# Sole flat enough?



## ali27 (26 Jul 2010)

I tried flattening my no4 stanley by using blue pigment
on floatglass, supported by a not entirely flat granite plate.

Here is a picture of the latest situation:





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Is this flat enough for doing really thin shavings? I know
the proof is in the pudding, but I only have hard piece
of maple around. Also the Stanley blade and chipbreaker
suck.

Ali


----------



## Wiley Horne (26 Jul 2010)

Hi Ali,

You want the leading edge of the mouth to be showing the same scratches (be in the same plane) as the outer edges of the sole. Then it's done. Hollow places in the interior of the sole are no problem--but the leading edge of the mouth needs to be sitting right on the work.

Wiley


----------



## bugbear (26 Jul 2010)

ali27":16pcou56 said:


> I tried flattening my no4 stanley by using blue pigment
> on floatglass, supported by a not entirely flat granite plate.
> 
> Here is a picture of the latest situation:
> ...



That looks fairly good; you'd get more information if your blue was a little thinner. At the moment I suspect your blue layer is generous enough that it's contacting some areas it probably shouldn't.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (26 Jul 2010)

ali27":1porymur said:


> .... Also the Stanley blade and chipbreaker
> suck.
> 
> Ali


How do you know this? 
It's fashionable to dismiss Stanley blades and cap irons but in fact they are nearly all perfectly OK if they haven't been spoiled by overheating or over-enthusiastic fettling.


----------



## ali27 (26 Jul 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":30t1xaoc said:


> ali27":30t1xaoc said:
> 
> 
> > .... Also the Stanley blade and chipbreaker
> ...



Well, I did check the sole with a good straightedge and it
is very flat. I had tuned the other stuff before.

Problem is that I keep getting chatter with the plane even
with very thing shaving.

I will try today with a thicker HSS steel blade from mujingfang.
If the difference is big then I would say the Stanley blade sucks.

Ali


----------



## ali27 (26 Jul 2010)

bugbear":1i334biy said:


> ali27":1i334biy said:
> 
> 
> > I tried flattening my no4 stanley by using blue pigment
> ...



Hi Bugbear,

This filing of the sole to get it flat is nice when the plane
isn´t long and is corrugated, but man my no6 with a flat 
sole is really a bear!

I will experiment flattening the sole with sandpaper on
floatglass. I think there is a method to do it correctly
without creating a convex plane.

Maybe filing/scraping away the high spots in the beginning
and then finishing on a very fine abrasive might do the trick
as well.

What do you think?

Ali


----------



## Racers (26 Jul 2010)

Hi, Ali

A big turnip file to remove the high spots and then tightly stretched sandpaper, here is my set up






Note the clamps holding down the paper and pulling it tight.


Pete


----------



## yetloh (26 Jul 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2h10el5x said:


> ali27":2h10el5x said:
> 
> 
> > It's fashionable to dismiss Stanley blades and cap irons but in fact they are nearly all perfectly OK if they haven't been spoiled by overheating or over-enthusiastic fettling.



It's fahionable because they are in the main markedly inferior to the high quality replacement blades now available. I've tried quite a number and they will not hold an edge for anything like as long as a good blade from LN, Clifton, Hock or, my favourite, the laminated Japanese blades. I agree about the back irons - all these need if fettling.

Jim


----------



## Harbo (26 Jul 2010)

If it needs a lot of work, I use silicon carbide grit on a sheet of acrylic.
Valve grinding paste will work as well. The plastic "holds" the grit better.
Then I work up to finer w/d papers stuck to glass with spray mount adhesive.

Rod


----------



## Jacob (26 Jul 2010)

Harbo":an849otc said:


> If it needs a lot of work, I use silicon carbide grit on a sheet of acrylic.
> Valve grinding paste will work as well. The plastic "holds" the grit better.
> Then I work up to finer w/d papers stuck to glass with spray mount adhesive.
> 
> Rod


The odd time I've done it I use a coarse w/d on my planer table. Wet it with white spirit and it gives enough suction to hold it down on the table.
You don't need fine finish on fine grits at all - after a bit of use and a few applications of candle wax it will slide smoothly, as long as you have worked it length ways so that the abrasive scratches don't go across. Or perhaps a five second polish with a fine paper would help, just to take the sharpness off.



