4.5



> Arguably, the performance of an LV LA is as good as an LN 164.



This is not neccesarily the case as Derek's post shows.

Would I buy the LN#164 or the LV if I were starting again? 
No. 
Neither. 
I would buy one of the LA jacks which is larger and heavier and after using one at Woodex, I can say that it ismore suited to the way I plane.


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

Alf":1j3bb2oy said:


> Tony wrong either (hey, gotta be a first time, right? :wink: )
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Cheeky :twisted: 



> FWIW, _I'm_ talking about on end grain with the supplied, standard frog/blade angle.



Canot argue with that. No contest. #164 is used to clean end grain on all my dovetails.

BTW Alf, I found your reasoning in your first post very interesting and well argued.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Apr 2005)

Tony

An observation. Your reply (below) can be separated into two groups:

The first has to do with comfort and personal preferrence -



> The 4.5 is easier to use than the #164. The extra mass helps it to take long fine shavings and I find the #164 sometimes seems to 'skip' over areas when I am at a long reach on , for example, a large table top.
> 
> I prefer the grip on the 4.5 as my finger rests against the frog, I still cannot feel comfortable with the lack of frog and all fingers around the handle.
> 
> I find the mass of the 4.5 is also useful on the shooting board and often resort to using it in preference to the #164.



Then there is the second group. This deals with the results of planing, per se:



> I get less breakout on most of the woods I plane using the 4.5.
> 
> The #164 does give a better finish on the shooting board and I often start with the 4.5 to get the bulk planed away and then finish with the #164.
> 
> I use the #164 to plane dovetail joints after assembly where it excels way beyond the 4.5



Putting aside the comfort of use issues, the relevant infirmation is in the second group, and the issue that comes to the fore is _what bevel angle is in the bevel up plane_? If you are using a 25 degree bevel on the #164, then you are not comparing apples with apples. Especially if the #4-1/2 has the 50 degree frog. This would account for the better performance of the #164 on end grain and the better performance of the #4-1/2 on interlinked face grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Apr 2005)

How interesting is it that many of us are asking the same questions and making the same observations, then posting them similtaneously.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (28 Apr 2005)

Arguing against the versatiliy of transforming the cutting action of a bevel up plane with a differently ground blade...



> I am personally happier to have 2 planes, one high angle and one standard/low angle - both set up correctly all the time



Given the lower cost of bevel up planes, that would remain an argument in their favour.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (28 Apr 2005)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> How interesting is it that many of us are asking the same questions and making the same observations, then posting them similtaneously.


Scary, isn't it? 8-[ You don't think it's 'cos we're all talking sense do you?

Nah, doubt it.

:lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Philly (28 Apr 2005)

I was in Yandles today-they have the LV low angle smoother for sale at £117. That is very low for such a high performing plane!!! I find this plane a piece of cake to use and adjust-definitely an advantage for folk new to hand planes. And so few bits and pieces between the handles-makes my Cliftons look fussy.......
Performance is a difficult thing to describe-only by using a tool and comparing that to your previous tool experiences can you reach a worthwhile conclusion, and that may not agree with other users. But these planes, while not exactly "new", are a step forward in the price/quality stakes.
Tony, you should not have to consider dumping your beloved #4.5 because a new plane on the block is getting all the press. Go with what works for you personally, for your needs.
Mind you-it's a great excuse to buy more planes, though. Isn't it? :twisted: 
Cheers
PlaneCrazyPhilly


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

So here's my two cents:

I think it all boils down to preference, and a certain amount of faddism (word?). With any thing that revolves around preference there isn't any right or wrong answer in my opinion, but lets not get carried away.

As you mentioned Tony, people have been getting excellent results out of standard planes for years and years, and that is what counts. A LA or Bevel Up plane has certain technical advantages with regards to manufacture and use, but it will ultimately do the same thing as anyother plane. 

The fact is that companies have realized there is a large and growing group of customers who will pay for supposedly superior tools, and that is incentive enough to manufacture them I'd say. I'm not knocking the innovation and inventiveness of these people, not at all, I think standard plane design had hit its peak around 1920, and so its time for something new. But do these planes really do anything new, or significantly better? I'd say no.

Do you plane faster with a LA then a standard? Does it provide any better finish? Not at all, in fact I'd wager any speed and finish differences come down to technique and experience. 

That said, its nice to have companies that are interested in producing quality tools for us woodworkers, and actually trying new things. 

Cheers 

Regan


----------



## bugbear (28 Apr 2005)

> A LA or Bevel Up plane has certain technical advantages with regards to manufacture and use, but it will ultimately do the same thing as anyother plane.



If those are the facts, and given that BU are cheaper, they should (logically) come to completely dominate the market.

Same results for less cost is a clear win.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (28 Apr 2005)

Regan":3ab9h69k said:


> I think it all boils down to preference, and a certain amount of faddism (word?).


I can't speak for anyone else's reasons, but that isn't the case for me. I didn't want to like bevel-up planes. I was quite happy regarding my #164 as a glorified block plane and considered Lee Valley were off their collective nuts to bother bringing more bevel up planes to the market when LN seemed to have it covered. To be honest, I can't see the point of the heavy smoother or the eventual jointer either, 'cos the jack is brilliant and I don't see why you'd want anything else. But I've learnt a bit, I hope, and will wait and see. I didn't want to get the bug and have people avoiding me in the street in an effort to escape the latest sermon on the wonders of high angle blades in bevel up planes. I didn't want to neglect all my bevel down planes. I certainly didn't want to never see my (then) newly acquired LN #4.5 'cos it usually stays in its plane sock these days. But a fad? 

_n._ A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.

Well first define a brief period of time. I intend to be found with that jack in my cold, dead (and sore*) hands**, and I hope to be around for a while yet. :wink: 

Just out of interest, Regan, do you own a bevel up plane? If yes, have you used a higher angle blade in it?

Cheers, Alf

**_Not in the pay of LV - for some reason they've taken to sending me planes and I try and review them for you lot as honestly as I can. Sometimes I keep 'em, sometimes they become prizes on the forum, and sometimes they're sold for forum funds. I fully expect I could slate one of them, and as long as I had the facts to back up that slating, Rob wouldn't suddenly not know me. Occasionally they've asked me for an opinion, and I give it. I think it's about 50/50 so far as to whether we've agreed... If I didn't truly believe what I was saying, I wouldn't say it. *Oh, and I still hate the rear tote..._
Sorry, felt maybe that needed to be said. :roll: :wink:


----------



## ydb1md (28 Apr 2005)

Alf":2njrwar8 said:


> *Oh, and I still hate the rear tote...[/i]
> Sorry, felt maybe that needed to be said. :roll: :wink:



I think there's a huge market in optional totes for the LV planes.

