"Stay Set" plane: can someone explain?
- Thread starter MikeG.
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
custard
Established Member
D_W":3ttm6911 said:
Interesting point. I can't say I've noticed any significant difference in actual use between stay set cap irons and standard Bailey cap irons in this particular respect. However, it's easy to see how what you report could indeed be the case. The standard cap iron is pretty thin and, within reason, can "mould" itself to the shape of the iron. The Stay Set cap iron, being much more robust, wouldn't be able to do this.
This is pretty important, in that the critical problem that most beginners are likely to encounter when using an old Record or Stanley is shavings getting jammed underneath the cap iron. Furthermore, as you pointed out, this becomes more of a problem the closer the cap iron is set to the cutting edge. I've seen quite a few beginners hit this problem and then either chuck the plane away in frustration or spend fruitless hours trying to find a remedy without success.
It's easy to see why it's a particularly tricky problem to overcome, as the solution in my experience depends on getting both the iron and the cap iron back into working shape, and then ensuring that the sharpening method employed keeps the iron in decent condition.
>>It's easy to see why it's a particularly tricky problem to overcome, as the solution in my experience depends on getting both the iron and the cap iron back into working shape, and then ensuring that the sharpening method employed keeps the iron in decent condition.<<
Yes, on the experience. Once it's ironed out, it becomes simple and trivial, but most of what we can do reliably in life (that's worth doing) is that way. Because of my fanaticism, i always flatten an iron properly and geometrical "perfectize" the leading edge of the cap. So my experience with these two types is after the caps have been cleaned up and match the iron without much pressure.
I just found that the SS types didn't quite fare as well, and I was stuck more often taking the plane apart to get stuff out. Perhaps that's once every couple of sharpening cycles, but I don't like it at all, unless there is an excuse (cocobolo is one of those things where the early wood is so hard that it creates stiff little wafers that will still creep through once in a while. When it occurs on cherry, beech, oak or maple or something like hat, then I'm out and on to something else).
What I experienced is probably much different than what someone who rarely uses the cap iron will experience. In that case, the stayset is nearly ideal, because there's nothing to reset, the cap probably isn't that close to the edge to begin with, and you don't need to:
* find a screwdriver to take the iron and cap apart
* lament that you have the odd plane here or there were the lever cap can't fit in the cap iron screw slot to alleviate the need for the prior bullet point. My favorite jointer (a superb sorby no 7 - suffers from that problem , and eventually I will file the cap screw slot wider to fix it).
There's something about the bailey cap iron design that just allows it to stay shut on forceful chips just a little bit better. And that point is only worth noting if some adherent like me is choosing between the stayset and the regular stanley/record type.
Too for the americans, I ordered my staysets from england. Shipping globally is expensive (and risky now if you choose to use the GSP on ebay - it's to be avoided due to their proclivity for confiscation of things that shouldn't be confiscated), but even after accounting for the cost of global shipping and then the subsequent ebay fees, I lost nothing in trying those three planes other than a little time.
The same can be said for decent record 4 1/2s, which must be in abundance over there. I got two for effectively $30 plus another $30 of shipping charges. They sell easily over here for $85. You get a "free look" on those kinds of things.
Yes, on the experience. Once it's ironed out, it becomes simple and trivial, but most of what we can do reliably in life (that's worth doing) is that way. Because of my fanaticism, i always flatten an iron properly and geometrical "perfectize" the leading edge of the cap. So my experience with these two types is after the caps have been cleaned up and match the iron without much pressure.
I just found that the SS types didn't quite fare as well, and I was stuck more often taking the plane apart to get stuff out. Perhaps that's once every couple of sharpening cycles, but I don't like it at all, unless there is an excuse (cocobolo is one of those things where the early wood is so hard that it creates stiff little wafers that will still creep through once in a while. When it occurs on cherry, beech, oak or maple or something like hat, then I'm out and on to something else).
What I experienced is probably much different than what someone who rarely uses the cap iron will experience. In that case, the stayset is nearly ideal, because there's nothing to reset, the cap probably isn't that close to the edge to begin with, and you don't need to:
* find a screwdriver to take the iron and cap apart
* lament that you have the odd plane here or there were the lever cap can't fit in the cap iron screw slot to alleviate the need for the prior bullet point. My favorite jointer (a superb sorby no 7 - suffers from that problem , and eventually I will file the cap screw slot wider to fix it).
There's something about the bailey cap iron design that just allows it to stay shut on forceful chips just a little bit better. And that point is only worth noting if some adherent like me is choosing between the stayset and the regular stanley/record type.
Too for the americans, I ordered my staysets from england. Shipping globally is expensive (and risky now if you choose to use the GSP on ebay - it's to be avoided due to their proclivity for confiscation of things that shouldn't be confiscated), but even after accounting for the cost of global shipping and then the subsequent ebay fees, I lost nothing in trying those three planes other than a little time.
The same can be said for decent record 4 1/2s, which must be in abundance over there. I got two for effectively $30 plus another $30 of shipping charges. They sell easily over here for $85. You get a "free look" on those kinds of things.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
That's a new one! Seems improbable to me.custard":1edytetq said:
But what it will do is settle firmly, edge to blade, due to the self aligning loose fit at the pin. In general the SS is much less likely to get shavings jammed, unless its wrongly set up, and could save a beginner from a lot of fiddling about. But they aren't magic and not cheap either - a bit of a luxury. I've got several, because you have to try these things.
Yes on the improbability, though maybe if there is a gradual curve, it could follow it better. I don't leave those on my irons, so it's not part of my comparison.
Yes on making sure that the stayset can pivot - I have seen older posts where people discussed that joint being too wobbly and wanting a "better fit" in the groove. That's nonsense, of course - the pivot point and free movement is necessary to ensure that the knife edge fits evenly along the iron.
If I may go so far as to say that my cap irons are always ideally set up, regardless of design, due to exposure to plane design and plane making (and going down the cap iron rabbit hole pretty far), so it's something structurally different between the SS and the bailey type, and in the context of a truly flat iron and properly set up and maintained cap. I think the stanley design just allows a little bit more pressure bias (due to the spring? I don't know) toward the actual knife edge against the iron. Not enough so that the SS doesn't function properly, but enough so that it doesn't fare quite as well overall.
(that said, two of the SS planes that I got had noticeable wear and rounding at the cap edge, and needed serious assistance in being made geometrically correct. I don't know if they were manufactured less than perfectly crisp, or if it was due to wear, or due in the past to someone removing a burr by polishing the edge without regard to that sharpness - but the effect once the cap was set close was instant.)
Even as close as I set the cap by habit on a smoother, which by metallurgical microscope last year appears to have been something like 6 thousandths, you can still get a couple of honings out of the SS on a smoother (assuming edge wear and not damage), before having to completely disassemble it and move it.
I can nail that setting with a bailey cap iron in probably less than an additional 10 seconds, and never measured it originally because measuring the set isn't important and could be detrimental due to the "it works fine but now I need to fix it because I read that I have to" internet kind of thing.
Yes on making sure that the stayset can pivot - I have seen older posts where people discussed that joint being too wobbly and wanting a "better fit" in the groove. That's nonsense, of course - the pivot point and free movement is necessary to ensure that the knife edge fits evenly along the iron.
If I may go so far as to say that my cap irons are always ideally set up, regardless of design, due to exposure to plane design and plane making (and going down the cap iron rabbit hole pretty far), so it's something structurally different between the SS and the bailey type, and in the context of a truly flat iron and properly set up and maintained cap. I think the stanley design just allows a little bit more pressure bias (due to the spring? I don't know) toward the actual knife edge against the iron. Not enough so that the SS doesn't function properly, but enough so that it doesn't fare quite as well overall.
(that said, two of the SS planes that I got had noticeable wear and rounding at the cap edge, and needed serious assistance in being made geometrically correct. I don't know if they were manufactured less than perfectly crisp, or if it was due to wear, or due in the past to someone removing a burr by polishing the edge without regard to that sharpness - but the effect once the cap was set close was instant.)
Even as close as I set the cap by habit on a smoother, which by metallurgical microscope last year appears to have been something like 6 thousandths, you can still get a couple of honings out of the SS on a smoother (assuming edge wear and not damage), before having to completely disassemble it and move it.
I can nail that setting with a bailey cap iron in probably less than an additional 10 seconds, and never measured it originally because measuring the set isn't important and could be detrimental due to the "it works fine but now I need to fix it because I read that I have to" internet kind of thing.
Sheffield Tony
Ghost of the disenchanted
Pete Maddex":wjzfyu63 said:
Very nice job Pete =D>
I had a closer look at my (only) SS tonight and it turns out that the black mark showing at the front side of the grove on the deflector is actually a little ridge of crud . Per jacob's earlier comment, I wonder if this is enough to act like a little fulcrum on which the deflector can pivot up slightly if the shavings apply enough pressure to the tip. I have cleaned it!
Racers
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2005
- Messages
- 9,172
- Reaction score
- 136
custard":d7b1xttp said:
I like it a lot, it does seem to improve the performance of a plane IMHO, I did notice it on my No8.
I have plained a lot of teak and the ability to do a quick hone is invaluable .
You need quite a lot of crud in the grooves to affect the toe seating as it rests on the pin not the bottom of the grove.
Pete
Vann
Established Member
I've noticed that too.Sheffield Tony":2k9je7w7 said:
Cheers, Vann
custard
Established Member
Sheffield Tony":21758ugo said:
Blimey, over thirty years of using Record planes and I never knew that. I checked and you're dead right, about 4mm shorter in fact.
I've never noticed them not being interchangeable, and I checked today and can't detect any difference in being able to extend or retract the iron. But then again, all my cap irons are the older type with less pronounced bumps, maybe it would make a difference if they were used with the Stanley cap irons that have the larger bump?
Attachments
MikeG.
Established Member
Well, relax, I bought an orthodox 5 1/2, so the Stay Set one will remain available. It looks a nice plane to me.
Vann
Established Member
No. When Flinn bought Clifton (planes) off Clico they changed the colour to Charcoal or Graphite (can't remember which), changed the way they make the irons (no more forging), and did away with the 2-piece cap iron.large red":3w2l4yc8 said:
Several people have commented here that their planes feel more solid with the two piece cap iron. I wonder if that's because both Record and Clifton made their 2-piece cap irons of 3mm/1/8" plate - whereas standard cap-irons are 1.6-2.0mm thick.
Cheers, Vann.
I think the improved feeling is because a large part of the cutter is in close contact with the fixed part and the removable part bridges the space between the end of the fixed part and the tip of the cutter.
I had not realised the SS cap irons were shorter - perhaps it was done so the lever cap applied pressure to the central part of the space bridged by the removable bit (whereas with the normal design it is better to bias the pressure on to the hump?)
I imagine they had to make the SS cap irons thicker than the standard ones simply to accommodate the grooves that allow the two parts to mate together.
I had not realised the SS cap irons were shorter - perhaps it was done so the lever cap applied pressure to the central part of the space bridged by the removable bit (whereas with the normal design it is better to bias the pressure on to the hump?)
I imagine they had to make the SS cap irons thicker than the standard ones simply to accommodate the grooves that allow the two parts to mate together.
I think the thickness is also necessary because it's a fairly large shallow span that the cap covers compared to the short round hump on the bailey cap, and the hump on the bailey cap is biased in the other direction to spring against the lever cap. If thin was necessary, they could've put the nubs on the cap piece, and holes on the part affixed to the iron - one identically sized in the middle and two larger so as to allow some lateral movement.
I wonder what the sales numbers were for these planes, and what the additional retail cost was.
IIRC, the bedrock planes in the US were slightly more expensive, but sold at about a tenth of the volume of bailey designs (excluding other makers).
Stanley seems to have been fascinated with blocking out other minority market designs (like the sargent autoset), but none of them sold in significant numbers - they probably could've ignored them.
I wonder what the sales numbers were for these planes, and what the additional retail cost was.
IIRC, the bedrock planes in the US were slightly more expensive, but sold at about a tenth of the volume of bailey designs (excluding other makers).
Stanley seems to have been fascinated with blocking out other minority market designs (like the sargent autoset), but none of them sold in significant numbers - they probably could've ignored them.
there is a an undated Record catalogue (mid 1930s?) that shows the range of SS planes was the same price as the standard ones, at least at that point.
Since the SS versions were available from the early 1930s I can't think of any explanation for the relatively small numbers that survive today other than they simply were not popular among users ...
Since the SS versions were available from the early 1930s I can't think of any explanation for the relatively small numbers that survive today other than they simply were not popular among users ...
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Perhaps because half of the set goes missing too easily? Or if they get shuffled they may not work?nabs":1l1ixuvt said:
If you've already got one they are OK but there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to go out and buy one.
Ditto the bedrock design - only popular now because it is being hyped by the retro plane makers (LN, Clifton etc).
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Maybe they weren't common because the design doesn't really work very with a hollow stone? The face could only be worked across the narrow end of the stone - and how many people flattened stones? :-"