> they will not hold an edge for anything like as long as a good blade from LN, Clifton, Hock or, my favourite, the laminated Japanese blades


but these take proportionately longer to sharpen so the advantage is lost, and they cost a lot more. 
Though I might have a go with a "smoothcut" some day!


----------



## Jacob (27 Jul 2010)

ali27":26nev4we said:


> ....
> Problem is that I keep getting chatter with the plane even
> with very thing shaving....


IMHO chatter is more to do with the blade set, sharpening and workpiece holding, rather than the blade itself, i.e. technique. Main cause being loose blade or loose workpiece.
I've never bothered with that blue stuff. If you work the sole on w/d paper the high spots soon show as bright areas. Not sure where the blue helps.


----------



## bugbear (27 Jul 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":tvpoph73 said:


> but these take proportionately longer to sharpen so the advantage is lost



Tosh. Woodworkers through time have always wanted blades that stay sharp longer. I suppose that's why we went to the iron age, and didn't stick with bronze ;-)

A few seconds extra time on sharpening (not even needed if you use decent modern abrasives) is a small price to pay for extra tens of minutes of sharpness.

BugBear


----------



## yetloh (27 Jul 2010)

bugbear":1w8463eh said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":1w8463eh said:
> 
> 
> > but these take proportionately longer to sharpen so the advantage is lost
> ...



Well said, Bugbear. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Jim


----------



## Jeff Gorman (29 Jul 2010)

Folk who are interested in this much-debated topic might like to look at:http://tinyurl.com/3xjpbm2 and possibly also http://tinyurl.com/2w2n4jw

Jeff


----------



## custard (30 Jul 2010)

Racers":1wb22nbo said:


> Hi, Ali
> 
> A big turnip file to remove the high spots and then tightly stretched sandpaper, here is my set up
> 
> ...



Just looking at that photo makes me want to put my pinny on and tidy it all up!


----------



## Racers (30 Jul 2010)

Hi, Custard

Feel free :wink: 

Pete


Its not all ways that bad :wink:


----------



## Oryxdesign (30 Jul 2010)

Doesn't clamping the glass down flex it and stop it from being flat? :?:


----------



## Racers (31 Jul 2010)

Hi, Oryxdesign

My bench top is flatish so its o/k, if you don't the ripple made by pushing the plane will round over the front and back edges.

Pete


----------



## bugbear (2 Aug 2010)

Oryxdesign":25m5m5f3 said:


> Doesn't clamping the glass down flex it and stop it from being flat? :?:



The downward force of lapping will distort the glass anyway.

BugBear


----------



## hunggaur (3 Aug 2010)

Racers":rsxv8ttw said:


> Hi, Ali
> 
> A big turnip file to remove the high spots and then tightly stretched sandpaper, here is my set up
> 
> ...



HI pete could you advise me what grades of paper you use to get the best results and where is the best place to buy long lenghts from, 

kind regards jon


----------



## Racers (3 Aug 2010)

Hi,

I use Oakey 60 grit to start with then 120 grit both bought in 5 meter roles from Wikes. I don't think you need a mirror finish but if you want it shiny use some 400, I just put a peice on top of the 120. The 60 grit cuts fast so if its nearly flat it shouldn't take much time, vacuum the paper when the swarf builds up and turn the plane round often to avoid uneven metal removal, a sideways rub or two on the paper will reveal high spots.

Pete


----------



## hunggaur (3 Aug 2010)

Hi Pete many thanks for the information i will start on my planes next week,

kind regards

jon


----------



## woodbrains (9 Aug 2010)

Hello.

I would just like to correct a few misconceptions on the plane fettling discussion.

Clamping the abrasive down to a piece of float glass to the bench WILL cause the glass to conform to the uneven bench top. In other words it makes using the glass pointless, as the only reson for using it is for its flatness.

A smoothing plane with corrugated sole should not be too arduous to flatten. (the photo you show of your efforts so far are not flat enough) If you are finding it too much like hard work, then I would suggest you are not using suitable abrasive. The Oakey rolls (aluminium oxide) you have been advised are not really suitable for iron. It dulls too quickly. Get some silicon carbide on cloth backing. Cuts fast, holds its edge longer. Much more fun.

If you have a surface planer with a flat cast table or saw bench etc., then clamp your abrasive to that. If not and you intend to do a few planes, make a platform by glueing up a few layers of birch ply or mdf to make a thick lump. Alternate the faces of each layer, front to back to press out any warps the board might have had. put your plate glass and abrasive on that.