I'd like to take a poll to answer a question i have. I think the LV totes work better with higher benches. With a traditional low bench, i think the pressure points are all wrong.

I'd like to take a poll of all lee valley bench plane owners. Ask them if their bench is above waist high and whether they like their totes or not.


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

First, the bevel up planes seem to perform well at two planing functions, end grain (low angle) and smoothing (somtimes high angle, sometimes low angle). There doesn't seem to be any support for replacing the basic bench plane function (prepping stock) with bevel up planes. I don't see any compelling reason for a bevel down jointer either except to make ALF use a *jointer* with a straight across blade as opposed to her cambered bladed *try* planes  .

As for why the bevel up plane wasn't used as a smoother in the past, I don't believe any plane that wasn't bedded on wood was given much consideration for smoothing. Wooden planes, both Japanese and Western, and infills have been top performers for centuries and the only need for bevel up planes was to get low cutting angles for end grain. With the introduction of more durable bevel up bench planes from LN & LV, it seems more experimentation has been done and it has been found that a bevel up plane can indeed be a high performance smoother. 

The fact that bevel up planes can be high performance smoothers doesn't mean the traditional bevel down planes perform any less well than they did. It does give woodworkers more alternatives and that is a very good thing.


----------



## Rob Lee (28 Apr 2005)

Alf":13s1h5ep said:


> (snip)
> 
> 
> There's probably lots more that I'll remember I wanted to say once I've hit "Submit", but that's more than enough conjecture and guessing for one afternoon... :lol:
> ...



Hey Alf - 

Pretty good for one who missed the "bevel-up" revival meeting last fall...you seem to be converted... :lol: 

Couple of additional points I didn't see (but could have missed)...

A lower bed angle should be a more stable platform - as force is applied more in-line with the axis of the blade ... force on the blade can be resolved into two components - parallel to the blade axis, and perpendicular to it. It's the perpendicular component that makes a blade want to vibrate - and the perpedicular component is much smaller on a bevel-up plane. 

Blade adjustment (for a given feed rate) is finer on a low bed angle plane... you have to feed the blade a greater distance along the bed slope to get a given blade projection.

Center of gravity also tends to be lower on a low bed angle plane - a factor often overlooked in how a plane feels...

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## Frank D. (28 Apr 2005)

Hi everyone,
I'll answer the poll an totes and say that as soon as I have some spare time I'm taking a rasp and file to my LV handles to make them more like the ones on my LN. I have a medium-high bench (33") but still prefer the old Stanley design. 
As to bevel up vs. Bevel down, I initially resisted the "fad" of bevel-up planes, but now I realize it was mainly because I owned bevel-down planes. I get good results with both but with equivalent planing angles I get slightly less tearout on figured woods and reversing grain with my bevel-up planes. Don't ask me why, and frankly I don't really need an explanation. Not to mention the ease of changing blades (no chipbreaker--just drop one in...takes 30 seconds at most) for different tasks.
NB I own several LN bench planes, I have owned a LV bench plane, and I own LV and LN bevel-up planes.
Frank


----------



## ydb1md (28 Apr 2005)

Frank D.":n5iazkt6 said:


> Hi everyone,
> I'll answer the poll an totes and say that as soon as I have some spare time I'm taking a rasp and file to my LV handles to make them more like the ones on my LN.



Be careful w/ that rasp. With two bolts in the LV tote, i'm not sure how much you have to work with.


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

Alf,

I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise. It has excellent machining, a nice feel, and does what it should, but I still find I use my old Woden W5 just as much. Maybe I'm comfortable with the dinosaur, but that says to me that if I don't feel compelled to switch the difference between the two must be negligible.

People should buy whatever they find most comfortable, what they like the look of, what feels "right". Not, I might add, what every single magazine says is the new way forward for planes, which is what I mean by "fad". 

I'd advise against going out and buying duplicates, or replacing something that works well, just for the sheer sake of having a bevel up version. I think, if we're all honest, we get a little excited when LV or LN or whoever, come out with a new plane. After years of enduring the diminishing quality and static models of Stanley and Record, its a bit like the kid in a candy store scenario. If I was starting over now I'd buy the new LV planes, rather than modern Stanley or Record, but I don't think I've suffered for only having used tradtional ones until recently. 

Of course, I could be very very wrong, it wouldn't be the first time........ :wink: :roll: 

Cheers, Regan


----------



## Rob Lee (28 Apr 2005)

Regan":3l1gy5u0 said:


> Alf,
> 
> I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise. It has excellent machining, a nice feel, and does what it should, but I still find I use my old Woden W5 just as much. Maybe I'm comfortable with the dinosaur, but that says to me that if I don't feel compelled to switch the difference between the two must be negligible.
> 
> ...



Hi Regan - 

Truth is - you're very right... a plane is just a holder for the blade. It's all about inducing controlled failure in wood, in a predictable and repeatable manner...there is no single best solution for everyone (or anyone for that matter)...

If it works for you - then you have the right tool!

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## Anonymous (28 Apr 2005)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Putting aside the comfort of use issues, the relevant infirmation is in the second group, and the issue that comes to the fore is _what bevel angle is in the bevel up plane_? If you are using a 25 degree bevel on the #164, then you are not comparing apples with apples. Especially if the #4-1/2 has the 50 degree frog. This would account for the better performance of the #164 on end grain and the better performance of the #4-1/2 on interlinked face grain.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



Derek

Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes :wink: This is apples compared with apples


----------



## Frank D. (29 Apr 2005)

ydb1md":2kif4evp said:


> Be careful w/ that rasp. With two bolts in the LV tote, i'm not sure how much you have to work with.


Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye out for that. 
Frank


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Apr 2005)

> Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes This is apples compared with apples



Tony, no - I'm afraid that is _not _comparing apples with apples. 

The #4-1/2 will be cutting at either 45 or 50 degrees (depends on which frog you have), and this is a setup that is geared towards moderate to difficult face grain.

The #164, on the other hand, will be cutting at 37 degrees, and this setup is geared towards cutting endgrain or mild to moderate difficult face grain. 

_As set up_, the two planes are going to achieve their best results in quite different areas. And as set up you cannot draw comparisons about the virtues (or lack thereof) of the bevel up plane if your criteria are based on the performance of a high angle plane. Apples and oranges.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (29 Apr 2005)

Regan":3rjdb2fg said:


> I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise.


Ah ha, there had to be one! Not wanting to sound like I'm getting at you here, Regan, but is that with the stock low angle blade? Anyway, compared to a Woden eh? Ooo, got me on the horns of a patriotic dilemma - that's not fair! :lol: 

ydb, certainly my feeling was they're more designed for the Normite with the higher bench. I even had a whole "Planes for Normites" theory going, and then Rob announced the scrub... #-o 

Roger, I think I expressed the view that I couldn't see anyone using the BUPP as a genuine "jack". I'm starting to revise that opinion a little, but the trouble is it is a little heavy for serious stock prep. I darn near killed myself flattening my workbench with it. But in terms of performance, I'm gonna have to admit blind prejudice in the past and say now, that there's no reason I can see for not using bevel ups for stock prep. Just might be that the LN jack is a better option for that, being lighter... 

Rob, not bad points there. Have you been looking into this bevel up thing then...?

Frank, I second ydb's warning. The two posts may give a good secure fixing, but they're a real limitation to the tote-tweakers amongst us. Bit of a design cul-de-sac there, IMO...  



Tony":3rjdb2fg said:


> Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes :wink: This is apples compared with apples


.
Noooooooooooo! No, no, no, no! Tony! No! </Direct transcript of my reaction when I first read that> It's apples and kumquats! Even ignoring the bevel issue, which Derek has covered very nicely, you're comparing a 2" wide iron with a 2 3/8" wide iron! What's the difference in weight? 5 1/2lbs to 3 3/4lbs! Tony, it's comparing watermelons to _petit pois_! ](*,) I'm sorry, I've resorted to excessive exclamation marks.  But oi vey. :roll: Some one take me away to a darkened room before I apply wet halibut smartly to Tony's face... Ah, thank you, Professor. Yes, I'll take the padded room without the view please...

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2005)

> I think there's a huge market in optional totes for the LV planes.



IIRC the idea has been discussed of LV selling the totes drilled but not-shaped (by simply lifting from the production process early).

This would allow those so-minded to shape their own.

Minding the bolt channels, of course 

Is this still under consideration, Rob?

BugBear


----------



## Frank D. (29 Apr 2005)

Hmmmm,
This sounds like a case for Doctor Rudi Beetlebaumhausen! :lol: 
Frank
(ducking and running)


----------



## ydb1md (29 Apr 2005)

Actually the cool thing is that, depending on the blade in use, you can compare the #164 to any number of planes.

If comparing to a #4-1/2 with york frog, the #164's blade would have to have an 8 degree microbevel on it, to yield an effective cutting angle of 45 degrees. That would be a fair fight.

If comparing with a low bed angle plane, the #164 could be used with its "standard" 25 degree blade w/ no microbevel.

If the effective cutting angles of the planes being compared aren't equal, you need to come up with some sort of bookies method of handicapping the underdog. 

If the playing field is not level, it's impossible to decisively claim one as better than the other.

_________________
It's the size of a man's shavings that matter. Not the size of . . . well . . . you get the idea . . .


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Apr 2005)

Tony

Here is the same information but with numbers attached:

#164: standard bevel = 25 degrees
add bed angle = 12 degrees
TOTAL CUTTING ANGLE = 37 degrees = *Apples* (better suited to end grain)

#4-1/2: standard frog angle = 45 degrees
TOTAL CUTTING ANGLE = 45 degrees = *Oranges* (better suited to face grain)

Now, if you want an level playing field, add a 8 degree microbevel to the #164 blade, and this will give you a 45 degree cutting angle. = *Oranges*

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (29 Apr 2005)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Now, if you want an level playing field, add a 8 degree microbevel to the #164 blade, and this will give you a 45 degree cutting angle. = *Oranges*


Level_er_ playing field, anyway. Bevel Level, if you will.


----------



## ydb1md (29 Apr 2005)

Alf":mq5oat6p said:


> Level_er_ playing field, anyway. Bevel Level, if you will.



Of couse, no matter what the playing field is, I'd be happy using any of the planes being battered about, I mean batted about, in this thread.


----------



## Midnight (29 Apr 2005)

Tony... FWIW I tend to agree with you... maybe for slightly different reasons, but the net result's the same...

I won't question that bevel up reign supreme when used with a shooting board as my #9 will testify to...

I won't question that tthere's a place for bevel up planes when working the flat of a board too... my #62 kicks butt in that respect...

However... bevel downs will wipe the floor with the competition whenever it comes to speed of adustment; try advancing the blade of a bevel up "on the fly"...
For me, their other advantage is repeatability; any time you hone an LA blade you run the risk of changing the angle of insidence... with bevel down you KNOW what it's gonna be irrespective of what you do on the stone. That repeatability liberates you to tune the bevel for longevity rather than effective angle, not something to sneeze at when there's a stack of boards to work through...


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (30 Apr 2005)

OK, I'll buy back into this and talk to your point (again? I thought I did this in my original post on this topic earlier on).

Anyway, Tony you wrote


> I would, however, class the #164 as a large block plane rather than a smoother as it does not do the same job as my 4.5 smoother. Sure, the 164 excels in other areas but this suggests that we should consider the 164 as a tool to sit alongside high angle planes rather than replacing high angle planes.



One technical point to get out of the way, just so it is not an issue: all bevel up planes are "block planes" and so you are correct that the LN #164 (and the LV LA Smoother) are large block planes. 

The problem is, however, that to think of bevel up planes as "large block planes" (which traditionally were used for end grain smoothing) is to limit the understanding of the real strengths of this _design_. By only conceptualising these as block planes you will not get outside the envelope.

I would like to quote from the conclusion I wrote in my article on bevel up planes (Alf and I both wrote articles around the same time. Mine is published at Wood Central): http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=handtools&file=articles_461.shtml



> The potential of these bevel-up planes is such that I believe they going to be the force for future plane design.



What I was referring to is the growing awareness that the design is superior to the bevel down brigade, and that bevel up planes have the potential to become far superior in the high cutting angle department. They are not simply end grain specialists, but are going to be the new force in the area of smoothing. And this is because they are the better design. As I said at the beginning, it has only been in the last few years that technology has made it possible to explore this aspect. But now that it is here, just watch the design develop and grow. You will now begin to see specialist bevel up smoothers coming from the plane makers. I know that the Large Smoother from LV is going to meet this specification. It will be a specialist, no compromise smoothing plane. I can't wait to try it out and see the advances that have taken place in the few years that the concept has taken hold. Very exciting times!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Frank D. (30 Apr 2005)

Yes! What Derek said!
Not to mention that even Shepherd toolworks has developed a bevel-up infill, which they call their "improved pattern" miter plane and which is meant to be used as a bevel-up smoother:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (30 Apr 2005)

OK, I just had to come back and say one last ( Yeah, right! :lol: ) thing. 

All this praise I have been heaping on bevel up planes should not be interpreted to mean that all bevel down planes are now defunct. Outdated perhaps in terms of design, but not defunct. A #4-1/2 does not suddenly become a boat anchor or door stop. These are quality, precision tools. There is probably going to be some development of the bevel down design to come in response to the challenge (and knowledge gleaned) from bevel up insights. Not to ignore the fact that one of the reasons I enjoy woodworking is to make furniture with old tools. So I still also use my old Stanleys (but in the appropriate areas - it is horses for courses). 

Of course, if by now you are totally disillusioned by those awful, outdated and limited LN bevel down designs, just send them to me. I will look after them until such a time you are well again ...  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (30 Apr 2005)

Midnight":2zcc3pze said:


> However... bevel downs will wipe the floor with the competition whenever it comes to speed of adustment; try advancing the blade of a bevel up "on the fly"...


Balanced out by the speed of mouth adjustment, perhaps?



Midnight":2zcc3pze said:


> For me, their other advantage is repeatability; any time you hone an LA blade you run the risk of changing the angle of insidence... with bevel down you KNOW what it's gonna be irrespective of what you do on the stone. That repeatability liberates you to tune the bevel for longevity rather than effective angle, not something to sneeze at when there's a stack of boards to work through...


That's a fair point, Mike. 

Cheers, Alf

Edit for removal of opinion written in haste and irritation. I should know better.


----------



## ydb1md (30 Apr 2005)

Midnight":3z720qju said:


> However... bevel downs will wipe the floor with the competition whenever it comes to speed of adustment; try advancing the blade of a bevel up "on the fly"...
> For me, their other advantage is repeatability; any time you hone an LA blade you run the risk of changing the angle of insidence... with bevel down you KNOW what it's gonna be irrespective of what you do on the stone. That repeatability liberates you to tune the bevel for longevity rather than effective angle, not something to sneeze at when there's a stack of boards to work through...



I'm a little confused about the two comments above. How is the adjustment of a bevel down blade any quicker? 

As to the matter of sharpening and repeatability, aren't we grasping at straws here? Any woodworker worth anything can sharpen an iron to a given angle repeatably. All of my irons are marked for indexing on my jig or I can do a good job freehand on my finest stones if i'm in a pinch for time. I try to use the jig because it guarantees that my edge stays square and when I'm freehanding I can quite obviously see how far up my blade the mirror polish extends. Plus, the really fine stones aren't gonna work my blade out of square.


----------



## Midnight (1 May 2005)

> Balanced out by the speed of mouth adjustment, perhaps?



Alf... I'm not so sure about that; once the throats of my bevel ups are set.. they stay set... never need adjusting..


----------



## Midnight (1 May 2005)

> I'm a little confused about the two comments above. How is the adjustment of a bevel down blade any quicker?



simply because you can flick the adjuster wheel while you're working, hense "on the fly".....



> As to the matter of sharpening and repeatability, aren't we grasping at straws here? Any woodworker worth anything can sharpen an iron to a given angle repeatably.



My point wasn't about repeatability of sharpening, but about repeatability of angle of insidence... In a bevel up, that angle is determined by the pitch of the frog, whereas in a bavel down, the angle is set by the honing angle as I explained in my earlier post...


----------



## Alf (1 May 2005)

Midnight":1cj89f8v said:


> > Balanced out by the speed of mouth adjustment, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Alf... I'm not so sure about that; once the throats of my bevel ups are set.. they stay set... never need adjusting..


Could be because you're using them for the one type of task; fine trimming of end grain I imagine? Okay, so take a real world example which prompted my comment. My last big planing session was flattening the workbench; I decided to do a DC rather than a Cosman and set the cut fairly light, mouth tight. A couple of swipes and I can see I'm going to be there all day DC-style. Time for some more energetic Cosman-esque scrubbing away (don't get excited - not that kind of scrubbing ). Need a coarser cut. 

First let's assume I was using my #5 1/2, Hock blade. Now, the next step for _me_ could be one of two options. One, I could reach for a coarser set jack and have at it. Might need a bit of adjustment, maybe I didn't put the iron away sharp (never! I hear you cry...) but not a big deal. No Hock blade, but hey, never mind. Or I can adjust the #5 1/2 for a deeper cut and, erm, ah, got a bit of a jam here, the mouth needs opening up, where's the screwdriver etc etc. Okay, so _I_ don't have to do this, but if you have only one plane, that's your only option. Obviously I'm not advocating such a minimalist approach :shock: , but there are reasons why this could be the case and it does happen.

Now let's assume I chose to use the BUPP, which as it happens, I did. Did I walk 2 feet across to the tool chest, take out an alternative jack and whip off its plane sock? Nope; seemed quicker to open up the mouth, adjust the cut down with a couple of tweaks and get on with it. Which I did. 

Of course in hindsight I _should_ have used the bevel down plane - would have given me a longer break when it came to rehoning the blade. The BUPP's iron is too blooming quick to take out and replace. :evil: 

But enough of this missionary zeal. Of course I'm not advocating you discard all your bevel down planes, but I _am_ of the opinion that the bevel ups have many advantages over them - not least as a first plane which needs to be able to do _everything_. Obviously you have a wide range of L-Ns from which to choose, so that flexibility isn't an advantage to you. Unless you suddenly need to take a kit of tools on site... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf

Edit; given a comment on another thread, I think I need to explain _why_ I've gone on at Tony quite so much in this thread. I don't have any objection to his having a different opinion, of course not; I just wanted to clear up what he was basing that opinion _on_, and that in the big wide world of plane worship his observations were a bit, erm, well, not quite fair. Peace has been declared between us, and I think we've cleared things up so we both know what the other one was getting at (and they said it couldn't be done....) :wink:


----------



## Midnight (1 May 2005)

> Quote:
> Balanced out by the speed of mouth adjustment, perhaps?
> 
> 
> Alf... I'm not so sure about that; once the throats of my bevel ups are set.. they stay set... never need adjusting..



fessin up time... another blonde / senior / too damn sober moment; that *shoulda * read..

once the throats of my bevel *downs* have been set, they stay set...



> Nope; seemed quicker to open up the mouth, adjust the cut down with a couple of tweaks and get on with it. Which I did.



For the record... given the example you set to work to, I'd do the exact same thing with my #62 if my course set #5 couldn't cope with the grain...



> Obviously you have a wide range of L-Ns from which to choose, so that flexibility isn't an advantage to you.



Given that we're talking bench planes here... 3 is a wide range..??? that might change shortly tho..  

