What's all this bevel up stuff anyway?

[Midnight]

I'll take a wild guess: a Shepherd kit!

naaaaaa.... much though I admire Ben's work... if I were to order an infill it'd have to be one of Konrad's...

The first part? What is it, Mike? Self assembly? Oh wait, no, it can't be... Oh commisserations. It must be broken... Bad luck.

Self assembly..?? ummmmm... not unless honing is self assembly... and everything passed muster upon delivery... thus far that is...

Give it to me slowly.......

you mean you want all the also rans too... or just the juicy bits...????

As for first part... this was the Axminster part... there's some to come from Mike Hancock followed by the last part... directly from Maine...

I guess I shouldn't bore with details... unless you're really interested...?????

Ahem....

:wink:

 

[Noel]

OK Mike, I've PM'd all the members and the collective consenus is a resouding no. We're not interested in what you got, no interest in how well (unlikely) it performs and certainly do not want to hear how your life has changed beyond all recognition. OK?

Rgds

Noel

PS PM me if you need to talk............

 

[Midnight]

LOL...... no worries Noel...

never was much of one to brag....

 

[Mike B]

Just a quick thought while we're on all this bevel up stuff - given the bevel up's ability to change angles, why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??

Surely they could just make the LA version and supply HA blades for folks requiring a standard angle block? Or will we see both low and standard angle bevel up smoothers/jacks etc in future...

Additionally, a standard angle bevel up smoother may make more sense for those wanting very high angles i.e. 60/70/80 degrees...

 

[Philly]

Mike
Tradition, probably!
Its taken a free thinker to "get it" and the rest is Veritas history........ :lol:
Cheers
Philly

 

[bugbear]

why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??

If you don't need the low angle option, a "standard" angle body is stronger.

BugBear

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??

Mike

I agree with Philly. It is probably done because it was always done this way. This is a good example of how much lateral thought was absent and, conversely, now that the awareness (that you can convert a LA to HA plane) has sunk in, why was it not obvious to all back then! (Part of the answer to this is in my original post in this thread, that being the poorer materials of that day for constructions we now take for granted).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Taffy Turner]

I must admit that when I had a first play with my LV LA Jack, my first thought (as a Chartered Mechanical Engineer) was "Crikey - this is much better than a standard plane - much simpler - why aren't / weren't all planes made this way?" It seems so obvious when you compare it with a standard design plane, and for so many different reasons. #-o

I can only assume it is because the materials of the day weren't up to it, as has been suggested by others. Either that, or the worst case of "we will do it this way as that is the way it has always been done" thinking in the history of the world! :-k

Gary

 

[Rob Lee]

Just a quick thought while we're on all this bevel up stuff - given the bevel up's ability to change angles, why do manufacturers make both low and standard angle block planes??

Surely they could just make the LA version and supply HA blades for folks requiring a standard angle block? Or will we see both low and standard angle bevel up smoothers/jacks etc in future...

Additionally, a standard angle bevel up smoother may make more sense for those wanting very high angles i.e. 60/70/80 degrees...

Hi Mike -

There are a few reasons - the largest being what consumers will buy. Keep in mind that bulletin board readers tend to be at the high end of the market - not just from a quality perspective - but from a knowledge (or a desire to acquire knowledge) perpective. Not everyone will even look at a bevel-up plane.

In some cases - there may manufacturing advantages to having a seperate frog - and certainly it's a good alternate method of throat adjustment. On a bevel up plane - having the front knob lock/loosen a plate only works for some sizes....

Also - material changes (primarily the invention of ductile iron) have enabled some different design choices.... grey iron is just too weak for a 12 degree bed angle - the bed tends to fracture at the mouth corners....and not every manufacturer uses ductile iron.

Cheers -

Rob

 

[Anonymous]

I have a Japanese plane with a cutting angle of 35 degrees, and bevel angle of 30 degrees. One of the cuttingest (yes that is a word... that I just made up) tools I ever owned. So I don't think the materials are the issue when it comes to low angle or simple design. As has often been pointed out low angle planes don't cut all that low, necesarily.

That plane evolved from a Japanese plane I bought at Lee Valley, oh about '79.

