PDA

View Full Version : Centre of Effort - Part II



Derek Cohen
03-16-2014, 5:45 AM
This is part of my effort to understand aspects of hand plane design. So, a little theorising put to the test with the re-handling of a plane.


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreOfEffortPart2.html


Your thoughts and ideas very welcome.


If you have not read the first article, Part I is here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreofEffortinaPlane.html


Regards from Perth


Derek

Matthew N. Masail
03-16-2014, 6:14 AM
Hi Derek,

I think something to consider is the vector of force from your hand towards the sole of the plane. the angle of this vector will change with the angle of your tote.
HNT Gordon mentions this line of force in his site:

" If you look at both of these pictures and line up the forearm you can see that the pushing force ends up at the cutting edge. The advantage of this is that it helps starting the cut particularly with the smoothing plane which has a short front area before the blade. If your tote handle is shaped properly you will be able to get a clean start with your cut with very little downward force on the front of the plane with your other hand"

I've finding that the correct balance does everything to make a plane easy and joyful to use. I'vee got a prototype on my bench right now to test for a new plane build so I'll be testing different tote placements. this is what I have so far:


the tote angle must be right in relation to:
A. it's height above to sole
B. how far back it is on the body.
C. there is an ideal vector angle, and it seems to be more of a shallow angle
.
If we consider the vector mentioned above, for a given tote angle, a tote placed lower can be placed much closer, while a tote placed higher must be placed further back to restore the vector ending up at the cutting edge. the center of force on the tote itself will also have an effect.


Looking at the picture of your HNT before the tote modification it seems the vector has to be way too shrp to end up at cutting edge, explaining why you felt the need to push from lower
down. I would imagine that placing the tote further back would have a similar effect as making the handle more vertical.


by making the handle more vertical I think the vector is improved, however it doesn't end further back unless you push more from the bottom of the tote?


it's a complex system. probably effected by cutting angle and wight balance of the plane as well.

Derek Cohen
03-16-2014, 7:09 AM
Thanks for replying, and your comments, Matthew. What you wrote is pretty much what I have posted before and in Part I. I was not aware that that Terry Gordon had written something along these lines. I am due to meet up with him in about 4 weeks, and one of the motivators for sorting out this handle was to discuss it with him. So, very interesting! Of course I agree with your comments. I wonder how others see things?

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver
03-16-2014, 9:40 AM
This would've been a good plane to try an offset short handle where your hand drapes over the side. It would, however, not be a great test of that because the iron is not in the same place as it is on a vintage plane, but perhaps the lower height could've made up for some of that.

The fact that it's 60 or more degrees makes it a bit harder to willy nilly try variations, too.

When I had a bunch of mujis of that style, I always took the chinese handle out. I could never get oriented right to use it.

george wilson
03-16-2014, 10:13 AM
" Never could get ORIENTED to the CHINESE handle?" That's pretty funny!!:)

Derek Cohen
03-16-2014, 10:22 AM
Hi David

I recall when Lyn Mangiameli wrote his review of high angle planes (available in WoodCentral archives) and gave the Mujingfang 60 degree smoother such a high rating. And it was so cheap! Many bought one as a poor man's HNT Gordon. I have one of the Muji smoothers, not the 60 degree, but a 45 degree with a 1 3/4" HSS blade. At least this one I can wrap my hand around. As with the Gordon, I never came to terms with the crossbar handle and would hold it like a Krenov. The problem with the Gordon - the smoother as well as the Trying Plane - they are built around a 2" wide blade, and this is too wide to grip this way.

Regards from Perth

Derek

george wilson
03-16-2014, 10:40 AM
I'm sure this thread will become one of those LOOOOOONG and never resolved debates!!

I don't understand,Derek,why this plane needed a more upright handle when all those normal,conventionally handled taller 19th. C. wooden planes were used for so many years by so many,including me. They were not as ideal for LONG term daily work as the offset handle early planes,but were fine for the limited planing most people do after machinery came in.

Really,this is a legitimate question I'm asking. How comfortable do you find your Stanley planes with normal handle angles? They are even lower in height.

Derek Cohen
03-16-2014, 11:13 AM
Hi George

It's a good question.

The thing is that this Gordon plane is different to the planes you used in three areas. Firstly, the mouth is set further back, about the middle of the body. This makes it less directional. Secondly, it is half-pitch, which increases the effort to push, especially with hardwoods. Lighter cuts are needed. Thirdly, there is the difference between a plane with a high body (such as a coffin) and a low body (such as a razee). This is the issue I raised a while back - that the higher body appears to require more downforce.

In the hand a Stanley feels very comfortable. However for heavier cuts or harder woods - where there is more effort required - I find I use the heel of my hand to push low behind the handle, as opposed to gripping it within the hand and pushing high up. The more vertical Veritas handles are not necessarily more comfortable to hold than a Stanley, but they are easier to push, especially with the heavier planes. I imagine the longer the planing session, the more these factors are going to come to the fore.

Of course it is possible to use a Stanley handle for all planing tasks, light and heavy. This does not alter that there will be a change in grip (if my observation is the same for others).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Metod Alif
03-16-2014, 11:57 AM
Hi Derek,
I like your term 'center of effort' (CE). I read quickly through both articles, and this is how I interpret CE. It is important that my interpretation reflects your 'definition' (otherwise we talk about different concepts). So correct me if what I have in mind is not the same as yours. To apply CE (as I interpret it) to a plane: The point on the handle/tote where the force of the operator is transferred to the plane for the purpose of (of course) planing. A hand contacts the handle along some surface and the pressure along this surface is not uniform. For example, if the web portion between the thumb and the index finger is favored, then the pressure is higher over that portion of the hand. Averaging the pressure over all contact points of a hand then determines the CE (ideal point, same idea as the center of mass).
For me, three aspects of a plane design are important: efficiency of the force transfer, comfort and the form (some planes look to a person differently than others - from beautiful to ugly...).
Comfort could be what what is comfortable for a left-handed person is not for the right-handed one and other aspects.
Efficiency of the force transfer: the difference (or a ratio) between the force applied and the force used to do the work (work in physics sense). For example, you can push (apply a force to) a plane all day long against a bench dog, not getting any planing. At the end of the day you will be tired with zero work. Low (zero) efficiency. Taking into account that the force transfers in the direction normal to the surface, and does the work at the cutting edge, we get (optimal): The force (averaging) applied at the CE must point toward the cutting edge. How does a plane use (all of) this force? Some for the pressure down onto the surface (with the undesirable side effect of friction) and some parallel to the surface (used for cutting).
The user does have control of how much goes into the surface planed and how much parallel to the surface by shifting the CE along the handle. This implies that the shape of the handle/tote should be exactly circular (nearly circular for the sake of the comfort) with the radius equal to the distance to the cutting edge. For example, for zero force into the wood the CE should be on the spot where the circle is vertical, i.e., on the sole of the plane (which is a practical impossibility). One way to minimize/zero the amount of the wasteful (into the wood) force is to use (design, if possible) a vertical spot (vertical tangent) on the handle. This spot will be above the sole level, the force applied will not point toward the cutting edge (it will be parallel to the sole/wood) so not optimal. The plane will have to be pushed with a greater force/effort for the same work.
This 'meandering' shows that the further away the (circular) handle is from the cutting edge, the more efficient it is. A size of a plane limits this distance as does the comfort. We have to compromise. The dimensions suitable for a larger person will not be as suitable for a shorter one (the same problem as with the height of the bench).
An observation: a razee plane does have a lower CE on its handle, thus more efficient :).
"But do not ask me to calculate or explain vectors and forces." OK, I have sinned:(.

I would like some engineers to chime in and correct/improve on my analysis as I am not an engineer.
Best wishes,
Metod

jamie shard
03-16-2014, 3:36 PM
I think you will appreciate these photos Derek. It shows how I modified some push sticks (for use with an electron powered table saw- shhh!). I basically copied the shape of a handsaw I liked. But then after using if for a while, I found the CoE, in your terms, was too high. so I modified the point where the push stick contacted.


284891284892
You will note that the point of contact is directly perpendicular to the handle, the vector of push goes right toward the little hook in the bottom. I suspect that this is the important factor-- the push needs to be directed toward where the work is being done.

Interestingly, putting the point of contact further forward also helped me "feel" the very tip of the push stick while I was also feeling the contact at the notch. So they are now providing better push as well as feel.

Hope this adds to the conversation!

-jamie

Kees Heiden
03-16-2014, 4:48 PM
Wel, I am an electrical engineer, so that's not very helpfull. But at least we can have a look at what force a plane needs to cut. This has been studied a lot. Two studies which have parameters close to what we use as handplane users are here:

http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.htm (http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/review_of_cap_iron_study.html)l
http://www.amgron.clara.net/sciencereport16.html

The first is the well known Kato/Kawai study. Much has been experimented with handplanes in Japan on a scientifical basis because of the development of the super surfacer in that country and because the Japanese stil use handplaned surfaces as a final finish. The other one is very old, but it has some valuable information. Alas it is not complete on this website.

The horizontal force is more or less obvious. You have to push the plane against the resistance. It depends on a lot of factors:
Shaving depth and width. Wood species/hardness. Moisture content. Grain direction (large factor!). Cutting angle, clearance angle, bevel angle. Dullness of the edge. Speed (not so much). I probably forgot a couple, like resistance from steel plane soles.

The vertical force is very interesting. When the edge is sharp, when we have a low cutting angle and when we are taking sufficiently thick shavings, then the edge is pulled down into the wood. When the blade gets dull, or we take a thinner shaving or we have a high angle plane, then this downwards force is less and can also turn positive, in other words, the edge is pushed out of the wood. In the former case we don't need much downwards force, and can concentrate on pushing the plane forward. In the latter case we need to push the plane downwards, otherwise it just won't cut.

Now, take a typical difficult planing situation, a hard, abrassive and curly type of wood. We take a high angle plane or a double iron plane with a strong capiron effect. We take thin shavings and the edge dulls quickly. Oh, and because of the grain reversals every few cm the force changes a lot too. All these factors work against us, the edge is quickly loosing its downwards force and we need to push down on the plane.

Luckilly we have two hands, and the left hand helps us to give that downwards force. But the right hand needs to do its job too, otherwise the plane wants to escape the cut on the backside.

Now, I absolutely have no answers to the CoE questions. I suppose someone needs to do some measurements. Because the hand plane plays such an important role in the commercial wood working industry, grands for scientific research will be easilly available. :D

Richard Line
03-16-2014, 5:02 PM
Derek,
An interesting thread. I'm afraid some of your terms bothered my engineering education, but that's my problem. Some very good points and observations. Recently, while doing some hand sawing, ripping, I noticed I would change my hand position on the tote. Lower down for starting (wanting a light pressure on the teeth), and as I got the cut started and wanted to make quicker progress I moved my hand higher on the handle. (I've got a small hand, so changing the hand position a little was easy.) What I realized I was doing was changing the effective 'hang angle' of the saw, or in your terms I was changing the CoE. The higher grip put more force down onto the teeth, making the saw cut faster. It really is the same idea carried over to another tool.

Thanks for your thoughts and write up of this concept.

Winton Applegate
03-16-2014, 5:16 PM
I'm sitting here on MY center of effort, it's on the couch right now, and I haven't dived in yet (that means dove but writen by a land locked land lubber who has never had diving apparati on in his life.

I just wanted to say "I'm on board".

Winton Applegate
03-16-2014, 6:45 PM
:rolleyes:
I'm sure this thread will become one of those LOOOOOONG and never resolved debates!!
YES !

With any luck.

If everybody, as they should, simply agreed with me and said so :)and then went out to mow the lawn.
Well . . .:(
. . . that would be boring wouldn't it.:p

Winton Applegate
03-16-2014, 7:43 PM
First of all THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND most excelent photos !
An interesting and informative adventure for us center of effort sitters to be sure.
The following is some in jest and just a play by play responce not an attack.


OK
my drivel; Post reading of CE II


made using it more fatiguing to push, and the reason I sought to add a traditional handle.

aaahhhh
where do I start ?
How do I put this without getting insulting ?
Best to just talk and let Bob Sort 'em out.

I would kindly and respectfully SUGJEST (there that came together pretty well) . . .
loose the rails in the way vise
.
Get the work down to a working height that is . . . well . . .
WORKABLE.
Contrary to what an expert said here recently one does use one's legs to plane with. With the edge of the board so high, ESPECIALLY ON THE HARD STUFF, it is going to be hard to test orthidox planes and their ergonomics let alone modified planes.


I spent some time using it some more, trying to understand why it felt the way it did, and what could be done to improve matters.

See above.


plane would be used on a low-ish bench

Yeah !
And they said wishes don't come true.
You lost me there with the first photo but I'm with you now.


Stanley [#3 ? #4 probably].
The top of my hand snuggles under the horn. I can feel pressure on this area when pushing the plane

:p That is probably just a result of trying not to bang your wrist on the edge of the plank. (like I did in another post about the LN #3



Looking at the result of this grip (below) a gap between my palm is left at the top of the handle.
. . . and bang'O on the wrist. Must be why they invented the jack. Not so much because we NEED a loooonger plane but to "armor" our wrist bone while giving it our best heave hoh during deep cuts.


This meant that the handle would need to be more vertical. What a minute – this is beginning to resemble the Veritas handle!
Are you hearing this anti Veritas handle people ? Can you feel that ? Can you feel that ? Oh yes . . .


So off came the handle …
ha, ha, ha,
you really should have left it on. That would confuse 'em.
could probably come out with a whole line of planes and make a second fortune, (and give it to me since it was my idea)
. . . before you were taken into custody by the Silly-Police of course.

Thanks again Derek !
For my general thoughts see my next post addressed to other posts.

Winton Applegate
03-16-2014, 8:02 PM
for heavier cuts or harder woods - where there is more effort required - I find I use the heel of my hand to push low behind the handle, as opposed to gripping it within the hand and pushing high up.
YUP !


The more vertical Veritas handles are not necessarily more comfortable to hold than a Stanley, but they are easier to push, especially with the heavier planes. I imagine the longer the planing session, the more these factors are going to come to the fore.
Yupper !



The vertical force is very interesting. When the edge is sharp, when we have a low cutting angle and when we are taking sufficiently thick shavings, [THEN] the edge is pulled down into the wood. When the blade gets dull, . . . ., then this downwards force is less and can also turn positive, in other words, the edge is pushed out of the wood. In the former case we don't need much downwards force, and can concentrate on pushing the plane forward. In the latter case we need to push the plane downwards, otherwise it just won't cut.
Now you are in my teritory :
Very sharp blades, geometry wise not shave the flexy hair on your arm wise.
Meaning no roundy underside of the edge, bevel up or down.
The shallowest upper edge angle that will do the work without tearout. Score one or actually two for bevel up.
When getting dullish change blades DON'T FORCE THE PLANE SOLE INTO THE WORK.
Bevel ups provide quicker blade change and depth setting. (none of this one plane SET for a specific cutting depth and another set for another specific depth. As if the plane will cut for weeks or months or several projects without a blade change. Not in my world. Depth set on the fly and sharp blades rotated through like a colt revolver. Of course we are talking figured wood that is reversing and not so friendly. Any body can plane poplar.

GOD MADE MAN and Varitas (bevel up) made 'em equal.

Ha, ha, ha,


or we take a thinner shaving or we have a high angle plane . . . we need to push the plane downwards, otherwise it just won't cut

I don't really agree there.
If the plane isn't being PULLED DOWN then there is a problem with the blade/sharpening. Even on thin shavings and high angle.


In the latter case [When the blade gets dull] we need to push the plane downwards, otherwise it just won't cut.

And there is where acuracy problems and chatter begin. Better to chamber a fresh blade.
and
depending on effort vs. depth of cut needed; this is telling the plane user how much camber they need for the depth of cut determined by their horse power and junk in the trunk.

Kees Heiden
03-17-2014, 4:00 AM
Sharpening certainly isn't MY hobby. If I can milk a bit more distance from the edge with down force, without ruining the surface or the planing experience, then so much the better. Lucky me that I don't like the purpleheart looks.

I suspect there are other reasons why we need some downforce. For example when you want to create a flat surface you have to play with the downwards force. We all do this more or less automatically. It's the skill of the user that determines how well balanced this will be.

I write all this not to contradict with anyone. Just to remind that not all downwards force is evil and leading to more reistance. Downwards force is part of the total planing package.

Metod Alif
03-17-2014, 10:22 AM
Kees,
"Wel, I am an electrical engineer, so that's not very helpfull. But at least we can have a look at what force a plane needs to cut."
I was (secretly:)) assuming that every engineering program requires a serious dose of general physics (covering the basics of mechanics - forces, work). The level of thinking that the engineers have is way up and brought us technological process. An engineer would not claim that a design is the best because it was used for some length of time.
There are two different but complementary issues: (a) what forces a plane needs, (b) how are those forces delivered by a user. I was describing only (b). As you pointed out, a plane has different needs in different situations. Moving the CoE along a handle helps with that.
How does one design (or evaluate an existing design)? Take into account (a), (b), (c) comfort of the user, (d)economics.
Concerning (b), I should add that the rear handle/tote represents only a (significant) portion of the force transfer, the other portion coming from the front end of a plane, delivered by the other hand. A one-hand delivery of force is not very ergonomic for large planes (OK for small block planes, though).
An aside: chuckling on amgron's take on dealing with tearout. Great analysis of chipbreaker setting on the planetuning site.
Best wishes,
Metod

Derek Cohen
03-17-2014, 10:54 AM
I am going to copy here a response a made to Warren at WoodCentral. Warren queried the handle design, compared it with one of his own, and this focussed me to write the thoughts that had been swirling in my head.

Warren wrote ...

I have a beech trying plane that I have used on almost every board for 35 years. It is 22 inches long, the mouth is 7 inches from the front and the angle of the tote is somewhere around 65 degrees. I think it is a good design. I would say that you want a fluid wrist rather than a rigid wrist; the wrist angle changes as the stroke progresses. I think that for the least stress on the joints they all should be fluid, not trying to hold something rigid throughout the stroke.

The new design looks awkward to me. If someone had a large body of work with a traditional design then tried something new for a few years and liked it, it would be worth noting. However using an altered design for a very short period of time does not give much information.

After reading this post I compiled a set of measurements about several planes, which are meaningful to me. Hopefully also to others. While I do not mean to suggest that they should create rules for the design of a plane handle - since I do agree with you that the wrist changes as it pushes a plane ... and that it changes (or needs to change) position and angle as the conditions change - there is a pattern that is recognisable.

I'll start with a comment about the new handle for the Trying Plane. It may look awkward, but it works. The question is "why does it work when the previous handle - so close in angle to the one you like (above) - did not work at all?".

One answer to this is simply that the handle angles work for the respective plane designs. Your plane has a handle of around 65 degrees (which is the same as Stanley), while the Trying Plane handle is similar to a Veritas at about 75 degrees. Your trying plane's toe/mouth is 32% of the length of the plane.

Here are measurements of other planes I have:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Planestats3_zps2ec180fe.jpg

The first statistic of relevance is that, with the exception of the Trying Plane and Jointer, all planes have a mouth/toe percentage around the 35% mark, which is similar to yours.

The exceptions here are the HNTG Trying Plane and the Jointer, are similar in having a significantly higher percentage (the mouth is relatively further back), with the Trying Plane even further back than the Jointer.

Inference: the longer the toe/mouth percentage, the more the plane will benefit from a horizontal vector, and the shorter the toe/mouth percentage, the more the plane will benefit for down force when planing.

The second statistic is the height where the handle is held relative to the length of the body. The lower planes (Jack, Jointer, Trying Plane) all have a low centre of gravity. They appear to work more efficiently with a low centre of effort (forward vector). The relatively higher planes require more down force. Note that the Krenov smoother (made by JK) has a 45 degree bed, while the lower coffin (shopmade) has a 55 degree bed. It requires significantly more downforce to push than the Krenov. A higher body (3" is common) would be expected to require even more downforce.

My thought at this stage is that Stanley make a handle that has the best of both worlds. It can be held at the upper end, where it imparts downforce. It may also be pushed by the heel of the hand when the vector is horizontal. Some planes, however, may benefit from one extreme or the other (in some cases substitute the hand for a handle). That is for discussion.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ron Bontz
03-17-2014, 11:14 AM
All in all a good discussion. Thanks. I just try to remember that the "Center of force", "resultant thrust angle", or "ideal vector angle", what ever you choose to call it, will always vary slightly because of each individuals "Ideal bench height", elbow height, shoulder height, weight, dull vs sharp blade, etc. Not to mention the bevel up vs bevel down forces involved. So many variables to factor in. Hence the problem of finding the, one size fits all, perfect angle. I think all craftsman do adjust slightly without thinking about it while using any tool involving downward vs forward force vectors. Some just do it better than others. Experience perhaps. Some one once told me, the better you get at your craft, music or woodworking, the more picky you become about your tools and the more opinionated you become about those tools. I think there is much truth to this. As a side note: It would be interesting to take 1000 people and accurately document their bench height, shoulder, hip, and elbow pivot height, as well as their weight, age, etc. Then see what shakes out. Anybody have lots of time on their hands? :):) Thanks for posting, Derek. Time to go back to work.

george wilson
03-17-2014, 11:42 AM
Not sure how being an electrical engineer qualifies a person to state that an engineer would certainly not say that a design is best because it was used for a length of time.

How does being an electrical engineer translate into being a design engineer? Craftsmen through the centuries were intrinsic engineers enough to know what suited them the best. Brunelleschi,who built the great doumo in Florence was not an engineer. He was a goldsmith and clock maker. But,engineers have been trying to figure out how he did it for centuries. They also tried for centuries to figure out how bumble bees fly,only figuring it out very recently. So,engineering is certainly very useful,but not necessarily the end all and be all of knowledge about constructing things. I sort of served as a catch all engineer for the museum myself.

Jim Matthews
03-17-2014, 11:55 AM
I own, and use the same Gordon jointer.

I pull it - and at a slight skew.
It may not be the way God intended Man to use a handplane,
but my boards come out straight and square,
without wear and tear on my wrists.

I'm with some of the others that mentioned bench height in passing;
Because I'm planing the edge of boards, and longer ones at that -
they stand up pretty high.

Pulling means I don't need to flex my wrists, or aggravate my elbow.

I've tried the overhand grip shown, and it's not for me -
my bench is too high to get a comfortable pass when held this way.

FYI - This plane makes an excellent shooting plane, with the through handle tapped clear.

I'm planning to make a "saddle" to fit my spare jack plane as executed by Yueng Chan
and the subject of a William Ng class in making laminated planes.

Something like that would be a good fit to the big jointer, I think.

284954

Derek Cohen
03-17-2014, 12:07 PM
I'm planning to make a "saddle" to fit my spare jack plane as executed by Yueng Chan
and the subject of a William Ng class in making laminated planes.

Hi Jim

I tried this - the plane is too wide. At least it is too wide to hold this way in my hand (4" across in line with my thumb).

When I first bought this plane my bench then was some 2" higher than now. Pushing with the cross handle was easier but still not preferred. A lower bench spurred me to find a solution as I like this plane very much.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/Setting%20Up%20and%20Using%20a%20Shooting%20Board4 _html_m7c284729.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

Steve Voigt
03-17-2014, 12:17 PM
My thought at this stage is that Stanley make a handle that has the best of both worlds.



So, to summarize: After thousands of words, hours of work, charts, equations, the whole nine yards, the conclusion is that the the tried and true design, which has been around for 140 years (and is closely based on much older examples) works best after all. What irony. I think I would feel rather deflated by this realization.

I think that this thread underlines the limitations of an "engineer's" approach to the "problem" of handle design (I use the scare quotes because it's really a non-problem, since satisfactory solutions were devised centuries ago). The unstated assumption of the engineers' approach is that people in the past were primitive; that we, with our superior technology, can do so much better. But this requires that you start with a clean slate, so you end up reinventing the wheel. And the problem with reinventing the wheel is that after all those hours of work, all you have is a wheel. Or in this case, a stock Stanley handle.

My own approach has been to start from the opposite assumption: That the craftsmen of the past, who spent all day, every day, working with hand tools, actually knew what they were doing. I based my first tote pretty closely on examples I measured in antique shops, and drawings/photos I pulled off the internet. It worked very well, and the subsequent four or five totes I've made have required only small modifications of thickness, "hang" angle, and radius.

It's not my purpose to try and put down or discourage Derek, Metod, or anyone else. Intellectual speculation is healthy and laudable. I would just submit that starting from history, rather than from the engineer's blank sheet of paper, is a more fruitful path.

Steve

Derek Cohen
03-17-2014, 12:31 PM
What Steve, you are just going to take my opinion at face value, not going to challenge this or interpret the data yourself? No, that is not a dig at you - it is just that one should not assume that because it was done that way forever then it cannot be improved. What I am learning from this experience is that there are optimum design issues, that this helped me sort out the HNT Gordon Trying Plane (which, when you think about what I did, was a leap of faith in my following the theory that was developing). It has also helped me understand that the Stanley-Bailey handle is probably two handles in one. Did you think of it that way as well? Probably lots more - historical woodworkers did not have many of the advantages of modern materials to influence their designs.

Regards from Perth

Derek

george wilson
03-17-2014, 12:46 PM
You have stated my thoughts exactly,Steve,but in better words,perhaps,about assuming that engineering trumps empirical learning. This is not directed at Derek. It's just that our fore fathers were not stupid. They had more limited information,but did their best with what they had,and perfected their technology over a long period of time.

I don't know that they commonly(at least) had planes just like the HNT Gordon,which well may require a different handle.

David Weaver
03-17-2014, 1:02 PM
Derek, I would agree. The stock stanley handle is going to end up being the optimal handle for most people. Not by chance, I think.

I've gone and done things pretty radical with different tools several times (not in the last couple of years), but as time has gone on, I realize that I have been able to tolerate those decisions because they are my own, and that if someone else would've made them, I would have criticism for it. By those experiments, I've gone to examining goods used by professionals (in more cases than just woodworking tools) and figured that I'd start with those designs and engineered aspects (including where engineering is implicit by incremental improvement) and work from there, changing small things at a time.

The chinese planes probably got their handles in the locations they're in as a combination of a lot of factors, but among them will have been hundreds or thousands of different applied designs that didn't win out. From time to time, an aspect is lost because of cost, but in this case, we have access to design aspects and tool eras that were much less affected by cost issues (like where were optimally designed handles, what was their orientation to the iron in distance from/height).

Pat Barry
03-17-2014, 1:28 PM
So, to summarize: After thousands of words, hours of work, charts, equations, the whole nine yards, the conclusion is that the the tried and true design, which has been around for 140 years (and is closely based on much older examples) works best after all. What irony. I think I would feel rather deflated by this realization.

I think that this thread underlines the limitations of an "engineer's" approach to the "problem" of handle design (I use the scare quotes because it's really a non-problem, since satisfactory solutions were devised centuries ago). The unstated assumption of the engineers' approach is that people in the past were primitive; that we, with our superior technology, can do so much better. But this requires that you start with a clean slate, so you end up reinventing the wheel. And the problem with reinventing the wheel is that after all those hours of work, all you have is a wheel. Or in this case, a stock Stanley handle.

My own approach has been to start from the opposite assumption: That the craftsmen of the past, who spent all day, every day, working with hand tools, actually knew what they were doing. I based my first tote pretty closely on examples I measured in antique shops, and drawings/photos I pulled off the internet. It worked very well, and the subsequent four or five totes I've made have required only small modifications of thickness, "hang" angle, and radius.

It's not my purpose to try and put down or discourage Derek, Metod, or anyone else. Intellectual speculation is healthy and laudable. I would just submit that starting from history, rather than from the engineer's blank sheet of paper, is a more fruitful path.

Steve
If we all followed the above logic there would be no progress made at all. If we all thought like tihis we would be blissfully ignorant that there may be better ways to do things. Taken to an extreme, I think we might all still be using abacus's. I'm sure this is not what was meant of course. The greatest achievements in technology have been made via engineering. In the past, as George alluded to, the 'engineers' were just the most knowledgeable of the un-educated. Now the engineers, whether they be electrical or mechanical or civil, or biomedical, or aeronautical, or what have you are trained and educated. They are cognizant of the past and able to find better ways to accomplish things.

David Weaver
03-17-2014, 1:34 PM
They are cognizant of the past and able to find better ways to accomplish things.

To believe this would be true when their practical working knowledge of a subject is a fraction of what it was 250 years ago would be ill advised.

We're not talking about the best way to machine engine blocks, or the best way to print circuit boards.

Incremental change will always happen, whether you think you're engineering something or not. Radical changes from something that's the result of hundreds or thousands of years of incremental improvement is a near sure odds way to come up with something less good, perhaps so drastically less good that it's completely undesirable to use.

It is appealing, especially for engineers, to believe that there is some implicit ability to just improve something by desire to improve it, without ever having the body of knowledge that would've existed when it was developed. It's the something for nothing belief that a lot of folks have, or the belief in "stock picking methods" or some other such things. There is not going to be any cheap low hanging fruit in plane designs, but there is certainly the ability to make plenty of rotten fruit if the past is disregarded as some out of date clunkery.

Pat Barry
03-17-2014, 1:42 PM
To believe this would be true when their practical working knowledge of a subject is a fraction of what it was 250 years ago would be ill advised.

We're not talking about the best way to machine engine blocks, or the best way to print circuit boards.

Incremental change will always happen, whether you think you're engineering something or not. Radical changes from something that's the result of hundreds or thousands of years of incremental improvement is a near sure odds way to come up with something less good, perhaps so drastically less good that it's completely undesirable to use.

It is appealing, especially for engineers, to believe that there is some implicit ability to just improve something by desire to improve it, without ever having the body of knowledge that would've existed when it was developed. It's the something for nothing belief that a lot of folks have, or the belief in "stock picking methods" or some other such things. There is not going to be any cheap low hanging fruit in plane designs, but there is certainly the ability to make plenty of rotten fruit if the past is disregarded as some out of date clunkery.

I refuse to believe that anything we have today thhat is produced by man cannot be improved upon. Sometimes discovery requires though, that you do start with a clean slate, study the problem, and then find solutions. Frankly though, it seems with regard to tools like these, it is more religion than science.

Steve Voigt
03-17-2014, 1:44 PM
What Steve, you are just going to take my opinion at face value, not going to challenge this or interpret the data yourself?

Hi Derek,
I think it's pretty clear that I didn't take your opinion at face value. What I challenged was the underlying premise. Once that's done, there seems little point in engaging with the specific data points.


it is just that one should not assume that because it was done that way forever then it cannot be improved.


I agree with you; one should not be slavishly devoted to tradition. But handle design was never frozen in amber; it evolved slowly over time. The handles that Peter Follansbee uses are a little different from the small handles that George likes, which are a little different from the Old Street style handles, which are in turn a little different from 19th c. handles. But the starting point for each of these modest evolutions (which were not always improvements, btw) was previous practice, not (presumably) math, physics, or statistical analysis.


Probably lots more - historical woodworkers did not have many of the advantages of modern materials to influence their designs.


I think this underlines the core disagreement between us. I concede that there are many walks of life in which modern materials and technology is a huge advantage. I just don't think that planing wood is one of them. To take just one example, I have yet to be convinced that any of the modern magic steels are really an improvement over O1, or japanese or western laminated tool bits. And plenty of modern makers (Larry Williams, Conrad Sauer) would appear to agree.

Steve Voigt
03-17-2014, 1:58 PM
I refuse to believe that anything we have today thhat is produced by man cannot be improved upon. Sometimes discovery requires though, that you do start with a clean slate, study the problem, and then find solutions. Frankly though, it seems with regard to tools like these, it is more religion than science.

I would suggest that your unwavering faith in technology seems more like religion than anything I've said. "I refuse to believe" is usually not a sentiment associated with open-minded inquiry.
As I've already said, it would be foolish in the extreme to suggest that technology can't make life better; of course it has. But in all sorts of things, it's made life worse as well.

Anyway, getting back to planes, when David said



It is appealing, especially for engineers, to believe that there is some implicit ability to just improve something by desire to improve it, without ever having the body of knowledge that would've existed when it was developed. It's the something for nothing belief that a lot of folks have, or the belief in "stock picking methods" or some other such things. There is not going to be any cheap low hanging fruit in plane designs, but there is certainly the ability to make plenty of rotten fruit if the past is disregarded as some out of date clunkery.

I think he pretty much summed it up.

Daniel Rode
03-17-2014, 1:59 PM
I refuse to believe that everything from the past can be improved by modern engineering. As far as I'm concerned, "engineered" is not necessarily improved. We live in an era of highly engineered products that are typically ugly, often disposable and designed to please the sensibilities of an engineer.

Some things have been improved, some things have been made worse.

Lastly, by what measure to we gauge improved? Today's cars are safer, last longer and use less fuel. They even have more and more advanced features. A myriad of electronics, air, cruise control and so on. But compared to the cars of the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, they are hideous to behold and completely devoid of style. Compared to the 50s, 60s and 70s, they are also anemic and the air conditioning barely works. Which is better?


I refuse to believe that anything we have today thhat is produced by man cannot be improved upon. Sometimes discovery requires though, that you do start with a clean slate, study the problem, and then find solutions. Frankly though, it seems with regard to tools like these, it is more religion than science.

Curt Putnam
03-17-2014, 2:31 PM
Personally, I think that Derek is on to something. I usually find that Stanley planes are painful to use in comparison to Veritas planes. Maybe it's my hand size (4.25") or maybe it's something else. I didn't think much about the issue until I discovered that a Montgomery Wards # 6 (purchased in the mid 70s), which had always been my favorite plane has a tote shape/angle almost identical to the Veritas. The discovery was serendipitous - I had set the MW down and then set the Veritas # 7 next to it.

My only conclusion is that handle/tote shapes, sizes and angles should not be the same for every person let alone every plane. It would be nice of the whys and wherefores of what works for whom and what could be documented.

Pat Barry
03-17-2014, 2:36 PM
I refuse to believe that everything from the past can be improved by modern engineering. As far as I'm concerned, "engineered" is not necessarily improved. We live in an era of highly engineered products that are typically ugly, often disposable and designed to please the sensibilities of an engineer.

Some things have been improved, some things have been made worse.

Lastly, by what measure to we gauge improved? Today's cars are safer, last longer and use less fuel. They even have more and more advanced features. A myriad of electronics, air, cruise control and so on. But compared to the cars of the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, they are hideous to behold and completely devoid of style. Compared to the 50s, 60s and 70s, they are also anemic and the air conditioning barely works. Which is better?

Seriously, and yet you quote Bucky Fuller?

george wilson
03-17-2014, 2:38 PM
Just to be clear,I never said the small handles were my personal favorites. I just understand WHY they were made that way,and respect it. Since I don't plane wood all day,and I like the 19th. C. aesthetic in most tools better,I have made my tools with that period in mind.

We must remember,we are discussing wooden planes here,not printed circuits,cars,etc.. As far as any later permutations of wooden planes still being made commercially are concerned,such as those Primus,et. al,I'll take the originals. People knew how to draw back then. And used those tools on a daily basis. I had a Primus,and gave it away. I bought it back when I was less schooled. Later,I found it strange and ugly.

The air conditioning probably doesn't work well because they can't use the good gasses any more.

Kees Heiden
03-17-2014, 2:41 PM
For me, the interest in these things is about starting to understand why the designs of the past evolved to what they were. About handle shape, position, angles etc we have no records from the toolmakers of the past why they were designed like that. We only have the artifacts. With an engineering view one could hope to find out what was the most effective and why it was like that.

I certainly believe in progress. But for progress you need a competitive environment. Today that environment is gone. There is a bit of engineering going on at the Lee Valley factory, and that's about it. The rest is just copying old designs, or they are well meaning one man ventures who just make what comes up in their head. (Very Black and White of course)!)

So what do we see in the old market field, when it comes to planes with totes?
English wooden planes. High block of wood, handle rather close to the iron at about 65 degrees. Mouth at 1/3 from the front.
German wooden planes. The same high wooden block. Mouth about 40 to 45 percent from the front. Handle almost on the but of the plane.
Stanley. Mouth about 1/3 from the front. very low. Handle very close to the iron at about 65 degrees. A second handle on the front.

That's some very typical plane setups.

Daniel Rode
03-17-2014, 2:55 PM
And your point is what? That because I find him and his quote clever, I have to be an unequivocal supporter of modern engineering in all its forms? That's a tad inflexible, eh? Like your own "refusal to believe" quote, it's the opposite of the open minded reasoning one might associate with science.


Seriously, and yet you quote Bucky Fuller?

David Weaver
03-17-2014, 2:58 PM
English, Continental or Stanley are the setups that I'd start with if I were looking to design a plane, and be wary of anything that strays far from the pattern, because you'll find out why it does after you've buried the hours and expense in making a plane.

I'm certainly wide open to someon engineering something better, but it won't be me wasting my time doing it. I'll let the market determine when it's worth looking at, too, because what has been introduced in the last 75 years is pretty doggish. For the folks who believe we can just willy nilly engineer something superior, please do.

Like George, I also had a primus. I bought it cheap, thanks to the help of a member here, and I sold it cheap. I'd much rather have a vintage continental smooth plane or a stanley 4.

Warren Mickley
03-17-2014, 3:40 PM
I think that in order to improve a plane, an engineer has to know how the old designs work at the very least. If there are engineers at Lee Valley, they certainly do not know how a double iron plane works. 250 years behind! Can you believe it? When you look at their planing videos you see someone with a very clumsy approach, not someone with a wealth of experience.

The truth is that we are struggling to just get back to the level of technology of two hundred years ago and that a lot of goofy experiments are just distractions from that end.

Daniel Rode
03-17-2014, 4:02 PM
I think there is a lot of truth to that. The Egyptians, 5000 years ago, had completely modern brains and by all accounts were every bit as intelligent as we are today. What they lacked was 5000 years of technological progress. 250 years ago is a blink of an eye in that context. They had our intelligence plus a substantial portion of our modern technology. They also had a large base of workers using these planes daily plus decades and even centuries of experience behind the design, refinement and use of them.

We've preserved some of this knowledge but much more is missing.


The truth is that we are struggling to just get back to the level of technology of two hundred years ago and that a lot of goofy experiments are just distractions from that end.

george wilson
03-17-2014, 4:11 PM
The Egyptians certainly had skill and engineering prowess that we do not have today in some cases. What they had was limited compared to today's 5000 years of progress. But,they did incredibly accurate work on their pyramids,obelisks,and other monuments that still stand today. We are still trying to figure out how they made some of the monumental structures that they made.

David Weaver
03-17-2014, 5:00 PM
I'd bet lee valley has done some research on the cap iron and how well it works, but I'd be just as willing to bet that they wouldn't be inclined to share it if it was successfully executed.

Pat Barry
03-17-2014, 6:07 PM
And your point is what? That because I find him and his quote clever, I have to be an unequivocal supporter of modern engineering in all its forms? That's a tad inflexible, eh? Like your own "refusal to believe" quote, it's the opposite of the open minded reasoning one might associate with science.
My point is this, and I'll make it very simple and easy to understand. Everything that is man-made can be improved upon. That is about as simple as can be said.

My point is that I find it perplexing that you quote and idolize an innovator like Bucky Fuller but still refuse to think something as simple as a plane handle can be improved upon.

Jim Matthews
03-17-2014, 6:31 PM
Your shooting board is fancier than most of my furniture, DC.

Not to worry, it's nice and cool in the shadow you competent guys cast...

*****

I just prop the material up on plywood with a sacrificial strip clamped to the back side of the cut.
It comes in handy when I need to trim stock greater than 4/4 as I can really lean into it.

Tico Vogt demonstrated his preferred method ( with a LN #9 ) with a very steady, slow lean into the workpiece.
I like the Gordon Jointer for this, as it stays in place due to the extra mass.

That, and I've got one so why not?

Tom Vanzant
03-17-2014, 6:43 PM
It has been shown that a plane with certain characteristics...iron sharpness, angle, exposure (closely set chip breaker)...can take shavings with a minimum of tear-out in most woods while taking reasonable cuts under certain controlled conditions. OK, but what about all those non-standard components that enter into real-life woodworking?
Wood itself is hardly standard and consistent, nor the work surface and holding device, nor the woodworker and the ergonomics involved in the overall interface of woodworker-to-workpiece thru the plane, itself only a holding fixture for the iron that makes the cut. One size hardly fits all, so why all the sturm und tunder? Find what works for you and put it to work.

Daniel Rode
03-17-2014, 9:35 PM
I've changed my mind and retracted my response. Clearly I'm being trolled. Ignore list +1. Done.

My point is this...

David Weaver
03-17-2014, 9:59 PM
My point is this, and I'll make it very simple and easy to understand. Everything that is man-made can be improved upon. That is about as simple as can be said.



That sounds quite simple, we'll wait to see the improved result.

Derek Cohen
03-18-2014, 2:32 AM
Good morning all. Many posts while I was sleeping. There is a grand sense of the point being missed.

All along my goal has been to understand plane design. What works, what does not work, and why. The issue of the plane handle came up. It could have been the bed angle, BU vs BD, chipbreaker or not. It was the angle of the handle and how it affects the way the plane functions.

The fact that I gained a new understanding of the Stanley handle - and hopefully others learned something new here as well - does not mean that History is Right. I find no writings that explain how to use the Stanley handle .... other than to hold it in a three-finger grip and rest a forefinger on the frog. Well, I found that sometimes this is the way it is done but, depending on the effort needed to push the plane (size/weight, depth of cut, hardness of wood, sharpness of blade) the way we hold the handle can change. The hand can slide down the handle and push with the palm as well. This lowers the centre of effort. For all I know it may lighten the pressure on the blade as the vector changes to horizontal from diagonal.

Following history and the lessons learned over the years is fine up to a point. At some stage there is a change in the task, and this results in a change in the method. For example, I imagine that few outside Australia work with such hard woods as we have. This does make a difference, not only because many require a higher cutting angle or attention to the chipbreaker setting, but the blade simply cannot enter the wood the same way as when planing softer woods. Where higher angles are used, the preferred push will be forward rather than down. To reduce friction of downforce, planes with low gravity and low centre of effort come to be preferred. The HNT Gordon planes are one example. The Veritas BU range are another. I have written before that the latter are easier to push than BD planes for the same cutting angle. I now believe that this has partly to do with the way the handle orientated the vector of force. The more upright handles of Veritas particularly suit this style of plane. However that is not to say that the Stanley does not - it does the same job if pushed from low down.

Advances in technology must offer opportunities for new designs or, at the least, to use old designs more effectively. This has certainly been the case with the BU planes benefitting from durable ductile iron.

We may learn from History but we are condemned to repeat the mistakes as well if we fail to understand what is good and what is not. I see this frequently in the planes made and proudly posted on the forums. Many are look-a-likes, photocopies of photocopies, made without much understanding about the way the parts function together, and then there is puzzlement when they do not work as planned. This thread is an attempt to help planemakers understand what and why they build, how they can improve and modify what they have, and how to use a plane effectively.

Regards from Perth

Derek

David Weaver
03-18-2014, 8:27 AM
There seems to be two directions this discussion is going, or maybe three:
1) modern engineering could provide a better solution
2) There are improvements that could be made, but it's extremely unlikely for them to be made in this environment
3) There are no improvements to be made

#1 is often the thought of the unfamiliar. It's evident in this thread. Whether or not advocates of it believe that it's likely that an improvement would be made (instead of just possible), I don't know. We have the belief now in a lot of cases that if we just parameterize everything, we can adjust the parameters and come up with something better. I think that's naive in this case, though that's already evident.

I'm an advocate of #2 - I'm sure there are possible improvements. How big they are, I don't know, maybe they are very small. However, we've taken an environment now that is not that competitive and with fairly incompetent average users, and compared it to an environment 250 years ago where there was an absolutely constant feedback loop, makers who had really no limitations in the aspects that we're talking about, professional users who weren't just woodworkers, but woodworkers who used *planes* a lot, and professional sellers whose aspects focused on sales to competent users as opposed to users who could drop a plane at any given time or lack the ability to set an iron without a set screw or adjuster.

All of the improvements that exist in LN and LV's offerings are beneficial to beginners, as well as people who might drop planes. The balance of cost of those items for a professional is probably less in terms of the value proposition. In 8 years, I've never dropped a metal plane. I've dropped numerous chisels (they roll), and I've let the mujis drop off of the end of the bench, but never a metal plane. Even if I dropped a metal plane and broke it, all of the planes I have left, save a couple, are a fraction of the cost of a premium plane. I'd have to drop a dozen planes to begin to make a value proposition out of the malleable cast - which was available to stanley, and along with steel, used in planes and tools where it was likely to be needed, but not across the entire range.

The flatness of the LV and LN planes is better than nearly all vintage planes someone is likely to come across, but it is not quite as critical for an experienced user, and an experienced user can adjust their plane to anything that they would need (I personally like planes that are a couple of thousandths convex, which is about what you get off of a hand lap - they are always in the cut on a flat surface). Set screws, highly alloyed steel, norris style adjusters, improved cap irons, etc....all of that stuff isn't of any real practical improvement, and at least here, a very easy and cheap friction reducer is paraffin wax, which is probably $4 for a 20 year supply of plane waxing. I find the orientation even without comfort, of the stanley handle, to be superior - especially when wax is added to the equation (and there's no reason it shouldn't be, especially if one is working softwoods like poplar that really cling to the bottom of a plane).

Comfort of the handle, though, in stanleys seems to me and probably to a majority to be superior to some of the newer more veritcal offerings. So much so that stanley styled handles are offered for LV planes (which I couldn't tolerate in heavy use due to their upright nature) but I haven't seen an LV style upright handle replacing a stanley handle on any stanley plane. Whatever issues there may be with working 1800-2500 hardness woods just don't have any practical application here, where 900-1500 is the more likely range. It's probably important for people who may have less mileage pushing a plane to make the same distinction that whatever advice is offered for working 1800-2500 hardness woods is probably not as relevant if the objective is to work cherry, walnut, soft maple, hard maple, poplar and mahogany (if lucky enough to get it) from rough.

All of this should illustrate to beginners, though, that straying from designs that were used professional as a matter of guessing at improvements or mixing and matching various designs is probably going to yield no improvement, and could be costly in time and money.

george wilson
03-18-2014, 9:26 AM
There are plenty of very hard woods that were available to old time woodworkers. Cuban mahogany(the REAL stuff),is quite hard. So is ebony,bubinga,violet wood,and a host of other African woods in commerce back in the day.

Not too long ago,I made a reproduction of a violet wood embroidery frame that I think was made in India in the early 19th. C.. There were a lot of threaded parts on it,and that wood is quite hard.

Derek Cohen
03-18-2014, 9:38 AM
Hi George

Hard wood is not restricted to Australia. Nor is it a new age medium. I hope that was not what was read into my post. It is just likely to be more commonly used here when building furniture than in the USA. I work softer woods as well, although these rate about the same as your white oak.

I am interested in your experiences in planing hard vs medium (or even soft) woods: Easier-to-use planes vs harder-to-use. Hand grips. Handles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Winton Applegate
03-18-2014, 6:15 PM
handle that has the best of both worlds. It can be held at the upper end, where it imparts downforce. It may also be pushed by the heel of the hand when the vector is horizontal.

That is a pretty darn great explanation of the REASON for the curve in the handle.

Before I ever had a Varitas plane I was using the LN BU jack everyday for long periods. Planing rough planks smooth and to size if under 1/4 inch needed to be taken off. If more I band sawed the waste off. That was before I got smart and stopped trying to scrub with a bevel up, or a wide heavy plane in general for that matter and bought my
light
STOUT
narrow
LN scrub plane.

All I knew at the time was that the curved Stanley like tote on the LN BU jack was bruising the hell out of my hand. This was over many months so I got tougher and it finally went away (thanks in part to the scrub. Yah I know the handles are similar but you aren't supposed to notice that. .. anyway. . .)

More than once I picked up a cabinet rasp to "improve" the tote on the LN Jack so it did not bruise my palm but I didn't have a clue where to begin or what to do.

I am sure I was all over that handle trying to find comfort, let alone optimal planing efficiency and as has been stated, since I was taking long cuts, my wrist angle was traveling over a wide sector.

Sitting here I can still mentally feel where the LN bit me but when I think of the Varitas handles I have no similar memory, good or bad. That is a good sign I think. A handle that one can just forget about and use.

Brian Ashton
03-18-2014, 6:17 PM
There are plenty of very hard woods that were available to old time woodworkers. Cuban mahogany(the REAL stuff),is quite hard. So is ebony,bubinga,violet wood,and a host of other African woods in commerce back in the day.

Not too long ago,I made a reproduction of a violet wood embroidery frame that I think was made in India in the early 19th. C.. There were a lot of threaded parts on it,and that wood is quite hard.

Haven't been working wood nearly as long or as intensively as you George, only about 30 years, but I've not come across hardwoods like the kinds commonly found in this desert outpost that were more unfriendly to being worked. Most of them are only good for fence posts and slab furniture. And just when you think you've got them to where you want... they warp. Not even good for firewood because it's too bloody hot!

Winton Applegate
03-18-2014, 8:47 PM
Ron,


take 1000 people and accurately document their bench height, shoulder, hip, and elbow pivot height, as well as their weight, age, etc. Then see what shakes out.

I like the idea of measuring workers and their benches and tools and shaking it all out.


That is what they did with world class bike racers. They measured the people who won the most and took note of how they set up their bikes.


For instance the majority of the winners pedaled flat footed.
There were one or two that won world class events pedaling with their toes pointed down.
Conclusion : those who pedaled with their toes pointed down won IN SPITE OF their lousy form.


There wasn't a scientific way to calculate the bike racer motor for optimal mounting.


Then they worked backward to develop mathematical formulas to get other people into a similar ergonomic for instance :


109 % of the leg length measured from sit bone to floor in stocking feet plus the thickness of the shoe at the ball of the foot = seat height from top of pedal to top of seat where the sit bones locate.

That gets one in the ball park; fine tune from there. Once set if you change a rider's seat hight inadvertently you have just put your life in danger / they may just strangle you were you stand.

3 mm in seat hight makes a noticeable difference in performance and comfort.

(anyone out there using a suspension seat post ? Nah dude, nah ain't gonna win the Tour de France with that !)

Simple right ?
If lower one develops knee strain and damage. Not to mention accelerated quadriceps fatigue.
If higher one looses leg speed potential and increases pelvis rocking side to side which translates into wasted motion and saddle (butt) sores.

As far as "belief" there are those that believe that if the rider can block out the front axle when looking at the handle bar cross tube then the bike "fits". We are talking seat to handlebar distance now not seat height.

Oh yah ?
Change the wheel base / front fork bend thus moving the front wheel but leaving the rider's position unchanged.

Suddenly the rider is demanding a different handlebar stem but the axle has moved the rider hasn't grown or shrunk.

So much for belief.

Pat Barry
03-19-2014, 8:06 AM
So people adapt to their environment and learn the best way to use the tools they have as demonstrated by both Winton's and David's comments. Therefore, once set in their ways, they have no interest in change because change is hard and no one wants to do something hard. Those set in their ways therefore would not recognize an improvement because the improvement might require them to change. The new way of doing things would be looked upon as naivete when in, in the eyes of another, perhaps one more willing to change or less set in their ways, the new way would be welcomed. Neanderthals, by practice here, are set in their ways, founded on the past it seems, and reluctant to accept change. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, in fact, in order to be more transparent in the values which are appreciated herein I suggest that we should retitle the forum to be Traditional Territory because anything outside the tradition of the past is looked down upon with vimm and vigor here. I think, even a Neanderthal, would be willing to accept a new club design if it were lighter yet stiffer and had the mass more focused in the impact area, whereas around here, if the same new club design were presented it would be thought of as unnecessary, frivolous, non-traditional, naive, or even worse, "engineered".

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 8:20 AM
Pat, the hypotheticals here don't really do anyone any favors. You can see changes in planes even after they reached their maturity as a tool. At this point, it would be a whole lot more useful to provide an improvement than to argue about whether or not one can be made.

There's quite a bit of excitement in this forum for veritas tools and other current makers, so it's not as if only designs 250 years old get any appreciation. Maybe it should be called the pragmatism forum. We've seen plenty of supposed "improvements" come and go and you can't be surprised to find that people who have seen 100 changes and no improvements wouldn't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of "yeah, all we need is a parameterized engineering solution".

Sean Hughto
03-19-2014, 8:33 AM
"Neanderthals, by practice here, are set in their ways, founded on the past it seems, and reluctant to accept change."

Maybe there are some people like that here, but I can't think of any off the bat. Instead what I see are folks who appreciate hand work and have come to appreciate that some of the best hand tools and practices are found in the past when hand work was the norm, making its evolution faster and driving it to very high levels.

This debate about improvement is a bit of a silly pissing contest. Define "best." Best is situational. Like biological evolution, the most successful species are the ones best adapted to succeed in their given environment. Sharks have been around for well over 400 million years and haven't changed much. Apparently there is little need for shark "improvement" or time and nature would have improved them. There are many species like this.

As for tools, look at our renaissance in hand saws over they last 15 years or so. The latest and greatest seem to have landed back at the handle designs, hangs, tapers, blade thicknesses, etc. that evolved a couple hundred years ago when per capita use of these tools was at its peak. I think folks who use hand tools quickly have experiences that demonstrate unequivocally that the old time users knew what they were doing and that emulating them is almost always sure to be profitable even if we are not sure why until we do it.

george wilson
03-19-2014, 8:50 AM
Sean,this thread has turned into exactly what you said it would,and what I thought it would.

These theoretical type topics always do so.

Chris Griggs
03-19-2014, 9:14 AM
I think its pretty obvious the the evolution of the hand plane peeked with these...nothing better existed before these, and they have not yet, nor will they ever be improved upon.

285094

Daniel Rode
03-19-2014, 9:32 AM
I wan't that advert framed and hanging on my wall :)

george wilson
03-19-2014, 10:00 AM
Chris,you haven't remembered those INCREDIBLY ugly Swiss planes ? They were made of folded sheet,with red plastic infill,IIRC. Their name was RALI . David,or someone will recall them,and post a picture,I hope. A superb example of modern SWISS engineering (of all things)!!!:):):) Google Rali planes.

Chris Griggs
03-19-2014, 10:04 AM
Chris,you haven't remembered those INCREDIBLY ugly Swiss planes that were being sold some years ago? They were made of folded sheet,with red plastic infill,IIRC. Their name started with an R ,I think. David,or someone will recall them,and post a picture,I hope. A superb example of modern SWISS engineering (of all things)!!!:):):)

I've seen those online before, but I forgot about those. "Rali" planes are what you are thinking of I believe. The pinnacle of plane making. :)

285099 285100

george wilson
03-19-2014, 10:06 AM
You've nailed it,Chris!!!!! How could anyone design(?) and produce these monstrosities? You quoted me before I recalled their name. I hadn't thought of them for many,many years!(And wish I STILL hadn't thought of them!!)

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 10:09 AM
Rali. I think they are still marketed in some places.

There was all kinds of disposable blade junk in catalogs, and it was a minefield. I never bought any of that stuff, but the claims in the catalogs and on the internet was that it was something great.

Jeff made the comment in another thread that most of the people buying planes aren't using them hours a day, and he's right. 99% of buyers are going to be looking for something and a very large % of those individuals are not going to use their plane beyond experimenting with it. I can see it in the condition of a lot of the used (newer boutique) tools that I've bought - they've never even been properly sharpened.

The bar in terms of what can be sold now (and has been) is pretty low, and few users are going to run into something where they can even form an opinion about design because they won't work with the planes enough or in enough different situations to have an idea. It creates a market where a large % of the tools sold are even stuff that people should be making from scrap in their shops.

I made the comment in another thread that an english try plane that I bought takes the air out of wanting to make a try plane of my own because it costs less than materials would cost me to make one and even if I had perfected one, it wouldn't be any better. I figure that comment fell on mostly deaf ears (or blind eyes?) because until you make a few planes and find out what makes them work well and what bits of the design make for an elegant plane, a lot of them look almost the same.

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 10:11 AM
I've seen those online before, but I forgot about those. "Rali" planes are what you are thinking of I believe. The pinnacle of plane making. :)

285099 285100

They look like the kind of thing you'd see someone at a woodworking show selling while yelling through one of those hip hop style headsets.

Sean Hughto
03-19-2014, 10:17 AM
Those Rali's look like they might be fine if you are a finish carpenter or handyman that only needs a plane twice a month to take care of a sticking wood door or to taper a piece of molding or some such.

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 10:29 AM
I just looked them up on amazon. They're $159!!!!!!! (it does appear they're marketed to contractors who want to just be able to use a plane without changing blades - the fact that disposable blades are $5 each would suggest that they're not for regular use)

Tony Zaffuto
03-19-2014, 10:34 AM
A few years back, there was a "higher end" plane maker using a variation of a replaceable blade insert. You had to buy either blade inserts or a special jig to sharpen the existing insert. Think the name was Blum??? Anyone recall that plane maker (if I'm wrong in my description, please correct!).

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 10:43 AM
A few years back, there was a "higher end" plane maker using a variation of a replaceable blade insert. You had to buy either blade inserts or a special jig to sharpen the existing insert. Think the name was Blum??? Anyone recall that plane maker (if I'm wrong in my description, please correct!).

Yeah, they're still current as far as I know. I've never seen one in person, but at least they're resharpenable!

Even lie nielsen is making goofy gadgets now to sharpen (or market):
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/drawknives/drawsharp/

Beginners spend the money easiest, I guess. I spend it pretty easy, though! Just not on stuff like that.

george wilson
03-19-2014, 10:53 AM
These diamond sharpeners might produce an edge suitable for cutting FOOD,but not really a real sharp edge. If you are afraid of sharpening your draw knife,better get out of wood working. It is inherently dangerous. How have I ever gotten along all my life without these gadgets they keep coming out with?

So,we have seen TWO magnificent examples of ultra modern plane "engineering".

I bought a cast aluminum plane from Sears when I was a teenager. Everything was cast in 1 piece,even the handle.I was all excited that the square plane iron could be sharpened on all 4 sides. I don't know WHY I felt that way,but I did.

When I got the miserable thing,it had no weight to it at all,and I just could not get used to trying to use it. It still rests in the bottom of a drawer.

Sean Hughto
03-19-2014, 10:58 AM
The one sharpening gadget I love is my wolverine (original vari-grind) for lathe gouges. It just makes it so easy and predictable. Elsworth made a similar jig long ago, so you don't have to buy one (it's not too hard to shop-make), but either way, such a jig itself is super for making quick work of forming outstanding cutting shapes on bowl gouges.

Matthew N. Masail
03-19-2014, 11:09 AM
These diamond sharpeners might produce an edge suitable for cutting FOOD,but not really a real sharp edge. If you are afraid of sharpening your draw knife,better get out of wood working. It is inherently dangerous. How have I ever gotten along all my life without these gadgets they keep coming out with?

So,we have seen TWO magnificent examples of ultra modern plane "engineering".

I bought a cast aluminum plane from Sears when I was a teenager. I was all excited that the square plane iron could be sharpened on all 4 sides. I don't know WHY I felt that way,but I did.

When I got the miserable thing,it had no weight to it at all,and I just could not get used to trying to use it. It still rests in the bottom of a drawer.

You simply didn't know what we know, NOW we are smarter :D

Honestly I think many people look for ways to make money, that is largely the motivation for so many things. I don't buy into the "contractor need a replaceable blade" it only has a marketing hook to it, but any cheap combo stone and simple plane is far far more practical and just as easy. you can carry a Norton combo oil stone to a job site, and they are like 20$. if you can't learn to sharpen a blade on a plane (and you can do it the paul sellers way and not need a grinder ever) than don't use one.

george wilson
03-19-2014, 11:21 AM
I noticed that many of the maintenance men carried those UGLY folding knives that use an inserted box cutter blade. They just don't want to be bothered with sharpening a blade. Likely,most of them DON'T KNOW HOW. All they want is something they can quickly strip wire with. And,that they will do.

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 11:45 AM
I sharpen those utility knife blades to cut boxes. They cut boxes *really well* if you sharpen them, even if the boxes are double thickness. It only takes about the same amount of time to sharpen one as it takes to change them on a quick change knife.

They are not, though, as nice as a good carbon steel pocket knife - which is something I can't find. The opinel knives almost fit the bill, but their lock mechanism isn't that great and mine, at least, has a somewhat warped blade.

Tony Zaffuto
03-19-2014, 1:08 PM
I sharpen those utility knife blades to cut boxes. They cut boxes *really well* if you sharpen them, even if the boxes are double thickness. It only takes about the same amount of time to sharpen one as it takes to change them on a quick change knife.

They are not, though, as nice as a good carbon steel pocket knife - which is something I can't find. The opinel knives almost fit the bill, but their lock mechanism isn't that great and mine, at least, has a somewhat warped blade.

Ahhh Grasshopper, this spring, when leaves come in bloom, you must take your bride and take a drive almost due north, heading for the Tidoute and Tionesta parts of PA, a place where all great pocket knife makers began their trades! Peruse old knives a plenty in the plethora of antique stores, take a factory walk through knife factories such as Great Eastern, Queen, etc. Yes, some of them still make good carbon steel knives, but too many are giving way to stainless and other mixtures.

David Weaver
03-19-2014, 1:23 PM
I'm sure trombley's antiques probably has boxes full of them. I just wasn't paying attention when I was there (actually, I was looking for straight razors and the guy there had a few - literally a shoebox full of them.)

Adam Cruea
03-19-2014, 3:19 PM
I noticed that many of the maintenance men carried those UGLY folding knives that use an inserted box cutter blade. They just don't want to be bothered with sharpening a blade. Likely,most of them DON'T KNOW HOW. All they want is something they can quickly strip wire with. And,that they will do.

People use knives to strip wire?

I just use my teeth. After all, mom and dad laid out like $1800 for orthodontics to get my teeth straight so I could make a clean cut in wire cladding, right? RIGHT? :D

Tom Vanzant
03-19-2014, 6:49 PM
Tony, haven't heard mention of Queen knives in ages. I bought two of them in the early 1950's (OMG), a 3 1/2" jack and a 3 1/2" drop and clip...lost the jack but still have the other. It holds it's own against the Bucks, but have to be aware it's not a lock-back. Miss the jack.

Tony Zaffuto
03-19-2014, 7:13 PM
Tony, haven't heard mention of Queen knives in ages. I bought two of them in the early 1950's (OMG), a 3 1/2" jack and a 3 1/2" drop and clip...lost the jack but still have the other. It holds it's own against the Bucks, but have to be aware it's not a lock-back. Miss the jack.

Do a search for web vendor "Collector Knives". Have bought many dozens of knives from him over the years, and only carries quality goods. I've bought a number of Queen and Schatt & Morgan (another Queen company). He does an excellent job of identifying the steel in all of the knives sold.

george wilson
03-20-2014, 9:26 AM
Sometimes I have taken the original blade out of a pocket knife and made my own and installed it. This for 1 of 2 reasons: The old blade was too worn,but I liked the rest of the knife; Or the old blade was no good. Schrade was one of the worst. Soft as butter.

If you want to find a decent old knife,Puma USED to make great knives. Now,they have gone Chinese,or something. Their pocket knives used to cost $200.00 for a Stockman. Now they are $25.00.

When Marbles started up again making knives,they were USA made and used 1095 steel. Now they have gone Chinese. THeir USA days were very short. Cute looking,but no telling what they are made from. All stainless,too,which I do not like. Probably the lowest carbon grade they could find.

I had 2 good Puma stockman pocket knives before I moved. Part of a nice collection. My favorite was a NOS old model made with plain high carbon blades. The movers stole my pocket knife collection.

David Weaver
03-20-2014, 9:39 AM
Puma (old puma) was very good with carbon steel. Their razors that are on the order of 100 years old were very good, very predictable and fine grained razors that did exactly what they're supposed to do coming off of the stone and strop.

I wish the old razor makers that were very good at making razors would've supplied more pocket knife blades.

They are (puma) chinese now. I'd suspect that most of the knives someone would want that are vintage don't come cheap on ebay, because there are too many eyes on ebay these days.

There are still a few makers using 1095, which is what I think I'd want in a pocket knife given the choice. I do have a buck lockback knife (that is too big to use for pocket use) that was US made in the US out of 154CM, which is like a better 440C and it actually takes a pretty good edge. Someone got stupid with the blade design, though, and made it very hard to sharpen the heel of the knife because of an open assist stub at the top of the blade and a shoulder that isn't shaped right. I guess they don't expect anyone will actually want to sharpen the knife several times.

David Weaver
03-20-2014, 9:42 AM
I've also noticed that knife makers use the term "carbon steel" very loosely, pretty much for anything that's got a half percent of carbon or more, and they don't seem to care how much Cr, MN, V, etc. is in it. If the steel is something whiz bang, then they'll specify what it is (e.g., if it's S53 or something), otherwise they will use carbon steel to describe 1070,1080, 440C (which is obviously stainless), or any number of chinese equivalents but without stating what they actually are.

Woodcraft used some 1095 equivalent for the blades in their quangsheng planes at first, and maybe they still do. I wouldn't mind having a cheap chinese knife made of it, but I wouldn't pay $50 for something made in china, though, so our chances of seeing high quality chinese knives hardened to something like 58 on the dot every time, and straight with good proportions and finish ...i'll bet those chances are pretty small.

george wilson
03-20-2014, 10:16 AM
Bench made knives are good,if you don't mind a modern "military" looking knife. My friend Jon carries one. He leaves the knife I made him on the mantle!! (He's real bad to lose knives). I found him a real nice old carbon steel Puma stockman like the one I had stolen. He managed to break the end off of it cleaning a deer. He has a small,very thick hunting knife he made(I call it his "potato" knife,from the thick blade and rounded but sharp edge. It has been indestructable.

David Weaver
03-20-2014, 11:28 AM
Well, this was a costly discussion (now that it's completely derailed). I managed to find a newer but german made puma stockman for sort-of reasonable ($50). I'd imagine they aren't the equal of the pre-stainless knives, but I know the stuff that comes out of solingen pretty well and I like the hardness spec that puma uses (57-58) for pocket knives. It'll do. I think that the modern razors are somewhere around that spec, which would explain why they don't quite seem to have the biting sharpness the older razors do - that and they're some sort of variant of CrV or CrMN steel, but something that will rust.

I'm not a fan of the boutique knife makers (like benchmade). I know who their market is and what they're doing, but the gap between them and the final iteration of american knives (from the NY makers, etc) just doesn't match up with the price gap - to me. I was hoping for a camillus stockman, but other people seem to have an eye for them, too.

george wilson
03-20-2014, 11:54 AM
I have an old Camillus from the 50's. It is a boy scout TYPE knife (not an actual boy scout knife). Used to be the Coast Guard issue knife back in the 50's. It has black composition handles and is not sharpened to death at all. But,the surfaces have been cleaned quite a bit. If you want it I'll send it to you,David.

Sean Hughto
03-20-2014, 4:12 PM
Dave, I think you need one of these: 251464547796 Look at that purdy handle and you can shave with it too!

Chris Griggs
03-20-2014, 4:22 PM
Sean, you need to be careful about sending Dave ebay listings. Usually when I send him one he reponds within 5 minutes saying he bought it. Please try to be a little more cautious, we don't want him to sustain a spousal injury.:)

Noah Wagener
03-21-2014, 1:28 AM
I like a vertical handle to push horizontally and push down on the body of the plane. George posted a picture of a smooth plane with a little raised portion just behind the blade that i think i would enjoy on all planes as i am only touching the handle with the crotch between thumb and forefinger close to the body of the plane. Krenov planes seem to have a similar grip. My main discomfort is with the front hand. My wrist is super pronated. Maybe thats what horned planes are for? I never see knobs on wooden planes.