Bevel up or bevel down? Hope Rob Lee chimes in

[Frank Martin]

Like many other people, I am very excited about the new line of customizable bevel down planes from Veritas. I am far from being a neander, but have nearly all of the bevel up planes as well as a few specialized planes from Veritas. I use them where power tools are not the best. For example, recently I have been working on a dining table. During glue up, somewhere in the middle of the top on the down side a thick piece of paper got stuck between tow boards resulting a flawed joint. Of course I did not see it during glue up. I had to rip it back apart after drying using a track saw and then needed to joint these two very wide and long planks. Definitely no doable on my power jointer easily. So, I took out the Veritas bevel up jointer with a fence I bought nearly 8 years ago and easily jointed the two planks to perfection. I am ashamed to say it, but this was the first time I used this particular plane and it certainly earned its keep.

I have read the passionate threads about the virtues of bevel down and the function of the cap iron. There is quite a bit of valuable information in those threads for sure and I really appreciate all the effort being put into the testing and sharing the information. I am a geek myself (engineering PhD background and now in sales and marketing) and enjoyed reading it all.

I also read Rob Lee stating that they did a lot of their own research. So, for those who are trying to decide on which direction to go, what would Rob say about which style to choose and why based on their research? In other words, are the new planes categorically better than the bevel ups or do they just provide another option to people who simply prefer that style and why?

I could have e-mailed Rob about this, I think there may be many other people interested in the topic. Hope it turns into a great discussion.

[David Weaver]

If you have a lot of planes already, I'd use them and see if you find anything that's a shortcoming with them. And then address that as you find it.

Of course, I never would've followed that advice, though, and I would've bought both, but what you do is up to you, and the easiest way to find out what you really like is to use all of it and draw a conclusion. (that's not the cheapest way to go, though.)

[Rob Lee]

Hi Frank,

Bevel up or bevel down.....the answer is....Yes!

I personally don't believe in absolutes when it comes to planes type ....they all have different capabilities, hand feel, and one type may suit your needs better than another. I always suggest looking at the type of work you do first....size and type of work, scope, variety of wood species, and the applications you have for planes. How well do you sharpen? Is is part of your work flow, or an end of day ( or week!) task?

You aren't just buying a tool, you are inserting it into your shop environment. What you are looking for is something that will enable you to most effectively express your skill/creativity without becoming a limiting factor.

I use both styles - but my reach for first is the LA jack, as that's the plane I have the most experience with, and consequently have the most confidence in using. I don't mind switching and setting blades, and couldn't be bothered to swap frogs. I like the balance, the ease of set-up, and adjustment.

I could just as easily have answered another plane (I have a few...) but each of us will all have one we use most.

I,too, look forward to the discussion ( running into a meeting, so have to be short! ).

Cheers,

Rob

[Frank Martin]

Thanks for the responses. Personally, my existing set of BU planes never felt incapable in any situation I have had so far. Specifically, I am curious about the research done in developing the Veritas BD planes and what objective insights gained from that. For example, are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?

[Jim Koepke]

This:


I am far from being a neander, but have nearly all of the bevel up planes as well as a few specialized planes from Veritas.

and this:


So, I took out the Veritas bevel up jointer with a fence I bought nearly 8 years ago and easily jointed the two planks to perfection. I am ashamed to say it, but this was the first time I used this particular plane and it certainly earned its keep.

Lead me to believe you do not really need another plane.

If you can afford one just to give it a whirl, that is another story.

My experience with BU planes is limited enough to keep me from saying a BD is superior to BU. For me an LA BU plane is superior to a BD for trimming end grain. The LA sheers the end grain better and it is easier to push through.

I have had a BU lift some grain in soft woods that normally works fine with a BD.

One becomes accustomed to the nuances of the tools with which they work. Most of my bench planes are pre-1920 Stanley/Bailey models. Just a quick run through my brain on the cost... they likely cost me less than a new jointer plane from LV or LN. My planes are no where as nice as one of the new planes from either of the premium plane makers in North America. None of them have the bells and whistles. But they do their job and they do it well.

My 125 year old #4-1/2 was doing a great job yesterday smoothing some cedar. Today it was a #6 that is a little newer at about 107 years old. I think they cost me $65 total between the two.

If there is a size you do not have, give it a try in the BD configuration. You may be pleasantly surprised.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Rob, I hear you have some pretty advanced equipement to test these things. Can you also measure forces? Do you ever publish about your research?

[ian maybury]

Suspect Lee Valley have already voted with their feet by covering both bases - but it'd be interesting to hear if this is for solid technical reasons (to close a gap in capability not covered by the other type) or just a tacit recognition that there are buyers out there that for reaons of personal preference (familiarity or whatever) will buy only one or the other type.

One view based on a lot of reading of what gets written by users (including some seemingly very expert players) over several years is that both types of plane cover 99.9% of requirements, and that whatever differences there may be arise in very narrow parts of the working envelope indeed.

Direct comparisons i suspect are made more difficult by the fact that each has its own needs in terms of set up, because most users are more familiar with one type or another and there is a learning curve, and because (to my relatively recent surprise) they do feel quite a bit different in use. Don't think i've ever seen one or the other definitively proven superior in even a given working situation, never mind in any overall way. Personal preference and familiarity are as above different matters - i happen to like the engineering minimalism of a BU.

The odd blanket pronouncement gets made about BUs (e.g. the reduced clearance angle leads to increased wear and a need for more frequent sharpening) - and that might or might not be technically the case. It doesn't seem to surface as an issue with individual users though. One implied question that's current in the context of Kees' threads is whether or not in situations where tear out is a risk the wide range of cap iron and face micro bevel options available on a BD brings a little extra capability in extremis (possible ability to take a slightly heavier cut?) in addition to that available from the adjustment (when sharpening) of pitch angle and mouth opening on a BU. My guess from what people like Derek C have written of working awkward Oz woods is that the difference if it exists at all is minimal. One additional capability unique to BUs is the ability to run low pitches.

Swings and roundabouts perhaps?

[Rob Lee]

Rob, I hear you have some pretty advanced equipement to test these things. Can you also measure forces? Do you ever publish about your research?

Hi Kees -

Yes - we can measure forces. We also have fairly advanced modelling capability - and use that too. We have built many test fixtures for evaluating tools - mostly focussed on the mechanics of wear, or edge degradation. We do film planes cutting - and have looked at types of chip failure under varying conditions. No - we don't publish all of the work, as we we do this to inform the decisions we make. It is a significant expenditure, privately funded, and a competitive issue. Learning is built on many expensive wrong turns.


