3rd party chipbreakers

[Trafalgar]

Hi Charles

How's tricks?

I can produce whichever shavings I, or you, wish.

That photo was taken a few weeks ago when I was restoring a Stanley #3 and #4 1/2. There were many shavings made during this process. If you look carefully at the name of the blade on this #3, you should see it is a LV (actually a PM-V11) and it has the LV chipbreaker. This was when I also took the time to compare various chipbreakers.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I assume on roughsawn stock, fully prepped by hand...(?)

That's a feat worth memorializing on YouTube. If you ever decide to do it, and you can lay your hands on the stock, I'd personally love to see it done on plainsawn North American ash, red oak, birch, cherry, maple (particularly the first two). I'd be particularly tickled to to see a three foot long bacon strip shaving off of North American ash. My comparatively limited experience with interlocked tropical woods shows that planing often leaves a rough surface but the boards themselves tend to yield a shaving from end to end (curled or not) better than some of our homegrown woods.

 

[MIGNAL]

Crikey! This is really old news guys. I read about the effect of the chipbreaker minimising tearout in about 1980, almost 35 years ago (forget what LN were saying to you, never mind 2 years ago!) Probably from a few woodworking archaeologists that happened to be around at the time. Actually I know exactly who said it but I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first!
Not much new under the sun, as they say.
Actually it really doesn't matter which type of wood it is. Even a softwood with severe grain runout, and planing against and runout will tax any plane.

 

[David C]

I think that some of you are benefiting from old stock Record SS chipbreakers. I have just checked three Clifton models in my workshop, and when viewed from above , there is a distinct rotational slop. Maybe only 0.2 to 0.3 mm change, near the outer edges of the blade, but enough to be a hinderance if ultra close setting is wanted. (Easily fixed of course).

I have written for years, that no manufacturer gives us a chipbreaker front edge which is perfectly formed. This problem is also frequently evident in second hand planes.

QS, L-N, Veritas, IBC all offer 25 degree slopes, sometimes with square front edges as well. Who was copying who?!

Record and Stanley were particularly bad in the late 20th century, though it was clear that they were aiming at 45 degrees.

I have always advocated checking and fettling front edges, as well as the contact surface underneath.

David Charlesworth

 

[MIGNAL]

To obtain that degree of rotational slop in a Clifton chipbreaker would require a very poor fit. That rotaional slop is in respect of the full width of the keyed part.
I cannot detect any slop in that direction, or forward/backward in both of mine. My after market Clifton 2 piece (from Axminster) are around 5/6 years old. I cannot detect that type of slop in my Record StaySet either- obviously much older.
It would be informative if other owners of the more modern Clifton 2 piece would check theirs. I don't doubt what you are saying David but I just wonder if it is 'typical'. After all, I have a LV blade that is (and always was) a poor example. In terms of edge retention it is inferior to my thin Stanley circa 1980's blades. I suspect that what I received was less than a 'typical' example.

 

[David C]

One does tend to assume that the examples one sees are typical, but this may not be so.

If setting extremely close as recommended by Kato, a shift of as little as 0.1 mm would cause difficulty.

David

 

[Peter Sefton]

This rotational slip is not present on any of my Clifton's, and I do not suffer with dropping the end section of the chip breaker any more than I drop any of my other tools. The bottom section of the chip breaker often pivots on the centre point connecting it to the main plate, but this is not an issue; it ensures the pressure exerted by the lever cap lays the chip breaker's front edge totally flat on the blade without creating any other stress or bend within the cutting iron that may lead to flutter.
I am not douting your findings David and I am sure Alan Reid and his team at Clifton would exchange it in a heartbeat. I think we all know that on occasions all the manufacturers can be pulled up when we are working to such fine tolerances. We had to fettle a LN chip breaker last week that wouldn't have passed Tom"s scrutiny but on occasions these things slip through.
I feel one of the cheapest ways of improving an old plane is by replacing the chip breaker with a QS one. Although we do carry a range of blades and chip breakers, I don't recommend doing a "Trigger's Broom" :lol:
I saw the Veritas chip breaker when the demo team came to my School last year but don't think they are readily available in the Uk. If people are interested PM me and I will see if we can get them in after Derek's favourable review.
Talking of which, Fine Woodworking did a very favourable review of the Clifton Smoother in a group test a couple of years ago - one of the main factors in the Clifton's top ranking was the two piece chip breaker.
http://www.finewoodworking.com/tool-gui ... lanes.aspx
I try to remember with all reviews and opinions that they are one man's views on a given day ...
Cheers Peter

