The new LV planes

[Kees Heiden]

Let's start a new thread instead of burying it at the end of another one.

To start, I am impressed. A complete new line of planes. Bevel down WITH chipbreaker! In light of my recent bit of research it won't be a surprise that I like that. And a 55 degree frog for those people who hate the chipbreaker with a deep and lasting hate. The price is very reasonable, just a little over the bevel up planes, so there is now really no reason to continue that line of planes anymore :D

There are some points of critique though and questions. Just a first impression of course.
-I don't see a 50 degree frog. I think that would be more usefull then a 55 degree one. I really like my 49 degree Ullmia smoother. It makes setting the chipbreaker a bit more forgiving without adding a whole lot resistance.
- The instructions say to position the chipbreaker at 1/64" or 0.5mm. That's not helpfull. We know that you won't get too much help from the chipbreaker at that point, it merely helps to limit the amount of tearout. It's better to write a number in the manual that really does something spectaculair, like 1/128" or less.
- I see many little bits and pieces and wonder how complex it is?
- Can you set the chipbreaker outside of the plane so you can actually see what you are doing? The manual suggest that you set it inside the plane.
- A 40 degree frog for shooting? Hmmm, anyone going to switch frogs for shooting? Or just sharpen the blade and get on with work.

[Moses Yoder]

Please link to scientific studies that prove setting your cap iron 1/128" from the leading edge of the iron is significantly better than setting it at 1/64", and then upload a video demonstrating how to set the cap iron perfectly parallel and exactly 1/128" from the edge of the iron.

You would not switch frogs to shoot; you would have one plane for smoothing and one for shooting.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Frogs are available at any angle from 40 to 60 in 0.5 degree increments! when buying a new plane a custom frog is like 10$ extra or something (I checked but don't remember the exact amount). that is AMAZING service if you ask me.


setting the chipbreaker inside the plane? that sounds awkward, but maybe they are on to something?


you can't fault them for offering a 40degree frog, even if it's more marketing than practical.


My only "issue" with them is as I always have with LV, I'm not a huge fan of the futuristic look. but these are ok.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm intrigued by the planes enough that I will be putting one on my "Santa" list later this year (fully specced out). But Matthew, the look is a throwback look, with the planes reminding me of the Stanley Gage (iron soles) of years past.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Just did a search for "Stanley Gage", you are right, casting shape is similar. I actually like the casting shape more than the previous Veritas planes, non the less all the other details tie together to create a modern look that is far cry from the classic elegant look that I prefer. but the planes are nice IMO.

[Kees Heiden]

Please link to scientific studies that prove setting your cap iron 1/128" from the leading edge of the iron is significantly better than setting it at 1/64", and then upload a video demonstrating how to set the cap iron perfectly parallel and exactly 1/128" from the edge of the iron.

You would not switch frogs to shoot; you would have one plane for smoothing and one for shooting.

Hi Moses,

The most scientific video is from prof. Kato and Kawai: http://vimeo.com/41372857

A study I did to the same issue: http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/cap_iron_study_by_kees_van_der.html

A video from me posted in 2012. It takes me more time to get the thing in view then setting it in the first place. I didn't measure but it is in the 1/128" ballpark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjpzta0FuY

And if you want to know more about the relevance of the chipbreaker set very close to the edge, why not read my last article?
http://planetuning.infillplane.com/html/mechanics_of_chipbreakers.html

Any more questions? :)

[Kees Heiden]

The new #4 = 4 lbs 5 oz. That's 1.94 kg.

The old Stanley #4's are 1.7 kg. My wooden smoother is 0.8 kg. These planes seem to get heavier all the time!
My old infill is 2.2 kg. That's really a heavy sucker.

[Steve Voigt]

… how to set the cap iron perfectly parallel and exactly 1/128" from the edge of the iron…


This post (http://blog.lostartpress.com/2014/04/06/chipbreaker-setting-trick/) by Chris Schwarz, via Rhett Fulkerson, shows you an easy way to get exact settings of the CB. It's completely unnecessary for normal use, but it might be helpful for someone who has no idea what .008 (or whatever) looks like.

Kees, I like 50° with a CB too; I've made all my woodies that way for some time.

Sorry for the brief hijack folks.

[David Weaver]

I'd imagine the 50 degree frog is left out because it's not very effective *without* using the cap iron.

I'd be interested in hearing why they chose to include a cap iron.

[george wilson]

It is gratifying to see that LY has apparently been inspired(is that the word? Perhaps influenced) to introduce new BD planes. I'll warrant it is in no small degree due to discussions here led by David,Kees,Warren,and the Japanese video.

[Bruce Mack]

So why would I buy a LV plane when LN has a similar range of bevel down planes with interchangeable frogs, comparable prices, and (in my opinion) superior esthetics? Not for the slanted tote or the moveable toe.

[Kees Heiden]

Another trick to set the capiron quick and easy, but not as precise. Set the blade on a piece of softwood. Press down and then push the capiron forward. Like in this short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGhDV1jM0pU

And the result is 0.13 mm:
296760

[Derek Cohen]

Or, you use a chip breaker that holds it shape and has a screw that is easy to tighten with two fingers, which applies just enough tension to adjust the fit incrementally. I wrote about this. Remember?

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LeeValleyChipbreaker.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Yes I remember that thread, got a bit heated in the end. I still don't have any troubles with my Stanley breakers. They don't slide when tightening the screw. But I can understand when your eyes aren't so young anymore, that a trick like this is helpfull.

[Jim Koepke]

setting the chipbreaker inside the plane? that sounds awkward, but maybe they are on to something?

There is no frog adjustment so they had to give us something with which we can fiddle. It does seem a bit fiddly to me. With an adjustable mouth, who needs an adjustable frog?


you can't fault them for offering a 40degree frog, even if it's more marketing than practical.

If you use a low angle bevel up plane with a 25º grind you are at 37º. 40º gives a good relief clearance for most blade sharpening practices.

Nice innovations but unlikely I will come into the need or money to purchase one.

jtk

[Adam Cruea]

I'd imagine the 50 degree frog is left out because it's not very effective *without* using the cap iron.

I'd be interested in hearing why they chose to include a cap iron.

This is one reason I like 50* frogs (and got a LN 4 1/2 with a York pitch). It's a great all-around smoother and when the grain gets super-gnarly, it just keeps right on going.

I think this is a good move by LV. I also like that they offer the LV type totes and the Stanley-esque type totes.

[Judson Green]

Nice innovations but unlikely I will come into the need or money to purchase one.

jtk

Agreed neat planes, and neat idea I'm sure it'll be a hit but that's too much cabbage for this rust hunter.

[Alan Schwabacher]

You can order a plane with a frog at whatever angle you want for only a $10 surcharge. I think they've listened and thought carefully before coming out with this.

[Paul Murphy]

I'm hoping to see a review of the 4-1/2 with a 50 degree frog. The bevel-down is so much easier to camber (my opinion anyway) that I think is will make a wonderful final smoother.
I already want one, all my other nice planes are LVBU models and all are excellent (favorite so far is low angle smoother).
The new planes look well designed and user friendly, nice work LV!

[David Weaver]

You can bet that they've made what people have requested, that's what a good company does. People complain about the handles, and people probably wanted bevel down with a bunch of pitches (because they see that LN has those).

They've got some folks who like planes that have a straight up or near it pitch, because they've always pushed that, so naturally they give everyone what they want. I wouldn't be surprised to see the BU planes following suit with handles and knobs, and perhaps even a 20 degree clearance (but I doubt that last part).

[Malcolm Schweizer]

I love what they have done. I love the look, the options, the customization. I darned near bought a 4 1\2, but I have a few other more needed tools, and $250 worth of wood yet to buy for a few projects.

What I do not like is that they seem to be lacking in sidewall support- especially the jointer. They seem thin on the front, and the sides sure do taper off a lot. I mentioned on the other thread that the front appears to move in the "choosing a knob and tote" video, but I assume it is just rocking on the blade. Start at 0:22 and see it move when he pushes down. Surely it isn't actually flexing is it? It has to just be rocking on the blade or the bench is not flat.

Funny- LV comes out with this huge improvement, and LN changes their website so that I have yet to find the button to click to see their tools. I have a gift certificate to spend and can't find anything other than the "featured tools" on their site.

[bridger berdel]

these are clever. I like that they shifted the mouth adjustment from the frog to the toe, but I don't like that doing so added more moving parts to the plane. having the toe easily moveable seems like it will make clearing jams without resetting the blade more convenient, as well as giving one more variable to work with in the quest for a perfectly tuned plane. the frog might as well be integral to the sole. they could still offer custom angles, it would just be one more round in the cnc machining center before shipping. the extra cost of that would likely be offset by the savings from eliminating the two part frog machining. the idea of swapping frogs in use being practical is fantasy, imho. they tout the wide sides being ideal for shooting, but I'd like the sides of my shooting plane to also be wide at the heel and toe, not just alongside the frog. a tilting tote would also be on my list for a shooting plane. add to that the unfortunate truth that my plane till is already full, as are several drawers, boxes and shelves, and my tool budget is empty and it doesn't look like I'll be buying one of these any time soon.


personally, I would like to see a frog pitched for scraping, and one that pushes the low limit. an ultra low angle plane would likely need a cutter made of a specialty steel to be able to hold an edge at say 20 degrees. it seems that metallurgy is advancing to the point that such a steel is probably not far off. I suspect that a 20 degree plane with a close set chipbreaker would yield a very nice surface in even tempered woods, which is most of what I work with.

:Kees:
there is a place for heavy planes. that said, I also prefer for most of mine to be lighter, especially the ones that will be used for any length of time.

:George:
the state of fashion in the plane world has shifted back to bevel down with chipbreaker. Kato and Kawai, and the internet discussions have definitely been a major force in this. I'm pretty sure it was internet buzz that drove the development of the current state of the bevel up, no chipbreaker planes too...

:Bruce:
the reason to buy LV over LN comes down to small but significant differences in engineering. the adjustable mouth *is* a reason, as are the lateral adjustment set screws. their cap iron/norris-esque adjuster setup looks like they have put a fair bit of work into getting it right- I suspect that it will work well in use.
aesthetics is an entirely subjective thing. buck rogers modern or steampunk retro- is one wrong?

[Frank Martin]

I am primarily a power tool guy but I also have nearly all of the bevel up planes and several others from Veritas. I think these planes are really innovative from an engineering perspective even if customization were not available. I definitely don't have the need, but may get the no. 4 smooter to see how these work and feel different from the bevel up planes. Although, I still love the simplicity of the bevel up planes. Now at least they have an option for most folks who prefer different styles and options.

[John Coloccia]

It is gratifying to see that LY has apparently been inspired(is that the word? Perhaps influenced) to introduce new BD planes. I'll warrant it is in no small degree due to discussions here led by David,Kees,Warren,and the Japanese video.

I agree. What struck me most by looking at the videos is how similar a well setup0 BD iron and chipbreaker function to a well setup scraper. I have nothing in particular against BU planes, but their lineup was just woefully incomplete without the BD planes. One thing I question, though, is looking at the casting there doesn't appear to be any good place to grab the plane when it's on it's side, such as when you're using a shooting board. Normally, I like having more casting in front of the chip breaker so my fingers have something to grip. I like the streamlined look, but I'm not so sure I'd be happy with that one aspect of the design.

[Jim Belair]

I have nothing in particular against BU planes, but their lineup was just woefully incomplete without the BD planes.

Other posters have chimed in how great it is that Veritas have come out with planes that use cap irons in light of the research, etc.

But don't these (that have been in their line up for years) count?

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2601s6.jpg http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2302sb.jpg

[John Coloccia]

Other posters have chimed in how great it is that Veritas have come out with planes that use cap irons in light of the research, etc.

But don't these (that have been in their line up for years) count?

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2601s6.jpg http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/woodworking/planes/05p2302sb.jpg

I typed too fast. I should have said something more like "without THESE BD planes". Their old lineup was a not as complete (it's still a bit incomplete, but...), and honestly there are some design quirks which I didn't really like. For all the things that LV does really well, I thought their BD planes were not all that great. These new ones seem to be very nice. It's no mistake that a lot of my BU planes were LV, but all of my BD were LN. If I buy another BD plane, these new ones demand serious consideration, IMHO.

[Kevin Harris]

I also like the holes for the optional fence, not so much for use with the fence, but I plan to make up some aluminum depth skids for planing small and thin parts to consistent thickness.

[Kevin Harris]

And I also like the accessory slow adjusting norris adjuster as I think that will make adjustments for thin shavings easier. Unfortunately it looks like you have to buy that separately and then swap it for the one in the plane - I wish they had that as a configurable option in ordering the new plane. I'll have to go into a store and ask if I can order the plane with the slow adjuster.

[Chris Griggs]

Alright guys, I'm back in Philly, so I'm going to go through this thread and try to answer questions about these planes based on my experience using a prototype of the No. 4 in my shop over the past few months. As of right now, I don't plan to write a full Derek-esc review, maybe I will later, but really I just don't have time to do so right now, and I think there is more information to be gathered just by answering questions people may have.



There are some points of critique though and questions. Just a first impression of course.
-I don't see a 50 degree frog. I think that would be more usefull then a 55 degree one. I really like my 49 degree Ullmia smoother. It makes setting the chipbreaker a bit more forgiving without adding a whole lot resistance.
- The instructions say to position the chipbreaker at 1/64" or 0.5mm. That's not helpfull. We know that you won't get too much help from the chipbreaker at that point, it merely helps to limit the amount of tearout. It's better to write a number in the manual that really does something spectaculair, like 1/128" or less.
- I see many little bits and pieces and wonder how complex it is?
- Can you set the chipbreaker outside of the plane so you can actually see what you are doing? The manual suggest that you set it inside the plane.
- A 40 degree frog for shooting? Hmmm, anyone going to switch frogs for shooting? Or just sharpen the blade and get on with work.

So anyway, I'll start with Kee's questions.

I can say without hesitation that I found nothing to be overly complex about the plane. I just looked at the instructions for the first time and I very much see why it seems complex, but in reality everything in terms of setup and changeover is very easy and intuitive. My protoype didn't come with instructions and I had zero issue setting things up and changing frogs over quickly (my prototype came with a 45 degree and 55 degree frogs). That said I don't really like to bother with changing frogs so while I did mess with the 55 degree frog I mainly used the 45 degree and controlled tearout with depth of cut and mouth adjustments....


....which brings me to me next comment...that is, I can't comment on how the cap iron setting works inside vs outside the plane as my prototype did not come with a cap iron. When I get a production one I will most certainly be making use of of the cap iron, but I will add that having so much control of the mouth did make it easier to get by without a cap iron when using the 45 degree frog...again, when I get one with a cap iron I will use it, but the BU style adjustable mouth on a BD plane REALLY is a nice feature.

This probably goes without saying, but I do btw agree with you Kees about the distance of the cap iron..for fine to medium fine work anyway...heavier works another conversation.


The new #4 = 4 lbs 5 oz. That's 1.94 kg.

The old Stanley #4's are 1.7 kg. My wooden smoother is 0.8 kg. These planes seem to get heavier all the time!
My old infill is 2.2 kg. That's really a heavy sucker.

I had a definite opinion about the weight of planes in the early conversations I had with them before receiving the prototype. My personal advice to them was not to not be reckless with weight. I think I said something along the lines of "I like some added weight in smoothers, but in 6, 7, and 8s, I'm always found the weight of the modern bedrocks to be heavier than I like." So, with that in mind, its no surprise that I like the weight of the No. 4 a lot, I don't remember if I ever weighed it, but I'm surprised to see that it's listed at 4.5 lbs...the plane does feel weighty but its well balanced so it doesn't feel clunky or overly heavy...its a very nice feeling smoother. I wish I could comment on the weight of larger planes (which indeed sound pretty darn heavy on paper, especially the No. 7) but again I've only used the 4.

I should add that overall I am super thrilled with how this line turned out. Really love having that adjustable throat, and while it might not be the most exciting aspect in terms of cool new features I am MOST thrilled with the tote choices. I absolutely love the large Stanley style tote I have on mine. Its amazing how something like a choice grip, that may appear somewhat benign can have such an impact on user experience.

[Kent A Bathurst]

So why would I buy a LV plane when LN has a similar range of bevel down planes with interchangeable frogs, comparable prices, and (in my opinion) superior esthetics? Not for the slanted tote or the moveable toe.

Bruce -

Short answer: You wouldn't.

The "aesthetics" [spelling corrected] are in the eye of the eye of the beholder. The slanted tote and moveable toe will appeal to a lot of people.

Some people really appreciate the modernization of the age-old designs. Some people appreciate the detailed refinement of the age-old designs.

Me? - I gots me a wall fulla LN, with a couple LV interspersed where that product suited me better. And a couple prized Keen Kutters.

