Drawbacks to high angle frogs?

[Curtis Niedermier]

Everyone talks about using high angle frogs for bevel down planes when dealing with difficult grain. LN makes a 50 and 55 degree frog. So if you're not going to plane end grain is there a downside of the high angle frog? Is there any reason to get the standard frog?

[Pedro Reyes]

It makes the plane noticeably harder to push, so if most of your work can be done with STD angle (and generally that is the case) then that would be reason to at least get both if not just get STD and use a scraper when 45 degrees simple won't do.

/p

[Derek Cohen]

The "harder to push" criticism is really a fallacy because it reduces many variable to one.

Firstly, there is not much difference between a 45- and 50 degreed cutting angle on LN planes of the same width. A more noticeable difference only begins at 55 degrees.

Secondly, it depends also on the sharpness of the blade and the depth of cut.

Thirdly, there is the width of the plane to consider. A #3 at 55 degrees (1 3/4" wide) may have less resistance than a #4 1/2 at 45 degrees (2 3/8" wide).

Finally, just wax the sole and any difference will disappear!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Harder to push is not a fallacy unless all you use your plane for is smoothing, and at that very light strokes.

If you dimension wood by hand from rough, then there's no reason to have a high angle frog, it takes some of the usefulness right out of the plane.

And I agree with derek, the 50 degree frog is just about useless. It can't really mitigate any serious tearout without the cap iron, and then you've forced yourself to use a cap iron with a high angle frog, which is completely pointless for anything that I've ever planed.

A much better strategy is to buy the common pitch frog and learn to use the cap iron - and hope that LN drilled the holes in the cap iron correctly so that it can get all the way to the edge. It's apparent at least at some point they had no clue how to use a cap iron, and they still push the high angle frogs as the preferred method to mitigate tearout when they generally make the plane less useful in the long run. I suppose they feel like they've created a solution so they have to push it.

[Kees Heiden]

All other things being equal, the plane becomes harder to push. This extra energy has to end up somewhere. In this case, at the edge. So it is not unreasonable to believe that this will lead to more edge wear, but the jury is still out on that one. Add to that the high price of these high angle frogs.

[Jim Foster]

This sounds logical, but I strongly suspect it's incorrect. What you stated is only sure to be true in a nicely homogenous material that does not need a high angle frog.


All other things being equal, the plane becomes harder to push. This extra energy has to end up somewhere. In this case, at the edge. So it is not unreasonable to believe that this will lead to more edge wear, but the jury is still out on that one. Add to that the high price of these high angle frogs.

[Chris Fournier]

A higher cutting angle is harder to push, simple as that. You may wax a sole and that relieves friction but it does not mitigate the extra effort required to move that cutting edge through the wood. you certainly could reduce the pressure required to push a high angle frog by reducing either the cutting depth or the iron width but neither of these solutions have contributed toa falicy.

Tighter cutting edge to cap iron positioning really does reduce tear out and will improve your results at any angle. Also re sharpening just before you hit your trouble spot is a good strategy. I have the 50 degree frog in my #4 and I leave it there full time. I like it and it does provide me with better results in dicey circumstances. It is the only HA frog that I have.

I personally think that given materials and machining the price is reasonable.

[David Weaver]

With the cap iron, you won't run into some splintering breaking hard-to push material that you may run into with an open mouth plane that has a cap iron set far off or no cap iron at all.

Essentially, there is nothing that a common pitch plane can't plane that a 55 degree iron can, and it can mitigate tearout without getting accordion shavings or straightened shavings (which do make a cap iron plane a lot harder to push).

[David Weaver]

I personally think that given materials and machining the price is reasonable.

Certainly. The rest of us just need to try to make a bronze frog or a plane as precise as a LN to find that there's nothing out of line with the price of the goods. It's the communicated need for them that I don't agree with. The high frog was LN's solution to tearout apparently before they had any clue how a cap iron worked, and now that they know it works, they describe using the cap iron as "fiddly", which is really not accurate.

But $75 or whatever it is for a very precisely machined piece of cast bronze is not a bad price.

[Kees Heiden]

In itself the price isn't unreasonable, but you don't really need it. At the other hand, we buy all the time things we don't really need of course.

A backbevel is another way to get a higher cutting angle. It's for free.

[Derek Cohen]

Given a choice of a low bed and a high bed I'd rather be using a low bed - as I stated before, all things equal, the low bed will be easier to push. No doubt about that. Higher angles wil create greater resistance.

The question asked by the OP appears as if it may be answered simply, but that the answer is (as always) rather more complex. The answer is that there are a number of ways to do the job of a higher cutting angle because, as we all know, the reason a higher angle is brought up must be to plane more complex grain.

