Opinion: HAF vs. Back-bevel

[Jim Neeley]

Why would someone choose to pick up a HAF when they could get there with a spare blade that's back-beveled? Which would/do you choose and why?

[David Weaver]

Do neither, use the second iron to mitigate tearout without having anything to hone off and without the need to have an extra iron.

[Jim Matthews]

Do neither, use the second iron to mitigate tearout without having anything to hone off and without the need to have an extra iron.

I don't follow this - please explain.

[David Weaver]

sorry, the name second iron and chipbreaker are used interchangeably.

I haven't found anything yet that a 55 degree plane will plane that a properly set 45 degree plane with a chipbreaker won't. I used to think otherwise, but i'm starting to understand why high pitched planes pretty much disappeared even when a lot of the finish work was still done with planes.

[Derek Cohen]

I haven't found anything yet that a 55 degree plane will plane that a properly set 45 degree plane with a chipbreaker won't. I used to think otherwise, but i'm starting to understand why high pitched planes pretty much disappeared even when a lot of the finish work was still done with planes.

David, David, David ...:)

That's a big generalisation and there is little evidence to support it. Indeed, Old Street offer evidence that smoothers were best bedded at 55 degrees ... or why would they offer them in this configuration (not to mention as a single iron)? Look at moulding planes - mine are early 1900 and all bedded at 50 degrees.

Look, I am not knocking what you (and Warren) are evangelising. Indeed, I am trying to learn to improve my planing with a Stanley in the light of it. However there is absolutely no doubt in my mind - and a large body of supporting evidence - to demonstrate that high pitched planes have increased over the years simply because they work best in difficult grain, and with far, far less of a learning curve.

To the OP: I'd rather have a high angle frog than have to replace the blade. Frankly, there is extra effort in honing with a backbevel, and I'd rather not do it. Honing a single bevel on a BD is quick work since absolute accuracy is not essential. Honing a backbevel requires a degree of accuracy, since this affects the cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Derek, I'd say there's plenty of evidence to support it. There's plenty of evidence that getting to the point where you make a double iron common pitch plane work as well as a steep single iron plane does take some skill, though.

Until about 2 months ago, I was firmly in the single iron camp, and I won't abandon single iron planes, but this double iron stuff - well, I still haven't generated any tearout with anything with my $11 millers falls #9, and after long ago casting off all stanley type smoothers, I just got another MF #9 (this one a big spender at $20) since it has no signs of abuse that my #11 one has.

Warren doesn't do a very good job of proselytizing the double iron setup, he leaves too much mystery about it! Else I'd have caught on earlier. We know how much larry and warren agree about how to tackle different situations, though!

The benefit to the common pitch plane is that if the chipbreaker has a 50 degree face or thereabouts on it, it will work right along with any high angle plane of any pitch in anything, but leave a better finish than a steeply pitched plane (imagine how disappointed I am to find this after spending gobs of time to make a 55 degree infill smoother, which still is a wonderful plane to use, though). But the second iron can be backed off then when you don't need it, which with smoother shaving is often the case.

I'm pretty sure moulding planes are pitched for their wood because a double iron assembly isn't practical (and maybe too expensive for a whole set). But if they could implement a system, they'd work better against the grain without backing off a cut.

The thing that always stuck in the back of my head when I was changing pitch with single iron planes is that warren won the smooth planing contest at WIA a couple of years ago with a bailey #4, I guess, despite the presence of folks using custom-made infills from some of the popular makers.

I suspect most of the world of woodworking will not get around to setting the second iron, because it's sort of a black art or regarded as such. That's fine, I guess, but in the end it's the easier and cheaper solution. The multitude of high angle planes that's shown up lately has done so, I guess, because most of the world of woodworking is made of amateurs who haven't been told the right thing. (that and the high angle planes work, it's just that you now have two planes to do what one could do). I guess what I'm saying is high pitched planes have increased over the last few years not because they work "best", but because they work "easiest" for a new woodworker.

[Allen Breinig]

Derek
Would a high angle plane be more prone to chatter than a standard angle?
Thanks,
Allen

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Allen

As I understand, chatter has little to do with bed angle. Chatter is due to the blade flexing. This is a function of a blade that does not bed correctly. The problem may lie with the bed or blade not being flat, or perhaps just not secured properly. A thicker blade will flex less than a thin blade, and if more stress is placed on the thin blade, such as on harder wood, it may then chatter.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Coloccia]

Who's Warren? Who's Larry? What's so difficult about setting a chip breaker? I'm very confused.

[David Weaver]

Who's Warren? Who's Larry? What's so difficult about setting a chip breaker? I'm very confused.

Warren Mickley, Larry Williams. Pretty much the axis and allies of the single iron and double iron argument. They don't argue on here, thus the obscurity of the discussion, I guess.

I guess the only difficulty in setting a chipbreaker is to set it so that it makes it impossible to create tearout on anything on a moderately heavy smoothing cut (figured, quartered face grain, whatever), and regardless of the direction a plane is pushed- but at the same time so that it offers a brighter finish than a steeper pitched plane.

I was firmly in the single iron camp for a long time because it bothered me that setting the second iron that close to the edge without running an iron edge (and damaging an edge) seemed tedious. And because if the second iron isn't that close to the edge, it doesn't do anything to mitigate tearout. I don't know how long it takes me to set one that close now, 15 seconds? I can live with that. When it took me a minute or so of futzing and tapping the second iron with a hammer, i thought it was obnoxious.

[Derek Cohen]

David

Regardless of whether you can get a common Stanley plane to rival a Holtey, it is comments such as "it can take months before you get it" that will consign the technique to the scrapheap. After all, it takes but 2 minutes to master a plane that is dedicated to plane interlocked grain. As you noted, Warren shrouds his methods in mystery, which just adds to my comment. Unless it is out there, no one will know. I have no doubt that there is "something" there to learn, since I respect your opinion, but I do not accept that there is "plenty of evidence to support it", as you describe. I certainly have not come across historical data or textbooks that detail this information.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jeff Heath]

This discussion, and these 2 camps, have been raging word wars for as long as the internet has had woodworking forums on it. I wonder if the old timers 200 years ago, walking home together from the pitsaw to their respective shops, had lively discussions about this very topic, as well as pins first, tails first, water stones or oil stones, and on and on an on......

I am relatively new to the discussions here at the Creek, but certainly not new to hand planes. I can tell you from my own experiences with fun, wavy timbers of crotchwood, curl, burl, and the like that my 45° Lie Nielsen, and even my York pitch 4 1/2, will not remove all the tearout. In these circumstances, I reach for my LA jack plane, remove the 25° bevel iron, insert my (equivalent through the math) approx. 57° iron, and am always able to smooth the roughest of grain.

I cannot speak to what a Holtey or a finely tuned old Norris or Spiers will do, as I've never had either in my hands. I couldn't afford one now, and wouldn't buy one even if I won the lottery. Well, I might buy one of those "never used" Norris planes available on the auction site right now, complete with the wrinkled box, but that's a pipe dream.

I say approximately because I grind by eye, not with any protractor-type-measuring-gadgets. I have an absolutely gorgeous 2 1/2" thick hunk of crotch maple that actually survived the air drying process of 10 years that will be the chop for the leg vise of my new workbench. I was just smoothing it yesterday, and the York smoother was almost a match for the task, but a few areas still needed the LA jack. I had just freshly sharpened the iron on both so well that you could perform surgery in the reflection of the polish, and set the chipbreaker so tight that they were almost even. Still left a little fuzziness in a few areas.

Not to take sides, but this has been my personal experience. I say, whatever works for you, works for you. Whichever camp you reside in, I doubt any words here will change your campfire location anytime soon.

Jeff

[David Weaver]

Derek, months may be a bit strong. Two weeks should be sufficient.