 

[Anonymous]

A few other things that probably don't bear mentioning:

1) Part of this discussion is the possibility that sub-blades/breakers are useless. Not sure this is totaly true, but it is fairly true as they are generally configured, so any time you can make a metalhead plane maker design a plane around throwing these things out, it's a win for most users.

2) Does the bevel really know which way is up? Isn't it all about cutting and clearance angles, and are we really to believe that a blade secured more by the adjuster mechanism, vs. clamping to the bed is a better design?

3) In one sense the blade sometimes does know which way is up. Which side of the blade has the deeper scratches from sharpenig/laping all that stuff. That stuff should be down for the best cut. And I would venture to say that in many cases that furoughs are on the back, so bevel up it is. No consistancy though, an individual thing mostly.

Now for information only, not relavant really, what plane type perfectly answers in these three areas? Yes you guessed correctly, Japanese planes don't have any of these problems. Not that anyone cares all that much.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes! What Derek said!
Not to mention that even Shepherd toolworks has developed a bevel-up infill, which they call their "improved pattern" miter plane and which is meant to be used as a bevel-up smoother:

Hi Folks;
I'm new to this forum but I thought I'd pop in after seeing this post. The design isn't so new Frank. The "Improved pattern" mitre sans handle has been around since circa 1870 and our design is based on the original Spiers plane. We offer it in it's original form and with a handle as it is a little ackward to use without the handle. What we did add to the line was a really low angle version. The standard mitre is bedded at 20 degrees while our LA version of the plane is 12.5 degrees.

Best regards
Ben
www.shepherdtool.com

 

[Philly]

Thanks for the info Ben!
And welcome to the forum-come on by anytime!
Cheers
Philly

 

[Alf]

Welcome, Ben. I dunno; adding a handle and the option of a lower bedding angle seems fairly "new" to me. :-k

Cheers, Alf

 

[Frank D.]

Hi Ben,
Thanks for the info. I like the handle and at least in my mind it seems like it would give the original version a lot more control to use as a smoother.
Glad my post made you drop in, feel free to do it more often!
Frank

 

[Midnight]

1) Part of this discussion is the possibility that sub-blades/breakers are useless. Not sure this is totaly true, but it is fairly true as they are generally configured, so any time you can make a metalhead plane maker design a plane around throwing these things out, it's a win for most users.

Ahem...

Horsefeathers.!!!!

Peter... I suggest you try a bevel down plane minus its chip breaker to fully understand its contribution...

 

[Frank D.]

I don't want to stand in the way of Scottish diplomacy, and I don't have any bevel-down planes without chipbreakers, but Larry Williams of Clark and Williams doesn't think they (chipbreakers) contribute anything either.
I would think that if they are close enough to the cutting edge they do help chip formation (reduce tearout) by breaking the shavings sooner (type I chips) or at least helping them to bend (type II chips), and they also help to dampen vibrations. Brent Beach has also found a difference when they are placed very close ( a few thou) to the edge.
Here's the article by Clark and Williams:
http://www.planemaker.com/articles/dblirn.html
Frank

 

[Midnight]

Frank... I'm familiar with the article, but I'll stick to my guns.. a bevel down blade needs a chip breaker (and a damn good one at that)... When properly tuned and set, a chip breaker will make a hellova difference to how the blade behaves, both, as you pointed out, in deflecting the shaving and in ensuring proper contact between the blade and its seat.

I guess the only way around that would be to make the blade from a very thick piece of steel... classic plough planes are a prime example; Although their width varies, my plough blades have been forged to an effective thickness of around a half inch... massivly thick... working with them is an interesting experience...

 

[bugbear]

When properly tuned and set, a chip breaker will make a hellova difference to how the blade behaves

Indeed. Removing the chip breaker from a plane designed to have one is going to make it work very badly indeed.

The more interesting question is whether a chipbreaker is a neccessary part of the design of a plane.

The consensus, from C&W, Steve Knight, and the entire bevel up brigade is yes.

BugBear

 

[Alf]

The more interesting question is whether a chipbreaker is a neccessary part of the design of a plane.

The consensus, from C&W, Steve Knight, and the entire bevel up brigade is yes.

Yes? :-k You sure?

Cheers, Alf