Plane advice please

[newt]

Folks you are being very helpful with your comments and thanks Philly for the offer of a bench test. With regard to my back problem I wonder if the smaller LV LAS with the thinner 2" blade my require less effort than the larger version. However I would need the higher angle blade for normal work, so the cost (not a big issue) would work out similar. Keep your suggestions coming I have got a least another day to go before I buy. I was going to take a trip to Axminster but alas they do not stock the Veritas brand.

 

[engineer one]

newt, are you sure that your bench is the correct height also.
i am sure that many back problems are compounded by the work happening at too low a height, so that the stresses on your back are wrongly placed.

i think for many people a hand work bench should be higher than a machine work bench, and almost the height of a kitchen unit seems to me to be a good place to start. with a better posture, you might find the back problem less complex.

paul :wink:

 

[mr]

With regards bench height and LV & LN planes, the rear handles of each are wildly different. It may be just me but the LV handle seems suited for use on a high bench and the LN feels happier on a low (Normal?) bench. The LV (LA jack) feels like it wants to be used at almost chest height to me. Im not suprised that Dereks 2 have "aftermarket" handles. I think, to someone with a sensitive back, the difference may be sufficient to warrant a bench drive if poss.

cheers Mike

 

[JesseM]

Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one. Its around 3 feet long, width ~10 inches, height ~4 inches made out of yellow pine. I had originally intended it as a small bench for handling strange planing situations like moldings, etc. But it has been useful for general planing and is at a pretty comfortable height. You can cut dog holes in it or make an adjustable stop or whatever your heart desires.

I'll add that I am 6'2" and my bench is kinda low for me, so you may wanna experiment with the height beforehand to see whats comfortable.

 

[mr]

Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one.

Bench on a bench stylee?
http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/benchraiser.html
Cheers Mike

 

[JesseM]

Regarding the back pain. One thing I built which has turned out to be handy for other things as well is a smaller bench I lay on top of the real one.

Bench on a bench stylee?
http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/benchraiser.html
Cheers Mike

Similar, but not as high and mine is a bit longer. It is not fancy and was cranked out in an hour. Cut some dadoes in 2" stock to house the legs. Doing anything fine in SYP is an exercise in futility. The stuff is nasty, but strong.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Alf wrote:

Derek, it appears you're trusting the BUS to one handle screw? Not worried?

Alf, all is not what it seems. The handle does have one extenal screw but also has two bolts. The second bolt is inside the handle and prevents twisting. Owing to the curve of the tote, there was not enough meat there for the bolt to extend through and be tightened down with a screw. How well this arrangement works - well time will tell. So far it feels taut.

Mike wrote:

With regards bench height and LV & LN planes, the rear handles of each are wildly different. It may be just me but the LV handle seems suited for use on a high bench and the LN feels happier on a low (Normal?) bench.

I discussed on this in one of my reviews. The heavier the plane, the less down force needed. A smoother such as the BUS requires less down force than the LAS. A higher bench seems to suit a heavy plane since all one has to do is push forward.

It is probaly not easily discernable in the pictures, but the tote for my LAS has been reconfigured to produce about 10% more down force than the original. The tote for my BUS is still quite upright (just more comfortable in my hand).

I do have a picture here, but it may not be any easier to recognise (I'm still experimenting with the idea).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Alf]

Derek, ah, I had a feeling, hence the "apparently". I imagine boring the hole for a snug fit must have been a little testing. Be interested to know how it goes over time though.

i think for many people a hand work bench should be higher than a machine work bench

That's interesting, Paul; the received wisdom seems to be the exact opposite but I must admit I find a prefer a higher bench to that calculated by the recommended methods. Then you've got the difference between using the metal planes to the thick stocked wooden ones that naturally feel better at a lower height. And yet despite all this people still think they can build their "perfect" bench? :lol:

Cheers, Alf

 

[engineer one]

we are both right alf, there is no "perfect height", not least because none of us are exactly the same height.

percieved wisdom in metalworking was that you built the bench so that your metal vice was just below elbow height, since you did almost all of the hand work in the vice. however i find that the vice should be just above the middle of your elbow because then it is easier to ensure that you file flat because it is natural to move your arm in the arc that basically stays horizontal.

personally i would doubt that many of us amateurs will often plane too many pieces of wood that are more than 4 inches thick, so we should i guess aim for a height which makes that and 1-3 inch thick wood comfortable, and that is without thinking about the plane thickness itself.

when i returned to the "art" i believed like so many that the thing to do was to push the plane to cut whereas in fact i now know that it is better as derek says to let the plane do the work. it seems to me that when we start particularly with little proper training , we all want to take too thick a cut,
whereas it is more efficient and more effective to take smaller shavings. certainly my recent minimal experience shows that the smaller the shaving the more speedily i get to where i want, and more importantly i get there more accurately, which is really the point.

these days i have joint pains, particularly in the wrists and thus having these more in line with my arm is more comfortable, and thus more effective. it also makes it easier to move along a longer piece of wood. having finally finished the basics of my latest bench, i am presently making the holes for my veritas bench dogs. amazing how few spade bit holes my 12 volt dewalt will drill on each charge, through the 40mm beech top. lovely smell of burning wood :lol: :lol:

with my arm span i can plane about 600 mm easily in one movement but 1200 requires me to move at least once. with my arms locked in the horizontal, i find it much easier to do the "chuck berry duck walk" ( shows how old i really am :roll: ) this bench is 900 high to the top of the table, which allows me to use both my metal planes and my wooden ones in my normal stock which tends to be up to 50mm thick.

not sure how much this helps in choosing the plane, but i looked and now i have the following lv no6 and 4 1/2, ln 62, 164, and a number 9, plus a clifton no 5. plus a number of wooden planes including a couple of coffin ones which i must learn to fettle properly. i am also fettling at last the record no 4 and my bailey 41/2 planes which are going to be interesting to compare.

paul :wink:

 

[newt]

Folks again very interesting and useful, a good example of how the forum can help. Derek, you have both the LV smoothers do you find the smaller one ok with perhaps less effort, and do you use the higher angle blade (angle not stated in Rutlands Cat) for normal routine smoothing. The bench height issue I will definitely look into, anything to reduce the pain. Interestingly I find sharpening the most painful process when standing, but sitting on a high stool with my back curved helps a lot. Many thanks again.

 

[Alf]

Newt, I suddenly wondered - what d'you have on the floor? Amazing how that can effect the back.

Btw, I would guess the high angle blade would be the 38° one; effective pitch 50°. Fwiw, I use that the majority of the time in my BUs but then I'm using hardwoods most of the time too.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

do you find the smaller one ok with perhaps less effort, and do you use the higher angle blade (angle not stated in Rutlands Cat) for normal routine smoothing.

Hi Newt

The LAS is used with both a low- (for shooting board) and high cutting angle (all types of timber).

Here is an extract from my review of the BUS, written in 2005, in which I compare it with the LAS. Full review at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

The background here is pertinent. I was sent the BUS by Lee Valley for feedback several months after I purchased the LAS. I really liked the LAS and, certainly at that time, I much preferred lighter, smaller smoothers. In fact I found my larger smoothers, such as the Stanley #4 1/2 too cumbersome and lacking in feedback.

Is it true that bigger is better?

It is time to compare the BUS with the LAS.

I recall when the BUS arrived and I removed it from its box. Compared to the LAS it looked squat and ungainly. And heavy. Did I mention it felt much heavier than the LAS? Or that it had a thicker, more cumbersome handle? I was determined not to like this interloper.

Of course I had to try it out. I am only made of flesh and blood. So, with a freshly honed and carefully set blade in a minute mouth … take one Cherry board ……place the BUS down on the timber. It feels as squat as it looks – like a suction on a glass plate. It feels low. Mmmm…it “feels” lower than the LAS.

About a month ago I reviewed the LV Scrub plane and complained about the thickness of the rear tote. The BUS has the same rear tote. This time I barely noticed it.

A short aside about the rear tote…..

I have been using the BU Jointer for the past month. It is just a superb instrument and totally outperforms every jointer I have used to date. My head had really been with the BU Smoother review I am finishing, but the Jointer gave me pause for thought in regard to the rear totes. While I still find the centre of the tote too thick for my personal tastes, it had been less of an issue than with the LV Scrub. It occurred to me that I was also not so fussed with the tote when using the BU Smoother. The question was why? The answer may have a lot to do with the weight of these planes and the momentum they achieve compared to a lighter plane.

My workbench is moderately high - 35 ½ “ - compared to those of Frank Klausz at 33” (since Frank is 6’0” tall, this bench is clearly very low) and Ian Kirby at 34” (he is 5’9”, about an inch shorter than myself). (information available from The Workbench Book by Scott Landis). It was built many years ago and before I thought to dedicate it to handtool use. It occurred to me that the smaller and lighter planes (such as the LA Smoother) require more down force, and that the thinner totes permit me a tighter grip to control them. Perhaps higher benches are better suited to planes that require less downforce?

The second factor is the angle of the tote (according to my protractor, approximately 80° for the LV and 50° for the Stanley). The angles of the LAS and BUS are the same, but significantly more upright (vertical) than the Stanley. What is the effect of this? Once again it appeared to me that the Stanley tote was designed for a different bench height (and a different era of handplaning) than the LV. More downforce may have been applied to the Stanley because benches were lower. By contrast, the natural orientation of the LV seems to be that of forward, that is, in the horizontal, and this seems to be better suited to taller benches (modern benches designed for both hand- and power tools?).

What of the front knob? The mushroom knob of the BUS is very comfortable easy to hold. It reminds me a little of the low Stanley knobs of the Type 11 and earlier era. The front knob of the LAS is smaller and more akin to modern Stanley knobs. It is also comfortable. Why are knobs round? Probably because this permits them to be held at different angles. Why does the BUS have a larger knob that the LAS? Probably because it is heavier and requires extra leverage to lift at the end of a stroke. The knobs meet different needs in different circumstances. In my opinion they suit the planes they are on.