You clearly would never be interested in an LV product, which is just ducky from my perspective. Your ad hominem argument carries little weight - you offered nothing of value in the thread.

Carry on. Be well. Leave these LV fans some Lee-way [rim-shot]. :p :p

[Chris Griggs]

I'd be interested in hearing why they chose to include a cap iron.

I don't know the whole story but I do know that the decision to include the cap iron was something they spent a lot of time evaluating.

I first heard about these a little over 3 years ago, before I had learned to use a cap iron effectively. In my earliest discussion with them about these I said that thought they should make a BD plane with an adjustable throat piece and no cap iron. Their response at the time was that that was the plan.

Interestingly this conversation with them happend probably about a month before Dave started explaining to me how to use a cap iron via PM. Literally, in my next conversation with them just a few weeks later, I told them that I had done a 180 in my thoughts on a capiron, and that I felt they definitely needed to at least have it as an option. A few months after that the Kato video started getting lots of play, Dave's cap iron article was published to Wood Central, and our little sector of the internet was flooded with cap iron discussions. I don't know when the decision to include a cap iron was made and I don't know what solidified the decision but I do know that they were reading, listening, and doing there own testing throughout that time period.

I have little doubt the folks like you, Kees, Warren, and all of us in the market who started valuing it as an essential part of a BD plane, weighed heavily in their decision making process.

[Bruce Mack]

:Bruce:
the reason to buy LV over LN comes down to small but significant differences in engineering. the adjustable mouth *is* a reason, as are the lateral adjustment set screws. their cap iron/norris-esque adjuster setup looks like they have put a fair bit of work into getting it right- I suspect that it will work well in use.
aesthetics is an entirely subjective thing. buck rogers modern or steampunk retro- is one wrong?

Bridger - I was abrupt and likely wrong. If the Norris mechanism was finely tuned and allowed some on the fly adjustment, I would be a potential buyer. (I've had trouble using the Norris)

[Jim Belair]

I'm kind of a lightweight at all this compared to many of you guys, but haven't the vast majority of bevel down bench planes made in the past 100 years included a cap iron? I'd have been more surprised if they hadn't included one.

[David Weaver]

I don't know the whole story but I do know that the decision to include the cap iron was something they spent a lot of time evaluating.

I first heard about these a little over 3 years ago, before I had learned to use a cap iron effectively. In my earliest discussion with them about these I said that thought they should make a BD plane with an adjustable throat piece and no cap iron. Their response at the time was that that was the plan.

Interestingly this conversation with them happend probably about a month before Dave started explaining to me how to use a cap iron via PM. Literally, in my next conversation with them just a few weeks later, I told them that I had done a 180 in my thoughts on a capiron, and that I felt they definitely needed to at least have it as an option. A few months after that the Kato video started getting lots of play, Dave's cap iron article was published to Wood Central, and our little sector of the internet was flooded with cap iron discussions. I don't know when the decision to include a cap iron was made and I don't know what solidified the decision but I do know that they were reading, listening, and doing there own testing throughout that time period.

I have little doubt the folks like you, Kees, Warren, and all of us in the market who started valuing it as an essential part of a BD plane, weighed heavily in their decision making process.

Whatever the reason, I'm glad to see that they're offering planes with cap irons, though they have been for a while and I just never bought one for really no good reason (the old BD plane that they had).

But now you can really get one however you like. It was suggested on another forum that these discussions may have put a dent in BU sales, and whether that is or isn't the case isn't something that I'm concerned about, but even if it was, I know they listen to the market, and as long as the market exists, so will they.

[David Dalzell]

I believe that all these questions, assumptions, beliefs, theories, and suppositions will be definitivly answered when we gain a consensus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Bruce Mack]

Bruce -

Short answer: You wouldn't.

The "aesthetics" [spelling corrected] are in the eye of the eye of the beholder. The slanted tote and moveable toe will appeal to a lot of people.

Some people really appreciate the modernization of the age-old designs. Some people appreciate the detailed refinement of the age-old designs.

Me? - I gots me a wall fulla LN, with a couple LV interspersed where that product suited me better. And a couple prized Keen Kutters.

You clearly would never be interested in an LV product, which is just ducky from my perspective. Your ad hominem argument carries little weight - you offered nothing of value in the thread.

Carry on. Be well. Leave these LV fans some Lee-way [rim-shot]. :p :p

Kent-Your Arthurian avatar explains your preference for European spelling but not your rudeness. That is homegrown. I do own Veritas planes and like Lee Valley's panoply of woodworking products. Here however they're late for the train. My best to you.
Bruce

[Kees Heiden]

Anyone know when they will be available in Europe?

[David Weaver]

I believe that all these questions, assumptions, beliefs, theories, and suppositions will be definitivly answered when we gain a consensus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The answer is clearly 42.

[Adam Cruea]

I had a definite opinion about the weight of planes in the early conversations I had with them before receiving the prototype. My personal advice to them was not to not be reckless with weight. I think I said something along the lines of "I like some added weight in smoothers, but in 6, 7, and 8s, I'm always found the weight of the modern bedrocks to be heavier than I like." So, with that in mind, its no surprise that I like the weight of the No. 4 a lot, I don't remember if I ever weighed it, but I'm surprised to see that it's listed at 4.5 lbs...the plane does feel weighty but its well balanced so it doesn't feel clunky or overly heavy...its a very nice feeling smoother. I wish I could comment on the weight of larger planes (which indeed sound pretty darn heavy on paper, especially the No. 7) but again I've only used the 4.

I should add that overall I am super thrilled with how this line turned out. Really love having that adjustable throat, and while it might not be the most exciting aspect in terms of cool new features I am MOST thrilled with the tote choices. I absolutely love the large Stanley style tote I have on mine. Its amazing how something like a choice grip, that may appear somewhat benign can have such an impact on user experience.

If I may ask. . .what's wrong with a weightier plane?

I find my 7s and 8s to be an excellent weight; and I have a 7 with a thinner casting (curved Bedrock) that almost feels a little light to me. I have the LN 4 1/2 smoother and I honestly love the 5 1/2 pounds (that actually a real reason I love my #51. . .over 9 pounds of iron love, baby!)

I realize everyone has a preference here, so I'm more just curious as I may be able to incorporate something new into how I do things. Just keep in mind, I'm the same guy that has a mortise mallet made from 2 chunks of 7 inch 8/4 hickory glued together. ;)

[Warren Mickley]

Kees, here are some thoughts on the planes. I written some of this stuff other years on other fora and I am not sure what you have seen. I think the ideal angle for a plane is somewhere around 40 degrees. I have long thought that the reason the Bailey plane used 45 was to give cushion to those who honed at angles above 30 degrees. I have seen videos of well known hand tool teachers who apparently hone freehand way over 30 degrees maybe even closer to 40 degrees. My own experiments in 1977 indicated that clearance problems were definitely noticed at 8 degrees not noticed at 10 degrees.

Some time around 1982 I altered a Bailey plane to cut at 42 degrees and have used it ever since. I think there is a very modest gain to surface quality compared to a 45 degree plane. Of course the lower the planing angle, the more important the honing angle (because of clearance). I have used freehand honing all my life, but I think a honing jig user could easily handle a 40 degree bed angle.

On thing that jumped out to me about the new plane was the shortness of the iron. Like five inches or even a little less. Perhaps to guys who are using their little jigs it would not matter, but for me this short iron would represent a significant loss of angular control when honing. I can't imagine what the designer was thinking.

[David Weaver]

I can't imagine what the designer was thinking.

Clearance for the adjuster, I'd imagine.

[Kees Heiden]

In Europe there is a long standing tradition for 49-50 degree planes. From the single iron planes of the 17th century, via the york pitch, to the German reform smoothers of today. No idea really what the relevance of that history is though. Japanese prefer lower angles, with a good reason I presume (and they plane hardwoods too!).

[David Weaver]

Surface appearance on unfinished wood is important to them, especially in architectural context. In our discussions on here, you often see "who cares, it all looks the same once you finish it", but at least historically, there's some japanese work that doesn't get finished.

There is a pretty significant difference between a common pitch stanley plane and a kanna at 8/10 bu on some woods. On harder woods, not so much. The brightness of the surface demands that the smoothing is done well because imperfections show up pretty easily. It's not usually any trouble unless you get a deeper-than-expected cut at some point (something that happens if you chance leaving a piece to be smoothed later and it moves).

[Matthew N. Masail]

I'd like to comment on the use of a lower angle plane, surface finish asaid. I made a couple lower angle planes, one block plane at 40 and a jack at about 42-43. both of them cut very very well, the low angle seems to bite into the wood more easily and gives a butter like action. I have not done ANY tearout tests as these plane are no longer in use, the jack was a prototype and the block was a commission, but if tear-out can be controlled with a 40-42 angle it sure would make a nice plane to use.


I also very much like larger wooden planes with a single Iron (I used the LV irons) bedded at 50. I made 1 try plane and 1 jointer, both were great and both sold. a single iron is nice when using the plane for stock prep and such, and 50 degree doesn't tear much at all with most regular woods.


Back to the New Planes. I looked at the instructions, seems like you might need to remove the cap iron holder in order to hollow grind on a wide tool rest. seems like they changed it so the plane can be used without the breaker as well. I'm not sure if it's fiddely or not, but seems like it might be. I'm looking forward to reading some real life reviews.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Surface appearance on unfinished wood is important to them, especially in architectural context. In our discussions on here, you often see "who cares, it all looks the same once you finish it", but at least historically, there's some japanese work that doesn't get finished.

There is a pretty significant difference between a common pitch stanley plane and a kanna at 8/10 bu on some woods. On harder woods, not so much. The brightness of the surface demands that the smoothing is done well because imperfections show up pretty easily. It's not usually any trouble unless you get a deeper-than-expected cut at some point (something that happens if you chance leaving a piece to be smoothed later and it moves).

David you are right, I read a book about Japanese temple making, and the wood goes mostly unfinished. the reason in the book for the proper finishing cut was more than cosmetic (though that is important too), the master temple maker claimed that if the fibers are properly severed with the finishing cut, it will cause them to become more resistant to moisture since the cut is clean with no voids, or something along those lines. the book discuses the Yairi Kanna for non flat surfaces and the skill needed to use it.

[Chris Griggs]

If I may ask. . .what's wrong with a weightier plane?

I find my 7s and 8s to be an excellent weight; and I have a 7 with a thinner casting (curved Bedrock) that almost feels a little light to me. I have the LN 4 1/2 smoother and I honestly love the 5 1/2 pounds (that actually a real reason I love my #51. . .over 9 pounds of iron love, baby!)

I realize everyone has a preference here, so I'm more just curious as I may be able to incorporate something new into how I do things. Just keep in mind, I'm the same guy that has a mortise mallet made from 2 chunks of 7 inch 8/4 hickory glued together. ;)

Nothing wrong with heavier planes. It's a matter of personal preference, combined with what woods one works, and what task one uses a plane for. In terms of long planes I find the weight of my type 11 No. 7 and my MF No. 18 (e.g. No. 6 size) to be perfect for the work I do.

For me I find..

- That as the amount of time I will spend using a given plane increases my liking of weight decreases. That is I tend to like heavy planes for making already fairly flat board a little flatter, but when it comes to really getting a surface flat with a No. 7, following a coarsely set jack, I prefer the lighter weight of a vintage bailey. I do like heavy smoothers (which includes a love affair with 5 1/2s) but when that same mass is proportionally increased on a 6 or bigger I find that that I get tired out pretty quickly.

- On the flip side, I find that as the hardness or difficulty of the wood I am working increases my liking of weight increases. That is, I am more likely to like an extra heavy plane when I am working harder wood...the decrease in effort on the push is more likely to offset the increase in effort on the pull.

At the moment I do all my stock prep by hand (though I do want a thickness planer) and I mostly work moderate domestic hardwoods (e.g. cherry and walnut). So for the work I'm doing which involves extended periods of heavy work with my fores and jointers, a lot of weight tends to tire me out more than it helps...so for my larger planes I gravitate towards vintage Baileys and MFs.

If I were working harder woods or doing less intense surface prep with my planes I think I would generally prefer the heavier planes. That weight really does make things easier when your taking a heavy cut through really hard wood, but again for what I do it tends to tire me out more than it helps.

Despite my personal preference, I think among people who are in the market for new premium plane, I am the odd man out. I mean, why spend $300 on a new plane if its exactly the same as an $80 vintage plane. I certainly see why manufacturers have gravitated towards heavier castings, and I think they were smart make them about the same weight as the new Bed Rocks on the market (LN, Clifton, WR). I certainly don't think they went overboard or outside the modern preferred norms. I just personally have found myself gravitating towards something a little lighter than the 8-10 lb modern jointers for most of what I use a jointer for, which again is typically extended periods of flattening of moderate domestic hardwoods (and that context is inseparable from my weight preference...which even with all that is a mild preference and likely won't stop me from buying a new 7 at some point).


Long story short, like all things, weight has trade offs, and how/what you work will likely dictate what trade off make the most sense.

[Judson Green]

I have a new style Stanley Bedrock #4 (it was a gift) and it has a Norris style adjuster. And I find that adjuster rather difficult to set and easily bumped. Kind of a bummer as I had high hopes for that style adjuster, but the one on this plane has turned me off.

Is the LV better? I didn't notice, are there set screws on the body to keep the iron set?

[Chris Griggs]

I have a new style Stanley Bedrock #4 (it was a gift) and it has a Norris style adjuster. And I find that adjuster rather difficult to set and easily bumped. Kind of a bummer as I had high hopes for that style adjuster, but the one on this plane has turned me off.

Is the LV better? I didn't notice, are there set screws on the body to keep the iron set?

I haven't had any issues with bumping the Norris adjuster, but I haven't used the new Stanley so I can't make any sort of comparison there. There are set screws, but they are intended to keep the blade centered, and you can still do some lateral adjustment with them engaged. If your prone to bumping a Norris adjuster the set screws won't necessarily prevent the problem.

The Norris adjuster does take some getting used to if one is accustomed to Baily adjusters, but again, I've had no issues with bumping it, and am overall pleased with it.

Since we are on the topic I'll also comment on the "adjust-ability on the fly" that some have asked about. It's worth noting that ones ability to make an adjustment without taking their hand off the tote will depend on hand size and the angle of the frog you have on the plane. I have fairly large hands, but not huge hands (~3 7/8" wide palm and rather long fingers) and I can easily adjust "on the fly" with the 45 degree frog in. Higher frogs, however, move the adjuster knob away from your hand. With the 55 degree frog in I need to remove my hand from the tote to make an adjustment.

Just something worth considering if that's important to you. I don't think that majority of people would have any issues with on the fly adjustments using the 45 degree frog, but if one is a getting high angle frog and that "on fly" adjustment is really important to them (its not that important to me) than its definitely something to think about in deciding whether or not to purchase one of these.

[john zulu]

I find the "on fly" adjustment really important. The bevel up does not allow it b'cos the chipbreaker screw is on the blade.
Anyway I find there are pro and cons to the design and I have lived with them.

[Chris Griggs]

I should probably also define what I mean by "on fly"...there seem to be a few definitions that people use.

Some folks use it to mean adjusting the plane while in motion, some use it to mean the ability to adjust the plane without loosening anything, and some folks mean something in btewen that. Above I was speaking more about being able to make adjustments without taking ones hand of the tote.

So with that said. You definitely do not need to loosen anything to adjust the new BD planes, they 100% qualify for that definition of "on the fly" adjustment (and that aspect is somewhat important to me). Actually, I keep the caps on my BU planes loose enough that they also qualify for that definition.

As far as being able to adjust without removing ones hand from the tote or possibly even mid stroke, that is what will depend on hand size and frog pitch...while I do find it nice to not need to remove my hand from the tote, I never make depth adjustments mid stroke so this aspect is less important to me.

[Jim Koepke]

I should probably also define what I mean by "on fly"...there seem to be a few definitions that people use.

Glad you defined this. My thoughts have been that with a Norris style adjuster the lever cap should be loosened when making adjustments.

For me, this has always been one advantage of the Bailey style adjuster.

jtk

[john zulu]

I did try to loosen up the cap on the bevel up plane from Veritas. Problem was the blade did move while planing. Finally tighten down and it work flawlessly. Yup, "on fly" means my hand is on the tote.

Despite my like for the bailey..... I still use my LAJ for tough wood from the tropics. Softer wood my bailey does fine.
@Chris please review on the new planes. I am knocking my head what new advantages it brings to the table. I am a firm believer of effective angle and see no extra benefits from the new plane.... Clarification?

[bob blakeborough]

I also find I never need to loosen things on my Norris adjuster LV planes. There is no need to tighten everything so much that you cannot advance the blade without loosening it. I also never adjust blade depth mid stroke so it has never been an issue for me. I must admit I have never really understood when people talk about adjusting on the fly as the 1 second it takes me to stop and advance the Norris adjuster and continue has never seemed like anything painful or NOT on the fly. I always assumed they meant they were making adjustments mid-stroke while planning and that didn't seem any more useful to me so I always just left it alone. Now that it has been mentioned that the description of ON THE FLY could mean different things to different people, I think I can say I have no problem with Norris adjusters on the fly either (for how I work)...

[john zulu]

Creeping up to the right blade depth. But you are right. Once it is locked in. No need for the adjustment.

[Chris Griggs]

@Chris please review on the new planes. I am knocking my head what new advantages it brings to the table. I am a firm believer of effective angle and see no extra benefits from the new plane.... Clarification?

Hi John,

I haven't decided whether or not I'll write a full review yet...but the main reason I haven't yet is I have a prototype, and if were to review them I would want to wait until I have a production line one. Also, I honestly have a hard time with reviews, because at the end of the day a vintage bailey style plane with a properly set and tuned cap iron works wonders. So while I really enjoy my premium tools, find they make some things easier, and am in general a big fan LV (and LN), I don't want push the idea that premium tools are somehow a requirement to entry.

When it comes to advantages of new bench planes in general (and the includes LN, LV, WR, Clifton, etc...) the advantages are mostly about niceties, comforts, and ease of setup and use. There's not a lot that can be done to dramatically improve upon a Bailey plane in terms of just getting from point A to point B, and I'll never tell anyone they need or should trade in there vintage planes or LNs or Cliftons or whatever for these. They are simply another option on the market that offer some different features and above all else some nice flexible options.

As far as the advantages of the new line is concerned, most of the advantages are going to be the same advantages you get with any new premium plane...(good flat/square machining, tight adjustments, good blade, etc...)

That said, I think the particular standout out features of these are the adjustable mouth and buyer choices. That's the main thing that makes them different from other offerings. On my vintage planes I don't generally adjust the frog or mouth much and as far as controlling tearout, don't really need to since the cap iron alone generally does enough. Still I have found that having an easily adjustable mouth is really nice. Its nice to be able to open it up or close it up so easily to suit a given use, and it is one additional weapon in the war against tearout.

Is that feature needed to do good work? Certainly not, but I like it. That's all, its just really nice convenience..it's something that I've always liked about BU planes even though I've in general preferred BD planes...so I'm really happy to have it available on a BD plane. It will be an even more important feature for those who don't know how to or simply don't like to use cap irons. In such cases, users will be able to simply remove the cap iron entirely, and enjoy more control over tearout and one less piece part to deal with. I certainly WILL be using the cap iron on mine, but I think there are likely a lot of people who don't use them, and those are the folks who will benefit most from this design.

For me the biggest feature is the buyer options. Personally, the planes in my shop that I use most aren't always the ones that are the "best", so much as they are the ones that are most comfortable to me. For me, being able to pick a style and size of tote and knob really is a very nice feature. Of course, one can always modify, make new, or even buy alternative totes for just about any plane, but being able to buy a new tool fitted to your grip style and hand size is nice...again not required, but nice. I can't say enough good about how the large Stanley tote feels in my hand, it just makes the plane more comfortable to use for longer periods of time.

The adjuster is well, an adjuster. It works fine and does what it is supposed do and I don't really find it to be any better or any worse than any other finely made adjustment mechanism. The tool itself planes wood and leaves a nice surface, same as an LN or vintage or other...the result is the same, and the wood most certainly doesn't care what the plane is as long as it is sharp and setup properly.

I'm guessing over the coming weeks we will begin to see reviews that detail multiple aspects of the design, but there's really not much else to say then that's all that substantial. They're nice tools, that are made to a high quality, are very easy setup/changeover/adjust, comfortable to use, and that have some unique features that some folks will really like and some won't, and some won't care about either way. The fact that they are available certainly doesn't make anything that was already on the market all of the sudden ineffective, it simply provides an additional set of options for those in the market.

My advice to anyone who is on the fence with one of these would be to wait for multiple reviews to come out or better yet try to get their hands on one. I certainly like them an awful lot and would recommend them without hesitation, but its always good to have multiple perspectives.

Hope all that helps. Again, I'm not sure if I want to or have time to write a full pictorial review, but if there are any specific questions you or anyone else has I am happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

[Mikkel Frederiksen]

I believe that Hyvlar.se ordered some :-)

[Jim Matthews]

I can't recall where I saw it, but a flat ruler on a woodblock
used as a height gauge. The cap iron and blade are assembled,
and held vertically on the block.

The blade is set on the wooden surface.
The cap iron is slid down to the level of the ruler,
about 0.5mm. It's not so fine as what was shown
above, but it is repeatable.

[Tom Vanzant]

"The blade is set on the wooden surface.
The cap iron is slid down to the level of the ruler,
about 0.5mm. It's not so fine as what was shown
above, but it is repeatable."

A feeler gage set gives quite a few options other than .020" (0.5mm).

[Jim Matthews]

Sure, you could get so close as you like.

I haven't tried it, yet.
Seems like a simple, repeatable approach anyway.

[Jim Koepke]

I also never adjust blade depth mid stroke so it has never been an issue for me. I must admit I have never really understood when people talk about adjusting on the fly

For me it is mostly done right after sharpening. The blade is set in the plane and the lever cap tight as the plane is run across a piece of wood. The blade is then lowered until it starts to take a shaving. At this time the lateral adjustment is set until it is equal side to side, then the depth is set.

Sometimes a plane is taken off the shelf and is making a shaving lighter or heavier than desired. This can also be adjusted while the plane is moving across the wood.

My LN 62 can be adjusted like this with the cap loose. The shaving thickness changes a touch when the cap is tightened. It needs to be tight when working or things can come apart. LN suggests a quarter turn between using and adjusting.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

For me it is mostly done right after sharpening. The blade is set in the plane and the lever cap tight as the plane is run across a piece of wood. The blade is then lowered until it starts to take a shaving. At this time the lateral adjustment is set until it is equal side to side, then the depth is set.

Sometimes a plane is taken off the shelf and is making a shaving lighter or heavier than desired. This can also be adjusted while the plane is moving across the wood.

My LN 62 can be adjusted like this with the cap loose. The shaving thickness changes a touch when the cap is tightened. It needs to be tight when working or things can come apart. LN suggests a quarter turn between using and adjusting.

jtk

I have a demo of this when I reviewed the LV SBUS:

One of the advantages of BD planes, such as Bailey types, is that they may be adjusted “on the run”. BU planes come in for criticism that they cannot be adjusted in this way.

Well that is not entirely correct.

If you crank down the lever cap on a Veritas BU plane you indeed will not move the blade in any direction. However this is not the correct way to set up a BU plane. What you need is just enough pressure to prevent the lever cap moving. Moderate firmness, no more, no less.

It is possible (as I do this regularly) to adjust the blade projection on the run. This is shown in the following set of pictures. Having stated this, I must also add that it is easier with a Bailey plane …

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother_html_m262a1a78.jpg

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother_html_2acf128a.jpg



http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother_html_m735345e0.jpg

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother_html_17a963e8.jpg



… in addition, while it is also possible to use the lateral adjuster while moving the plane forward, this requires a firm hand and a finely set blade. I doubt that many would bother. It is easier to take a practice test shaving beforehand. It is not a deal breaker.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother_html_m1468ed62.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Neeley]

If I may ask. . .what's wrong with a weightier plane?

I realize everyone has a preference here, so I'm more just curious as I may be able to incorporate something new into how I do things. Just keep in mind, I'm the same guy that has a mortise mallet made from 2 chunks of 7 inch 8/4 hickory glued together. ;)

"The Barefoot Woodworker"

Is this because the hair on the Neander-toes is too long and thick to wear shoes? <j/k, Adam> :)

Jim

[Jim Neeley]

As far as being able to adjust without removing ones hand from the tote or possibly even mid stroke, that is what will depend on hand size and frog pitch...while I do find it nice to not need to remove my hand from the tote, I never make depth adjustments mid stroke so this aspect is less important to me.

Chris,

If you've never tried it, I recommend you give it a try.
When I install a freshly-sharpened blade I lower the blade and laterally adjust it by eye, then retract the blade and begin planing, slowly advancing the blade. This makes it very obvious which side is cutting deeper so simplifying the lateral adjustment.

Then I advance it until I'm getting the cut I want and often retract it some as I'm finishing up, to get the smoothest finish.

After trying this a couple of times, I found that it worked best for me... but then I have "old eyes" that aren't calibrated well enough to identify one side projecting a thou lower than the other.. it may well come automatic to you.

This wasn't a solution looking for a problem. I just tried it and it felt natural.

Just my $0.02.. YMMV.

Jim

[Chris Griggs]

Chris,

If you've never tried it, I recommend you give it a try.
When I install a freshly-sharpened blade I lower the blade and laterally adjust it by eye, then retract the blade and begin planing, slowly advancing the blade. This makes it very obvious which side is cutting deeper so simplifying the lateral adjustment.

Then I advance it until I'm getting the cut I want and often retract it some as I'm finishing up, to get the smoothest finish.

After trying this a couple of times, I found that it worked best for me... but then I have "old eyes" that aren't calibrated well enough to identify one side projecting a thou lower than the other.. it may well come automatic to you.

This wasn't a solution looking for a problem. I just tried it and it felt natural.

Just my $0.02.. YMMV.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I actually have tried it (on new and vintage planes) and didn't like it. I'm blessed with very good eye and can usually get and even cut just by eye ball. That said, I do something very similar but don't like making the adjustments while the plane is moving finding that I'm better able to control and jusge the amount of depth increase when I make the adjustment without the plane in motion. I pretty much do exactly as described but I just make the adjustment at the start of each stroke...if I need to be super anal able about making sure the lateral adjustment is perfect I'll do the thing where one planes the edge of board or narrow block, taking strokes at different areas of the blade to make sure its dialed in the center.

[Adam Cruea]

"The Barefoot Woodworker"

Is this because the hair on the Neander-toes is too long and thick to wear shoes? <j/k, Adam> :)

Jim

HA!

Nah, it's actually due to sliding all over the place if I have shoes on when I'm woodworking. A bonus is that the basement floor is cold, so with bare feet, it cools me down. :)

Trust me, I wish I had bushy hair on my feet. I accidentally dropped the 1" oak dowel I use for my LN twin-screw vise onto the top of my left foot; it still has a dull pain to it. Maybe the hair would have cushioned it.

[george wilson]

Bare foot in the shop is a big safety no-no.

[Rob Young]

Bare foot in the shop is a big safety no-no.

296871

????

[Adam Cruea]

Bare foot in the shop is a big safety no-no.

It sure is.

That's why my reflexes are quick, like a bunny's. :D Besides, I have 10 toes; I can spare a few, I think. :p

It's also why I don't use metal when I build things.

[Jim Koepke]

Originally Posted by george wilson
Bare foot in the shop is a big safety no-no.


It sure is.

That's why my reflexes are quick, like a bunny's. :D Besides, I have 10 toes; I can spare a few, I think. :p

It's also why I don't use metal when I build things.

Yet a wooden dowel got you.

Of what are you chisels and other tools made?

jtk