Chris Schwarz ripping wood by hand - speed

[tibi]

Hello,

I watched recently a video of Chris Schwarz dimensioning wood by hand. I have seen this video a few times before, but now it surprised me how fast he is ripping through that (probably 1 inch) hardwood with a hand saw


He tells in the clip, that it is a small panel saw with 8 or 9 TPI. I know that sawing perpendicular to the board is faster (and harder), but I was surprised by the speed he has, even though I see that he is rushing on purpose. He is not even using the full length of that small saw.

Is it that his saw is super sharp or the wood (whatever species that might be - maybe red oak) is so easy to rip?

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

I watched recently a video of Chris Schwarz dimensioning wood by hand. I have seen this video a few times before, but now it surprised me how fast he is ripping through that (probably 1 inch) hardwood with a hand saw


He tells in the clip, that it is a small panel saw with 8 or 9 TPI. I know that sawing perpendicular to the board is faster (and harder), but I was surprised by the speed he has, even though I see that he is rushing on purpose. He is not even using the full length of that small saw.

Is it that his saw is super sharp or the wood (whatever species that might be - maybe red oak) is so easy to rip?

Looks thinner than 1 inch. Or must be something soft - look how easy the planing goes
He's find it easier to do the ripping over two saw stools the traditional way.
He'd find a trad gauge easier to use - pushing not pulling.
Or on the other hand maybe he is a super strong ape-man!

 

[Trafalgar]

Looks an inch thick to me, easily so. 4/4 fat. Species looks like maple, not sure if hard or soft.

 

[Jacob]

Looks an inch thick to me, easily so. 4/4 fat.

OK but what timber is it? Does look too easy. I'll have a go myself later.

 

[Trafalgar]

OK but what timber is it? Does look too easy. I'll have a go myself later.

Looks like maple to me. Not sure if hard or soft. It's certainly not a ring porous wood. Probably worth a check in the YouTube comments. Somebody likely asked that question and maybe he answered it there. Regardless, the saw was cutting very well and so was the plane.

 

[tibi]

Looks like maple to me. Not sure if hard or soft. It's certainly not a ring porous wood. Probably worth a check in the YouTube comments. Somebody likely asked that question and maybe he answered it there. Regardless, the saw was cutting very well and so was the plane.

I did not found a direct comment from Chris about the type of wood. But I have found a comment of our David W, who states that it is pine. - It does not look like pine to me, someone else in the comments suggested cedar.

there are some other interesting comments as well

 

[Jacob]

They are worried about Sellers!
You can start on either side but standard practice is to start on the "best side" (e.g. most knot free) and to flatten it, whether cupped or bowed, and only then to thickness it. The logic is that the more you remove from the "best" side the worse it gets - the knots get bigger etc as you approach the worst side. So all thicknessing wants to be from the worst side, which can only get better as material is removed.

 

[Trafalgar]

I did not found a direct comment from Chris about the type of wood. But I have found a comment of our David W, who states that it is pine. - It does not look like pine to me, someone else in the comments suggested cedar.

View attachment 156252

there are some other interesting comments as well
View attachment 156253
View attachment 156254

Could be. Pretty ambivalent about it. Pretty good video though -- cuts to the chase.

 

[Trafalgar]

They are worried about Sellers!
You can start on either side but standard practice is to start on the "best side" (e.g. most knot free) and to flatten it, whether cupped or bowed, and only then to thickness it. The logic is that the more you remove from the "best" side the worse it gets - the knots get bigger etc as you approach the worst side. So all thicknessing wants to be from the worst side, which can only get better as material is removed.

Sellers is a real lightening rod for some people. He gets a little wordy at times but seems fine otherwise.

 

[paulrbarnard]

They are worried about Sellers!
You can start on either side but standard practice is to start on the "best side" (e.g. most knot free) and to flatten it, whether cupped or bowed, and only then to thickness it. The logic is that the more you remove from the "best" side the worse it gets - the knots get bigger etc as you approach the worst side. So all thicknessing wants to be from the worst side, which can only get better as material is removed.

I agree on starting on the face side. It’s how I approach it but it does require wedges to deal with cupping if the face side is concave. I know you have been vocal about not using wedges so I would be interested to know how you handle this situation.

