LN Handplane - bench vs. block

That is the exception that proves the rule!

Don Thompson - South of Miami

>

Re: Traditional Tools

Ernie Miller Topeka

>http://host65.ipowerweb.com/~traditi2/forum/index.php

This is rogers site it is more of an depository of information than a discussion group as the number of regular visitors is low compaired to WC but there is lots of info if you dig around.

Re: I wasn`t talking about...

Todd Hughes

>I don't know if I would personaly go that far but I guess you could be right with a person today reading about how great these low angle bench planes are and dismissing regular bench planes out of hand.Yours Is a good point.

Traditionaly I think woodworkers esp.Americans, were a group that were pretty open to change and sorted though hundereds ,[thousands?] of tool designs till the best survived and others got left by the wayside. Sort of a tool survival of the fittest which probably by 1930 or so reached it's Zenith.I can't think of any REAL improvements to tools since about that time. Can you? I think Stanley since it was such a large company could make some planes ,like the 164 [which was made for about 15 years] longer that no one really wanted or thought they needed because their other planes sold in such large numbers but still the market just wasn't there and it got dropped. Not because woodworkers were hesistant to try new designs, after all "stranger" planes like the Gage line were pretty popular but I think that these Low angle bench planes were an answear to a problim that not many wood workers knew they had....Todd

Good Point !

Todd Hughes

>Bedrocks while certainly not as common as a regular "Bailey" plane are not what I would call a Rare plane like say the 164. Bedrocks were made for around 40 years going though many changes and I would have to say was a succes for Stanley with many many being sold.The 164 was cataloged for about 15 years and I bet it took that long to sell the first years production ! Both Bedrocks and the 164 were what I guess would be called "Niche" planes aimed at a smaller wood working market then the regualr bailey Planes.The Bedrock did well in this small market while no one wanted the 164 and it flopped. I would think if woodworkers back them thought they needed a low angle bench plane while a 164 would not be as popular as a no. 4 plane they would be as common as a 604 maybe....Todd

Re: LN Handplane - bench vs. block

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Greg...Thom Lie Nielsen agreees that the low angle jack is the place to start. Most versitile and most affordable.JR

Re: LN Handplane - bench vs. block

Todd Hughes

>Is interesting to see what Stanley thought was the market was for these low angle planes like the 164 and 62. Reading in my original Stanley catalog from 1929 under low angle block planes they say the low angle of the cutter makes them easier to plane across hardwood. For the 62 and the 164 they say they are for "cutting across the grain on heavy wood where more power is required then can be obtained from the use of a block plane" I take this to mean end grain,[didn't say figured wood] and I think it shows that the 62 and the 164 were thought of as larger replacements for block planes and not as a replacement for a regular Bailey or Bedrock type plane.I feel not many people thought they needed a replacement for thier block planes esp. one of this size and one that cost about twice what a block plane did .....Todd

Re: LN Handplane - bench vs. block

Greg Sloop

>That's all well and good, but I'm talking about today. I'm talking about modern wood-working.

Just bacause Daddy liked his Packard doesn't mean it's the car for me.

With my #62 I can do end grain just fine.

I can hog off lots of material with a toothed blade or lower angle irons. (One can still do this with high angle blades, but it's more work.)

I can clearly see that it handles highly figured wood well. (In the most recent case, QS Sycamore - very highly figured - QS Lacewood isn't a problem either.)

It's *cheaper* than the LN #5, the counter-part of the #62. (I can throw in two extra irons and still be cheaper, or the toothed and one standard iron for the same price. The #62 is $225 and the #5 is $300.)

So, perhaps given the environment at the time, the #62 wasn't a reasonable alternative. (But I never underestimate herd mentality. A bizillion people still use Microsoft products that are total trash. One could speculate this must be because it is/was a better product, but it's more because everyone else has them.)

But what about now.

I've got a #62 and I'm really happy with it. I can't find any reason it won't do anything the #5.

I guess in short my problem with your argument is that it's made assuming that yester-years wood-workers made the right choice. I'm not sure that *is* the case, but even given it was then, is it now.

I've yet to hear a reason from anyone using today's planes make this assertion.

This isn't intended as an argument, but simply wanting to rely on solid evidence (imperical if possible) that would show in exactly what ways the #5 is superior to the #62 with normal and high angle blades, for example.

Thanks for the discussion.

