Poll for Bevel Up and Bevel Down Preference

[David Weaver]

Probably the people who dimension entirely by hand or who do a lot of their dimensioning by hand (like face jointing, etc) will not ever get away from the BD planes. The flat footed feel of a BU plane, to me at least, does not lend itself to nimble use on an uneven surface. That to go along with the lateral projection of the iron to get depth and the sensitivity to lateral adjustment that I seem to notice with BU planes seems to make BD nicer to use on rough wood.

That's why I made my comment above about people who don't visit here as often, and who may be more likely to be doing smoothing only being a cohort of folks who could be more likely to prefer BU.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Your last comment interests me David, if for nothing else than my Lie Nielsen low angle jack is my only BU plane - and the one I've settled on for all my roughing work when processing rough lumber. I don't really know *why* I like it for that task, but I do. Certainly the sensitivity to adjustments you mention are less of any issue for me when using that heavily cambered blade - I really just set the thing by eye when doing that rough work.

Bevel up, bevel down, metal or wood, I still do 90% of my lateral adjustments with a hammer. I've thought about just driving those silly levers out of my BD planes . . .

[Jim R Edwards]

Bevel up. I only have three bevel down planes left. A LN 4 1/2 (it's a cult classic!) and i just cant sell it. Its like owning a 67 mustang! Clifton #7, it is such an outstanding plane and I got it for a great price I hate to get rid of it, and lastly a bedrock 608. It is was a project plane that I restored. Will be be selling that one soon to purchase a LN low angle jointer plane.

[David Weaver]

Looking at the results, i can only say "The Canadians, they are loyal, for sure"

Joshua, it may be that i'm extrapolating the feel of the LV planes to all BU planes, or maybe it's the center of gravity. I'd imagine nothing will ever be universal in hand tool woodworking, just like the single and double iron thing.

I just have always had a better feel on coarse work with BD planes, and with the chipbreaker stuff, i'm really digging the intermediate step with a panel plane at common pitch - one where the mouth can be wide enough at common pitch to give me a range of shaving thickness.

maybe if I had a 20 degree heavy infill maker's BU plane with a tote more downward, I'd have a different feel for it, but you never know what people think until you poll. And even then, you only know the thoughts of the people who answered.

[Prashun Patel]

I think the BU's get a lot of press and are in fashion right now.

Personally, I think the key is a sharp and properly angled blade.

I prefer any plane that makes removing and resetting the blade easy, bkz that encourages me to sharpen often. Right now, that's a Veritas BU jack.

[Derek Cohen]

Probably the people who dimension entirely by hand or who do a lot of their dimensioning by hand (like face jointing, etc) will not ever get away from the BD planes. The flat footed feel of a BU plane, to me at least, does not lend itself to nimble use on an uneven surface. That to go along with the lateral projection of the iron to get depth and the sensitivity to lateral adjustment that I seem to notice with BU planes seems to make BD nicer to use on rough wood ...

Sorry David, but I just do not agree. You want a nimble plane? Try the Veritas Small BU Smoother (I have one and a LN #3, so speak from experience). Angle for angle, the BU planes are far more agile and easier to push than BD planes. Compare the LV LA Smoother or LN #164 against a #4 (Stanley or LN). Try them at 45 degrees and 60 degrees (the BD planes would need back bevels). What you get from the BU planes is a lower centre of gravity, and this makes a noticeable difference in the hand.

Having said that, I do have a preference in the BU/BD option, and it is not simple but it hinges around the need for planes with high cutting angles and cambered irons.

For my style of planing I prefer BD planes. So there! What is my style? It comes down to sharpening. It is easier to free hand hone a blade for a BD plane than one for a BU plane. With the exception of a 25 degree bed BU smoother I built, all BU planes have a bed of 12 degrees (as you know). Since it is impractical to hone on a hollow grind, a honing guide is necessary to create a micro secondary bevel at the necessary angle. Now this is not an issue for those who typically prefer honing guides (you guys can simply enjoy the BU planes without a fuss), but I prefer free handing. It is a testimony to the performance of the BU planes that I use them as much as I do (and I use them a great deal). Once sharpened, they are a joy to use. It is just that I lack the patience to use a guide. Consequently, many of my planes are actually BD planes. I can whip out a blade, quickly renew an edge, and reset it as quickly. But they are not as light and nimble as the BU planes.

As a rule of thumb, BU planes excel at the angle extremes - high and low. BD planes excel in the mid range. Low cutting angles are preferred for end grain, such as on a shooting board. So which would you prefer, a LA Jack (with a 37 degree cutting angle) or a #5 (with a 45 degree cutting angle)? I know which I prefer. On the other hand I do have a BD shooting plane as well (a #51). This improves over the LA Jack, but it is not apples vesus apples, since the #51 has a 20 degree skewed blade and a lot more mass.

For removing waste fast, give me a BD plane any day. Why? Because it is about taking rank cuts and the cutting angle favours a mid range setting. (And this makes it ideal for a free handing).

Jointer? Well my preferred option is a long woodie, which is BD. However I much prefer the LV BU Jointer over a Stanley #7. The BU has a feel of precision owing to the extra control from the low centre of gravity.

At the end of the day the choice is a personal one. Both are capable of performing at a level that enables one to build anything one sets one's heart on building.




Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

Since it is impractical to hone on a hollow grind, a honing guide is necessary to create a micro secondary bevel at the necessary angle.

Hi Derek,

Off shoot question for you... I know that's it has always been your feeling that it's impractical to hone on a hollow grind in BU planes. Having read probably all you articles, as I understand it your feeling is that its impractical because of the need to camber a BU plane more to get the same effect. Correct? I only ask , because now that I have some BU planes I just haven't found this to be an issue at all. If I need more camber than I can hone in I simply grind it it. However, I actually haven't found this necessary since I don't use my BU planes for heavy work. For light work I find that I can hone in plenty of camber on a BU plane by starting the biasing of pressure on the corners when I'm on a 1k stone - where as on a BD plane I don't add any camber until I get to the fine stone. On BU planes I also very slightly "clip" the corners of my blades before I hone in camber as a further measure to avoid track marks if I don't put quite enough camber in. Long story short, I do the same things that folks do on BD planes, just to a slightly greater effect.

Anyway, I know theoretically why you use MBs on them and have also read your article about your secondary hollow grind. However, I would be curious what your experience has been in honing BU planes directly on the hollow grind, since it hasn't been something I've had a problem with. Just hoping you could clarify your thoughts on the matter. Could just be a case of different strokes for different folks...

[Sam Takeuchi]

The way I understand it, it's not the camber that's the issue, but producing repeatable and consistent honing angle (=cutting angle) from hollow ground bevel. Grinder tool rest setting isn't exactly the most accurate system to establish a bevel angle. It's not so much of a problem with BD planes as cutting angle is fixed, and it's not really important if it's 30, 28, 32 or whatever. Cutting angle will stays the same. However for BU planes, honing angle is the cutting angle, and to achieve repeatable and consistent performance, accurate honing angle is necessary. If honing angle is established from bevel angle, variation in tool rest angle will directly translates into honing angle and it can cause inconsistent performance or result, which may or may not pose a problem. To eliminate that variable, honing guide is pretty much the only way to achieve that for BU plane blades.

There is no problem hollow grinding BU plane blades, as I see it, hollow grinding is a maintenance issue and for BU plane blades, it is a way to reduce amount of metal you have to work (by grinding at shallow bevel, you only need to work on tiny amount of metal at edge for desired micro bevel angle, also greatly reducing the amount of metal needs to be removed for making slight camber than, say, full 50 degree bevel). To be honest, variation in a degree or two isn't much of a problem in actual use, but if you have a high angle blade with 50 degree bevel, it's not exactly the easiest or most practical keep blade set steady on the stone during honing. Honing guide ensures honing angle stays as close as possible for the life of a blade, taking human error factor out of the question.

[Chris Griggs]

Thanks for the clarification Sam.

I agree grinding isn't the most accurate way to set an angle, but as you said Sam I'm not worried about a degree or two. If I want a 50 degree included angle and I get 49 or 51 I don't think it matters (for me anyway, as always, YMMV). Also, once I establish the angle that works for what I'm doing, whatever it is, its pretty easy to repeat grind it to the same angle. A fresh hollow grind, while twice as much steel as an MB still isn't all that much steel, and again, I find I am able to hone in plenty of camber pretty quickly.

Anyway, based on what Sam said it seems like part of the reason freehanding BU planes on the hollow is not not an issue for me, is because I'm not using really high angles on my BU planes?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Chris

The issue is not grinding the bevel angle. A degree here-or-there is of little consequence. The problem is that of creating a fine (minimal) camber, per se. It is very difficult to achieve anything remotely accurate if you use a grinder. The camber on a jack is one thing, but the camber on a smoother is gentle and slight. On a full bevel face it is, nevertheless, too much steel to remove by hand on a 1000 waterstone. Consequently I have advocated a low primary bevel (e.g. 25 degrees) with a high (e.g. 50 degrees), cambered secondary bevel (using a honing guide). This involved the least amount of steel to be removed of all the methods.

I have never been successful at "clipping corners" either. In raking light I can see fine tracks.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sam Takeuchi]

Ah so I was off then.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Howzit them Canadians get to vote twice and us Yanks and the Mexicans only get to vote once? We're all Norte Americanos.

As a guess, I'll bet 94-98% of all planes ever made have been bevel down. This will certainly skew the data.

I use both and while often the choice is random, more often, it is based on what the first swipe or two on a particular piece of wood shows me. If whatever I used doesn't work, I shift planes until I get one that does.

[Derek Cohen]

Dave, I didn't get to vote at all - there is clearly prejudice against Antipodeans!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Chris

The issue is not grinding the bevel angle. A degree here-or-there is of little consequence. The problem is that of creating a fine (minimal) camber, per se. It is very difficult to achieve anything remotely accurate if you use a grinder. The camber on a jack is one thing, but the camber on a smoother is gentle and slight. On a full bevel face it is, nevertheless, too much steel to remove by hand on a 1000 waterstone. Consequently I have advocated a low primary bevel (e.g. 25 degrees) with a high, cambered secondary bevel (using a honing guide). This involved the least amount of steel to be removed of all the methods.

I have never been successful at "clipping corners" either. In raking light I can see fine tracks.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks Derek. That is what I initially thought your reasoning was. For whatever reason, I haven't found a need to use an MB to get fine smoothing camber on my BU planes, but I have also used BU planes far less then you, so maybe I just haven't ran across a situation where I need more than I am getting off the stones on the hollow grind, but still small amount.

I haven't had success with just clipping corners either. I just do it sometimes as an added measure to blades that I use for very fine work and have a minimal amount of camber in.

[David Weaver]

Dave, I didn't get to vote at all - there is clearly prejudice against Antipodeans!

Regards from Perth

Derek

You have the trick wood! I figure the aussie folks are going to be BU guys in general, because the design suits woods well, and my guess is that people are not going to be likely to hand dimension a 3x7foot piece of jarrah casework.

But that's a guess, I gave BU to the aussies by default.