Frog Position Question

[Joe A Faulkner]

I have never had amazing results with my type 9 no. 4 smoother when working figured grain. Even if I set the chip breaker super close, I still experienced tear out. I decided to give a modern blade and chip breaker upgrade a chance. I bought the LV PM-V11 blade and chip breaker a try. I normally set the frog such that the ramp is co-planer with the slope of the back side of the mouth. However, to get the thicker blade and tightly set chip breaker to project, I had to backup the frog a bit. This feels wrong, as now the blade is not riding on the full length of the frog's ramp.

I got great results, but it feels wrong. I probably need to open up the mouth of the plane a bit so I can move the frog closer to the front and allow the blade to rest fully on the ramp.

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

[Rick Malakoff]

Joe, what a great question I hope somebody has an answer.
Rick

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
I got great results, but it feels wrong. I probably need to open up the mouth of the plane a bit so I can move the frog closer to the front and allow the blade to rest fully on the ramp.

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

In my opinion, yes it is better to file the mouth a little bit and reset the frog so the blade is supported by the full face of the frog plus the back of the mouth.

Remember, the base casting is soft and files fast. It doesn't take much filing to do a lot of opening.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

Joe, the frog never supports all the blade in a BD plane. There is the area of the bevel where it angles out. I grind BD blades at 30 degrees, so the angle is sufficient for the bevel to project over the back of the mouth. Ideally, you should be able to pull the blade back a little to increase the mouth side this way.

To use a closed up chipbreaker, it is necessary that the mouth is open enough to pass shavings past the mouth-chipbreaker gap. You may need to open the mouth fractionally for this. Some prefer to do so from the back of the mouth rather than the front as then the mouth can still be closed down if returning to a thinner blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Feels wrong? Perhaps is because it IS wrong?

"Have to replace these "thin" iron with the lastest/greatest THICK iron to cure all the plane's woes" One word about that sort of.....stuff. Crutch

Maybe a slightly sharper iron? Maybe a slightly different technique in using the plane. Like reading the grain,maybe?

That "too thin " iron has worked quite well for the last....100+ years. Until some marketing fellow decided to sell those fat irons?

"Thick iron to reduce chatter" Marketing hype. About the same with tear out cures, or maybe rubbing some Snake Oil on the wood first?

I current #4 sized planes are a Stanley #4c, type 20, and a Millers Falls No.9, type four. 99% tear out free, using the original irons. ( welcome to come here and try them out)Chipbreaker is set at 1mm from the edge. bevel down, single bevel, no back bevel. Frog and ramp are coplannar support right down to the start of the bevel. Planes are push at a skew ( slight) so they can slice their way across all the knots I usually encounter. I also tend to read the grain. None of that plow full speed straight ahead regardless of what the grain is doing.

There is one other problem dropping a thicker iron into an older plane......that little tab at the end of the depth adjustment yoke......somehow, it would still have to poke up through that thick chunk of iron and engage the chipbreaker's slot, and do it over the full range of depth settings without popping back out.

Andrew P. on this site asked me why his No. 4 with a thick iron wasn't allowing shavings to exit the plane.....plane's mouth wasn't designed for that thickness of blade. The plane choked on any shaving it could cut. Dropped in a normal iron, worked just fine.

Your plane......YMMV.

[Derek Cohen]

Yes, but ... Steven, can you offer some practical help to the OP at all? Curmudgeon rants do not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I would file the mouth. Use a square and a scriber and scratch a line just in front of the existing mouth. Then file until the line is just barely gone. It's a job of just a few minutes because gray cast iron files like butter.

And I prefer to line the back of the mouth up with the frog for the most stable bedding of the iron. Well, until I bought pre WW I Stanley planes, which are rather different in this area.

[Pat Barry]

There should be a small bit of clearance between the bevel and the back edge of the mouth, not much mind you, just enough that the bevel doesn't ride on the mouth. It should not be supported by the back of the mouth - this would create drag and make adjustments more difficult. Since you already invested in a better blade, you should be willing to make the needed adjustment to the mouth opening as required. Like Derek mentioned, the back of the mouth doesn't need to be coplanar with the face of the frog.

[Kees Heiden]

Well, I don't agree with that. Especially with thin irons, you need the best support as low as possible. And that is the little bit of the sole at the rear of the mouth. I can't feel any difference in how the plane adjusts which is mostly controlled by the lever cap screw tension anyway.

Maybe with one of these thick aftermarket irons it doesn't matter as much.

[Stewie Simpson]

Leonard Bailey will be turning in his grave.

[Derek Cohen]

... I decided to give a modern blade and chip breaker upgrade a chance. I bought the LV PM-V11 blade and chip breaker a try...

Joe, it will work and work well.

Here is one of my favourite planes a UK-made Stanley #3 I inherited from my FIL. A few years ago I upgraded it with a PM-V11 and chipbreaker ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Bobs%20Stanley/BobsStanley1_zpsfab0b186.jpg

Not only will it work (and well) with this blade, but it also works with a Clifton hammered O1 blade, which is the same thickness as a LN blade ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Bobs%20Stanley/Stanley-Clifton_zpsqyjdthwd.jpg

Both these blades give this plane a very solid feel. The difference with a LN #3 (I have a bronze version) is the Stanley is lighter and has more slack in the adjuster. They produce identical results.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Will he be crying...or just laughing his rearend off....

[Pat Barry]

Leonard Bailey will be turning in his grave.
He probably has been for 100 years. Why did he use such thin irons anyway?

[Kees Heiden]

Plenty thick enough and quick and easy to sharpen.

[Joe A Faulkner]

Thanks for the various perspectives on this. I was leaning towards opening the mouth by filing the front of the mouth - per Rob Cossman you tube on the subject. The front of the mouth is in pretty good shape but not as crisp as a new plane. I'll probably first work to tune that a little, and take it from there.

I also want to re-hone the original blade and try it with the LV cap iron just to see how it compares the LV PM-V11 blade.

[Jim Koepke]

Why did he use such thin irons anyway?

When one is making such a large number of planes, lowering the cost of the blade by even a half of a cent makes for a lot of savings.

jtk

[Graham Haydon]

Joe

I think you've been well advised in terms of fitting a new, thick iron into the plane. I'll be interested to hear you thoughts once you can compare irons. Although Steven's post is direct, my experience has also been the standard iron and cap iron are more than up to the job for high quality woodworking.

[allen long]

I would file the mouth. Use a square and a scriber and scratch a line just in front of the existing mouth. Then file until the line is just barely gone. It's a job of just a few minutes because gray cast iron files like butter.

And I prefer to line the back of the mouth up with the frog for the most stable bedding of the iron. Well, until I bought pre WW I Stanley planes, which are rather different in this area.

Could someone post a few pictures of the recommended frog position? I am having a little trouble visualizing the different suggestions. I would really appreciate it!

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

[Allen Jordan]

I also vote for filing the mouth to fit the thicker iron. I've done this on two planes and both of them work so much better with the thicker aftermarket blades (I have a pm-v11 veritas in my #8c, and an IBC blade+breaker in my #3).

[steven c newman]

362194
Not much options, when there is a rib involved

[Patrick Chase]

He probably has been for 100 years. Why did he use such thin irons anyway?

While Leonard Bailey was a technical genius, his marketing skills evidently left something to be desired.

After all, he completely missed out on the the fact that he could upsell people to overly thick irons just by chattering on about, well, "chatter".

It turned out OK for Stanley, though, as Justus Traut was much more attuned to Madison Avenue. Why add real, costly steel when you can get people to pay for a pointlessly rejiggered frog instead?

[steven c newman]

And moved away from those thick, TAPERED irons?

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks for the various perspectives on this. I was leaning towards opening the mouth by filing the front of the mouth - per Rob Cossman you tube on the subject. The front of the mouth is in pretty good shape but not as crisp as a new plane. I'll probably first work to tune that a little, and take it from there.

I also want to re-hone the original blade and try it with the LV cap iron just to see how it compares the LV PM-V11 blade.

Joe; your likely to experience chatter with the option highlighted. If the LV Cap Iron are the same as LN, they provide little to no spring tension to the cutting iron. imo, the shaping of the cap iron by Bailey is a superior design.

[Patrick Chase]

Joe; your likely to experience chatter with the option highlighted. If the LV Cap Iron are the same as LN, they provide little to no spring tension to the cutting iron. imo, the shaping of the cap iron by Bailey is a superior design.

I think it's important not to confuse deflection with preload.

The Stanley cap iron does indeed deflect a lot more when installed than the LN (and newer LV) type. The LN-style irons are however much thicker and therefore stiffer, such that the preload (the amount of force the cap iron applies to the blade) is about the same either way. Force = deflection*stiffness, High-deflection times low-stiffness ~= low-deflection times high-stiffness.

I agree that the Stanley-style cap iron is a superior design in the sense that it gets the same job done with less metal and a less involved manufacturing process. You can't get much simpler/cheaper than bending constant-thickness sheet metal. I don't think that makes the LN-type technically or functionally inferior, though. As far as I can tell they create similar interfaces and have similar impacts on the shape of the blade.

[Jim Koepke]

Could someone post a few pictures of the recommended frog position? I am having a little trouble visualizing the different suggestions. I would really appreciate it!

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

Allen, here is an old post of mine that gets into a bit of detail:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?114373-Fettling-A-Plane-from-Junker-to-Jointer

The frog setting is in about the 10th post.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

I have never had amazing results with my type 9 no. 4 smoother when working figured grain. Even if I set the chip breaker super close, I still experienced tear out.

I would say that if you are not getting amazing results with the original iron and cap iron, something is very wrong with the way you are using the plane. Chasing new equipment just postpones solving your problems. You need to observe and reason.

[Andy Nichols]

You could have just had a bad iron? Had one on a #5, could shave hair then it would not cut after a few strokes, assumed it was not tempered correctly or someone messed with it at sometime.

Nothing wrong with changing irons if you want, I tend to use Hock replacement irons, they hold their edge well and given that they are closer to the original size it does not take a lot of adjusting to replace and then I have extra irons, that can still be used without a lot of changes.....

Read in some book, believe it was "Planecraft" the statement went something like--the thin blade plane is a technical marvel, it reduces weight, and manufacturing costs, but more importantly it reduces sharpening effort/time, and works just as well as a tick iron....could be wrong about the source, but "Planecraft" was also an advertisement for Record planes so I think it's in there.

That LV blade will stay sharper longer, and even though I agree it's not necessarily a requirement for making an old Stanley's performance better, it's a fine upgrade....


Andy

[Derek Cohen]

Joe; your likely to experience chatter with the option highlighted. If the LV Cap Iron are the same as LN, they provide little to no spring tension to the cutting iron. imo, the shaping of the cap iron by Bailey is a superior design.

That is a simplistic observation. As Patrick stated, the loading needs are different for a thick vs thin blade. The thin blade benefits from a little tension to ensure that it sits flat on the frog, while the thicker blades do not.

Both chipbreaker types require attention given to the mating surfaces, ensuring that they are flat and do not permit shavings to creep under the leading edge.

The rounded Stanley chipbreaker is more likely to have its leading edge at the desired angle to deflect shavings, while the LN/LV/Hock etc require a secondary micro bevel to raise their leading edge from 30 degrees to around 50 degrees. There is no assurance that the Stanley will be at the ideal angle since the steel is thin and flexible. I often come across mis-shapen Stanley chipbreakers with a flatter front section.

The issue I have experienced with the Stanley chipbreaker is that it is a little more work to set up at the edge. I do use them, as well as LN and LV chipbreakers, and all work well, but the Stanley will flex a little as the screw is tightened, and this can move the leading edge forward.

There is also a difference in chipbreaker screws that is worth noting: The LN is the odd man out here. All the others have knurled edges, which provide a more secure grip when finger tightening. The LV has the thickest screw head, which makes it the easiest to grip. A small issue, but part of the process.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

I think it's important not to confuse deflection with preload.

The Stanley cap iron does indeed deflect a lot more when installed than the LN (and newer LV) type. The LN-style irons are however much thicker and therefore stiffer, such that the preload (the amount of force the cap iron applies to the blade) is about the same either way. Force = deflection*stiffness, High-deflection times low-stiffness ~= low-deflection times high-stiffness.

I agree that the Stanley-style cap iron is a superior design in the sense that it gets the same job done with less metal and a less involved manufacturing process. You can't get much simpler/cheaper than bending constant-thickness sheet metal. I don't think that makes the LN-type technically or functionally inferior, though. As far as I can tell they create similar interfaces and have similar impacts on the shape of the blade.

Patrick; so why the need to match the thicker irons with a thicker 1/8" cap iron.

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick; so why the need to match the thicker irons with a thicker 1/8" cap iron.

You may ask the same question about infill planes, such as Norris and Spiers, or woodies with tapered irons that end in a 3/16" thick bevel end. Why do you think that, Stewie? Why is Stanley the odd man out?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; there are valid reasons why I bypassed you and posted Patrick this question.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

You may ask the same question about infill planes, such as Norris and Spiers, or woodies with tapered irons that end in a 3/16" thick bevel end. Why do you think that, Stewie? Why is Stanley the odd man out?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Serious question: Was there a purpose in the snide comment to Steve Newman? He may not think the solution to every problem lies in the LV/LN catalog, but he is consistently one of the most helpful members on this board, and as I read his answer he was trying to be helpful.

Likewise, is there a purpose in trying to pick a new fight with Stewie? Everybody knows you don't like each other and are never going to agree about anything. I do not see any constructive purpose in your comment. He is clearly trying to avoid a fight with you.

[don wilwol]

I also want to re-hone the original blade and try it with the LV cap iron just to see how it compares the LV PM-V11 blade.

Best idea yet!

[Joe A Faulkner]

Someone asked for pictures to help relate to the original question - what is the ideal frog position. In this blog post, Peter Sellers has a cross section view that illustrates my question.

https://paulsellers.com/2015/07/understanding-the-frog-in-your-throat/

If you set the frog back (south of the mouth) then the blade is going to rest on the back of the mouth, and the further you set the frog back will result in the blade no longer being fully seated on the bed of the frog - the front end of the blade will rest on the back of the mouth while the back end rests on the top of the frog.

I think my mistake was pulling the frog too far back. I did open the back of the mouth slightly and now have moved the frog up to where the blade is fully seated and also projects - getting good results. Thanks for the discussion and pointers on this topic.

[Pat Barry]

Someone asked for pictures to help relate to the original question - what is the ideal frog position. In this blog post, Peter Sellers has a cross section view that illustrates my question.

https://paulsellers.com/2015/07/understanding-the-frog-in-your-throat/

If you set the frog back (south of the mouth) then the blade is going to rest on the back of the mouth, and the further you set the frog back will result in the blade no longer being fully seated on the bed of the frog - the front end of the blade will rest on the back of the mouth while the back end rests on the top of the frog.

I think my mistake was pulling the frog too far back. I did open the back of the mouth slightly and now have moved the frog up to where the blade is fully seated and also projects - getting good results. Thanks for the discussion and pointers on this topic.
The original design idea was that the frog could be moved forward, if so desired to reduce the mouth opening, for example when dealing with tearout and wanting to take thin shavings, or to move it all the way back so that you could take very thick shavings and hog away the material. That alone shows the blade wasn't intended to ride on the mouth, although, some have taken to using the back of the mouth as additional blade support. It would take some effort to actually quantify the benefits of the additional support, although, based on the various anecdotal reports, some people believe there is a reasonable benefit and therefore take pains to ensure the blade is supported by the back of the mouth. I tend to agree, although for a thicker blade this is significantly less important.

[Derek Cohen]

Serious question: Was there a purpose in the snide comment to Steve Newman? He may not think the solution to every problem lies in the LV/LN catalog, but he is consistently one of the most helpful members on this board, and as I read his answer he was trying to be helpful.

Likewise, is there a purpose in trying to pick a new fight with Stewie? Everybody knows you don't like each other and are never going to agree about anything. I do not see any constructive purpose in your comment. He is clearly trying to avoid a fight with you.

Serious answer, Nicholas.

I am heartily sick and tired at the constant snipes of both Steven and Stewie, not just at me, but at other posters. Both have a common directive. Neither offer anything constructive, and instead just post criticism and negativity. When last did you read something from them that was not pushing a personal wheelbarrow? When I respond it is with a question or information pertinent to the topic.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

What ever happened to "adjust the frog, iron, and cap to produce translucent shavings" ?

Give me a break. :)

[Jim Koepke]

What ever happened to "adjust the frog, iron, and cap to produce translucent shavings" ?

Give me a break. :)

Some folks do not relish the idea of translucent shavings, feeling they are a useless waste of time. Actually they burn quite well and hot when used to start a fire on a cold morning.

Knowing when to set a plane for a thicker or thinner shaving is part of the knowledge of using a hand plane. A scrub plane has no need to take a translucent shaving. A plane used exclusively for final smoothing doesn't need to take 0.020" shavings, though there is no reason it shouldn't be able to be set up to do so with a few adjustments to its settings.

To me a translucent shaving is a good diagnostic tool. It can be used to diagnose blade condition and problems with other settings. They can also be used to determine if a plane's sole has problems.

Improving my planes and skill using them has greatly reduced my use of sandpaper.

To me, a translucent shaving is a thing of wonder and beauty. That others can not see this is not my loss.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick; so why the need to match the thicker irons with a thicker 1/8" cap iron.

I've used thicker irons with Stanley-style sheet metal cap irons (and Veritas' "East German special" BD planes ship that way) with no problem, so I don't think there's a need to "match the thicker iron with a thicker... cap iron".

A more interesting question is whether you need to do the converse, i.e. match a thicker cap-iron with a thicker iron. While I haven't tried that combination I suspect that it would work. The main risk is that the iron would bend farther than intended when preloaded by the stiffer thick cap iron, but even that is far less of a real issue than many seem to assume.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Patrick. Appreciate the value in your opinion.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

There is a very simple explanation for both the thin Stanley plane blades and the thin and shaped Stanley cap iron. It is neither mysterious nor about performance. It is simply economics. Just visit the original patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US72443?dq=patent:72443#v=onepage&q=patent%3A72443&f=false) ...

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.

[snip]

The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.

[snip]
When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.

So there you have it. The magic of the shape of the Stanley cap iron was to use less steel (= economy) as an alternative to the cap irons with thin steel (= cost more). No mention of performance benefits of thin over thick.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Economics were never far behind in the minds of the Stanley people! They had to, they were running a factory. And the Stanley planes were still at least twice as expensive as the wooden competition.

In practice another advantage is the reduced grinding time. When you have a good grinder, it doesn't matter a whole lot. But out in the field with just an India stone in your toolbox, it certainly makes a difference when repairing a nicked blade. I am not aware of any cutting performance advantages of a thin blade. It is more a case of just good enough.

[Graham Haydon]

The benefit of a thin iron in use was appreciated by many workers after the introduction thanks to economy in sharpening. Although it is not stated as a reason in the patent it does not undermine that the time save became appreciated by workers.
Thankfully designers at this point were driven by economy but not a reduction in quality of performance.

[Derek Cohen]

No argument from me, Graham. With regards sharpening, I would expect that a thin iron would have been a real boon to those in the field. Since the cap iron/chipbreaker was already an established method for controlling tearout, the Stanley/Bailey continued this method.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

There is a very simple explanation for both the thin Stanley plane blades and the thin and shaped Stanley cap iron. It is neither mysterious nor about performance. It is simply economics. Just visit the original patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US72443?dq=patent:72443#v=onepage&q=patent%3A72443&f=false) ...

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.

[snip]

The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.

[snip]
When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.

So there you have it. The magic of the shape of the Stanley cap iron was to use less steel (= economy) as an alternative to the cap irons with thin steel (= cost more). No mention of performance benefits of thin over thick.

Regards from Perth

Derek



I didn't see any mention in the text of the use of the cap iron as a chip breaker! Was that actually stated somewhere in the patent or just figured out by folks later on?

[Derek Cohen]

Pat, the cap iron/chipbreaker has been documented preceding Stanley by at least 200 years. Warren and Kees supplied much information in this regard, and it was discussed to death several years ago. The point is, it was not Stanley's invention.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

Pat, the cap iron/chipbreaker has been documented preceding Stanley by at least 200 years. Warren and Kees supplied much information in this regard, and it was discussed to death several years ago. The point is, it was not Stanley's invention.

Regards from Perth

Derek
Cool. I'd like to see that reference for historical interest. Can someone provide it?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I didn't see any mention in the text of the use of the cap iron as a chip breaker! Was that actually stated somewhere in the patent or just figured out by folks later on?

Remember you are only supposed to be able to patent new innovations. So there has always been an incentive to describe existing ideas differently, because that way it might slip by the patent examiner, and you might be able to get a new patent, even if the idea is really not new.

[Patrick Chase]

Economics were never far behind in the minds of the Stanley people! They had to, they were running a factory. And the Stanley planes were still at least twice as expensive as the wooden competition.

Indeed. As I said in a previous post, I think that the classic Stanley chip-breaker is an outstanding design (and superior to the current crop) when you take economics into account. Even with modern CNC machining the LN-style cap irons have to be significantly more expensive to manufacture, and on top of that they create additional work for the end-user to set them up with a good tip angle.

I found it interesting that LV resisted moving to LN-style cap irons for a very long time (until they intro'd the custom plane line). Unfortunately our market and trade press can be spectacularly ignorant, so in the end LV had no real choice. I can't count the number of times I've seen reviewers list a "solid cap iron" as an advantage, or criticize a plane for using a Stanley-style cap iron.

[Pat Barry]

... they create additional work for the end-user to set them up with a good tip angle.
Why is that? Why would they leave it to the end-user when most of the end-users don't understand the subtleties of the chip breaker? Don't they understand it themselves, or care? Don't they keep up with the latest WW forum scuttlebutt?

[Patrick Chase]

Cool. I'd like to see that reference for historical interest. Can someone provide it?

My-employer's-search-engine-that-I-cannot-name is your friend.

Start with "Double iron 18th century hand plane" or "Seaton Chest".

In the West double irons were an 18th century innovation, i.e. ~100 years before Bailey. I don't know the timing in Japan.

[Kees Heiden]

Pat, here is some interesting historical context on the double iron plane from Steve Voigt's website:

http://blackdogswoodshop.blogspot.nl/2016/03/the-double-iron-part-1.html

[Patrick Chase]

Why is that? Why would they leave it to the end-user when most of the end-users don't understand the subtleties of the chip breaker? Don't they understand it themselves, or care? Don't they keep up with the latest WW forum scuttlebutt?

One guess: A low-knowledge user probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in performance with a low-angle cap iron face, but would risk jamming shavings in the plane's throat with a highly-angled face.

If I were in LN or LV's shoes I'd ship a configuration that works "well enough" for a user that doesn't know how to fettle their plane, and assume that the rest will take care of themselves.

[Patrick Chase]

One other remark: The designers who used "solid" cap irons before Bailey weren't being dumb or inefficient. They simply didn't have the benefit of sheet-metal stamping (which was a 19th century innovation).

[Pat Barry]

Pat, here is some interesting historical context on the double iron plane from Steve Voigt's website:

http://blackdogswoodshop.blogspot.nl/2016/03/the-double-iron-part-1.html
Thanks Kees, that was an interesting read.

[Pat Barry]

One guess: A low-knowledge user probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in performance with a low-angle cap iron face, but would risk jamming shavings in the plane's throat with a highly-angled face.

If I were in LN or LV's shoes I'd ship a configuration that works "well enough" for a user that doesn't know how to fettle their plane, and assume that the rest will take care of themselves.
I think that they should include instructions as to how to properly set up the cap iron for optimizing performance. That's what I expect from a technology provider.

[Pat Barry]

My-employer's-search-engine-that-I-cannot-name is your friend.

Start with "Double iron 18th century hand plane" or "Seaton Chest".

In the West double irons were an 18th century innovation, i.e. ~100 years before Bailey. I don't know the timing in Japan.
Thanks for the search topics. By the way, has anyone found a use for the B... search engine? That thing is the worst. I have Google set as my defaults but occasionally something happens to my settings (Windows update??) and I get search results full of advertiser links as the top hits and then realize, oh its that blasted B---- again.

[Patrick Chase]

Thanks for the search topics. By the way, has anyone found a use for the B... search engine? That thing is the worst. I have Google set as my defaults but occasionally something happens to my settings (Windows update??) and I get search results full of advertiser links as the top hits and then realize, oh its that blasted B---- again.

I couldn't answer that even if I wanted to :-).

[Warren Mickley]

Both Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen have promoted high angle planes for difficult woods for many years. They still promote these clumsy and expensive solutions to tear out.

Lee Valley says " our state-of-the-art [bevel up] smoothing plane is the tool to use for the final finish on surfaces, especially woods of difficult grain patterns. ... The 12° bed angle, coupled with the 38° blade bevel, yields an effective cutting angle of 50°, often called York pitch. This is an ideal starting angle for minimizing tear-out on difficult wood. For the most difficult grains, even higher cutting angles (for creating Type II chips) can be achieved."

Lie Nielsen says "York Pitch will handle most tear-out prone wood well. Middle Pitch is for the most difficult woods. Using one of these frogs will eliminate the need for scrapers, in most cases." and "A big part of a chipbreaker's function is to dampen vibration".

It could be they are trying to deceive their customers, but I think they just have no idea how to use a double iron plane.

[Jim Koepke]

Both Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen have promoted high angle planes for difficult woods for many years. They still promote these clumsy and expensive solutions to tear out.

Lee Valley says " our state-of-the-art [bevel up] smoothing plane is the tool to use for the final finish on surfaces, especially woods of difficult grain patterns. ... The 12° bed angle, coupled with the 38° blade bevel, yields an effective cutting angle of 50°, often called York pitch. This is an ideal starting angle for minimizing tear-out on difficult wood. For the most difficult grains, even higher cutting angles (for creating Type II chips) can be achieved."

Lie Nielsen says "York Pitch will handle most tear-out prone wood well. Middle Pitch is for the most difficult woods. Using one of these frogs will eliminate the need for scrapers, in most cases." and "A big part of a chipbreaker's function is to dampen vibration".

It could be they are trying to deceive their customers, but I think they just have no idea how to use a double iron plane.

It seems Lie Nielsen has mostly deceived themselves. The Bailey patent mentions the cap iron's design to limit chattering while it says nothing of the ability to prevent tear out. The folks at Lie Nielsen may have not been in on the older knowledge of breaking the chip before it can lift up a splinter ahead of the blade's edge.

Once a rigid path is taken, it is difficult to change course.

jtk

[John Schtrumpf]

I think that they should include instructions as to how to properly set up the cap iron for optimizing performance. That's what I expect from a technology provider.
From the Veritas #4 Bench Plane instructions:

Cap Iron Setting


In addition to the mouth, the position of the cap iron on the blade should
be set appropriately for the type of planing to be done. The distance from
the leading edge of the cap iron to the cutting edge of the blade should be
1/64" or less for smoothing, particularly when working diffi cult grain in
hardwoods, to as much as 1/16" for rough work in softwoods.


To remove the cap iron, loosen the lever cap knob and withdraw the lever
cap followed by the blade assembly, which includes the cap iron. Loosen
the cap iron screw and reposition the cap iron as required. Retighten the
screw to secure the cap iron in place, being sure to keep the leading edge
parallel to the cutting edge of the blade.

[Stewie Simpson]

Both Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen have promoted high angle planes for difficult woods for many years. They still promote these clumsy and expensive solutions to tear out.

Lee Valley says " our state-of-the-art [bevel up] smoothing plane is the tool to use for the final finish on surfaces, especially woods of difficult grain patterns. ... The 12° bed angle, coupled with the 38° blade bevel, yields an effective cutting angle of 50°, often called York pitch. This is an ideal starting angle for minimizing tear-out on difficult wood. For the most difficult grains, even higher cutting angles (for creating Type II chips) can be achieved."

Lie Nielsen says "York Pitch will handle most tear-out prone wood well. Middle Pitch is for the most difficult woods. Using one of these frogs will eliminate the need for scrapers, in most cases." and "A big part of a chipbreaker's function is to dampen vibration".

It could be they are trying to deceive their customers, but I think they just have no idea how to use a double iron plane.

Warren; I see no fault in Lie Nielsen's recommendations on using a high angle approach to control tear-out. Bu or Bd. In fact LV promote the very same recommendation within their range of Veritas Custom Bench Planes. http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/CustomPlane.aspx

Are they also trying to deceive their customers. I don't believe so. More likely, both LN and LV are fully aware that there is more than 1 approach to address tear-out. Clearly a fact that you are still struggling to come to terms with.


A single iron bd smoother after its defection angle was increased from York pitch to Cabinet Pitch.
http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/Acier%20Fondu%20Smoothing%20Plane%2001/_DSC0083_zps0c6ze5uu.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/Acier%20Fondu%20Smoothing%20Plane%2001/_DSC0083_zps0c6ze5uu.jpg.html)

[Derek Cohen]

.....

I found it interesting that LV resisted moving to LN-style cap irons for a very long time (until they intro'd the custom plane line). Unfortunately our market and trade press can be spectacularly ignorant, so in the end LV had no real choice. I can't count the number of times I've seen reviewers list a "solid cap iron" as an advantage, or criticize a plane for using a Stanley-style cap iron.

That's not correct, Patrick. LV were making solid chipbreakers before they began offering their Custom range. Here is a review (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVChipbreaker.html) I wrote in 2013.

For reference, the very first review I wrote (and I'd have to find the date and copy - it was a long time ago), was when LN changed their chipbreaker over from the Stanley style. Could have been about 2004 or so.

At that time, about 8 years (or more) before we began discussing the chipbreaker on the forums as a method of controlling tearout, it was believed that a solid chipbreaker would help damp vibration and, in connection with a close up mouth, thereby control tearout.

I know today that a LN chipbreaker will not close up on a Stanley plane (as the adjuster slot is 1/4" further back). At that time, everyone (but a few) pulled the chipbreaker back about 1/8" from the blade, and so it did not matter. Nevertheless, I do recall that there was a improvement using the LN chipbreaker in place of the Stanley (also pulled back to 1/8"). The point being, the solid chipbreaker does appear to offer better damping properties in this configuration.

I am not sure whether LN have altered their view that tearout is best controlled with a high cutting angle (I do not attend their workshops or discuss planes with their staff). I do believe that LV has - the Custom planes were conceived originally (around 2012 - pre discussions on the forums) as a single iron plane. However, they were subsequently re-designed to include a chipbreaker. Clearly LV were listening and learning. In addition, I do discuss these matters with the LV design team.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

That's not correct, Patrick. LV were making solid chipbreakers before they began offering their Custom range. Here is a review (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVChipbreaker.html) I wrote in 2013.

For reference, the very first review I wrote (and I'd have to find the date and copy - it was a long time ago), was when LN changed their chipbreaker over from the Stanley style. Could have been about 2004 or so.

Those are the chipbreakers that they sell for Stanley planes, right?

I should have been clearer that I was referring to the irons they make for their own planes. Prior to the custom line all Veritas-branded BD bench planes had Stanley-style cap irons. I know this for a fact, because I have one of each (#4, #4-1/2, #5-1/4W, #6) and they were all bought relatively recently.



At that time, about 8 years (or more) before we began discussing the chipbreaker on the forums as a method of controlling tearout, it was believed that a solid chipbreaker would help damp vibration and, in connection with a close up mouth, thereby control tearout.

"It is believed by a bunch of forum-dwellers" is a far cry from "it is true". As an engineer who has examined and used both, I can assure you that the two designs perform indistinguishably in terms of damping. I'd also heard the claims that the solid type are better, but like many such claims they are inconsistent with physical reality.

Anecdotal accounts along the lines of "I switched to X and it seemed better" are inherently untrustworthy. You of all people (as a psychologist) should realize what sorts of cognitive biases come into play there. Read Kahneman and Tversky if you don't know what I'm referring to. I don't even trust my own non-blind impressions in cases where I have any sort of "investment" in what I'm evaluating.

IMO to assess that sort of thing you either have to rely on objective analysis (which doesn't suggest any advantage for the solid irons as far as I can tell), or perform proper blind or double-blind comparisons.

[Jim Koepke]

Derek; you may want to ask yourself the very same question. Its no secret of your close business relationship with LV. (Payment from receiving free tools is still a payment for your services). It seems every time you post new content on this and other forums, its deemed by you as another opportunity to either shill LVs tooling, or discredit LN, who are in direct competition with LV.

Stewie;

Stewie, I know you do not give a rat's patoot about what I think, but I do think your post is a bit much.

Is there anyone who has been on SMC for any amount of time that doesn't know Rob Lee and Derek Cohen are friends?

My recollection is Derek has stated that if a tool is sent for trial he either pays for it or sends it back. (Doesn't matter to me.) Maybe Derek can clear this up again to everyone's satisfaction.

Personally I think Rob Lee makes great tools. He did send me a plow plane for trial and review. I think it is a great tool. I also sent it back. I am not much of one for new tools when the old ones are available at a lower price.

Though LV and LN may be competing for customers, the two businesses are different. LN appeals to people who like tools from "the Golden Age of Stanley Tools."

LV is offering new designs and innovations for a new age.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Derek; you may want to ask yourself the very same question. Its no secret of your close business relationship with LV. (Payment from receiving free tools is still a payment for your services). It seems every time you post new content on this and other forums, its deemed by you as another opportunity to either shill LVs tooling, or discredit LN, who are in direct competition with LV. I have no wish for further confrontation with you Derek., but if you continue posting personal attacks about me on this and other forum sites, then expect the odd negative reaction.

Stewie;

Aww c'mon Stewie, not this cr*p again.

I actually agree with your argument here (the part about cap irons, not the part about Derek's integrity), but I couldn't disagree more with how you're going about it. You would be more credible and the entire forum would be more pleasant if you stuck to addressing the points and not the person. You're better than this Stewie.

And yes, I am aware that I myself stepped closer to that line than I should have when I made reference to Derek's day job while addressing the topic of cognitive bias. My apologies to all for doing that.

[Derek Cohen]

Stewie, I do not have a "close business relationship with LV". I do not receive "payment for (my) services". You have this thing, don't you. It really irks you. Time to get your head out of the gutter and grow up. Along with several others, I have had the opportunity to field test Lee Valley tools before they go into production. This is a common arrangement among tool makers. I am in a privileged position in regard to experiences with tools (is that what irks you?), and just happen to want to pass on my observations to others. If you look at my website you will see that there are many other makers included.

