Backlash

[woodbrains]

Hi,

Had a major disaster today, so am puttering around here to take my mind if it. Had a Record 5 1/2 lurking at the back of my tool cupboard for ages and thought I would give it a fettling. The sole was so far out of flat, that by the time I had fixed it the metal got so thin under the frog it started to bulge with the pressure of frog fixing screws and or the lever cap/ blade assy. Yes, I'm a bit teary, in as much as I wasted a whole afternoon filing and planing silicon carbide paper to end up with something not even useful as a doorstop. #-o

Anyway, my question is; someone quite rightly said that fitting thicker plane iron causes greater backlash in the adjuster screw. I always thought that the backlash on Bailey style planes was an annoyance anyway and didn't really mind it getting a bit worse for the sake of a better iron set. But now it has got me thinking; Clifton planes have thicker irons as standard. Is the backlash better sorted on these planes (and LN I suppose) or does thicker irons cause similar problems on these. It has been many years since I had my hands on either of these premium planes, so I can't remember. Obviously better tolerances between the yoke and adjuster wheel would eliminate a lot of the problem, but in retro-fit thick irons, the pawl has to travel in a greater arc, so amplifies the problem here. I notice WH now supply yokes with longer pawls to accommodate thicker irons. Has anyone tried one and do they possibly have the ancillary benefit of reducing backlash. I am also considering adding some metal plates to a cap iron where the pawl contacts the little slot there. This would negate the need for a longer pawl and would give me the opportunity to reduce the thickness of the slot a little, to reduce the dead space the pawl has to travel between adjusting in and out. If the WH replacement pawls do it, then it would save a lot of faffing, since they are only a few quid and easier to change than modifying all the cap irons. Also, anyone who has used the Rob Cosman double irons, could they say if backlash is reduced with these?

Actually, as I write I am realising that adding the plates to the cap iron would mean that the pawl would travel in a shorter arc again, so we might get back to were we where with the thin irons, in terms of backlash.

I have been living with backlash for years, so it is not a major fixation with me, but it would be nice to know.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Those who don't like backlash should try zero lash it's much worse. Back lash is good - you get feedback to your hand - you can tell whether your adjuster is pulling or pushing. If the wheel is free enough it should spin from push to pull with quick flip.

 

[woodbrains]

Those who don't like backlash should try zero lash it's much worse. Back lash is good - you get feedback to your hand - you can tell whether your adjuster is pulling or pushing. If the wheel is free enough it should spin from push to pull with quick flip.

Hi,

I know some BL is a necessary evil and like I said, eliminating it is not a fixation with me, but sometimes it can be a bit much in a tool that has become, with fettling, a very precise instrument in all other ways. I probably want to gild the lily. It was Corneel that opened that can of worms, I was blisfully tolerant of the extra BL before then. But now it is bugging me a bit.

mike.

 

[Scouse]

I don't know about retro fit irons but for reference all my LN's have exactly a quarter turn from push to pull, type 11 Stanley no8 one full turn and a half, type 13 no4 the same, an old Acorn no5 half a turn and a WS no 4 no backlash at all, but it is a pain in the rear to adjust. All the old ones have original thin blades and work great (Just sayin'! :twisted: )
El.

 

[woodbrains]

I don't know about retro fit irons but for reference all my LN's have exactly a quarter turn from push to pull, type 11 Stanley no8 one full turn and a half, type 13 no4 the same, an old Acorn no5 half a turn and a WS no 4 no backlash at all, but it is a pain in the rear to adjust. All the old ones have original thin blades and work great (Just sayin'! :twisted: )
El.

Hi,

A quater of a turn seems like a civilised amount. One and one half turns in your No8 could turn into 2 1/2 with a thicker iron, so you will see what a pain it can be. i don't think any of mine are actually that bad, though.

Mike.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I am also considering adding some metal plates to a cap iron where the pawl contacts the little slot there. This would negate the need for a longer pawl and would give me the opportunity to reduce the thickness of the slot a little, to reduce the dead space the pawl has to travel between adjusting in and out.

I would go with adding metal tabs to the cap iron, Mike. I found that the "longer" Y-levers from Workshop Heaven weren't long enough when fitting a Clifton blade and cap iron to a Record. They looked no different to the standard Y-levers on my Cliftons which work OK in Cliftons but are not long enough when upgrading Records and Stanleys. If you have any really old Stanley or Record Y-levers, it's possible to silver solder a piece of metal to the end of the Y-lever. Did this to a Record #5 Stay-Set which now has a Clifton blade and has worked OK for a couple of years. Can't do it to more modern Y-levers or the Clifton ones because they melt :shock:

Hope this helps.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbrains]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the y lever info. All of me Records are the older type, (apart from the noted disaster, above) so could be solderd to. I think I will go for adding the cap iron tabs for a first foray and see how that goes.

Thanks,

Mike.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think I will go for adding the cap iron tabs for a first foray and see how that goes.

Let's know how you get on and post a picture if you can. I might do the same to a couple of my old Records.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbrains]

Hi,

just noticed that there are replacement yokes on the WH website that have a pawl, longer and thicker than needed so can be filed to suit. Not the Record specific ones listed elsewhere, and a pound cheaper, to boot. For £3.50, will be worth a punt, methinks.

I will give the tab mod a try, too, and post pics.

Mike.

 

[bugbear]

The geometry of the Bailey adjuster means that there must be some backlash; since the arcs sweep past each other. If they were touching at the slack spot, they'd jam at the close spot.

Further, since the adjuster is a sequence, backlash at the multple stages accumulates.

However, whilst some backlash is inevitable, it can be minimised by decent engineering, and indeed the more expensive incarnations tend to have less.

I don't quite understand Jacob's idea about backlash providing feedback about wether you're pushing or pulling; I find clockwise versus anticlockwise does that for me - I certainly don't want backlash in a radio dial, or my car's steering!

I just have to put up with it on a Bailey.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

....
I don't quite understand Jacob's idea about backlash providing feedback about wether you're pushing or pulling; I find clockwise versus anticlockwise does that for me - I certainly don't want backlash in a radio dial, or my car's steering!

I just have to put up with it on a Bailey.

BugBear

It's like a gear box - the slack is neutral and you wind it to engage forwards or reverse. It's useful to know which gear you are in. Not obvious until you remove all slack and feel how different it feels.

 

[Scouse]

I agree with Jacob on this, I think; I find the backlash useful in telling me the point at which the adjuster has engaged, although which way it's moving I just know through learning on my first day.

I have to say though, at the risk of being a bit controversial, I had never thought about it before now. Reading a few threads over a period of time does make me wonder whether some may be thinking too much.

In 30 years I have never considered the amount of backlash, blade thickness, etc as problems to be overcome, and I wonder if there is a bit of over-complication, maybe the wrong word, but I don't understand the obsession with the minutiae.

Have I been doing it wrong all this time? Am I getting old?

 

[bugbear]

I agree with Jacob on this, I think; I find the backlash useful in telling me the point at which the adjuster has engaged, although which way it's moving I just know through learning on my first day.

I have to say though, at the risk of being a bit controversial, I had never thought about it before now. Reading a few threads over a period of time does make me wonder whether some may be thinking too much.

In 30 years I have never considered the amount of backlash, blade thickness, etc as problems to be overcome, and I wonder if there is a bit of over-complication, maybe the wrong word, but I don't understand the obsession with the minutiae.

Have I been doing it wrong all this time? Am I getting old?

If your only goal is getting woodwork done, don't over think it.

If you're of a thoughtful disposition, you may want to understanding WHY something works, as opposed to merely knowing that it does.

There's no right or wrong.

BugBear

 

[Scouse]

If your only goal is getting woodwork done, don't over think it.

If you're of a thoughtful disposition, you may want to understanding WHY something works, as opposed to merely knowing that it does.

There's no right or wrong.

BugBear

I understand that there is no right or wrong, but the tone of some posts over a period of months give the impression that these questions went beyond the disposition of thoughtful enquiry, and were causing real problems or at best confusion when attempting to achieve the goal of working wood.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to cause discord, just trying to understand the thought process behind what's being said.

El.

 

[Jacob]

There is a big input from the ETs ("Engineering Tendency" :roll: ) who in a slightly simple minded way like everything to be precise, quantifiable, explicable, shiny, flat, etc etc. They generally disapprove of the sloppy behaviour of some woodworkers!

The only backlash which bothers me a bit is one of my planes which takes three full turns to get from push to pull. I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[woodbrains]

Hi,

Like I said, it isn't a major fixation with me, it was Corneel's fault for bringing it up and it got me thinking that it might be improved upon. I am the sort of woodworker who likes to do precise, neat work and am concerned with the details. it is inevitable that some of this thinking will spill over into the tools and machines I use.

Bugbear is correct, there is a cumulative effect at every stage and adding a thicker iron is another stage which could be dealt with, with a little thought, to at least get the planes adjuster back to the original amount of backlash. If it improves on the way, then all the better.

Mike.

 

[Corneel]

Hi,

it was Corneel's fault...

Don't worry. I can handle it. Just pile it up on my back....