Veritas Bevel Up Smoother Or Low Angle Smooth Plane?

[Derek Arita]

Kinda confused as to what the difference is. Be gentle...I'm new to planes. How are these two planes different and which is preferred?

[Jeffrey Martel]

One has milled sides that are 90 deg to the bed, and one just has sides that are left as they were cast. The low angle smoother can be used on a shooting board on its side while the bevel up one cannot. The bevel up smoother has a 1/4" wider blade.

[Frank Martin]

One has milled sides that are 90 deg to the bed, and one just has sides that are left as they were cast. The low angle smoother can be used on a shooting board on its side while the bevel up one cannot. The bevel up smoother has a 1/4" wider blade.

Bevel up smoother is also quite a bit heavier and better as a pure smoother.

[paul cottingham]

The one without the smooth sides takes the same blades as the other bevel up planes. so in that way, it is more useful, and versatile.

[Simon MacGowen]

For someone new to handplaning, I would recommend the LA smooth. The BU smoother, with its 38* blade, is given this description on the Lee Valley website:

A nice complement to our low-angle jack plane, our state-of-the-art smoothing plane is the tool to use for the final finish on surfaces, especially woods of difficult grain patterns.

The LA smooth is much lighter, more suitable for general planing and smoothing tasks.

Simon

[Hilton Ralphs]

Size wise, the LA smoother is more like a Stanley #4 whereas the Bevel Up Smoother is more like a #4-1/2.

Both bevel up of course, just that the LAS is more useful as described in earlier posts. I have 25, 38, 50 and toothed blades for it and I find it pretty comfortable to use. Unless you are going to be smoothing plenty of very large boards, then this is the one to get initially. I say that because eventually you'll want the heavier, broader version for certain tasks but I would then suggest looking at the new Veritas custom planes, specifically the 4-1/2.

[Jeffrey Martel]

Bevel up smoother is also quite a bit heavier and better as a pure smoother.

How is it better? The only difference is that it's wider. That's the only difference I can see for smoothing purposes.

[Frank Martin]

How is it better? The only difference is that it's wider. That's the only difference I can see for smoothing purposes.
I find the heavier weight rather than the wider width an advantage for smoothing. Also as mentioned before this plane uses the same blade as the low angle jack and the jointer. I have all three and some extra irons at different angles which gives a lot of options. Again, it is a personal preference. If I recall correctly Derek Cohen has a very good review on his website. You may benefit from reading his perspective.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Ditto what Frank just said. I like the 2 1/4" blade because it fits the jack, jointer, and shooter. I have probably 10 or more blades- some are duplicates- in 25, 38, 45 degree and toothed. If one were low on cash, however, they could have just the four and a bevel up smoother, jack, and jointer ,or even a shooter, and just move the desired blade from plane to plane. I keep multiples just so I can do one sharpening session and have a sharp blade for the whole project. I own the smoother, shooter, jack, and jointer.

If you are VERY low on cash and don't think you are ever going to afford or need a bevel-up jack and jointer, then the advantage of the low angle smoother is the flat sides for using as a shooter. Also if you do not prefer a heavier plane, or if you do smaller work, you may prefer this one.

Both are great tools.

[Frank Martin]

Don't want to confuse you, but if you are new to planes and use both power and hand tools, you may actually be better to start with the low angle jack plane. It will do many tasks very well along with a block plane.

[ian maybury]

I'd say that a significant factor in this sort of call may be how you want to set your irons up (camber/no camber/bevel angle), and whether you are happy to change them when needed - or instead want to be able to leave your planes set up. There's probably different ways of hitting the bases though.

I ran into the same buying decision a few years ago, and went for the (wider) BU Smoother as a dedicated smoothing plane as I also had a BU low angle jack to set up with a straight cutting edge for shooting. This in turn was made possible by having a long serving Clifton no. 5 set up with some camber on the iron for more general use. One side of the sole casting on the Clifton is quite a bit out of square, and judging by feedback from elsewhere this may not be unique - so they are not necessarily the best choice for shooting.

If you need a more versatile or narrower plane instead for smoothing and other stuff then the the Low Angle Smoother may be suggested. One potential problem though with buying it (with the straight sides) to gain this versatility is that if you do want to sharpen it with camber and/or with a steeper bevel for smoothing then neither is ideal for shooting. Which might suggest a need for an inconvenient changing and re-setting of irons between jobs.

It can get into overkill, but if having bought the wider BU smoother you feel you could use a small plane for smoothing as well the Veritas low or std. angle block plane (which is quite large and hefty for a block plane) can also be set up with a slightly cambered blade for smoothing - there's even an accessory handle set available. The Veritas apron plane (being small) is in some ways a nice choice for a knock about block plane for smaller trimming jobs.

Against that if you don't mind changing out irons then it probably becomes possibly to get by very well with maybe just a BU Low Angle Jack/as Malcolm a Low Angle Smoother and a Low Angle Block plane.

The primary difference between the two Veritas smoothing planes is the blade width, and the machined sides on the narrower plane which make shooting an option. It seems likely that the heavier and wider plane is not set up that way because it would be less stable on edge - it's basically a dedicated smoothing plane. It's not had enormous use yet, but I do like the feel of the (big) BU smoother...

[Jeffrey Martel]

I find the heavier weight rather than the wider width an advantage for smoothing. Also as mentioned before this plane uses the same blade as the low angle jack and the jointer. I have all three and some extra irons at different angles which gives a lot of options. Again, it is a personal preference. If I recall correctly Derek Cohen has a very good review on his website. You may benefit from reading his perspective.

Fair enough. I bought the narrower version because I wanted it for shooting as well. I could see where the extra mass would be useful. All of my other planes are old Stanleys, and so far this is my only smoother. Thanks for the clarification. And as far as the cambering on the iron goes, I only really relieved the edges while keeping ~90% of the iron straight, so it still shoots fine. And I also have a 50deg blade that I use quite frequently as well for smoothing.

[ian maybury]

It's always down to the specifics Jeffrey….

On blade bevel angles/just in case. One perspective is Derek's view that it's possible a good idea to use a 25 deg iron for everything, and to rely on honing the micro bevel when more pitch is required. I've gone that route, but ended up needing to re-angle several high angled irons i had already bought to do so. So far so good, but i'd have saved myself an awful lot of tedious work if i'd thought of it soon enough/the distance had permitted exchanging what i had for 25deg irons.

Different though if you're not cambering across the width of the blade...

[Jim Matthews]

If you're not comfortable grinding blades to different angles,
stick with the Bailey design with a chip breaker.

They're versatile, less expensive and more flexible.

You can get most of your planing done with a well set up #4.

The LV #4 is VERY good, as an all around plane.

If you are comfortable getting a blade genuinely sharp,
and can get more than one cutting angle ground,
the LN #62 is an amazing plane.

It's good for shooting edges and ends, too.

In brief - if you're just starting out, a #4.
If you're a little further down the road
and have a #4 already - add a LN 62.

[Hilton Ralphs]

In brief - if you're just starting out, a #4.
If you're a little further down the road
and have a #4 already - add a LN 62.

Good advice this.

[Prashun Patel]

Derek-
If you're fairly new to planes, I'd really try to get to an event or generous Creeker's shop to test out a couple different styles.

The right smoother for you is a matter of personal taste, so know there is not a wrong choice here, and know that either can likely be resold at fairly close to new price value if you keep it in good shape.

That being said, if you ever plan to get a Low Angle Jack plane from Veritas, I'd get the BU smoother. The reason is that the blade sharing between the two comes in handy. Also, the sides of that Jack are smooth, so you can use it for shooting. The Jack is light enough that it's not fatiguing and heavy enough and wider than the LA smoother so I find it's a more appropriate choice for most shooting tasks. Try to foresee whether you'll ever purchase the LA jack. All you will read about this being wonderful is true. This may inform your current smoother purchase.

The BU smoother tends to be a more popular plane if that tells you anything. But then again, Cold Play tends to be a popular band so there's no accounting for popular taste... ;)

As an aside, it is confusing that the names of the planes don't coincide with their blade sharing-ability. To be clear, these confusingly named planes share the same blade: Low Angle Jack, Bevel Up Smoother, Bevel Up Jointer.

The Low Angle Smoother and the small Bevel Up Smoother have unique blades.

Veritas seems to use the "Bevel Up/ Low Angle" distinction to refer to plane cheeks. The "Bevel Up" planes (smoother, small smoother, jointer) doesn't have smooth sides. "Low Angle" planes (jack, smoother, block) do.

[Derek Cohen]

Here's a slightly different take on things.

BU planes offer a less complicated path to high performance planing. While I believe that you can extract a little more from a BD+Chipbreaker, there is a steeper learning curve to setting one up, and this is not for everyone. At the end of the day, the top end of a BU plane will rarely - if ever - be tested by most woodworkers.

If you want to have the best BU smoother going (outside of custom planemakers, such as Holtey and Marcou), the Vertitas BU Smoother stands out. It is better than the LA Smoother. In theory, cutting angle is cutting angle, but in reality the extra mass along with a lower centre of effort (from the mass - the extra width is akin to the wider track of a sport car) of the BUS makes for more less effort in pushing the plane at high cutting angles.

I would not use the argument that it has the same blade as the LA Jack and BU Jointer. I think that is irrelevant - choose a smoother as a smoother and not because of the blade. The fact is that the blade set up for the BUS (high bevel angle and fine camber) is not going to meet the needs of the other planes.

Get blades for it with the 25 degree bevels and learn to hone a secondary bevel with a honing guide that enables you to add a camber while honing the secondary. When you are starting out this is going to sound very complicated. It will become straightforward in due course.

Why not get the LA Smoother? I have nothing against the LA Smoother. I think it is a fine plane, exceptionally capable and more flexible. However, in my hands it wold only get used as a smoother: it would require a second blade to use for shooting. It is a little light for shooting (although it does work in this capacity) and, as I mentioned, I prefer planes dedicated to a purpose. It is useful when you are starting out to have a multipurpose plane, but when you've been doing it a while, it becomes cumbersome. Decide whether you want an all-rounder or a dedicated plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek (the other one)

[Brian Holcombe]

If you're not comfortable grinding blades to different angles,
stick with the Bailey design with a chip breaker.

They're versatile, less expensive and more flexible.

You can get most of your planing done with a well set up #4.

The LV #4 is VERY good, as an all around plane.

If you are comfortable getting a blade genuinely sharp,
and can get more than one cutting angle ground,
the LN #62 is an amazing plane.

It's good for shooting edges and ends, too.

In brief - if you're just starting out, a #4.
If you're a little further down the road
and have a #4 already - add a LN 62.

+1

My set of planes is #4 LN bevel down, Bevel up jack with a heavily cambered blade and a shooting blade, and a #7 LN bevel down jointer.....plus a few specialty planes.

I can dimension by hand without issue, flatten panels and boards without issue. Yes, there is a learning curve....there is a learning curve to both.

My complaint with bevel up, if I grind a steeper angle I'm changing the pitch. That's good and bad, if I simply want a steeper grind for durability I'm still increasing the pitch. I find if I am not at 32 degrees I do not get much life between sharpenings from my blades (01 and A2) and that brings me to 44 degrees...not exactly low angle.

[Derek Cohen]

My complaint with bevel up, if I grind a steeper angle I'm changing the pitch. That's good and bad, if I simply want a steeper grind for durability I'm still increasing the pitch. I find if I am not at 32 degrees I do not get much life between sharpenings from my blades (01 and A2) and that brings me to 44 degrees...not exactly low angle.

Brian, you've lost me there (not hard to do :) ).

Unless I am missing something one would want a steeper pitch in a smoother for more complex wood. I've not had an issue with durability from 50 degree bevels (62 degree included angle) in A2 or PMV-11, and this is in hard, abrasive woods.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[george wilson]

Isn't this topic re covered very frequently? :)

[Tony Zaffuto]

Isn't this topic re covered very frequently? :)

Yabut, we change our opinions quite often!

[Derek Cohen]

Isn't this topic re covered very frequently? :)

From time-to-time, George. Unfortunately most woodworkers are prone to sniff too much hide glue, which it affects the frontal lobes and short term .... what were we discussing .... ?

Regards from Perth :)

Derek

[ian maybury]

:rolleyes: That's Jeffrey well and truly confused by us all - and for sure my experience is limited, and restricted to what i have.

There's clearly (to use a politically incorrect phrase) more than one way to skin a horse. To try and summarise the present consensus, but others come in if i get it wrong:

1. Bevel up or down will do the job, whether approached by buying a dedicated smoother - or multi task plane.
2. There's a long running debate about whether a finely set up BU or BD has the ultimate smoothing capability at high angles on difficult woods, and it's not going to be bottomed here. The ultimate reality may be that any distinction depends on the situation specifics, but both do pretty much everything very well…
3. Quite a lot depends on your budget and on how you propose to handle the issue of any wider planing needs (beyond smoothing - stuff like jointing edges, getting boards flat enough for smoothing, shooting joints, local cross and with grain trimming etc), and the associated issue of plane irons of differing cambers/corners and cutting angles - by using dedicated planes, or by switching irons in and out.
4. The former is clearly most convenient, and permits keeping planes set up for particular jobs - but is more expensive.
5. The heavier LV BU smoother gets several votes for its great feel, weight and effectiveness as a smoother (but it can't shoot by virtue of not having flat sides), but theoretically and with various advantages and disadvantages depending on the task the low angle jack, smoother or even for very small work) LV block can with appropriate set up all smooth - and handle other jobs. As can a variety of bevel down planes, with the LN no. 4 getting mention as another all rounder.
6. Consider in BU buying 25 deg irons, and applying micro bevels at the required angles for steeper cutting angles - steeper grinds can be awkward to camber etc.

While it may well feed back into the above decision process, it might be best not get into issues of what's best for other tasks here or we could still be going in a month's time...

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian, you've lost me there (not hard to do :) ).

Unless I am missing something one would want a steeper pitch in a smoother for more complex wood. I've not had an issue with durability from 50 degree bevels (62 degree included angle) in A2 or PMV-11, and this is in hard, abrasive woods.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I dont have a durability issue, per say, but I like a bit of time between resharpening and 32 degrees does that for me. I can make the 0-1 blade 25 degrees but then I'm at the sharpening stone more often than I prefer.

You may want a steeper pitch for difficult woods, but you may also want a shallow pitch for operations such as shooting. 45~ works, but i'd rather have 37~.

It's not a deal breaker, but something to consider.

I'm including the bed angle when I say 37 to 45.

[Jeffrey Martel]

:rolleyes: That's Jeffrey well and truly confused by us all - and for sure my experience is limited, and restricted to what i have.


I think you're confusing me with the original poster. No confusion here.

I can see where additional mass would help make smoothing easier, but in terms of final results I doubt there would be an appreciable difference between the two. In smoothing operation, the only difference is the extra mass and wider sole. Given that the LAS can still be used in shooting, for me it was a lot more versatile than the Bevel Up. I don't care about blade swapping between planes, especially when you consider that one normally sharpens a smoothing blade different from a jointer or a jack blade.

[john zulu]

+1 to Derek comments on LV BUS.
I always tried to use the BD for hard woods. But it was not that easy as the centre of gravity was kind of tippy. The lower centre of gravity for LV BUS helped a lot for easier planing on hard wood.

If you have a jack plane then go with the LV BUS as it is much more beneficial for a dedicated smoother.

[george wilson]

In case you missed the very lengthy discussion on how to set the chip breaker to smoothly plane difficult wood,you cannot use a chip breaker on a BU plane,of course. So,the design is limited in that regard.

[Frank Martin]

In case you missed the very lengthy discussion on how to set the chip breaker to smoothly plane difficult wood,you cannot use a chip breaker on a BU plane,of course. So,the design is limited in that regard.

This is definitely true. However, many users may never hit that limit and the BU is a lot easier to setup with a shorther learning curve. After a brief unsuccessful experience with old Stanleys I switched to new BU Veritas planes and never regretted. Given all the discussion about the merits of the bevel down planes and the chipbreaker, I purchased one of the new Veritas premium planes. I really like it so far, but can't tell it works better than the BU equivalents for what I do.

[Tony Zaffuto]

From time-to-time, George. Unfortunately most woodworkers are prone to sniff too much hide glue, which it affects the frontal lobes and short term .... what were we discussing .... ?

Regards from Perth :)

Derek

My problem is my beagle's taste for hide glue! The sniffer can detect the glue pot from a mile away and then whatever she can get her jaws around is dragged out of the shop to be chewed upon.

[Pat Barry]

This is definitely true. However, many users may never hit that limit and the BU is a lot easier to setup with a shorther learning curve. After a brief unsuccessful experience with old Stanleys I switched to new BU Veritas planes and never regretted. Given all the discussion about the merits of the bevel down planes and the chipbreaker, I purchased one of the new Veritas premium planes. I really like it so far, but can't tell it works better than the BU equivalents for what I do.
I don't really think the learning curve or the setup is really any easier with the BU vs the BD, at least for me they can both be fussy and highly dependent on the wood, the grain direction, the depth of cut, the sharpness of the edge, etc, etc.. I also don't think that either of these is theoretically any better than the other when it comes to getting the job done - more a matter of individual preference and trust in the tool. I do think, speaking from my experience only, that the new LV BUS I have is a tool that I am really gaining an appreciation for. Maybe its the PMV11 blade, maybe its the overall tightness of the tool. I still use my #4 BD with its old blade quite a lot and I know it is easier to sharpen.

[ian maybury]

:) Pardon me Jeffrey, seems it's me that was confused. I meant the OP...

This is moving beyond the original question, and I've no view as i haven't explored the territory, but is it really the case/is there any clearly informed consensus that a BU smoother are at any disadvantage compared to a BD with a chipbreaker on difficult woods?

It may not be representative, and for all i know there's a huge body of contradicting opinion out there - but there's hints for example in the Elliott material recently linked by Kees that a high bevel angle does better than a closely set breaker to prevent tear out on really difficult woods, but that a chipbreaker may produce a clearer finish on slightly less difficult woods.

It's i think been suggested too that a bevel down plane with a breaker generates a bit more 'hold down' effect in certain situations (that this implies superiority), but viewed through a force balance lens this might suggest that a high bevel in those same situations actually applies more downforce to the chip - which might explain the above.

There seems likely to be some difference given the differing layouts, but has the issue really been run to ground? Might not familiarity, personal preferences and situation specifics not play a part?

[Jim Koepke]

is there any clearly informed consensus that a BU smoother are at any disadvantage compared to a BD with a chipbreaker on difficult woods?

If there were a "clearly informed consensus" this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Until there is a controlled test done in a scientific manner of the kind done for setting a chip breaker we will only have individual experiences.

Derek Cohen has some of these done at inthewoodshop.com.

My own experience is based mostly on one plane, an LN #62, unless you want to also count block planes.


It's i think been suggested too that a bevel down plane with a breaker generates a bit more 'hold down' effect in certain situations

This doesn't coincide with my experience. A heavy shaving would seem to be pushing the chip breaker up, causing lift on the plane.

A bevel up plane would be similar to using a chisel. The bevel of the chisel works like a wedge pushing the chisel into the work. Think of chopping out dovetails and what happens when chopping on the line.

A chip breaker works against the lever action of the shaving lifting wood in front of the blade. On a bevel up plane, there is nothing other than the front edge of the plane's mouth to counter the leverage force of the shaving.

Everyone works in different woods and with different methods.

My results may be different than other's results. For me, it is easier to get a highly polished surface with a my bevel down jack than with my bevel up jack.

jtk

[ian maybury]

Guess Jim i was thinking there might be some great concensus about the relative merits of BU vs BD reached in the background that i had missed. Controlled testing sounds so difficult - such a huge undertaking by the time all of the variables and all of the wood varieties and conditions get trialled.

The suggestion that a BD with a chipbreaker might generate a bit more hold down force came from data posted by Kees some months ago: Topic: New data. High angle versus chipbreakers. 9-29-14 From the post: 'That brings us back to diagram 1 and to the 18th century woodworker who was testdriving one of these new double iron planes. And this diagram sais it all. A proparly adjusted double iron handplane is easier to push, has a stronger negative normal force which pulls the blade into the wood and this advantage doesn't change when the edge wears.'

My thought is that this may not be an advantage in terms of tear out reduction, and may explain the Elliott suggestion mentioned above that a high bevel angle may do better than a chip breaker in preventing tear out in very difficult woods. i.e. A plane with more hold down force may well be subjectively more pleasant to use, but that hold down force (since it's mostly generated by the cutting edge wedging under the surface of the wood as it cuts) presumably has to result in more tear out.

For sure quite a sizeable component of the force of a stiff chip hitting the nose of a chipbreaker will tend to generate an upwards lift, but equally the effect of the exposed section of the actual face of the iron driving under the surface to cut/shear away the chip must be to pull the plane down. I'm not sure in what proportions the two may combine - the resulting nett normal force (Kees' Fn) could depending on the set up presumably be positive (downwards) or negative. (upwards)

The BU situation is perhaps quite similar. If very steep then it's going to be hard to push the plane forward, and an only moderate amount of 'hook under' is going to occur (in what is actually close to a scraping action) - with the result that the plane may not be pulled down so tightly to the work and may require user assistance. A shallow bevel angle on the other hand will produce a lot more hook under, and more tendency to pull the plane down - but at the expense of more tear out.

There are other factors in play. Kees has mentioned that the formation of a wear bevel on the clearance side of the cutting edge can result in sharp increases in normal/upwards force, while the requirement to hold the plane tight down on the surface so that the edge of the mouth prevents tear out must also generate an opposing upwards force.

The user's experience will presumably depend on how this whole lot (and more variables too - including friction of the sole on the wood, weight of the plane, geometry of the handles for example) plays out. Kees' material possibly suggests that likely even quite small changes in set up and/or wear will significantly change the 'feel'/the user experience.

In summary and as above: more 'hook under'/hold down effect might create a subjectively more pleasant user experience, but it probably will not maximise tear out prevention. The extra force required to drive a very steep bevel or a steep iron and closely set chip breaker though the wood and also to hold the plane down tight on the surface might likewise not be so pleasant for the user, but it could maximise tear out prevention.

As before though only speculating...

[Warren Mickley]

In 1973 I read about the double iron in historic texts. It took a few years to really get the hang of it, but I have not had any trouble with any wood since 1977. I have never seen a high angle plane that produces a surface of the quality of a double iron plane that is well adjusted. Planing with a double iron is an art; like anything else it requires observation, experience, judgement.

[ian maybury]

Hi Warren. The art/the skill is always in the background, isn't it? It'd be so easy to run tests and because of e.g. a less than optimiun test set up (maybe only off by the tiniest of margins) to miss the last bit of potential available from a tool.

To be fair i don't think it's a case of arguing (pending better information anyway) that one type of plane is 'better' than the other. We may have preferences, but whatever differences there are at the extremes of performance (and there's other not strictly functional factors like how good it feels and ease of use in play as well) it seems likely that the distinctions are pretty highly nuanced, and that in either case they require command of the art for them to become relevant...

[Andrae Covington]

Kinda confused as to what the difference is. Be gentle...I'm new to planes. How are these two planes different and which is preferred?

I've had the Low-Angle Smooth Plane, which is the one with milled sides, for a few years. I chose it over the BU Smoother Plane because the milled sides would allow using the plane for shooting. The two problems with that idea have already been mentioned in the thread: for smoothing many prefer a cambered blade and that's not so ideal for shooting, and the small size and weight of the plane doesn't lend itself to shooting larger workpieces. Also the blades are narrower than the LV jack and jointer, so they cannot be interchanged like with the BU Smoother.

As far as smoothing goes, I've been happy with the plane. I've sometimes wished for more mass, but not more width; however everyone has different preferences and ways of working.

Recently I bought the Low-Angle Jack Plane primarily to replace the smoother on the shooting board. It definitely has more "oomph" for that task. I can swap blades with the jointer so that one could be straight and one cambered, or a higher angle. I considered the dedicated shooting plane, which is very nice, but it's more money and really only does the one job, whereas the jack is a jack-of-all-trades. If I could go back, I'd probably buy the BU Smoother, Jack, and Jointer as a system with interchangeable blades.

[Jim Koepke]

A proparly adjusted double iron handplane is easier to push, has a stronger negative normal force which pulls the blade into the wood and this advantage doesn't change when the edge wears.'

I am not familiar with the study sited. Also it isn't clear of what "a stronger negative normal force" may be referencing.

It seems curious that a blade being pulled into the wood, in other words more engaged in the wood, "is easier to push."

My question would be is the determination based on scientific measurement or is it based on a user's opinion?

As with many things it may all come down to what we feel most comfortable with using. Some of my tools feel better in my hands that others that may be their equals.

jtk

[george wilson]

Shorter learning curve on BU? That may be true,but becoming a good craftsman is not usually about taking the easiest way out. The best thing to concentrate on is developing good skills and work habits.

If I was planing curly maple,and had mastered the art of getting the chip breaker set properly,I'd feel so much more reassured of not taking a hunk of curl out and either ruining the wood,or making myself a lot of extra work.

I used to get round the problem of curly maple(and many instruments are made of it!),was to plane straight across the grain,or use a toothing plane. Now that Warren and David and the Japanese video have shown us the lost art of the chip breaker,I think it is well worth practicing at it till it is learned.

Look at drawings of 19th. C. craftsmen pushing planes. There was a picture I recall that a child drew. The chips were long and straight,sticking up out of the throats of the wooden planes. Not those pretty,curly chips that we are so familiar with. Those straight "sheets" of chips are the kind of chips you get when you have set the chip breaker correctly. It was there all the while,if people had noticed it.

[ian maybury]

I'd don't know Jim, in that i might have taken the wrong meaning from the material - although the negative normal force is pretty well explained in the piece. So far as i know it was a result from his testing.

Realistically i'm only floating possibilities as to what the material might point to here, the core message of it all if anything may be that when we get into the rare extreme situations requiring realisation of the very last bit of capability a tools has there is no simple/universal this or that is always better. As in there's the potential for such tiny differences in specific sitiation, skills and set up to determine what works and what doesn't - in terms of both performance and feel.

The other basic is the likelihood that it's probably quite rare for most of us to get into such a situation. (my suspicion is that we more often run into issues, but that the tool still has quite a bit to give in many of those cases) That being the case we likely have freedom the vast majority of the time to go with the tool that feels best or easiest for us, because there's no need to extract the very last bit of capability. You probably hit the nail on the head with this: 'As with many things it may all come down to what we feel most comfortable with using. Some of my tools feel better in my hands that others that may be their equals.'

Even the 'easier' bit is probably fairly subjective. The being 'pulled in' part is pretty much an inevitability in any iron that's set at a fairly normal angle around 45 deg, and where the chip breaker is not so steep and close as to overcome it. It might not require much pushing if the chip splits away fairly easily though.

Against that a BU iron set at a very high/steep angle would likely be a bit different - in that the close to scraping action would be quite hard to push forward, but it wouldn't generate much 'pulling in' effect. Even if it had some slight advantage at avoiding tear out in a few very difficult situations, it'd in keeping with what you said likely feel like it needed more man handling too. As in it might need more holding/pushing down on to the work as well as the extra shove.

For sure there's something very appealing, crisp and easy about the feel in use of a well set up bevel down plane...

[Pat Barry]

For sure there's something very appealing, crisp and easy about the feel in use of a well set up bevel down plane...
This is true for any plane!

Happy St Patricks day.

[glenn bradley]

I'm another who went with the BU Smoother but, I did this because I have the BU jointer and BU low angle jack and they all take the same iron. I bought one each with 25*, 38* and 50* plus a PM-V11 at 25* when that became available but, I digress. The logic is that I can have many different combinations without a set of irons for each. The BU Smoother only has a small area at the front of the sides that is milled so the LA smoother would be better for operations using the sides as a reference surface. The LA Smoother, as mentioned, is lighter and narrower. I agree that a trip to a local member's shop or an event where you can get your hands on some planes would be your greatest benefit.

I was fortunate enough to end up at a show where LV and LN were kitty-corner from each other. This allowed me to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. The guys working the booths may have thought I had early onset dementia but, I learned a ton in under an hour. I will always be thankful to the shop-gods that made that weird coincident scheduling occurrence happen for me ;-)

[Stewie Simpson]

There are woodworkers out there that have formed the belief that wood grain is now so sensitive, it can detect a Bu plane (with an accrued approach angle of 60*), as being different to that of a BD plane that is bedded at 60*. IMO

[Derek Cohen]

There are woodworkers out there that have formed the belief that wood grain is now so sensitive, it can detect a Bu plane (with an accrued approach angle of 60*), as being different to that of a BD plane that is bedded at 60*. IMO

Wood may not be sensitive enough to do so, but most woodworkers certainly are. Actually, it is pretty obvious much of the time at high cutting angles.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Same result to the wood surface, but the Bd will feel a little harder to push. Big deal Derek. Lift some weights and build up your arm muscles.

regards from Portland;Victoria

Stewie

[Jim Matthews]

Shorter learning curve on BU? That may be true,but becoming a good craftsman is not usually about taking the easiest way out. The best thing to concentrate on is developing good skills and work habits.

While this is correct, it bears mentioning that most of us learning today have no breathing resource to seek out when things go awry.
It is my opinion that the beginning student is best served by having an instrument that is properly tuned, fully functional and reliable.

A poorly set up handplane can be a result of multiple factors that must all be managed at once. With no one to ask, that's a stumbling block.
Any one of those factors acting as a variable can derail the beginner and discourage their interest.

My advice to beginners is to find a mentor to get started.

I think any tool search should start with a box no bigger than you
can carry in two hands - if it won't fit in the box, it's too large to handle
and probable too expensive to justify.

[Chris Hachet]

Isn't this topic re covered very frequently? :)

Yes it is....I am still using the same wooden smoother I bought 30 years ago.

[george wilson]

Jim,breathing resources right here!!

[Rich Riddle]

Like many, to end deliberations on the topic, I purchased both.

[Derek Arita]

Like man, to end deliberations on the topic, I purchased both.
probably the root i'll end up taking.