Cheers -

Rob

[Kees Heiden]

Thanks for your answer. Sounds like a fun department (with the usual ups and downs of course).

[David Weaver]

(with the usual ups and downs of course).

those would be the bevels, right? har har :)

[Rob Lee]

Thanks for the responses. Personally, my existing set of BU planes never felt incapable in any situation I have had so far. Specifically, I am curious about the research done in developing the Veritas BD planes and what objective insights gained from that. For example, are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?


Hi Frank -

Good direct question, that I will do my best to avoid answering directly.

Planing is inducing controlled wood failure in a very complex system. To start with - wood is a highly variable material, and what a blade "sees" is different at virtually each point along the blade. Pith, knots, different densities of annular rings, voids, checks, moisture content, inclusions, grain reversal and direction changes, resins and .... all sorts of stuff at the micro level. Really tough on edges. Now - present the material at a high speed - the blade edge is subject to incredibly diverse forces at each point of intersection with the wood. I don't beleive anyone has a good handle on what happens at "speed", along the entire blade edge. Just as a piece of straw can be driven through wood with enough velocity, the failure modes of wood may change significantly with speed.

Now - add to this environment a blade edge that is breaking down through both wear, and failure, and on both sides of the bevel; the geometry of the blade changes as you use it.

Intellectually - the finished surface is complete as soon as apex of the blade has passed over it. Any change in surface quality must occur either at, or ahead of the blade apex. Bevel-up, or bevel down - the wood sees no difference at the apex.... only the included angle of the apex, an effective cut angle, and a relief angle - both of which wear, approaching an equilibrium that will be different for different materials. If the wood fails at the blade edge - that's where the surface charateristics are defined. If the wood is failing ahead of the blade apex - things get more complex, and then surfaces that interact with the wood relatively near the apex begin to influence failure. Fibre compression ahead of apex, constraining movement or limiting fracture modes. The compression and fracturing ahead of the apex can be influenced several ways - lowering or raising effective cut angle (skewing does this), narrowing a mouth, introducing a chip breaker, taking a thinner cut, or even cutting at higher speed. All work to treat the symptoms caused by failure ahead of the apex. Which method is most effective, may be different depending on the nature of the wood, and the grain direction (i.e. - lowering the effective cut angle works best perpendicular to fibers).

I believe that the "ideal" plane induces controlled failure at the apex of the blade, along the entire edge. I also believe that it's unacheivable - the system is too complex. There are multiple ways to vary the mix of how you address the inability of any design to perform ideally - and there will certainly be one that each person will be comfortable adopting.

I guess I personally prefer my bevel-up as being the simplest - as most of the variables I have to control are in my sharpening - edge quality and attack and relief angles. I can also add mouth opening and depth of cut to the mix. So few variables (but dependence on a gateway skill - sharpening) makes controlling failure for the work and types of woods I use most efficient, and repeatable.

Then again... I like bevel down too..... :)

Cheers -

Rob

[Damien Braun]

Could it be possible to add a frog holder insert for wooden plane bodies to the LV line up (or simply have a frog shaped insert)? This would allow to use blades and setting mechanisms also on wooden planes. There nothing wrong with a self made Krenov style plane, but having more options for wooden planes may be better.

[Sean Hughto]

Are there cases where BD is superior to BU without any reservations?

Yes, in my opinion. But others would disagree ... and they would be correct ... for themselves.

So why do I prefer BD planes most of the time for myself:
- I like to work with a slight camber, and cambering a BD is much quicker and simpler; a BU takes grinding and so forth.
- The Bailey design has the depth knob within reach from the tote, so I can dial in depth without a lot of trial and error - on the fly.
- The Bailey design has the lateral adjustment lever, which I highly prefer to set crews and such.
- I prefer the feel of the higher center of gravity of the BD models
- I prefer the cap iron as it indeed makes for a more forgiving plane in my experience as far as avoiding tearout

I also note that BU models existed back in the heyday of handplanes. Perhaps I make too much of it, but my suspicion is that it means something that they far and away preferred BD models. Maybe it was just a holdover from woody days as BU is and engineering challenge in wood bodies, but I think probably, they just appreciated the same stuff I do. YMMV

[Rob Lee]

(snip)
I also note that BU models existed back in the heyday of handplanes. Perhaps I make too much of it, but my suspicion is that it means something that they far and away preferred BD models. Maybe it was just a holdover from woody days as BU is and engineering challenge in wood bodies, but I think probably, they just appreciated the same stuff I do. YMMV

My take on that (as a manufacturer and a collector) is that :

1) bevel-up planes are harder to make (higher tolerances) than bevel down
2) the only appropriate period material for low angle planes was steel - not cast iron. No lack of low angle infills. Mass produced product failed quickly - the mouths blew out...

Tools from earlier period are generally more robust, and "fail-safe". General education levels were lower, and no where near the access to resources we have today - sucessful tools had to work consistently across a broad spectrum of user skill levels.

Rob

[Rob Lee]

Could it be possible to add a frog holder insert for wooden plane bodies to the LV line up (or simply have a frog shaped insert)? This would allow to use blades and setting mechanisms also on wooden planes. There nothing wrong with a self made Krenov style plane, but having more options for wooden planes may be better.

Hi Damien -

Yes - take a look at transitionals for that. Norris also did it with the adjuster mechanism - but no frog. (we have taken the same approach with our kit (soon to be plural).

The other thing to consider - frogs are not what many people think they are... in steel planes, they should NOT be a bedding surface - the blade should make contact at mouth - and at the top of the frog somewhere... not the entire surface. In fact - frogs are often machined to ensure there is no unintended contact outside of those areas. Think of a three legged stool - no rocking. A metal plane uses a line of contact along the mouth, and a point of contact farther up the blade.

Cheers -

Rob
(probably overgeneralized that a bit.....)

[Kees Heiden]

Yup things are complex especially because wood is such a complex material. But you have to start aomewhere otherwise you can never research anything.

From an eductional point of view. What is the recommended setting for the capiron in the new planes? The bevel angle of the capiron seems to be in the 25 degree range. Do you recomment a secundairy bevel on the capiron and what kind of, based on your research? And what kind of distances from the edge are we talking about?

until recently LV seemed to be promoting the bevel ups and for your range of bevel down planes the published recomendation was to use backbevels when the grain of the wood was difficult. So it is exiting to see the new line of planes and I hope a new line of education too.