Back to the BUS and the Cherry board…. I push the plane…. It feels like a train on tracks….. It gains momentum and it seems as if nothing can stand in its path….. It feels quite effortless – quite a different sensation to both the LAS and HINT Gordon. The latter planes need to be pressed down onto the surface. The BUS just needs to be pushed forward – its weight provides all the needed pressure downward.

Now the LAS is capable of as superb a finish as the BUS. Its performance was measured on the Camphor.

There is a difference, nonetheless. It is simply that with the BUS it is less effort to produce these results.

Compared to the LAS, what the BUS lacks in “feel” it makes up in control. With its sole waxed, it has all the speed that one could wish for and, in this situation, it did not feel heavy.

So which do I do prefer?

For the majority of the smoothing, especially that involving hardwoods, I will turn to the BUS. Does this mean that the LAS has been superseded? Definitely not - where boards are smaller, particularly where surfaces are narrower and feel is desired, then the LAS will come into its own and be preferred. Not only that, the LAS has a wide range of uses. For example, it is a superior plane on a shooting board. The BUS cannot be used on a shooting board. The owner of a BUS will have this option covered and be seeking this plane as an ultimate, dedicated smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[newt]

Once again thanks, Alf I will look into covering the floor with something softer than concrete that just may help I have seen the material on your floor in some of your pictures. Derek thanks again for going to the trouble of giving me an in depth assessment so quickly especially with the time difference. It seems that the BUV with the higher mass requires less effort and that makes sense to me. One more thing all my sharpening diamond stones are 2" wide I assume that this would not be a problem when sharpening wider blades particularly to your very fine limits.

 

[engineer one]

newt, axminster do that composition mat which is supposed to cushion you.

extra thought about actually planing. which i know has been covered before but always useful to re-learn

i know that when you plane a cupped board on a machine, you do the cupped side first, but if the board is longer than your jointer, say number 7 or 8, how do you ensure that you get it flat and level when the convex side will rock? i understand a gauge line, but surely the convex side being planed first would offer advantages? :?

paul :wink:

 

[Paul Kierstead]

how do you ensure that you get it flat and level when the convex side will rock?

Wedge, clamp or very roughly take the convexity out first (good scrub or rough jack job). You can also target you planing to make up for the rocking, but it is a PITA.

i understand a gauge line, but surely the convex side being planed first would offer advantages? :?

Hmmm....maybe, but I'd still prefer to start on the concave side, especially if it is bowed (i.e. along the length). Most of seem twisted as well anyway. Convexity can be a real bother to plane out, especially when the middle of the board will bow down, meaning you have to wedge in the middle of the board instead of the ends...

 

[pam niedermayer]

...Interestingly I find sharpening the most painful process when standing, but sitting on a high stool with my back curved helps a lot.

I assume you mean curved outward. If correct, that's precisely the wrong thing to do to your back, which needs to maintain what's called lordosis, or inward curve. Keeping this inward curve whenever sitting helps an enormous amount. If you also exercise (specific exercises plus walking, e.g.) to make/keep your back strong, you'll most likely have no more problems.

Pam

 

[woodbloke]

Bench height is crucial to efficient working. I agree that in a metalwork bench, the correct height should be when the horizontal forearm (when using a file say) is level with the top of the metalwork vice.

Alan Peters recommends in his book that the bench height for woodworkers ought to be the individuals inside leg measurement :shock: plus about 75mm. In his book there is a pic of a worker in his shop using a standard Emir bench (I think) which has been jacked up on some blocks to get it to the correct height - Rob

 

[Vormulac]

I am in the process of fitting out my workshop and I have been trying to determine the ideal height for a workbench. The most common 'guides' seem to be either where your little finger meets your hand when your arm is hanging loosely at your side, or alternatively belt buckle height. Unfortunately I am 6'2" with arms like an orangutan, so there is a considerable discrepancy between these two 'ideals' for me! :lol:
I've built a couple of workstations to roughly belt buckle height, and although I think they will be fine for maybe assembly or small work, I suspect they will be far too high for planing or sawing.

 

[bugbear]

Bench height is crucial to efficient working. I agree that in a metalwork bench, the correct height should be when the horizontal forearm (when using a file say) is level with the top of the metalwork vice.

Alan Peters recommends in his book that the bench height for woodworkers ought to be the individuals inside leg measurement :shock: plus about 75mm. In his book there is a pic of a worker in his shop using a standard Emir bench (I think) which has been jacked up on some blocks to get it to the correct height - Rob

Sadly, the ideal height varies with the task performed, which means all heights are a compromise.

Stock preparation by hand plane, and "bulk" sawing probably require the lowest benches, and fine work the highest.

So you need to factor in not only your height, but your work style.

BugBear (whose bench is too high for most things he does)

 

[Lord Nibbo]

I have been trying to determine the ideal height for a workbench. The most common 'guides' seem to be either where your little finger meets your hand when your arm is hanging loosely at your side, or alternatively belt buckle height. Unfortunately I am 6'2" with arms like an orangutan, so there is a considerable discrepancy between these two 'ideals' for me! :lol:

34" - 34 1/2" seems the average on any bought bench, I'm 6' and find 34" perfect for me. Do you have an old low bench you could experiment with, like putting blocks under the legs to raise it?