bevel-down planes... sell me!

[condeesteso]

I do like to start a debate
I have a few planes, and on balance more traditional than 'bevel-up'. But I have read and heard and experienced the arguments for bevel-up planes, but NEVER been convinced by any argument for a Bailey-style plane (I mean a bevel down).
I have noted that the 'chipbreaker' is called a variety of names (some rude).
Would anyone like to put forward a definitive case for the bevel-down plane?
Before you do that, please test your case against these points:

A bevel-up plane:
- gives you any choice of pitch at the switch of a blade (even toothed blades at a modest extra cost)
- has no 'chip-breaker' (a component of questionable merit)
- can adjust throat within seconds, without altering any blade setting

I honestly want to hear the case for the defence. I am biased at the moment (in favour of bevel-up of course) but ironically, most of the planes I use regularly are traditional.

(My plane arsenal is: Lie: Apron, block, No 3, No 62, Jointer; U.S. Stanley No 3, No 5; Record No 4, Veritas Medium Shoulder. I sure need more!!!)

Come on team, let's start a real argument!!

 

[woodbloke]

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that I'm a huge fan of BU planes for all the reasons that you mention. What's even more interesting is that one or two people hereabouts that used my LV BU jack were instantly converted even though they'd been hardcore BD users previously.
I think you actually have to use a BU plane to see the benefits...and my prior standard was a Norris A1 panel plane, now promised to Jimi if I ever sell it (which might happen soon) - Rob

 

[Jacob]

It's not bevel down alone which makes the Bailey pattern such a brilliant plane but its a starting point.
NB there's no argument!
1 Thin blades are cheaper to make and quicker to sharpen. Very important when hand planing was a large proportion of the work in producing anything, and down-time was expensive. The Bailey pattern makes a thin blade viable.
2 Thin blade plus cap iron plus lever cap gives you the equivalent of a thick blade - the lever cap bears down on the cap iron, the end of which bears down on the thin blade just above the plane mouth holding it tight and solid, giving it the performance of a thicker blade.
3 The lever cap has a brilliant detail; the spring steel tongue under the lever. This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment. This becomes obvious when you compare with cap irons which have screw instead of a lever - lateral adjustment is difficult to impossible.
4 Bevel down planes also have the long lateral adjustment lever which performs much better than the short norris type found on BU planes. It's just down to leverage, plus the spring steel lever-cap low friction detail above.
5 The combination of details makes the blade much easier to remove, replace and retain the original setting as compared to the BU. I base this on my own BU LV smoother - you can't release the blade until you have loosened the cap screw, and then the norris adjuster comes up with the blade instead of staying in situ, then it's more difficult to sharpen as it is A2 steel and thicker.

I've spent some time fiddling with LV and LN planes and to be honest have yet to find any significant advantage over the Record or older Stanley alternatives, but several disadvantages (see above) . And they cost a bomb! It's all marketing hype and willing fan base IMHO. They do look nice though.

The hype has persuaded people to have low expectations of the Bailey pattern. This tends to be self fulfilling. They are quite sophisticated compared to the simpler retro designs of the BU planes and slightly less easy to set up. But it doesn't take a lot to make them work brilliantly if you ignore the propaganda.

PS "chip-breaking" is an incidental detail - the cap iron's main function is to nip the blade tight down against the frog/mouth as near to the edge as possible.

 

[matthewwh]

A bevel-down plane:

- gives you any choice of pitch at the switch of a blade (even toothed blades at a modest extra cost) By using back bevelled blades for higher angles or skewing the plane to the work for lower if the timber and situation permits.

- has a 'chip-breaker' (a component of undoubtable merit). Even at 45 degrees a close set chipbreaker can often deliver the benefits of a steeper pitch whilst still retaining the lower resistance of common pitch. A well made cap iron also stiffens the blade assembly and reduces the flutter associated with thin irons.

- can adjust throat within seconds, without altering any blade setting. ( bedrock pattern)

- is generally easier to adjust in use.

- has a broader spectrum for lateral adjustment.

- has seperate lateral and blade advance functions so you can tinker with one without upsetting the other.

- is generally less expensive than bevel up planes (although that seems to have changed a bit recently - ahem!).

- is fine for the majority of shooting tasks with a sharp cutting iron and tend to have slightly higher sides giving greater stability.

- has a single piece sole which is easier to make flat and keep flat than one with an adjustable toe.

- is generally quicker and easier to adjust, remove / replace iron etc.

- requires less camber to eliminate track marks.

A bevel up plane:

- can plane at a low angle in a straight line.