[Dale Murray]

Allow me to display my ignorance with this question (which may have been answered eons ago).

If a bevel on a BU plane were set as to have the same angle of attack as a BD plane would there be less chatter/vibration due to more iron supporting the cutting edge of the BU plane? I understand this may be on an imperceptible level to the user but could be a factor in the cut - I imagine.

Of course, I am assuming the test be done in some fixture so as to eliminate plane body/frog manufacturing tolerances etc from the equation. Imagine a big chunk of steel with a 12* bed and appropriate mouth and another with a 45* bed and appropriate mouth. Of course the 45* would use a chip breaker. Both blades being of standard production dimension.

For the record I am not in either BU/BD camp, I am still in the learning process.

[Sean Hughto]

What if I took a 3/8ths inch thick piece of steel on one side I imparted a convex bevel and on the other side side a flat or concave bevel - would I have made a zero set back chipbreaker? Double bevel plane iron - bevels both up and down! We could call it a "BUD." The King of Irons!

[Rob Lee]

Dale,

Hi - I think it is the reverse...larger force vector along the blade for bevel up, and smaller vector across.

Cheers,

Rob

[Kees Heiden]

That's a bevel down plane with a backbevel Sean. Just when you think you invented something....

[Rob Lee]

Yup things are complex especially because wood is such a complex material. But you have to start aomewhere otherwise you can never research anything.

From an eductional point of view. What is the recommended setting for the capiron in the new planes? The bevel angle of the capiron seems to be in the 25 degree range. Do you recomment a secundairy bevel on the capiron and what kind of, based on your research? And what kind of distances from the edge are we talking about?

until recently LV seemed to be promoting the bevel ups and for your range of bevel down planes the published recomendation was to use backbevels when the grain of the wood was difficult. So it is exiting to see the new line of planes and I hope a new line of education too.

Actually, we promote 'em all. For many years we promoted back- bevels for bevel down planes.....I suppose you could say Bevel up planes are Bevel down planes with a REALLY big back-bevel..... :)

We don't recommend specific settings on anything really ( not the way you want us to... :) )... We focus on the understanding of the mechanics of what's occurring....as that's far easier for most people to understand and agree with. Absolutes become contentious fairly quickly.

Cheers,

Rob

[Kees Heiden]

Well I don't ask you to kiss the devil :-). Just some help regarding education.

For me it was easy in 2012. The only planes I have are vintage double iron planes. Learning to use the capiron was a major breakthrough. No wonder I am enthousiastic. From the beginning I've tried to put a lot of effort into education. Made youtube videos. Wrote quite a bit on the forums. (Ad nauseam according to some) Even an article publised in Popular Woodworking together with Wilbur.
I readilly agree that the capiron technique isn't the easiest to learn. That's why I am so enthousiastic about the new line of planes of LV. I would surely love to see more educational effort from you. Make a video. Put some articles on your website. Just a bit more info in the instruction manual. What's now in the manual just doesn't cut it. The proposed setup leaves the capiron mostly out of reach.

[Kees Heiden]

Oh and I don't have any hate against bevelups or high cutting angles. They are easy to use and that's a positive.

[Sean Hughto]

I didn't think I invented anything (except maybe the BUD joke :rolleyes:) ...
Very hard to be original with regard to something that has been in heavy use by humans for well over 2000 years.
;)

[David Weaver]

I didn't think I invented anything ..

Ahh... a fellow club member. Neither have I. There's lots of good things other people invented to use.

[Frank Martin]

A lot of good discussion. I am taking this to mean, there is really no practical difference in capability once all available user adjustments are taken into consideration. As Kees, I would also appreciate some more insight from Lee Valley based on their research without necessarily giving away trade secrets. Given the WoodRiver situation, if I were Rob I would certainly be very cautious too. I have a lot of respect to Rob and his company and would understand if he does not want to reveal any more.

Personally, I already know I don't "need" any more planes. My question was not really about that. It was more about should I "want" one of the new planes. I was thinking about getting the small BUS (#3 sized), so perhaps I would wait for the #3 sized new style instead. As for sharpening, I have a very good powered setup, that I have been very satisfied with, so no concerns there.

For the record, two of my favorite planes are LA Jack and the block (the NX version). I still have the LN block and not sure if I would sell it now that I have an NX as the LN is quite a bit lighter.

[Sean Hughto]

A lot of good discussion. I am taking this to mean, there is really no practical difference in capability once all available user adjustments are taken into consideration.

This is sort of a non sequitur. It's kind of like saying that there is no practical differences in food (it all provides nutrition and calories) if you ignore the chef's expertise or what the food tastes like. I suppose it's true, but its assumes away all the important stuff. But, yes, people can get excellent results from BU and BD planes for most planing tasks.



Personally, I already know I don't "need" any more planes.

This is a just plane silly statement. ;)


As for sharpening, I have a very good powered setup, that I have been very satisfied with, so no concerns there.

So have you ground a camber onto the blades of any of your bevel up planes?

[Frank Martin]

This is sort of a non sequitur. It's kind of like saying that there is no practical differences in food (it all provides nutrition and calories) if you ignore the chef's expertise or what the food tastes like. I suppose it's true, but its assumes away all the important stuff. But, yes, people can get excellent results from BU and BD planes for most planing tasks.


This is a just plane silly statement. ;)


So have you ground a camber onto the blades of any of your bevel up planes?

I like your sense of humor:-) Personally, I was looking for some specific examples where BD may be better than BU categorically, I don't think I saw anything, other than "well, you can do it both ways and get equally good results depending on your skills..."

Totally agree that "need" is a silly way to justify decently expensive hand planes!!!

I have not really ground a significant camber because I have not needed it or did not know I did as I do all the heavy lifting using power tools. I do a slight camber on the blades I use in my smoother, which was not hard using the Veritas MK2 Power sharpener. Am I missing something?

[Gary Muto]

Hi Frank -

Good direct question, that I will do my best to avoid answering directly.

Planing is inducing controlled wood failure in a very complex system. To start with - wood is a highly variable material, and what a blade "sees" is different at virtually each point along the blade. Pith, knots, different densities of annular rings, voids, checks, moisture content, inclusions, grain reversal and direction changes, resins and .... all sorts of stuff at the micro level. Really tough on edges. Now - present the material at a high speed - the blade edge is subject to incredibly diverse forces at each point of intersection with the wood. I don't beleive anyone has a good handle on what happens at "speed", along the entire blade edge. Just as a piece of straw can be driven through wood with enough velocity, the failure modes of wood may change significantly with speed.

Now - add to this environment a blade edge that is breaking down through both wear, and failure, and on both sides of the bevel; the geometry of the blade changes as you use it.

Intellectually - the finished surface is complete as soon as apex of the blade has passed over it. Any change in surface quality must occur either at, or ahead of the blade apex. Bevel-up, or bevel down - the wood sees no difference at the apex.... only the included angle of the apex, an effective cut angle, and a relief angle - both of which wear, approaching an equilibrium that will be different for different materials. If the wood fails at the blade edge - that's where the surface charateristics are defined. If the wood is failing ahead of the blade apex - things get more complex, and then surfaces that interact with the wood relatively near the apex begin to influence failure. Fibre compression ahead of apex, constraining movement or limiting fracture modes. The compression and fracturing ahead of the apex can be influenced several ways - lowering or raising effective cut angle (skewing does this), narrowing a mouth, introducing a chip breaker, taking a thinner cut, or even cutting at higher speed. All work to treat the symptoms caused by failure ahead of the apex. Which method is most effective, may be different depending on the nature of the wood, and the grain direction (i.e. - lowering the effective cut angle works best perpendicular to fibers).

I believe that the "ideal" plane induces controlled failure at the apex of the blade, along the entire edge. I also believe that it's unacheivable - the system is too complex. There are multiple ways to vary the mix of how you address the inability of any design to perform ideally - and there will certainly be one that each person will be comfortable adopting.

I guess I personally prefer my bevel-up as being the simplest - as most of the variables I have to control are in my sharpening - edge quality and attack and relief angles. I can also add mouth opening and depth of cut to the mix. So few variables (but dependence on a gateway skill - sharpening) makes controlling failure for the work and types of woods I use most efficient, and repeatable.

Then again... I like bevel down too..... :)

Cheers -

Rob

It's nice to see a direct answer. I wrote this and realized it sounded sarcastic. As long as you discount the last sentence, it is a clear response.

Thanks

[Bruce Haugen]

Hi Kees -

Yes - we can measure forces. We also have fairly advanced modelling capability - and use that too. We have built many test fixtures for evaluating tools - mostly focussed on the mechanics of wear, or edge degradation. We do film planes cutting - and have looked at types of chip failure under varying conditions. No - we don't publish all of the work, as we we do this to inform the decisions we make. It is a significant expenditure, privately funded, and a competitive issue. Learning is built on many expensive wrong turns.


Cheers -

Rob

I doubt that you remember, but I discussed this with you at the handworks show in iowa a year ago. I don't think you owe it to anyone to release the results of internal testing [we were discussing releasing the composition of the pmv-11 blades to a member of another forum]. Those results are yours and we all benefit fron them. Any differences are empirically easy enough to figure out on our own. They are yours to figure out whether to produce the little suckers. This is so easy when you/we trust the manufacturer.

[Frank Martin]

It's nice to see a direct answer. I wrote this and realized it sounded sarcastic. As long as you discount the last sentence, it is a clear response.

Thanks

So true, Gary! It is indeed a clear response once the last sentence (casually added by Rob;)) is discounted...

Thanks again to all for sharing the ideas, experiences and biases. And to Rob for giving as much information as possible. I may still get one of the new BD planes, just because I love all my Veritas planes and the company behind it. I doubt it will become my favorite though given how simple the BU planes are and I never felt they were lacking for my use.

[Derek Cohen]

In the wooden jointer thread Judson directed a question to me about the more vertical (e.g. LV) versus low (e.g. Bailey) style handles and which was preferable. My reply was brief and may have appeared offhand, since I provided a link to 4 articles I had written on ergonomics and design of handles, and then offered a simple summary. What I should have written was that I deliberated for a very long time over what to write, and then deleted a long reply. The problem for me is that there is no simple answer and always comes back to "it depends ...". There are just so many variables involved, and any one can change the game. I avoid categorical statements - although I also dislike long-winded replies (such as this!) - and the question of bevel up versus bevel down is one such area where you will get more of "it depends".

It is pertinent that I note that I do not have a preference for one plane type over the other, but that I use both (probably bevel down more). I am also likely to respond like an oppositional child when I read someone proclaiming "chip breakers solve everything", which happens here a lot. It is not only boring - it is simplistic. I now switch off and find something else to read (I am tired of the same old debate with the same people). At the same time, when someone proclaims (as often happens on another forum) that high angle bevel up planes are where it's at for interlocked grain, I explain how the chip breaker may be used on a bevel up plane to achieve the same effect. Again, the point is that there will always be different preferences, which is not the same as proof that one is better than the other - it is more likely reflecting that the big picture has not been grasped.

There are very few big performance differences between bevel up and bevel down planes in practice, that is, where one completely outshines the other.

Some will argue that they find it easier to adjust "on the fly" a Stanley smoother (e.g. #3 or #4) more easily than a LV smoother (e.g. LAS or BUS). This is incorrect in my experience. Adjusting the blade side-to-side is easier on a Stanley, but adjusting for depth of cut is the same or easier on the LV. For the latter (edit - for both) you must avoid over-tightening the lever cap, and you must ensure that the mating surfaces of the adjuster/bed of the adjuster are waxed to ensure smooth and free movement. Then it is easy-peasy.

The obvious debate: on hard and interlocked hardwoods the aim is it easier to avoid tearout with a high cutting angle or adjusting the chip breaker? Well clearly if all you have is a Stanley smoother, then you will learn to adjust it efficiently. The chip breaker works, and I have some excellent results with it - however, for me it is not as reliable as a high cutting angle, and reliable is important when you are about to complete the final smoothing. I am trying to figure this one out. I do find the rigid LN/LV type chip breaker easier to adjust than the flexible Stanley. I have not used the production version of the new LV bevel down planes, only an early version which was (from memory) sans chip breaker. That was in January last year.

The related argument is that the common angle (45 degrees) of the Stanley will leave a cleaner surface than from a high angle plane, be it BU or BD. My reply to that is "it depends" and "irrelevant". I get shiny surfaces on soft pine with a high cutting angle. I can get shinier surfaces with a lower cutting angle, however unless I am only finishing with wax (which I do not do), then you will never know once a coat of shellac is added. I cannot tell the difference in shine on hardwoods. And if there is, well, as I said before, once a finish goes on it is not evident which plane was used. Keeping the surface tearout-free is more important.

There are issues about ergonomics and the feel of BD vs BU planes. As I mentioned earlier, there are too many variables and I have no desire to be reductionistic. However I will mention that it is about force vectors and how they are manipulated. The feel of a plane will be altered by the angle of the handle, the height if the bench, your height at the bench, the position of the mouth in relation to the handle, how you push the plane - with forearms, shoulders or hips, the angle of the bed, etc etc. The new LV planes offer many choices and I suspect that there will be some confusion among those making a decision which combination to purchase. I expect this to be a discussion point on forums in months to come. My immediate advice is to not overthink these issues - just about any combination will work. It is not about getting the plane(s) to work - in the end it may be about getting a plane to work optimally for you.

For myself, the choice between BU and BD is swayed by which one is easier to keep working. For myself this comes down to sharpening and re-sharpening. I prefer to freehand blades, and all are used with some degree of camber. For a bevel down plane this is a simple matter - hollow grind a 30 degree primary bevel and then hone on that. A few degrees here-and-there are unimportant. For bevel up planes, where the cutting angle is directly linked to the bevel angle, it becomes necessary to be more exact in what you do. This is even more the case when adding camber since the efficient way (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/TheSecretToCamberinBUPlaneBlades.html) to so so is a high secondary bevel on a low primary bevel. To do this one needs a honing guide. I have many types of honing guides and am proficient with all, but my personality is too impatient to fuss with these. I prefer to freehand sharpen, which I can do quicker than honing with a guide. This factor pushes me towards a bevel down plane. If you want to take this a step further, that is, reducing setting up factors to a minimum, this could take one to a single iron bevel down plane. And of course, if you prefer using a honing guide, then all the above is to be ignored.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Tools from earlier period are generally more robust, and "fail-safe". General education levels were lower, and no where near the access to resources we have today - sucessful tools had to work consistently across a broad spectrum of user skill levels.

Rob

This one almost slipped through! (It's from the first page in this thread).
When you look at vintage tools from the 19th century you'll see that many of them were more elegant and less robust then todays offerings. The Stanley #4 and #604 were lighter then most of the modern copies (I don't know how heavy the LV #4 is). The blades were thinner too. You see the same with chisels, modern ones are thick when compared to the 19th century British bevel edge chisels which were remarkably elegant. The same goes for saws. The Seaton chest saws have the same plate thicknesses or even less compared to many modern saws.

The real craftsman of those days (there were plenty of drunken woodbutchers too) didn't have the same education we have, but their knowledge of wood, their tools and design was outstanding. The work they produced was remarkable and often finished in astonishing short time. I would call their knowledge to be intuitive, based on wide experience and tradition.

Just saying :D

[Moses Yoder]

Well I don't ask you to kiss the devil :-). Just some help regarding education.

For me it was easy in 2012. The only planes I have are vintage double iron planes. Learning to use the capiron was a major breakthrough. No wonder I am enthousiastic. From the beginning I've tried to put a lot of effort into education. Made youtube videos. Wrote quite a bit on the forums. (Ad nauseam according to some) Even an article publised in Popular Woodworking together with Wilbur.
I readilly agree that the capiron technique isn't the easiest to learn. That's why I am so enthousiastic about the new line of planes of LV. I would surely love to see more educational effort from you. Make a video. Put some articles on your website. Just a bit more info in the instruction manual. What's now in the manual just doesn't cut it. The proposed setup leaves the capiron mostly out of reach.

I don't believe the woodworking experience is the same for everyone. In other words, I do not believe there is only one way to set the cap iron. Say there are a million woodworkers, then there are a million ways to set the cap iron. The process of finding what works for me is the goal; seeing what works for you is only a small part of that process. If there is only one way to do it, where did all these tools come from?

[Kees Heiden]

That's what education is about. Telling what works, how it works and how to get there. It's about providing information, that can be multi faceted of course.

[Warren Mickley]

I guess I personally prefer my bevel-up as being the simplest - as most of the variables I have to control are in my sharpening - edge quality and attack and relief angles. I can also add mouth opening and depth of cut to the mix. So few variables (but dependence on a gateway skill - sharpening) makes controlling failure for the work and types of woods I use most efficient, and repeatable.



That is an awful lot of variables. I think that if you really like few variables there is no way you would pick a bevel down plane. As a double iron plane user, I do not have to change a mouth opening. I haven't fooled with mouth opening or high angle planes since 1976. I haven't altered a cap iron since I bought my most recent plane (1983). I have one variable and that is cap iron placement, which I only alter when I already have the plane apart for sharpening. Some of my planes have the original iron and some have replacements (If you are really using a plane the irons eventually wear down to nothing). I don't need five different irons or five different smoothing planes. Four or five bench planes is plenty for a professional woodworker and one iron per plane is plenty.

If you like simple you might learn to use a double iron plane.

[Bruce Mack]

From Derek: "you must ensure that the mating surfaces of the adjuster/bed of the adjuster are waxed to ensure smooth and free movement"

That's valuable. Thanks.

[John Coloccia]

I like my bevel-up planes, especially in the smaller block plane format, but for larger planes I generally find bevel down to be less finicky.

[ian maybury]

+1 on the benefit of waxing the surfaces. (Renaissance applied by brush in this case) Veritas BU's after polishing the back of the blade and waxing all the surfaces (blade, body and cap) seem to adjust perfectly happily without any need to loosen the lever cap knob. Deceptively so, it almost seems that the blade can't be properly held - but it's fine.

This may be worth doing on BDs too. The plan was just to ensure proper bedding/stability of the chipbreaker to prevent the possibility of chips jamming under it, but flattening the back of the pressed out upper part of the chip breaker on a Clifton no. 5 last week on waterstones so that it rested flat on the blade under the slot that locates the auxiliary/front end of the two part chip breaker, and under the screw that clamps it to the blade and waxing up the whole lot transformed the ease of adjustment.

It went from stiff and a struggle to single finger on the depth of cut knob, and likewise minimal pressure is now required on the blade tilt lever...

[Simon MacGowen]

In the grand scheme of things, "on the fly" adjustments don't really matter for most woodworkers, certainly not for those who don't have the habit of "adjusting" a tool on the fly. It won't be a factor for consideration at all in my handplane purchase decision.

Simon

[Frank Martin]

In the grand scheme of things, "on the fly" adjustments don't really matter for most woodworkers, certainly not for those who don't have the habit of "adjusting" a tool on the fly. It won't be a factor for consideration at all in my handplane purchase decision.

Simon

Same here. The other one that was brought up was ease of cambering for a BD plane, which again I never had a problem in a BU plane, although I always did slight cambers using a power sharpener.

[Sean Hughto]

Suit yourselves, but for those reading along, Derek has done a nice job of explaining the details:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/TheSecretToCamberinBUPlaneBlades.html

" It is accepted that, owing to the geometry involved, a BU requires considerably greater camber ground to a blade to achieve the same profile of a cambered shaving than achieved by a BD plane."

[Adam Cruea]

In the grand scheme of things, "on the fly" adjustments don't really matter for most woodworkers, certainly not for those who don't have the habit of "adjusting" a tool on the fly. It won't be a factor for consideration at all in my handplane purchase decision.

Simon

Honest question: how do you keep from adjusting the plane's blade while you're working?

As you plane, the blade gets duller (either exponentially or linearly). As the blade gets duller, it will take less and less of a cut, so you need to advance the blade to substitute for the loss of the edge.

Now, I agree, you shouldn't be doing 4 turns of the blade adjustment knob every time you pick up the plane (but hey, takes all kinds to make the world go 'round). But to think you can "set and forget" between sharpenings is a little. . .tough for me to grasp.

[Sean Hughto]

So let me be clearer about what I mean by "on-the-fly" for me. I was using my LN smoother last night. To start, I backed up the blade to take little or no cut and took a pass on the panel. On the back stroke, my index finger came off the tote to advance the wheel a hair and took another pass. On the next stroke I made one more similar adjustment and was off to smooth the entire panel, including backing off the blade slightly in in just the same way in the last stages to take ultra thin finishing strokes.

With a BU plane, I would have to stop, take a guess with adjustment and take another pass. In my experience this often involves more trial and error and time- like often happens with a wedged wooden plane or simple spokeshave. It's not like this trial and error is that big a deal. But I do appreciate the convenience of being able to adjust and test a setting without even stopping.

[Adam Cruea]

So let me be clearer about what I mean by "on-the-fly" for me. I was using my LN smoother last night. To start, I backed up the blade to take little or no cut and took a pass on the panel. On the back stroke, my index finger came off the tote to advance the wheel a hair and took another pass. On the next stroke I made one more similar adjustment and was off to smooth the entire panel, including backing off the blade slightly in in just the same way in the last stages to take ultra thin finishing strokes.

With a BU plane, I would have to stop, take a guess with adjustment and take another pass. In my experience this often involves more trial and error and time- like often happens with a wedged wooden plane or simply spokeshave. It's not like this trial and error is that big a deal. But I do appreciate the convenience of being able to adjust and test a setting without even stopping.

That's close to what I was thinking. For whatever reason, I just find this to be second nature. The only plane I don't do this much on is my LN 50* 4 1/2. I might advance the blade once or twice, but after that, I go back and sharpen it since it's a smoother and for me, the final cut with a smoother should be extremely clean and smooth (you can tell when the edge starts going to the hot place as it just feels different and the surface left feels different).

[David Weaver]

Advancement mid-work (due to wear) is something I'd only do with a smoother, and only when the shavings are very thin. It's not a terribly important thing to me, but I guess I do it with the smoothers.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Sean

It is easy to advance or back off the blade on a BU plane "on the fly".

Ensure the Norris adjuster is clean and waxed ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Tuning%20a%20BU%20plane/9_zpscc28648d.jpg

Tighten the lever cap sufficiently to hold all firmly. Now twist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS0wuN_6wyw) (and shout) ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/Tuning%20a%20BU%20plane/8_zps0ccbed57.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Hughto]

Fair enough. I don't use em, and thought loosening the lever cap would be required.

[Jim Koepke]

In the grand scheme of things, "on the fly" adjustments don't really matter for most woodworkers


Fair enough. I don't use em, and thought loosening the lever cap would be required.



Just my

297220

and

297221

Having started out with "on the fly" adjustment they have become second nature. Most often when removing saw marks and then readjusting for a finer cut. "Oh the backlash" others cry. Just hum a little tune and enjoy the moment.


It is easy to advance or back off the blade on a BU plane "on the fly".

Other than my block planes only one of my planes is BU. When leaving the cap loose enough to adjust, it often vibrates out of position and the blade can shift laterally. One of my block planes (from ebay) shows evidence of "on the fly" adjustment without loosening the lever cap. Maybe the newer planes are better at this. For me, the makers instructions suggest backing off the screw on the lever cap before making an adjustment.

When setting up my BU planes after sharpening the blade, the lever cap is loose and the adjusted "on the fly." The lever cap is then tightened and the work can begin.

jtk

[ian maybury]

It's worth emphasising as my post earlier in the thread (and as Derek above) just how much difference waxing the blade, adjuster and surfaces makes on a BU to the ease of adjustment. BD too. As in it goes from not practicable to easy peasy. (on the several i've set up recently anyway) Flattening and polishing the surfaces probably doesn't do any harm either...

[Jim Koepke]

It's worth emphasising as my post earlier in the thread just how much difference waxing the blade and surfaces makes ona BU to the ease of adjustment. BD too. As in it goes from not practicable to easy peasy. (on the several i've set up recently anyway) Flattening and polishing the surfaces probably doesn't do any harm either...

This is a valid point.

It may be that my main use of my LA BU Jack on the shooting board causes a bit more impact on the blade and lever cap than would be caused by surface planing.

Almost every time we enter into discussions such as this it all comes down to personal preference. From what people have said, it seems the finished surface will likely be the same whether one uses BU or BD planes to get to their goal.

My preference for old rehabbed tools in no way makes them a better choice for someone else. That is why my advice is often to try to handle as many of the choices as possible before bringing out the wallet.

It is almost like asking what will make a better life long mate, a tall blond or a short redhead.

There are too many other points one must consider. To make a decision based on one or two features leaves a lot of room for regret.

jtk

[Bruce Mack]

It's worth emphasising as my post earlier in the thread just how much difference waxing the blade and surfaces makes ona BU to the ease of adjustment. BD too. As in it goes from not practicable to easy peasy. (on the several i've set up recently anyway) Flattening and polishing the surfaces probably doesn't do any harm either...
I like to adjust without loosening the lever cap. Allows me to sneak up on a fine shaving without disturbing lateral adjustment or indeed the depth of cut (I get a coarser shaving after cap is released and relocked, probably mission creep). Wax suggestion has been invaluable for both bevel down and bevel up.

[Greg Berlin]

If it makes any difference, I sold off every bevel down Stanley plane I collected on ebay when I got into hand tools, which was quite a few. I have 4 planes, all bevel up but one: the LV smoother, jack, jointer, and one Stanley 4 1/2 that I never use (but wanted to keep). I find that the bevel up jack and smoother handle 99% of the work I do just fine. I have a 25, 38, 50 degree blade, and a toothed blade and they alterbate between planes depending on the need. They are extremely easy to set up and are comfortable to use. I really could just get by with those two planes forever most likely. ;)

[Derek Cohen]

This follows on from the demo I did earlier with the chip breaker vs high angle BD plane.

I thought that it would be a good idea to complete the photos and provide a more complete idea of the performances of the chip breaker and high angle BU planes.

Returning to the section of reversed Fiddleback Jarrah (requiring planing into the grain), the BUS planing at 62 degrees (50 degree secondary bevel on a 12 degree bed) ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/10_zps9d9952d0.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/11_zpse3883ced.jpg

No tear out, very good finish (what you see is the fiddleback undulations).

The BUS is a larger plane, more like a cross between the #4 and #4 1/2 in size. Closer to the #3 in use is the SBUS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/12_zps0117d2c0.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/13_zps6b7ed081.jpg

The performance is very similar. I cannot choose between them.

Here is the Stanley #3 with the chip breaker set at about 0.25-0.3 mm ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/15_zpsed1ae971.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/16_zpsd22d1649.jpg

In my opinion this is the best finish so far. Smoother and clearer.

Here is the chip breaker set up ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/14_zps980427b7.jpg

One observation is that all shavings are straight. This must be a factor of chip Type.


At this point I pulled the chip breaker back 1mm ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/18_zps86bab614.jpg

... with a resulting change in shavings - back to tight curls ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/17_zpsc0dfeb64.jpg

The result was significantly poor planing with small divots of tear out all over ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/19_zps1b0381b4.jpg

I repeated the experiment on a section of interlocked medium hard Fiddleback Marri. The BUS, SBUS and #3/chip breaker performed identically ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/22_zpsf6396da1.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/24_zpsb8e7aa4a.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/26_zps322cbb77.jpg

Of relevance, I could not see a difference in shine this time ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Chip%20Breaker%20Experiment/Planing%20at%2055%20degrees%20and%2028%20degree%20 chipbreaker/27_zpsddb76eb1.jpg

So what do we make of all this?

I think that it is very clear that all the options work, and they do so with exceptional results on such difficult-to-plane interlocked timber. There was a turn-around for the chip breaker insofar as the surface left on the Jarrah was superior in my view to the two BU high angle planes. On the Marri, however, the performances of all the planes were identical.

So there you have it .... it's your choice! http://www.forums.woodnet.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowsmile.gif

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Frank Martin]

Derek, thanks for sharing this. It does indeed look like all options work great with some slight edge for the BD plane. I would assume the Stanley plane was easier to push given the lower angle. I don't think the small difference will be noticeable in my own woodworking but this gives me an excuse to try one of the new Veritas BD planes:)

By the way, looks like you had your BUS ground, looks nicer than stock. Did you do that yourself?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Frank

Yes, the BUS is modified. I did this recently.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD2_zps3bc14f08.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD3_zps4b0f2276-1.jpg

Here it is with the SBUS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSmod4_zpsa224fc59.jpg

Here's the original ..

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Planes/05P3601s5.jpg

Whatdoyouthink?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Coloccia]

Hi Frank

Yes, the BUS is modified. I did this recently.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD2_zps3bc14f08.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD3_zps4b0f2276-1.jpg

Here it is with the SBUS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSmod4_zpsa224fc59.jpg

Here's the original ..

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Planes/05P3601s5.jpg

Whatdoyouthink?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Is it square to the sole? That was a major pet peeve of mine with that plane. I'm a user, not a collector, and as much as I like that plane, if I can't put it on it's side to shoot, it simply can't take up room in my shop. I thought that was an extremely odd choice for LV.

[Frank Martin]

Hi Frank

Yes, the BUS is modified. I did this recently.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD2_zps3bc14f08.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD3_zps4b0f2276-1.jpg

Here it is with the SBUS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSmod4_zpsa224fc59.jpg

Here's the original ..

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Planes/05P3601s5.jpg

Whatdoyouthink?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think it looks a lot nicer than the original and also more functional if sides are square to the sole as John says. How did you do it?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi John

The sides are perfectly square, but that is not going to help you at all in this case.

First of all, this plane is a dedicated smoother, and the blade you keep in it is not going to have a low bevel angle. That is one strike against it.

Secondly, the plane is coffin shaped, so it will not ride flat on its side anyway.

Get the LA Smoother instead, with a second blade, if you want a plane to double on a shooting board. The modification to the BUS was simply for improved aesthetics, although the handle change was needed as my bench is low and a straighter handle causes the wrist to cock/bend more than is comfortable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Coloccia]

Hi John

The sides are perfectly square, but that is not going to help you at all in this case.

First of all, this plane is a dedicated smoother, and the blade you keep in it is not going to have a low bevel angle. That is one strike against it.

Secondly, the plane is coffin shaped, so it will not ride flat on its side anyway.

Get the LA Smoother instead, with a second blade, if you want a plane to double on a shooting board. The modification to the BUS was simply for improved aesthetics, although the handle change was needed as my bench is low and a straighter handle causes the wrist to cock/bend more than is comfortable.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I guess I was asking if you'd flattened it out. I usually use a LN #5 or #6 (forget which) for shooting, but it would be convenient to have a short plane too.

[Warren Mickley]

It does indeed look like all options work great with some slight edge for the BD plane. I would assume the Stanley plane was easier to push given the lower angle. I don't think the small difference will be noticeable in my own woodworking but this gives me an excuse to try one of the new Veritas BD planes:)


I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.

[Pat Barry]

I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.
Not very surprising Warren. After sitting for close to 40 years its not unexpected that the wood might be a tad dried out and prone to tearout. Did you try to clean up the surface afterwards? Any before and after pictures?

[David Weaver]

I have no trouble believing what warren said. It's the difference between a guy who travels around selling planes and demonstrating them vs. a guy who who uses a plane to a very high standard because the work demands it.

I used to be the first to poo poo transitionals and handyman planes because they given you no options with the mouth, but I've reversed course on that now for obvious reasons (cap iron). Handyman planes are still offputting, but they are available almost for free now.

Warren, it would be interesting to see you smooth the second side, too, and time yourself so that nobody can make accusations about you poring over the piece of wood for a long period of time.

I know lie nielsen loves to pitch their toothed irons, but I really don't see the point of them. They allow a beginner to avoid some tearout, but are ultimately slower than a plane with a double iron because they don't take a full cut.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, you held onto this piece of wood for 37 years? Why?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Warren lives near lancaster and the PA dutch. Nobody who lives near lancaster throws anything away!!

[Tom M King]

There aren't many days that I work with wood any newer than that, and the only newer plane I have is a LV shooter. The only bevel up planes I have are a couple of block planes, and a couple of shoulder rabbets-that I can think of. I will say though, that I've never had my hands on the woods that Derek uses. My old planes do fine for anything I do. Sharp-really sharp-solves all sorts of problems. As told to me by the best finish carpenter I ever knew, Jack Jordan (pronounced Jerdan), "just keep setting it closer until it works, and you don't need the mouth as close as you ever set a block plane." Jack left us in the late '80s. He was also the best hand loader of ammo that anyone knew, and deadly at horseshoes. I will say though, that the knarliest wood we ever worked was some curly Maple. I see a lot of people use a plane like they are trying to sneak up on the wood. I think speed, past the reluctance, helps too

[Warren Mickley]

Not very surprising Warren. After sitting for close to 40 years its not unexpected that the wood might be a tad dried out and prone to tearout. Did you try to clean up the surface afterwards? Any before and after pictures?

There is no problem planing wood that has been sitting for 40 or 240 years. In this case I planed the edge of the same sample on Friday morning; it took about 15 seconds to get a very smooth surface. In fairness, I should include the many seconds it took to adjust the cap iron from the previous work, so the whole thing took about a minute. Compared with the high angle stuff which took fifteen minutes and resulted in a surface which was worse than a rip saw, not too bad.

[allen long]

Derek, as always great job.

Did I miss it or did you not demonstrate a high angle frog cut? Anyone have thoughts on the high angle frog with the chip breaker set close to the blade edge? I ask because I have two premium planes with high angle frogs 5 1/2 and 4 that honestly I am not using since Kees' postings on the breaker settings. I have tried a number of premium blades, and improved chip breakers on my tuned Stanleys and honestly the combination that excels the most is the standard Stanley chipmaker (thanks to David's suggestion ) with the lv pm-v11 blade.

My older sons (both materials engineers - one of them a metallurgist) both believe my hobby had become more of seeking how sharp I can get various new and vintage tools. Lately I have begun to actually USE my tools and wonder if there is a place for the HAF and especially the 5-1/2. My old Stanley 7 with standard breaker and pm-v11 blade sings. I also have a 3, 4, and 5 all with pm-v11 blades. Is there any need for the 5-1/2? I also have the lv shooter if I ever get around to making a shooting board for it.

[Frank Martin]

I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.


Warren, you are right. I should have said all planes worked for the wood Derek showcased. I am really intrigued by this chip breaker discussion. I am fairly sure this was the reason why I never liked my first several planes (all vintage Stanleys and a new Record back 12 years ago). Sold them all and got LV BU planes. For what I do all my LV planes work wonderfully, but now I understand BD design is a very capable design and setup to work potentially even better than the BU design. It is great that this discussion for me coincided with the release of the new LV BD planes...

[Pat Barry]

There is no problem planing wood that has been sitting for 40 or 240 years. In this case I planed the edge of the same sample on Friday morning; it took about 15 seconds to get a very smooth surface. In fairness, I should include the many seconds it took to adjust the cap iron from the previous work, so the whole thing took about a minute. Compared with the high angle stuff which took fifteen minutes and resulted in a surface which was worse than a rip saw, not too bad.
Of course my note about the wood being old is based on splintering issues I have seen in the past with old pine and cedar. Not knowing what wood you had I should have just noted that some before and after pictures of the surfaces of interest would have been very informative.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, as always great job.

Did I miss it or did you not demonstrate a high angle frog cut? Anyone have thoughts on the high angle frog with the chip breaker set close to the blade edge? I ask because I have two premium planes with high angle frogs 5 1/2 and 4 that honestly I am not using since Kees' postings on the breaker settings. I have tried a number of premium blades, and improved chip breakers on my tuned Stanleys and honestly the combination that excels the most is the standard Stanley chipmaker (thanks to David's suggestion ) with the lv pm-v11 blade.

My older sons (both materials engineers - one of them a metallurgist) both believe my hobby had become more of seeking how sharp I can get various new and vintage tools. Lately I have begun to actually USE my tools and wonder if there is a place for the HAF and especially the 5-1/2. My old Stanley 7 with standard breaker and pm-v11 blade sings. I also have a 3, 4, and 5 all with pm-v11 blades. Is there any need for the 5-1/2? I also have the lv shooter if I ever get around to making a shooting board for it.

Hi Allan

Yes, I did post pictures of a LN #3 with 55 degree frog cutting with- and with out the chip breaker. I find that the effect can be additive.

Link: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?221689-Mechanics-of-chipbreakers-and-high-cutting-angles-in-woodworking-planes-Abstract&p=2314072#post2314072

What I have found with high angle beds is that the leading edge for the chip breaker works better if it is lower than for a lower angle frog. Numbers are difficult to arrive at since the distance from the leading edge will also have an effect.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Of course my note about the wood being old is based on splintering issues I have seen in the past with old pine and cedar.

Heck pine and cedar can have splintering issues fresh from the mill or kiln.

jtk

[Gary Muto]

Hi Frank

Yes, the BUS is modified. I did this recently.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD2_zps3bc14f08.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSMOD3_zps4b0f2276-1.jpg

Here it is with the SBUS ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/LV%20planes/BUSmod4_zpsa224fc59.jpg

Here's the original ..

http://www.leevalley.com/en/images/item/Woodworking/Planes/05P3601s5.jpg

Whatdoyouthink?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I like it! I think it just needs the trademark counterbore dimples on the side though. ;)

[Gary Muto]

I have no trouble believing what warren said. It's the difference between a guy who travels around selling planes and demonstrating them vs. a guy who who uses a plane to a very high standard because the work demands it.

I used to be the first to poo poo transitionals and handyman planes because they given you no options with the mouth, but I've reversed course on that now for obvious reasons (cap iron). Handyman planes are still offputting, but they are available almost for free now.

Warren, it would be interesting to see you smooth the second side, too, and time yourself so that nobody can make accusations about you poring over the piece of wood for a long period of time.

I know lie nielsen loves to pitch their toothed irons, but I really don't see the point of them. They allow a beginner to avoid some tearout, but are ultimately slower than a plane with a double iron because they don't take a full cut.

So maybe this says more about the users than the tools? (Indian vs. arrow as you say).