The Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

One thing lead to another, and I wrote a series of articles ... four in all.

It just seemed to flow in that direction.

It began with the idea that if one could design a plane of their dream, what what they include? Lee Valley recently released the Custom Bench Plane concept, and I have a jointer and a smoother. I also have a bunch of parts ... and together they offer the opportunity to explore different combinations. And then compare these with BU equivalents and Stanley equivalents ........

You get the message. It became bigger than Ben Hur.

I'd like the articles to be a springboard for discussion here. Some of it is old stuff, but there is also new stuff. I can add, modify, include what is written to the articles.

1. Introduction: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes1.html

2. Designing a Plane: tips on choosing and tuning: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes2.html

3. Designing a Plane: Knobs and Handles - or how we really use a plane! : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes3.html

4. To Chipbreak or Not to Chipbreak: frog angle choice : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... anes4.html

Happy New Year and ...

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Andy Kev.]

That's a fascinating series of articles, particularly the bit on handles. I was thinking of switching to the more forward leaning style on my BU jointer, simply because it seemed more comfortable when I tried one on a L-N plane. I'll now take a closer look at how I push the thing before coming to a decision.

 

[Jacob]

For me it'd be the standard Bailey pattern, except no bolt-on frog - just a one piece casting, plus stayset cap iron, laminated blade and adjustable mouth Veritas style.

 

[mouppe]

My Veritas #4 is one of my most-used planes. It was the first hand plane I bought many years ago. But there is one minor drawback to the frog design and that is the narrow gap behind the adjustable mouth which hinders chamfering leg ends and other similar corners.

But it's a minor inconvenience to what is a very good plane.

 

[G S Haydon]

A great deal of hard work went into that Derek, very well thought out and good to read! It would of been nice to see a regular #4 Bailey in stock trim put through it's paces but there only so many planes that can be tested at once!

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Very interesting read, Derek. I have always thought the upright handles made sense, and have said so previously here. Bridge City tools have also reasoned the same on their very futuristic, high end planes. Good Ergonomics tends towards simpler shapes (correctly proportioned, obviously) being the most comfortable, especially for long periods of use and suiting a wider anthropometric demographic, than something more complex. I'd like to own one of these custom planes, but probably never will. I did make a component selection, for fun, on their virtual build a plane feature on the website, last year. I chose exactly the same specification as your best performing variant, in your article, based upon my experience and preferences!

Mike.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

A great deal of hard work went into that Derek, very well thought out and good to read! It would of been nice to see a regular #4 Bailey in stock trim put through it's paces but there only so many planes that can be tested at once!

Thanks Graham.

The "regular" #4 Bailey is not significantly different from the poshed up Bedrock #604 I used. I do find the (Stanley Replacement) Veritas chipbreaker for the #4 to be easier to set up than the original Stanley, and the thicker M4 blade does have less vibration and holds an edge longer ... but the differences for the small amount of wood planed in the tests, per se, would not amount to a lot. You can safely assume the results would hold for a regular #4.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hello,

... I'd like to own one of these custom planes, but probably never will. ...

Mike.

Hi Mike

The article was not really about the custom planes, although they feature centrally. My idea has always been that the features discussed belong to all types of planes, and especially the ones that you modify or may build for yourself in the future.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Biliphuster]

Great articles, extremely illuminating.

Those Japanese videos certainly made me think more about how I will set up my chipbreakers in future, although I rarely work tricky woods.

Just think of the arguments we could have now when adding included chipbreaker angle to the equation.

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks for the response Derek, I had a hunch that would be the case but as I have not tried a 604 I did not want to assume.

 

[OSM.]

Fantastic articles as always Derek, an interesting and informed read. How would you think unhandled planes compare in regards to force direction and effort expended as opposed to handled? i.e. coffin smoothers? One would imagine that it's even more subject to bench height as there is no set 'handle' - a wrist will find its own optimum position for a given height. Ah but the front hand....

With a coffin I tend to use two main grips, the first for fast heavy/moderate cuts where I wrap my front hand completely around the toe, more to guide the cut than press down - when your really going at it I find this affords the best control for that type of cut.

however for slower lighter cuts my thumb gravitates towards the wear, while my back hand tends to relax a bit, to better feel the grain and have more overall control. I guess less effort is expended pushing the plane, more can be channelled into direction of stroke and balance, say if your spot smoothing a particularly nasty patch.



I'll have to have a play over the weekend, and pay closer attention to the variables rather than just doing what feels right.

 

[OSM.]

forgot photos -

full grip

pinched grip

Ollie.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

Good stuff.
Am however curious if that was arthritic mp/ip joints only rather than carpus as well? With the latter (as well as arthritis in (esp pollux) mp and ip joints, I find the lack of wood higher up an advantage of the more shapely handle, as it allows good registration with pisiform/hypothenar eminence whilst allowing space for web and tender mp of pollux.
We're all weirdly different and find what works best for our own quirks, foibles and peculiarities

 

[Trafalgar]

All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.

I have one as well, Charles, and they can be good planes.

I know you are probably referring to the ECE smoother you have (still, after the fire?). However here is another, made by Kari Hultman a few years ago. Link to her site: http://villagecarpenter.blogspot.com.au ... art-x.html

What I find important, in the context of this thread on plane ergonomics, is how she uses it. Below is a video she made. In it it seems to me that her backhand pushes on the heel on the horizontal, while the front hand (on the horn) does not grasp it for grip or forward thrust, but stabilises her hand and then pushes down on the toe. What do you think?

And how do you use your horned smoother?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AqI6P12uGg

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

Just think of the arguments we could have now when adding included chipbreaker angle to the equation.

Those discussions have already happened!

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

All well and good, but I think it's hard to beat a horned plane for sheer comfort. Turned front knobs are no match for German horned planes or planes with front 'buns' for that matter. Accordingly, it's all an exercise in making the most comfortable version of a design that will always be less comfortable when compared to certain others.

I have one as well, Charles, and they can be good planes.

I know you are probably referring to the ECE smoother you have (still, after the fire?). However here is another, made by Kari Hultman a few years ago. Link to her site: http://villagecarpenter.blogspot.com.au ... art-x.html

What I find important, in the context of this thread on plane ergonomics, is how she uses it. Below is a video she made. In it it seems to me that her backhand pushes on the heel on the horizontal, while the front hand (on the horn) does not grasp it for grip or forward thrust, but stabilises her hand and then pushes down on the toe. What do you think?

And how do you use your horned smoother?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AqI6P12uGg

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's hard to argue with the craftsmanship on exhibit with the Hultman plane but I prefer the completely rounded back of the ECE, plus the adjustable mouth and positive adjusting mechanism. She's made a pretty plane but I'm not sure she's made one better than she could have bought but of course that isn't always the point and I understand that.

There's is little not to like with the ECE. It can be used essentially as a single-iron, tight mouthed high angle smoother if one wishes, or as a high angle, close capiron, slightly wider mouthed smoother as seems to be the fashion post Kato and Kawai (but admittedly with a higher angle). The adjustable mouth, rather than a moveable frog, makes all the sense in the world doesn't it? I certainly think so. The bottom can of course be easily kept flat over the years and the adjustable mouth takes up the wear from this as well.

One's hands seem to fall into place and with regard to the pushing hand, holding the plane doesn't result in essentially making a fist around a rear tote, which I find helpful for my arthritic thumb. In fact, I can keep this thumb extended (which reduces pain) and plane perfectly fine. This can be done on a regular tote too but for me doesn't seem to be as comfortable or effective. I understand the plane is also available in a left hand model where the horn leans in the opposite direction.

An iron with replaceable cutting edges is available (in packages of five) as are HSS cutters for working abrasive timbers, though Kunz also make HSS cutters that can replace those in Bailey pattern planes.

 

[n0legs]

I found it very interesting Derek.
I'm afraid I don't have a lot to add to a discussion but I will be watching this as it unfolds.
Your article, especially the frog angle section, has got me thinking (and plotting).
Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

[GLFaria]

Thank you very much, Derek, for these most interesting and informative articles - as always is the case with your writings, IMO.

G.

 

[Trafalgar]

New planes ... meet saturated market.

Hellloooo.