- is often a better bet for people who only have one plane.

- doesn't need honing angles creating on both sides of the blade for high angle work.

- offers a broader spectrum of available pitches that can also be fine tuned as you work by skewing or using secondary bevels.

Horses for courses really, but if you are going for the full gamate of tools in your arsenal to tackle whatever nature may throw at you, 'both' would be the best option of all.

Edit: disagree with Jacob on thicker irons being more difficult to hone - granted this position is probably due to his preference for the rounded bevel as opposed to secondary bevels - if using secondary bevels honing time is identical, grinding time may be increased slightly but this is a comparatively rare occurrence and greatly outweighed by the stability in the cut of thicker irons.

 

[Vann]

1 Thin blades are cheaper to make and quicker to sharpen. Very important when hand planing was a large proportion of the work in producing anything, and down-time was expensive. The Bailey pattern makes a thin blade viable..

Ahem. I think you'll find the bedrock pattern has the same advantages. Maybe you should use the term 'bevel down' where the advantages apply to both Bailey and Bedrock patterns.

5 The combination of details makes the blade much easier to remove, replace and retain the original setting as compared to the BU. ..

I don't think so :!: The inability to retain the set of the iron has always been a bugbear (no relation) of hand planes. Hence Record faffing with the stay-set cap-iron and Veritas with set screws.

...then it's more difficult to sharpen as it is A2 steel...

You should have bought one with an O1 iron Jacob. You can't blame your choice of steel on the Bevel-Up design.

And: item 6 - With Bailey/Bedrock pattern planes you're able to adjust the depth of cut 'on-the-fly' more easily as the depth adjuster wheel is at your fingertips (tut tut Jacob - how could you leave that one out).

Oh, and did you mention bevel-down looks more sexy....?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

Oh yes I forgot item 6! The ease and convenience of adjustment being a major feature of the Bailey pattern IMHO.

Retaining the set a problem? Not if you don't disturb the adjuster knob or the lever, though a minimal amount of trim will usually be needed when you drop the blade back in.

Yes thin blades irrelevant if you sharpen by powered machine, but you may wish to hand sharpen.

The main things about BU is simplicity and that they tend to be very well made. This makes them reliable and relatively ***** proof. The trade-offs being crude adjustment and high price.
Whereas Stanley and all the others are very variable in quality, and even a good one is not simple. In fact a highly sophisticated design needing just a bit more attention to get working properly. But when they are good they are very very good!

 

[Richard T]

Not all BDs are thin - ironed with a Bailey adjuster though ... what about all them old woodies? And the Spiers/ Norrises ? Very thick blades.
I do agree with Jacob that the Bailey mech. beats the Norris hands down with its combined screw and lever and this can only be put behind an iron set up that is in a high enough position: ie, BD.

In general, what I don't get, is that BD or BU, the angles of what's cutting are about the same. Yet BU will slice so much better.
I guess understanding this comes down to losing the plane and just holding the iron - a chisel. Use it BD to chop, a mallet is needed. Use it BU to pare, mallet not needed.

 

[Jacob]

Not all BDs are thin - ironed with a Bailey adjuster though ... what about all them old woodies? And the Spiers/ Norrises ? Very thick blades. ....

Yes.
You can't have thin irons without cap irons, which effectively up grades them to thicker iron performance.
You can have cap irons with BD thick irons (in old woodies) and I guess the function is the same i.e. to transmit downwards pressure (from the wedge in a woody) to closer to the edge, where it's needed.
You can't have cap irons with BU blades (too far from the edge), or could you?
You can't have BU blades in old woodies as the blade angle needed would make the sole too thin under the blade. Ditto with cast bodies i.e. too thin?

I imagine the thin iron was a major breakthrough in it's time - freeing users from expensive hand wrought thickies and making hand sharpening so much easier. Similar to the move from cut-throat razor (beautifully and expensively hand made) to thin Gillette blade (cheaply machine made) with a similar edge hold-down to the cap iron, and a much better shave.

Interesting this thread. A chance to gather all the arguments. Next time it comes up (as it will) I'll be able to blast the opposition out of the water with one quick copy/paste! :lol:

 

[bugbear]

This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment.

Now that is clever - it both increases ("firm grip") AND reduces friction.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment.

Now that is clever - it both increases ("firm grip") AND reduces friction.

BugBear

Yes you've (nearly) got it. The firm grip is perpendicular to the blade surface, pressing it down on to the frog. The reduced friction is sideways* - allowing the blade to tilt. A bit like squeezing a cherry stone.

Did Bailey squeeze a cherry stone for his eureka moment?