Cheers,

Greg

Bevel Up versus Bevel Down Questions... (Long)

Jonathan Kaplan (OR)

>This (rather long) thread got me thinking about what kinds of reasons there could be for one style of plane to not be as popular as another.

The obvious answer � which I think some posters are supporting � is that there is something superior about the model that became more popular. In this case, the argument seems to be that bevel-down �bench-sized� (and larger) planes are superior in some way to bevel-up �bench-sized� (and larger) planes � this could have to do with some subtle feature of the cutting geometry, or with e.g., the cost of manufacture given the same feature-set (ie., to make a 164 that was ergonomically as nice to use, had the adjustable mouth, added effective lateral adjustment, etc. would be more costly than to make a #4 that had the same set of useful features, albeit perhaps harder to use � in principle if not in practice). Or it could be that subtle problems with the bevel-up design prevented it from being widely adopted � Leach for example notes that on both the 62 and the 164 �the mouth can easily chip and the bottom of the rosewood knob can breakout due to frequent adjusting of the mouth�... Perhaps the limitations of the design in this way prevented its wide-spread adoption, given the work-habits of the day...

Another possible answer � again, which I think some posters are supporting � is that the reason the bevel-down style was more popular had to do with tradition, a lack of familiarity with the bevel-up style, etc. One possible story would be about the transition from wood to Bailey-style metal planes � wood planes, for obvious reasons, are easier to make bevel-down, especially if one wants a relatively low cutting angle, as one often does for softer woods. Since people were generally used to bevel-down planes, and there was no great need to change for most people (most people were not planing highly figured tropical woods, after all � nor are most people now) � that is, there was no reason to switch to higher-angle planes, nor was there any reason to need the extra support near the tip of the blade. This story appeals to a kind of inertia � it isn�t that bevel-down planes are *better* � they were just familiar, and did things well enough that there was no reason to change.

I want to stress that I�m not supporting either of these stories, nor any variants of them here. Rather, I�m wondering what evidence we can find to support one or the other of these positions? The relative costs of the planes at the time might be part of the answer, but unless we know what ideas for improvement Stanley considered and rejected as likely too costly, we won�t know all the answer.

It might be that, in the end, it doesn�t matter *why* e.g. 164's are rare � the fact is that they are, and the question becomes: is there any reason to prefer bevel-up to bevel-down planes *now* (given the improvements in some manufacturing techniques, etc.)? But there does seem to be some interest in *why* bevel-down bench-sized planes were more popular, and I�m curious about how people think that answering the question should be approached.

Sorry for such a long post!

jk

Re: LN Handplane - bench vs. block

Todd Hughes

>Your augument that while a now obsolete Packard might have been fine car for your Daddy it isn't the car for you today is a good one....except with you using a LN 164 your ARE driving a "Packard" since it is basically the same plane that Stanley sold,[or tried to sell] back in the 1920's

While I know that woodworkers today feel they have to use more exotic woods then the avarage woodworker did traditionaly I really don't think there is all that much difference in the way the wood is worked today when done by hand.Again your plane of choice is a 80 year old design.If you find that your LN 164 works better for you then other planes you have that you have tried that is fine. I'm glad that you have found a plane you like so much over others, but tradtionaly others I do not think have thought the same for what ever reason other wise more would have bought this now rare plane. You said you have a problim with my augument because " is that it is made assuming that yesterdays woodworkers made the right choice.I'm not sure that "IS" the case, but even if it was then is it now?...I've yet to hear a reason from anyone using todays planes make this assertion"....I don't know but for this to be true you would have to ignor the very large population of wood workers today that use and even prefer fine vintage planes like Stanleys, English Infills and others that were the choice of many past wood workers and find them perfectly suitable.....Todd

Re: The empirical data!!

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>OK folks, I'm throwing away the biggest surprise of my whole study. Here's some numbers, the bigger the better the surface. For the details (and the specific angles involved) you'll have to wait.

They are derived from multiple samples, of multiple woods, using three different evaluations, two of which were single blind.

Best performance means highest performing effective cutting angle for the plane style in question.

Best performance of a Lee Valley #4.5 a score of 8

Best performance of a Lee Valley LA smoother a score of 13

Best performane of a Spiers style #7 a score of 13.5

For best performance of a woodie and the spectacular SMT you'll have to wait.

