Let's Talk Infills...

[jimi43]

Ok...since Richard is clearly being ignored by children (me included! ) ruining his thread on mouth sizes...I thought I should divert the discussion with a specific thread about infills since, although it has been discussed before...I am anxious not to lose the possibility of Jacob actually trying one...and thus winning at least one point with you mate! :wink:

So...let's start the fight...

You know how I feel..I use mine...I use Baileys in various stages of "modification" with thicker irons...thicker cap irons...fettled soles...the works...and I have tried Cliftons, LN and Veritas planes in all forms.

My view is...infills generally perform better than even highly modified Baileys...and are on par with some premium brand planes.

The only exception to this is the BU planes which I am convinced are the most superior....but not that cheap.

Now for my favourite oggle...

(copied to my website to avoid hotlinking)

So...your views?

Let battle commence!

Jim

 

[Jacob]

Looks like chocolate icing. Is it a cake?

 

[jimi43]

Looks like chocolate icing. Is it a cake?

Yes Jacob...it's a cake....made with plane flour but a cake none the less!

This is for craftsmen who want their cake and eat it! :mrgreen:

I see what you mean about children now Vann! :roll:

Jim

 

[Racers]

Some of us are trying to crawl out of the mud and better ourselves, others are trying to drag us back down.
Why not have nice things, Art, Music, Literature, Furniture, Jewellery, Tools. It’s part of (some) humans nature to strive for perfection.

Pete

 

[bugbear]

it's a cake....made with plane flour but a cake none the less!

That's the best pun I've seen on this forum in ages.

BugBear

 

[Scouse]

That's the best pun I've seen on this forum in ages.

Lordy, don't encourage him BB, he's bad enough as it is! :mrgreen:

 

[Paul Chapman]

My view is...infills generally perform better

Jim, if you are going to compare planes and their performance and want to do it in a meaningful way, then I think you need to be clear what sort of performance you are comparing. Are you comparing taking a wafer-thin test cut and then reading some text through it, which is how some people seem to test a plane, or are you talking about a more realistic comparison by taking some rough sawn wood and using your hand planes to produce a finished piece?

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

The only exception to this is the BU planes which I am convinced are the most superior....but not that cheap.

Jim

Nicely said Jim. My views on this are well known, so the 'honourable gentleman' :lol: will stay out of this one [-( All I would query is the last statement, particularly with reference to the new QS LA jack (+3 blades) that Matt now offers at WH...£130 is a steal :wink: - Rob

 

[Alf]

I think, during their heyday, the good ones were definitely the best thing available. But in light of improved manufacturing methods, materials, etc, it's a pretty daft way to solve the problem. Hello? Bedding the darn iron on wood? Which moves? Crackers, imo. Someone come up with one stuffed with garolite*, and I might think again.

*An obscure joke that possibly one or two members might get. Or maybe not even that many.

 

[Jacob]

I think, during their heyday, the good ones were definitely the best thing available. But in light of improved manufacturing methods, materials, etc, it's a pretty daft way to solve the problem. Hello? Bedding the darn iron on wood? Which moves? Crackers, imo. Someone come up with one stuffed with garolite*, and I might think again.

*An obscure joke that possibly one or two members might get. Or maybe not even that many.

Garolite = bakelite? Good idea.
Infills are strictly speaking "transitional" i.e. add steel plates progressively to a woody until it is iron (and brass) clad all over. At which point you might as well think about leaving out the wood completely. Except that the combination of polished brass, steel, dovetails and exotic timber can be very pretty.
And being low tech they are within the capabilities of a small workshop post614046.html#p614046 with lots of scope for decorative detail. And why not, if that's what turns you on?
Non of that makes them inherently a better plane, in terms of planing wood that is.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Another problem with infills is that most, if not all, have fixed mouths, which limits their use for many types of planing. Most seem to have a fairly tight mouth, which makes them good as smoothers but not for a lot of other planing.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Richard T]

So this is how to get people talking about mouth width ... start a thread on infills. I knew I was doing something wrong. #-o

Alf, the iron isn't really seated on the wood - the business end is seated on the frog block that is riveted to the sole. The pressure from the lever cap is put on with the screw (through iron and cap iron) against wood though. Karl H has obviously worried about this too as he puts in two large brass pins at the back where the pressure is applied; two large brass pins that are seated in er, ... wood.
I don't think it's too much of a stability worry - as long as everything is square and solid against the frog.

 

[bugbear]

Karl H has obviously worried about this too as he puts in two large brass pins at the back where the pressure is applied; two large brass pins that are seated in er, ... wood.

Don't forget that Karl's own design path ended in the #98, a LA, BU, metal bedded plane.

BugBear

 

[Richard T]

Quite right BB and rather than dovetailing or riveting, he's bolting and lock-titing them.
The purist in me mourns the fact, but I expect they are 'quite good'. :-"

What I like most about infills is being able to make them. Producing a metal (ish) plane that I can design to have the best features I can think of is a great thing to be able to do in my book. You don't need a foundry.
Nor do you need wooden infills for that matter; it's just that they are nice to make, use and look at and are the simplest way to fill, handle and support. Maybe not the best but the easiest and most attractive.

 

[custard]

My view is...infills generally perform better than even highly modified Baileys...and are on par with some premium brand planes.
Jim

I use a Holtey smoother; a Norris A1 panel plane; WW2 vintage bedrocks (all with 45 degree frogs and all except the 08 with replacement irons) in 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6, and 8; a LN 4 1/2 (55 degree frog), a LN 5 1/2 (50 degree frog), and a LN 7 (50 degree frog). I also have an old Stanley 6 that I use with a Stanley fence for coopered angles, and a LN low angle jack.

The differences in pitch and irons makes direct comparisons difficult, but generally speaking I can't see any performance variation between them.

The significant performance differences come from the user rather than the planes themselves. For example how effectively I grind and hone any one particular iron (despite doing this for thirty five years there's still variance in my consistency), and also differences in how precisely I set up any one particular plane (is the camber centred, is the correct cutting depth set, are the cap irons all consistently set?).

Bottom line is that I'm sceptical of claims for the superiority of any one type or brand of bench plane, the bigger differences are in the confidence, satisfaction, comfort, inspiration, pleasure, and efficiency that the tool promotes in the user, and how efficiently the user handles any one particular plane on any one particular day.

 

[custard]

Karl H has obviously worried about this too as he puts in two large brass pins at the back where the pressure is applied; two large brass pins that are seated in er, ... wood.

Don't forget that Karl's own design path ended in the #98, a LA, BU, metal bedded plane.

BugBear

Karl would dispute this. The 98 was simply one individual design and he's since moved on to a high angle bevel down plane, the 982. And when the 983 comes out he says it's likely to be block plane.

 

[Scouse]

Bottom line is that I'm sceptical of claims for the superiority of any one type or brand of bench plane, the bigger differences are in the confidence, satisfaction, comfort, inspiration, pleasure, and efficiency that the tool promotes in the user, and how efficiently the user handles any one particular plane on any one particular day.

This is very true, for me at least. I bought an Acorn No.5 at a boot sale for less than a fiver and, now it's sharpened and working, it and my Lie Nielsen No.5 both do the prep work.

I notice little difference in the results, but I do enjoy using the LN more, and I do occasionally think it does a better job than the Acorn, which was a cheapo plane when it was new and much derided since. It's possibly because of the price, but I think it's because, as the above quote says, it promotes a different emotional response in the user.

Would the same be true with a comparison of a pair of fine smoothers rather than coarse jack planes? My £7, type 13, Stanley 4 does a good job, as does my LN 4 1/2, yet in this case I prefer the Stanley for finishing on grain which doesn't require any funny business. A better job? I dunno, but the Stanley makes me smile.

The same might, therefore, go for an infill; it's possible that a Spiers in the hands of an appreciative user will perform better; whether that difference is real or just perceived, I don't know.

In the end, the plane is just a mechanism to hold a blade at an angle so you can push it over wood. And yes, I am trying to talk myself down from the infill slope... :mrgreen:

 

[yetloh]

But he has moved away from infills. He believes that all metal is inherently better because it avoids movement conflicts beteww different materials. I believe this must be true from a purely technical point of view but, in a country like the UK which does not suffer expremes of humidity and temperature, I do not think it makes a difference in practice. All his planes work superbly but I don't think people buy them expecting to get quantifiably better performance. This is an area we have explored many times before - when it comes to hand tools (as with many of life's pleasures) for many of us there is more to it than simple measurable performance

Jim

 

[Alf]

And yes, I am trying to talk myself down from the infill slope... :mrgreen:

Down from it? Never use the D word in conjunction with proximity with a Slope; it tempts fate. [-X

Alf, the iron isn't really seated on the wood - the business end is seated on the frog block that is riveted to the sole.

Depends on the infill; one of the reasons for qualifying my comment about infills being better even in their heyday. Anyway, I was then going to wander onto Karl Holtey to develop the argument, but Jim's done it for me.

User perception is a good point. Me, I'd probably complain an infill was inferior because they leave me cold. Someone send me a Holtey and I'll test that if you like. :wink: :lol:

 

[jimi43]

An interesting concept has come out of the thread so far.

The idea that a tool can be other than a means to an end...a work of art...a thing of beauty....

But beyond this..I rather like the idea of the use of the tool creating a feeling of well-being which ultimately excites the creative skill of the user in a positive way.

Could this be the missing "mojo" that some of us are seeking?

I know I would not be satisfied by simply putting the tool in a cabinet and just admiring it....so that fact that it is a functioning work of art with a purpose is perhaps what I find so interesting about infills.

I also find this when I work with certain woodies...but they have to function too...and so many don't perform. When I accidentally discovered the merits of a wooden plough plane...I felt quite pleased that it made an excellent job....and even more that it was such old technology that was a joy to behold....

Yes...I know I could have done the job with a router...but better? I doubt it...safer...no way! And I like to be calm when I work with wood...not terrified that I might end up with less digits than I started with! :mrgreen:

So..it's not just infills...it's beautiful old tools...works of art...engineering masterpieces...

Hells Bells! I just hijacked my own thread!!

Jim