*PS and easing the movement of the lever cam, which without the spring steel would wear a hollow in the cap iron and knacker everything.

 

[Richard T]

Not that it has much to do with the topic but .... when thick blades lose their edge they stop cutting so well and you take them out and sharpen them. When a thin blade starts to lose its edge, no matter how solidly held it will almost immediately go "thrrrrrrrap!" - and have an edge so rounded that it takes an age longer to get back.

Sorry Jacob; I'll give you ammo on the Bailey but not the thinny.

 

[marcus]

With a BU you seem to be constantly adjusting the mouth to compensate for the fact that adjusting the blade depth changes the mouth opening size. Also the blade requires a bigger camber than a BD, which is more time consuming to do and harder to judge by eye (for me anyway). Also, as others have said, the lateral adjustment is more sensitive on a BD. I bought a BU smoother thinking it would be a good all rounder and loathe the thing on the whole, though it is useful for endgrain work I'll grant you.

 

[matthewwh]

In general, what I don't get, is that BD or BU, the angles of what's cutting are about the same. Yet BU will slice so much better.

I know it sounds odd but this and the 'thrrrapp' problem are both cap iron issues - if the blade takes and holds a good edge - install a retro fit cap iron and they will both disappear.

 

[Jacob]

.... I bought a BU smoother thinking it would be a good all rounder and loathe the thing on the whole, though it is useful for endgrain work I'll grant you.

I got one too, but I wouldn't say I loathe it, though I don't feel any urge to use it and am still waiting for it to prove it was worth the price.

End grain not a problem with any sharp plane IMHO - I hadn't even thought that BU might better.

.... When a thin blade starts to lose its edge, no matter how solidly held it will almost immediately go "thrrrrrrrap!" - and have an edge so rounded that it takes an age longer to get back.....

Really? Mine don't do that!
You haven't been a bit heavy handed with the bench grinder by any chance? Hollow ground and/or over-heated or something?
Or got the frog forwards? I know you are supposed to be able to close the mouth but I don't think it works as you end up with too much blade dangling unsupported. Needs to be nicely in contact with back of mouth IMHO.
Or tighten the cap screw, the whole thing being too loose?

 

[bugbear]

This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment.

Now that is clever - it both increases ("firm grip") AND reduces friction.

BugBear

Yes you've (nearly) got it. The firm grip is perpendicular to the blade surface, pressing it down on to the frog. The reduced friction is sideways* - allowing the blade to tilt. A bit like squeezing a cherry stone.

How (do you suggest) does the spring steel improve the pressure (which I assume is what you mean by the vague "grip") generated by the lever cap cam?

BugBear

 

[Richard T]

Bench grinder? Hollow ground??? How very dare you!
You may have a point about it not being tight enough though - I never want to put too much strain on Bailey threads ... could be.
And Matthew. A thicker cap iron would help, yes, but really, so would a thicker blade.

 

[Jacob]

Bench grinder? Hollow ground??? How very dare you!

Ooops sorry!

You may have a point about it not being tight enough though - I never want to put too much strain on Bailey threads ... could be.

Nowt wrong with bailey threads - they are all steel unlike LV or LN which are brass. The cap screw need to be tightened firmly enough so that the lever cam requires a bit of force to operate, within reason.

And Matthew. A thicker cap iron would help, yes, but really, so would a thicker blade.

Try tightening first and you probably won't need either.
I tried a "Smoothcut" retro-fit blade on a #5 and it does seem to be good, holding a sharp edge longer than the standard blade, but it's a bit subjective; maybe I use it less than my 5 1/2.

 

[marcus]

End grain not a problem with any sharp plane IMHO - I hadn't even thought that BU might better.

It's a lot better than a BD for endgrain if you use an iron ground to a relatively acute angle, as you get a lower working angle than a BD can give you. Much easier to push and generally nicer when working the ends of thicker boards. Still, this use definitely comes under the heading of 'luxury', and I wouldn't have bought a BU if I had known it would end up being used just for that purpose....

 

[Richard T]

Well knots are end grain (usually) and my LV BU made a fantastic job of squaring up a piece of white pine 3" x 6" x 6' 9" with some huge, orange, resinous knots in it. I actually think it was easier to cut that with it than if it had been a nice, straight grain. It had something to bite into.
I can't imagine I'd ever choose BD over BU for tackling burr for instance.
Blade held in the paring position. Works for me.

 

[jimi43]

......
I can't imagine I'd ever choose BD over BU for tackling burr for instance.
Blade held in the paring position. Works for me.

An infill smoother works rather well...

Jim