Chattering plane irons is mostly due to poorly fitting cap irons and the bed of the frog not being a good, flat seat for the iron (blade) Fettle these areas first, before you go splashing out on expensive new irons. The back of your iron needs to be flat, too, and polished like a mirror at least in the area right behind the cutting edge..

Sharpness and edge retention are NOT the same thing. High carbon steel can arguably be sharpened to a better edge than fancy A2 cryo HSS etc. The A2 will hold its edge for longer but may not be as sharp to begin with. Carbon steel hones much quicker and many professionals prefer the sharper edge and easier honing of the carbon steel over the alternatives. If you are using oilstones, then you are not likely to sharpen A2 satisfactorily as it takes too darn long and virtually impossible freehand. If you havn't got them already buy some good Japanese waterstones to at least 6000 grit rather than buy a chinese replacement iron. Less than 6000 and your irons will not be truly sharp, nor will they take as fine a shaving as you will want, when your lovely flattened sole is ready.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2010)

woodbrains":20mt4ego said:


> ....
> If you have a surface planer with a flat cast table or saw bench etc., then clamp your abrasive to that.


If you use wet and dry it'll stick to the bed with just white spirit to wet it and give a bit of suction to the paper. No clamps or glue needed and easy to clean off


> Chattering plane irons is mostly due to poorly fitting cap irons and the bed of the frog not being a good, flat seat for the iron (blade) Fettle these areas first, before you go splashing out on expensive new irons. The back of your iron needs to be flat, too, and polished like a mirror at least in the area right behind the cutting edge..


Chattering usually means you are doing something wrong - too much set, too loose lever cap, workpiece not solidly held. Not an excuse for the credit card experience!


> ... If you are using oilstones, then you are not likely to sharpen A2 satisfactorily as it takes too darn long and virtually impossible freehand. ..


Not in my experience (Veritas LA jack and smoother). I expected A2 to be difficult but in fact it sharpens really well freehand on a fine oil stone. Complete surprise after everything I'd read. Just one stone is all you need, no grinding needed if you do the convex bevel thing.

PS it's a stone I bought at a car boot for £2 years ago. At current rate of wear it will see me out. Put that credit card away!

PPS seating on the frog is not too important as long as the blade is firmly nipped between frog and cap iron + lever cap, as close as poss to the cutting edge. The lever cap does need to be tight enough to press the blade down flat on the frog, but it's the edge grip which counts.


----------



## Paul Chapman (10 Aug 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":5lwlmtvr said:


> Chattering usually means you are doing something wrong



Like using a badly made plane where nothing fits together properly :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (10 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":3urnxcg1 said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":3urnxcg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Chattering usually means you are doing something wrong
> ...


Not something I've experienced. :lol: 
You do seem to have plane problems Paul! Where do you find all these dud planes?


----------



## woodbrains (11 Aug 2010)

Woodbrains Wrote


Mr G Rimsdale":3n8bazku said:


> Hello.
> 
> I don't want to labour the point, or sound too pedantic but:
> 
> ...



The iron MUST contact with as much of a flat area of the frog as possible. A good contact with only the edge is not good enough. The standard cap irons are servicable but IMO too thin to clamp the assembly to the frog with enough pressure. However, even a relatively thin standard blade will perform in another league if the frog bed is fettled. Couple this with a Clifton two piece cap iron and you will never need a thicker blade, unless, of course the tool bug has truly bitten.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2010)

woodbrains":24v0qezu said:


> ...
> Even water will stick wet and dry to a planer bed, but neither this nor white spirit will stick the heavy, cloth backed abrasives needed for the initial flattening when lots of metal needs to be removed. ... but some Stanley and Record models can have hollows as much as 5 thou. this would be too tedious to do with anything finer than 80-100 grit, ....


Yes you are right - so use paper backed abrasives. They stick well with just suction when wet and are cheaper


> A plane iron really should have a CONCAVE bevel (must be done by grinding) or a dead flat bevel (achieved with coarse stones or abrasives on a flat surface again) with the secondary bevel honed with a very fine stone.


CONVEX is perfectly OK as long as you don't round over the edge and do keep the bevel to the desired angle at the edge. I know this amounts to blasphemy in sharpening circles but is true nevertheless.


