When do you choose LA over 45 degrees?

Well Jim...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>You should page down a few days and see the horror...the horror...This is becomming...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Re: When do you choose LA over 45 degrees? *LINK*

Greg Sloop

>There's a huge thread started in the last day or two.

I've generally made the decision to forgo the bevel down sets and work with bevel up planes only. (They will probably all be LN's, as a side note.)

I simply buy one or two extra irons and up the angle on the aditional irons to 40-50 deg - making for 50-60+ total angles.

I've recently done some QS Sycamore and at ~62 deg it works very nicely.

Anyway, read the thread - some very interesting posts, expecially IMHO, from Lyn Mangiameli.

See what you think.

Cheers,

Greg


Thread on LN Low angle jack #62, and LA planes in

Re: When do you choose LA over 45 degrees? *LINK*

Greg Sloop

>Sorry, screwed up the link...


http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?read=32560

My two cents

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Jim,

Not that I know anything or my opinion counts (how�s that for a beginning?):

I never use LA planes and never see a need for one. That doesn�t mean they don�t work well. But isn�t that the point and (hopefully) the question here? I think its great to quantify stuff, and I read Lyn�s posts comapring planes and plane designs (like all of you) with great interest. And I appreciate them. But I don�t work figured cocobolo, and I�ve never seen a chippendale chest on chest made from it. And I think there are good reasons for that.

Boards I can�t smooth with a $10 wooden ebay special and a scraper made from a saw�s blade, I skip. They probably won�t keep still anyway. Also, smoothing is only one operation. What value is there in a really smooth table, with its molded edges all torn out out? To a great extent I like some surface imperfections in my work. The divots in my surfaces match my gappy joints, rough moldings, cracks, and glue drips.

Maybe I�m off base. I don�t mean to be disrespectful to anyone, especially Lyn who obviously works very hard and provides valuable information. Maybe I�m attempting to answer Todd�s question about why one plane didn�t sell well 100 years ago, but when the speed limit is 55, doesn�t the difference between the top speed of a Ferrari and a Porsche seems pretty irrelevant?

Adam

I call the question

Greg B�tit

>Adam�s introductory sentence reminded me of my next door neighbor when I lived in Roxbury, VT about 20 years ago. He was a retired machinist and was so self-effacing that there was a real danger of a newcomer not recognizing his wisdom (on everything from firewood and gardening to mechanism design). But I noticed that at town meeting the discussions would go on and on until someone would say: �Let�s hear what Clyde says.� If they could coax him to stand up, he�d always begin the way Adam did: �Well, I don�t know much about that, but�� The question was generally called immediately after he was done and everyone would vote with Clyde, including some who were just a few minutes before heatedly arguing the other side.

Greg

Re: My two cents

Scott Post

>Adam writes: But I don�t work figured cocobolo, and I�ve never seen a chippendale chest on chest made from it.

I've always wondered about this. I see tons comments regarding the need for planes for working nasty grained exotics with some recommending our entire bench plane arsenals should come from Lie Nielsen. You'd think based on how often it comes up that people are using incredibly figured woods for everything from spice racks to Hepplewhite break fronts. It's interesting that I very seldom see pictures of items from these woods posted given that they apparently constitute the majority of work. I'm starting to feel inferior for using mostly straight grained domestics. Good thing I've got Adam as a partner in mediocrity. Other than a small stash of curly maple (used sparingly as an accent wood) my racks are full of poplar, ash, and walnut.

Now, I do keep a couple special planes in reserve for uncooperative woods and grain reversals, but nearly all my work is done with old wooden bench planes with gaping mouths. Straight grained walnut just isn't challenging enough to warrant $1000 worth of bench planes.

I will chime in on the low angled issue though (and answer Jim's original question). Even though I love wooden bench planes and think they're the best bang for the buck, low angled planes are inherently superior by allowing one to get the same effective cutting angle while giving better support to the iron right up to the cutting edge. Raise the bevel up to 38 degrees or so and you've got a high angled smoother with excellent blade support for those figured woods everyone is using so much of. Just do most of your work with plain old 45 degree bedded bench planes - they're cheaper and take a lot less effort to push.

Re: My two cents

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I think your point is quite sound. Indeed, one of the things I will be pointing out in the write up is just how many of the woods were planed quite acceptably by any of the planes at pretty much any of the angles. Which of course is why a lot of woodworkers are satisfied, if not downright pleased, with such a wide variety of planes.

Of course there are times when an individual board we work is more challenging. Even from a species of wood that has been very successfully planed in the past. Then we have four choices: Using another board (hard to do if the piece is already assembled); Living with the defects (as you say,sometimes this is in character with the piece; Switching to another procedure like scraping or sanding; or Using a plane (or sometimes merely switching to a different blade geometry)that offers a higher standard of performance than is usually required. I try to identify what will work in the latter situation (in no small measure because that would be my personal choice), but respect all the other choices as well.

Re: On cars

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Back when the 55 mph limit was imposed in the 1970's, my form of social protest and entertainment was to travel the Nebraska and Nevada interstates (the places I lived during those years) in an old Porsche going double the "double nickel". It was also the era of CB radio and when others might remark, I replied the "double" thing and most were amused if not encouraging. Now if I had been able to afford a Ferrari or Lamborghini or Porsche Turbo that would have let me go triple the double nickel, that would have really been fun. High performance in almost everthing has always had an appeal for me. So yah, I love planing even poplar with an SMT Loopie.

The power of Lyn

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Maybe pointless clarification of an earlier point:

For me the power of Lyn lies in the understanding of why, and the analysis of how. Fine shavings are produced by tight mouths, not blade depth. Curly woods are handled best by high angles, chatter is removed by....

In the past, I've viewed Lyn's articles as Hand Tool Consumer Reports on steroids. Now I think that's a mistake. Obvioulsy my mistake. But I suspect I may be typical.

Semi-seriously:

You know, you look at Lyn's article, and its three pages long. So you skip to the conclusions. He picks the Holtey, but you can't afford it so you choose the LN super-frog 4-7/8 instead. Lyn probably thinks of it as analysis but to me, its a buyers' guide!

Kidding aside:

The whole subject interests me (I guess I'm coming late to the party) since we so often get requests like Jim's about which plane or which chisel. (BTW have you noticed that?) This isn't an indightment, but I almost never hear "how should I hold my: chisel, plane, saw, etc".

Do we need a Hand Tools FAQ that would cover questions we have addressed repeatedly (I'm not complaining)?

1) Which brand of chisel should buy?

2) If I can only buy one plane which should it be?

3) What DT saw should I buy?

The FAQ would reflect our collective wisdom? Any minority/dissenting points of view could be easily handled with links to previous discussions.

Anybody interested?

Adam

Re: My two cents

Greg Sloop

>Adam, just a reply - not a challenge...

I don't get much time to work in the shop. (Computer consultant, self employed - making way too little - why work for someone else forty hours a week when you can work for yourself a hundred... *grin*) So, when I do get time, I want to actually work and make some progress.

(Oh, did I mention I only have a single car garage with lots of other junk, along with my table saw, router table, bandsaw and portable planer?)

So, I'm sure I could have lived with trashier tools. I could have cleaned up an old Stanley etc. (I do have a couple modern stanley's and even tuned as good as I could get them, I'd rather cut wood with a phillips screwdriver!)

So, sure, I spent way too much for my tools. I admit it. (I've got an Incra fence on the TS too.) But I'm such a trashy wood-worker that having a fence that is accurate to .001" and handplanes that just work right, right out of the box is really nice. I'd never get any stuff done otherwise.

So, while I respect those who can do the McGyver thing and build a great handplane out of duct tape, old butter containers, a couple of pieces of string and a fork - I'm simply not able. And even if I was, I'd never get to actually working on wood anyway - my primary reason for "wood-working."

And maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but a bunch of the projects I've done so far, mostly small, have used pretty figured wood. Lacewood, Flame maple, QS Sycamore, etc. I like doing small boxes too, and it comes in handy there...

So, some of us don't get many hours in the shop, and want the hours we do get to be as happy and enjoyable as possible. Working with nice tools is just really nice for me. And actually getting projects done is even better, rather than fooling around making that dang modern stanley work right, at least for me.

