Bevel up plane, bevel angle help

[Anuj Prateek]

I ended up putting a small 38° secondary bevel on the blade.

Tried it and it worked, and it continued working on end grain as well Not seeing tear out on the same wood I was planing before.

Thanks everyone for the advices and help.

[Will Blick]

I took Dereks advise long ago regarding BU micro bevel angles.
thx again Derek for all your informative articles u provide the ww community.

It seems with my full line up of BU planes, higher angles always perform better. The exception is end grain of course. I have found with the higher angles, sharpness matters even more...my thorough sharpening routine makes for a happy marriage, i.e. super sharp blades + high angle blades. AS a general rule, super sharp blades by themselves often overcome a lot of problems.

I also find, but not 100% sure, that a more pronounced micro bevel, such as 4mm vs. typical 2mm, performs better. While its not as effective as a chip breaker, its much more effective vs. a shorter micro bevel, giving the shaving greater guidance on how to behave after being cut.

When I started 14 years ago, I used to watch lots of videos of pros who have this really fast sharpening routine... I tried that for years, with limited success. I finally bit the bullet and went all out with taking sharpening more serious, running through the stone grits, keeping the stones FLAT, and having spare blades to replace worn blades to not interupt work.

I also notice that keeping the plane bottom waxed, can also overcomoe a lot of problems. It converts more of your body force into the cut, vs. overcoming sole friction. The larger the plane bottom, the greater the total friction.

[Eric Danstrom]

As I understand it, BU planes work best with different bevel angle depending on what's being planed. I have two blades for the LV BU jointer and set them at 38* and 50*. I have three blades for the LN 62, 25*, 38* and 50*. The 38* bevel work much as my standard bench planes work and for harder woods the 50* works much better than a bench plane or the 38* blade. These BUs work so well I wonder if they can replace my bench planes?

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Will for your kind words. Much appreciated.

These BUs work so well I wonder if they can replace my bench planes?

Eric, I have written much about BU planes and high cutting angles over the years, being one of the first to report their promise and potential. Fifteen years ago I wrote, “The potential of these bevel-up planes is such that I believe they going to be the force for future plane design”. (link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tasLAJack.html )

There are a good number of reviews of BU planes, as well as furniture builds in which I demonstrate just how good they are for controlling tearout in interlocked grain, as well as the control they offer in use owing to a low centre of effort (one of a few links: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Comment...tinaPlane.html )

Around 2012/2013 began the revival of the chipbreaker in the BD plane, notably the Bailey design. I say revival since the the use of the chipbreaker was known for centuries, but seemed to fall out of popularity and teachings for several decades. With practice, the chipbreaker can be found to have even greater potential than a high cutting angle in a BU plane.

Setting the chipbreaker is finicky to learn, but the pay off is big. Using the high angle BU plane is really easy, and an almost certain recipe for success - but not ultimately as excellent. It comes down to the wood you work. The difference in level of excellence is probably something that most users will not experience.

I find it amusing that camps form like zealots around each format, as it being a member of one must make you the enemy of the other. They both work, and the choice is there for all. I use both.

Regards from Prague ... and a happy new year to all.

Derek

[Will Blick]

I will add on to what Derek wrote above... then follow up with a quesiton for Derek.

Yes, the fanboys in camps... apple v IBM, apple v samsung, Chevy v Ford, it will never end. Glad u remain true to the work, as do many of us.

One of the huge benefits of BU, you can swap blades to attain different angles... BD, u have one cutting angle. So end grain and interlocked grain or even tough grain with changing directions, can be problematic. BD, has the benefit of increasing the depth of cut on the fly, which is huge IMO. Cant do that with BU, stop, loosen cap screw, adjust a tad deeper, test cut, etc. The chip breaker as mentioned seems to really help the cut if set right, by directing the shaving at an ideal angle, preventing tear out. So if I was only going to be doing basic planing, and maybe one or two planes, I would go BD. But I prefer the versatility of BU, always having blades ready at any angle. I do find that the highest pitch blade nearly always cuts better, albeit with a bit of added drag...cant gain that awesome versatility with BD. Seems there is not much I cant handle with my arsenal of blades, blade angles, sharpeing skills, and good technique, as well as nice Veritas planes.