As listed in Adam's "whatchya got" list, I've a #4 1/2, #7 and a #62... the #5 is a Stanley... [/u][/i]


----------



## Alf (1 May 2005)

Midnight":2053mxbw said:


> Given that we're talking bench planes here... 3 is a wide range..??? that might change shortly tho..


Oooo, what ya gonna get?  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (1 May 2005)

For any who are left wondering, I still prefer my bevel-downs to the bevel-ups :lol: for the reasons I have already stated. 

I started this thread in an effort to discover why some people seem to swear by bevel-up (Alf for instance who's views on planes I respect very much). I am going to try different angles on the bevel-up as Alf suggested and have ordered a second blade for the #164, but I am left wondering why I bought a plane that I have to modify to get it to perform as well as the 4.5 out-of-the-box :roll: 

Dear missionary  , looking at your answer to Midnights, post - the bench flattening story, I don't experience the problems you describe. The blade comes out of my bevel-downs faster than my bevel-up (which needs a screwdriver to get the blade out :roll: ). of course I then have to release the chipbreaker and so the time between deciding to sharpen and actually sharpening is about the same for each type.


Cheers

Tony


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 May 2005)

> I am left wondering why I bought a plane that I have to modify to get it to perform as well as the 4.5 out-of-the-box



Tony, I'm afraid you still haven't got _It_. 

There is no modification (of the #164) going on here. It is just that you are only using one of several options that are available with this plane, and the option you are using is not going to permit a fair illustration of what the #164 is capable of. Believe me, if you tapped into the strength of this plane, you would probably stop using the #4-1/2!

An analogy: You have two sports cars of reputedly equal performance to test drive. You drive the first but never get out of first gear. You then drive the second and run it through 5 of its 5 gears. You conclude that car #1 has a low top end speed. You are told that it is really a very fast car, but everytime you try it out you never get out of first gear. 

OK, so the #164 is that first sports car. and using the 25 degree bevel blade is just first gear. As you increase the bevel angle, so you go up the gears. I reckon that if you used one that was 50 degrees (producing a cutting angle of 62 degrees - which you do with a 25 degree micro bevel o top of the 25 degree primary bevel) you would be in 4th gear. Where is fifth gear? Well, I know of one person who swears by his 80 degree cutting angle!

This is not a "modification", since this inference is that the plane needs it to work well. It is already working well (on end grain) but you have not set it up to work on difficult timber. What I believe you will discover, when you go down this road _understanding_ why you are now doing what you are doing, is that the performance of the #164 will outstrip that of the #4-1/2. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Midnight (2 May 2005)

> Oooo, what ya gonna get?



ummmmmmm..... 2 VERY large bills.....

more than that I'm not sayin till they get here...


----------



## Midnight (2 May 2005)

> What I believe you will discover, when you go down this road understanding why you are now doing what you are doing, is that the performance of the #164 will outstrip that of the #4-1/2.



Derek...

Like Tony, I prefer my 4 1/2 as a dedicated smoother; I've found over the years that its more than capable of making light work of anything I've set it to... 

Now I'll grant you that like Tony, I haven't experemented much with angles on my bevel up (a #62 in my case).. I haven't felt the need to for a couple of reasons...

Firstly, its increasingly doing the job that my #5 should be doing (it's still fitted with the stock Stanley blade), a task that it performs with ease on both iron hard and soft delicate grain...

Secondly... I haven't tried using it as a smoother simply because the one I have..... kicks azz... that York pitch frog don't take any prisoners...

nuff said..???

Ohh.... one last point re your gear change analogy... thought struck me that technically you weren't changing gear... it's more like rebuilding the differential to change the overall gearing...

I reckon I'll keep my #62 with its 30 deg secondry... if it aint broke, why fix it...???

:wink:


----------



## Alf (2 May 2005)

Tony":3t546qlv said:


> Dear missionary  ,


Yes, my heathen friend? 



Tony":3t546qlv said:


> looking at your answer to Midnights, post - the bench flattening story, I don't experience the problems you describe. The blade comes out of my bevel-downs faster than my bevel-up (which needs a screwdriver to get the blade out :roll: ). of course I then have to release the chipbreaker and so the time between deciding to sharpen and actually sharpening is about the same for each type.


Yep, my mistake. I forgot to take into account the LN effect, which seems to be the real stumbling block. The fact is the LNs, because of the fiddle required to swap blades (well on the #164 anyway; can't recall on the #62) are not good advocates for bevel up flexibility. But to be fair, LN have never claimed otherwise. Derek and I have just been hopelessly brainwashed by that Canadian Conniver... :roll:



Midnight":3t546qlv said:


> > Oooo, what ya gonna get?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ooo, you rotter. Not playing with you any more [-( :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Midnight (2 May 2005)

> Ooo, you rotter. Not playing with you any more



I missed something...??

Ahem...

Patience, My Dear Alf... is a virtue...

I'll gloat when they get here... but be warned... I'm givin Philly some competition with this one...


----------



## Philly (2 May 2005)

Mike
I have been watching your progress on this one-so far, top marks. 
Lets see what you got then.... :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Midnight (2 May 2005)

All in good time Dude...

 :wink:


----------



## Midnight (4 May 2005)

> Lets see what you got then....



dare I say... the first part arrived today...??


----------



## Philly (5 May 2005)

Masterful,Mike! :lol: 
Give it to me slowly.......
Philly


----------



## Alf (5 May 2005)

The first part? What is it, Mike? Self assembly? Oh wait, no, it can't be... Oh commisserations. It must be broken... Bad luck. :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Frank D. (5 May 2005)

I'll take a wild guess: a Shepherd kit!
Frank


----------



## Midnight (5 May 2005)

> I'll take a wild guess: a Shepherd kit!



naaaaaa.... much though I admire Ben's work... if I were to order an infill it'd have to be one of Konrad's...



> The first part? What is it, Mike? Self assembly? Oh wait, no, it can't be... Oh commisserations. It must be broken... Bad luck.



Self assembly..?? ummmmm... not unless honing is self assembly... and everything passed muster upon delivery... thus far that is...  



> Give it to me slowly.......



you mean you want all the also rans too... or just the juicy bits...????

As for first part... this was the Axminster part... there's some to come from Mike Hancock followed by the last part... directly from Maine...

I guess I shouldn't bore with details... unless you're really interested...?????

Ahem....

:wink:


----------



## Noel (6 May 2005)

OK Mike, I've PM'd all the members and the collective consenus is a resouding no. We're not interested in what you got, no interest in how well (unlikely) it performs and certainly do not want to hear how your life has changed beyond all recognition. OK?