Anyway, I think we just approach the problem from different directions. I'm equally amazed at the "cheapies" out there, because I can't imagine it being any fun that way. And you think I'm soft in the head for spending that kind of cash on an "unnecessary" tool. (And I must confess, I�ve been thinking seriously about buying Leigh�s FMT. Are you having seizures yet? *grin*)

Thanks for the thoughts though. I really do appreciate the viewpoints.

Best,

Greg

Re: The power of Lyn

deanj

>Adam writes: This isn't an indightment, but I almost never hear "how should I hold my: chisel, plane, saw, etc".

I for one would love to see topics like that.

I'm done searching for "the best" -- when that happens you realize that it is the guy holding the tool which makes it work the way it does.

Like any hobbiest we spend a lot of time trying to exchange cash for skill, skill can not be purchased. The sooner you figure that out the sooner your projects begin to come together quicker, and the end results are better.

-Dean

Re: The power of Lyn

Greg Sloop

>You know, I think this might be a great idea.

Even better, I think we could set it up as a Wiki document. (anyone and everyone can post and edit the "document")

I'd be glad to work on setting up the wiki page, and hosting it. (I'd be more than glad to give copies to anyone if they should want to fork it too.) If it can be hosted here or something, that's fine too. I'm just the computer guy and can probably figure it out pretty quickly. Plus I have the hosting available too.

I just think a Wiki style FAQ would work really well. Each person can pick a section and work on it, and anyone can make changes as needed.

Thoughts?

Best,

Greg

Re: The power of Lyn

Jeremy Osner

>Hi Adam -- I have from time to time posted questions along the lines of "how do I hold this tool", "how do I make this cut" -- indeed the answers to these questions have been the most useful aspect of my few years' involvement in WoodCentral and before that, Badger Pond.

I think people do not notice those type of threads because they run for a day or two, get two or three responses and then it's done. Whereas the threads debating plane/chisel brands etc. go on for weeks (Or so it seems to me, who rarely participate in such threads) and garner hundreds of responses.

Certainly I would like to see such a level of engagement in questions of technique -- can it be that such questions are well enough settled they merit no discussion, just a brief answer from someone who knows the technique?

Re: footnote

Jeremy Osner

>When I said "the most useful aspect of my few years' involvement in WoodCentral" it occurs to me that I was neglecting the truly most useful aspect, which is meeting the people on the boards.

Skill development

joel

>"how should I hold my: chisel, plane, saw, etc"

This is an extremely important point and to me the one most ignored.

How many times have all of us had a cranky tool, that seemed useless and badly designed, or not optimum and then suddenly after learning how to use it - found the tool perfect and indispensible? I know it has happened to me more times then I care to count.

I'm constantly learning better technique, better efficently, and of course practice makes perfect.

Over Analyzing

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I have been disappointed so many times by taking other peoples advise thinking that buying this plane or that blade or using this technique will fix all of my problems. I respect all those who have offered advice in the past and please keep offering your opinions but sometimes we the users just need to learn how to use the tools we have.

In the end what it really comes down to is using your tools and getting used to their quirks so you know how they will react to certain situation.

I used to use King waterstones which dished easilly and never had a problem with plane tracks then I bought osme Shaptons cause they were better. Better they were and they sharpen so fast and stay so flat I now have to make a point to camber the blade by using presssure on the corners of my blades.

We always think the answer is to go out and buy a LN or Veritas or Shepherd or Knight or an old Infill. Matter of fact I bought the Veritas and my Bedrock 604 1/2 will does a much better job cause I have fettled it and spent the time with it to know how it works. But if you can't sharpen often or pay attention to grain direction you will find a problem.

Just my 2 cent rant on my lunch break,

Dan Clermont

FAQ (way OT- sorry Jim)

Adam Cherubini

>Guys,

My point wasn't that more folks should ask X or Y. I may feel that way. Largely, I agree with Jeremy that these are often pretty specific questions with uncontroversial answers (or no answers) so there's not much discussion. I'm sure those topics will continue as they always have.

My rambling and muddled point was:

We get a lot of questions from guys looking to buy stuff. Lyn's reports are helpful, but I'm guessing he would agree, not in that way. They aren't buyers' guides. So maybe we need one. What do you think?

I like Greg's ideas (even though I can't say I really understand them), but I was thinking of something in the form of a WC article.

Maybe something like this:

FAQ

1.) What chisels should I buy?