> Only oilstones such as Surgical Black Arkansas or Translucent Arkansas are fine enough to hone a really sharp edge and trust me, these take too long for A2. If you only have one stone and can remove metal with it, then it is not either of these and not fine enough. Before anyone mentions it, shaving hair from the back of your forearm is not a good indication of sharpness. Blades which are only moderately sharp will do this, too, but suck wind when used on wood.


Ordinary not very special oilstones work well for me and don't take too long - in fact is very quick as there is no fiddling about setting up. 
Useful tip - remove swarf with a rare earth magnet - saves on oil and messy cloths. You still need the cloth but it reduces the mess.
It's always a compromise between how long the sharpening process takes, how long the edge will last, getting the (wood) work done. There is a subtle point beyond which any higher degree of sharpness is a waste of time


> > PPS seating on the frog is not too important as long as the blade is firmly nipped between frog and cap iron + lever cap, as close as poss to the cutting edge. The lever cap does need to be tight enough to press the blade down flat on the frog, but it's the edge grip which counts.
> 
> 
> 
> The iron MUST contact with as much of a flat area of the frog as possible. A good contact with only the edge is not good enough.


As I say "The lever cap does need to be tight enough to press the blade down flat on the frog", but it's the edge grip which counts - the whole idea of the Bailey design is to nip a thin blade tight at the edge, with pressure transferred from the lever cam via the lever cap and the cap iron.
Can't say I see any point in the two piece cap iron, though I've never tried one.


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2010)

PS another detail - you don't really need to go beyond 60 to 80 grit when flattening a sole. It will be a bit snatchy at first but, with use, the sharpness will go very quickly and friction will be low. 
Explanation: a freshly ground surface will effectively have sharp ridges and furrows. To reduce friction you don't need to get to the bottom of the furrows, you just need to smooth the tops of the ridges by a tiny amount.
Might even be an advantage (along with being quicker to achieve) in that the furrows may hold candle wax and keep the bottom slippery for longer.


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Aug 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":2uksecnk said:


> Can't say I see any point in the two piece cap iron, though I've never tried one.



Well, there you go :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (12 Aug 2010)

Mr G Rimsdale":vgru9d28 said:


> PS it's a stone I bought at a car boot for £2 years ago. At current rate of wear it will see me out.



Is it a natural stone (e.g. an old slate or Charnley forest) or the more recent Norton India?

http://www.rutlands.co.uk/hand-tools/sh ... nch-stones

Since you say it's wearing slowly, I'd guess the latter.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (12 Aug 2010)

My current favourite most used is my next to finest which is a man made two sided stone.
I also have a go on a very fine stone which looks natural to me i.e.same both sides. I save this for small chisels or extra sharp experiments with wider edges.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Aug 2010)

Oh dear, it looks like I'm going to have to labour the point.

Fine India oilstones are not fine enough for sharpening a really good edge. No they're not. _Absolutely not._ They are not even really fine stones, they are just the finest of the India stones that is a trade name of a range of stones made by Norton. it's like saying that strong lager is the strongest drink you can buy. You cannot deny that a fine single malt is stronger and more desirable. And it is the equivalent to fine single malt that we can achieve with our tools if we know how.

Let me put it into context. Fine India stones are actually coarser than P400 wet and dry. Surprised? The particle size of those stones is 42 microns about the same as P360 wet and dry. P1000 abrasive will give a much better edge to tools and even that is still not fine enough (20 micron) . I use a 1200 waterstone as a medium stone and that is not fine enough (14 microns) Look at your tool catalogues and they advise this is only for _forming _the secondary bevel. It needs to be finished with something finer. I use a 6000 Waterstone (about 2 microns) this is the minimum I would consider for the final hone. 8000 or 10000 might be seen as picky, but I'd not knock anyone for being picky. The funny thing is, honing with waterstones is FAST. It gets you wood working quickly with an edge that, in a well tuned plane, makes the wood glow. I was planing some maple today and I kid ye not, at a raking angle I could see my workshop reflected in it, straight from the plane. Of course if the sole of my planes were as rough as a bears backside, because I stopped flattening them with 100 grit sandpaper, I would never have known what an advantage of havind a truly sharp blade was like. So I spend another few minutes polishing the soles with finer paper, after I have flattened them, because it only needs doing once and is worth it.

