low angle smoother

[clive griffiths]

I am thinking of buying a low angle smoothing plane,does anyone on here use one ?

Clive..

 

[RobNichols]

I have the Melbourne low angle smoothing plane which I bought from Wood Workers Workshop. I'm very pleased with it. It is definitely a good end grain solution.

Having said that, for plain old smoothing I prefer my standard pattern bailey 3 and 4 both of which can be picked up cheaply second hand.

 

[johnnyb]

If your used to normal planes they are unwieldy. As a special addition plane maybe as a first no way. They work as low angle end grain dressers. But have limits when used long grain.

 

[clive griffiths]

Thank you both for the advice ,I had thought about selling my lie-nielsen jack plane to purchase one , have to think again.

 

[RobNichols]

Thank you both for the advice ,I had thought about selling my lie-nielsen jack plane to purchase one , have to think again.

That makes sense. A jack plane is hugely versatile. If you only have one plane that's the one to have.

 

[Peter Sefton]

In my experience the majority of new woodworkers go with standard bench planes, usually because they have some experience of them but a Low Angle plane is far less complicated with fewer parts to set up and very versatile once the effective pitch is understood. About 30% of my students went with Low Angle and never looked back.

This video is on the Low Angle Jack with an overview of the most common plane angles. My explanation of the pitch for each timber is a generic overview.



Cheers

Peter

 

[Jacob]

If your used to normal planes they are unwieldy. As a special addition plane maybe as a first no way. They work as low angle end grain dressers. But have limits when used long grain.

Not too keen.
Retro revivals - back catalogue designs because they were not popular in the first place and everybody preferred normal Stanley/Bailey, for good reasons.
Thick blades harder/slower to take out, replace, sharpen.
Really bad for fine adjustment and tilt.
Bevel up cutting angle not much different to Stanley/Bailey.
Expensive

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

BU or LA planes got a bad reputation as a result of their fragile construction until they began being made with ductile iron in the 1990s. Then they were used with inadequate cutting angles - blades with 25 degree bevels - until it became understood that a high cutting angle changed everything ... such as a 50 degree bevel to create a 60 degree cutting angle. Now these planes came into their own as smoothers, and out-performed everything .... until the chipbreaker revival around 2013, when they took second place to a closed up chipbreaker.

Not-with-standing this, they remain wonderful smoothers and capable of outstanding performance. Their great advantage remains the minimal set up demands. The main criticism now is that they excel at fine shavings, but that is the purpose if a smoother, yes?

The problem remains that some continue to bad mouth these planes because they use them with an inappropriate set up. Paul Sellers comes to mind here, but he wanted to make his point that his planes work best. Listen to those who actually use them.

Regards frkm Perth

Derek

 

[johnnyb]

For me the problem isn't the performance at the blade(I love the quangsheng iron) it's the feel in use. I always think I'm gonna drop it as it handles so poorly. It's just a product of its low rider design. But against a Bailey its not nice... try it. I do use it at 25 degrees chuting where its weight helps carry it through.

 

[johnnyb]

It's hard to think of a more versatile plane than a Bailey. It's most valuable aspect to me is its ability to hog off without tracks then go back to a sensible cut. Also it's necessary to occasionally check the moving mouth section is perfectly flush as dust can get under there. That tiny bit of mouth just in front of the blade has more impact than a chipbreaker being essentially the basis of all planes.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

For me the problem isn't the performance at the blade(I love the quangsheng iron) it's the feel in use. I always think I'm gonna drop it as it handles so poorly. It's just a product of its low rider design. But against a Bailey its not nice... try it. I do use it at 25 degrees chuting where its weight helps carry it through.

I have responded to this issue many times. Eventually I simply wrote an article on my website (which turned into a series of articles on tool design). This was written in 2013 ...

This article was written in response to a request on Saw Mill Creek to explain what I meant by Centre of Effort. I consider this a central concept in our effort to understand how to extract the maximum performance from our tools, not just planes. It is tuning and ergonomics and use, all rolled into one.

Centre of Effort is not the same as Centre of Gravity, although these terms can have the same effect.

As noted by Kees on SMC (probably from this article), C of E is a term used in yachting. It refers to the position of power in a sail.

Bear with me as I sidetrack a little, just to provide some context. I am not an engineer. I am a shrink. I understand statistics, reality vs the imagined, interactions between parts, and systems theory. But do not ask me to calculate or explain vectors and forces. I know they are there. I can determine them subjectively, but I lack the knowledge to do so objectively. I am also certain that I am re-inventing the wheel here somewhat, but have not found reading material in this area (that is not to say that it does not exist). My focus has been, like the scientist, to understand how and why tools work and, like the designer, to integrate this knowledge into a tool. Others more knowledgeable can comment on the scientific areas. For the rest of us I think of this as a voyage of discovery, and we are all shipmates. The concept C of E is part of the language I use to convey my understanding of the process to you. Can you come up with a better one?

So where does C of E come from and what does it reflect? C of E is a yachting term that refers to the action of the wind on the sail, where it places it force ... low or high on the sail. Pressure at the top of the sail is different to pressure at the bottom of the sail. One does not just rig a sail and off you go - especially windsurfing sails, which is where my experience comes from.

It is necessary to tune a sail for optimal performance. I must emphasise that I do not know much about tuning a yacht sail, but windsurfing sails are a different matter. One can adjust these sails in a multitude of ways .... in a way similar to a handplane.

Please understand that sails are an analogy, and that my examples are borrowed to enable you to recreate how I reached these insights.

Now this is not intended to be a lesson in sail rigging, so to cut to the chase there are just two factors to focus on:

• Forces high on a sail cause instability.
• Forces low on a sail increase power and stability.
  

There are many variations for setting the force area on a sail, such as deepening its curvature to increase power (similar to increasing the camber of a blade to take a deeper cut). However this raises the C of E, and with this goes some control as wind strength increases (analogous to reducing control over grain tearout by increasing the depth of cut).

Rig the sail flat for speed, flatter at the top for control, or fuller at the lower end of the sail for power.


An important feature of low C of E is increased feedback. In my other article I used the example of a router plane I built - that the design focused on dropping the hands down the plane body and pushing (with thumbs) on the body directly behind the blade head ...

The Veritas (and LN and Stanley) use handles that lift the forces higher. The feel is completely different.

One might ask, "Well, is the low force just an example of a low Centre of Gravity?". My answer is no - the difference is that C of G is a force that is permanently low, while C of E is a force that is changeable (i.e. tuned to be low or high). One may build a low C of G into a plane, but it is also possible to lessen this in the tuning. Similarly, there are ways to reduce the C of E in a plane that has a high C of E.

Take, for example, the Veritas LA Jack (below). This was designed with a more vertical handle than the Bailey pattern Stanley/LN bench plane equivalent (say, a Stanley #62, also below). What this Veritas handle does is encourage one to push the plane forward. The Bailey, with its forward leaning handle, encourages one to push forward and downward. Pushing downward increases the pressure over the nose (= more resistance). The higher angle of the frog lifts the centre of gravity upward. The higher the frog angle the greater the resistance. In the LA plane the bed is closer to the horizontal, the push is forwards only, and the combination is one of low C of G and low C of E.

The razee style plane attempts to lower the C of E by encouraging that the plane is pushed from lower on the body.

The plane retains a high C of G as a result of the 50 degree bed. However the lowered C of E places the power lower down and increases its control.


BU planes optimise the combination of low C of G and low C of E.

I think that the original choice of handles for the Veritas BU handplanes was inspired. The vertical handles came in for much criticism from the public. Partly because they looked ugly in comparison to the beautiful and familiar lines of the Bailey, and partly because the grip was thick and wide. The thinner Bailey handles encouraged one to grip them firmly (since the handles also want to be pushed down). However when you do this with the Veritas they just feel too large. What you want to try is instead just simply pushing them forward with the heel of the hand.

The height of a bench is a game changer. A low bench suits a plane with a forward leaning handle. The forward leaning handle also suits the plane with a high C of G as control and power comes from forcing it down towards the bench. A vertical handle is uncomfortable on a low bench as it causes the wrist to cock too much. So one may (as I did) swap out the vertical handle for a Bailey type.

Unfortunately, this alters the C of E. Get some, lose some. The difference is notciceable.

The floating sensation of a wooden plane is due to the lower friction compared to a metal plane. C of E can change this.

What you need to do is take two wooden planes, both with the same bed angle, one where you push from high up (a coffin smoother) and the other where you push from lower down (a Krenov smoother), and compare which is easier to push and has more control.

After this, compare with a Stanley or another plane with a higher handle.

I did this by adding a handle to an HNT Gordon Trying Plane. This is a low plane with a low C of G. By adding the handle and pushing from high up, the whole C of E changed. It is awful - - this weekend I plan to remove the handle ..