Thread after thread, users here recommend Two cherries firming chisels. Some don't like their handles (link to thread). Their mortise chisels have really big handles (link). Here's how we get the laquer off.(link)

2.) What plane should I buy?

No one plane will suit all your needs. We recommend you search our archives (link) for "LA block plane". Otherwise, post a new message. The more specific you are about your needs, price range, etc, the more appropriate the responses will be.

3) What's the best workbench/shavehorse design?

4) What books should I read to learn about____?

5) I'm just getting started with handtools. What tools do I need?

That's my idea anyway. I'm not debating the merit of guys' questions, only recognizing their existence and frequency with which they reappear.

Adam

Re: FAQ (way OT- sorry Jim)

Brad in Ottawa

>Adam,

I know reading the umpteenth posting asking for a comparison between Two Cherries/Hirsch chisels can be repetitive. (I can't see the difference, can you see the difference.)

If such a request generates some interaction great, that's what the forum is for! It's easy enough to skip the thread if you aren't interested.

An FAQ is a nice concept but people will still have questions... the FAQ may get out of date, they have an unanswered question, unique situation etc... BTW, Ed Snow reviewed the Ashley Iles chisels and it is an Article we just need a LN and a Two Cherries review now!

It would be great if we had more people posting reviews on the tools that they bought! That way the forum archives can act as an FAQ.

On a different note...

I agree with you though that the best tools in the world won't help if your technique is poor. I was going to try your technique for mortising next week, take some pictures and get your feedback. I'm sure that will generate some discussion on my poor technique!!!!

Brad

Re: Skill development

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Just tagging onto a thread title I like better.

I agree that skill development is highly important, and for some of us (including, in all seriousness, me)is one of chief appeals to woodworking. I like to work alone and develop skills alone (as opposed to training under someone's more experienced and helpful eye). To develop skills, I went to the writings of some of the great masters, including Tage Frid, Ian Kirby,Peter Korn,Nick Engler, Jon Arno, Bob Moran,Toshio Odate,Ernest Joyce, the excellent new book by Gary Rogowski on joinery,and the list could go on. Some of these are virtual bibles on the subject of tool use, and most are well illustrated by photos or line drawings. I wouldn't have been able to develop half the skill and a quarter of the techiques I have acquired without them, and I still reference their books often. Sometimes I think some folks get overly "web-centric" and look for their information there rather than going to an already definitive source.

So, I'd say one reason why there are more threads on tools than techniques is that there are already many great sources of information on techniques out there.

On the flip side, I suspect two factors (among others) influence why there is so much talk about tools. One is that some folks just like tools and are drawn to them above and beyond their actual utility. For example, almost every Bridge City Toolwork tool is available in a less expensive iteration, but factors like beauty and good engineering and fine craftsmanship become factors independent from (added) utility. Thus there are some who like discussing tools who may never really make that much, and this constituency adds to those who are already interested in using tools.

Second, tools are a moving target. Though most of the basic designs are little changed, there are always little innovative twists in materials or execution, or details that change. Thus tools are talked about a lot because the situation is changing with respect to them more frequently. Frankly, few new techniques come along (and when they do, they are usually enthusiastically discussed) while many new iterations of tools come to pass. This also means that tool discussion, because of the constantly changing tool offerings,is better suited for a more contemporaneous commumnication vehicle like the internet. As most know, with the exception of some classic texts such as Dunbar's on old tools and Hack's great book on handplanes, tool books become rapidly dated. Chisel, or handplane technique are much less prone to becoming dated, as the Record book on plane use or Odate's book on Japanese tools well demonstrate.

Finally, there is the problem for most woodworkers of the ability to adequately compare tools when adding a new type of tool to their toolchest. Few will get the chance to compare, for example, a 604 to an old Norris to an old Ohio Tools, to a new Knight to a new Lee Valley or Lie-Nielsen or Shepherd. I was motivated to write my reviews and conduct my investigations for two reasons. One was to help others have more information about such comparisions when they would not be able to conduct such comparisons for themselves. The other has been to look into design factors to see what made a difference in performance and what didn't. This sort of information is at most only minimally dealt with in books and videos, and only slightly more so (but often only superficially)in magazines (Chris Shwarz's articles being the exception and the high water mark for commercial reviews). So, this sort of information ends up in groups such as this, and may even tend to dominate it. I don't think that is bad, just a realistic representation of the unmet needs of most participants.