I also did some planing with my 1910 patent Bailey No 8 today. It amused me no end to find that the blade seat of the frog is one continuous flat casting (no relief hollows here) I wondered if Leonard Bailey really did intend the blade seat to be only at the edge, when it was actually bedded on a huge flat area. Or perhaps that was some misinformed fiction someone has come up with. In any case, Stanley soon came up with the Bedrock pattern plane, specifically to iron out the problems of poor blade to frog and frog to plane seating. The same pattern copied by Lie Nielsen and Clifton today. The Clifton 2 piece cap iron is not new either. Record introduced those in the 1950's and they really do clamp the whole blade assembly firmly to the frog (providing it is FLAT) ironing out any chatter. Two pieces because the steel is 3 times thicker than those awful bits of bent tin usualy passing as cap irons. Effectively making the iron four times thicker, without having to splash out on expensive new blades! Unless of course you want to!

Incidentally, I am a professional woodworker, and I don't have time to fanny about with things that don't work or take too long. I ditched my oilstones because they don't sharpen quite as fine (Hard Arkansas is about 9 microns) and take longer to do it. Japanese waterstones are extremely quick.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (13 Aug 2010)

woodbrains":3aeb7hgw said:


> Oh dear, it looks like I'm going to have to labour the point.


Oh no! :lol: :lol: 
Am away for the weekend so can't reply. Just one thing:


> ..... Of course if the sole of my planes were as rough as a bears backside, because I stopped flattening them with 100 grit sandpaper, ....


Nonsense. See explanation in earlier post. Yes there will be friction at first but it soon goes with use (and a bit of candle wax). Try it, you will see what I mean. You really don't need a shiny polished sole to reduce friction, as long as the sharpness has been taken off ridges, so to speak. Like a corrugated sole but on a smaller scale


> Incidentally, I am a professional woodworker, and I don't have time to fanny about with things that don't work or take too long. ...


 Me too. That's why I've ditched all attempts at crazy sharpening schemes in favour of what worked so well for earlier generations, in the good old days when sharpening was not a problem. It's the hang up on avoiding rounded bevels which seems to have caused most of the problems. (Briefly; yes rounding over is bad, but rounding *under* is good, i.e. having an edge at say 30º but with the bevel rounded off instead of primary, secondary etc. because it makes sharpening freehand really easy.)


----------



## woodbloke (13 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":qqlg6xam said:


> Mr G Rimsdale":qqlg6xam said:
> 
> 
> > Can't say I see any point in the two piece cap iron, though I've never tried one.
> ...


For once, I agree with Jacob :lol: :lol: and I've used the things on plenty of occaisions - Rob


----------



## Alf (13 Aug 2010)

woodbrains":3e15a260 said:


> I also did some planing with my 1910 patent Bailey No 8 today. It amused me no end to find that the blade seat of the frog is one continuous flat casting (no relief hollows here) I wondered if Leonard Bailey really did intend the blade seat to be only at the edge, when it was actually bedded on a huge flat area. Or perhaps that was some misinformed fiction someone has come up with.


Dunno about Leonard, but iirc Rob Lee has voiced amusement that we get all excited about the machining over the whole surface of the blade bedding area when actually it's machined so the iron does indeed bear on it at the mouth rather than all over. At least I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth - but damned if I could find the comment when I looked for it.

Anyway, welcome to the forum, Mike. If you like to labour a point it seems you and Jacob are made for each other - enjoy. :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Vann (13 Aug 2010)

woodbloke":1ec0ixwv said:


> For once, I agree with Jacob...


 
That alone is just cause to have you banned from the forum :lol: 

The two-piece cap-irons are great. :!: But I noticed that Matthew forgot to put his finger on the lower piece when re-assembling his plane, in the "wood from hell" U-tube video (bleedin' amateur). . :lol: 

Cheers, Vann


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2010)

Vann":q6j0xyob said:


> woodbloke":q6j0xyob said:
> 
> 
> > For once, I agree with Jacob...
> ...



Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (13 Aug 2010)

Vann":29e9p20k said:


> woodbloke":29e9p20k said:
> 
> 
> > For once, I agree with Jacob...
> ...



:lol: :lol: ...exactamundo, just one of the reasons why they're NFU - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2010)

I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (13 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":nw6ip3n1 said:


> I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol:
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


 :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":2d016bjr said:


> I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol:
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



You have something against the Record Stay Set?

BugBear (with a couple of those)


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2010)

bugbear":19xmoxi7 said:


> Paul Chapman":19xmoxi7 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol:
> ...



Not at all - but difficult to buy as they are only available second-hand as manufacture ceased in the 1960s.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul (who has one Record #05 Stay Set  )


----------



## Racers (13 Aug 2010)

Hi,

But you can make missing bits











I like them and they seem to work well, and a finger on the cap works fine when reinstalling.

Pete


----------



## matthewwh (13 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":2vaz7cb0 said:


> I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol:
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



Can you get me one too please!!!

The point of the two piece cap iron is that it allows the blade to bed fully flat against the frog. Normal cap irons all impart some kind of bending force on the cutting iron, so you have a curved surface bedding on a flat one. As Rob Lee rightly points out, it won't make a hapeth of difference how flat the frog is when the surface you are installing adjacent to it is curved.

The two piece is designed to give full surface contact twixt frog and cutting iron. Because the cutting iron stays flat, it makes a blade sandwich. Soft iron frog, unhardened upper portion of the blade and soft mild steel cap iron, so everything around the hardened part of the blade is soft and either physically part of it, screwed down on to it or securely clamped to it with full surface contact. This has the same effect as laminating the blade to both the frog and the cap iron in terms of eliminating vibration. hence - no flutter!

Personally I can't see much advantage in making a lovely big solid bedrock frog unless you are going to transfer the full benefit of that solidity to the cutting iron where it's needed. 






Getting on woodbloke's nerves is just a handy by-product, surely you didn't think they made them just for that?


----------



## David C (13 Aug 2010)

Karl Holtey certainly does not agree with this thesis. The 98 and newer version have blade support solely at the heel of the bevel and a single point pillar further back.

I had an infill plane once where the timber had shrunk and the heel of the bevel was not supported. It was unuseable.

The bend imparted to the blade by 95% of all capirons seems to be a good thing. Just an alternative point of view.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbrains (13 Aug 2010)

Of course we are not talking about infill planes with Bailey patterns, but the point is more or less the same as I was trying to say earlier. A hollow in the frog is OK but a hump in it is useless, which is why I was advocating flattening them.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (13 Aug 2010)

Is this someone else extolloing the virtues of a FLAT frog bed and firmly clamped blade sets?
I was beginning to get paranoid

Mike.



> The point of the two piece cap iron is that it allows the blade to bed fully flat against the frog. Normal cap irons all impart some kind of bending force on the cutting iron, so you have a curved surface bedding on a flat one. As Rob Lee rightly points out, it won't make a hapeth of difference how flat the frog is when the surface you are installing adjacent to it is curved.
> 
> The two piece is designed to give full surface contact twixt frog and cutting iron. Because the cutting iron stays flat, it makes a blade sandwich. Soft iron frog, unhardened upper portion of the blade and soft mild steel cap iron, so everything around the hardened part of the blade is soft and either physically part of it, screwed down on to it or securely clamped to it with full surface contact. This has the same effect as laminating the blade to both the frog and the cap iron in terms of eliminating vibration. hence - no flutter!
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2010)

matthewwh":47b6z6r5 said:


> Paul Chapman":47b6z6r5 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'll have an "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" T-shirt printed and wear it to the next Wilton mini-bash 8) 8) :lol:
> ...



No problem  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2010)

woodbrains":1ekjkdco said:


> Is this someone else extolloing the virtues of a FLAT frog bed and firmly clamped blade sets?
> I was beginning to get paranoid
> 
> Mike.



Don't worry, Mike, there are several of us who share your views  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (14 Aug 2010)

David C":3pxe9xk8 said:


> Karl Holtey certainly does not agree with this thesis. The 98 and newer version have blade support solely at the heel of the bevel and a single point pillar further back.
> 
> I had an infill plane once where the timber had shrunk and the heel of the bevel was not supported. It was unuseable.
> 
> ...


Nice to see two other highly distinguished woodies who don't appear to like them as well. 

I don't have an issue with how they work 'cos I don't use the things anyway (having gone down the BU route) and would agree that the 'flat bed' syndrome is probably desirable, but not necessary. Directly over the heel where the lever cap applies pressure is where all parts must mate *securely*...what happens behind that isn't too important. As someone else said though, the frog surface needs to be flat and not convex. 
The two part cap won't fit into the Kell III (as I recollect) so the big bit has got to come off anyway, then when it's re-assembled and you forget to hold the little bit in place and then it falls off and scuttles somewhere under the bench amongst all the crud :evil: ... 
The LN cap irons are also flat(ish) and in one piece, as are the QS variants (but I haven't seen one in detail) The Cliffies would be better if both bits could be joined (I think this can be done with silicone) so the 'falling off' bit will stay where it's supposed to be. 

...and anyone wearing a T shirt like that is going to get turned away at the door  :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Alf (14 Aug 2010)

How about "I love Clifton two-piece cap irons" on the front, and "But our relationship kept coming apart" on the back...? :wink: 

The point of my poorly-remembered Rob Lee comment, was the bedding area of the Veritas (iirc) is actively _concave_. Just a little bit. But I always manage to get myself in the soup as soon as I dabble in matters of flatness, squareness and other engineering matters, so I'll stop before the croutons arrive.


----------



## paulm (14 Aug 2010)

As a relatively recent newcomer to the clifton two piece gubbins I have to say that I think it is a very effective design, and leaving aside the benefits or otherwise of the bedding arrangement, the seperate toe piece makes rehoning the blade and stropping the back after a delightfully quick and easy affair.

It only takes a modicum of manual dexterity to keep a finger on the toe piece when necessary and is quickly learnt, hardly a major challenge :roll: :lol: 

The performance of the whole arrangement certainly seems very effective in use also, as well as being quick and easy.

Another t-shirt over here please :wink: :lol: 

Cheers, Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Aug 2010)

paulm":zbqewh5v said:


> Another t-shirt over here please :wink: :lol:



OK  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vann (14 Aug 2010)

paulm":ygake3nb said:


> Another t-shirt over here please :wink: :lol:



And one for me...... (woodbloke, are you getting paranoid yet?) :lol: 

Though mine doesn't need to be Clifton specific - I think the Record ones were slightly better made.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Alf (15 Aug 2010)

Vann":11yy09ry said:


> I think the Record ones were slightly better made.


That's appropriate. The two-piece cap iron fan club is already looking to break into two factions... :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Aug 2010)

I think you've put your finger on it, Alf :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Tom K (15 Aug 2010)

What about those with Clifton cap irons on Acorn or Marples planes?


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Aug 2010)

Tom K":3rhb5whm said:


> What about those with Clifton cap irons on Acorn or Marples planes?



They'll have to buy their own T-shirts :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vann (15 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":1dxw880e said:


> Tom K":1dxw880e said:
> 
> 
> > What about those with Clifton cap irons on Acorn or Marples planes?
> ...


Hang on Paul. It's still a Clifton two-piece so they can still wear "I love Clifton two-piece cap-irons" tee shirts.

For woodbloke we can get a "Two wheels are better than one" tee shirt (his Kell).

And for you Paul...... a tee shirt that says "Hey, there's no room left on my honing guide shelf". :roll: :lol: :lol: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## matthewwh (15 Aug 2010)

David C":2xj765ab said:


> Karl Holtey certainly does not agree with this thesis. The 98 and newer version have blade support solely at the heel of the bevel and a single point pillar further back.
> 
> I had an infill plane once where the timber had shrunk and the heel of the bevel was not supported. It was unuseable.
> 
> ...



Alternative views always welcome!

I would point out though that Karl uses incredibly thick cutting irons and very low profile cap irons which suggests to me that he is designing to maintain as flat a surface as possible. I can see the attraction of his tricycle bedding arrangement which provides failsafe stability in the same way as a milking stool - provided that what you are clamping to it has mass and stability engineered in already.

Clico freely admit that their solution is over-engineered for standard use, but when you are using steeper angles for example it's reassuring to be starting out with something that is built like a tank.


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2010)

Vann":2pl353un said:


> woodbloke, are you getting paranoid yet? :lol:
> 
> 
> Cheers, Vann.


Moi?....Noooooooooooooo  8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ :lol: - Rob


----------



## bugbear (16 Aug 2010)

David C":2760ssrw said:


> Karl Holtey certainly does not agree with this thesis. The 98 and newer version have blade support solely at the heel of the bevel and a single point pillar further back.



I'm always nervous of disputing plane information with someone who's thought about it as much as DC, but...

...isn't the #98 bevel up, with the "back" of the blade bedded on a flat bearing surface?

AFAIK the "three point" bedding is used on (at least) his A6 and A13.

BugBear


----------



## David C (16 Aug 2010)

Bugbear,

You are of course quite right.

The thought that was going round in my head was that it is a good thing that the conventional chipbreaker bends the blade slightly because we then know that the heel of the bevel is properly supported, which is a good thing.

