Why Two?

[Corneel]

I think I am starting to understand what you mean. You mean, I would have got the same effect if I had used a thicker blade?

To be honest, I think that's nonsence. The blade is 4.5mm thick and very well bedded if I may say so. i checked the bedding with some candle sooth on the back of the blade.

And I can make the same demonstration with a Stanley with the standard blade and standard chipbreaker, which both together are less thick then this woodie blade.

I'm afraid you'll have to accept the fact that the chipbreaker helps stabilising the shaving, so it gets cut instead of torn out.

 

[Corneel]

I just watched the Kato/Kawai video again for a bit. They used a 10mm blade! How thick do you want it to be? What's more, in the video when looking at the sequence where they are producing tearout with no chipbreaker at 0.1mm thickness of cut, you can see absolutely no deflection of the edge. You can easilly see this when you hold the cursor over the tip of the edge. The view of the camera moves a bit left to right, but not up or down.

http://vimeo.com/41372857

There is no evidence for your theory, as far as i can see.

 

[Jacob]

.... The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.

Thin blade is one of the main advantages of the Bailey design, made possible by the cap iron and lever cap design holding it tight down against the frog, close to the cutting edge and as effective as a thick blade. Thin bade is quicker to sharpen, as well as the ease of removal and replacement.
The cap iron "chip breaker" effect is an additional bonus which otherwise would make the cap iron redundant on a thick blade.
So it has two functions on a thin blade, but just the one on a thick one.

 

[Corneel]

Because wooden planes with chipbreakers and massive blades were avaialable long before the Stanley planes, I would turn it around. Chipbreaker effect comes first. Stabilising the edge is the bonus and very well employed in the Stanley design.

But your quite right of course. I'm just nit picking.

 

[Paul Chapman]

.... The Stanley planes are a good example that you can get away with remarkably thin ones.

Thin blade is one of the main advantages of the Bailey design, made possible by the cap iron and lever cap design holding it tight down against the frog, close to the cutting edge and as effective as a thick blade.

In my experience, the Stanley-style thin blade and bent metal cap iron are such a bad design that I can only imagine they were introduced in order to keep down costs. The modern incarnations of the Bailey-style planes with Bedrock frogs, very thick blades and improved cap irons (of which the two piece, Stay-set style is the best, IMHO) perform so much better. Fortunately it is easy to add thicker blades and better cap irons to Bailey-style planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Corneel]

In my jointer (Stanley #7 from the 1920's) and my jackplane (Record 05, prewar) I use the standard blades and capirons and I see absolutely no point in replacing them. They work as advertised. My smoother (Stanley #4, postwar UK) has a thicker O1 blade from Ray Iles which does help a bit against chatter. Standard capiron though.

The standard capirons are usually poorly finished, but that is something easilly remidied. Their shape is considerably better then the newer replacement ones, which are shaped as if the makers have no idea about the chipbreaker effect. But that can be remidied too.

The older blades are very good and don't need (expensive) replacements. The later ones are not as good in my opinion. Or it is the poorer bedding surface of the later planes, I don't know.

Overall I would advice everyone to test the plane first to see if it doesn't accidentally works fine allready, before plunging a lot of money on parts you don't need.

 

[Racers]

Some bold claims can't say I agree with them all, but you are entitled to your opinions.

The trouble with not trying out all the options is you don't find the limiting factors.

Pete

 

[Corneel]

Which claims are bold? And which claims don't you agree with?

 

[Racers]

Not telling

Pete

 

[Corneel]

No fear. I won't bite you.

Is it about the shape of the new chipbreakers? I don't know all of them but the couple I know have a leading edge of 30 degrees which is too low for a good chipbreaking effect. I don't really thinkthat is a bold statement though.

 

[Racers]

The older blades are very good and don't need (expensive) replacements.

My experience differs from yours.

Hock blade and cap irons are a big step up in performance.

Pete

 

[Corneel]

On that's what you mean.

That's not a bold statement. Try beforeyou buy I say. Don'tbuy a Hock blade because someone on the internet told you so.

I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.

 

[bugbear]

I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.

Indeed.

Hock blades were adopted with great enthusiasm by people disappointed by the quality of existing blades.

He used to be a knife maker, but people kept asking for plane blades.

He was the first (AFAIK) of the "after market" blade makers.

