What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?

[ydb1md]

*Oh, and I still hate the rear tote...[/i]
Sorry, felt maybe that needed to be said. :roll: :wink:

I think there's a huge market in optional totes for the LV planes.

I'd like to take a poll to answer a question i have. I think the LV totes work better with higher benches. With a traditional low bench, i think the pressure points are all wrong.

I'd like to take a poll of all lee valley bench plane owners. Ask them if their bench is above waist high and whether they like their totes or not.

 

[Anonymous]

First, the bevel up planes seem to perform well at two planing functions, end grain (low angle) and smoothing (somtimes high angle, sometimes low angle). There doesn't seem to be any support for replacing the basic bench plane function (prepping stock) with bevel up planes. I don't see any compelling reason for a bevel down jointer either except to make ALF use a jointer with a straight across blade as opposed to her cambered bladed try planes .

As for why the bevel up plane wasn't used as a smoother in the past, I don't believe any plane that wasn't bedded on wood was given much consideration for smoothing. Wooden planes, both Japanese and Western, and infills have been top performers for centuries and the only need for bevel up planes was to get low cutting angles for end grain. With the introduction of more durable bevel up bench planes from LN & LV, it seems more experimentation has been done and it has been found that a bevel up plane can indeed be a high performance smoother.

The fact that bevel up planes can be high performance smoothers doesn't mean the traditional bevel down planes perform any less well than they did. It does give woodworkers more alternatives and that is a very good thing.

 

[Rob Lee]

(snip)


There's probably lots more that I'll remember I wanted to say once I've hit "Submit", but that's more than enough conjecture and guessing for one afternoon... :lol:

Cheers, Alf

Okay, everybody else's beaten me to it, 'cos I got kicked off my connection, but heck, I've typed it all up now... :roll:

Hey Alf -

Pretty good for one who missed the "bevel-up" revival meeting last fall...you seem to be converted... :lol:

Couple of additional points I didn't see (but could have missed)...

A lower bed angle should be a more stable platform - as force is applied more in-line with the axis of the blade ... force on the blade can be resolved into two components - parallel to the blade axis, and perpendicular to it. It's the perpendicular component that makes a blade want to vibrate - and the perpedicular component is much smaller on a bevel-up plane.

Blade adjustment (for a given feed rate) is finer on a low bed angle plane... you have to feed the blade a greater distance along the bed slope to get a given blade projection.

Center of gravity also tends to be lower on a low bed angle plane - a factor often overlooked in how a plane feels...

Cheers -

Rob

 

[Frank D.]

Hi everyone,
I'll answer the poll an totes and say that as soon as I have some spare time I'm taking a rasp and file to my LV handles to make them more like the ones on my LN. I have a medium-high bench (33") but still prefer the old Stanley design.
As to bevel up vs. Bevel down, I initially resisted the "fad" of bevel-up planes, but now I realize it was mainly because I owned bevel-down planes. I get good results with both but with equivalent planing angles I get slightly less tearout on figured woods and reversing grain with my bevel-up planes. Don't ask me why, and frankly I don't really need an explanation. Not to mention the ease of changing blades (no chipbreaker--just drop one in...takes 30 seconds at most) for different tasks.
NB I own several LN bench planes, I have owned a LV bench plane, and I own LV and LN bevel-up planes.
Frank

 

[ydb1md]

Hi everyone,
I'll answer the poll an totes and say that as soon as I have some spare time I'm taking a rasp and file to my LV handles to make them more like the ones on my LN.

Be careful w/ that rasp. With two bolts in the LV tote, i'm not sure how much you have to work with.

 

[Anonymous]

Alf,

I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise. It has excellent machining, a nice feel, and does what it should, but I still find I use my old Woden W5 just as much. Maybe I'm comfortable with the dinosaur, but that says to me that if I don't feel compelled to switch the difference between the two must be negligible.

People should buy whatever they find most comfortable, what they like the look of, what feels "right". Not, I might add, what every single magazine says is the new way forward for planes, which is what I mean by "fad".

I'd advise against going out and buying duplicates, or replacing something that works well, just for the sheer sake of having a bevel up version. I think, if we're all honest, we get a little excited when LV or LN or whoever, come out with a new plane. After years of enduring the diminishing quality and static models of Stanley and Record, its a bit like the kid in a candy store scenario. If I was starting over now I'd buy the new LV planes, rather than modern Stanley or Record, but I don't think I've suffered for only having used tradtional ones until recently.

Of course, I could be very very wrong, it wouldn't be the first time........ :wink: :roll:

Cheers, Regan

 

[Rob Lee]

Alf,

I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise. It has excellent machining, a nice feel, and does what it should, but I still find I use my old Woden W5 just as much. Maybe I'm comfortable with the dinosaur, but that says to me that if I don't feel compelled to switch the difference between the two must be negligible.

People should buy whatever they find most comfortable, what they like the look of, what feels "right". Not, I might add, what every single magazine says is the new way forward for planes, which is what I mean by "fad".

I'd advise against going out and buying duplicates, or replacing something that works well, just for the sheer sake of having a bevel up version. I think, if we're all honest, we get a little excited when LV or LN or whoever, come out with a new plane. After years of enduring the diminishing quality and static models of Stanley and Record, its a bit like the kid in a candy store scenario. If I was starting over now I'd buy the new LV planes, rather than modern Stanley or Record, but I don't think I've suffered for only having used tradtional ones until recently.

Of course, I could be very very wrong, it wouldn't be the first time........ :wink: :roll:

Cheers, Regan

Hi Regan -

Truth is - you're very right... a plane is just a holder for the blade. It's all about inducing controlled failure in wood, in a predictable and repeatable manner...there is no single best solution for everyone (or anyone for that matter)...

If it works for you - then you have the right tool!

Cheers -

Rob

 

[Anonymous]

Putting aside the comfort of use issues, the relevant infirmation is in the second group, and the issue that comes to the fore is what bevel angle is in the bevel up plane? If you are using a 25 degree bevel on the #164, then you are not comparing apples with apples. Especially if the #4-1/2 has the 50 degree frog. This would account for the better performance of the #164 on end grain and the better performance of the #4-1/2 on interlinked face grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek

Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes :wink: This is apples compared with apples

 

[Frank D.]

Be careful w/ that rasp. With two bolts in the LV tote, i'm not sure how much you have to work with.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye out for that.
Frank

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes This is apples compared with apples

Tony, no - I'm afraid that is not comparing apples with apples.

The #4-1/2 will be cutting at either 45 or 50 degrees (depends on which frog you have), and this is a setup that is geared towards moderate to difficult face grain.

The #164, on the other hand, will be cutting at 37 degrees, and this setup is geared towards cutting endgrain or mild to moderate difficult face grain.

As set up, the two planes are going to achieve their best results in quite different areas. And as set up you cannot draw comparisons about the virtues (or lack thereof) of the bevel up plane if your criteria are based on the performance of a high angle plane. Apples and oranges.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Alf]

I may be the only person in the world to say this, but I didn't think my LV low angle jack is all that special performance-wise.

Ah ha, there had to be one! Not wanting to sound like I'm getting at you here, Regan, but is that with the stock low angle blade? Anyway, compared to a Woden eh? Ooo, got me on the horns of a patriotic dilemma - that's not fair! :lol:

ydb, certainly my feeling was they're more designed for the Normite with the higher bench. I even had a whole "Planes for Normites" theory going, and then Rob announced the scrub... #-o

Roger, I think I expressed the view that I couldn't see anyone using the BUPP as a genuine "jack". I'm starting to revise that opinion a little, but the trouble is it is a little heavy for serious stock prep. I darn near killed myself flattening my workbench with it. But in terms of performance, I'm gonna have to admit blind prejudice in the past and say now, that there's no reason I can see for not using bevel ups for stock prep. Just might be that the LN jack is a better option for that, being lighter...

Rob, not bad points there. Have you been looking into this bevel up thing then...?

Frank, I second ydb's warning. The two posts may give a good secure fixing, but they're a real limitation to the tote-tweakers amongst us. Bit of a design cul-de-sac there, IMO...

Both planes are factory standard bevels + honed at usual angles. Stock planes :wink: This is apples compared with apples

.
Noooooooooooo! No, no, no, no! Tony! No! </Direct transcript of my reaction when I first read that> It's apples and kumquats! Even ignoring the bevel issue, which Derek has covered very nicely, you're comparing a 2" wide iron with a 2 3/8" wide iron! What's the difference in weight? 5 1/2lbs to 3 3/4lbs! Tony, it's comparing watermelons to petit pois! ](*,) I'm sorry, I've resorted to excessive exclamation marks. But oi vey. :roll: Some one take me away to a darkened room before I apply wet halibut smartly to Tony's face... Ah, thank you, Professor. Yes, I'll take the padded room without the view please...

Cheers, Alf

 

[bugbear]

I think there's a huge market in optional totes for the LV planes.

IIRC the idea has been discussed of LV selling the totes drilled but not-shaped (by simply lifting from the production process early).