Blades are generally not as flat as manufacturers would like us to think and Frog surfaces are very variable.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2010)

David C":2z531n7x said:


> The thought that was going round in my head was that it is a good thing that the conventional chipbreaker bends the blade slightly because we then know that the heel of the bevel is properly supported, which is a good thing.
> 
> Blades are generally not as flat as manufacturers would like us to think and Frog surfaces are very variable.
> 
> ...


...which is one of the points I was trying to make. The crucial bit is the area where frog, blade, chipbreaker and lever cap iron all meet in one thick steel (or iron and steel) sandwich. That's the area where contact must be maintained 100% across all mating or touching surfaces and what happpens further up the frog isn't too important - Rob


----------



## Alf (16 Aug 2010)

Alf":2i5k6bkp said:


> woodbrains":2i5k6bkp said:
> 
> 
> > I also did some planing with my 1910 patent Bailey No 8 today. It amused me no end to find that the blade seat of the frog is one continuous flat casting (no relief hollows here) I wondered if Leonard Bailey really did intend the blade seat to be only at the edge, when it was actually bedded on a huge flat area. Or perhaps that was some misinformed fiction someone has come up with.
> ...



Never, _ever_ rely on my memory; I mis-remembered it. So from the horses mouth:



> Bedding area IS flat... what people miss is that the adjuster sits a wee bit proud of the bed - so the blade really sits on the adjuster, and the area back of the plane mouth...so the locus of primary contact (before blade deflection from the lever cap) is a line across the mouth, and a point at the adjuster. The lever cap will flex more of the blade into contact with the bed - with the most pressure exerted at the mouth.
> 
> Bed area is something people look at, and figure that more is better... they never actually look to see if the blade actually contacts the entire area..


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Aug 2010)

Well, I reckon he's wrong, Alf. Just checked a few of my planes and the adjusters fit inside the slots in the blades, allowing the blades to sit firmly on the bed, clear of the adjuster.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (16 Aug 2010)

Paul Chapman":1yo79hj4 said:


> Well, I reckon he's wrong, Alf. Just checked a few of my planes and the adjusters fit inside the slots in the blades, allowing the blades to sit firmly on the bed, clear of the adjuster.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



Yeah - it's quite well known (depending on the circles you move in ;-)) that some of the lash in a Bailey's adjustment mechanism comes from slack in the fit of yoke to cap-iron.

Now, Mr Lee ain't dumb, so I assume he meant something else. Back to you, Alf (or Mr Lee) .

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (16 Aug 2010)

> The bedding area is flat... what people miss is that the adjuster sits a wee bit proud of the bed - so the blade really sits on the adjuster, and the area back of the plane mouth...so the locus of primary contact (before blade deflection from the lever cap) is a line across the mouth, and a point at the adjuster. The lever cap will flex more of the blade into contact with the bed - with the most pressure exerted at the mouth.
> 
> Bed area is something people look at, and figure that more is better... they never actually look to see if the blade actually contacts the entire area..



I can't follow this either. There is no reason why the adjuster pawl should lift the blade set from the bed. It just sits there with a little downward pressure against the lower edge of the slot, assuming that the operator adjusts the the plane to advance the blade, as you should. If the rear end of the iron was lifted off the bed by the pawl the contact of the front edge would literally be only a fine line. The blade would chatter like fury. Even if the lever cap put more blade in contact with the frog it would be doing so through the LOOSE centre screw and bit of tin spring behind the lever. Lots of places to encourage vibrations.

I only know that my planes perform extremely well, with 2 piece cap irons and flat frogs. Nothing bent into tension, and being pressed back flat again with more spings and levers. We should be trying to emulate the situation in wooden planes of old (still the simplest and best). Their frogs were flat, their irons heavy and their wedges designed to impart pressure over a large area of the iron to contact a large area of the frog. Chatter free bliss!

Best wishes,

Mike.


----------



## Alf (16 Aug 2010)

In the Veritas planes, chaps! ](*,)


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Aug 2010)

Ah, it's all becoming clear now. Just had a look at the instruction sheet for one of the bevel-up planes on the LV website, and Rob must have been referring to the blade sitting on the Norris-style adjuster.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (16 Aug 2010)

Yes, blades surely sit on the top of the frog in Bailey planes. You may well see marks on the opposite face of the blade which show exactly where contact areas are.

David


----------

