Woodriver 5 1/2 a personal view.

[David C]

Well, a chap came to me recently with a new Stanley no. 5. I don't know where these are made now but it is not Sheffield.

It was impossible to set a shaving with the chipbreaker set close to the blade edge!

A new perversion for my list. The chipbreaker screw head was hitting the end of the recess in the frog.

Unfortunately this was something which could not be fixed in the workshop.

I wonder how many of these there are out there?

David

 

[JimF.]

It is not the same plane but it was a V3 and looked just like the QS #4 I had for a bit. I did not have the chance to try out the IBC iron, it was just the T10 and the regular plane. The new style cap irons on most new planes come to such a sharp point that I find makes tight cap iron work harder. I just added a slightly steeper secondary bevel to the front of the cap iron to sort that. A very quick job, couple of mins.

Cheers

Thanks all for sorting that out.

 

[Andy Kev.]

It's a bit like buying trainers. There are hundreds of them including some intended for specific uses. But when it comes down to it, whichever you choose as long as they fit it won't make an iota of difference to your performance (within reason).
The illusion of choice.

I think I see what you're getting at. Maybe it's a bit like cars: Logically there should only be one, maximally efficient, aerodynamic shape which, by extension, should lead to all cars which serve the same purpose looking the same. So by pure logic planes should essentially be identical because they are all concerned with getting a blade to wood at the optimal angle.

There's obviously room for variation in how you deliver that and provided a design isn't of a lower than optimal standard, then there is nothing to be bothered about. If you are maintaining that the illusion of choice means that it is being used to pass off planes which are demonstrably inferior to earlier models, then you definitely have a point. On the other hand, if, say, a LA plane design offers the same cutting efficiency as a conventional design, then it surely has to be regarded as a valid alternative in which case there would be no illusion in that particular choice.

 

[Jacob]

It's a bit like buying trainers. There are hundreds of them including some intended for specific uses. But when it comes down to it, whichever you choose as long as they fit it won't make an iota of difference to your performance (within reason).
The illusion of choice.

I think I see what you're getting at. Maybe it's a bit like cars: Logically there should only be one, maximally efficient, aerodynamic shape which, by extension, should lead to all cars which serve the same purpose looking the same. So by pure logic planes should essentially be identical because they are all concerned with getting a blade to wood at the optimal angle.

There's obviously room for variation in how you deliver that and provided a design isn't of a lower than optimal standard, then there is nothing to be bothered about. If you are maintaining that the illusion of choice means that it is being used to pass off planes which are demonstrably inferior to earlier models, then you definitely have a point. On the other hand, if, say, a LA plane design offers the same cutting efficiency as a conventional design, then it surely has to be regarded as a valid alternative in which case there would be no illusion in that particular choice.

If it offers "the same cutting efficiency" then there is no real choice as they are much the same.

 

[Andy Kev.]

[/quote]
If it offers "the same cutting efficiency" then there is no real choice as they are much the same.[/quote]

What I mean is that if e.g. Veritas offers a bevel up smoother which produces as good results as an old Record No.4 then the choice of plane is a valid one because you'd make your choice on the other features the two planes offered e.g. with the BU you could might like the idea of having two spare blades at different angles ready to go in it. With the Record you might be happy with one blade and prefer the fact that the plane is loads cheaper to buy. That has to be a valid choice.

 

[G S Haydon]

Hi Julian,

It is not the same plane but it was a V3 and looked just like the QS #4 I had for a bit. I did not have the chance to try out the IBC iron, it was just the T10 and the regular plane. The new style cap irons on most new planes come to such a sharp point that I find makes tight cap iron work harder. I just added a slightly steeper secondary bevel to the front of the cap iron to sort that. A very quick job, couple of mins.

Cheers

Hi Graham,

I'm finding it a bit difficult to work out where you put the bevel. Top or bottom of the edge? Perhaps, if it's not too much trouble, you put up a picture or diagram. I for one would greatly appreciate it.

Hello Fromey,

I'll see what I can do . In the meantime imagine the cap iron is like a 25 deg ground plane iron. I just added a steeper bevel to the front edge. More of that can be found here with a half decent picture http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/tes ... _935.shtml

Cheers

 

[Eric The Viking]

The chipbreaker screw head was hitting the end of the recess in the frog.

I can't find a conventional #5 in the new 'sweetheart' range they have, so am assuming it was their traditional design. Is it possible that the chipbreaker was incorrectly made - I mean with the screw hole too far from the business end?

It's strange to imagine that Stanley messed up a time honoured design that much. I'd have assumed that they'd outsource the double iron if anything, rather than the main castings, but logic doesn't seem to have played much part in their most recent offerings! Perhaps the thing has a significantly different frog to the older designs.

Do you remember at all? I can imagine not wanting to remember though!

E.

PS: Whilst googling to find out if there was a new #5 I'd missed, I came across a 2009 press release for the Sweetheart range. Apparently, the part of the company that makes it is seductively titled "Assembly & Demolition Strategic Business Unit."

I strongly recommend that you do NOT visit their media web site though, as it's been hacked, and the page I found is peppered with hidden <divs> advertising, er, odd medical products, etc. I'd tell them, but I don't trust their web forms. If anyone has the email of the head of the "Assembly & Demolition Strategic Business Unit", please PM me and I'll follow it up (he's a Chris W.).

 

[David C]

It was the trad design, bought off the net. And yes, either the c/b length was wrong or there was something wrong with frog casting

David

 

[iNewbie]

It's a bit like buying trainers. There are hundreds of them including some intended for specific uses. But when it comes down to it, whichever you choose as long as they fit it won't make an iota of difference to your performance (within reason).
The illusion of choice.

Choice is very important when it comes to Pronation when running. Your performance can be hindered by the wrong choice - why damage your body when you needn't...