KLD":1mwvsiig said:
I’ve been getting good results on otherwise difficult-to-plane workpieces by using a high blade angle and narrow mouth on an adjustable-mouth block plane, so wanted to experiment with the same technique using a bevel-up smoother. Therefore, I bought one of the new Veritas small bevel-up smoothers. While I’m delighted with its overall quality, I’m surprised to find that the trailing edge of the moveable nosepiece has a 45-degree chamfer about 0.5 mm wide across the whole width of the trailing edge. To achieve a very narrow mouth, especially with a high blade angle, that edge needs to be sharp, not chamfered.
Hi Kevin -
Your post kicked off quite a flurry of activity here. The chamfer on the trailing edge of the toe is not supposed to be there - but is exactly as shown on our drawings, and has completely passed through our inspection and QC process as being 100% correct. It is actually something that was propogated by our design software. In essence - it is a computer (read user) error.
Our CAD system uses parametric processing - which basically means that a change to a part propogates through all associated parts automatically. Change a pin diameter, and hole diameters automatically change... etc. What has happened here is that a change to a radius on the leading edge of the toe propagated right 'round the toe. This change propagated though our production system, including QC and inspection processes - and so passed through with flying colours. The rad was only visible on a drawing view that was not used for manual verifiication of the change.
Our Engineering group reported:
1)During pre-production feedback and testing it was determined that Rads were required on the toe to match the body pocket. (Rads on body pocket required for machining)
2)During the CAD model update, the Rads were added causing the software to see the edge as a continuous edge, creating a chamfer around the whole part.
3)The correction is to pick each individual edge that you required chamfered, leaving the unpicked edge with no chamfer.
4)The Drawing updates directly from the CAD model. The bottom view was not required to manufacture the part therefore was not show on the drawing.
So - the small chamfer should not be there. The good news is - because of the geometry of the design, it will not affect the use of the plane for a great percentage of the use. The fix here is a simple one - a quick .03" dressing of the the trailing edge of the toe - which has (is) been done here on all stock. Most people will never notice the difference, as the adjustability of mouth opening is only slightly affected at high bevel angles.
However - we can't let that stand, and will be contacting early buyers of this plane, and shipping replacements. Keep using your plane, until we can get new ones to Brimarc - it will perform brilliantly as is... there's no need to modify it. We'll have a new one in your hands shortly.
Cheers -
Rob
(who's making the engineering dept stand in the corner for an hour.....)