Michael_b
Established Member
I agree--the limiting factor can be neither the plane itself nor the adjustment mechanism but rather the user. Or, in some cases, it's not the user.
Norris Adjusters
- Thread starter ivan
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Hmmm, lateral adjustment is mandatory on low-angle jobs, imo. They are so sensitive to getting the edge slightly off - even with lateral adjustment you need to keep them close or you'll run out of travel before the edge is evenly exposed. As someone who sharpens "freehand" I like lateral adjustment. But even if you use jigs & keep your edges perfectly square at all times, it's hard to place the blade exactly square in most planes without a lot of fuss: having lateral adjustment is a very simple & convenient thing, imo.
I'm on record as one who dislikes the Norris adjuster. I admire the ingenuity, and simplicuty & I've made my own versions but it does have a flaw in that once the lateral adjuster is moved left or right to compensate for an unsquare edge, adjusting depth will slew it further one way or the other. It can sometimes be an exercise in frustration getting even blade exposure for a fine cut! The early Veritas version, of which I've had several, are an absolute pita, the original threads are far too coarse (which has been recognised & a finer-thread replacements made available at very reasonable cost).
Ive made my own versions, using two right-hand threads so they are subtractive, not additive like the Norris & Veritas. That slows 'em down alright, but it needs more thread on each section to get adequate travel, so you need a long cut-out in the blade-bed to accomodate it:
I like Mr. Bailey's idea, it's simple, it's robust and has a higher mechanical advantage which, coupled with the lever-cap pressure being constant, means you don't have to back off a thumbscrew before attempting to move teh blade (many don't, apparently, which adds to premature wear of the adjuster screws. Bailey's design makes for very easy adjustment 'on the go'. Folks do like to decry the backlash, which is both inherent in the design & exacerbated by wear, but I learnt to live with that donkey's years ago & never think about it. My old type 11 #4 , has more than 3 full turns of slack between down & back but it's still one of my favourite planes .A new Norris has inherently less backlash, but a worn old Norris that's been through rough hands can have a very sloppy adjuster!
To each his (or her) own. Years ago the Norris adjuster (along with everything else Norris) was touted as the pinnacle of plane engineering. I think a lot of people have, like me, discovered that nothing is ever perfect. You can fettle a Bailey type to be every bit as good as any infill (& I say that as a user, maker & lover of infills).
So "whatever floats your boat" - there are differences between the Norris & Bailey adjusters & each has its quirks. The differences are more academic than critical, & certainly don't warrant fisticuffs......
Cheers,
Ian
I'm on record as one who dislikes the Norris adjuster. I admire the ingenuity, and simplicuty & I've made my own versions but it does have a flaw in that once the lateral adjuster is moved left or right to compensate for an unsquare edge, adjusting depth will slew it further one way or the other. It can sometimes be an exercise in frustration getting even blade exposure for a fine cut! The early Veritas version, of which I've had several, are an absolute pita, the original threads are far too coarse (which has been recognised & a finer-thread replacements made available at very reasonable cost).
Ive made my own versions, using two right-hand threads so they are subtractive, not additive like the Norris & Veritas. That slows 'em down alright, but it needs more thread on each section to get adequate travel, so you need a long cut-out in the blade-bed to accomodate it:
I like Mr. Bailey's idea, it's simple, it's robust and has a higher mechanical advantage which, coupled with the lever-cap pressure being constant, means you don't have to back off a thumbscrew before attempting to move teh blade (many don't, apparently, which adds to premature wear of the adjuster screws. Bailey's design makes for very easy adjustment 'on the go'. Folks do like to decry the backlash, which is both inherent in the design & exacerbated by wear, but I learnt to live with that donkey's years ago & never think about it. My old type 11 #4 , has more than 3 full turns of slack between down & back but it's still one of my favourite planes .A new Norris has inherently less backlash, but a worn old Norris that's been through rough hands can have a very sloppy adjuster!
To each his (or her) own. Years ago the Norris adjuster (along with everything else Norris) was touted as the pinnacle of plane engineering. I think a lot of people have, like me, discovered that nothing is ever perfect. You can fettle a Bailey type to be every bit as good as any infill (& I say that as a user, maker & lover of infills).
So "whatever floats your boat" - there are differences between the Norris & Bailey adjusters & each has its quirks. The differences are more academic than critical, & certainly don't warrant fisticuffs......
Cheers,
Ian
Last edited:
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
The problem with the Veritas Custom Norris-type is caused by the blades being shorter above the chipbreaker screw. If they had used a longer blade, as per Bailey, then the Norris arm could be longer, and adjustment would be finer. Note that the Norris adjuster is the same for both Veritas BD and BU planes.
My preference is a Bailey adjuster, and having an adjuster rather than not, as we want to make adjustments on the fly. This is what the Stanley can do best of all. It is quite possible to do this with the Veritas Norris adjuster, but just not quite as simple. Set the lever cap for a good "balance" of tension, and the adjuster works well enough.
What of the Norris planes, themselves? What is the adjuster length proportion compared with the Bailey?
Regards from Perth
Perth
My preference is a Bailey adjuster, and having an adjuster rather than not, as we want to make adjustments on the fly. This is what the Stanley can do best of all. It is quite possible to do this with the Veritas Norris adjuster, but just not quite as simple. Set the lever cap for a good "balance" of tension, and the adjuster works well enough.
What of the Norris planes, themselves? What is the adjuster length proportion compared with the Bailey?
Regards from Perth
Perth
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Doug B
Shy Tot
Why would I do that when I know exactly what a Norris style adjuster is & use planes with Norris adjusters regularly?
Tony Zaffuto
Established Member
Any love or hate here for adjusters on Union “X” planes?
I am not sure I understand your point Derek, or what 'problem' you are describing? The short shaft of the Veritas version is mostly determined by the amount of room available in the metal frogs or blade-beds. There is simply more room in a standard Norris. The ease of lateral adjustment is determined by the ratio of shaft length either side of the pivot point which is a little less on the Veritas. It is therefore a bit harder to move with pressure on the blade, but the bigger problem is that it takes less movement to alter the edge angle, making it less sensitive The slewing effect is the same when the adjuster is off-centre,. The biggest difference between Veritas 's version & the original is that Veritas version engages the blade itself via a spigot & not the chipbreaker screw head. (they had to do that, since there is no chipbreaker on a BU blade, for which Veritas originally made their adjuster).
Because the Veritas engages the blade itself, it has to have some way of compensating for blade wear (you don't have to worry about that when you use the chipbreaker screw because it remains in the same relative position as the blade wears).. That could be done by increasing the screw travel (not enough room!), or simply adding more holes in the blade above the first one, which is, of course what they chose..
The "direct drive" screw adjusters work best on the low-angle planes for which Veritas originally made theirs because the lower the blade angle, the further the blade has to travel linearly to make the same depth alteration. I think they would have been better off with a single thread adjuster like this:
The single fine thread on my adjuster is more sensitive than Veritas's two-thread version (the left + right threads on both Norris & Verits are additive which simulates a coarser thread). I don't have any lateral adjuster, but that is easily done with fingers when the blade is slightly loose (which it needs to be for depth adjustment, anyway). I was amused to see that Vic Tesolin, Veritas's travelling tool promoter, eschewed the lateral adjusters on the Veritas planes he was using & simply tapped his blades with a small hammer for lateral adjustment which is a bit of an indictment of the system!
I've delved into screw adjusters a lot over the last few years, starting when I was asked to review the Veritas small-plane kit. The coarse threads of their original adjuster made fine adjustment very awkward when the blade pitch is raised to 45 degrees!
I found it a bear of a thing to adjust for fine cuts & had a whinge about it in my review. It was not long after that they came out with the fine-thread replacement adjusters (nothing to do with my review, it had obviously been in the pipeline for some time).
Anyway, that led me into the whole rabbit warren of adjusters & what makes them tick, & I made several different versions in a fruitless search for the perfect adjuster. The 'subtractive thread' system gives ultimate sensitivity, but requires two longer threaded sections which isn't appropriate for for small planes. It would be ok if I could fit the second pitch screw inside the main shaft a la Norris, but I don't have a tap long enough to cut the 25mm or so of internal thread I would need in the main shaft, so I'll never know for sure.
Frankly, I'm quite happy with the tippy-tap method of adjusting depth on most of the planes I make because they tend to be more "set & forget" types. My two workhorses are a #5 1/2 & a #4 Stanley and because they are called on to do all sorts of jobs in a single session, being able to easily adjust the cut depth on the fly (and not have the lateral adjustment go awry!), is a boon....
Cheers,
Last edited:
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Ian, I’ve also used the tippy-tap method for more years than I like to be aware of, but prefer an adjuster - as long as it works well. The Stanley-Bailey style works the best.
As I mentioned, the Veritas Norris-style adjuster is the same size and design for both BU and BD planes. It is not forward-aft projection that is important for me, but side-to-side. In this regard, the stalk for the Veritas is short, which means that, while adjustment works, fine adjustment is difficult. It is like using a long- vs short lever with a fulcrum to move a boulder. The long lever offers more control. That is the case with the Bailey. I had reason to measure them some weeks ago, and the ratios are very telling.
Yes, there was no option with the BU planes, and I would still rather have the adjuster than not. But the BD planes appear to be designed around the existing Norris-style adjuster, and the blades shortened to fit. The BD Custom planes were not ones I had any input into with the factory (other than arguing for a chipbreaker - the original design did not call for one). I use the Custom planes, and they are excellent users, but the Norris-style adjuster is one of the weak areas. I believe that this could be remedied with a Norris adjuster with a long lever.
Regards from Perth
Derek
As I mentioned, the Veritas Norris-style adjuster is the same size and design for both BU and BD planes. It is not forward-aft projection that is important for me, but side-to-side. In this regard, the stalk for the Veritas is short, which means that, while adjustment works, fine adjustment is difficult. It is like using a long- vs short lever with a fulcrum to move a boulder. The long lever offers more control. That is the case with the Bailey. I had reason to measure them some weeks ago, and the ratios are very telling.
Yes, there was no option with the BU planes, and I would still rather have the adjuster than not. But the BD planes appear to be designed around the existing Norris-style adjuster, and the blades shortened to fit. The BD Custom planes were not ones I had any input into with the factory (other than arguing for a chipbreaker - the original design did not call for one). I use the Custom planes, and they are excellent users, but the Norris-style adjuster is one of the weak areas. I believe that this could be remedied with a Norris adjuster with a long lever.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek, I wasn't comparing the ratios of the Bailey lateral adjuster with the Norris or any of its clones. No competition - it has a much higher ratio and is indeed far easier for fine corrections. I was saying the original Norris & Veritas ratios aren't hugely different thanks to the very short distance from spigot to 'fulcrum' of the Veritas.. Somewhere I have a pic of the two side by side, but can't find it atm.
I suppose you can't blame a company for wanting to rationalize its range of products, but there are limits to what you can do with an adjuster originally designed for a low-angle plane. I would wager it was when they applied it to their higher-pitched bench planes that they realised the threads of the original were way too coarse for that application. It hadn't occurred to me until I built their kit plane based on the block plane parts. I'd long had a Veritas block plane with the exact same adjuster, which I'd always found a bit 'sudden' for depth adjustment, but when coupled to a blade pitched at 45* it was almost intolerable! Of course it's obvious that a higher-pitched blade requires less linear movement to change depth of cut but I hadn't had any reason to think about it up to that point!
This was one of the reasons I often say that not having a screw adjuster at all is better than having one that doesn't work well!
And (off topic) yes, I cannot imagine how anyone could contemplate putting out a general-purpose bench plane without a chip-breaker/cap iron these days! I made the kit up following the instructions pretty closely (possibly a first for me, but I was trying to do a 'proper' review - I even copied their Krenovian shape for the body! ) I suppose a lot of folks would have been happy enough with the performance, especially if it was their first foray into plane making, but it was not what I'd call a 'sweet' plane.
Out of curiosity, I used the blade & adjuster and made a small infill, but with a couple of "refinements". The first was a brass lever-cap instead of the wooden wedge/thumbscrew arrangement, and the other was a chip-breaker.
The hole in the blade is a bit short so it won't be able to move back far enough to utilise all of the usable blade length but it'll allow most of it to be used.
The difference in performance is worth the loss of a bit of potential blade. (This pic is of the very first shavings before the plane was finished & fettled):
The adjuster, however, is still a pig....
Cheers,
I suppose you can't blame a company for wanting to rationalize its range of products, but there are limits to what you can do with an adjuster originally designed for a low-angle plane. I would wager it was when they applied it to their higher-pitched bench planes that they realised the threads of the original were way too coarse for that application. It hadn't occurred to me until I built their kit plane based on the block plane parts. I'd long had a Veritas block plane with the exact same adjuster, which I'd always found a bit 'sudden' for depth adjustment, but when coupled to a blade pitched at 45* it was almost intolerable! Of course it's obvious that a higher-pitched blade requires less linear movement to change depth of cut but I hadn't had any reason to think about it up to that point!
This was one of the reasons I often say that not having a screw adjuster at all is better than having one that doesn't work well!
And (off topic) yes, I cannot imagine how anyone could contemplate putting out a general-purpose bench plane without a chip-breaker/cap iron these days! I made the kit up following the instructions pretty closely (possibly a first for me, but I was trying to do a 'proper' review - I even copied their Krenovian shape for the body!
) I suppose a lot of folks would have been happy enough with the performance, especially if it was their first foray into plane making, but it was not what I'd call a 'sweet' plane.Out of curiosity, I used the blade & adjuster and made a small infill, but with a couple of "refinements". The first was a brass lever-cap instead of the wooden wedge/thumbscrew arrangement, and the other was a chip-breaker.
The hole in the blade is a bit short so it won't be able to move back far enough to utilise all of the usable blade length but it'll allow most of it to be used.
The difference in performance is worth the loss of a bit of potential blade. (This pic is of the very first shavings before the plane was finished & fettled):
The adjuster, however, is still a pig....
Cheers,
I have an NX60 too. It's Ok for short term use but the Stanley is better for long sessions because the NX is simply too low. My hands are of pretty average size but its low height mean I cannot drive it from the palm which means I must drive it by gripping with my fingers which is tiring. The extra height of the Stanley avoids this and means the fingers can do the stuff they are better suited to- sensing and guiding. It's all too easy to be seduced by swoopy looks.deema since the improved hand tool myth thread was closed earlier today and some people were arguing over the Norris adjusters it looks like it has spawned its own thread so the battle can continue.For what it is worth I like my Veritas NX60 and its "inferior" adjuster over the older Record low angle block plane I have.
Pete
Jim
Similar threads