Rgds

Noel

PS PM me if you need to talk............


----------



## Midnight (6 May 2005)

LOL...... no worries Noel...

never was much of one to brag....


----------



## Mike B (6 May 2005)

Just a quick thought while we're on all this bevel up stuff - given the bevel up's ability to change angles, why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes?? 

Surely they could just make the LA version and supply HA blades for folks requiring a standard angle block? Or will we see both low and standard angle bevel up smoothers/jacks etc in future...

Additionally, a standard angle bevel up smoother may make more sense for those wanting very high angles i.e. 60/70/80 degrees...


----------



## Philly (6 May 2005)

Mike
Tradition, probably!
Its taken a free thinker to "get it" and the rest is Veritas history........ :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## bugbear (6 May 2005)

> why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??



If you don't need the low angle option, a "standard" angle body is stronger.

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 May 2005)

> why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??



Mike

I agree with Philly. It is probably done because it was always done this way. This is a good example of how much lateral thought was absent and, conversely, now that the awareness (that you can convert a LA to HA plane) has sunk in, why was it not obvious to all back then! (Part of the answer to this is in my original post in this thread, that being the poorer materials of that day for constructions we now take for granted).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Taffy Turner (6 May 2005)

I must admit that when I had a first play with my LV LA Jack, my first thought (as a Chartered Mechanical Engineer) was "Crikey - this is much better than a standard plane - much simpler - why aren't / weren't all planes made this way?" It seems so obvious when you compare it with a standard design plane, and for so many different reasons. #-o 

I can only assume it is because the materials of the day weren't up to it, as has been suggested by others. Either that, or the worst case of "we will do it this way as that is the way it has always been done" thinking in the history of the world! :-k 

Gary


----------



## Rob Lee (6 May 2005)

Mike B":u0bxpxhy said:


> Just a quick thought while we're on all this bevel up stuff - given the bevel up's ability to change angles, why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??
> 
> Surely they could just make the LA version and supply HA blades for folks requiring a standard angle block? Or will we see both low and standard angle bevel up smoothers/jacks etc in future...
> 
> Additionally, a standard angle bevel up smoother may make more sense for those wanting very high angles i.e. 60/70/80 degrees...



Hi Mike - 

There are a few reasons - the largest being what consumers will buy. Keep in mind that bulletin board readers tend to be at the high end of the market - not just from a quality perspective - but from a knowledge (or a desire to acquire knowledge) perpective. Not everyone will even look at a bevel-up plane.

In some cases - there may manufacturing advantages to having a seperate frog - and certainly it's a good alternate method of throat adjustment. On a bevel up plane - having the front knob lock/loosen a plate only works for some sizes.... 

Also - material changes (primarily the invention of ductile iron) have enabled some different design choices.... grey iron is just too weak for a 12 degree bed angle - the bed tends to fracture at the mouth corners....and not every manufacturer uses ductile iron.

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## Anonymous (14 May 2005)

I have a Japanese plane with a cutting angle of 35 degrees, and bevel angle of 30 degrees. One of the cuttingest (yes that is a word... that I just made up) tools I ever owned. So I don't think the materials are the issue when it comes to low angle or simple design. As has often been pointed out low angle planes don't cut all that low, necesarily.

That plane evolved from a Japanese plane I bought at Lee Valley, oh about '79.


----------



## Anonymous (14 May 2005)

A few other things that probably don't bear mentioning:

1) Part of this discussion is the possibility that sub-blades/breakers are useless. Not sure this is totaly true, but it is fairly true as they are generally configured, so any time you can make a metalhead plane maker design a plane around throwing these things out, it's a win for most users.

2) Does the bevel really know which way is up? Isn't it all about cutting and clearance angles, and are we really to believe that a blade secured more by the adjuster mechanism, vs. clamping to the bed is a better design?

3) In one sense the blade sometimes does know which way is up. Which side of the blade has the deeper scratches from sharpenig/laping all that stuff. That stuff should be down for the best cut. And I would venture to say that in many cases that furoughs are on the back, so bevel up it is. No consistancy though, an individual thing mostly.

Now for information only, not relavant really, what plane type perfectly answers in these three areas? Yes you guessed correctly, Japanese planes don't have any of these problems. Not that anyone cares all that much.


----------



## Anonymous (18 May 2005)

Frank D.":32id2mko said:


> Yes! What Derek said!
> Not to mention that even Shepherd toolworks has developed a bevel-up infill, which they call their "improved pattern" miter plane and which is meant to be used as a bevel-up smoother:



Hi Folks;
I'm new to this forum but I thought I'd pop in after seeing this post. The design isn't so new Frank. The "Improved pattern" mitre sans handle has been around since circa 1870 and our design is based on the original Spiers plane. We offer it in it's original form and with a handle as it is a little ackward to use without the handle. What we did add to the line was a really low angle version. The standard mitre is bedded at 20 degrees while our LA version of the plane is 12.5 degrees.

Best regards
Ben
www.shepherdtool.com


----------



## Philly (18 May 2005)

Thanks for the info Ben!
And welcome to the forum-come on by anytime!
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Alf (18 May 2005)

Welcome, Ben. I dunno; adding a handle and the option of a lower bedding angle seems fairly "new" to me. :-k  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Frank D. (18 May 2005)

Hi Ben,
Thanks for the info. I like the handle and at least in my mind it seems like it would give the original version a lot more control to use as a smoother. 
Glad my post made you drop in, feel free to do it more often!
Frank


----------



## Midnight (18 May 2005)

> 1) Part of this discussion is the possibility that sub-blades/breakers are useless. Not sure this is totaly true, but it is fairly true as they are generally configured, so any time you can make a metalhead plane maker design a plane around throwing these things out, it's a win for most users.



Ahem...

Horsefeathers.!!!!

Peter... I suggest you try a bevel down plane minus its chip breaker to fully understand its contribution...


----------



## Frank D. (18 May 2005)

I don't want to stand in the way of Scottish diplomacy, and I don't have any bevel-down planes without chipbreakers, but Larry Williams of Clark and Williams doesn't think they (chipbreakers) contribute anything either.
I would think that if they are close enough to the cutting edge they do help chip formation (reduce tearout) by breaking the shavings sooner (type I chips) or at least helping them to bend (type II chips), and they also help to dampen vibrations. Brent Beach has also found a difference when they are placed very close ( a few thou) to the edge.
Here's the article by Clark and Williams:
http://www.planemaker.com/articles/dblirn.html
Frank


----------



## Midnight (19 May 2005)

Frank... I'm familiar with the article, but I'll stick to my guns.. a bevel down blade needs a chip breaker (and a damn good one at that)... When properly tuned and set, a chip breaker will make a hellova difference to how the blade behaves, both, as you pointed out, in deflecting the shaving and in ensuring proper contact between the blade and its seat.

