new plane and/or scraper?

[Anonymous]

Ahh, finally found the post I was looking for about cap irons...

The cap iron - well, I personally actually sharpen my cap irons! I want the interface between the plane iron and the cap iron to be as close to perfect as possible - no gaps for shavings to get caught in, so no choking. What you want to aim for is the ability to sandwich a rizla paper between the cap iron and plane iron, and not be able to pull it out. You want the cap iron so it comes to a point, which is the contact with the plane iron - you definitely don't want the heel of the end of the cap iron being the contact with the blade, cos you've got an instant gap there, and so a choke point.

Also, you want the leading surface of the chip-breaker part of the cap iron to be smooth - sand it, and even wax it - helps shavings go over and curl nicely.

Yes, you can fettle a modern cap iron very nicely - no need to invest in after market ones; the Clifton stay-set 2 piece is a nice bit of kit, but a luxury. Lie-Nielsens new cap-irons are thicker than the old, I understand, and help reduce chatter - not experienced one though

Hope that helps

 

[Midnight]

Lie-Nielsens new cap-irons are thicker than the old, I understand, and help reduce chatter - not experienced one though

They're ummm.... pretty good. I've fitted one to both my #4 1/2 and #7... they make quite a difference..

 

[Anonymous]

I was worried about messing with the cap iron too much as it'll need a good mm taking off it to get rid of the chipped edges (and this was brand new) - maybe I should take it back and get it changed (or are they all poor quality?).

No problem with taking off 1mm. The cap iron isn't hardened and material can be removed quickly with a file then hone the edge as others have said.
Since this is a new Stanley, it probably has plastic totes? If so, I would advise against spending much time/money on this plane. Adding a better blade, cap iron, and wooden totes would be about half the cost of a new LV 62.5 without near the performance. If your budget is stretched, vintage (pre-WWII) Stanley planes or old woodies provide much better performance and value.
You didn't say what kinds of wood you'll be working but you mentioned you bought machinery. If the #4 is used to remove milling marks, it will be up to the task unless you are using exotic or highly figured woods.

 

[tx2man]

Sorry to digress,but someone mentioned burnishers!
I last held a burnisher 20 yrs ago :!:
As an engraver, i used it two handed to shine up plates
of metal ( copper,mild steel,brass ) to not only see the
surface better but also aid the cut of the' graver'

A very melancholy TX

 

[Anonymous]

The cap iron is definitely worth some attention; I might even be moved to argue it's more important than the thickness of the blade. But you don't need to know that.

I have a tiny patriotic liking for the Clifton two-part one too (what an inelegant but numerate phrase...),

Alf

Surprised you rate it higher than the blade.

I have to agree with Alf here. The only real advantage I can find to aftermarket blades is in edge retention. Even the worst blade I have used (a modern Stanley) will do a good job when it is very sharp. A better cap iron won't make an edge last longer but it does a better job of damping vibrations and reducing chatter than a different blade alone. I've been using Clifton two-part cap irons and I need to get a Hock and/or LN for comparison.

 

[Alf]

I have to agree with Alf here.

Good grief; I was sure someone would have argued it into touch by now. Scary thought; perhaps I know more than I thought... :shock: And I agree edge retention seems to be the main advantage of the aftermarket blade. But often there's a trade-off between time saved between sharpenings being turned into time taken to get an edge in the first place. Heigh ho.

I've been using Clifton two-part cap irons and I need to get a Hock and/or LN for comparison.

'Course you do, Roger. 'Course you do... :roll: :lol:

Cheers, Alf

 

[Digizz]

Just got my LN 164 - astounding quality! It really is a superbly engineered plane - Gorgeous.

Now, to order one of each of all their other tools and a display cabinet to put them in - I'm not going to use it and get it dirty!

 

[Midnight]

And I agree edge retention seems to be the main advantage of the aftermarket blade.

I found another aspect (read disadvantage) with the standard Stanley irons; the minute you try to close the mouth to prevent tear-out....kiss the board goodbye... can we say blade flex...??? I'm not sure what kinda mix they use in their blade steel, but going by the way this thing trashes the board the sec you advance it away from resting against the back of the mouth, I'm sure there's some old car tyres and knicker elastic in there...

But like I said in a previous post.... that soft steel's ideal for learning how to sharpen.... plenty experience gained in a hurry...

 

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree on several points here.

First, closing the mouth doesn't present any problems. I set the mouth on my #4 & #4 1/2 smoothing planes at .006". I don't notice any flex problems whether I use the worst Stanley blade at .077" thick or an A2 or M2 blade at .102" thick.
To use a mathematical example, if an iron is bedded at 45º and is set to take a .001" cut and the blade is BENT, not flexed, another 45º to vertical, the depth of cut changes to only .0014". Hardly an automatic cause of tearout.
In fact all Bailey style planes (including LN) are designed to deliberately flex the blade by attaching a cap iron which has point bearing at the end. If zero blade flex is the goal, then only bevel up planes qualify because bevel down planes aren't bedded from the tip of the blade to the top of the bevel. That distance is increased as the blade becomes thicker so increasing blade thickness in a Bailey type plane becomes self defeating. The Clifton and LN irons have pretty much reached the top end of that limit.
Second, the steels used in Stanley blades aren't soft. The older blades have a very thin piece of hard steel laminated to a softer steel back. This provides very desirable qualities of a blade that is easy to sharpen and has good edge retention. Lamination, even the production method that was used by Stanley, is too costly to be used today except in very expensive, limited quantity plane blades such as used in high end Japanese planes. Modern methods have tried to compensate by using a single piece of steel into which various carbides are mixed resulting in the "Chrome Vanadium" blades of modern Stanleys and Records to matrices such as A2, M2, CPM3, etc. These carbides are very hard indeed but the steel into which they are mixed are not harder than the high carbon steels such as 01, 02, W1, W2, etc. that were traditionally used.

I'm not saying that mass marketed Stanley planes are the equal of LN. Tom Lie-Nielsen took Bailey's designs and executed them to as high a level as the design permits. What I am saying is that Stanley planes do work well enough for the vast majority of woodworking tasks and I do so with factual evidence not hyperbole.

 

[Alf]

I found another aspect (read disadvantage) with the standard Stanley irons; the minute you try to close the mouth to prevent tear-out....kiss the board goodbye... can we say blade flex...??? I'm not sure what kinda mix they use in their blade steel, but going by the way this thing trashes the board the sec you advance it away from resting against the back of the mouth, I'm sure there's some old car tyres and knicker elastic in there...

Hmm... I'll go away and think about this one if you'll bear with me. :?

 

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree on several points here.


To use a mathematical example, if an iron is bedded at 45º and is set to take a .001" cut and the blade is BENT, not flexed,

In fact all Bailey style planes (including LN) are designed to deliberately flex the blade by attaching a cap iron which has point bearing at the end. If zero blade flex is the goal, then only bevel up planes qualify because bevel down planes aren't bedded from the tip of the blade to the top of the bevel. That distance is increased as the blade becomes thicker so increasing blade thickness in a Bailey type plane becomes self defeating. The Clifton and LN irons have pretty much reached the top end of that limit.
Second, the steels used in Stanley blades aren't soft. The older blades have a very thin piece of hard steel laminated to a softer steel back.
.

Roger

Bent means the blade is permanently deformed. Are you stating that the blades are actually permanetnly damaged during use?
Flexed implies vibration which is what produces the chatter one experiences too often with cheap planes.
Modern stanley blades are junk, too thin and poor steel.

The original discussion was about MODERN stanley planes, not old ones that were better made and used superior materials including laminated blades.
Modern stanley frogs are VERY poorly made and do not support the blade near to the mouth. Chatter often occurs unless the blade is pulled back against the rear of the mouth on large bench planes. The blade is not bent, it is vibrating as it is unsupported over a large area.

The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.

The addition of a Clifton chip breaker to MY planes resulted in no noticeable improvement over the standard chip breaker with the Hock blade.

Note that the standard chip breaker was polished at front and ground falt and square where it meets the blade.

I put my money where my mouth is about 18-20 months ago and purchased 2 Hock blades and 2 Clifton 2-piece chip breakers in the hopes of making these planes perform much better. Hock was worth it's weight in gold. Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker

I state these things from experience with 2 modern Stanley planes and one modern Record and one very much lighter wallet.

 

[Alf]

Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker

Wotcha Tony. Was that just on the thicker Hock iron, or did you try it on a standard iron? Inquiring minds... And for the non-engineering minded amongst us (i.e. me), why does flexed imply vibration? Speak slowly and please try to avoid equations... :wink:

I've gone away and thought about it, btw. I understand what you believe to be happening, Mike, but the extreme result of it that you seem to get would suggest to me that something else is the trouble. Too bad we can't send tools to and fro via the internet...

Cheers, Alf

Who uses more original Stanley blades than upgrades. What a slacker, eh? :roll:

 

[ike]

"Flexed implies vibration" - it's too simplistic. Perhaps "planing hardwood implies vibration" is more appropriate.

Increasing the thickness of the blade will reduce the amplitude of any induced vibration (but not the frequency), as will ensuring the blade seats fully on the frog. I surmise that the best functioning cap iron applies a well distributed, effective force to ensure this, whereas a lesser quality (or unfettled) iron won't do so as well.

I doubt the design of chipbreaker has much effect on vibration, but the above does, as will the unsupported distance from the cutting edge.

Ike

 

[ike]

as will the unsupported distance from the cutting edge

so bevel up planes should cause less chatter...er, I think ... because I've presently no means of comparison (lest I succumb to those nice LV LA's Alf recommends) :?

 

[Anonymous]

Was that just on the thicker Hock iron, or did you try it on a standard iron? Inquiring minds...

And for the non-engineering minded amongst us (i.e. me), why does flexed imply vibration? Speak slowly and please try to avoid equations... :wink:

Hi Alf

I didn't try the Clifton cap iron on the original Stanley blade as the Hock arrived first and to be honest I didn't consider going back when the Clifton arrived about a week later. I was really only interested in improving the whole incrementally rather than investigating the individual components

Flexture implies vibration as it is not a permanent deformation. Vibration is an oscillatory motion, back and forth in this case. If the blade is deflecting backwards as it hits dense or raised sections of wood or just digs in a lttle harder, then it will deflect back and subsequently 'spring' forward.
A thicker blade (possibly made from stiffer and harder material) will deflect much less than a thin one made from a less stiff material (Stanley steel not as hard or stiff as Hock Steel) and thus reduce the amplitude of the vibration - also the natural frequency (rate at which it likes to vibrate) will be changed. The flexture and return will result in vibration, chatter, call it what you will, which will be damped with a thicker, stiffer blade.

If the blade bent back, then permanent deformation of the material is implied and rather than vibrating, the blade will simply be dulled and useless.

 

[Anonymous]

Roger

Bent means the blade is permanently deformed. Are you stating that the blades are actually permanetnly damaged during use?

Nope. My point was that blade flexing could create only a tiny variation in cutting depth even at the maximum possible amount.

Flexed implies vibration which is what produces the chatter one experiences too often with cheap planes.

Flex, vibration, and chatter are not synonymous. As you say chatter is often experienced with cheap planes but now we are moving into other areas besides the blade.

Modern stanley blades are junk, too thin and poor steel.

I agree these are the worst blades.
Too thin? I can't say. I haven't seen any evidence or testing to determine that. The blades I've mic'd are around .077" thick, Hock irons are around .095", Shepherd Tools are .102", LN's are around .120" and Cliftons around .125" so what is the magic number? If thickness is the key, then Ohio planes at .135" would have ruled the roost. It would be interesting to test a .077" blade A2 or M2 blade in comparison with a thicker one.
Poor steel? Yep.

The original discussion was about MODERN stanley planes, not old ones that were better made and used superior materials including laminated blades.
Modern stanley frogs are VERY poorly made and do not support the blade near to the mouth. Chatter often occurs unless the blade is pulled back against the rear of the mouth on large bench planes. The blade is not bent, it is vibrating as it is unsupported over a large area.

I agree modern Stanley planes are poor quality. In an earlier post, I recommended not spending much time or money on trying to improve one.

The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.

Can you help me out by being more specific? I have heard and read this statement many times but I have tried for a couple of years now to quantify it without success. My experiments using different blades in the same plane on the same boards yield only one result I can document and that is edge retention. One subjective thing I have found is that the thicker blades give a better tactile sensation, the plane feels more solid and the sound is different and I like it.

The addition of a Clifton chip breaker to MY planes resulted in no noticeable improvement over the standard chip breaker with the Hock blade.

Note that the standard chip breaker was polished at front and ground falt and square where it meets the blade.

I didn't notice much difference with the Clifton chipbreaker used in conjuntion with my Shepherd blade but I can feel a difference when it is used with a standard Stanley blade. I haven't done any testing to see if the performance improved, it just feels better.

I put my money where my mouth is about 18-20 months ago and purchased 2 Hock blades and 2 Clifton 2-piece chip breakers in the hopes of making these planes perform much better. Hock was worth it's weight in gold. Clifton is a beautiful piece on engineering but no more effective than a tuned original chip breaker

I state these things from experience with 2 modern Stanley planes and one modern Record and one very much lighter wallet.

Experiences are what count, Tony and I don't think we're far apart. I'm a guy who is grounded in facts and numbers and that is difficult to do in very subjective area such as woodworking.

 

[Alf]

the sound is different and I like it

Carefully side-stepping this one now (from cowardice), but just wanted to comment on the audio aspect of hand tools. Funny how sound plays such a place in feedback from your tools. I don't think it gets mentioned nearly enough. How many of you listen to what your planes are telling you? Maybe everyone does it without thinking, or mentioning it much?

Sorry. Don't mind me. Just doing my usual wandering. :roll:

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

The addition of a thicker blade made of better quality steel does improve the performance of modern Stanley and Record bench planes a lot.

Can you help me out by being more specific? I have heard and read this statement many times but I have tried for a couple of years now to quantify it without success. My experiments using different blades in the same plane on the same boards yield only one result I can document and that is edge retention. One subjective thing I have found is that the thicker blades give a better tactile sensation, the plane feels more solid and the sound is different and I like it. Then again, I think I've also mentioned before that I may take my sharpening a bit OTT! (only SS (TM) though!)

Just my quick tuppence worth here, to muddy the waters - replacing a modern Stanley iron for a better after market (whether it be an A2 like a Hock, or a high-carbon like Ray Iles or Clifton...or even a laminate like the Samurai) has one other advantage - sharpness! I think I've posted it before elsewhere, so won't repeat the gory details, but in brief...the impurities added to modern Stanley irons (chrome, vanadium etc) to make them drop proof, stainless and all the rest of the rubbish make it harder, if not impossible, to get a truly sharp edge on the iron - something to do with molecule size, i believe ?? (Ron Hock's web site has a bit of info on this).

Having said this, the only time I've swapped an iron for an after market one didn't make a blind bit of difference - and the reason for that was that I'm an silly person It was the lovely Stanley #4 1/2 I picked up dirt cheap at a car boot sale - I wasn't sure of its age, so got a new Ray Iles high-carbon iron for it, in case the iron was a crappy modern one...the Ray Iles claims to be significantly thicker than new Stanley - new iron turns up, check size - about the same...grind and hone both to my normal standard...same performance. I have a feeling that this #4 1/2 is a bit older than I first thought!

 

[Anonymous]

the sound is different and I like it

Carefully side-stepping this one now (from cowardice), but just wanted to comment on the audio aspect of hand tools. Funny how sound plays such a place in feedback from your tools. I don't think it gets mentioned nearly enough. How many of you listen to what your planes are telling you? Maybe everyone does it without thinking, or mentioning it much?

Sorry. Don't mind me. Just doing my usual wandering. :roll:

Cheers, Alf

Cross-posted...sound?!?! oh, come now - the sound of a well tuned plane with a sharp iron - it just sings as it cuts

The sound of a naff plane? <judder judder, swear, curse, damn, clang>

 

[Alf]

Cross-posted...sound?!?! oh, come on - the sound of a well tuned plane with a sharp iron - it just sings as it cuts

The sound of a naff plane? <judder judder, swear, curse, damn, clang>

LOL. But I was thinking of some of the finer nuances. :wink: