The chip breaker is as important as the blade

[ali27]

Bumping this three year old thread.

One could just use a very thick blade(4mm or more I think) and you
wouldn't need a chipbreaker. BUT, This creates a bigger bevel so sharpening
takes a longer time.

I was thinking could we not use a very thin blade(1mm?) with a very thick
chipbreaker(5mm or more)? A 1mm thick blade can be sharpened very
quickly. Would the very thick chipbreaker give enough rigidity to the very
thin plane iron?

Thanks

 

[Vann]

And I guess the crucial question is - what do they cost?

Axminster sell the 2 part Clifton one for £12.61.
http://www.axminster.co.uk/recno/7/product-Clifton-2-Piece-Cap-Iron-21769.htm

Isn't inflation wonderful :roll: - now £17.26 (2") or £18.46 (2 3/8"). That's a 50% increase in 6 years .

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

..... A 1mm thick blade can be sharpened very
quickly. Would the very thick chipbreaker give enough rigidity to the very
thin plane iron?

Thanks

Probably, if the blade was well enough seated. It's whole basic principle of the Bailey design, and the Gillette razor; tight fitting blade assembly permits thinner blade for easier sharpening, or in the case of the razor permits the use of a cheap throw-away blade.

 

[David C]

For thicker chipbreakers see;

L-N, Veritas, Quangsheng and Clifton and IBC.

David

 

[andersonec]

Also the cap iron distance from the cutting edge of the blade makes a huge difference, I have approx one millimeter, maybe less.

Andy

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Andy, with the experiments I and others have recently completed (lots of posts on various forums), a distance of 1mm is not going to make a difference. You need to get this down to about 0.3mm

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[James C]

Has anyone tried the Cosman/IBC offering from Classic Hand Tools?

In the spiel it talks about have tabs that better engage with the yoke through the blade. I know that one or two people have had issues with the yoke when using the ultra thick blades and chipbreakers in their stanleys.

Is it much of an issue? I have a Clifton Stayset Cap Iron and a thin unbranded and bent iron but want to upgrade to a new thicker one. Will the yoke be able to engage through the thick iron?

 

[David C]

James,

I have tuned up and fitted IBC blade & chipbreaker sets, to two Stanley planes recently.

The results are very pleasing. Throats needed slight widening, about 0.5 mm, hardly surprising for these 3.6mm thick blades.

The tabs fitted to the chipbreakers ensure no issues with yokes engaging.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[ali27]

Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
thin iron(1mm) with a very thick chipbreaker(5mm or more).
Would it work well? If the answer is yes, why bother sharpening
thicker (2-3mm) blades?

A 3mm thick blade is I think 27 times more rigid than a 1 mm thick
blade.Could a very thick chipbreaker solve this?

 

[Gerard Scanlan]

Workshop Heaven sell the clifton 2 piece cap iron too. I was astounded by the difference it made to my Stanley planes. I was considering buying new blades for my planes but Matthew at workshop heaven suggested cap irons which were a fraction of the cost of replacment irons. I know not everyone agrees that these retro cap irons are worthwhile but in my ignorance and with no expectation that they would make a real difference I was amazed. I used to have to hone my plane blades after half an hour of planing now every couple of days of intensive use. So in real life they work for me at least, even if the experts that dispute this is the case. In my hands they make a big difference. Perhaps if you were born with a plane in your hands you can do fine without anything but an original Stanley or Record.

 

[János]

Hello,

The thickness of the blade is not that important, really. In traditional Occidental wooden planes the blades were tapered, and about 3 millimetres thick at the working end, and even thinner in narrow moulding planes, around 2,2~2,5 millimetres. Properly sharpened, fitted and set they worked equally well.
In the Bailey pattern the slight lengthwise bend of the blade introduced by the cap iron was intentional, I think: it helped to hold the blade in place on the frog. In a wedged plane, the blade is held by the well distributed pressure of the properly fitted wedge. In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs. Adding mass to the blade assembly, or fostering the rigidity in some or the other way, could help, but the flaw is not in the blade or breaker iron...

Have a nice day,

János

 

[woodbrains]

Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
thin iron(1mm) with a very thick chipbreaker(5mm or more).
Would it work well? If the answer is yes, why bother sharpening
thicker (2-3mm) blades?

A 3mm thick blade is I think 27 times more rigid than a 1 mm thick
blade.Could a very thick chipbreaker solve this?

Hi.

You have more or less answered your own question. A 3mm blade being so much more rigid, it is a no-brainer which you would use. Also, it is much more difficult to sharpen a thin blade as the area in contact with the stone is harder to 'feel' the bevel on the stone. If you are going to hone a micro bevel, as many of us do, then there would be no difference in sharpening either as the metal removal would be the same. A thick cap iron will certainly dampen vibration (chatter) but is is probably better to minimise the introduction of chatter in the first place. A 1mm blade would positively hum like a plucked string and I doubt a super thick cap iron would damp it all out, as it is a separate component and subject to its own clamping problems in a Bailey type plane. Also, a dead flat cap iron will not work, shavings are likely to slip between the two and cause all sorts of problems. Therefore, even a slightly 'sprung' one will bend such a thin blade that it would not bed firmly enough onto the frog to be able to gain any advantage from the thick cap iron, anyway. I think a super thin iron would open up more problems than it would solve. In a wooden smoother with its very rigid wedge to hold the blade assembly, it might fare better, but then again, a thick blade even without a cap iron, works superbly in these, so why upset the apple cart?

Best improvement is a thick iron which is maximum about 3mm to still use the planes adjuster and a thick cap iron combo. If only the cap iron is to be changed, then I favour the Clifton 2 piece, as it does not curve the blade, and I think keeping the whole assembly flat is important. I do not have any confidence in the lever cap flattening things back out again, the whole system gets too complex, with too many opportunities for the introduction of errors.

Whay I would like to see an experiment in, is a super thick blade in a Bailey plane, without a cap iron. It would not be hard to imagine something added to the back of the blade so the adjustment pawl can be engaged, that was not part of a cap iron assy. Perhaps an old cast steel iron could be modified to fit. Some of these are more than 6mm thick at the business end and would not need any cap iron to ad rigidity.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

..... In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs.....

Completely wrong. The (cast, rigid) lever cap distributes the pressure to the cap iron immediately behind the edge of the blade, just where it is needed as it helps nip the blade tight against the frog close to the mouth. A huge theoretical and practical advantage and , together with thin blade for ease of sharpening and the speed and ease of blade removal, the whole point of the Bailey design. Another incidental advantage being the highly effective tilt mechanism - the best there is (the clever looking norris adjuster doesn't work half as well).

 

[woodbrains]

..... In contrast, in a Bailey (or in any lever cap design) plane the blade is held in place by the pressure of the lever cap, that is, a pressure applied in a small spot. That is a huge theoretical deficiency of these plane designs.....

Completely wrong. The (cast, rigid) lever cap distributes the pressure to the cap iron immediately behind the edge of the blade, just where it is needed as it helps nip the blade tight against the frog close to the mouth. A huge theoretical and practical advantage and , together with thin blade for ease of sharpening and the speed and ease of blade removal, the whole point of the Bailey design. Another incidental advantage being the highly effective tilt mechanism - the best there is (the clever looking norris adjuster doesn't work half as well).

That is what he just said! The only pressure is along a very small area and this is not enough to eliminate chatter. That is why, in anything other than mild mannered softwood, they can chatter like crazy. In fact the Bailey design was only intended for softwood of mild hardwood, they were not meant as fine cabinet makers tools but for American joiners and housebuilders who did not need 'good' planes. Unfortunately, then as now, people prefered to buy inferior tools for less money and the fine toolmakers were put out of business. Only lately are we realising the horrible mistake and can get better fitments to improve these planes and indeed better made and designed tools, fit for purpose. Thank the lord.

Incidentally, the Stanley RB10 and a Paramo variant (I think came first, actually) was a thin, replaceable blade rebate plane. The blades were about 1mm thick, if memory serves, and locked down into an alloy housing, which had a lot of mass. The one I was unfortunate enough to try was about the most dreadful thing I ever used on wood and saw the bin quick smart. Thick blades chatter less, plane and simple!

I would have to disagree about occidental planes generally having thinner irons. Since Bailey, perhaps, by its copiers and competition, but before that, all the fine British and American cabinet makers planes had thick irons. The few continental ones I have come across were thick too, though I would not generalise as to this being the norm. I'm sure someone here knows more.

Mike.

 

[ali27]

Guys I would like more opinions on the idea of a very
thin iron(1mm) with a very thick chipbreaker(5mm or more).
Would it work well? If the answer is yes, why bother sharpening
thicker (2-3mm) blades?