[Sean Richards]

Who's Warren? Who's Larry? What's so difficult about setting a chip breaker? I'm very confused.

Not sure who Warren and Larry are either? I see that was answered below. Anyway what is difficult about setting a cap-iron? Rule of thumb was always 1/64" for fine finish work and as close as you can get for hard/difficult woods.

[David Weaver]

Well, as the discussion comes up lately about the second iron, more and more people are coming forward saying what seems correct about setting them.

It seemed like at one point, Warren was the only person who said they haven't experienced tearout from smooth planing for decades. Getting the cap iron as close as you can to the iron will certainly do that, though (completely mitigate tearout).

Your rule of thumb is good, the chipbreaker is basically removed from doing anything at a 64th of an inch, and nothing is compressed on the surface of the wood (at least from what I can tell, and study data suggests that 1/64th away does not do a whole lot to mitigate tearout, maybe it reduces it in a heavy cut).

"as close as you can" probably lines up with about the thickness of a sheet of paper right at the edge of the iron, which is basically bulletproof with a 2 thousandth thickness shaving, something I'd consider fairly coarse for a smoother shaving where you expect to have an absolute finish surface with even polish.

I've seen a lot of older articles (like from the 50s or so) that suggest a setup between a 16th and a 32nd, I guess those could be referred to as "carpenter's" setups, and if anyone used them in a heavy smoothing cut, it's no surprise they'd run to a higher angle plane.

I don't intend to become someone who says that there is no other way to go than a double iron plane, but I recognize now consciously that the high angle planes that I have and the bevel up low angle planes that I have are completely unnecessary, and I never sand or scrape.

The curious thing, anyway, is that when warren says he never gets tearout with a stanley #4, usually the room clears and it's 10 against warren on the short side. I used to say the same thing "no way you never get tearout with a bench plane". I guess I'm a bit miffed this has never been covered in detail in the mainstream woodworking publications. But in reality, there are few articles written in those by people who use hand tools first and write articles for a living second. It's the other way around, thus we get goofy articles and blog posts that tell us things like vintage tools are a bad bargain against premium tools.

[Darren Brewster]

David, do you or anyone else know if there are any chipbreakers on the market that are angled like in the research video straight from the factory? It seemed to me that the angled chipbreaker helped quite a bit.

[Maurice Ungaro]

Darren,
The new generation of chip breakers (cap iron, etc.) all appear to be dead flat slabs of steel, with an angled leading edge. Check out those from Hock, Lee Valley, an Lie-Nielsen.

[David Weaver]

What maurice said.

However, the stock stanley chipbreaker (where it meets the wood) is quite well designed and is probably in the neighborhood of 50 degrees effective. It works very well, so there's no great need to go with a hock, LN, etc chipbreaker that is cut from flat stock with a flat bevel (as opposed to the stamped stanley version).

I actually kind of like the stanley design a little bit better right now because I think it gives more leeway with a good fit against the lever cap, and perhaps it's a bit more likely to be focusing the force of the lever cap right at the cutting edge.

[Jim Neeley]

Guys, I want to thank each of you immensely for your insight on this topic.

I can see now, as Jeff said (thanks, Jeff) that there are two schools of thought here.. with devout followers on each side. As with many things in woodworking, there's more than one way to skin the cat!!! :)

Jim in Alaska

[John Coloccia]

What I want to know is how did people manage 100 years ago. What was the standard technique and wisdom when they had to use these tools to make a living? Sorry, I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest but I have to wonder if there's knowledge out there that's been overlooked or ignored and if we're not reinventing the wheel. Perhaps we're making the wheel better, but I find it hard to believe that we're suddenly discovering new knowledge about something as common as setting a chip breaker. Where's The Schwarz and Joel when you need them?

I have to think that this is one of the things you learned to do when you were an apprentice, and I have to think that there's some simple technique for doing it that's been figured out.