So this raises my big curiousity quesiton to Derek. With the new Veritas BD custom planes, Rob seems to have addressed the variable angle issue with multiple angle frogs. This seems like its the best of all worlds, BD blades all honed at the same angle, (even greater versatility now) chip breaker benefits, change to any angle you want via custom made frog angles, adjust depth on the fly. So if a newb was starting out fresh, and wanted to be a hardcore neander, and we remove money from the equation, would you suggest he / she starts fresh with the Veritas custom BD planes with multiple frogs for maxium versatility and ease of use? Seems to me, its the best arsenal on the market today. Sorry to put you on the spot Derek

I think if the Veritas Custom BD were available when I started, I would have went that route, but I am knee deep in BU, so hard to turn back for me at this point. I also am surprised Veritas does not promote their custom planes in this regard. I realize our fellow Creeker Rob Lee is quite humble, but IMO, I think his BD Custom planes is the first major revolution in hand planes in 100+ years. BU being the other slight revolution. I support LV for this reason, I am so impressed with their committment to advancing a field that has been around forever, and most people dont think of technology advances in woodworking hand tools. But many of us sure appreciate it...yeah, I know, we are tool nerds, tool hoarders, etc.

I almost bought a custom BD just to test all this out, as I was so curious, but need the tool dollars for other items

Rob, would love your input as well on this!

Happy New year to everyone as well....

[Derek Cohen]

So if a newb was starting out fresh, and wanted to be a hardcore neander, and we remove money from the equation, would you suggest he / she starts fresh with the Veritas custom BD planes with multiple frogs for maxium versatility and ease of use?

Will, this is an interesting question since I suspect many starting out are likely to ask it, as well as those who have progressed along the road and feel that they have reached a crossroad where they must choose one or the other.

The short answer is contained in a link to a long answer - I wrote a review of the Veritas Custom Planes that was really a treatise on choice via understanding plane design and ergonomics (as I understand them). This contrasted the various plane types, handle angles, how we stand, how we move when we plane, etc. It was inspired by the Veritas Custom Planes, circles around them, but is not just about them: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...omPlanes1.html

These were the planes used ...



To answer your question I need to briefly describe the evolution of the Veritas Custom Planes. They went onto the drawing board somewhere around 2011/2012. At that time the cutting angle was a primary focus, which is the strength of BU planes. Lie Nielsen already had a small selection of frog angles (45, 50, and 55 degrees), and it was the intent of Veritas to offer a wide selection, including 60 degrees, which made a significant difference for interlocked grain. At that time, further, the chipbreaker was not understood as a method of tearout control, but viewed by most as a way to stiffen the blade (hence the focus my emerging plane makers to offer thick blades). Consequently, the initial design of the Custom Planes was to be single iron (i.e. no chipbreaker). This was the status when I visited the factory in 2013.

In my opinion, it says a great deal about the flexibility and willingness of the Veritas design team (and Rob Lee, who ultimately makes the final decision) to keep an open mind and listen to feedback from forums and users. They decided to incorporate a chipbreaker into the final design. You must not underestimate how important this is.

I had two Custom Planes coming, a #7 jointer (which was sent by Rob) and a #4 smoother (which I purchased). When it came to choosing a frog angle, my decision was to get an all round frog (50 degrees) and then, thinking more along the lines of using the chipbreaker, I chose a 42 degrees frog for the smoother (influenced by the knowledge that Warren had modified his Stanley #3 to 42 degrees). The #7 arrived with a 40 degree frog to partner the 50 degree ordered.

The long and the short answer (thank god!): today I only use the 42 degree frog in the #4 and the #40 degree frog in the #7. The 50 degree frogs lie on a shelf. Why? The low cutting angle, together with the tearout control from the chipbreaker, enables the best of all worlds. I can switch from end grain to face grain without changing cutting angles. The lower cutting angle theoretically should enable a clearer planed surface - although I only find that this is evident with softer woods. Further, all my bevels are hones full on a hollow grind at 30 degrees, and this makes it easy to freehand a camber. My one gripe with BU planes is that a honing guide is needed to create a micro secondary high angle (since accuracy here is important). Of course, the latter factor is a non-issue for those using honing guides for all blades anyway.

As a companion comment, my #3 and #4 1/2 Lie Nielsen planes progressed from 55- to 45 degree frogs. They are also excellent users.

Why do I still use BU planes when BD planes appear to do it all? Where BU planes continue to score over BD planes is in their low centre of effort. The Veritas Custom Planes are better in this regard than the Bailey formula - if the low angle frog is used and along with a higher aspect handle - but the BU planes still rule owing to the low bed angle. This enables the force vector to be lower. In use, the BU plane seems to “suck down” onto the work piece for me. This increases stability, especially when jointing edges or planing narrow boards. One of my favourite planes for jointing edges of shorter boards is a vintage Stanley #62, the forerunner to the LA Jack. It is possible to achieve a similar experience by pushing a #5 along the edge with the thumb behind or in front of the knob, and the rear hand pushing at the base of the handle.

Regarding the issue you experience of a difficulty with depth change on the fly with a BU plane, this is a symptom of the lever cap being too tight. Loosen it, find a balance between holding and not, and depth change is indeed possible. I do this all the time. I do, nevertheless, prefer the system on the Bailey planes. The Norris-style adjuster is very sensitive, and is easier to oversteer. As with everything, practice and experience make a difference.

So, is one plane style better for a beginner? Well, yes. There is no doubt in my mind that the BU planes are much easier to master. Beginners also tend to start out using honing guides, so sharpening is not a limitation.

Difficulties with BU planes begin when users want to purchase factory-ground blade with high bevel angles. I have been writing about this for years. The high angled bevels make it impossible to camber the blades - camber being essential in my opinion - and in part this adds to the restriction of depth of cut for BU planes (since deep cuts will leave deep tracks). My recommendation, all those years ago, was to add a high secondary micro bevel to a low (25 degree) primary bevel.

The second issue here, once you get into cambering blades, is the realisation that camber is chosen for the situation - camber for a smoother is very fine, while camber for a jointer may be more, and camber for a jack is most. For this reason, it may not be possible to swap blades between different BU planes if you wish to retain the ideal camber. I have a straight 25 degree blade for shooting, but I have a cambered 25 degree blade for traversing.

I must stop writing - time for breakfast and then off to explore Prague one last day before we head off to Berlin.

Happy New Year all

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

If someone started out fresh, Will, I would recommend a standard double iron bench plane.

The high angle frogs and the Veritas bevel up planes were designed and promoted by people who had no idea how a double iron plane worked. We left this stuff behind 250 years ago.

[Derek Cohen]

If someone started out fresh, Will, I would recommend a standard double iron bench plane.

The high angle frogs and the Veritas bevel up planes were designed and promoted by people who had no idea how a double iron plane worked. We left this stuff behind 250 years ago.

Warren, I would argue that one ingredient to choosing is the personality of the user. Another is cost (Bailey design planes are plentiful and cheap). Cost aside, learning to use the chipbreaker is not difficult, but it does require persistence and a “go for it” attitude. There is a much shorter learning curve for BU planes, and they will attract those who want superlative results without the frustration in mastering the chipbreaker.

How long does it take to learn to set a chipbreaker? Probably about 30 minutes. How long does it take to master it, that is, set it reliably without questioning the result? I would say that this could take several months.

I have some doubts about “leaving this stuff 250 years ago”. There have been significant advances in materials since then. Even my Stanley #62, which is only 100 years old, has a reputation for a fragile mouth since the body is grey iron and thin. Today LN and Veritas, amongst others, build their planes in ductile iron, which is a different kettle of fish.

One of the criticisms of BU planes, which I did not speak of earlier, is the presence of an intrusive wear bevel. For those unfamiliar with the term, this is the wear that forms at the back of the blade as a result of springback (the wood rubbing against the back of the bevel). Wear here occurs in BD planes as well, but in these planes it is more easily removed when sharpening. The argument is that BU will dull earlier than BD planes.

In my experience, there is support for this ... on face grain. However, the position is reversed on end grain (ie. when shooting with a low cutting angle).

In practice, the issue of the wear bevel is less intrusive than expected. It is there, but it comes down to how much planing one intends to do. For someone who hand planes all day long, I would not recommend a BU plane. However, for those who do not - who plane for a finish, or augment their power tools with hand planes - I rather doubt that they would notice this at all.

I estimate that I use BD planes 80-90% of the time, so my feet are more in the BD camp. Nevertheless, BU planes are a very viable alternative. Choosing to use them is not the province of lesser woodworkers. Ask Garrett Hack.

Regards from Prague

Derek

[J. Greg Jones]

So if a newb was starting out fresh, and wanted to be a hardcore neander, and we remove money from the equation, would you suggest he / she starts fresh with the Veritas custom BD planes with multiple frogs for maxium versatility and ease of use?

For a newb, the Veritas Custom BD planes may be an excellent choice to start fresh with. Derek has covered the features of this plane well, here and on his web site linked above. It really is a nice plane in many regards.

However, as an experienced user of both Veritas BU planes and traditional BD planes, I find the Veritas Custom to be frustrating for a couple of reasons. I have a 5-1/2 that I thought was going to be a Super Smoother similar to how Charlesworth and Cosman use a 5-1/2. First challenge is if one is used to ‘pointing’ with the index finger on a traditional plane, there is no good place to rest the index finger on the Custom plane. Derek’s pictures show riding the finger on the Norris adjuster, but I found that practice just tends to eventually bump the adjuster out of alignment. With the BU planes this works because the finger can rest against the lever cap knob, which cannot affect the blade adjustment. A new user will be fine keeping all four fingers on the tote, but I cannot no matter how hard I’ve tried. Speaking of the Norris adjuster, I’m fine with them and don’t have an issue going back and forth between the Norris and the Bailey style.

Second, the plane is just very unbalanced due to how far back the tote is on the plane. I never realized how much of the time I am lifting and moving a plane with one hand, which balances well with a conventional plane due in part to the tote location and also the fact that my index finger, pointing along the frog and under the blade, helps to lift and support it. It may seem like a trivial point, but at least for me it is not. A new user would not have the same problem.

Finally, and this has nothing to do with BU/BD/conventional planes, I don’t understand why Veritas tapered the front, and especially the back, of the sole the way they did. In doing so, the plane gives up a considerable amount of valuable registration and reference surface. A Bailey #5 has 2” more registration surface on its side than does the Custom 5-1/2 which is 1” longer than the #5. That makes a difference with some operations and when checking the flatness of stock with the edge of the edge of the sole. Probably also contributes to the unbalanced feeling, which I mentioned above.

Didn’t intend for this to be a rant, it is not as there are many pluses to the design. But some of the things that make it unique also make it hard to adapt to. For an experienced user, trying before buying would be my recommendation.

[Will Blick]

Derek, yes, I have read that on your web site, prior to me asking. I guess the answer is not so clear. Gregs insights also demonstrated some of the issues for an experienced user. I think many of these products while in developement would benefit greatly from giving prototypes to many experienced users for input. I know LV sends to a few users such as Derek, but more eyes from many users increase the liklihood of the ultimate design. The cost of RnD is so great vs. the volume of these products, they rarely get a v2.0 like higher volume products.
the other issue I did not mention when asking the question was.... the frog change out is not as plug n play as I would have thought. Maybe a QR design would make it more user friendly. Possibly Rob did consider this and there was reasons making it not feasible.

[Derek Cohen]

Second, the plane is just very unbalanced due to how far back the tote is on the plane. I never realized how much of the time I am lifting and moving a plane with one hand, which balances well with a conventional plane due in part to the tote location and also the fact that my index finger, pointing along the frog and under the blade, helps to lift and support it. It may seem like a trivial point, but at least for me it is not. A new user would not have the same problem.

Greg, it is interesting to read your comments. I have been using Bailey designs for decades and, like you, found the absence of a rest for my index finger to be disconcerting at the start. This goes for both the BU and BD Veritas planes. I have not found the planes to be unbalanced - quite the reverse - and I assume that the familiarity with holding Bailey planes has much to do with this.

My preference in a smoother is for the #3 size. I have a few smoothers in this size, such as a UK-make Stanley, a LN, and a Spier. I was hoping that Veritas would have made a #3, and went with the #4 as that was the smallest. My experience is that the Custom #4 feels very similar to a Bailey #3 size. I could speculate why, but the point is that - to me - if the plane was unbalanced it would feel larger, not smaller.

Changing one’s grip (from the familiar, as used on Bailey planes) can be uncomfortable. Yet I have photos (in my review) of Garrett Hack, David Charlesworth, and Vic Tesolin all using a fisted grip on BU planes. My instinctive position is to extend my index or fore finger finger, like you. Possibly unlike you, my focus is also on where my palm lies, since this is where I push ... from low down. I do this with Bailey planes as well, regardless where my finger lies. The evaluations I did using videos showed all the “big names” doing exactly the same. None of them appeared to use their index or fore finger to control the plane.

Years ago I completed an article on how the centre of effort is affected by how you push the handle. High up on the handle can make a plane feel squirrely. Low down and control returns. I have found the Veritas planes all benefit from pushing low and using more upright handles. I would really like to hear you take on this.

Regards from Prague ... off to Berlin tomorrow

Derek

[Marinus Loewensteijn]

At one stage I was making optics as a hobby. When I took up woodworking again I did some research on the pros and cons of ductile versus cast iron and came across below article. Although I do not agree with everything stated therein, there are aspects that hold value.

Furthermore, there is no need for frogs with a different frog angle. Just like bevel up planes the cutting angle can be changed by using a back bevel. To achieve this use a large back bevel (not angle, 5 to 10 dregees is all that's required) and at the same time have a modified chipbreaker that can go right to the edge of the blade. (chipbreaker has to rest on the backbevel part)

====paste====
Mark Williams
18/02/1994

An interesting article offers an oldtimer's perspective on the quality
of Stanley tools. While I disagree with many of his comments about
British infill planes, the author reinforces what we have been saying
about the quality of Stanley tools now.
An interesting article offers an oldtimer's perspective on the quality
of Stanley tools. While I disagree with many of his comments about
British infill planes, the author reinforces what we have been saying
about the quality of Stanley tools now.

This issue had some planing jigs detailed too, so it's worth looking for
if you don't subscribe.

From WOODWORKER magazine, January 1994, page 2 (verbatim, except for my
typos and a few editorial comments in square brackets []:
================================================== =======================

GOOD MORNING, STANLEY -- THIS IS YOUR WAKE UP CALL, by Ernie Conover

The name Stanley has always evoked in me a mental salute. The company's
long
history and tradition of fine tool making reminds me of some of my earliest
workshop memories. I used to marvel at the wonderful Stanley rules, levels
and, most of all, planes. I consider the Stanley Bailey plane to be the
seminal tool of its kind. It brought high quality planes to the masses.
While many plane aficionadoes wax lyrical about English "stuffed" planes
such as Spires [sic] and Noris [sic], neither can hold a candle to a classic
Bailey [sic]. Stuffed planes are so called because their "u"-shaped metal
bodies are stuffed with fine wood, usually rosewood. While there is no
doubt
that these represent the high water mark of workmanship and work
beautifully,
they were expensive in their day and they remain very expensive today.
In fact, many of those lucky enough to own one are hesitant to use it
because of its value.

The classic Stanley Baileys, howver, can still be had for $35 to $75 at
flea markets everywhere. They exhibit the same fine workmanship as the
English planes [no way!], including finely machined metal parts and rosewood
handles (except in 1927, 1929 and 1934, when shortages of rosewood
forced the
substitution of cocobolo). While the English planes required exacting
hand assembly [some Norris planes have unique matching numbers on their hand
fitted parts], Stanley made use of mass manufacturing techniques to achieve
a high-grade plane at an affordable price. It remained an affordable and
high-quality tool from 1870 [1867], when it was introduced, until the 1960s
when production ceased [1984 for some types in US]. It should be noted,
however, that the last several years of production (in the 1960s) saw a
decline in the quality of Stanley Bailey planes. Many I know would go
further in claiming that the company ceased making good planes after
World War II.

It was in the 1960s that Stanley made the decision to concentrate on the
then
emerging "do it yourself" (DIY) market (what I call 4' by 8' panel trade,
for these are people who spend their weekends improving their homes by
nailing up plywood and paneling). These folks are frequently more drawn
to our craft for its economies than from any sense of enjoyement from
working with wood. While I cannot fault Stanley's decision to cater to
the DIY trade, I lament its abandonment of the mainstream woodworker.
Gone from the Stanley line are those affordable friends that served
generations of my forefathers so well. I am now forced to pick through
flea markets for my Stanley tools but, fortunately for me, even a previously
owned Stanley is better than anything the company makes today.

It is as if Rolls Royce decided to build Yugos, and abandon the fine car
market. For sure I could understand bringing out a cheaper car, but not
dropping the line of cars that defines it as the highest-quality carmaker
in the world. Sadly, this seems to be just the case with Stanley. It has
abondoned its truly professional lines that catered to the serious
woodworker
in favor of the "do it yourself/contractor" line of tools.

What about Stanley of England, you say? Well, Stanley of England is a
wholly owned division of Stanley USA, one, however that still makes many
fine cast iron tools -- tools like bench and block planes, short swing (6")
bit braces and shoulder rabbet and router planes that were the mainstay of
the classic Stanley line. However, this fine line of tools has been
left to
languish in a marketing corner. It is not sold through Stanley's normal
distribution network but through an entirely separate one. In fact, the
two distribution chains, Stanley USA and Stanley England, are in
competitiion
with one another. The result is that a hardware store carrying the Stanley
USA line cannot say to its salesman, "and by the way I would like to add
a Stanley of England #93 rabbet [shoulder] plane to my next order."
The store would have to contact a separate sales entity and meet separate
stocking order minimums to carry the tools of our British friends.

Wake up, Stanley! There are lots of us who would pay good money for more of
your classic tools. The flea market supply is dwindling and will one day
be exhausted. Bridge City Tools and Lie-Neilson [sic] have read the
tool-buying wind and created going companies by offering modern classic
tools of unparalleled quality. Though pricey, they are within the reach
of anyone who cherishes quality. What's more they do what they are
designed to do -- work smoothly and precisely -- looking elegant all the
while. They are tools that work right out of the box. Now there' s a
novel idea.

I forgot to mention that neither Stanley of England nor Record planes (its
English competitor) work out of the box. Sharpening the iron will not cure
the problem for the cap iron that does not fit correctly either. In short,
they are kit planes that need tuning and reassembly. Flea market Stanley
Baileys often work with a simple sharpening of the iron. They certainly
worked perfectly directly from the box in their day.

Wake up, Stanley! It's time to bring back some of those classics.
You could begin with very little effort by integrating the Stanley of
England line back into your general line. That way we might once again
find good tools at our local hardware stores. Who knows, you might even
find that there are more people than you thought who recognize the lasting
value of a quality tool -- and I bet the DIY sales would remain unaffected.
While you're at it, get rid of those awful tacky plastic handles.
A plastic handle doesn 't belong on a wood plane. Why not take a lesson
from another great American tool company, Bridge City, and try using
resin-impregnated wood for your tool handles. With a solid, inert, wooden
handle, one that looks like rosewood, it would go a long way toward making
the tool look and feel like one made for working wood.

We can't salute you on this your 150th birthday without recalling what
made the name Stanley great. It's time to wake up and recalim your
heritage.
================================================== =========================
[end of article]


edit: Getting back to the optics part: For some lenses a cast iron mold is used. At times these molds have to be corrected. When the cast is "fresh" it is easy to machine but when the cast gets older it gets harder and in the end it becomes too difficult to machine properly. Over time at room temperature cast iron becomes a lot harder and my personal experience has confirmed this.

[J. Greg Jones]

Years ago I completed an article on how the centre of effort is affected by how you push the handle. High up on the handle can make a plane feel squirrely. Low down and control returns. I have found the Veritas planes all benefit from pushing low and using more upright handles. I would really like to hear you take on this...

I’ve studied your link, when you posted it, and I believe we are in complete agreement with the dynamics of upright handles when pushing the plane forward while working the surface. My issue with the Custom plane is when the plane is lifted (in part or completely) off the surface, either to move back to make a new pass, or to rotate the plane 90* to check the flatness of the stock. That’s when the Custom plane feels completely unbalanced while a conventional plane is supported in no small part by my index finger under the frog.