There are no doubt ways in which C of E is expressed in tools other than hand planes. Here are a few tools that came immediately to mind:

Saw handles: One of the thoughts I have is that, for optimal function, there could be a range of handles with different angles to fit different lengths of planes. For example, I imagine that the longer a plane body, the more upright the handle might become. (Now I am not suggesting that we manufacture such, or that we replace all the handles we have, because replacing everything could be both impractical and expensive).

Backsaws: The saw hand, the height if the handle above the saw back, the rake of the teeth, the height the board (e.g. when dovetailing) is above the ground, whether one saws on the horizontal or points the blade down or up ... all these alter the way in which the saw will work. I touched on this when reviewing the Gramercy dovetail saw.

Japanese handplanes: breaking down the Japanese planes (kanna), the points to note are:
* low body
* low bed and cutting angle (generally around 42 degrees)
* mouth is set far back on the body

Overall, the construction of these planes have a low C of G. How to determine the C of E? My understanding of a kanna in use is 80% (or more) downforce and pulling on the front of the body (towards the toe) and 20% (or less) guiding the plane with the other hand. That is a lot of working down from above, rather than working low and horizontal. In other words, the C of E is quite high. When I look at some of the videos of Japanese craftsmen pulling a kanna, they seem to be straining a lot more than one would expect.

I visited Wilbur in December last year and played with his kanna in his shop at home in New Jersey. I quite quickly gave up and found it easier to push them (converting a high C of E into a low C of E). They worked much more easily for me that way!

Regards from Perth

Derek

December 2013

 

[Jacob]

Take, for example, the Veritas LA Jack (below). This was designed with a more vertical handle than the Bailey pattern Stanley/LN bench plane equivalent (say, a Stanley #62, also below). What this Veritas handle does is encourage one to push the plane forward. The Bailey, with its forward leaning handle, encourages one to push forward and downward. Pushing downward increases the pressure over the nose (= more resistance). The higher angle of the frog lifts the centre of gravity upward. The higher the frog angle the greater the resistance. In the LA plane the bed is closer to the horizontal, the push is forwards only, and the combination is one of low C of G and low C of E.

So would an LA style handle improve the performance of a Bailey pattern? If not why not?
I did buy a low angle jack, can't recall if LV or LN, but found it a PITA - difficult to adjust with an inadequate Norris adjuster and no tilt lever - had to tap the blade with a little hammer!
The whole point of the Bailey design was to make planing easier, not least making a thin blade work just as well as the older heavy versions, for ease and speed of sharpening. Have to be well made of course; quality went downhill as they fell out of use.

 

[johnnyb]

How many planes do you own Derek?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

So would an LA style handle improve the performance of a Bailey pattern? If not why not?
I did buy a low angle jack, can't recall if LV or LN, but found it a PITA - difficult to adjust with an inadequate Norris adjuster and no tilt lever - had to tap the blade with a little hammer!
The whole point of the Bailey design was to make planing easier, not least making a thin blade work just as well as the older heavy versions, for ease and speed of sharpening. Have to be well made of course; quality went downhill as they fell out of use.

Jacob, the short answer is "yes", but the fuller answer is "not necessary". To qualify the latter statement, it is dependent on how and where you direct the force on a Bailey handle.

This is an article I wrote in 2015 when reviewing the Veritas Custom Planes - Designing a Plane: Handles and Knobs – or how we really use a plane!



Along with the frog angle, the most important decision lies with the ergonomics of the handle.


Lee Valley offers a choice of two styles of handles, and in different sizes: the “Standard” Veritas upright handle, and the more “Traditional”, forward-leaning Bailey style handle. There are also three different choices of knobs.

Understanding how handle design integrates into and affects the performance of a plane has been a strong interest of mine for some time. It is possible to change the balance of a plane, and the way it performs, through the force vectors that begin with the handle shape and how it is held.



During the course of my research I became aware that many do not actually push their planes as expected by the design of their handle. For example, experienced uses of Stanley planes often praise the handle for being comfortable and offering much control. This is a forward leaning handle, and is expected to direct the force vector towards the mouth.

However, users of these planes do something else.



How do I know? Because I spent much time watching experienced woodworkers actually using both jointers and smoothers - rather than describing how they are used - watching them on DVD and YouTube video. A few are mentioned below. It was very revealing.



Lee Valley has invested a great deal of research into handle design. Handles have been scales down, tilted forward, and there is one that resembles the Stanley. I discussed this area with Rick Blaiklock, and he gave me permission to reprint his communication:



We invited members of the Ottawa Woodworkers Association in to try handles in different configurations. We looked at the woodworkers themselves (height relative to the bench, hand size, etc.) and had them try different planes and applications and fill out surveys of what they liked or didn’t.



Some interesting things we learned:

- We measured people’s hands in multiple dimensions. The only one that mattered was the width.

- As you’ve discovered, the application (smoothing, jointing, etc.) does suggest if you want to be over top vs pushing from behind.

- The location of your work piece (typically driven by Bench height) does play a factor in this as well. Not a surprise.

- We had a couple of testers with arthritic hands. They both commented they had to push with the heel of their palm, not the top and for that reason they very strongly preferred the Veritas-style handle. In fact they were pushing more than they were gripping the handle.

- Some people, but not all, preferred a larger handle on a larger plane. One tester commented “I like the medium handle on the #4, but it feels too small on the #7). This was a minority group, (15-20%) so not a tiny minority.

- Better too big a handle than too small, but not too big. (and what do you do with a goldilocks-statement like that?)

- People in fact do get used to any handle style after regular use.

- For knobs, it’s purely personal. Some people want the ball, some the mushroom. We could not find a way to tell who would prefer what, across anthropometry, plane model and application.



We settled on two designs of totes and had 5 different sizes of each. We created a test box with the handles and a hand measuring guide and put it in the store and asked people to pick which handle they liked and measure their hand size.



Out of this we narrowed down to 3 sizes of each. We have lots of bell curves charts of standard hand size data and the data we collected.



Rick and I are substantially in agreement with the designs; however my explanation of the reason they may or may not work differs. If I can make some sense to you, it may change the way you choose what you use.



Firstly, a couple of long standing hypotheses:



The first hypothesis is that a vertical handle best suits a high bench and encourages one to push forward. This is shown here with a Veritas BU Jointer …

The second hypothesis is that the forward-leaning Stanley handle encourages one to push down towards the mouth, and that this is more easily facilitated by a lower bench. This is demonstrated below with a Stanley #7 …

One of the interesting videos I watched was that of Paul Sellers. In this he demonstrated that a smoother would cut without any downforce.

This was reinforced when Paul pushed the smoother from the base of the handle.

In the next picture we begin to get a clue to what it is all about. Here Paul is pushing a #4. Notice the angle of his forearm – it is parallel to the bench. This means that he is not pushing down, but pushing on the horizontal …

This is a process repeated by all experienced woodworkers.

Below is Garrett Hack – notice his horizontal forearm. This is a Lie-Nielsen BU Jack (which has a Bailey-style handle) …

He does exactly the same on a Bedrock #604 ½.



Also note that all the planes so far have Bailey-style handles with a forward lean.

Here is one of Chris Schwarz. He looks like he is leaning down and pushing on the diagonal, however his fist is pointed forwards, as is the direction of his forefinger. Chris is a tall fellow (6’5”) and likes low benches. The forward lean is no doubt related to using a bench that is too low! More about bench height in a little while.

Frank Klausz is a doyen among woodworkers. There are two elements to watch for here. The first is that he drops his arm to push forward (and this is not simply because he has reached the end of the board). The second is that he is not using the knob to generate forward movement – rather, it appears that he is lifting the toe up as the plane reaches the end of the board.

David Charlesworth, teacher extraordinaire! – once again, a strong horizontal push with a Lie-Nielsen LA Jack, plus this time we see the knob being used to place downforce over the toe of the plane … the knob creates the downforce, not the handle.

The pushing action is repeated on a BD Jack. The knob is ignored and the thumb is placed directly on the body in front of the mouth for downforce …

Here is a great shot of Konrad Sauer repeating the same action of those who came before …

Not one of these individuals is pushing down on the handle, only on the toe.



The next piece of the puzzle begins with a confession. I have had a love-hate relationship with the Veritas handles over the years. I hate their looks, but I love the way they work. And every year or so, I swap them out for something nicer looking, and then swap them back for the original because they just feel better in the hand.



A couple of years ago now I built a new bench, a Roubo. This bench was about 2” lower than my previous one, and I thought that this would be a good reason to add Stanley-style handles to the Veritas BU planes (jointer and jack below) to avoid cocking the wrist when planing. Bill Rittner makes some beautiful handles and knobs (just like the LN in the picture below)…

Over time, however, I discovered – as good as these handles are (and they are very good indeed) - they are not as comfortable as either of the new Veritas handles ... and so I switched back again! How could this be so?



The key here is body posture. What I found myself doing when planing at a lower bench was to automatically drop my hips and lower my body (thereby “raising” the bench). This posture is a common practice in Karate (where punching power comes from the hip), and other sports where balance creates control creates timing and creates power, such as tennis, squash and skiing … ("bend ze knees!").



Inexperienced woodworkers appear to push down on the handle and lunge forward from the waist or shoulders. This leads to poor balance, poor control and limited power.



Experienced woodworkers, such as Jim Kingshott, describe that there is an optimal position for one’s feet for the push stroke (see his video, “Bench Planes”). Similarly, Jeff Miller (in “The Foundations of Better Woodworking”) demonstrates dropping the planing height as he pushes forward.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<…………………………………………………………..<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Obviously, by squatting low, the effective height of the bench is being raised. What I discovered I was doing was simply compensating for the lowered bench, dropping down lower and pushing the plane forward … as if I was working at a higher bench and standing more upright. This meant that the “advantage” of a forward leaning Bailey handle was lost.



Here is an illustration. Below is my bench. Notice that the top aligns with the hem of my t-shirt.

Now in the sequence below note that the hem has dropped below the skirt of the bench (about 5”), and it does not move in height as I shift my weight forward. The hips are the source of the forward drive and transfer force into the lowered forearms.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ……………………………………………………<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Below is the forearm driving the plane through the base of the handle …. Now recall the words of Rick Blaiklock: “We had a couple of testers with arthritic hands. They both commented they had to push with the heel of their palm, not the top and for that reason they very strongly preferred the Veritas-style handle. In fact they were pushing more than they were gripping the handle”.



Bevel Up Jointer …

Custom Jointer …

So where is the effort going with the Stanley handle? Pushing at the base with the heel of the hand leaves a part unsupported.

The third part of the puzzle comes from measuring the angle of the handles under discussion. The upper two are the Veritas, and the lower two are the Stanley (left) and LN (right).

What becomes apparent is that they are all within a few degrees of one another in regard to forward lean (somewhere between 68 – 70 degrees) when ignoring the curves. The curve, especially on the Bailey style, creates a distinct upper and lower section to the handle.



It occurred to me that if pushing at the heel creates power, the important handle dimension is not simply about width but about the amount of registration for the heel. I measured the height of the flat where the heel of the hand would rest in a mostly vertical orientation.

It is evident that the Stanley has the least vertical height, and the traditional Veritas has the most. Could this be the reason why arthritic hands enjoy this handle more than any other? Simply, that they have more stable area to push against?



At this point it was necessary to find a way to test out this theory. What I did was build a handle for the Stanley that increased the height of the flat (it’s a bit rough-looking below, but it was cleaned up for the #604 – see later).

How did this feel? In a word, great! Forward drive appeared to require less effort. The Stanley #7 was much less effort and significantly more controllable when pushed.



The question remaining was whether this would have the same effect with a shorter smoother?



Knobs

The question must be asked whether one actually needs a knob on a plane?



If they are not ideal for helping the plane move forward, and primarily for holding the toes flat to the surface, why have one at all - why not simply push on the toe of the body?



Stanley #7 …

Custom #7

Of course, if you prefer to use a downward-leaning handle, then you will need to augment this with a knob that you grasp and push. In this case, the higher the knob, the better.



Veritas offer three knobs: Wide, Standard, and Tall. Lee Valley recommend the Tall knob if you prefer a fisted grasp, the Wide knob is good for pushing downward, and the Standard knob offers something in the middle.



I am convinced that the dominant (but not exclusive) use of a knob on a smoother and a jointer is for downforce. This is how the knobs stack up …

Wide

Standard

Tall



What I like about the wide knob is that it is high enough to tuck fingers under it if the plane requires assistance when pushing on hard wood ..

And it is wide enough as a stable platform when pushing down on wide boards …

This is the case too for the smoother …

Your mileage may vary, but my preference is the Wide knob for both smoother and jointer.


For those with an interest in understanding the ergonomics of plane design, the full article starts here: https://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

January 2015

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

How many planes do you own Derek?

Too many

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[johnnyb]

I always admired hnt Gordon planes but never did buy.

 

[niall Y]

I find it strange - this interest in low angle planes.

When I started out doing woodwork, over 50 years ago, the emphasis, then, was on planes having an even steeper angle than the Bailey. The wisdom being, that the American style of plane with its slightly shallower angle was suited more for softwoods. And, that the British style, Norris / Mathieson plane was more suited to hardwoods and was better for reducing tear-out in difficult timbers.
This was soon followed by various makers producing a replacement York pitch frogs for the standard plane.

We are now offered low angle planes with their thicker blades reversed and with no cap iron. But, are they actually any better than the Baily style plane? I appreciate that there are many ways to design and build a plane, but is this just an alterative way of doing things that gives us nothing better than can be already, achieved with a well set up Bailey?