I guess the only way around that would be to make the blade from a very thick piece of steel... classic plough planes are a prime example; Although their width varies, my plough blades have been forged to an effective thickness of around a half inch... massivly thick... working with them is an interesting experience...


----------



## bugbear (19 May 2005)

> When properly tuned and set, a chip breaker will make a hellova difference to how the blade behaves



Indeed. Removing the chip breaker from a plane designed to have one is going to make it work very badly indeed.

The more interesting question is whether a chipbreaker is a neccessary part of the design of a plane.

The consensus, from C&W, Steve Knight, and the entire bevel up brigade is yes.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (19 May 2005)

bugbear":24ibjg2e said:


> The more interesting question is whether a chipbreaker is a neccessary part of the design of a plane.
> 
> The consensus, from C&W, Steve Knight, and the entire bevel up brigade is yes.


Yes? :-k You sure?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Wendell (19 May 2005)

Aren't the blades on C&W and Knight planes much thicker than metal bevel down bench plane irons? I always thought that was the reason they didn't need a cap iron. 

Wendell


----------



## ydb1md (19 May 2005)

Midnight":2fpzoin6 said:


> .. a bevel down blade needs a chip breaker (and a damn good one at that)...
> ...



From an engineering standpoint, it would seem that a bevel down plane could get by without a chipbreaker if it's blade were thick enough - 3/16ths or greater - and had good support from the frog and lever cap. 

The chipbreaker, nice euphemism as it does no such thing; the throat and the blade break the chips - does little more than serve to support the thin blades that were the standard back in the days of yesteryear. With the advent of 3/16th and 1/4" blades, the chipbreaker is kept around for purely sentimental and asthetic reasons.


----------



## Frank D. (19 May 2005)

ydb1md":2yubhos7 said:


> The chipbreaker, nice euphemism as it does no such thing; the throat and the blade break the chips


If the chipbreaker is placed close enough to the edge it does help to break the chip by increasing the slope the chip has to follow as it's being pushed through the mouth. This is at least true for type I chips, which are thicker and for which you can't set an excessively tight mouth. It can also help for diving grain, when chips can break beyond the mouth. But to do this it has to be set just a tad farther from the edge than the depth of the cut.
Frank


----------



## MikeW (19 May 2005)

How about that? Near 90 replies over a 3 week period and I have, until now, avoided this thread.

Tony, by now you must have realized that this topic is as close to a hand tool "religious" debate as it can get! Seems just about equally split in two--for or against BU (no matter how configured). And judging by 1800 plus views there are a lot of people who either don't have an opinion, don't care or are just simply smarter than I am and haven't weighed in. Most likely the latter.

Here I go, both feet into the middle of it...



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> ...Is there any reasoning behind this or is it simply a bandwagon and latest fad?



Simple answer? Both are true reasons. As shown in the last of your quotes below they (BU) simply do not produce desired results in all situations for all people.

As to the latest fad question, why did *you* purchase yours? Did you try one before you bought it? I know I certainly bought mine before using one. In that sense at least I bought it due to what I had heard people say/write about them.

At the first it was a mixed bag of results for me. But then so were BD planes until I learned that one could make them produce fairly consistent results depending on how it was fettled, adjusted and sharpened.

Then, much later, I "learned" about infills and had to have one. And it did produce great results. That old Preston infill has been a "go to" plane ever since. But it too does not always work great for every wood it touches.

A few years ago I bought an ebony smoother from Steve Knight. It worked great--but again, not on everything it touched.

In fact, the *only* smoother I have that works no matter what the wood is (also from Steve), is a small (7 inch) 1 3/4" blade 50 deg one. As I told him yesterday, there is nothing that leaves my shop that has not been touched by it.

But there are stock preparation steps and planes used prior to getting to the point where that plane is used. But I digress...



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> ...As far as I am aware...planes have been tested and developed to work very well over several hundred years.



More like a couple thousand years. The planes we are use to using in the European tradition evolved as time passed as you note. But they mostly developed along parallel paths. A few "innovations" that made them produce better/more consistent results maybe, but basically they have remained the same since Roman times.

The assumption is that BD down was the only style plane available to the worker. It's not true...



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> ...Surely Chippendale, to name one, must have used something akin to a 'standard' angle plane rather than bevel up to produce his rather impressive furniture?



I think when you are saying "standard" angle you are referring to BD. I do not know how far back in history a BU plane goes, but at least by Chippendale's time he had BU planes available as shown in Denis Diderot's books (a contemporary of Chippendale, mid 1700s). If I remember correctly, a century earlier Moxon has a BU plane in his work, published in 1678.

There were also BD planes in those time periods that had different bedding angles, some higher (look like 60 deg) and the more common looking like in the forty deg range.

Basically by Moxon's book's time period, a fairly and fully developed range of planes were in place and used by joiners, etc.



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> ...If skilled craftsmen have been happy with the bevel down at the 'standard' angle, which must have been arrived at over tens or hundreds of years of R&D and practical use, why are we suddenly seeing a cry to favor LA planes?...



As above, BU planes have been around a really long time. Because of that, I would say it is more of a resurgence than anything else. But then, why should any development/improvements be made to planes? In fact, the planes we have available to us today are the results of consistent fiddling by users and makers.

Looking back at just the history of Stanley one can see that not all "improvements" really are useful. I would surmise that people have developed all sorts of "innovations" on planes for centuries that have been utter rubbish. What really makes me wonder, though, is what "innovations" have been developed for handplanes in time gone by that if but for acceptance would have made our work easier/better?



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> ...Often with re-ground blades to allow them to cut like bevel down planes? Especially interesting when one considers that high angle planes are _accepted_ as working better on 'difficult ' woods.



Accepted as working better by who? I think that for myself and other proponents of BU planes you just stated a major reason why to have one (or more <g>) BU plane--as well as evidence the confusion on the issue.

A BU plane is simply more versatile in its application to different woods and tasks. With two or three irons ground at increasingly steeper angles, they *can* work on nearly any wood--at least as well as most any other BD handplane. It is a matter of adjustment and experience.

However, when one *can* use it in its lower angle incarnation, I believe it takes less effort to push through the cut. That's one reason. I don't know about others here, but I get tired pushing a plane and for that reason I use the lowest angle plane that will produce the desired result. It simply takes less effort.

Like Alf and others here, I have a wide collection, er, selection of planes from which to choose whether BD or BU. As I mentioned at the beginning, not every one is suitable for the task at hand. Partly that is because of the way they are set up to use. Partly that is because for whatever mystical reason they just don't work the same regardless of whether they are set up equally (same angle, fineness of mouth, etc.). Why that is I don't really care. It just is.

Whether it is BU or BD, there has been for most of us users a learning curve associated with handplane use. I would reckon that you have grown in your ability to use a BD plane to its fullest capability, but it probably wasn't always so. Same with the BU handplanes.

But not all BU planes are equal, either. Just like BD planes among the better made and or fettled ones, there are good ones and acceptable ones.

I believe that currently the Canadian makes a better one, if for no other reason than I like the Norton-style adjuster better. It is a slower adjuster to be sure, but especially on a low-angle plane it is easier for me to "sneak up" on the desired depth of cut.



Tony":1h3x5m3y said:


> I have an LA smoother and a bedrock smoother (same manufacturer) and the bedrock generally works best on the woods I use (Pine, Oak, Ash, Mahogany(s), Sycamore, Maple, Beech).



Generally? Does that mean on some woods the BU plane works better than the BD smoother? If so, that's one of the reasons to own one.

If I knew back when I first started using handplanes what I think I do now *and* if BU planes of the quality and cost that are available to us who use handplanes was available then, I would have started out owning a couple BU planes with a few irons ground at different angles for the versatility and wider use of application. This might have saved me both money and frustration.

As for my opinion of some of the spurious threads within this topic that have been raised:

Cutting wood with a handplane (or whatever) and arriving at an acceptable level of cut involves controlled failure at the point of contact with the wood's surface.

In so far as a smoother is concerned, it *does not* matter whether it is a wood plane, a metal plane, a BD or BU plane. It *does not* matter whether there is an *additional* chip breaker or if it is lacking one. All that matters is controlling the ability of the plane to remove wood in an acceptable manner.

That controlled failure of the wood lifting from the surface depends on so many things. I believe mainly it involves the wood itself. As for tearout, I have yet to try a handplane that will *consistently* without premature failure (tearout) smooth a surface of some slabs of curly Bubinga I possess. The best one is that little smoother from Steve Knight. And it does not have a wedge that acts as a chip breaker.

On a smoother, using a fine cut the wood is simply so pliable as to not need one. If you are a believer that a plane *has* to have a chip breaker, have you ever looked at the shavings from a very fine cut? There is no breakage of the shaving whether the plane has one or not. If your smoother that "has" to have a chip breaker has an adjustable mouth, try setting the cut for both an extremely fine mouth AND an extremely fine cut. Inspect the shaving. Any breakage? Nope. None. Nada. 

Now open the mouth *a little* but do not adjust the blade or at least make it have the same depth of cut. Any breakage of the shaving? Probably not.

Now deepen the cut just a smidge. Keep adjusting down and or opening the mouth a little. Yep, the shaving is beginning to break. Maybe even a little tearout. But the breakage is both because the mouth is opened and the depth of cut is deeper.

By opening the mouth you have allowed the shaving to begin to split the wood in front of the blade over a greater distance. Depending on how much the mouth is opened, this leverage is what will begin to cause tearout--assuming that the piece of wood can even be planed without tearout.

By deepening a cut, the shaving is thicker. At some point this thickness *has* to be broken prior to the shaving splitting in front of and below the mouth of the plane. If the thicker shaving is not broken then a condition of uncontrolled failure exists.

Aside from the plane and its appropriate adjustments for depth of cut and mouth opening, it also depends on the user. Heck, maybe the day of the week or the phase of the moon. But as there are planes with and without cap irons that work just fine, it does not depend on its presence.

As stated at the beginning of this missive, there are some smoothing planes I own that just work better than others on any particular piece of wood. I doubt I will ever have a single handplane that will be the only smoother I "need" to own. I doubt it exists. Even if it did, though, would that very handplane work as well for everyone else? Anyone else?

In the meantime, I will grab whichever plane that will do the task at hand that involves less energy. Some of the time it means using my Knight 60 deg, 5 lb Lignum Vitae smoother. Some of the time that means my BU LV smoother.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 May 2005)

A couple of points.

Firstly, it is my understanding that a chipbreaker (as LN term it), or cap iron (as Stanley term it) is only indicated in bevel down planes with a cutting angle below 55 degrees. I will expand on this below.

Secondly, while it is primarily for stabilizing and stiffening the blade, there is little doubt that it does effect the efficiency of planing. Whether it does this in its designated role of clearing chips is debatable, but it does effect the way chips are cleared. Many of my planes do not use a cap iron, but those that do demand attention when setting them up. The irony here is that my serious smoothers are for planing hardwoods, so they typically have HA angles of attack and, consequently do not use a chip breaker. When they do use a chip breaker, the chip breaker functions best when pulled back from the bevel edge since the tighter curls of short-grained timber otherwise gets jammed in the mouth. At the other end of the spectrum I know that Hitachi Steel did a study on the effectiveness of chipbreakers in softwoods. The chipbreakers had no desired chipbreaking effect until it was positioned .5mm or closer to the edge. I do not know how thick were the blades used in this study, but I imagine that they were typically thick Japanese blades and used standard- or lower cutting angles. If so, blade stability, per se, would not have been an issue. Instead it would have been about clearing the softer long grain from the mouth. If this is correct, then it may serve to define the narrow range in which the cap iron becomes an effective "chip breaker". 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (19 May 2005)

> The consensus, from C&W, Steve Knight, and the entire bevel up brigade is yes.
> 
> Yes? Think You sure?
> 
> Cheers, Alf



pipper (as you knew ;-)


----------



## Frank D. (19 May 2005)

Glad you got around to responding, Mike. :shock: 
I printed that one out...


----------



## Anonymous (19 May 2005)

Alf":xv9gr5lh said:


> Welcome, Ben. I dunno; adding a handle and the option of a lower bedding angle seems fairly "new" to me. :-k
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Hi Alf:

Doug here - thought I would join in here too! This version of Spiers plane was actually named the Improved Mitre (as opposed to his older boxier model). Thus, we would have to call ours the Improved Improved Mitre Plane or the Further Improved Mitre Plane or perhaps The Refined Improved Mitre Plane...

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## Alf (20 May 2005)

Welcome to you too, Doug.  How about the "New" Improved Mitre Plane...? :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (20 May 2005)

MikeW":2g1vcbsc said:


> As to the latest fad question, why did *you* purchase yours?



Only *one* reason. 

To use on end grain on the shooting board. Low angle blades work best on end grain and my LA block is too small for a shooting board


----------