The reason LN introduced higher angle frogs was not because they did not know how to use a chip breaker, but because at that time the higher cutting angle (created by the higher bed) was the de rigueur method of controlling tear out. Many other planemakers did (and continue to do) the same: HNT Gordon, Old Street, and Brese just to name a few. BU planes made their name based on their ability to plane at high cutting angles.

The question that the OP is asking is whether the higher angle LN frogs do the job and whether they are worth it. The answer may be about the effort of pushing them. It may be about which angles are effective. It may be about the alternatives, and whether the alternatives are better or worse. It may include what techniques may or should be applied to level the playing field.

The answer is that there are a number of possibilities for planing complex grain. Some are better than others, some are easier than others, and some are pursued by some with a religious fervour. There is no simple answer.

One direct answer is that the 55 degree frog is a significant step up from the 45 degree frog. The 50 degree frog is still a worthwhile compromise. If you go for a 55 degree frog, then wax the sole of the plane. It will make a remarkable difference. 55 degrees is probably at the higher end of the range for North American woods. In Australia we would prefer 60 degrees. For many 50 degrees would take the plane up a notch. I think it is a good compromise if you are unsure about using the chip breaker (as it does take some practice and skill). 50 degrees plus the chip breaker has about the same effect as a 60 degree cutting angle. I have used a 45-, 50-, and 55 degree frog with and without the chipbreaker. They are additive, but it will always come down to what you need (in the wood you work) and what you are skilled to do.

There is also the BU plane as an alternative. There are so many alternatives.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Curtis Niedermier]

Hmm. Didn't expect so much to think about when I asked the original question. I've not used a high angle LN plane, but was considering getting a No. 4 with 55 or 50 degree frog when I get my LN Christmas gift cards (yee-ha) in a couple weeks. I don't plan to have multiple frogs for swapping out. I just want one frog to leave in at all times, and will use the plane as my go-to smoother. Maybe I'll just keep it simple and get the standard. Or maybe I can find one to try, since "hard to push" is definitely subjective.

[David Weaver]

There is also the BU plane as an alternative. There are so many alternatives.



That is the route I would go if I were in need of something a common pitch plane can't handle. Here in the US, I haven't found anything yet in several years, and that goes from pine to cocobolo.

That would make the simple answer that the common pitch plane and learning use of the cap iron is a better alternative than getting a high angle frog. Especially if the plane is ever going to be used in any part of finishing lumber from rough.

For high angle planes and exclusion of the cap iron entirely, the BU design is more sensible and more flexible option.

[Warren Mickley]

The biggest drawback for the high angle frog is the quality of the surface it leaves behind. Planing at high angles just does not leave as fine a surface as a lower angle.

[Chris Griggs]

50 degrees is a nice all around angle, but since you are getting a double iron plane I too would say go with 45 and learn to set the chipbreaker. Just last weekend I was doing some side by side comparison of my new SBUS that I set up with a 55 degree included angle against my Miller Falls No 8 (3 sized). My new plane is a nicer plane to use, but in terms of eliminating/preventing tearout the the 45 degrees with the CB did as good and maybe even a little better than the 55 degree angle. For reference was planing straight against the grain in hard maple taking progressively thicker shavings until I got tearout. Anyway, this response isn't intended as another BD/BU comparison, it is simply to state that the chipbreaker matches the performance of at at least a 55 degree angle when it comes to removing issues with tearout. In my experience Dereks finding that it has the effect of adding 10-15 degrees is right on the money. Anyway, long story short, if you're not working any woods that couldn't be planed with plane that has a 55-60 degree bed than there is not a reason to get anything other than the 45.

[Chris Fournier]

Given a choice of a low bed and a high bed I'd rather be using a low bed - as I stated before, all things equal, the low bed will be easier to push. No doubt about that. Higher angles wil create greater resistance.

The question asked by the OP appears as if it may be answered simply, but that the answer is (as always) rather more complex. The answer is that there are a number of ways to do the job of a higher cutting angle because, as we all know, the reason a higher angle is brought up must be to plane more complex grain.

The reason LN introduced higher angle frogs was not because they did not know how to use a chip breaker, but because at that time the higher cutting angle (created by the higher bed) was the de rigueur method of controlling tear out. Many other planemakers did (and continue to do) the same: HNT Gordon, Old Street, and Brese just to name a few. BU planes made their name based on their ability to plane at high cutting angles.

The question that the OP is asking is whether the higher angle LN frogs do the job and whether they are worth it. The answer may be about the effort of pushing them. It may be about which angles are effective. It may be about the alternatives, and whether the alternatives are better or worse. It may include what techniques may or should be applied to level the playing field.

The answer is that there are a number of possibilities for planing complex grain. Some are better than others, some are easier than others, and some are pursued by some with a religious fervour. There is no simple answer.

One direct answer is that the 55 degree frog is a significant step up from the 45 degree frog. The 50 degree frog is still a worthwhile compromise. If you go for a 55 degree frog, then wax the sole of the plane. It will make a remarkable difference. 55 degrees is probably at the higher end of the range for North American woods. In Australia we would prefer 60 degrees. For many 50 degrees would take the plane up a notch. I think it is a good compromise if you are unsure about using the chip breaker (as it does take some practice and skill). 50 degrees plus the chip breaker has about the same effect as a 60 degree cutting angle. I have used a 45-, 50-, and 55 degree frog with and without the chipbreaker. They are additive, but it will always come down to what you need (in the wood you work) and what you are skilled to do.

There is also the BU plane as an alternative. There are so many alternatives.

Regards from Perth

Derek

This seems to be a decided change of position from your first post without saying as much. My reading of course.

[Derek Cohen]

Not at all, Chris. I was simply expanding on the issues involved in such a way to avoid using the word "fallacy". It seemed that others did not understand that I intended that word to indicate that there were many ways around the increased resistance with a higher angle frog. For example, one could reduce friction with a narrower plane or a waxed sole. There are lots of choices - the point is not to get side tracked by one factor by blowing it out of proportion.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bob Jones]

Higher cutting angles can also leave a different look to the surface. Kind of like a scraper leaves a different surface. I like all my frogs to be at the same 45 deg angle.

[Chris Fournier]

Not at all, Chris. I was simply expanding on the issues involved in such a way to avoid using the word "fallacy". It seemed that others did not understand that I intended that word to indicate that there were many ways around the increased resistance with a higher angle frog. For example, one could reduce friction with a narrower plane or a waxed sole. There are lots of choices - the point is not to get side tracked by one factor by blowing it out of proportion.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Exactly what I thought. Double talk.

[Derek Cohen]

Higher cutting angles can also leave a different look to the surface. Kind of like a scraper leaves a different surface. I like all my frogs to be at the same 45 deg angle.

Hi Bob

I cannot speak for soft woods - but then I would not be using a high angle plane on straight grain there or where softer woods benefit from a lower angle or across the grain - however with a few years under my belt using high angles on hard woods with complex grain, I will say that the representation as a scraper is quite misleading.

"More of a scraping cut" means to me that the high angle is reaching in the direction of the angles associated with a scraper plane. 60 degrees is not a scraper's cut.

The question is whether there is a difference left on the surface on hardwood with cutting angles at 45 degrees and 60 degrees. The answer is that any difference - if any - is irrelevant. I cannot detect it before a finish (except when the lower angle creates tearout!! :( ). And after a finish I dare you to detect a finish! Indeed, both FWW and Wood magazines ran articles demonstrating this. The finish is a great leveller. But then we do not plane just for a finish; we plane as a method. Similarly, the recent blog video by Paul Sellers demonstrating planing with different grits (250/1000/8000) was to demonstrate the ease of planing not the finish, per se - the latter differed little.

The only woodworkers I know that are planing for the complete finish are some Japanese woodworkers for whom burnished wood is the finish.

For the rest of us, planing with high angles or planing with the chip breaker is about minimising tearout, and not the surface finish, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Exactly what I thought. Double talk.

Chris, you are now on my ignore list. I have not yet come across a post from you where you were not attacking me. You can PM me if you believe I have misunderstood your intent.

Derek

[Leigh Betsch]

I've built a few smoothing planes with a 55 angle. One of the benefits I find is that the high angle allows me to minimize the length. This gives a bit lighter plane and shorter smoother to follow the wood. My plane soles are 3/8" thick so a bit shorter to reduce some of the weight is a good thing. I only use my smothers for very light cuts and a very sharp blade so I don't get into the hard push zone like a jack plane would. My last plane I made I added a chip breaker so I can play with that also.
But the OP's question was a high angle frog in a standard 45 degree plane body, so no advantage in plane length. So I dunno, I leave the OPs question to others.

[Jim Koepke]

Everyone talks about using high angle frogs for bevel down planes when dealing with difficult grain. LN makes a 50 and 55 degree frog. So if you're not going to plane end grain is there a downside of the high angle frog? Is there any reason to get the standard frog?

My interpretation of this boils down to, Is there any reason to get an LN plane with a standard frog?

For me, the answer would be the only reason to buy an LN plane would be to get one with a 50º or 55º frog.

None of my Stanley/Bailey planes is as nice as an LN, but they all work fine with a 45º frog. Why purchase an LN that will pretty much just be a nice duplicate? If that much of my money is going out of pocket for a new tool it has to have something to set it apart from what is already in my selection.

IMO, BU planes do not perform exactly the same as BD planes with a chip breaker.

A few short years ago, the art of setting the chip breaker was not as well known as it is today. Many likely still do not understand its use. The original Bailey patent claimed it was to add strength to thinner blades.

So far my luck has been fair with swirly grain. With a sharp blade and a chip breaker set close to the edge tear out has been minimized. Small patches of swirling grain can usually be taken care of with very light cuts against the grain.

jtk

[Chris Fournier]

fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies


1.
a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"


synonyms:
misconception (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+misconception&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQ_SowAA), misbelief (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+misbelief&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CC0Q_SowAA), delusion (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+delusion&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q_SowAA), mistaken impression, error (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+error&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q_SowAA), misapprehension (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+misapprehension&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQ_SowAA), misinterpretation, misconstruction (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+misconstruction&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ_SowAA), mistake (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/search?biw=1600&bih=764&q=define+mistake&sa=X&ei=Kl6sUo_cI8aIygG754HIAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ_SowAA);











I didn't use the word but I do feel that staying on point to defend or retract its use is the right thing to do. Nothing personal Derek. No reponse expected or required. Our positions speak for themselves.

[glenn bradley]

The argument for BU planes marches on :). I enjoy having the ease of changing from a 25* to a 38* to a 50* iron as required. I'd put your money there if you often work with difficult figure like I do. I have a BU smoother, jack and jointer that all take the same size iron which makes it make even more sense.

[David Kuzdrall]

Hopefully this isn't a full hijack of this thread but do high angle frogs exist for vintage Stanley Bailey planes or would one just go with a back bevel?

[David Weaver]

They don't exist for stanley planes because one would just use a chipbreaker instead. a back bevel will work, too, though it's a less optimal solution.

[Simon MacGowen]

Apart from a high angle frog, a back bevel created on the blade and used in the standard frog is another option.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Apart from a high angle frog, a back bevel created on the blade and used in the standard frog is another option.

Simon

The problem with the back bevel is it doesn't allow the chip breaker to be used to its full effect.

Bob Smalser posted on how to convert a Stanley/Bailey frog to a higher angle.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?8136-An-Inexpensive-50-Degree-Smoothing-Plane

jtk

[Simon MacGowen]

The problem with the back bevel is it doesn't allow the chip breaker to be used to its full effect.

Bob Smalser posted on how to convert a Stanley/Bailey frog to a higher angle.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?8136-An-Inexpensive-50-Degree-Smoothing-Plane

jtk

Jim,

I have not had any issues using the back bevel without the "chip breaker used to its full effect," whatever it really means in practice. Mine is not a LN plane and I use a back bevel to deal with difficult grains unless I switch to a BU plane. Even if I had the option for a high angle frog, I think I would prefer to keep a spare blade with a back bevel than a high angle frog.

Simon

[steven c newman]

I have a Dunlap #3 made in West Germany. Bed for the frog was cast at an angle. Bottom of the frog is flat. When the frog is installed on the bed, I have about a 50-55 degrre "frog" effect going on. Iron has a chipbreaker, as well. I "save" the Dunlap for the knotty stuff that comes into the shop. The rest of the smoothers are standard angle BD planes. 277190277191nasty Walnut grain around that knot, and that Dunlap #3

Cutting board with alternating strips of Cherry and Walnut. All reclaimed stuff...

Dunlap cost a whopping $8 !!!!

[Pat Barry]

Anyway, long story short, if you're not working any woods that couldn't be planed with plane that has a 55-60 degree bed than there is not a reason to get anything other than the 45.
Sorry Chris, the triple negative in this sentence has me baffled. Could you please restate?

[Chris Griggs]

Sorry Chris, the triple negative in this sentence has me baffled. Could you please restate?

Haha. I see the confusion. I was just saying that if all the wood he works could be planed with a 55 degree or so included angle (or less), then a 45 is all he needs, assuming he wants to and knows how to use the chipbreaker effectively.

[Derek Cohen]

A case for using the chipbreaker - I was reminded of this over the past weekend:

I mentioned earlier that high angle planes are not the preferred option for softwoods. The finish off a common angle plane is usually easier to see here, and some softwoods may be left with a fuzzy surface. My understanding is that softwoods fibres bend more (than hardwood fibres) and a lower cutting angle presents more of a shear cut. (Something similar to planing softwood endgrain). I assume that, progressively, higher angles pull more at the fibres than they slice.

Some woods have alternating stripes of hard and soft woods, with one reversed against the other. In such cases a high angle plane can leave the hardwood smooth and the softwood rough, even "crumbly", which was the case with the Jarrah I was working on the weekend. Mahogany can be similar. In such cases I have much better results with a common angle Stanley with a closed up chipbreaker. This is cutting at a lower angle but breaking the shavings as per a high angle plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek