Startling stuff. Record were way out in front at one point especially on the 'Made In Britain' leaderboard. Remarkable really. Great shakes and you made me laugh all the way through. I checked to see if you were sufficiently far away that I could gratuitously offer up my stanleys for comparison. Turns out you're in Herts. (Sh*t!) Same as me. So I'd like to point out I have no Stanley Planes. Just Saying. None.
Bench plane review - Record #4 vs Millers Falls
- Thread starter nabs
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ha ha - i think your (non-existant) Stanley's are safe for now.
However, for all those peope who are now throwing away their thick blades and stay-sets as a result of the above bombshell, please could one of you PM me so I could arrange collection of a few? This is only In the interest of sciencific research, natch.
However, for all those peope who are now throwing away their thick blades and stay-sets as a result of the above bombshell, please could one of you PM me so I could arrange collection of a few? This is only In the interest of sciencific research, natch.
Corneel
Established Member
Call me dense, but I fail to understand that levercap. How does it work anyway other then a standard one?
it is hinged about 1 inch back from the toe. The front part fits over the "hump" of the cap iron and applies pressure accros the width. About 1 1/2'' back of the tip are two "legs" which press the blade against the frog.
It means that the iron is under pressure at three points rather than the normal two
It means that the iron is under pressure at three points rather than the normal two
Vann
Established Member
Guilty as charged your honour.nabs":1tmn1vni said:
But, but, but, but... Record "innovated" the two-piece "Stay-Set" cap-iron. You tested a Millars Falls with optional special lever-cap, and Record without optional special (and fantastic) cap-iron. Unfair !!!!nabs":1tmn1vni said:
And I wonder if having both on a plane might just be overkill... just a little...?
Cheers, Vann.
I'm curious to know if anyone can tell any difference with the three contact points on the Millers falls lever cap. I couldn't.
I ran into the same problem as described above with attempting to duplicate the Bailey patent picture, though. If the bias is not in favour of the business end of the cap iron, chips go under. If any fettling is done to an old cap, then the bias doesn't end up in our favor and bending is required.
I ran into the same problem as described above with attempting to duplicate the Bailey patent picture, though. If the bias is not in favour of the business end of the cap iron, chips go under. If any fettling is done to an old cap, then the bias doesn't end up in our favor and bending is required.
I would be interested to hear opinions on the MF lever cap also.
The nearest comparisson seems to be the clifton and record 2 part cap-irons and it is interesting to read the reviews on this site. Certainly there are some people who do not get on with them, but those that do - and there seem to be many fans - all talk about an improved sense of how the plane 'feels', using terms like 'solidity/stiffness/tighness' .
Obviously all a bit subjective, but I think they offer some support to the theory that these 'stiffening' add-ons to improve the stanndard bailey plane.
Vann, you are quite right - a fairer comparisson would have been with a Stay-set Record, but I don't own one - If I can find one that is suitably cheap I will report back!
The nearest comparisson seems to be the clifton and record 2 part cap-irons and it is interesting to read the reviews on this site. Certainly there are some people who do not get on with them, but those that do - and there seem to be many fans - all talk about an improved sense of how the plane 'feels', using terms like 'solidity/stiffness/tighness' .
Obviously all a bit subjective, but I think they offer some support to the theory that these 'stiffening' add-ons to improve the stanndard bailey plane.
Vann, you are quite right - a fairer comparisson would have been with a Stay-set Record, but I don't own one - If I can find one that is suitably cheap I will report back!
I like the stay set as well, and I thought the millers falls lever cap was handsome, but I don't think I've seen a difference on wood. Just by circumstance, my favorite smoother is a later Stanley with a shop made iron on it. Everything on it works subtlety better than other smoother I've used.
But the difference is very small, and I could do with any just fine.
But the difference is very small, and I could do with any just fine.
Some years ago I posted observations of thin iron chatter, which can be seen as dial guage flutter during a planing stroke. The blade lifts from the frog. The effect is mimiced by putting a flexible 12" rule over the edge of the bench at the 1" mark, attempting to hold the 11" down with 2 fingers whilst loading the tip. The often quoted need for all over bedding to stop chatter is false, provided the heel of the blade has a firm base. The 2 piece cap iron does indeed improve matters, but it is difficult to arrange a close setting because there is so much backlash in the 2 piece coupling, and the shape does not suit blade cambering very well. The MF levercap looks like a positive benefit, probably later lost as MF engineers (accountants?) forgot what it was for.
The best and simplest solution I have found is a simple , completely flat cap iron, "sharpened" at the business end, and with a small hook rolled scraper style to prevent shavings being trapped. This arrangement can easily cope with a cambered blade, as the cap iron may be cambered the same way. That way you can have a close setting right across the cambered blade. The lever cap can exert enough pressure to flex the cap iron firmly against the blade so no chatter. With this arrangement the cutting geometry is getting close to a scraper plane, with the addtional benefit of a close mouth. Handy when you need it. Simples!
By the by, Hayward (ed. Woodworker mag.) suggested that low gringing angles for the bezel can cause chatter due to flexing in the ground section of the blade, so for difficult stuff a single grind/sharpening angle of 30 or 35 deg should prevent this. It would appear that a thick blade could also suffer in this fashion; something known to the Japanese carpenter, perhaps.
The best and simplest solution I have found is a simple , completely flat cap iron, "sharpened" at the business end, and with a small hook rolled scraper style to prevent shavings being trapped. This arrangement can easily cope with a cambered blade, as the cap iron may be cambered the same way. That way you can have a close setting right across the cambered blade. The lever cap can exert enough pressure to flex the cap iron firmly against the blade so no chatter. With this arrangement the cutting geometry is getting close to a scraper plane, with the addtional benefit of a close mouth. Handy when you need it. Simples!
By the by, Hayward (ed. Woodworker mag.) suggested that low gringing angles for the bezel can cause chatter due to flexing in the ground section of the blade, so for difficult stuff a single grind/sharpening angle of 30 or 35 deg should prevent this. It would appear that a thick blade could also suffer in this fashion; something known to the Japanese carpenter, perhaps.
Thanks Ivan, prompted by your post I took a look at the brilliant compendium of Woodworker articles from when Hayward was editor:
https://lostartpress.com/products/the-woodworker-the-charles-hayward-years
i did not realise that the sole of bailey planes was deliberately made thin under the frog to avoid the heel of the cutter being unsupported when the frog is moved forward to narrow the mouth (fig 8 below). At least this is apparently how it works for good quality planes (there is another article from someone moaning he had bought a cheap one where this had not been done, causing him endless chattering!)
Fig 9b shows a cutter ground at a steep angle which makes it prone to chatter - the text says the problem is that the blade is supported too far back, but what is the result? Does the longer bevel mean the tip can "wobble" or does it some how make it easier for the blade to lift from the frog?
Fig 10 shows how this effect is exaggerated with higher pitch planes (a and b) and how a lower grinding angle is recommended to compensate (c)
https://lostartpress.com/products/the-woodworker-the-charles-hayward-years
i did not realise that the sole of bailey planes was deliberately made thin under the frog to avoid the heel of the cutter being unsupported when the frog is moved forward to narrow the mouth (fig 8 below). At least this is apparently how it works for good quality planes (there is another article from someone moaning he had bought a cheap one where this had not been done, causing him endless chattering!)
Fig 9b shows a cutter ground at a steep angle which makes it prone to chatter - the text says the problem is that the blade is supported too far back, but what is the result? Does the longer bevel mean the tip can "wobble" or does it some how make it easier for the blade to lift from the frog?
Fig 10 shows how this effect is exaggerated with higher pitch planes (a and b) and how a lower grinding angle is recommended to compensate (c)
ivan":cjxsohtj said:
The cap iron shouldn't be cambered. It should match the sole of the plane.
You're right about the heel of the iron, though. If an iron is bedded well at the top of a frog and well on its heel (either at the bottom of the frog or on the casting itself), then the plane will work without chatter, regardless of the cap iron design, etc. Same with prep of the cap iron - chips won't go under a cap iron if it's prepared well, as the lever cap pressure will flex the cap iron a small amount and create a tight flush fit. Rolling a burr on the cap is OK, but it's a transient thing to do to fix cap irons that aren't working properly, but at a time when you don't feel like doing a proper fettle, either.
I think the millers falls design was a marketing gimmick more than a practical fix.
Also, the double iron cut quality is different than a scraper. A scraper gives you a high angle cut quality, but the cap iron set properly will hold the chip in place without allowing it to lift. It'll do it, though, without deforming the chip.
There are only two ways the blade can flex in use - either because the unsupported part at the cutting edge bends in front of where it contacts the frog, or because it bends after that point, with the contact point acting as a fulcrum and the blade arching away from the frog behind it.
Several well known plane manufacturers - including Bailey - have described and attempted to prevent the latter phenomenon and, at least in the case of the stay-set and the 2 piece lever cap, appear to have been successful. Why is that a gimmick?
gimmick, n.nabs":2cbrxaei said:
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
No need to argue semantics, it does literally fulfil the dictionary definition of the word.
having rankled at the phrase 'marketing gimmick' I now discover the MF marketing department had the answer after all!
Look at one of their inaugural adverts from September 1929 (below) which contains a handy demonstration of their invention. I have duly tried the test and can confirm it works (c.f the Record below, where the paper slip is at a jaunty angle - it moves easily - and compare it with the MF where the paper is held tight).
Thus we have conclusive proof (as if it were needed!) that not only do thin irons bend under pressure, but that the MF miracle lever-cap stops it happening. Who needs scientists when you have a marketing team as good as Millers Falls!
I also found the thread ivan started on this topic, which explains the difficulty in accurately measuring the amount the cutter bends under pressure and also describes how to simulate the same effect with a ruler (when you try it, it is easy to see how the 3rd point of contact on the cutter makes it harder to move the tip, thus making it less likely to gouge/chatter etc etc).
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/plane-whispering-of-bevel-angle-and-frog-t13410.html
In other news I have splashed out on a record StaySet and can now compare the two solutions. Outrageously it was £16, although it does include a full length blade, and besides 16 quid is a small price to pay in the pursuit of truth. Stay tuned cap iron fans!
Look at one of their inaugural adverts from September 1929 (below) which contains a handy demonstration of their invention. I have duly tried the test and can confirm it works (c.f the Record below, where the paper slip is at a jaunty angle - it moves easily - and compare it with the MF where the paper is held tight).
Thus we have conclusive proof (as if it were needed!) that not only do thin irons bend under pressure, but that the MF miracle lever-cap stops it happening. Who needs scientists when you have a marketing team as good as Millers Falls!
I also found the thread ivan started on this topic, which explains the difficulty in accurately measuring the amount the cutter bends under pressure and also describes how to simulate the same effect with a ruler (when you try it, it is easy to see how the 3rd point of contact on the cutter makes it harder to move the tip, thus making it less likely to gouge/chatter etc etc).
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/plane-whispering-of-bevel-angle-and-frog-t13410.html
In other news I have splashed out on a record StaySet and can now compare the two solutions. Outrageously it was £16, although it does include a full length blade, and besides 16 quid is a small price to pay in the pursuit of truth. Stay tuned cap iron fans!
That advertisement is kind of absurd. Millers falls planes have trouble with cross grain stuff if the cap isn't set right, just like a Stanley. It is creative marketing, though, which would've been required to get anyone to deviate from purchasing a Stanley.
It's possible that a MF will chatter less if both planes are improperly set, but neither plane will chatter if properly set. They're lumping two issues into one (chatter and tearout) and suggesting that if you solve one, the other is solved, and that's not the case.
It's possible that a MF will chatter less if both planes are improperly set, but neither plane will chatter if properly set. They're lumping two issues into one (chatter and tearout) and suggesting that if you solve one, the other is solved, and that's not the case.
Corneel
Established Member
A better, more realistic test, is to see if you can get chatter from a Stanley plane in good nick. With a reaonably sharp edge, a well fitting capiron (no gaps) and full support down onto the sole casting of the plane, try to take a very deep cut and examine the surface. Do you see these tell tale chatter marks (fine lines suddenly appearing in the middle of the stroke) like you see from some wooden rebate planes in a deep cut?
I'll tell you, a well tuned Stanley does not chatter. Despite all the available marketing gimmicks. It seems that Paul Sellers agrees with me on this point.
https://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/
.
I'll tell you, a well tuned Stanley does not chatter. Despite all the available marketing gimmicks. It seems that Paul Sellers agrees with me on this point.
https://paulsellers.com/2012/06/plane-chatter-myths-busted-by-facts/
.
On a semi serious note, I realise chatter is not a major problem, but people frequently opt for stiffer blades - either by buying thicker blades or using some form of additional stiffening mechanism e.g the Stay-Set (or, dare I say it the MF mighty lever cap!). On that basis I still think the MF is an improvement over the original bailey design, even if many people will not find it an improvement they are particularly interested in.
I am on the look out for some chatter inducing wood to experiment and will report back. Obviously I won't be able to reproduce it with the MF, because it is chatter-proof! I'll give the Records a good work out though.
I am on the look out for some chatter inducing wood to experiment and will report back. Obviously I won't be able to reproduce it with the MF, because it is chatter-proof! I'll give the Records a good work out though.
and on another semi-serious note (I am on a roll!) having read the second post by Paul Sellers on chatter:
https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-controversy-and-myth-busting-vibration-causes-chatter/
I think his argument is that although chatter does happen, and is (partially) mitigated by thick irons, it is very rare. His other point is that, in order to flog more gizmos, those naughty marketing men have exaggerated the size of the chatter problem by deliberately conflating it with a much more common issue where the plane skips ("skuds") across the work piece. This phenomenon is caused by a variety of factors e.g sharpness and technique, and has nothing to do with thin plane irons.
Hard to argue with that point, those marketing men really are naughty!
https://paulsellers.com/2012/10/more-controversy-and-myth-busting-vibration-causes-chatter/
I think his argument is that although chatter does happen, and is (partially) mitigated by thick irons, it is very rare. His other point is that, in order to flog more gizmos, those naughty marketing men have exaggerated the size of the chatter problem by deliberately conflating it with a much more common issue where the plane skips ("skuds") across the work piece. This phenomenon is caused by a variety of factors e.g sharpness and technique, and has nothing to do with thin plane irons.
Hard to argue with that point, those marketing men really are naughty!
Corneel
Established Member
It's always a bit difficult to understand what Paul really means in his writings, but I think you are correct.
In that rare case when you see real chattermarks (because of a flexing blade), the easiest remedy is to lighten the shaving depth a bit. A lot easier then trying to find a Miller Falls plane in todays market! :wink:
In that rare case when you see real chattermarks (because of a flexing blade), the easiest remedy is to lighten the shaving depth a bit. A lot easier then trying to find a Miller Falls plane in todays market! :wink:
