advantages/disadvantages

[GEPPETTO]

Hi,

Can anyone explain me the difference between normal Stanley planes and bedrock?
Are those more better of the others?

Thanks

 

[MattMoore]

from what i understand that main difference is in the frog,
with the bailey design it is located onto the main body by 4 small points,
with the bedrock design the whole of the bottom of the frog is in contact with the base,
i think it is top prevent excessive chatter and vibration, and also distortion of the frog if it is in poor contact with the base
i'm sure the experts will be along shortly with any relevant links to aid a better explination

Cheers, Matt

 

[Alf]

I'm no expert, but I do have a link. That link will say it's all just hype. Personally I don't know. My only experience of them is an LN, and the improvement in performance may be down to rather more than just the frog type. Certainly enough people think they're worth having to make them more expensive.

Cheers, Alf

P.S. Don't believe anyone who says the only difference is Fred Flintstone used to use one, btw... :wink:

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

the difference between normal Stanley planes and bedrock?

My #604 dramatically outplanes my #4. However one must take into account that the #604 also has a LN blade and chipbreaker, plus several hours of tuning in it. The #4 has none of this.

So I guess the real difference between these two planes is about $100. :roll:

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Anonymous]

The structural differences between Bedrocks and standard Bailey bench planes are available from the link to Patrick Leach's site given above. I don't think it's right to say that he thinks the Bedrock's are *all* hype, just that the magnitude of the hype is more than the actual improved functionality (his opinion, though an informed one).

Among user's, this issue stirs up a lot of controversy and opinion. Everyone has their favorite plane, and probably spend more time honing and fussing over it than any other. That tends to increase the performance gap over others. For many people, their favorite is a Bedrock, but that still could be just emotional (or not; I don't think that's all, but don't have more than my opinion to prove otherwise). Often, a favorite plane is one that worked well without fussing, irrespective of design.

All that said, I think it's worth noting that all (or all I know about) contemporary makers of high quality planes use frog or iron bedding designs that involve large machined mating surfaces to reduce chatter. Heck, even the only plane Patrick Leach chose to manufacture was a Bedrock design, though that might have been more for novelty than function. Maybe everyone's still riding historical hype, but I'm not inclined to think all the extra effort spent in manufacture has no practical significance.

A tricked out Bailey (i.e., aftermarket blade, lapped, fettled) will outperform a stock vintage Bedrock. So given the relative price of Bedrocks, you can probably get a good plane for less by that route (in USD, $20 for the plane, $35 for a high performance blade, a couple hours time versus $100+ for a run-of-the-mill Bedrock). However, a Bedrock that's fully tuned will (IMHO) perform even better (and cost more too).

FWIW,

Dave

 

[Alf]

I don't think it's right to say that he thinks the Bedrock's are *all* hype, just that the magnitude of the hype is more than the actual improved functionality (his opinion, though an informed one).

Fair point, Dave; sloppy wording on my part. [-X

Cheers, Alf

 

[Frank D.]

One thing I prefer with the Bedrock design is that you don't have to take out the blade to adjust the mouth. This means you can actually see the opening and get it just right the first time, whereas with Baileys it's more guesswork, sometimes it takes me a few tries before I get the blade where I want it. Not a deal-killer for the baileys by any means but still a feature that's worth some extra money for me.
Frank

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I agree Frank. The ease of mouth adjustment (of the #604 over the #4) is the main outward benefit of the Bed Rock plane. There seems to be a small, less immediately obvious benefit to the frog design in terms of supporting the blade.

My intuition says that this advantage is too small to really warrant the premium the Bed Rock commands over the Standard bench plane - until you begin to add the peripherals: mainly a thicker blade and chipbreaker. At this point the better foundation of the Bed Rock begins to be appreciated, and performance increases. I've not attempted to tune up a Standard #4 to the same degree I have with my Bed Rock #604 so I cannot prove this. As I said, it is just intuition speaking. Perhaps wishful thinking! :?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Chris Knight]

Just to be pedantic - you have to adjust the blade after adjusting the frog in a bedrock if you want the same depth of cut, because the frog is mounted on an inclined suface.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: the "improved" frog adjusters in Bedrocks -- just to avoid disappointment if someone goes out to purchase a Bedrock for this feature, not all Bedrocks have the "blade in place" frog adjustment -- only later models. There is a Bedrock type study out on the web (Google "Bedrock type study") that will answer for sure, but if I remember correctly the change in frog adjuster coincided with the change to the "flat top" profile. The round-top Keen Kutter "K" series (Bedrock planes made by Stanley and sold under a Keen Kutter logo) do not have the "improved" frog adjuster (have to take the blade off just like Baileys).

I don't find it that big a deal because I tend to switch planes rather than switch frog adjustments, but if you do move your frog frequently (that sounds vaguely sinister. . .), I can see the appeal.

All that said, a minor but appealing feature of the improved frog adjustment is that you can avoid damaging the cutting edge of the iron when adjusting the frog. It's probably my own ineptitude, but I've dinged a freshly sharpened iron when I've moved the frog forward trying to really close down the mouth, then hit the front of mouth as I adjusted the iron downward. ON the flat-top Bedrocks, because the iron moves down as you go forward, the cutting edge moves safely below the leading edge of the mouth as you go forward, then you can retract it back into cutting position after you gotten the mouth adjusted properly.

Best,

Dave

 

[Alf]

There is a Bedrock type study out on the web

Here 'tis

 

[Midnight]

Can anyone explain me the difference between normal Stanley planes and bedrock?
Are those more better of the others?

Gabriele..

As the others have said, the primary difference between Bedrock and standard Bailey pattern planes is in the frog.. Bedrock frogs give the blade far better support towards the tip than a standard Bailey pattern, thereby lessening the chance of the blade chattering...

Their secondary difference is in how you adjust the frog to open or close the width of the mouth; with a standard Bailey pattern, you need to remove the blade to access the frog retaining screws while Bedrock retaining pins are locked down with screws either side of the adjusting screw. That difference makes it a lot easier and faster to fine tune the throat of the plane...

The last major difference I can think of is with regard to current manufacturers; both current producers of Bedrock pattern planes (Lie Nielsen & Clifton) have well deserved reputations for excellent build quality. Straight out of the box, all 3 companies supply soles that are almost perfectly flat, sides ground perfectly square,very high quality steel used in the blade construction and blades made from material far thicker than original Stanley Bedrock examples...

conversely, current manufacturers of Bailey pattern planes have a near universal reputation for shoddy workmanship; their planes needing hours of fettling before being fit for purpose...

Bottom line is that Bedrock is associated with a quality product...


Edited t keep Miss bushel britches happy

 

[Alf]

3 current producers of Bedrock pattern planes (Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley & Clifton)

Ha hum. Two current producers of Bedrock pattern planes, methinks. You'd be stretching the definition of a Bedrock quite a bit to include the LV.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

Alf--

Your clarification re: LV planes not being Bedrock designs per se is, of course, correct.

It also prompted me to go back and re-read your review of the LV bench planes, hoping to find a picture of the frog/bed interface, which you were kind enough to provide. As I was reading, I was struck a statement something to the effect that the machined surfaces were smaller than you expected, but probably no smaller than a Bailey (implying no larger either).

With the caveat that I've not held an LV bench plane in my hands (well, save a fleeting moment at the LV store in Vancouver, stolen while my better half was looking at gardening stuff), from your pics it looks to me like there was considerably more bed/frog contact in the LV design. While the machined areas on the bed are not huge, they look bigger than in a Bailey to me. More significantly, the entire bottom surface of the frog is machined, so all machined areas on the bed are in play, all the time. In a Bailey frog, the machined areas are such that they aren't all in service (least I don't think so). In addition, having the four contact points spread over two different planes (the geometric type) in the Bailey, it seems less likely that one could expect full contact over all theoretically mating surfaces. It is my belief (with the caveat above and only eyeball measurements to back it up), that the machined bedding surface on the LV is substantially more than a standard Bailey (which I suggested above) -- while also considerably less than a Bedrock-type frog. Is that fair?

With all the other design differents (esp. frog extending through to the sole), I'm not sure the comparison is apples to apples anyway, and probably matters not a whit -- just curious.

Dave

 

[Alf]

Dave,

Nearly a year ago now;I simply can't remember and I don't actually own one! Hang on... <rummage, rummage, where's the quote... ah, here we are> What I actually said was (bold added for purposes of this discussion):

I’m was mildly surprised at how small the areas where the frog meets the body are, but on reflection I don't think they're that much different from a Bailey.

Which comment had rather more to do with my expectations from the unusual frog design, than any lackage in the frog/bed contact department I have a feeling. I was just expecting even more I think. It's a while since I had a Bailey in bits in front of me, but I still don't think there's that huge a difference - certainly not compared to that between a Bailey and a Bedrock (haven't had one of those in pieces for a while either, mind you). But I agree, I think the Veritas has the edge over the Bailey. However where those points of contact are, that probably makes more of a difference. I have a feeling I was pulled up about that at the time in fact... wait, yep, here we are. BB emailed me about it:

But look! There's one more point at the back, rendering the whole frog contact strongly triangulated and stabilised, as compared to "other" planes.

To which I replied:

Yep, good point. That's why I'm a woodworker and not an engineer

A position on the fence to which I shall continue to tightly cling. :wink:

Hope that clears it up?

Cheers, Alf

Expecting a round of applause for rustling up all her references including emails within 10 minutes of reading this thread. :wink: :lol:

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

It is my belief ... that the machined bedding surface on the LV is substantially more than a standard Bailey

Dave, the description you gave of the standard Bailey frog only making contact at "four contact points spread over two different planes" is essentially inaccurate. This is descriptive of Type 18 and 19 Bailey frogs of the past 50 years or so (I'm guessing at this time span), but frogs of the Sweetheart (1919 - 1932) era, and especially all the Bed Rocks, have frogs that are one solid face and do not have any cast recesses. With the exception of the way in which the frog is attached, my #4-1/2 Type 11 (1910 - 1918) Bailey has a near identical frog to my flat top Bed Rock #604.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Anonymous]

Derek--

That'll teach me to work from memory instead of having a plane in hand. Thanks for correcting me. I looked at the B&G searching for a photo, and the text confirms what you said, that the bottom of the frog was machined flat during that period. Therefore, although there are four contact points, they have to be in the same geometric plane. My apologies for spreading misinformation.

If you're not falling down, you're not trying hard enough.

Dave

 

[GEPPETTO]

Hi and good morning (I'm looking out of the window but it isn't here, it's very cloudy)

I wish to thank All folks who has answered my question. I have to say that I have some trouble to understand fully what you said because my little knowledge of the language ( I must go very often on the vocabulary ) but I think to have understood that in Bed Rock type's the blade being less prone to chattering it is better and more you mustn't to remove the blade to adjust the mouth opening.
And on the other hand, there will be a reason if best makers have taken that design...thanks again.