So I don't in any way disagree with the comments on the significance of skill development, just about the importance of forums of this type to that skill development. Some of the best information of these subjects already appears in fairly affordable books, and I would strongly encourage a perusal of them.

Re: The power of Lyn

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>You may be amused to know that when I first released the first plane study on Badger Pond I did it in sections over several days. I did that for exactly the reasons you expressed, I wanted folks to first understand and assess for themselves how I had done things and how the information was analyzed, prior to jumping staight to the last paragraphs.

It probably won't work to do that this time, but my sympathies are in that direction. I'm very interested in testing methodologies that might work for any determined individual woodworker to use for his/her own comparisons and investigations. I also want folks to understand the limitations of what I am doing, so that again they can consider the pertinence of my findings to their own individual situation. I was very pleased that last time around, most folks did take the conceptual findings to heart (i.e.,the role of effective cutting angle on surface finish when deailng with difficult to plane woods)and I actually think that information has been more enduring than the actual ranking of the planes. With the possible exception of the SMT, I suspect that most folks who read the plane study don't even remember what plane came in third or fourth, but the recognition of higher effective cutting angles has become a common point of discussion.

Anyway, I'm probably just rambling now, you just prompted some thoughts and these were them.

Re: When do you choose LA over 45 degrees?

Alan Hamilton

>Jim,

To respond to your actual question, when to use a bevel down or bevel up plane:

You by now know that your question is something of a hot button--or perhaps "a surefire discussion starter" is more like it. There are two camps, giving contrary answers.

For me, "bevel down versus bevel up" is akin to the ongoing "tails or pins first" discussions. Each side is thoroughly convinced they have the revealed truth, and each side has an abundance of anecdotal and scientific evidence that supports their positions. In short, there really is no absolute answer. People use what they most like to use; and often they cannot understand why anyone would want to do differently.

So pick one: bevel down or bevel up. Properly prepared and used both work just fine. Both have things they do better than the other, and niether works perfectly well in all things. In this sense you cannot go wrong. So buy one, it matters little which; buy the best tool you can afford; learn to sharpen and fettle; and learn how, when, and where to use your plane. Do all that and you will be satisfied with whichever you decide on.

Alan (again going on too long)

Re: When do you choose LA over 45 degrees?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Alan, would you be so kind as to refer me to the scientific evidence you refer to. I'm generally unable to find hardly any on this topic, let alone contradictory reports, and would really like to become familiar with these sources. TIA

Wait a minute...

Eric Hedberg

>Lyn,

I don't think its a good idea for us to start confounding this topic with too much good rational scientific research done in an objective way by a credible unbiased institution. Where's the fun in that? By the way, I'm in the LA camp now ;-)

Eric

So's what's your opinion on supercharging vs turbocharging?

Re: FAQ (way OT- sorry Jim)

Greg Sloop

>Re: Adam and a Wiki page...

In short, a Wiki page is like this...

Think of a web page that anyone can edit.

Really, anyone. (Though, I believe one could limit the circle a bit, but this tends to defeat the purpose.)

If there's not a page or topic you want, you just add a link for it. Poof, new page.

You can add sections to already existing pages, etc. It takes the power of us all and harneses it to allow us all to collaboratively make the FAQ.

This way, not just one person has to maintain and type all the material in it.

However, it does take someone to guard around the edges from radical forces - cranks and such that may cause problems. But this generally isn't too bad from what I've heard.

If anyone is truely interested, I'd be glad to put up an example set and post a link to it so people can see what I'm talking about and play with it. If it is well received, and looks like a winner, I'd be glad to host, or help move it here or elsewhere. (For the technically inclined, it really only requires PHP and MySQL - so it's easy to host nearly anywhere on a linux/unix server. Windows too if those two modules are installed on the server. [I'm talking server here, not end user's pc's])

So, if this might be something you (corporate you)think sounds interesting, how about putting a "me too" after this post - or other comment if needed.

I will, if I get a reasonable positive response, start it. But it is a bit of technical work, and I don't want to do it if no one things it sounds workable, or if you're not willing to help construct the pages. (I certainly don't have the time!)

Anyway...

Cheers,

Greg