BugBear

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

There are lots of interesting findings about cap irons about on the net, but I have not found any to be complete, so it is better to take the info and experiment for yourselves. The Kato tests seem to be experimentally correct, but I don't think they tell the whole story. There is lots of good info, for sure, but there are a few significant omissions IMO. Firstly, there is no mouth to the plane. This was perhaps done to isolate the cap iron effect from other factors, but this makes the test flawed, since almost every plane we use will have a mouth opening. We do not know from the test that - A. Making a fine mouth will reduce the need for quite as much cap iron effect and at what point this is.- B. if the reduction in tear out from a severe cap iron effect gives a better/comparable/poorer surface finish than other ways to prevent tear out, eg. A very fine mouth or a high pitched iron. Nor does it consider that a regular plane iron and even a thick replacement iron is no where near as thick as the test blade and therefore may react differently under a severe cap iron effect than a massively thick one. I'm suggesting severe cap iron effect induced chatter in thin blades. Chatter being one of the causes of tear out.

My experience tells me that if I can tame tear out with a fine mouthed plane and a little less cap iron effect the plane is easier to push and the surface finish is finer. However, the cap iron effect produces a better surface than a torn one, so in very ornery stuff, I would favour a close set cap iron over it not being so. I still think a high pitched plane and a little less cap iron effect is best, and in fact, I do believe after a certain Height of pitch, the cap iron effect will be ineffectual an may even hinder planing.

Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

I always wonder how they got along before mr. Hock. Must have been terrible times.

Indeed.

Hock blades were adopted with great enthusiasm by people disappointed by the quality of existing blades.

He used to be a knife maker, but people kept asking for plane blades.

He was the first (AFAIK) of the "after market" blade makers.

BugBear

Hello,

Hock blades are head and shoulders above the stock standard ones that come in Bailey tripe planes, of this there can be no dispute. However, when I got the few I own, the price was not as prohibitive as they seem to have become. If I hade a plane with a useless blade, I would not consider a stock replacement and a Hock would be high on the list for a suitable choice.

Mike.

Edit: I just noticed the spell corrector has made me say something I didn't intend, but I think I'll leave it, it might not be far wrong after all.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I still think a high pitched plane and a little less cap iron effect is best, and in fact, I do believe after a certain Height of pitch, the cap iron effect will be ineffectual an may even hinder planing.

I agree. An ultra-close set cap iron is, in effect, producing the same effect as a high effective pitch. However, it's far less of a fiddle to use a plane with a high effective pitch (or a scraper plane) in the first place. Still, all roads lead to Rome, so choose whichever technique you prefer

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Vann]

In my experience, the Stanley-style thin blade and bent metal cap iron are such a bad design that I can only imagine they were introduced in order to keep down costs. The modern incarnations of the Bailey-style planes with Bedrock frogs, very thick blades and improved cap irons (of which the two piece, Stay-set style is the best, IMHO) perform so much better.

I saw a picture of the patent for the Stanley cap-iron (someone posted it on the Aussie forum a while back). It showed the cap-iron flat on the cutting iron immediately behind the "hump". So the original design supported the cutting iron along most of it's length and held it flat - like a two-piece cap-iron does ('though not as thick).

However I don't think I've ever seen a properly made "Stanley" cap iron. Usually they are over-bent and don't come in contact with the cutting iron again until way up near the cap-iron screw. And the over-bent shape causes the bending forces that often prevent the irons from sitting flat on the frog. It's is possible, I suppose, to reduce the bend in the "Stanley" cap-iron, but it's fiddly to get it right - and it has to be exactly right to get it to stiffen the cutter as designed/patented.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Corneel]

I agree Mike, this is a complicated subject. I don't think everyone would agree with you on the worse surface finish when using the chipbreaker. After all, you're still cutting at 45 degrees, while most of the compression takes place in the shaving. And high pitched planes don't leave such a crisp surface either when compared to lower angled planes. But it all depends on the wood species too. Not easy to say anything general about that. Everyone will have to experiment for themselves. For example, I am at the moment experimenting with lower angles for the leading edge of the chipbreaker, but didn't come to any conclusions yet.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

:lol: :lol: :lol: "Bailey tripe planes" :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Corneel]

How many Bailey type planes have been sold? No idea really, must be millions. In the early 20th century they were regarded as a class above the standard wooden planes, quite a bit more expensive too. They were used in every woodworking profession, from rough carpentry to fine cabinetmaking, on all continents on all kinds of wood. It has been a very succesfull design, despite the misgivings from some amateur woodworkers these days.

Hock started in the eighties when the quality of Stanley planes had dropped. No wonder people loved his replacement blades. And indeed Hock stuff is good. But my vintage Stanley and Record blades aren't bad either. If your planeblade performs well, doesn't chatter, and the edge lives for a reasonable time, then there is no reason to replace it.