 

[Vann]

Talking of which, Fine Woodworking did a very favourable review of the Clifton Smoother in a group test a couple of years ago - one of the main factors in the Clifton's top ranking was the two piece chip breaker.
http://www.finewoodworking.com/tool-gui ... lanes.aspx

"Premium content" - available to members only

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Talking of which, Fine Woodworking did a very favourable review of the Clifton Smoother in a group test a couple of years ago - one of the main factors in the Clifton's top ranking was the two piece chip breaker.

Hi Peter

I do not place too much stock in that review. The reason is that it is evident from the conditions set up in the assessment process that (1) the chipbreaker was not used to control tearout but only to support the blade. Therefore there was no evaluation of the difficulty in setting it up, (2) Tearout control was limited to mouth size, which is irrelevant with either a tightly set chipbreaker or a high cutting angle, (3) the BU planes should have swept the board for performance but did not. The question is why did they not. The answer is likely that the cutting angles were left factory setting, that is, a primary bevel of 25 degrees. (4) His wood choice reflects the type used by the average user, but it would not test the limits of the planes. As such it it more likely to favour the weaker performers and penalise the stronger performers.

This is an illustration of how context is important when assessing anything. It is the reason I asked how many here set the chipbreaker close to the edge (0.3mm) for smoothing and how many simply assume that a thick chipbreaker is sufficient for the job.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

Talking of which, Fine Woodworking did a very favourable review of the Clifton Smoother in a group test a couple of years ago - one of the main factors in the Clifton's top ranking was the two piece chip breaker.

Hi Peter

I do not place too much stock in that review. The reason is that it is evident from the conditions set up in the assessment process that (1) the chipbreaker was not used to control tearout but only to support the blade. Therefore there was no evaluation of the difficulty in setting it up, (2) Tearout control was limited to mouth size, which is irrelevant with either a tightly set chipbreaker or a high cutting angle, (3) the BU planes should have swept the board for performance but did not. The question is why did they not. The answer is likely that the cutting angles were left factory setting, that is, a primary bevel of 25 degrees. (4) His wood choice reflects the type used by the average user, but it would not test the limits of the planes. As such it it more likely to favour the weaker performers and penalise the stronger performers.

This is an illustration of how context is important when assessing anything. It is the reason I asked how many here set the chipbreaker close to the edge (0.3mm) for smoothing and how many simply assume that a thick chipbreaker is sufficient for the job.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I see that the review was done by Chris Gochnour. If anybody thinks the qualifications of the reviewer have a bearing on the matter then one might want to visit:

http://www.chrisgochnour.com/

Chris built a nice desk for the Governor of Utah:

A search on Gochnour on the Fine Woodworking website yields ten pages' worth of results:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/search/s ... 0j199808j8

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Charles, I have every respect for Chris Gochnour's ability as a woodworker. However the assessment has a flawed design, mainly because the parameters of what is important have shifted since that review was done. He is looking at one thing (then) and we are looking at another (now).

By way of analogy, to use one of your own arguments against assessing chisels all with a bevel of 30 degrees - you have stated that this favours the weaker steel. You have argued for bevels to be at 20 degrees to better assess the steel.

The assessment is not about building a desk. It is about smoothing wood. The ability to build a desk lies in the person, not the tool. Tools, nevertheless, vary in their ability to perform the task of smoothing. Extracting the best from each, and not just a few, is the task of a reviewer.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[MIGNAL]

Derek. What part of the Clifton chipbreaker prevents it from being set within 0.3 mm (or closer) to the edge?
I can do it with simple ease but then again I don't drop the nose section either.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Mignal

Of course the Clifton chipbreaker can be set close to the edge - ALL of the chipbreakers can be se close. In addition, of the chipbreakers I used, only the Clifton and the Stanley came with the correct angle for the leading edge (to some degree I agree with David C that all still need to be prepared before use, however only the Clifton and the Stanley recognised - by chance or purpose - the correct angle here).

What is not ideal with the Clifton is that it is more difficult to set accurately (to 0.3 - 0.4mm). This is because the connection between the two pieces is not perfect. There is movement. I can only generalise from the one I own and another I have seen (these are not common items in Australia). Mine rocked when I received it. There was a high spot, and the mating surfaces needed filing before the pieces came together. And then I could not get them to stay together when I angled the blade to slide it into the plane. The toe piece would drop off all the time. And then I'd start again. By comparison, the LN chipbreaker was stable and solid, and by comparison a dream to use. The Clifton chipbreaker eventually found a home with my Stanley #51 shooting plane, where it bulked up the thin Smoothcut blade and did not need to be close to the edge (back then I did not consider this necessary anyway).

I freehand hone my blades, so removing the toe was attractive. However others do not do so, and for them the rear section would need to be removed anyway. So where is the Clifton advantage here?

Further, the fitting of the chipbreaker for a smoother has a narrow window. Even 0.1 mm too far from the blade edge and it stops working. How much steel do you remove when you hone/grind a blade. I've never measured a re-hone (it can't be much), but grinding would be more (plus you would need to remove the back). The point is, that fitting only the toe after re-sharpening is likely to be OK for general use, but not for fine smoothing.

Last point: before you dismiss the ease of set up from the LV chipbreaker and screw, take the time to try one out. You will better understand the points I am making.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[MIGNAL]

Derek. I have numerous chipbreakers. I've long lost count the actual numbers that I own and have used over the years.
The Clifton chipbreakers (and the staySet) that I have show NO play, either rotational or forward/backward. That appears to be the same experience of the vast majority of people who have replied to this thread. I simply do not recognise the problems that you refer to. None of them. The method of placing blade and chipbreaker into the plane requires a slightly different technique but that technique can be acquired in seconds. It is so simple that I'm genuinely shocked that you didn't find the solution of using the index finger on the nose piece.
As such the Clifton chipbreaker is capable of setting with ease and your assertion that it is only suitable for rough work is clearly wrong. Perhaps your particular chipbreaker is a poor example but I guess we all experience poor samples of manufacturers products. If I did a review of my LV Plane blade it would rate lower than the 1980's Stanley blades that I own. It's obviously one that should not have got through, but it did.

 

[Vann]

I was a little disappointed with the first couple of Clifton 2-piece cap-irons I bought. The "deflector" doesn't sit flat in it's groove (like my Record Stay-Sets do), but rocks - the "high spot" that Derek refers to. I've since read that Clifton claim that's done intentionally. By having a high spot, the deflector sits like a three legged stool when in place - the high spot in the groove allows the other two legs (the leading edge) to sit flat on the cutting iron.

Maybe in the process of filing that high spot off Derek accidently filed the side walls of the groove, resulting in increased clearance, and this rotational problem he refers to???

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Peter Sefton]

I was a little disappointed with the first couple of Clifton 2-piece cap-irons I bought. The "deflector" doesn't sit flat in it's groove (like my Record Stay-Sets do), but rocks - the "high spot" that Derek refers to. I've since read that Clifton claim that's done intentionally. By having a high spot, the deflector sits like a three legged stool when in place - the high spot in the groove allows the other two legs (the leading edge) to sit flat on the cutting iron. and your three legged stock is puts the point across eloquently.

Maybe in the process of filing that high spot off Derek accidently filed the side walls of the groove, resulting in increased clearance, and this rotational problem he refers to???

Cheers, Vann.

Vann you may well be correct in your assertion, and although we all call the two piece chip breaker a Stay Set if you speak to Mick Hudson and the craftsmen that make the Clifton's they will tell you that they did not include this classic design for the speed of sharpening although this may also prove to be a positive outcome, it is as has been stated before the diminish cutter flutter and your three legged stool puts the point across eloquently. .

Derek I do enjoy your reviews and have respect for them both from a scientific and grammatical view point, but I must say that Chris Gochnour and some of us don't do woodworking for a hobby, we are trained craftsmen with years of on the bench experience and come at it from a different angle (no pun intended)
Cheers Peter

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Derek I do enjoy your reviews and have respect for them both from a scientific and grammatical view point, but I must say that Chris Gochnour and some of us don't do woodworking for a hobby, we are trained craftsmen with years of on the bench experience and come at it from a different angle (no pun intended)
Cheers Peter

Peter, will you read what I actually wrote .....

"..the assessment has a flawed design, mainly because the parameters of what is important have shifted since that review was done. He is looking at one thing (then) and we are looking at another (now)".

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[David C]

" we are trained craftsmen with years of on the bench experience and come at it from a different angle (no pun intended)"
Cheers Peter

I wonder what sort of angle that would be? We are both involved in the teaching of adults. I feel obliged to explain how things should be. Frequently the best efforts of manufacturers fall a little short of the ideal. My next step is to explore ways of fettling, which will bring us nearer to the ideal.

The two part cap iron is more difficult for students to work on than a single part one. The front edge and fit need checking as do all the others. Rotational slop in the joint can easily be reduced. The only other thing that distresses me, is the complete absence of flatness of the fixed part. Plenty of polish but no flatness. This probably does not affect performance but is odd. I suppose a little surface grinding would add to the cost.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[G S Haydon]

I found that the LN cap iron applied bending forces to the blade which to me seemed less deisreable than holding a blade flat without tension. The stay set type allows for a flatter blade/cap iron bed and therefore a more secure feel when on the frog. The LN cap iron flet no different in use than the Stanley Type. However the Stay Set type did make it feel more secure and planted, adjustment was slightly firmer and it keeps it's set very well. I think removing the front part of a Stay Set for quick sharpening is not something I'm bothered about and for me personally the time saved is in my experience is pointless. I can't remeber now but I think I might of flattened the top part of the stay set on a coarse diamond plate to allow a nice flat joint.

On fettling I know I was pleased that I found David's method of refining bench planes within a Popular Woodworking article which is free for all to look at on rexmill.com . I did not follow all the steps but after the process my #4 was and is working very nicely indeed.

 

[Trafalgar]

Derek I do enjoy your reviews and have respect for them both from a scientific and grammatical view point, but I must say that Chris Gochnour and some of us don't do woodworking for a hobby, we are trained craftsmen with years of on the bench experience and come at it from a different angle (no pun intended)
Cheers Peter

Peter, will you read what I actually wrote .....

"..the assessment has a flawed design, mainly because the parameters of what is important have shifted since that review was done. He is looking at one thing (then) and we are looking at another (now)".

Regards from Perth

Derek

Really? Says who?

I'm mean really. For whom, exactly, has this been *that big* a game-changer?

 

[Trafalgar]

" we are trained craftsmen with years of on the bench experience and come at it from a different angle (no pun intended)"
Cheers Peter

I wonder what sort of angle that would be? We are both involved in the teaching of adults. I feel obliged to explain how things should be. Frequently the best efforts of manufacturers fall a little short of the ideal. My next step is to explore ways of fettling, which will bring us nearer to the ideal.

The two part cap iron is more difficult for students to work on than a single part one. The front edge and fit need checking as do all the others. Rotational slop in the joint can easily be reduced. The only other thing that distresses me, is the complete absence of flatness of the fixed part. Plenty of polish but no flatness. This probably does not affect performance but is odd. I suppose a little surface grinding would add to the cost.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

What actually happens when you have a student show up with a Clifton plane?