Clifton Bench Planes one piece cap iron - anyone tried it

[D_W]

I have a plane with the new one piece cap. My initial response was disappointment. But when I looked carefully at the new cap iron it does show some design development. This is not your stanley bent iron, nor a large lump of steel. What Clifton have done is created a lip on the front edge by grinding it into the steel. The new cap iron can therefore form a tight connection with the blade close to the edge in a way that is guaranteed to maximise the fit and minimise any fettling.
So yes it is a change but I am not of the view it is all negative and can see what Clifton were seeking to achieve.
I have not had it long enough to decide but so far it is growing on me.

I looked at it, and again, not trying to snark - it looks like Lie-Nielsen's design development.

They all work fine, though.

 

[David C]

Well said David.

Despite some widespread prejudice, I can detect nothing but improvement in the new shape.

Best wishes,
David

 

[matthewwh]

The critical thing about the new cap iron is that it doesn't compromise Clifton's long held belief that the cap iron should not exert a bending force on the iron itself. The new cap is relief ground rather than bent, it inherits the accuracy of the heavy industrial precision grinding machines that are used to create it, and relies on lever cap pressure alone (of which there is plenty) to ensure a close fit with the cutting iron.

I have been to the Burton Weir works and watched them being made, the focus is entirely on producing a cleverly designed, high quality, British made product. Given the time, effort and care that goes into each one, I'm astonished that Clifton can sell them for as little as they do.

 

[Trafalgar]

In the short run companies un-differentiate products at some risk. In the future, however, the average purchaser will not know anything, or very little, about the two-piece cap iron of 'yore.' The task is to get to that point in the future.

It would be the height of embarrassment for a manufacturer of quality tools to produce a one piece design that doesn't work, given an over 100 year history of ones that do. The design work is essentially already done. To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.

 

[Vann]

...To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.

Yes I'm sure it works. As I said in a previous post, the heavy Clifton iron isn't going to bend in a hurry anyway.

As I see it, the great advantage of the Clifton (or Record) two-piece is they won't attempt to bend a thin cutting iron (as found in Record and Stanley planes), so they're an ideal retro-fit for an existing plane. Of course it's not in Clifton's interest to offer solutions that are an alternative to buying a new plane - although I suspect that's mostly two different markets.

What they've done is to wipe out their sole point of difference (and an important one) from the retro-fit market. However, if they weren't making any money on that design, then there's no point in staying in that market (except to please me :roll: ).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

The chance that a one-piece cap iron will jump start demand is nil. They've given up a distinguishing feature. They should have simply offered a one-piece cap iron as an option (downgrade) rather than doing away with the Stay Set (to use Record's name) altogether. Best of both worlds, as it were.

 

[woodbrains]

The chance that a one-piece cap iron will jump start demand is nil. They've given up a distinguishing feature. They should have simply offered a one-piece cap iron as an option (downgrade) rather than doing away with the Stay Set (to use Record's name) altogether. Best of both worlds, as it were.

Hello,

Absolutely agree.

Mike.

 

[D_W]

...To the extent that Clifton's successor has produced one that 'works,' that's great, but not cause for celebration.

Yes I'm sure it works. As I said in a previous post, the heavy Clifton iron isn't going to bend in a hurry anyway.

As I see it, the great advantage of the Clifton (or Record) two-piece is they won't attempt to bend a thin cutting iron (as found in Record and Stanley planes), so they're an ideal retro-fit for an existing plane. Of course it's not in Clifton's interest to offer solutions that are an alternative to buying a new plane - although I suspect that's mostly two different markets.

What they've done is to wipe out their sole point of difference (and an important one) from the retro-fit market. However, if they weren't making any money on that design, then there's no point in staying in that market (except to please me :roll: ).

Cheers, Vann.

I'm somewhat curious about why it's so important to not bend the iron. The bending of the iron biases it so that it beds in the right places.

 

[Vann]

...I'm somewhat curious about why it's so important to not bend the iron. The bending of the iron biases it so that it beds in the right places.

Not according to Leonard Bailey's patent on his one-piece cap iron. He states that three points of pressure are required (as the two-piece achieves with ease). Unfortunately Stanley haven't made the one-piece to the patent design standard since maybe the 1910s or 20s.

See previous threads on this subject, on this site.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[D_W]

I'm not sure why bailey thought that, but I haven't noticed much difference on bailey planes with the cap set as he describes vs. set as most are. I have had a problem with one plane where set like bailey suggested, and the leading edge of the cap was just a little light on pressure, but I haven't had that on two points of contact.

I never use a stanley plane with the cap iron set way off, though, and having the cap iron set close enough so that it's working the chip probably is the biggest thing in making a stanley plane stable and chatter free.

 

[David C]

I have prepared and used one of the new Clifton chipbreaker/capirons today.

It is very well machined with sharp edges eased.

I would like to refer you to Mathew's earlier post. This chipreaker does not bend the blade when it is fixed. Measurement of thickness shows that the space behind the front edge lip, has been created by grinding. Downward force (to prevent shavings from getting underneath is applied by the lever cap).

The front edge top surface is ground at 25 degrees, so a little honing and polishing at 45 degrees completes that surface.

This also removed the slight square edge which was present at the tip.

I would have preferred a slight clearance angle on the underside of the front edge. However this was easily created with some work on a red DMT diamond stone, using a suitable wooden prop to control the angle. 1 degree will suffice for me.

I set the c/b very close, maybe 4 or 5 thou, and took some tearout free shavings off some very difficult Yew.

Anyone who valued the two piece C/B for not bending the iron, should be well pleased with this new offering.

Best wishes,
David

.

 

[ED65]

:? Call me crazy but at this price point I wouldn't expect to have to fettle the cap iron's leading edge to get it to function properly.

 

[David C]

Not crazy, but ...............................

There are no chipbreakers which I know of that come with fully prepared front edges.

David

 

[D_W]

Not crazy, but ...............................

There are no chipbreakers which I know of that come with fully prepared front edges.

David

I believe the original stanley and record cap irons already had relief cut, but it's certainly also true that they weren't all brought to a bright polish.

It's also true that it's not very easy to find them unused.

I'm still confused as to why it would be such an advantage to have a cap iron that does not flex the iron a little bit. It's far preferable to a case of high centering (though I'm sure the modern premium planes wouldn't have that issue, and even if they did, the lever cap would bend the iron and cap iron into contact at the base of the frog.

 

[David C]

David,

I am inclined to agree with you.

Many of the frogs I saw were far from flat, so the slight bending of the iron was a good thing.

It ensured that the heel of the bevel was well supported.

Best wishes,
David

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Is is not that you want the iron to stay seated flat on the frog, to avoid the top of the bevel behaving as a fulcrum with the leverage of the cutting forces causing the iron to "arch its back" up off the frog ? Only speculating you understand, but I do think that the stay set cap did really inprove my #6. Thin cutting iron or thick one made little difference when using the stay set.

 

[D_W]

In my opinion, something that biases an iron fit at pre-determined points or lines is something that will be preferable to a flat all-bed fit.

Sort of like the old woody irons with their hollowed out backs - they bed right at the bevel, and they bed at the top of the plane.

As far as whether or not the arch can create a spring (presume you mean one that could chatter or something?), it's possible, I guess, but the chatter doesn't occur with the cap iron set properly. I think any movement or springing around of the iron and cap iron pair above the frog would be very little.

 

[Martingchapman]

I have prepared and used one of the new Clifton chipbreaker/capirons today.

It is very well machined with sharp edges eased.

I would like to refer you to Mathew's earlier post. This chipreaker does not bend the blade when it is fixed. Measurement of thickness shows that the space behind the front edge lip, has been created by grinding. Downward force (to prevent shavings from getting underneath is applied by the lever cap).

The front edge top surface is ground at 25 degrees, so a little honing and polishing at 45 degrees completes that surface.

This also removed the slight square edge which was present at the tip.

I would have preferred a slight clearance angle on the underside of the front edge. However this was easily created with some work on a red DMT diamond stone, using a suitable wooden prop to control the angle. 1 degree will suffice for me.

I set the c/b very close, maybe 4 or 5 thou, and took some tearout free shavings off some very difficult Yew.

Anyone who valued the two piece C/B for not bending the iron, should be well pleased with this new offering.

Best wishes,
David

.

David,
Thanks for the comprehensive report, just what I was hoping for.

 

[matthewwh]

Some very interesting responses.

The difference between pressure, contact and gap is an important one.

A point of higher pressure between two surfaces is sufficient to make it act as a fulcrum - stick your finger on a piece of paper and that is where it will pivot. It is not necessary for the rest of the surface to be out of contact for this to happen.

Clifton hold that when the hardened end of a cutting iron is sandwiched between (and maintain's contact with) a soft iron frog, a soft cap iron and the soft upper portion of the blade, it will be more effectively damped against vibration.

As Tony mentioned, with a good cap iron fitted there is little difference between a thick iron and a thin one. The stay set was originally designed as an upgrade retro-fit item, on a thin iron, either of the Clifton cap irons behave more like the drawing in Bailey's patent than the original Stanley cap iron did - in other words maintaining full flat contact until it gets to the hollow. Clifton only fitted them in conjunction with their thicker irons because the cap iron already existed. They are the first to admit that it is an over engineered solution, so if you have a Clifton and another plane with the same width iron, try swapping the cap irons - you should find an improvement in the other one and no loss of performance in the Cliffie.

With regard to value: LN £30.32, LV £30.66, Clifton £19.20, QS £16.50 (All 2-3/8" for comparison)
So we have a British firm, producing an innovative and arguably slightly superior product, to exacting standards, for two thirds of the price of the American or Canadian offerings, and giving the Chinese a very good run for their money to boot.

The reason that none of the manufacturers hone them is that, being soft, the edge produced is remarkably delicate - which is why they are carefully drawn back, twisted and lifted off for honing. Prepping a cap iron is a two minute job at most, especially when starting from two accurate and well ground surfaces. I have often wondered if preserving the prepared edge is the reason why some manufacturers (Norris and Mujingfang spring to mind) put the hole for the cap screw at the top of the slot rather than the bottom.

 

[D_W]

I'm still having trouble seeing a functional difference between this type of cap iron and a stanley cap iron - presuming they are both properly set.