Paul Chapman
Established Member
Whatever :lol:
About thick cap-irons
- Thread starter GLFaria
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Corneel
Established Member
Please explain Paul?
I thought the capiron bends the blade upwards, so the blade rests on two points, at the top and at the bottom. So pressure is exactly where you want it, at the bottom. Fact is that most Bailey plane irons have a gap when installed between the frog and the blade, soemwhere half way up.
It is easy to demonstrate the bending of the iron under planing forces. Put a piece of paper between blade and frog so it just nips up tight under levercap pressure. You might have to fiddle a bit with the screw to have it just right. Then extend the blade for a very deep cut. Push it against the edge of a board, and you can feel how the piece of paper releases when you push the plane. This is the effect Vann described. The edge hits a hard bit of wood and the blade bends. The fulcrum point is the top of the bevel when the frog is pulled back, so the top of the bevel is actually resting against the sole. When you push the frog forward, closing up the mouth, the fulcrum point is quite a bit higher. The higher this point, the longer the lever, thus also the more the blade bends.
I thought the capiron bends the blade upwards, so the blade rests on two points, at the top and at the bottom. So pressure is exactly where you want it, at the bottom. Fact is that most Bailey plane irons have a gap when installed between the frog and the blade, soemwhere half way up.
It is easy to demonstrate the bending of the iron under planing forces. Put a piece of paper between blade and frog so it just nips up tight under levercap pressure. You might have to fiddle a bit with the screw to have it just right. Then extend the blade for a very deep cut. Push it against the edge of a board, and you can feel how the piece of paper releases when you push the plane. This is the effect Vann described. The edge hits a hard bit of wood and the blade bends. The fulcrum point is the top of the bevel when the frog is pulled back, so the top of the bevel is actually resting against the sole. When you push the frog forward, closing up the mouth, the fulcrum point is quite a bit higher. The higher this point, the longer the lever, thus also the more the blade bends.
Paul Chapman
Established Member
Corneel":3gzg201u said:
No need - Vann's photographs show quite clearly what the problem is with the bent metal-type cap iron and a thin blade and how the Stay Set-type cap iron solves it. Besides, this issue has been debated many times in the past and I don't feel inclined to go over it all again.
Cheers :wink:
Paul
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Come to think - the stayset applies force at 3 points; edge, under the cam and at the joint. The ordinary cap iron will do exactly the same if it is bent up a bit.
Corneel
Established Member
Just reread your messages and I now see what you were writing. Sorry.
Indeed, the blade is lifted from the frog. Chater is possible, for sure, but in reality very rare. The planes work very well in standard setup. They have been in production for 147 years now. Millions and millions were sold and used in all types of work. As soon as the patents ran out they were copied by countless other manufacturers. It was a professional tool.
Now, do we hobbyists really need to think the design was flawed and needs an upgrade?
Indeed, the blade is lifted from the frog. Chater is possible, for sure, but in reality very rare. The planes work very well in standard setup. They have been in production for 147 years now. Millions and millions were sold and used in all types of work. As soon as the patents ran out they were copied by countless other manufacturers. It was a professional tool.
Now, do we hobbyists really need to think the design was flawed and needs an upgrade?
Corneel
Established Member
Jacob, the problem with bending up the capiron tip is lost pressure at the tip. You have to proceed carefully, otherwise you might end up with shavings under the capiron.
People, you finally got me confused :? .
In the end, should I or should I not bend a standard Stanley cap iron back to reduce the force it makes and the bending of the iron?
Technically speaking, I feel that the Stay Set makes more sense than the Bailey. The fact that millions of these have been produced and sold may have more to do with price, marketing and the dominance of Stanley than for it being an intrinsically better solution.
In the end, should I or should I not bend a standard Stanley cap iron back to reduce the force it makes and the bending of the iron?
Technically speaking, I feel that the Stay Set makes more sense than the Bailey. The fact that millions of these have been produced and sold may have more to do with price, marketing and the dominance of Stanley than for it being an intrinsically better solution.
Corneel
Established Member
No, I wouldn't because there is no problem with the Bailey ones. Make sure thet the end fits very tight to the cutting iron, with absolutely no gaps. And then enjoy your plane.
The stayset is the better design, but from 1867 to 1931 only the Bailey pattern was available, not just from Stanley, but also from Sargent, Record, Marples and many more. Somehow they made do with that "crapy piece of bent tin".
The stayset is the better design, but from 1867 to 1931 only the Bailey pattern was available, not just from Stanley, but also from Sargent, Record, Marples and many more. Somehow they made do with that "crapy piece of bent tin".
Vann
Established Member
It's not the design that's flawed, it's the execution. The design calls for the three pressure points, but in fact almost every example has only two - because of poor manufacturing and/or lack of understanding of the requirements of the design.Corneel":2c8x766z said:
My older cap-irons are closer to the Bailey design. My newer ones are the worst. I think part of the reason they managed from 1867 to 1931 was because the cap irons were close enough to the design to work with a tweak (they were not yet crappy pieces of bent tin) but even then they had to resort to infills for the fine work :wink: .Corneel":2c8x766z said:
Good gracious man, settling for second best, you'll give us Dutchies a bad name. (hammer)Corneel":2c8x766z said:
Cheers, Vann.
bugbear
Established Member
Vann":1nmibehl said:
I think the 3 point idea is not needed, even though Bailey thought it was, and stated
as much in his patent.
The evidence is apparent in all the "normal" Bailey planes that perform well enough for many purposes.
Which doesn't mean the performance can't be improved. The Bailey design is a very good point on the price/performance curve,
no more, no less.
BugBear
caroleb
Established Member
I have learnt a lot from this thread, in spite of its politics, and thank you all for the lesson. I am always pleased to learn.
Caz
Caz
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
2 point, 3 point, 10 points of contact whatever, simply MISSES. The point. It is really irrelevant how many points of pressure hold the iron down, but it should lie flat on the frog. The frog is a huge dampening mass and it would be silly not to utilise it, for the sake of a replacement cap iron or fettling the existing one to do its job properly. Bend the thing so a happy medium is found between it not arcing the blade and so no shavings can force their way under the leading edge. It is not difficult and completely reversible, so where is the harm?
The Bedrock was designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the Bailey, i.e. not having the best blade seating assembly in the world. It was and is a recognised fact that blade bedding on the Bailey is a weak point, apparently even by its manufacturer, hence the Bedrock. It is not rocket science to work out that we should optimise our Bailey planes however we can. The design was good initially, though not perfect and only got worse with time and production/cost expedients. Even a Bedrock plane with a bit of bent tin for a cap iron will perform less well than it might and will actually negate the advantage of its superior frog. I wonder if this is why production eventually ceased? Essentially was it de-specified into something that performed no better than a Bailey, but cost more and no one had the wit to do the simple fix?
Mike.
2 point, 3 point, 10 points of contact whatever, simply MISSES. The point. It is really irrelevant how many points of pressure hold the iron down, but it should lie flat on the frog. The frog is a huge dampening mass and it would be silly not to utilise it, for the sake of a replacement cap iron or fettling the existing one to do its job properly. Bend the thing so a happy medium is found between it not arcing the blade and so no shavings can force their way under the leading edge. It is not difficult and completely reversible, so where is the harm?
The Bedrock was designed to eliminate the shortcomings of the Bailey, i.e. not having the best blade seating assembly in the world. It was and is a recognised fact that blade bedding on the Bailey is a weak point, apparently even by its manufacturer, hence the Bedrock. It is not rocket science to work out that we should optimise our Bailey planes however we can. The design was good initially, though not perfect and only got worse with time and production/cost expedients. Even a Bedrock plane with a bit of bent tin for a cap iron will perform less well than it might and will actually negate the advantage of its superior frog. I wonder if this is why production eventually ceased? Essentially was it de-specified into something that performed no better than a Bailey, but cost more and no one had the wit to do the simple fix?
Mike.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Basically it's not very good. Adjusting the frog is a dubious practice to start with, but having to work 3 screws and reset the blade doesn't help much at all. Adjustable mouth a much better and more logical option.woodbrains":1hmexup6 said:
woodbrains
Established Member
Jacob":bsg13vkj said:
Hello,
The adjustable frog may or may not be fiddly, but it is the firmer frog bedding that was the main advantage and the one I was referring to on the context of cap irons transferring ther pressure onto the iron onto the frog. The super rigid frog being a good thing and proving these things matter. Adjustable mouth is really more convenient and the new Stanley Sweetheart would have been great if it wasn't for Stanley again missing the finer points. The one piece frog casting on these further reinforces the need for a firm blade bedding.
I only handled one briefly and cannot recall exactly, so honestly Jacob, remind me of what the cap iron on these are like, please. Have they managed to keep the blade assy flat so it makes the most of the firm frog on these. I might get one if I have a bit of spare cash, as they could have a really superb plane here, for the price it would be worth the fettling.
Mike.
bugbear
Established Member
woodbrains":2zjr8tt2 said:
The original Bedrock improvements, from 1898 to 1911 did not include the "adjust the mouth with the blade in place" feature.
(this feature is handy, since you can see how big the mouth is as you adjust - with a normal Bailey you have to sort of guess, trial and error)
It only included the (superb) machined mating surfaces on bed and frog, secured with the obvious vertical screws.
I have a #608 in this style, and it's excellent.
I note that the Lee Valley planes have a rather unusual frog, in that it extends all the way to the sole, providing good support for the blade. But the frog also moves, on a large machined surface. Yet another way to skin the cat.
AFAIK the first BD plane with an adjustable mouth was the Marples X 4; an adjustable mouth is pretty much essential on a well thought out LA/BU plane, since the depth adjustment involves so much concomitant forward/back movement.
BugBear
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Bedrock and normal both have frog held down by 2 screws, albeit a funny cam action on the bedrock. They both sit tight on the body. If equally well made then the differences between them are so little that they can't conceivably make any difference to performance.
Which is presumably why the bedrock wasn't so desperately sought after and went out of production - just another gimmick with no great benefit.
Which is presumably why the bedrock wasn't so desperately sought after and went out of production - just another gimmick with no great benefit.
woodbrains":2zsgsxyi said:
The breaker on the Stanley SW is very similar to that of the LN. Half it's length it lies flat to the blade but obviously has the little step that contacts near the edge of the blade.
With the breaker/blade assembled the surface that contacts the frog is about as flat as we will ever need. Of course if one really is of the OCD variety then I guess NO surface is ever flat. . .
My only contention with the SW is that it's a very weighty affair and the slop in the Norris adjuster. The adjuster doesn't bother me but the weight does. It's a tank, rather than a nimble mini. Tank is perfectly fine for the very final 'smoothing' operation but I prefer the lower weight and feel of my '50's Stanley No. 4. The adjustable mouth on the SW is a breeze.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I agree with that.
The cap iron lies flat on the blade overall so imparts no bend to it when tightened.
It's another fashionably over engineered object like Elton's boots. It'd be better with a normal thin blade, a stayset cap iron, a cam action lever cap. Good value for money though. The best of a dodgy lot.
The cap iron lies flat on the blade overall so imparts no bend to it when tightened.
It's another fashionably over engineered object like Elton's boots. It'd be better with a normal thin blade, a stayset cap iron, a cam action lever cap. Good value for money though. The best of a dodgy lot.
Corneel
Established Member
Just to shake thing up a bit. Here's another one who isn't happy with the stayset capiron:
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/w...d:+woodworkingmagazine+(Woodworking+Magazine)
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
It seems there are manufacturing inconsistencies in the Clifton cap iron. This is a shame that the snug fit isn't achieved stright from the factory. I have not encountered any slop in the ones I have. The idea of the 2 pieces making a rigid assebly without bending the blade is well concieved, though, and I think better than the sprung variety normally encountered.
It seems the Stanley SH No4 does have a good capiron, making the most of its rock solid bed. The weight does not bother me as it is a final smoother after all, though it all depends on the use the end user puts it to as to whether the weight is a pain or not. i didnt like the rear tote shape and would have to re shape it if I had one. I quite like the cross dowel fixing though, but does that mean it will limit the handle shape; it has awfully flat sides? the back lash in the adjuster is excessive and I do not like the sharrp 'prongs' at the front end, around the adjustable mouth. I ca imagine damaging a nicely planed surface with that from time to time. Maybe a bit of judicious filing might smooth that out. The Norris adjuster requires a screw clamp on the lever cap, a cam lock will not work with that. it is just a shame the Norris adjuster is not as precise as it should be. the plane has all the elements of a fine tool, just needs minor fettling. Considereing the low price, could be really worth consideration.
Jacob, it is true that the frog on the Bailey's are good enough, but not if the blade does not seat on it! Good cap irons will turn an ordinary plane into a LN (etc.) rival, for little money. Let us not ruin a good thing for a h'apeth o' tar. I don't think I have met anyone who has used a LN bedrock of Clifton (price excepted) and not thought it was better than a Bailey eqivalent without modification/upgrade. There are engineering reasons for this and much has to do with capirons and firm blade bedding.
Mike.
Mike.
It seems there are manufacturing inconsistencies in the Clifton cap iron. This is a shame that the snug fit isn't achieved stright from the factory. I have not encountered any slop in the ones I have. The idea of the 2 pieces making a rigid assebly without bending the blade is well concieved, though, and I think better than the sprung variety normally encountered.
It seems the Stanley SH No4 does have a good capiron, making the most of its rock solid bed. The weight does not bother me as it is a final smoother after all, though it all depends on the use the end user puts it to as to whether the weight is a pain or not. i didnt like the rear tote shape and would have to re shape it if I had one. I quite like the cross dowel fixing though, but does that mean it will limit the handle shape; it has awfully flat sides? the back lash in the adjuster is excessive and I do not like the sharrp 'prongs' at the front end, around the adjustable mouth. I ca imagine damaging a nicely planed surface with that from time to time. Maybe a bit of judicious filing might smooth that out. The Norris adjuster requires a screw clamp on the lever cap, a cam lock will not work with that. it is just a shame the Norris adjuster is not as precise as it should be. the plane has all the elements of a fine tool, just needs minor fettling. Considereing the low price, could be really worth consideration.
Jacob, it is true that the frog on the Bailey's are good enough, but not if the blade does not seat on it! Good cap irons will turn an ordinary plane into a LN (etc.) rival, for little money. Let us not ruin a good thing for a h'apeth o' tar. I don't think I have met anyone who has used a LN bedrock of Clifton (price excepted) and not thought it was better than a Bailey eqivalent without modification/upgrade. There are engineering reasons for this and much has to do with capirons and firm blade bedding.
Mike.
Mike.