A 3mm thick blade is I think 27 times more rigid than a 1 mm thick
blade.Could a very thick chipbreaker solve this?

Hi.

You have more or less answered your own question. A 3mm blade being so much more rigid, it is a no-brainer which you would use. Also, it is much more difficult to sharpen a thin blade as the area in contact with the stone is harder to 'feel' the bevel on the stone. If you are going to hone a micro bevel, as many of us do, then there would be no difference in sharpening either as the metal removal would be the same. A thick cap iron will certainly dampen vibration (chatter) but is is probably better to minimise the introduction of chatter in the first place. A 1mm blade would positively hum like a plucked string and I doubt a super thick cap iron would damp it all out, as it is a separate component and subject to its own clamping problems in a Bailey type plane. Also, a dead flat cap iron will not work, shavings are likely to slip between the two and cause all sorts of problems. Therefore, even a slightly 'sprung' one will bend such a thin blade that it would not bed firmly enough onto the frog to be able to gain any advantage from the thick cap iron, anyway. I think a super thin iron would open up more problems than it would solve. In a wooden smoother with its very rigid wedge to hold the blade assembly, it might fare better, but then again, a thick blade even without a cap iron, works superbly in these, so why upset the apple cart?


Mike.

It is not more difficult to sharpen a thin blade if you use a honing guide. Even if you
use a microbevel, every time the bevel gets bigger after a sharpening, which forces
you to go back to the grinder or very course sandpaper to get that primary bevel again.
A 1mm thick blade would not need this as you would not need any microbevels since
the sharpening is very quick. A very thin blade has a great advantage in terms of sharpening
speed compared to thicker blades.

Answering the last sentence, well because I want sharpening to be as easy and quickly as
possible. A thick blade(4mm+) will not need a cap iron, but takes a long time to sharpen.

 

[Jacob]

........A very thin blade has a great advantage in terms of sharpening
speed compared to thicker blades....

Absolutely. That's the whole point of the Bailey design. Speed, ease of blade removal, no "micro bevel" nonsense, no need ever to grind. Mind you 1mm is probably a bit on the thin side.
I see references to the dreaded "chatter" above. It's not something I've particularly experienced - I'm slightly mystified about it. Any photos of "chatter" would be interesting.

 

[bugbear]

Hello,

The thickness of the blade is not that important, really. In traditional Occidental wooden planes the blades were tapered, and about 3 millimetres thick at the working end, and even thinner in narrow moulding planes, around 2,2~2,5 millimetres. Properly sharpened, fitted and set they worked equally well.

In the wooden bench planes I have, around 3/16" (4.7mm) is more normal. 3 mm is more of a "thick" Bailey iron.

BugBear

 

[Corneel]

18the century blades were about 3mm thick at the edge. Later in the 19th century they went thicker to 4.5. Then the bailey design came along with the 2.5mm(more or less) blades.

The Bailey design does work surprisingly well, also on hard tropic woods. It does help a lot though to set it up properly. Frog pulled back, so the blade rests on the sole too. Caprion close to the edge helps a lot too. When needed to avoid tearout it should be very close to the edge indeed. Tighten the screw for the lever cap a bit so it snaps positively in place.

I'm not an expert on chatter. I did get it quite often on the start of a planing stroke (sorry no pictures). That was frustrating. Indeed a thicker blade helped a lot. But now I've learned a bit more about planing, I see it's mostly a technique thing. Putting pressure in the right spot and so on. And sharp blades of course.

And because I have and use a power grinder I don't care at all about a thick blade taking a little more effort to sharpen. I love my wooden planes and they have thick blades, so I just use the grinder and be done with it. It's even historically correct. Ever seen these huge standstone grinders? They were all over the place and could grind a blade in a hurry when the young apprentice cranked it fast enough. The usual method was to make a primary bevel with the sandstone wheel and then hone a secondairy bevel on the oilstones. I've never read about the convex bevel in the old handbooks, but if that's what rocks your boat, be happy I'd say.

So that's my opinions and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Vann]

...Then the bailey design came along with the 2.5mm(more or less) blades.

Mostly less :mrgreen:

1.9 to 2.4mm in my experience of over 100 planes hidden in my workshop

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Corneel]

That's what you get when not checking everything before you post!