 

[Trafalgar]

I agree on starting on the face side. It’s how I approach it but it does require wedges to deal with cupping if the face size is concave. I know you have been vocal about not using wedges so I would be interested to know how you handle this situation.

The side to start on first is the side you intend to attach to another workpiece, that if the current workpiece were the least bit twisted it would be a subcomponent into twist. Think drawer components -- the face side (not the show or cosmetically best side) always goes to the inside. You start on that face first. Grain orientation does come into place as you want the boards to cup inward, not outward, but still it's the nonshow side you start with. This could be totally reversed for other components of a furniture project. There is no set rule that applies to every piece. A tabletop for instance has to be dead flat on the side that will attach to the understructure or it risks pulling the understructure into twist.

 

[paulrbarnard]

The side to start on first is the side you intend to attach to another workpiece, that if the current workpiece were the least bit twisted it would be a subcomponent into twist. Think drawer components -- the face side (not the show or cosmetically best side) always goes to the inside. You start on that face first. Grain orientation does come into place as you want the boards to cup inward, not outward, but still it's the nonshow side you start with. This could be totally reversed for other components of a furniture project. There is no set rule that applies to every piece. A tabletop for instance has to be dead flat on the side that will attach to the understructure or it risks pulling the understructure into twist.

We are talking about slightly different things here. You have introduced a number of other considerations all of which are valid but do not address the question I raised.

My question to Jacob was how he deals with a cupped show side when he starts work on a board. I completely agree with him that removing the minimum from the show side to avoid the problem of defects appearing is the right approach, then thickness off from the back of the piece. I wonder how he handles this as he has said in previous discussions he never uses wedges to stabilise a cupped board when planning.

 

[Jacob]

I agree on starting on the face side. It’s how I approach it but it does require wedges to deal with cupping if the face side is concave. I know you have been vocal about not using wedges so I would be interested to know how you handle this situation.

Can't remember being vocal about wedges, or why.
If it rocks about too much I'd probably flatten the back a bit first.

 

[Jacob]

The side to start on first is the side you intend to attach to another workpiece, that if the current workpiece were the least bit twisted it would be a subcomponent into twist. Think drawer components -- the face side (not the show or cosmetically best side) always goes to the inside. You start on that face first. Grain orientation does come into place as you want the boards to cup inward, not outward, but still it's the nonshow side you start with. This could be totally reversed for other components of a furniture project. There is no set rule that applies to every piece. A tabletop for instance has to be dead flat on the side that will attach to the understructure or it risks pulling the understructure into twist.

Depends on your priorities.
e.g. table top has to be flat on top! Quite possible to accommodate irregularities below, one way or another, within reason.
But yes face and edge marks best on meeting faces, which may or may not be the visually "best" face

 

[raffo]

That board is definitely pine, see 6:40.

 

[Jacob]

That board is definitely pine, see 6:40.

I just had a go ripping a bit of 1" sycamore and it's definitely very hard work compared to what Schwarz is doing.
I use a lot of redwood (Scots Pine) which is easier but not as easy as Schwarz's piece and it never comes that flat!
I've also used a lot of reclaimed but unknown pine species which is very easy.
It's about procedure and there's no reason why he shouldn't make his demo easier, except that it could be misleading.

 

[thetyreman]

it looks like pine, it's just poor lighting, you can rip pine very fast from experience especially with a freshly sharpened saw.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Balsa?

 

[hlvd]

That’s definitely thinner than an 1” and something that’s not very resinous. You can tell just by the sound it makes when he’s ripping and probably more like 3/4” or less in thickness.

Ripping from the bench like he’s doing is not great as it’s too high. Ideally you’d have two saw horses, knee on the board to hold it down and head vertically above the cut line.

 

[tibi]

If some youtuber wants to show his "insane" ripping skills, he can cut the underside of the board with a table saw off camera and finish just two inches away from the board end (so it will not be visible in the end view). He will leave just 1/4 inch thickness from the top side to rip and the board can be 1 1/2 inch thick. However the kerf of the table saw blade must be similar to his hand saw and he must be pretty confident that he can follow the line and not deviate from it.