With regard your other point (my criticising you for frequent sniping on the forum), any time you wish me to post the private messages you sent me for others to read, well just go ahead and say so. I'm sure that they will find your comments interesting.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, I know you do not give a rat's patoot about what I think, but I do think your post is a bit much.

Is there anyone who has been on SMC for any amount of time that doesn't know Rob Lee and Derek Cohen are friends?

My recollection is Derek has stated that if a tool is sent for trial he either pays for it or sends it back. (Doesn't matter to me.) Maybe Derek can clear this up again to everyone's satisfaction.

Personally I think Rob Lee makes great tools. He did send me a plow plane for trial and review. I think it is a great tool. I also sent it back. I am not much of one for new tools when the old ones are available at a lower price.

Though LV and LN may be competing for customers, the two businesses are different. LN appeals to people who like tools from "the Golden Age of Stanley Tools."

LV is offering new designs and innovations for a new age.

jtk

Jim; your claim is not correct.

Stewie;

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...Private Letters now, is it? I have no doubt the love affair you two are having will be of great help to the OP.

What's next? Photos?

Horse has been well beatened on this thread,.......same old, same old....

[Stewie Simpson]

Hmmm...Private Letters now, is it? I have no doubt the love affair you two are having will be of great help to the OP.

What's next? Photos?

Horse has been well beatened on this thread,.......same old, same old....

Steven; appreciate you leaving me holding the can. My name was not the only name on Derek's list.

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, I do not have a "close business relationship with LV". I do not receive "payment for (my) services". You have this thing, don't you. It really irks you. Time to get your head out of the gutter and grow up. Along with several others, I have had the opportunity to field test Lee Valley tools before they go into production. This is a common arrangement among tool makers. I am in a privileged position in regard to experiences with tools (is that what irks you?), and just happen to want to pass on my observations to others. If you look at my website you will see that there are many other makers included.

With regard your other point (my criticising you for frequent sniping on the forum), any time you wish me to post the private messages you sent me for others to read, well just go ahead and say so. I'm sure that they will find your comments interesting.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek. Post them.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Moderators; close down my membership to this forum site. Effective immediately.

Stewie Simpson.

[steven c newman]

After an tire day of traveling from Virginia back to my house ( including ALL of WV...) and then come back to read all of this stuff....

Tired of every other sentence posted to a question by him being an "AD" for a company's products. Sounds almost like a "Snake Oil Huckster" that would travel from town to town, and then leave with the people's money.

or...hearing about the "facts" that since one doesn't buy the "Latest & Greatest" tool on the market, one just can not be taken as a "serious" woodworker....

Did not "leave you "holding the can", I no longer feed such people.......whether they be Tom, Bert, or William.....

[James Waldron]

Biting tongue. Holding breath. Attempting to hack Derek's PM archive. No success so far.

[Derek Cohen]

Jim

I would not post someone's PMs, even those of Stewie.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Waldron]

Jim

I would not post someone's PMs, even those of Stewie.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I assumed as much. Hence the wisecrack about hacking your PM archive.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Even though I have a knowledge and understanding of English as being overly polite and positive language, I oftentimes find my posts post-factum to be somewhat insulting and to be showstoppers. That is probably because of my overly self sarcastic Russian habit.

Stewie's avatar looks like picture of native Australian... and I couldn't blame natives to be angry, in the past of colonization. I think Stewie is a type of person that would not buy modern tools, thus more like "reactionist". It seems there is a reason behind using old tools but usually his posts are not very long to explain that and usually not very helpful to me. As to not very helpful in finding the whole truth or scientific knowledge. Some of his links to other resources I find very interesting, but that's it.

Regarding thick chipbreakers I want to try to cold blue my LV Custom chipbreaker, as David Weaver suggested in his recent video. For the reason of having better contrast with the face of iron when aiming for correct distance. After adding second bevel to chipbreaker and sharpening iron with ruler trick it is very hard to distinguish between two shining surfaces. Maybe somebody finds this useful.

[lowell holmes]

Jim,

I am not at all surprised that we are in agreement on this.

[Jim Koepke]

It seems there is a reason behind using old tools

Only speaking for myself, but my reason for using old tools is they are incredibly cheap when compared to a new tool. My most expensive Stanley bench plane, other than a #2, was $50 for a fully functioning #8. My #65 block plane was close to pristine at $65.

Besides, I have found much enjoyment in the time spent rehabilitating old plane. Have also found a bit of profit.

jtk

[Archie England]

Jim,

I've appreciated your spirit and posts over the last few years. Truly, you are a model for us as how to enjoy this hobby, and do so frugally. BUT YOU'VE GONE TO FAR, suggesting that we sell off all those amassed trophies of hunts, rehabs, and upgrades. Of all the things, to suggest that we could both gain profit and have less clutter in the shop. :) ;)

BTW, congrats

[Jim Koepke]

Of all the things, to suggest that we could both gain profit and have less clutter in the shop.

Thanks Archie, BTW, if you ever saw my shop you would know I could never be taken seriously as an advocate of "less clutter in the shop."

jtk