Bevel Up or Bevel Down?

[xy mosian]

HI all, I'm puzzled and have a question.
I have been looking at the Veritas Bevel Up Smoother,

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx ... 41187&ap=1

This plane has a 12° bed angle and a 38° blade angle giving an effective pitch of 50°, what is the real difference between this and a bevel down plane with a bed angle of 50°? I realize that the BU can be honed to alter the effective pitch, but surely the BD plane can be given a back bevel to change the pitch if required.

xy

 

[AndyT]

Some will disagree, but I'd say that the point is that messing about with a back bevel on a plane blade is a bad idea. It's easiest to keep one flat face as a reference surface.

So the big advantage of the bevel up design is that you can alter the angle - or more likely, swap blades.

Of course, the two designs feel different in use as well - lower centre of gravity etc.

Andy

 

[OPJ]

I'm not sure how to answer your question but I hope this helps anyway...

I've got one of these and it came with a blade ground to 38°. For the last year, I've been suffering and fighting against tearout in all timbers (hard and soft); no matter how sharp I kept the iron or how close I set the mouth.

Then, the other day, someone told me to try honing at 50° and, wow, what a difference it has made! :shock: At the current angle (I'll leave you to work that out! ), it performs almost like a scraper, leaving a far superior finishing to what I was getting before. Almost flawless.

 

[xy mosian]

Thanks for the replies fellas

Andy, I think I would tend to agree about the blades, although I'm not much into changing honing angles etc. As for the different centre of gravities, which do you prefer? I am thinking of something for shooting.

Olly, I make that in the order of 60°, or there abouts. From what you say, do you think there would be any advantage in using a scraper plane or do you think the best effective angle needs fine tuning to the timber in use?

Thanks again

xy

 

[DaveL]

I am thinking of something for shooting.

If you are shooting end grain then the low angle is probably what you need, I use my bevel up jack on the shooting board.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I am thinking of something for shooting.

If you want a plane primarily for use on the shooting board, consider the Lie Nielsen #9. I bought one recently because I do a lot of work on the shooting board. Not only does it perform exceptionally well, but with the hot dog handle it's so comfortable to use. You could use it all day without getting blisters on your hands - which is not the case when using conventional planes for shooting.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[xy mosian]

Dave, I agree. At the moment I tend to use my 60½ for shooting, that has of course a 12° bed angle giving an effective angle of about 40°, with a nominal 30° honing angle. This is very successful. However I fancy something a little larger and got to looking, and then of course wondering.

xy

 

[xy mosian]

Paul, What a fantastic looking plane, and I am sure it works as well as it looks. Sadly I don't think I can justify the price. But a question. LN mention a 25° blade angle. Is this the ground bevel or the honed bevel?

xy

 

[woodbloke]

Paul, What a fantastic looking plane, and I am sure it works as well as it looks. Sadly I don't think I can justify the price. But a question. LN mention a 25° blade angle. Is this the ground bevel or the honed bevel?

xy

I seem to recollect that this is the ground or primary bevel, when included with the plane bed angle of 20deg this gives an effective pitch of 45deg. If you then hone a bevel at about 28 deg or so (as I do) this then gives a ep of 48deg, which works very well - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi xy,

The blade comes with a primary bevel of 25 degrees. I've been using mine with a honed secondary bevel of 30 degrees.

Yes, it is expensive but I find that most jobs require some use of the shooting board so felt that a plane dedicated to shooting was well worthwhile.

You also asked whether there was any advantage in using a scraper plane. I think there is. There's been a lot of debate in recent times about using a high effective pitch for finishing difficult woods which are subject to tear out rather than a scraper plane. I find a scraper plane best but it's probably worth experimenting to see which you prefer.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[xy mosian]

Thanks folks,

It seems that the LN, as supplied, has an effective angle similar to the Bailey pattern. Except of course the LN is BU and therefore this is fairly easy to change.

AS for scraper planes, thank you for the comment. My question was not really related to shooting but just me going off on a tangent again, as usual.

xy

 

[Vann]

I am thinking of something for shooting.

The Veritas BUS (Bevel Up Smoother) is no good for shooting as the sides aren't flat (more coffin shaped). The slightly smaller Veritas LAS (Low Angle Smoother) is good for shooting, as is the BUS's bigger brother the LAJ (Low Angle Jack).

Lee Valley (alias Veritas) sure know how to confuse people.... :wink: In leevalleyspeak if it's 'Low Angle" it's got flat sides; if it's 'Bevel Up' it's got curved sides (even though 'bevel up' and 'low angle' are almost always the same thing) :roll:

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

This plane has a 12° bed angle and a 38° blade angle giving an effective pitch of 50°, what is the real difference between this and a bevel down plane with a bed angle of 50°?

Hi xy

Further to all that has been said, the BU plane will be less effort to push than the BD plane. The BU plane has a low centre of gravity and the centre of effort is closer to the cutting direction. This is increasingly noticeable as the cutting angle increases. I'd much rather push a BU plane with a cutting angle of 60 degrees than a BD plane of the same cutting angle (unless the latter is a woodie ).

In addition to the BU Smoother, the LA Smoother is a another plane for serious consideration. Some will prefer that it is smaller and lighter. It lacks nothing in performance, and may also be used on a shooting board.

Lee Valley (alias Veritas) sure know how to confuse people.... In leevalleyspeak if it's 'Low Angle" it's got flat sides; if it's 'Bevel Up' it's got curved sides (even though 'bevel up' and 'low angle' are almost always the same thing)

Hi vann

I have another perspective.

Originally these planes were known as "low angle" planes owing to the angle of the bed (12 degrees, compared the the 45 degrees of the bench planes). That is, the original Stanley #62 (LN call this the #62 and LV call it the LA Jack) and #164 (LN call it the #164 and LV call it the LA Smoother) were the basis for the designs.

Further, originally these planes were only used with a 25 degree bevel, and thought of as planes for end grain. It dawned on us that the cutting angles were dependent on the bevel angle, not the bed angle, and so were born planes with high cutting angles. As the emphasis moved to emphasize the design of the plane, the focus increasingly went to its bevel up facility. I recall saying to Rob Lee when playing with a prototype BU Smoother that the planes should all be renamed BU planes. Obviously they were of the same opinion because later that is how they came to be known (I take no credit for this, just thinking along the same lines).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Blister]

I am thinking of something for shooting.

If you want a plane primarily for use on the shooting board, consider the Lie Nielsen #9. I bought one recently because I do a lot of work on the shooting board. Not only does it perform exceptionally well, but with the hot dog handle it's so comfortable to use. You could use it all day without getting blisters on your hands - which is not the case when using conventional planes for shooting.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

ME :?

On your hands :?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[bugbear]

I am thinking of something for shooting.

If you want a plane primarily for use on the shooting board, consider the Lie Nielsen #9.

Or a Philly shooter, preferably (IMHO) the skewed version.

38 degree EP (lower than the #9) 6mm blade, 195 quid! The Non skewed is only 125 quid.
(personally, I'd ask Philly to make the side chamfers smaller, increasing the bearing surface).

APTC for the #9, 332 quid.

BugBear

 

[xy mosian]

Vann, thanks for pointing that out, trap waiting for the unwary. Of course the lesson in leevalleyspeak is also welcome.

Derek, thanks, that explanation of the amount of required effort and its effectiveness is worth reading a number of times. It certainly makes me lean towards a BU plane with low bed angle.

BugBear, I have been looking at the Philly Planes, very nice. Now as for skewed or not I must read again the Ramped Shooting board thread.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=34727

xy

 

[bugbear]

BugBear, I have been looking at the Philly Planes, very nice. Now as for skewed or not I must read again the Ramped Shooting board thread.
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=34727

xy

In some ways ramped boards are BETTER since they automatically spread the work over the width of the blade. One of the problems, if you do a LOT of shooting, is localised blade wear.

On a "normal" board, this can be circumvented with packing under the workpiece, which is more of a fiddle.

The downside of a ramped board is the reduction in thickness capacity of the plane, although most shooting is of thin enough stuff that this is (in practice) not a big deal.

I *am* a big believer that a skewed blade w.r.t. the workpiece is a Good Thing, how e'er achieved.

BugBear

 

[xy mosian]

Thanks BugBear, you've reinforced my own thoughts, after all a slewed cut is what I make with both carving tools and paring chisel, it 's not unknown with the plane either. Now I have seen, or did I imagine, a ramped board with adjustable ramp. That may be guilding the lilly of course, but what the heck, if I'm to make a new board.

xy

 

[OPJ]

Olly, I make that in the order of 60°, or there abouts. From what you say, do you think there would be any advantage in using a scraper plane or do you think the best effective angle needs fine tuning to the timber in use?

That scraper plane is for another thread! :wink:

Generally, I think the bevel-up or even low angle planes will give you more versatility than the scraper one, purely because you can alter the bevel angles and they are capable of faster stock removal when required. I still find the scraper plane quite tricky to set up; it often needs to be just right. :? The bevel-up planes are no more complex to adjust than the old Bailey pattern, IMO.

 

[matthewwh]

Just to throw in a bit of interest for the bevel down corner of the debate, I have been using back bevels on a spare blade for my bevel down planes for a while now and it works well for me.

The reference face issue isn't a problem as the back bevel is tiny and everything still referances from a single surface further up the back of the blade.

As far as the wood is concerned all the angles are the same so you should get the same result from either method.

If you need a lower angle from a bevel down you can use a standard blade and skew the plane to the workpiece or use a ramped shooting board which has a similar effect. That said, a 25 degree blade in a low angle plane does have the advantage of giving a full width shaving used straight and will get lower than a limbo dancer when used with a ramped shooting board.

From my own personal perspective, the fact that the blade advance and lateral adjustment are seperate and more readily accessible on bevel down designs outweighs the low angle benefits of a bevel up plane, so that's the way I choose to go.

You really have to weigh up the pros and cons relative to your own preferances and the work that you do and decide which would be best for you. If you can manage to have a go with one of each you will probably plump for one or the other in a heartbeat.