To me, this wreaks of one of those things that you just learn to do by watching someone else do it, not by reading about it. I would love to see someone make a video showing how they set their chipbreaker for optimal performance, and talk us through all the boring steps and thought processes they go through doing it as opposed to just writing about it. That would be very instructive.

edit: Incidentally, the way I set my chipbreaker close is that I place the pair on a flat piece of wood, and tip the iron forward slightly....and then tighten it down. That seems to work for me.

[John Coloccia]

So let me just clarify for a moment...

The way you put an end to the debate and just get data out there for people to make up their own mind is make a video and:

- find a piece of wood that's prone to tearout
- start from scratch....sharpen your HAF iron...sharpen your regular iron
- show the results from both...show the setup...show the tearout...show the problems...show the performance of both
- fiddle around with a back bevel if you want to
- show the performance with a properly set chipbreaker, including additional sharpening that you're doing, and setup on the chip breaker

That will put an end to the debate and just get data out there for people to see and try for themselves. No cuts, no shortcuts.... Just a boring, 30 minute video showing the whole process. I would watch that and appreciate it. I watched a long, boring video of The Schwarz tuning up a scraper, for heaven's sake, and I enjoyed it and learned something. If I had spare irons, a HAF, and maybe a 4 1/2 I'd do it myself, but I don't....but I know people do.

Someone who has this stuff just hit record and show the whole process, warts and all, and lets get some practical information we can apply to our own work. :D

[Bill Rhodus]

I work primarily with cherry, poplar, and walnut and in the past I would borrow a Veritas BUS to tackle those rare pieces that I could not smooth with my Baily type planes. After viewing the Japanese video currently making the rounds, I began experimenting with how far my chipbreaker (Hock and Stanley) are set from the cutting edge. I had previously used the popular setting of 1/64 to 1/32 and gave it no further thought, however, when I changed the angle on the chipbreaker to 50 degrees and set it .006 to .008 from the edge all of my issues went away; wood from my shop I had previously been unable to plane (needed the Veritas BUS) I was now able to smooth. The premise I have developed from this (and is currently in flux) is that 1. the Baily style planes are probably fine for most of the domestic woods that I commonly use but there is little doubt in my mind that the BU planes (or HA)with a steeper pitch are easier for a beginner working from the information readily available on the net 2. the steeper pitch planes work better to tame the woods with wild or interlocked grain.
I wonder how much of the controversy over BD/BU (HA) planes is rooted in the wood we are using? From my limited experience I believe I would be lost if I were using the Aussie woods Derek uses without a BU plane, conversly I believe I am now able to tame most of the domestic hardwoods with the Baily style planes with a bit more experimentation and education on my part. With that said, I will be purchasing a Veritas BU plane as soon as my budget allows.

[David Weaver]

I have the planes to do it john, but not the laziness to overcome figuring out whether or not I can get a coherent video from my (very messy) shop.

I guess the argument (if someone would want to call it that, I'm just making a point that nobody with a common #4 needs to buy a plane to smooth anything, not that other methods don't work - because they do) would be over a lot sooner if one method or the other outright failed. Given how quickly the single iron planes took a back seat to the double iron planes in the 1800s, I'd assume that if you could find a lot of literature about anything (searching google books for "double iron plane" brings up a fair amount), it would point us toward people using cap irons effectively on a double iron plane. But who knows? It's not like single iron planes where phased out, they remained in the catalogs.

Bill's response is exactly what I'm leaning toward with the suggestion that buying more planes is something people can do if they *want* to do it, but it's not something they *need* to do by any means. I've certainly bought my share (I already have the HA single iron planes, etc). The accumulation was expensive, but I had the money to spend.

If I got into woodworking now, I probably would lean a lot toward a minimalist tool kit, but I'd expect the results to be just as good with no chance of anything nasty happening while I'm planing.

[george wilson]

I have seen a lot of 18th. C. single irons that were beveled on their cutting edges to make them behave like a higher angle plane. It was apparently done VERY frequently A quick and dirty,but effective solution by people who never,ever used power tools,and made their livings with hand tools. That's got to tell us something.

[David Weaver]

George, that's even a method endorsed by Toshio Odate in his book to solve a number of problems
* to deal with abrasive woods
* to plane difficult wood
* to work a new iron for a while that might have a brittle edge from a blacksmith

Despite purists decrying that no back bevel or ruler trick style modification should be done to a japanese iron (i'd imagine most users would probably still get a better edge on a japanese plane with a back bevel because it ensures the polish gets to the edge and metal worked is minimal), whether or not they want to admit to it - and none seem to.

[Bryce Adams]

David,

I find it very interesting that you can eliminate tear out by setting the cap iron very close to the edge. I've seen some of your earlier posts that say setting this correctly can take a couple of weeks to learn. Would you please explain, with whatever detail you can, how to go about properly setting the cap iron?

Sounds like something I'd like to learn.

Thanks,

Bryce

[david charlesworth]

Well, I just learned something new.
The ridiculously close set cap iron/chipbreaker works.

I found some quartered American Cherry with grain rising at about 30 degrees. This was planed in the "wrong" direction with two Stanley planes with replacement blades and c/bs. Both planes have mouths of about 4 thou" and were set for a 3-4 thou" shaving.
My usual plane with c/b set at about 1/64 or 15 thou" from the blade edge, caused comprehensive tearout (as I knew it would).
The second plane with the c/b set about 4 to 8 thou" from the blade edge, caused none.

I found it ridiculously exciting to be able to demonstrate something "new". Balanced of course by the mild embarrasment of having given dubious advice for the last 35 years........

best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[David Weaver]

Fabulous, david, this is exactly the kind of situation I found the first time I set it close. Instead of getting the awful feel that a plane tearing the surface provides, if I went against the grain, I got a slightly less bright surface and resistance from the plane telling me to turn it around.

From the practical standpoint of someone who uses planes entirely to do their dimensioning and finishing, once you have flattened the face of a board (or planed the opposite face to thickness), the smoother should be able to take nothing but through strokes even on hard to plane stuff, and be done as soon as the marks from the jointer or try plane are gone - leaving nothing behind but a smoothed surface that looks better than if it had been scraped with a polished burr (which doesn't leave a bad surface for what it is) or hit with a high angle plane.

The reason I've been beating this drum is because I do not dimension with power tools and I do not, after getting gassed by getting through the jack, and then jointer or panel plane... I do not enjoy having pop-up spots of tearout without having to back off a shaving to a ridiculously thin level. This setup provides the solution in allowing you to work an iron for a while, with a practically thick shaving for fairly quick work, without the threat of tearout and with a nice bright surface quality. Stark contrast to the wood show trick of getting a .0003-.0005" shaving out of a plane to wow newbie spectators, that is not practical when you have six large panels to flatten and smooth.

And as you've set it up with your test, you've now limited the worst thing that can happen to be planing against the grain such that you will probably notice the polish isn't as bright on the wood surface and the push of the plane might be harder. But no more harm is done than needing to turn the board around and work it the other way - there is no tearout to remove due to the "mistake" of planing into the grain and taking a fairly aggressive shaving for a smoother.

A couple of years ago, I built a few planes that controlled this by mouth size (.004 for smoothing work and about .01 for coarser work) and a steeper pitch (55 degrees), but with the chipbreaker set, this, in fact, works with a mouth that's set open to a fat 16th of an inch. Nobody seemed that excited anyway when I said everyone should make one 55 degree infill with a 3-4 thousandth mouth to have a tearout proof plane (which is still a nice idea, it's a fast plane to sharpen and set and it works wonderfully, but it's not cheap in time or money to make a plane of that quality).

Another side benefit is my panel plane with the mouth set (that's probably not the way to say it, it's not set, it's built with it fixed) at .01", which used to be such that it was almost good enough for finish work can now flatten and smooth panels at once, in one shot with normal through shavings. without the chipbreaker set properly, there always ended up being a couple of spots that needed work with the smoother instead.

I've been pushing steep pitch for 6 years until now, the only reason not longer is because thats all the longer I've been working wood, I didn't know anything else and gleefully chimed in that trouble planing should be solved by opening the wallet. Such a simple little process, all we needed to know was how close the cap iron needs to be set to actually do something effective.

[Jack Curtis]

...Despite purists decrying that no back bevel or ruler trick style modification should be done to a japanese iron (i'd imagine most users would probably still get a better edge on a japanese plane with a back bevel because it ensures the polish gets to the edge and metal worked is minimal), whether or not they want to admit to it - and none seem to.

Wow, you've managed to turn "purist" into a dirty word. And you've managed to attribute motivation to maintaining that dirty word status. You're so clever.

George, are you saying that old single iron planes (western? fairly thin?) have secondary bevels, or one big bevel?

[David Weaver]

Purist has no good or bad pretense without context. If it's a matter of design to create something great, I think that's great. If someone says "oh...my gosh...never ever put a back bevel on a japanese plane in difficult or abrasive wood", then that's pointlessly restrictive, and it doesn't even appear to be historically accurate.

George is talking about a back bevel, one on the non-bevel side of the iron.

There's written history (western origin) touting the development of an extra thick iron to apply a back bevel as early as the 1820s (for difficult woods). I'm sure craftsmen did it before that.

[Jack Curtis]

Purist has no good or bad pretense without context. If it's a matter of design to create something great, I think that's great. If someone says "oh...my gosh...never ever put a back bevel on a japanese plane in difficult or abrasive wood", then that's pointlessly restrictive, and it doesn't even appear to be historically accurate.

George is talking about a back bevel, one on the non-bevel side of the iron.

There's written history (western origin) touting the development of an extra thick iron to apply a back bevel as early as the 1820s (for difficult woods). I'm sure craftsmen did it before that.

Is worrying about historical accuracy purist or not?

George said "on the cutting edge," which could be front or back, which is why I asked George. I still ask.

How thick is western extra-thick?

[george wilson]

Yes,I referred to a back bevel. Sorry I haven't been looking at the forum much lately. Waiting for the spirit to move me,I guess. It isn't moving me lately.:)

I don't mean to sound like a historical purist. I just know that the real old time craftsmen had to figure out how to make do with what they had,and did so. I am also sure that they knew more tricks than most do today,because they weren't stupid,and this was the technology they had,and they worked daily much harder than any of us must to scratch out a living,or starve. They had to compete with other clever,knolwledgable craftsmen to get the best business. They cared more about craftsmanship (and so did the general population) than we do today by miles. They competed very hard to get the most money for the highest quality goods. You HAD to be the best to get into a London guild. The general (educated) population new more about art than most people today,and they demanded perfection and quality that most educated people today have no idea of. Look at the gaudy,tasteless things you may have seen in the Trump penthouse. Money,yes,art education,no.

Being in a museum,I had to learn myself how to get things done with simple early tools . Developing as much personal skill as possible also helps to bridge the shortcomings in available technology. I have jokingly called it developing charisma with materials,but most here think that is no joke,but is the truth. It is surprising what can be accomplished when you learn how to coax the best out of your tools and materials.

For example,it is possible to learn how to make a hand bored and reamed rifle barrel straight to very close tolerances (better than .0001") with simple means. You look down the barrel,and see radiating but interrupted rays of light mirroring off the walls of the bore. When you learn to bend the barrel until the light rays are intact all the way down the bore,you have made a very,very accurately straight barrel without sophisticated optical measuring devices or machine tools. In fact,the hand adjusting of bores is still carried on today in good factories,using a simple screw press to slightly adjust the barrel until you get those continuous rays of light. Then,the barrel is ready to rifle.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

George said "on the cutting edge," which could be front or back, which is why I asked George. I still ask.


Only adding a bit of bevel on the back will make it act like a higher-angle plane, though.

[george wilson]

That is the whole point of adding the back bevel.

[Jack Curtis]

Thanks, George.

Joshua, I just didn't know that. Thanks.