I didn't go into the investigation feeling all that fondly about bevel up nominally Low Angle planes (and have been noted for feeling fondly about the LV and L-N versions of the 4.5. I have ended the study a believer in the bevel up plane design (as I might add, has Karl Holtey who choose it for his own ground up design). My recent experience with a recent another bevel up prototype has only increased my appreciation for its possibilities. Frankly, I now believe the bevel up design is inherently superior to the bevel down design, for cast iron bodied planes, but irrespective of what I believe, the numbers speak for themselves.

Bevel up vs down: marketing is king

Angus Barclay, in New Zealand

>The relative technical merits of bevel up vs bevel down planes are interesting, but the popularity of different plane styles is all about marketing.

Woodworkers are no different from any other customers in their susceptibility to marketing.

If a manufacturer or retailer promotes its products well, then customers will stump up the cash to buy.

Reality has little to do with sales success but percpetions are all important. Perceptions about the price, relative merits, desirability, quality and a bunch of other factors are what drive sales success.

In its heyday, Stanley was the tool equivalent of Microsoft. Neither makes the technically best, highest quality or cheapest but they dominate their market. They use a combination of their own and other people's ideas and they make any and every feature imaginable available to customers if they think it will sell.

The common link is that both are among the best marketers of their time.

regards

Angus Barclay

The Volkswagen assertion *LINK*

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Luke,

I offer the comments below and link further below as my refutation of the Volkswagen assertion.

I worked briefly as a VW mechanic, in the era when they were deciding where to place the new smog equipment on the car by handing a component to a junior engineer, placing him/her (blindfolded) about ten feet from the car, saying "Now! Throw it at the car!" and then attaching it wherever it hit.

The best 1938 design ever to survive into the 1970's (in the US) and to the turn of the century(in Mexico).

Bill, who can still remember repairing his sweetie's 1962 bus on top of an overpass in early January in Michigan - a half hour project on any other vehicle, even in the 5 degree weather, in just three painful hours!


VW = best made car ever?

Re: Bevel Up versus Bevel Down Questions... (Long)

Todd Hughes

>A 164 cost new in 1929 $4.90 while a regular number 4 cost $4.20 and a Bedrock cost $4.60. Befor people say "why .70 cents was a weeks pay way back then and people couldn't afford it" and that was why no one wanted 164's I will point out that a number 6 plane cost over $2.00 more then a number 4 and they sure sold them by the ton.Also as to wood workers not being familer with low angle planes and that being the reason 164s were such poor sellers it certainly didn't seem to prevent them from buying low angle block planes in large numbers....Todd

Re: LN Handplane - bench vs. block

Greg Sloop

>I'll quit this tired argument with these words.

If Galileo had simply bowed to the belief that the vast majority of his peers and forebearers were right about the a great many scientific ideas, we might still believe that the earth was the center of the universe.

I'm not proposing the "old-timers" were wrong. I'm just not willing to blindly accept they were right unless someone can demonstrate to me they were.

Fact is, most hand planes haven't changed much - bevel up or bevel down. The materials and manufacturing tolerances are certainly better, but has there been serious scientific study of the problems and those results applied to making better tools, esp handplanes? In some cases, in many others no.

I'm not attempting to proclaim "MY PLANE IS BETTER THAN YOURS." What I'm asking is...

Is there some reason I ought to use a bench bevel down plane rather than the bench-bevel-up plane, other than "it's what everyone knows and swears by" (or at...)

I can tell you on my QS Sycamore (I was back out planing bottoms for some boxes out of the same wood) that 37deg will tear the stuff to pieces. Even ~52deg will leave small tear out. But when I moved to ~62deg tear-out vanished. In fact, I can nearly plane in either grain direction and not notice the difference!

So, clearly, higher angles work pretty neat results on highly figured woods. I would guess that this is also true for the bevel down planes. The hard part, is how to "convert" your 4 1/2 45deg to a 4 1/2 60 deg or more? It sure isn't easy or cheap. (Two plane irons are less than a single frog - plus, LN doesn't make a 60 deg frog.)

I guess, in short, I eagerly await the results of Lyn's paper, as it addresses the subject in as much a scientific method as possible (or so it appears) - certainly more than any work on the subject I'm currently aware of...

Cheers,

Greg

Re: The empirical data!!

Greg Sloop

>Wow...

Thanks Lyn!

I, and I'm sure a boat-load of others are eagerly awaiting your scientific results! *grin*

(I never expected to raise such discussion and never thought I'd get such a great answer "on a platter" so to speak.)

Do hurry with that thing. It's going to burn your hands if you hang on any longer...

Thanks again!

Greg

Re: I'm curious Greg

Todd O. Cronkhite Native of Maine

>I knew you where just jesting Greg, but I didn't know why. It did seem to be a bit out of place, and unnecessay, but I did know that you meant no malice. Just kinda' seemed like a fly on top of the whipped cream instead of a cherry.

Todd O.

Re: The empirical data!!

joel

>Thanks for the preview. If the SMT plane performs as well or better than of course it shows the bevel design isn't as critical as fit and finish on the planes.

However as you yourself have said many times the point of your study is to show the maximum potential of each design. However 99.9 % of the planes in the world are used at less than optimum situations. The blade is more than a few strokes away from perfect sharpness. The plane is as manufactured not as highly tuned.

Also as a person who mills wood by hand what I consider even more important is the comfort level. The ergonomics. Fatigue in use. And in the case of smooth planes the shortest sole possible.

The real problem with collecting emperical data on handplanes is that there are so many important variable and features that make it impossible to consistently relate performance between different users - even ones with the same tool.

Even if the claim is scientifically true - and within the confines of your test cases, and your enviroment I can't see why it wouldn't be, I would suggest it doesn't extrapolate to the performance of bevel up planes in the real world. Even today, amongst for example LN users. Most of the people who have both types of LN planes - prefer the bevel down bench planes. Not that anyone says the bevel up planes are bad - they just prefer the bevel down versions.

Re: The Volkswagen assertion

Luke Herzberg

>Hi Bill, yes I have to say "best car ever" somewhat tongue in cheek, but VW's are still one of those love 'em or hate 'em things in life that almost everybody has an opinion on because almost everybody has owned one at some point in their life. Your statement of best '30's design to survive in later years is a good description of what they truly were, which was innovation, economy and style defined by function. They were ahead of their time, but time caught up with them and passed them (on a hill no doubt).

My first car was a bug and its still hanging around although long since retired from being my daily driver.

For the VW fans out there, if you haven't read "Small Wonder", check it out. Lots of interesting history and a good read too.

- Luke

Re: The Volkswagen assertion

Todd Hughes

>While i don't own one right now I guess I have had around 30 VW's over the years and have to say there is somthing about them that is just special. Seems that people either love them.... or hate them. I used to drive an old 65 convertable and a friend had a tricked out corvette and always irked him to no end the number of people,[esp. young pretty girls!] that made a fuss over my car while ignoring his.Once traded a Austin heally 3000 for a VW Thing Jeep and I never regetted it. I've had faster, fancier and more dependable cars then a VW but when I get to heaven I think there is going to be a Red '67 convertable waiting for me ! ......Todd , who if he goes south instead will be driving something with a Lucas positive ground electrical system

Re: Traditional Tools

Tony Z.

>Thanks Ernie--always looking for a good distraction to help me make through work!

Re: The Volkswagen assertion

Bob Nelson

>Todd likes VWs so much he says he's had about 30. He later says they aren't as dependable as some others - which his having had 30 would seem to indicate. I've been driving for 57 years, my wife in her own separate cars for about 30 years, a daughter with her own cars for 31 years and a son with his own cars for 20 years. All four of us together haven't had 30 cars. One or the other of us have had almost every make there is other than a VW. Bob

Re: The Volkswagen assertion

Todd Hughes

>Well I did once own 6 at one time! When I said I probably had 30 of them that didn't reflect that I was buying a new one each time to replace one that broke down but rather I would sell or trade one off to get another.I owned mostly 1950's and 60's models and I do think they are about as dependable as or better then most cars from this time period but I don't think they can be said to be a dependable as a modern Japanese car of course. I drive a Honda with 180,000 miles on it and i have never done anything to it but change the oil and it runs like new,[and gets 40mpg].A girlfriend just got rid of a Toyota van that had 290,000 miles on it after it blew a head gasket and that was the first thing to go wrong with it excepet for some brake work.Didn't even use any oil. Really sort of amazing I think....Todd

You don't unnerstand, Todd

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Those young pretty girls weren't really fussing over the car - that was just an excuse to get your attention, because they'd mistaken you for Brad Pitt.

Lucas - The Prince of Darkness!

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>