PDA

View Full Version : Smoother Weight



Michael Faurot
10-07-2008, 1:22 PM
I'm doing a bit of unscientific research. In particular I'm wondering what might be a good weight to shoot for on a plane used just for smoothing. My reading and research thus far seems to indicate that some of the best smoothers are those of the infill variety. Apparently one of the characteristics that make the infill a good smoother is that they have some mass behind them. I'm aware that there are a whole host of other factors that go into making a smoother work well--but I'm currently only interested in the weight.

So if you're one of those fortunate souls that has an infill smoother and if it does indeed work well on difficult grained wood for you, I'd be most appreciative if you could weigh it and let me know how much it comes to. I'm also interested in the weight of other hefty smoothers out there, but only if they're good at dealing with difficult grained woods. I do realize that what goes into a smoother working well on difficult grained woods is the blade angle, thickness etc.--but I'm only currently interested in the weight.

Thanks.

Casey Gooding
10-07-2008, 5:27 PM
I don't have any infill planes but I can tell you that my favorite smoothing plane is the one James Krenov made for me out of Mesquite. I don't know the exact weight, but I can tell you it weighs significantly less than a Stanley #3 and works incredibly well.
I guess the moral of this story is that weight is less of a factor than quality craftsmanship.

Michael Faurot
10-07-2008, 5:37 PM
I guess the moral of this story is that weight is less of a factor than quality craftsmanship.

While I don't have any planes made by Krenov himself, I've also got some Krenov style smoothers that have a fairly low mass and they do indeed work well. I'm not looking to debate the merits of light weight vs. heavy weight, just to collect data.

If you've got a weighty smoother that works well for you, I'm just interested in how much it weighs.

Joel Goodman
10-07-2008, 7:29 PM
See Derek Cohen's "inthewoodshop" review of a Marcou smoother (quoted below):
".....As measured by my bathroom scale, the Marcou smoother weighs in at 3 ½ kg (7 lbs 11 oz)."

Brian Kent
10-07-2008, 8:25 PM
In this well-done review of High Angle smoothers: http://www.traditionaltools.us/LJM/hiangle.htm

…the best rated was a Steven Thomas infill at 2,760 grams, or 6 lbs.

Tied for second was a Steven Knight infill at 1,980 grams, or 4-1/3 lbs
and a Mujingfang Rosewood High Angle plane that is 760 grams, or 1-2/3 lbs.

I am building an infill to see how that does, but I do not plan on giving up my high angle Mujingfang. It is solid, beautiful and is my absolute best plane in terms of freedom from tear-out on difficult grain. I was also able to try it out because it only costs about $56.

Doug Shepard
10-07-2008, 8:35 PM
I'd be curious myself what the weight of the Ron Brese smoother is. I've got no good way to really weigh it. My small scale tops out at 2.2 Lbs and the only other option is the bathroom scale (analog) and that wouldn't give very precise weights. Hopefully he'll chime in.

Brian Kent
10-07-2008, 9:29 PM
Doug, if I remember right you have the Ron Brese small smoother. His website says it is just under 3 lbs in walnut. The large smoother is six lbs (again according to his website).

Doug Shepard
10-08-2008, 4:18 AM
Brian
I checked there before posting, and the 6 Lb figure is for the original 800 series. The new model is 3/4" longer and that one (further down on the same page) doesn't mention a weight. Maybe another 1/2 Lb for 3/4" of brass and wood??

Brian Kent
10-08-2008, 9:38 AM
You are right Doug.

Ron Brese
10-08-2008, 10:08 PM
Actually I designed the 875-250 smoother to be very close to the same weight as the 800 Series plane. I believe the actual weight is just a bit over 6 pounds but that can vary depending on the infill material. Bear in mind that adding mass just for mass sake can be counter productive to good plane performance. My present offerings are a bit different from earlier planes in that the position of the weight has been altered in order to refine the balance in the plane. The objective is to find a configuration that offers a good combination of adequate mass and good balance. The final trick is to offer these features in a configuration that has visual appeal.

Ron Brese

Michael Faurot
10-08-2008, 11:19 PM
Based on the responses, it sounds like the weight to shoot for is around 5-6 pounds. I think I'll be able to do that for the project I'm putting together.


Bear in mind that adding mass just for mass sake can be counter productive to good plane performance.
[...]
The objective is to find a configuration that offers a good combination of adequate mass and good balance.


That's exactly what I'm looking to do. Details and pictures when I'm finished. ;)

Hey Ron--got the new 2" blade in the mail today and it weighs in at 10-3/4 ounces. Thanks!

Matt Bickford
10-09-2008, 11:33 AM
according to his website, Philip's planes weigh over 8 lbs

http://www.marcouplanes.co.nz/index.php/current-planes/marcour-s15a

philip marcou
10-12-2008, 1:23 AM
according to his website, Philip's planes weigh over 8 lbs

http://www.marcouplanes.co.nz/index.php/current-planes/marcour-s15a

Thanks Matt, and how is it going there?
Actually I have to admit that weight figures on the site may need some up- dating, as a lot of the info there was just transferred from that other site which has unpleasant memories. Since then I have altered both the S15A and the S20A . I have changed the bed from a solid brass wedge and the result is a slight loss in weight. I will review and up-date soon.:)

Ron Brese
10-22-2008, 5:28 PM
Well I received a digital scale today and it was timely because I was just finishing up a 875-250 plane with Rosewood infill. The official weight 5 pounds 15.5 oz., in other words 6 lbs.

Ron Brese

Derek Cohen
10-23-2008, 2:08 AM
A few weeks ago I began a project that is intended, amongst other things, to explore the impact of mass on performance. It is still underway so there are only preliminary subjective observations, but I thought to mention it as it may be interesting to a few, and some may have something to offer.

It began with the question, "what would it take to convert a Stanley plane into a LN"? There is the fettling, the Bedrock design, the blade thickness, the stiifer and heavier cap iron, the brass lever cap ...

It is not simply about adding a new blade.

And all this increases mass.

So I began with a stock flat top Bedrock, and added a full thickness #4 LN blade and cap iron. This alone has increased the mass considerably (subjectively - I have not yet weighed the before and after plane). I am awaiting a brass lever cap from LN.

Here it is with replacement Rosewood tote and knob (but I think I will go back to the dark Rosewood originals or make something in a heavier wood) and a #11 lever cap that I polished up for fun ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/PimpedBedrock1.jpg

What of the performance so far? Well, the plane used to sport a LN "Stanley Replacement blade", which is thinner and lighter. Now I can really feel the difference in mass. The increase has a very positive effect - not just in the shavings possible from difficult grain, but also on the surface quality. All subjective so far, mind you. Wait until the brass lever cap arrives!

Regards from Perth

Derek (yes I know Ron, I will get on with the small infill project. I promise!)

Hank Knight
10-23-2008, 10:38 AM
[T]he plane used to sport a LN "Stanley Replacement blade", which is thinner and lighter. Now I can really feel the difference in mass. The increase has a very positive effect - not just in the shavings possible from difficult grain, but also on the surface quality. All subjective so far, mind you.

Derek,

Two questions:
(1) What did you have to do to the Bedrock to get the standard LN blade to work?
(2) How much slop do you have in the depth adjustment with the thicker LN blade?

I've replaced all of my Bedrock blades with LN "Stanley Replacement" blades and LN chipbreakers and they are a significant improvement over the stock Stanley blades and chipbreakers. Most of them were a tight fit, even with backing off the frog to accommodate them; and I now have lots of slop in the depth adjustment mechanism due to the thicker blade/ chipbreaker assembly. I'm curious to know what your experience has been with the standard LN blade with the LN chipbreaker.

Hank

Derek Cohen
10-23-2008, 11:15 AM
Hi Hank

Other than a very small mouth - the blade only just fits - all else is fine. I did add a longer lever cap screw, otherwise the #604 is stock standard. I could return it to the original configuration at any time - which I shall do as I assess the various configurations.

EDIT: There is one negative. The blade adjustment screw has to be opened up a lot, to the extent that it begins to contact one finger. This is not a deal breaker, but it detracts from an otherwise perfect refit. The screw is the large one. I may replace it with a small one from a Type 11.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hank Knight
10-23-2008, 1:44 PM
Derek,

Thanks for the reply. I would never have guessed that a standard LN blade would fit. I ran into the adjustment knob problem with several (not all, curiously) of mine. I found that on two planes the slot for the depth adjustment pawl on the LN chipbreaker was located closer to the business end than on my original chipbreaker, making it difficult to advance the cutter far enough to make a cut. With another I had the opposite problem, the slot was too far back, making it impossible to retract the blade fully into the plane body. LN was kind enough to make new chipbreakers for me using the dimensions from my original ones and that solved my problems.

I'm looking forward to the results of your experiment.

Hank

Matt Bickford
10-23-2008, 2:42 PM
All's well here. I checked out your site recently. I don't know how recently it was updated but it's neat seeing the evolution. I hadn't seen it in a while. Pretty cool stuff, no doubt.

Michael Faurot
10-23-2008, 2:43 PM
Well I received a digital scale today and it was timely because I was just finishing up a 875-250 plane with Rosewood infill. The official weight 5 pounds 15.5 oz., in other words 6 lbs.


Thanks for the info Ron. For the experiment I'm doing, I'm about halfway to that weight.

Terry Beadle
10-24-2008, 8:41 AM
I've been working on a St. James Bay smoother kit in cast bronze. It's about 8 inches and weighs in at about 6 pounds. In a conversation with the master caster there, he said that the tightness of the mouth is not as important as the mass and weight of the plane body.

I cast (hoot!) my vote for 6 pounds.