This would allow those so-minded to shape their own.

Minding the bolt channels, of course

Is this still under consideration, Rob?

BugBear

 

[Frank D.]

Hmmmm,
This sounds like a case for Doctor Rudi Beetlebaumhausen! :lol:
Frank
(ducking and running)

 

[ydb1md]

Actually the cool thing is that, depending on the blade in use, you can compare the #164 to any number of planes.

If comparing to a #4-1/2 with york frog, the #164's blade would have to have an 8 degree microbevel on it, to yield an effective cutting angle of 45 degrees. That would be a fair fight.

If comparing with a low bed angle plane, the #164 could be used with its "standard" 25 degree blade w/ no microbevel.

If the effective cutting angles of the planes being compared aren't equal, you need to come up with some sort of bookies method of handicapping the underdog.

If the playing field is not level, it's impossible to decisively claim one as better than the other.

_________________
It's the size of a man's shavings that matter. Not the size of . . . well . . . you get the idea . . .

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Tony

Here is the same information but with numbers attached:

#164: standard bevel = 25 degrees
add bed angle = 12 degrees
TOTAL CUTTING ANGLE = 37 degrees = Apples (better suited to end grain)

#4-1/2: standard frog angle = 45 degrees
TOTAL CUTTING ANGLE = 45 degrees = Oranges (better suited to face grain)

Now, if you want an level playing field, add a 8 degree microbevel to the #164 blade, and this will give you a 45 degree cutting angle. = Oranges

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Alf]

Now, if you want an level playing field, add a 8 degree microbevel to the #164 blade, and this will give you a 45 degree cutting angle. = Oranges

Leveler playing field, anyway. Bevel Level, if you will.

 

[ydb1md]

Leveler playing field, anyway. Bevel Level, if you will.

Of couse, no matter what the playing field is, I'd be happy using any of the planes being battered about, I mean batted about, in this thread.

 

[Midnight]

Tony... FWIW I tend to agree with you... maybe for slightly different reasons, but the net result's the same...

I won't question that bevel up reign supreme when used with a shooting board as my #9 will testify to...

I won't question that tthere's a place for bevel up planes when working the flat of a board too... my #62 kicks butt in that respect...

However... bevel downs will wipe the floor with the competition whenever it comes to speed of adustment; try advancing the blade of a bevel up "on the fly"...
For me, their other advantage is repeatability; any time you hone an LA blade you run the risk of changing the angle of insidence... with bevel down you KNOW what it's gonna be irrespective of what you do on the stone. That repeatability liberates you to tune the bevel for longevity rather than effective angle, not something to sneeze at when there's a stack of boards to work through...

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

OK, I'll buy back into this and talk to your point (again? I thought I did this in my original post on this topic earlier on).

Anyway, Tony you wrote

I would, however, class the #164 as a large block plane rather than a smoother as it does not do the same job as my 4.5 smoother. Sure, the 164 excels in other areas but this suggests that we should consider the 164 as a tool to sit alongside high angle planes rather than replacing high angle planes.

One technical point to get out of the way, just so it is not an issue: all bevel up planes are "block planes" and so you are correct that the LN #164 (and the LV LA Smoother) are large block planes.

The problem is, however, that to think of bevel up planes as "large block planes" (which traditionally were used for end grain smoothing) is to limit the understanding of the real strengths of this design. By only conceptualising these as block planes you will not get outside the envelope.

I would like to quote from the conclusion I wrote in my article on bevel up planes (Alf and I both wrote articles around the same time. Mine is published at Wood Central): http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=handtools&file=articles_461.shtml

The potential of these bevel-up planes is such that I believe they going to be the force for future plane design.

What I was referring to is the growing awareness that the design is superior to the bevel down brigade, and that bevel up planes have the potential to become far superior in the high cutting angle department. They are not simply end grain specialists, but are going to be the new force in the area of smoothing. And this is because they are the better design. As I said at the beginning, it has only been in the last few years that technology has made it possible to explore this aspect. But now that it is here, just watch the design develop and grow. You will now begin to see specialist bevel up smoothers coming from the plane makers. I know that the Large Smoother from LV is going to meet this specification. It will be a specialist, no compromise smoothing plane. I can't wait to try it out and see the advances that have taken place in the few years that the concept has taken hold. Very exciting times!

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Frank D.]

Yes! What Derek said!
Not to mention that even Shepherd toolworks has developed a bevel-up infill, which they call their "improved pattern" miter plane and which is meant to be used as a bevel-up smoother: