Woodriver 5 1/2 a personal view.

[David C]

WOODRIVER 5 ½ JACK PLANE V3. 27/11/14

I am just sending off this plane, which came to me as part of a passaround, kindly organized by Peter Sefton.
There have been at least three You Tube videos, giving the impression that the planes work after a very rapid sharpening. They may work, but are not tuned up to the extent that a demanding craftsman would want. To be fair none of the major firms produce bench planes which need no subsequent work.

1 The chipbreakers or cap irons supplied both needed work on both surfaces of the front edge. I was particularly disappointed with the IBC chipbreaker which had a significant back bevel. Someone was not paying attention at the factory. What is “matched” supposed to mean? This was not of the quality of the Cosman matched set I reviewed some time ago, and took a considerable amount of work to perfect. (The back bevel would have caused choking, when a fine mouth was set).

2 The IBC blade also had a steep backbevel which served no purpose and took a while to hone past.

3 Flatness of the back of the IBC blade was excellent, the Woodriver was significantly hollow in width and bent in its length. This is odd as Quangsheng blades which I have seen tend to be good.

4 The handle shape still does not accommodate a large hand comfortably. This could probably be fixed by filing as much too much meat has been left at the top and the base. A quick comparison with a Stanley handle will show what I mean.

5 The shape does not aid adjustments “on the fly”, one is too close to the enlarged adjustment wheel.

6 The wheel now obstructs access to the frog fore and aft screw, and it seems that wheel removal is not possible without moving the frog or removing the pin from the yoke.

7 The new yoke shape seems sensible.

8 The changed side shape and position of rib at the front of the sole casting are good. Better thumb access.

9 Modern chipbreakers continue to bend the iron slightly, so it is only supported at the heel of the bevel and top of frog slope. It does not (usually) sit flat on the entire frog surface. This is not a problem and can be seen with a small magnifying glass!

10 Centre screw in frog is sloppy as in many other planes, these benefit from a cleaning and a couple of drops of Locktite (nutlock).
Now, I am not trying to put anyone off, these pointers are almost universally applicable. The V3 has very well machined sole, sides and frog. It will make an excellent plane at an excellent price. I just don’t subscribe to the view that planes work to their best, out of the box. In fact I find that concept totally ludicrous.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Cheshirechappie]

By the sounds of it, the major things (suitably flat and finished sole, fit of frog casting to sole casting, blade face flatness of frog for example) are acceptable.

Out of interest, David, how do you find the T10 irons? Are they fit for duty, and how do they compare to other makers and materials?

 

[Ed Bray]

After spending many hours trying to fettle a Stanley #3 and whilst better it is still not great and having a Record #6 still to do, I decided to bite the bullet and buy a Woodriver #3 and #6, and whilst I will take on board your observations David, I suspect I will arrive at having a suitable plane (for my skill level) much quicker when starting from a stable base.

 

[David C]

I do a planing exercise with my students. five faces of a board with plenty of repetition. All I notice is that T10 goes blunt before my Hock A2 iron.

This is hardly surprising, Hock costs about twice as much!

Not a very scientific test.

David

 

[Trafalgar]

Curiosity has gotten the better of me David and I can't help but wonder whether all of your students are able to afford an entire kit of premium planes (at least jack, jointer, and smoother) at price points around those of L-N and Clifton.

If not, what do you do? And what is the end result?

 

[bugbear]

Curiosity has gotten the better of me David and I can't help but wonder whether all of your students are able to afford an entire kit of premium planes (at least jack, jointer, and smoother) at price points around those of L-N and Clifton.

If not, what do you do? And what is the end result?

David's methods of performance tuning hand planes are well documented.

I imagine he gets his students to apply them.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Good for business then...?

 

[bugbear]

Good for business then...?

His students have turned up and paid to be taught skills by David.

He teaches them.

Which part of this is troublesome to you?

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

None of it. I own all David's books. I think he's a brilliant woodworker and technician.

His article(s) on tuning Bailey pattern planes set the standard IMO.

 

[David C]

Well thank you Charles!

As you may imagine my students have spanned all ages and experience.

I insist on a 5, or 5/1/2 and a block plane, some come with a 6. Other planes are available in the workshop for students to try, and use on their projects. The large shoulder plane or block rebate are much used. The large scraper plane might be used on a veneered table top.

Otherwise I find that all work can be done with a 5 1/2.

I encourage people to tune an old Stanley or Record with a quality replacement blade. However some will prefer to buy Quangsheng, Veritas or Lie-Nielsen, (now of course Woodriver).

best wishes,
David

 

[mark w]

I recently purchased two Quangsheng blades, one was significantly concave in its length the other convex, when I put them in my Lie Nielsen 5 1/2 the adjustment in and out was affected, lurching backwards and forwards, terrible and not precise, they were returned.

 

[JimF.]

I am confused. Nothing new there! Is this the same plane that Graham reviewed? Because I seem to remember him mentioning that he 'fettled' the cap irons amongst other things.

 

[Ed Bray]

I am confused. Nothing new there! Is this the same plane that Graham reviewed? Because I seem to remember him mentioning that he 'fettled' the cap irons amongst other things.

Same model, type, different plane.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I do a planing exercise with my students. five faces of a board with plenty of repetition. All I notice is that T10 goes blunt before my Hock A2 iron.

This is hardly surprising, Hock costs about twice as much!

Not a very scientific test.

David

I'm not sure that I've seen a properly scientific comparative test of different plane blade steels, though one or two people have done reasonably careful workshop based comparisons. Lots of people seem to hold strong opinions, too.

I have to admit that I'm not really a seeker of extended blade life between sharpenings. All my cutting irons - plane, chisel, spokeshave etc, are either modern O1 or vintage steels of whatever composition, and with a simple sharpening regime that's quick to use at the bench, touching up a dulling edge is not a real problem; I also have no difficulty getting very sharp edges if I want them. There again, I very rarely use abrasive or ultra-hard timbers; my attitude may be different if I did.

The good thing these days is that we have choice. Simple steels and a simple sharpening regime, accepting that edge life may not be the world's best; or the more complex alloys that may require a more refined (and more costly) sharpening regime, but give longer edge life. Whichever is 'the better choice' is more down to the work undertaken, personal circumstances and inclination than it is to scientific absolutes. The bottom line is that all (perhaps bar the 'blades' in the absolute bargain basement tool-shaped objects) are fit for purpose, it's just that their characteristics when pushed to extremes may be a little different, that's all.

 

[G S Haydon]

I am confused. Nothing new there! Is this the same plane that Graham reviewed? Because I seem to remember him mentioning that he 'fettled' the cap irons amongst other things.

Hi Julian,

It is not the same plane but it was a V3 and looked just like the QS #4 I had for a bit. I did not have the chance to try out the IBC iron, it was just the T10 and the regular plane. The new style cap irons on most new planes come to such a sharp point that I find makes tight cap iron work harder. I just added a slightly steeper secondary bevel to the front of the cap iron to sort that. A very quick job, couple of mins.

Cheers

 

[Jacob]

.....
The good thing these days is that we have choice. ....

It's a selling/commercial choice of little value to a woodworker. In fact would probably be better without it - then you have to make it work for you whatever it is, rather than dithering around with dozens of imaginary alternatives. It's not as though woodworking had magically improved in the age of choice. If anything it's gone downhill.

 

[iNewbie]

And there you have it from the Oracle of Nonsense.... :roll:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It's a selling/commercial choice of little value to a woodworker. In fact would probably be better without it - then you have to make it work for you whatever it is, rather than dithering around with dozens of imaginary alternatives. It's not as though woodworking had magically improved in the age of choice. If anything it's gone downhill.

Can't say I agree with ANY of that - but Hey-Ho! Opinions!

 

[Fromey]

Hi Julian,

It is not the same plane but it was a V3 and looked just like the QS #4 I had for a bit. I did not have the chance to try out the IBC iron, it was just the T10 and the regular plane. The new style cap irons on most new planes come to such a sharp point that I find makes tight cap iron work harder. I just added a slightly steeper secondary bevel to the front of the cap iron to sort that. A very quick job, couple of mins.

Cheers

Hi Graham,

I'm finding it a bit difficult to work out where you put the bevel. Top or bottom of the edge? Perhaps, if it's not too much trouble, you put up a picture or diagram. I for one would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Jacob]

It's a bit like buying trainers. There are hundreds of them including some intended for specific uses. But when it comes down to it, whichever you choose as long as they fit it won't make an iota of difference to your performance (within reason).
The illusion of choice.