Infill vs bedrock

Re: Infill vs bedrock

steve knight

>Well a well built infill can usually plane harder to plane woods then any metal body plane and most woodies depending on the bedding angle. But if you�re not working figured woods nor need the finish then there may be no advantage.

On a jointer plane I can�t see a need for an infill if you can�t use a smoother afterwards over the surface showing.

Not saying don�t get an infill but I just want to let you know what to expect. Infills are pretty cool tools though.

Re: Infill vs bedrock (long)

joel

>If you look at Charlesworth's data (using his numbers) he also finds no important difference in the performance between a 45 degree plane and a 50 degree plane from the same maker (LN). So his conclusion that there is no reason to reach for an infill can also extend to there is no reason to reach for a higher angle frog. However many people have reported differences in performance with different angle frogs and in this case we are talking planes from the same manufacterer.

However he is also using wickedly sharp irons. My teacher (a major infill fan) would routinely plane difficult woods with a stanley #3 and get superb results - but as he always pointed out you needed an extremley sharp iron and a very fine shaving.

my experience with a sharp iron is that you can plane anything well. the trick is what happens as the iron wears. I find with a bedrock (I own a set of STanley bedrocks) I can plane longer than with a stock Stanley, with infills longer than with the bedrocks. What is interesting is the way they fail. With the bedrocks I go merrily along, with slightly increasing resistance, until the plane suddenly stutters, chatters, and starts tearing out. With the infill the tool just gets harder to push. It never really fails and causes tearout (unless I am taking too thick a shaving to begin with)

I would love to see David do a test where we see how long it takes before the plane is unusable for similar thickness shavings. Hopefully we would then see differences between infills and bedrocks and 45 degree frogs and higher ones.

The other thing to mention is he is an expert. His planes are probably working as well as a plane of that design can work. Can an average mortal consistantly duplicate the same performance? I like to think so, but when I havea lot of planing to do I am not so optimistic.

Re: Infill vs bedrock (long) + comments

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>Interesting comments Joel...

Now that you have mentioned it, I have seen a similar thing occur with my infill. It gets harder to plane as the blade dulls.

However, even as it dulls, it still performs quite well in terms of results. I have a bunch of Cliftons(Bedrocks) including the #4 1/2. I do think there is a difference between them. However it's not the same comparison as Charlesworth's. Now it is arguable that there is much of a difference between LN and Clifton though some, I would imagine, would perhaps violently disagree with that.

For me the differences don't just lie in the results. I find that the infill feels better during use and that it is the only smoothing plane that I can practically use one-handed. It seems to hold the cut better.

Now don't get me wrong. The Clifton's perform very well. Someone mentioned recently on here that our quest for better performance of planes such as LN, Clifton, Veritas, infills, etc. have reached a point where we are trying to improve on the top 1% of plane performance.

Now I don't own a LN Bench plane (I have the low angle jack and smoother) so I can't give a good comparison. However, I recently visited my uncle who does have a LN #4 1/2 with the high angle frog. We compared infill to LN and he thought the infill was better. I thought there was not that much difference myself. They both are fine fine planes. On a side note, he did love the Lee Valley rip Dozuki and was impressed by its performance compared to his LN dovetail saw.

Just my thoughts...

Re: Infill vs bedrock

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>For a plane in the 45 to 55 degree effective cutting angle range, used with the most difficult to plane woods, a quality bevel down plane will generally outperform a quality bevel up plane, and a quality infill will generally outperform the bevel up plane.

Above 55 degrees effective cutting angle things change a lot.

And yah I know, I still have to finish wriing up the plane study.

Re: More than mystique

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I think perhaps if you were to come up with a completely objective measuring system and compared a Bedrock to an infill after setting everything exactly the same I'm guessing you would get identical results. Planing is a function of the solidity and angle of bedding the iron, sharpness of the iron, angle of the cap iron where the shavings hit it, angle of the front of the mouth, and size of the mouth opening. Probably missed something there, but it is all purely mathematical. So far as the weight of the plane, a heavier plane may add a little bit to the bedding solidity or absorbtion of chatter and therefore work better, but the weight is only a small factor and more important is how the iron meets the bed.

I have used several infills, but don't own one yet, but I'm sure I will someday. It is like the difference between fishing with a snoopy rod and fishing with a Sage rod; it is just a lot nicer to use a tool that you have invested some time and money into than it is to pick up a tool you bought because you thought it wasn't necessary to spend the extra money to get what you wanted.

Re: Infill vs bedrock *LINK*

Ben Knebel

>Just a link to an article in the shop shots section you may have missed Jim.

Regards

Ben

www.shepherdtool.com


http://www.woodcentral.com/shots/shot547.shtml

Re: Infill vs bedrock

Bryan Danner - Broad Ripple, IN

>Lyn,

Just to make sure I understand your message, do you have your "ups" and "downs" in the correct places in the message?

Thanks!

Re: Infill vs bedrock

Mike Lietzow

>And a well patina-ed Spiers or Matheison (sp?) is much more pleasing to the eye and calls out to be used (at least that's the impression I get from the pictures I've seen). :-)

Cheers,

Mike

Re: More than mystique

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>My comments above were based on the results of a two rater, multiple plane, multiple trial, multiple species, multiple sample (from each species), single blind design, with the planes tuned and adjusted to achieve the optimal performance (defined as best surface finish) for which they were capable on each individual sample. Not completely objective, but about as close as one can come with anything that faintly represents how planing is actually performed by woodworkers.

Within the effective cutting angle range I specified, the relative rankings of the plane types is as I described. Again, if one wants to go to higher or lower effective cutting angles, those rankings no longer hold, but at the effective cutting angles for which a bedrock style plane is typically offered, the rankings were clearly defined.

However, and I shall often repeat this, for most woods, using a well tuned quality plane, there just isn't any appreciable difference in surface finish. It is only on difficult to plane wood like cocobolo and other woods with reversing grain and/or endgrain inclusions, that the differences in planes becomes prominent--sometimes strikingly prominent.

Re: sounded right to me

paul womack

>

Correction! Oh, darn....

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I try to use bevel up and bevel down, because I think referring to a bevel up plane as a LA plane is a misnomer when it can and often is used at conventional or even higher effective cutting angles. However, almost always at least one error comes in when I try to do that.

So, getting the order right for the 42-50 degree range:

Bedrock style bevel down (specifically, LV and new chipbreaker L-N #4.5 planes)

Low bedding angle, bevel up plane (specifically LV and L-N "Low Angle" planes)

Infill (specifically Shepherd and S&S Spiers #7 style planes)

With the infills achieving the best surface finishes within this effective cutting angle range--emphasis, within this effective cutting angle range. There was slightly more difference between the infills and the Bevel UP/"LA" planes than there was between than between the Bevel UP/LA and the Bevel Down/Bedrock planes. See my comments to Moses below for further information on the methodology behind all of this.

Thank you so much for catching my error. Seriously. There is more than enough misinformation out there and I don't need to be adding to it.

It depends...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I "feel a difference" between using an infill or bedrock style plane. Now there is a term to be considered here: "user perception". This is a very powerful thing; I see it every day in my work.

An example: take say a LN 4.5 and equilivet sized infill (of visa versa). Let some woodworkers play with them. The way the plane feels in the hand, on the wood, the sound. Every aspic of the plane is being taken into consideration at that moment.

You�ll probably get a very similar shaving out of each plane. The users experience is what matters here.

I like the feel of my hands around a mass of wood this is especially true on closed handled infills IMHO. I like the feel of the bun in front better than a turned knob (high or low, it matters not to me). The sound an infill makes is like a Harley, very unique to me. This translates in vibrations during the planning cycle. I feel the vibrations of an infill a lot less than a steel plane. I can�t comment on a straight wooden plane because I don�t own a working one yet. So for me it�s about the whole experience, this means getting the best shaving with a pleasant experience for me. I don�t woodwork for a living I do this for pure enjoyment relaxation, the whole Zen experience.

BTW Please remember their were crappy infills too. Postwar infills were somewhat notorious for problems, but we're tanking new ones here so I won't go there.

You all still haven't given the right answer.

John K in Hastings, MN

>You need to get them BOTH.

Your bad influence,

John

Re: Infill vs bedrock

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Thanks I have read that article several times. Just curious what others thought considering one of the test planes was yours. I'm going to order one and see for myself. After all it's the chase for perfection and experiences I enjoy. Jim

Re: Infill vs bedrock (long)

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Joel It's very interesting to watch some of the experts plane. I carefully watch people and listen to what they have to say and quite often they aren't the same. There are always idiocincracies to each person that makes them think and act differently than they believe they do. It would be great to watch David plane, take samples and record the amount of times he touches up his iron. Most really great plane users apply a extreme amoumt of force have exceptional control of pace and touch up the iron alot more than I ever do. I'm curious as to why David didn't test a older infill plane? Maybe I'll e-mail and ask him.

Re: Infill vs bedrock (long)

joel

>I think the results would be more or less the same with an older infill. Look closely at David's data - as he points out all the planes performed basically the same. My point is simply that this shows no difference between a 45 and 50 degree frog which is something that you wouldn't expect. But what I am also saying is that with really sharp irons (as I am sure his are) I wouldn't expect to get much difference in performance either. What I am also saying is that the real infill advantage is how long you can plane difficult woods before resharpening - which isn't at all what he was testing.

Incidently really fine wooden planes such as the C+W expercise the same trait - as the iron dull the plane still performs spectacularly - it just gets harder to push.

The conclusion I get from his test is that with a really sharp well turned plane (read: fit and finish) you can plane anything, regardless of the design of the plane and therefore the plane that is most convieneint to use makes the most sense. And I think he's right.

But if you are like me and use a plane until it is too dull to cut infill or top of the line wooden planes are a better choice for difficult woods. Of course I also like the way they feel in use.

I sold all my infills

Robin Frierson

>I really couldnt see much if any difference between a well tuned LN 4 1/2 and any of the 5 or 6 infills I have owned. And now that I got the LV low angle jack and use the higher angles, I dont miss the infills at all.

I think bevel up planes are really underutilized, mainly cause they dont make many of them in bench plane size.. Someone needs to make a 10 in, 5lb, 2 3/8in bladed, bevel up smoother with an adjustable mouth. A low angle 4 1/2. Or how about making it in an infill. Seems everyone just wants to copy the past designs.

I dont see how Charlesworth can say angles dont matter. I have found using higher angles helps tremendously with tearout.

Eye catching title...

WoodburnBob

>...at least my eye. I imagine you are right in what you say. I have the LN 164 (dubbed a bevel up low angle smoother). To me it serves as a reference standard to which I compare my infill tuning efforts.

I am curious about the infills you put out: what kind of shape they were in when you got them, what they were, how much time you had to spend rehabing them, what kind of problems you had to fix...that sort of thing. Or, did they work "out of the box", so to speak.

The Gospel according to Charlesworth

Art Geiger

>What I'm about to say may be religious blasphemy

- in the regions where Charlesworth is rapidly replacing God.

Charlesworth is just the guy that was in the right place at the right time - and a woodworker that was able to network the publishing market.

He is one of an army of skilled woodworkers that (as luck would have it) has gained the

ascendancy. Hey, 50 million Americans would make better (and more dynamic) presidential candidates than Bush and Terry.

The gospel truth is that only amateurs hang on Charlesworth's every word. Ask a professional and he'll point out that Charlesworth is a woodwork teacher. He will say Charlesworth is 15-years removed from the commercial making environment. He'll say Charlesworth is out of touch. He'll say

Charlesworth makes some really dumb comments.

Charlesworth says blade angles make no difference. Give a 5-yr old a piece of wood, a 45 degree Bailey, a 50 degree infill and see which plane he prefers. You'd put money on it, right? I use a Bailey/Bedrock on softwood. Softwood: that's

exactly what L Bailey (and others) designed their planes to work, when our forefathers

built America.

I too, read Charlesworth's Bedrock vs infill article, but my conclusion is hey, he's just a woodwork teacher. He happens to not like infills in the classroom and his trainees can't afford them anyway. Me, I'll stick with an infill for hardwood or for anything that requires high-class work.

So,Art...

Bob Hackett

>Care to tell us how you really feel?

MB

Re: So,Art...

Art Geiger

>Yeah, I shouldn't have held back. When you consider Charlesworth openly calls us forum bums "the Internet neanderthals" ...........

I wonder...

Alice Frampton, UK

>... is David as good a fisherman when he's near water...? ;~)

Cheers, Alf

Who's been looking forward to the reaction to that article for ages

Re: I wonder...

Bob Hackett

>How much do they have to deflate his head so he can hop thru the door?

I`m assuming he has to hop,that`s what I have to do whenever I have my foot in my mouth.

Mainely,Bob-Thinking it must be tough being the repository of all knowledge.

BTW-When we were at the Center for Furniture Craftsmanship picking up lathes(Yes,I`m a closet electron killer)we happened to stumble thru one of thier workshops.Mike Fortune was kind enough to take the time to give us directions.It didn`t dawn on me till later who the nice guy was who shook my hand and introduced himself.

I guess it shouldn`t suprise me as Peter Korn just acts like another student.You have no idea he`s the owner till you ask his name.

It`s folks like that who make you glad to be a woodworker.

Crumbs, Bob...

Alice Frampton, UK

>..as a wise man once said; Care to tell us how you really feel?

Cheers, Alf