blade stiffeners - Record Stay Set vs MF two-part lever cap

[nabs]

we heard all about the marvellous Millers Falls two part lever cap here:

bench-plane-review-record-4-vs-millers-falls-t103412.html

How does it compare to the Record two part cap iron (aka the 'stay set')? Both devices help to stiffen a thin blade by adding pressure at 3 points, rather than the normal two in a standard bailey plane.

I had a half hearted attempt at reproducing 'chatter' conditions on this bit of beech, but the only way I could get chatter-y marks was by deliberately pressing hard on the tote and lifting pressure off the handle at the same time. As was discussed in the previous thread, this is not likely to be down to the blade vibrating at all, but just a result of not using the tool correctly. Still the result did look a bit like chatter!

Having tired of that test quite quickly, I thought I would test out the other claim for stay-sets, namely that the improve the 'feel' of the plane - making for a more solid and positive engagement with the work.

For this test I planed a piece of pine with a very hard knot at the end. The results on planing the knot were as follows:

• Standard Record plane - no gizmos : "graunch-judder"
  Record w Stay Set: "Clunk"
  Record w MF lever cap: "clink"
  Record w MF lever cap AND Stay Set: (whispers) "clink"

I could not tell the difference when using it on a knot-free bit of wood, but on the knotty bit both gizmos made a noticeable difference. The gizmo-free plane set-up required care to keep the momentum just right to get over the knot without stopping, where the 'improved' set-ups allowed a more sedate stroke.

So there you have it - scientific evidence that if you want the very best thin-iron bailey set-up, you are after a Record SS and MF lever cap combo.

I shall be putting this theory to real world testing on my new bench-build, which is imminent (as it has been for the past 6 months!).

 

[nabs]

a few more remarks on the stay-set, including a couple of pics for those who have not come across them.

One of the grumbles about the design is that there can be some play in the connection between the two halves of the cap-iron, and this makes it hard to adjust to a fine setting:

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...-schwarz-blog/tightening-stay-set-chipbreaker

The article above is about the modern Clifton version, and I have to say there was no such problem with my Record one - the fit is perfect and the bottom half does not move when put in place (note the stern instructions printed on the Record version to 'keep groove clean'!). Of course it is impossible to tell if this is a sign of superior engineering at Record or just a matter of luck.

It is very easy to adjust, just like a normal cap-iron - hold the lower half in place with your thumb and tap the screw with a screwdriver until you are in the right spot. It is also convenient to remove the bur after sharpening without having to unscrew and remove the cap-iron.

The other rather less po-faced grumble, occasionally heard on this site, is the propensity of the bottom half to drop off and hit you on the toe at inconvenient times. Only time will tell how much of a problem this is, but based on my limited experience to date I am pretty sure my toes are safe from harm so long as I keep my wits - and thumbs - about me.

I did need to do some flattening on the toe of the cap-iron - it was a pretty good fit and worked well for most purposes, but during my 'knot-test' the extra force needed to get past the knot resulted in shavings being pushed under the central part, and on closer inspection the cap-iron was very slightly cambered. A bit more care and time was needed to flatten it than the normal cap-irons, since it is much thicker - about 10 mins work, compared to the normal minute or so. Thus an arguable downside, but of course a minor one.

How successful is the design? First of all it should be noted that this (and the MF lever cap) are 'nice-to-have' additions, and not essential upgrades (in fact Record apparently offered the SS version of their planes as a standard option, with the same price as the normal version).

However, they clearly thought it was an improvement, so let's look at why. Record filed a patent for the idea in 1931 - GB 362743 - and their primary claim is the reduced faff in sharpening the blade, and it is hard to argue with that one. The second claim is that the the design improves the clamping effect of the lever cap, thus 'reducing to a minimum any vibration or chattering'.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up this claim (also my not-very-scientific test above!). However, in my opinion, it is a less successful solution than the MF lever cap, since it must be made very accurately to work properly (i.e the two parts must fit exactly and lie flat on the iron), whereas the MF can be made more crudely and still work.

What say you?

 

[Trafalgar]

A squiggle of hard candle wax or the use of an oil wicke might help the chatter at the start of a cut, at board's end, as it seems to be caused by the sole juttering and not necessarily a vibration starting with the cutter/cap iron assembly. What's it going to hurt to try?

 

[nabs]

indeed, everyone seems to agree that when a bench plane judders it is typically down to technique or poor set-up, rather than the blade vibrating.

It also seems that the circumstances where the blade can really chatter are so uncommon that it is hard to justify upgrading the standard bailey thin blade/bent tin combo just to fix it.

The only other justification for these upgrades (including thick irons!) is therefore how they make the plane feel in use. Obviously a highly subjective topic, but IMO planes with a SS or MF lever cap do feel nicer to use. I haven't got any thick irons so I'm not really qualified to comment,, although pressumably they have exactly the same effect.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Assuming that you have a sharp blade already - dull will create chatter on hard wood - the way to prevent chatter on entering a board is to skew the plane significantly (about 45 degrees), straightening it as you begin to cut.

I wonder if you have the correct idea about the chipbreaker. You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread. If this is what you expect, and set the blade back from the edge, I doubt that you will find much difference between chipbreaker makes. The chipbreaker may indeed reduce flex in a thin blade, but when it is set close to the edge, it reduces tearout. Because the setting is fairly precise, a chipbreaker that moves back-and-forth is going to do a poor job. The Clifton two-part chipbreakers that I have used moved more than the Record stay-set versions. I ended up epoxying the Cliftons together! I would rather have a single-piece chipbreaker since it is easier to set up at the edge of a blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Assuming that you have a sharp blade already - dull will create chatter on hard wood - the way to prevent chatter on entering a board is to skew the plane significantly (about 45 degrees), straightening it as you begin to cut.

I wonder if you have the correct idea about the chipbreaker. You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread. If this is what you expect, and set the blade back from the edge, I doubt that you will find much difference between chipbreaker makes. The chipbreaker may indeed reduce flex in a thin blade, but when it is set close to the edge, it reduces tearout. Because the setting is fairly precise, a chipbreaker that moves back-and-forth is going to do a poor job. The Clifton two-part chipbreakers that I have used moved more than the Record stay-set versions. I ended up epoxying the Cliftons together! I would rather have a single-piece chipbreaker since it is easier to set up at the edge of a blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I agree that sharpness helps - it solves many problems! However, I think there's a danger of confusing two different matters here. The positioning of a cap-iron to prevent or reduce tearout is NOT the same thing as adding stiffness to a thin cutting iron. This has been discussed several times on this forum, and no doubt on others.

As Nabs has noted, the performance of thinner cutting irons in Bailey type planes is noticably improved by nipping them tight against the frog, thus removing their scope to flex in use; something the two-piece cap-iron is very well adapted to do. This observation has been made by many people over the years, and reported on this forum and others. Nabs' findings are an interesting addition to those observations.

 

[swagman]

I agree that sharpness helps - it solves many problems! However, I think there's a danger of confusing two different matters here. The positioning of a cap-iron to prevent or reduce tearout is NOT the same thing as adding stiffness to a thin cutting iron. This has been discussed several times on this forum, and no doubt on others.

Cheshire's explanation of the primary role of the cap iron on Stanley type thinner blades is correct imo. That's the primary reason why Bailey referred to it as a Cap Iron.

Some of the modern tool makers still refer to the primary role of the Cap Iron in its original correct context, but then do themselves the disservice of calling it a Chipbreaker. https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4073/ ... ipbreakers

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.

This is the reason I responded to the original post. "Blade stiffening" is an antiquated concept for the chipbreaker/cap iron. While this was the reason for Stanley introducing a thin iron plus chipbreaker, as stated in his patent, the chipbreaker has come to be so much more in the years since. We have discussed this on these pages to death. The bottom line is that few (involved in such discussions) would disagree that setting up a plane includes setting up the chipbreaker for optimal performance. This does not mean setting the leading edge up up tight; it simply means setting up the leading edge where it will provide the best performance support (i.e. straight grained woods are set up slightly further back than interlocked grain).

In short, the focus is on the chipbreaker as an adjustment within the plane for a broader performance gain than simply gained from stiffening the blade. The ease with which one may set up a chipbreaker than takes on more significance, which is an issue with those such as the Clifton. That is another topic.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[swagman]

My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.

Then let us look at the terms of reference being used by another well known hand tool manufacturer;

Stanley/Record Cap Irons made by Veritas® - Woodworking

A cap iron serves to stiffen a plane blade, helping to damp vibration and reduce the potential for blade chatter.

http://www.leevalley.com/us/images/item ... 6320s3.jpg

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I presume some of the wooden planes with double irons predate Stanley metal bodied planes. What was the principal purpose there ? Stiffening, chip breaking, or something else ?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I presume some of the wooden planes with double irons predate Stanley metal bodied planes. What was the principal purpose there ? Stiffening, chip breaking, or something else ?

Tony, woodies with "double irons" indeed predate Stanley. In summary of old discussions: it was more expensive to construct a double iron (thin blade plus chipbreaker) than a single thick iron, so there was another reason for doing so. The reason was that the chipbreaker added performance - not by added stiffening, but by redirecting the chip. One indicator of a closed up chipbreaker is that the shaving straightens and is no longer curly.

We on this forum know all this. It is Old News. Why repeat it then? Because it needs to be part of the discussion when considering the pros and cons of chipbreaker design (or whatever you prefer to call it).

Regards from Perth

Derek (hoping Stewie does not call on the wisdom of Paul Sellers on chipbreakers .. )

 

[nabs]

You referred to it as a "blade stiffener" at the start of this thread.

I didn't explain myself properly Derek - I meant to describe the Stay-set and Millers falls cap-iron inventions as 'blade stiffeners' rather than implying that this is what the cap-iron is for.

I think the historical context is relevant here, since we know that cap-irons pre-date the Bailey design and were used with the (relatively) fat tapered irons that were common in the 19th century then it seems reasonable to assume their introduction was for some other reason than stiffening the (already stiff) irons. Presumably they were adopted due to fact they can reduce tear-out when set very fine*

Things changed with Leonard Bailey's design and the wide scale use of thin irons in bench planes. As he explained in his cap-iron patent, they have a second function when combined with a thin iron and that is to reduce the possibility of the blade flexing in use. He apparently had trouble with the traditional one piece thick cap-iron and introduced the thin bent one we are all familiar to improve matters (and/or reduce costs?).

I see the introduction of the two part lever cap and two-part cap-iron as a natural progression from Bailey's idea, albeit a progression that arguably doesn't really improve performance significantly in the real world. I still say they make the planes feel nicer to use though!
Nabs

* the much-quoted advert in the Pennsylvania Chronicle (Philadelphia) placed by S. Caruthers in 1767 provides a little evidence about the impetus behind cap-irons:

"double iron planes of late construction far exceeding any tooth planes or uprights whatsoever for cross grained or curled stuff"

http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/71734/thread/

Has anyone ever seen an original copy of this ad?

 

[D_W]

My preference is to use the term "chipbreaker" since that is the role I assign to it - the breaker or re-directing of a shaving (or chip). This has little to do with history. Context is important.

Then let us look at the terms of reference being used by another well known hand tool manufacturer;

Stanley/Record Cap Irons made by Veritas® - Woodworking

A cap iron serves to stiffen a plane blade, helping to damp vibration and reduce the potential for blade chatter.

http://www.leevalley.com/us/images/item ... 6320s3.jpg

Lee Valley's product descriptions are not a legitimate source for information about the use of chipbreakers. They have to cater to users who are generally in the middle of the full gamut of beginners problems.

 

[Corneel]

 

[nabs]

another cap-iron question (you can never have too many!): as Derek mentioned, the setting of the cap-iron also changes how the chips are deflected (very close = straight, too close = accordion crinkle, normal = curled).

When at a "normal" (i.e not very fine) setting, does the cap iron help curl the chip or would that happen anyway? The curled chips do seem to help to avoid clogging up my (double-iron) wooden planes. Is this all in my imagination? What happens with single iron woodies?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

another cap-iron question (you can never have too many!): as Derek mentioned, the setting of the cap-iron also changes how the chips are deflected (very close = straight, too close = accordion crinkle, normal = curled).

When at a "normal" (i.e not very fine) setting, does the cap iron help curl the chip or would that happen anyway? The curled chips do seem to help to avoid clogging up my (double-iron) wooden planes. Is this all in my imagination? What happens with single iron woodies?

Nick, this is an interesting area. I mentioned earlier that an indicator that when the chipbreaker is set for tearout control the resulting shaving straightens and flies out of the plane like at streamer. By contrast, with a common angle BD plane, the shaving will curl into a ball, sometimes quite tightly. These are more likely to jam the escapement.

I learned to use the chipbreaker this way around 2012, having relied on high angle planes up to that time to control tearout on the interlocked woods I worked. At the time, my thoughts were that a set chipbreaker was akin to adding 15 degrees of cutting angle. This thought has been reinforced over time as the shavings from high angle planes (60 degree cutting angle), be they BU or BD, all produce shavings that are also straight. For example, shavings fly out of a HNT Gordon smoother (60 degree bed) and a Veritas BUS (12 degree bed + 50 degree bevel = 62 degree cutting angle) in the same way as a Stanley with a 45 degree frog and the chipbreaker set up close.

Perhaps Kees (Corneel) will comment on this.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[nabs]

thanks Derek - the straight shavings that result from a close set cap-iron are very distinctive, but I did not realise the same thing happened with high-angle planes. Most interesting!

 

[Corneel]

The wear plays an important role in the chip formation too. Without a wear, the shaving curls up into a really tight roll. You can see this for example in a block plane with movable front part. Open the front part as far as possible and you will see how the shaving curls in a roll and stays there low down.

The capiron when set close increases the radius of the curl. This in combination with the wear prevent the curl from curling over and it is directed upwards instead. The same happens in a Stanley plane, alltough it has a very small, low, wear.

High angle wooden planes often are pretty tight between blade and wear, so there is no room for curling and the high cutting angle increases the radius of the curl too. In this case there is also no room for curling and the shaving straightens.

 

[ac445ab]

Hard to say what role the cap iron had in origin. May idea is that it was first intended as a chipbreaker for smoothing "difficult" woods and further appreciated as a more general performance enhancer, capable of stiffening the blade and adding weight at the cutting edge.

Ciao,
Giuliano

 

[Corneel]

I should correct my statement about straight shavings from high anmgle planes. I don't have much experience with those, so I got confused. A high cutting angle seems to create a wavy or rippled shaving, like in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeVTI6qXLLE

But he is taking very thin shavings. thicker ones tend to be straight, but now I don't remember how they flow out of a high angle plane without capiron.