Shave Horse Design Considerations...

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations... *LINK*

Steven McKinley from Calgary

>Hi Scott, I can't shed any light on to which would be the better design, but I can throw one more design into the mix. Lee Valley has a new shaving horse plan. Here's the link, note that it's Canadian currency.


Veritas shaving horse plan

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

JL work

>I have used both designs before I built the mule. Both clamp quite nicely, though the mule will allow a bit better clamping. I faced the block of the mule with leather and it works well. The only drawback of the mule is that it is not very "friendly" for shaving down the loops of the loopback windsor chair. The shaving horse has a little bit of advantage there. I incorporated a pad on the seat of the mule that I tacked to the plywood edge. The sliding seat is a good design. The only problem I had in the construction was sawing the compound angles for the rear legs.

And the shave pony too... *LINK*

Paul M. in San Diego

>Here's another alternative:


shave_pony

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

David Miller from Iowa

>I have made, used, modified, and remade both kinds. I achieved my own shaving horse zen with a Langsner style horse, but beefed up with thicker wood and better proportions for me (I shop at the big and tall store). I ended giving my bodgers mule to my dad to use as rustic backdrop in his toyshed � I just never got used to having to thread the wood in and out of the front/back.

This was on sightings a while back � 8/4 poplar (the chamfers make it look thinner, but it is robust), 12/4 on the head, old growth hemlock legs.

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

Dave Mount

>Scott--

I built and use a Langsner design per below. I'm not sure what you meant by rickety, the legs or the clamping. I wouldn't call the legs rickety, but if I were to build another, I'd install stretchers between the front two legs and the back two legs as Dave Miller's shows. I'd also cut the mortises for the swingarm to tighter tolerances than Langsner's plan calls for, and I'd also bore the holes closer in diameter to the bolt (or whatever you use) the swingarm pivots on, both to reduce play in the dumbhead clamping. I guess you can see my low tech solution to the sore rear syndrome. . .an old burlap moving blanked folded up. Maybe you could find an old tractor seat to install on yours (I'm only half kidding. . .).

Best regards,

Dave

Dave Mount, northeastern MN

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations... *LINK*

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>I also built Drew's horse with a lot tighter tolerances than he specified, to include steel pins and brass linings, and have no problems with it's function at all after a few years of hard use.

Holds 12' oars down real well.

The only thing I'll do diferently next time is make those tusk tenons much larger....they are prone to splitting when made from anything short of elm and I intalled copper rivets across the short grain for reinforcement.


http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=smalser&file=articles_408.shtml

Re: And the shave pony too...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Ya know, I'd seen the pony before and wasn't sure about it, but this may be the first stop-gap horse-ish I build, 'cause I've got enough scrap to do it, and I can fine-tune some spindles right now. Didn't know Lee Valley was putting out plans, either.

Thanks for the links, Steven and Paul.

Scott

Friendly...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Is the mule less friendly 'cause you have to thread the work in and out? How much of disadvantage is that?

Scott, who hasn't worked any long parts yet...

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Hi, David -

I remember that Sightings. How'd you adjust the dimensions for your size? I'm 6'1" and a little worried that some off-the-shelf 'plans' would need some scaling...

Thanks,

Scott

Rickety horse...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Thanks for the info, Dave. The horse I've been using (I submitted a picture as a Sighting, so it may show up) is old. Seemed to be well-abused, too - I'm guessing it's the one used by years and years of student hacks like myself. The legs aren't very well seated anymore, the head's worked the shoulders of the arm tenon completely round, and the riser kept falling out. So, when I say rickety, I mean, well, rickety. I don't think the design's inherently bad; I think this particular horse is ready for the glue factory...

Thanks for the tips; I'm sure they'll get incorporated.

Scott

Quick question...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Thanks for the link, Bob. Missed that one.

Question, though - what's the notch in the rabbetted shelf for?

Scott

A Breast Hold

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>To hold a chair rung or other small part against your chest for lighter finishing work....a hold that provides access to the entire surface.

Re: Couple other things

Dave Mount

>With the disclaimer that I've not actually used the "mule" style of horse, one feature of the Langsner dumb-head type is that you can cut a v-groove in the underside of the dumbhead to help hold round or near-round stock. This is pretty important because when you're rounding, you tend to put side pressure on the stock, which makes it want to twist sideways. Having the groove there greatly improves stability of the clamping. In fact, I think I'm going to make a second, larger one for holding larger pieces. Make sure to round the outer edges of the V groove so you don't bruise oversize pieces with a sharp edge. Point here is that I'm not sure how well a horse with a dowel as the clamping jaw would resist sideways force on the stock. Again, though, I've not actually used the alternative, I've just looked at them. Maybe there's a trick I don't know about.

The discussion of the rabbet on the ramp brings up the issue of short stock. Just the other night I was rounding chair rungs with (warning: drive-by gloat) my Veritas spokeshaves, which I mention because they are such a pleasure to use (no affiliation). Although the stock was originally riven from 20" blanks, some of them had defects in the grain, so I cut them down to near 14" (final length) before doing the final shaping. Because rounding requires you to work around the piece, not just on the top, it does get a little tricky at that length, because the ramp interferes with the shave as you work around the sides. I think 14" is about the minimum you could work this way before going to the ledge and breast plate. I didn't cut the rabbet in mine because I didn't think I'd need it, but I may have to go back and add that.

I used hackberry for the swingarm and dumbhead, not because it's particularly suitable, I just had uncommitted stock in the right thicknesses. I haven't had trouble with the wedged tenons breaking out that Bob mentioned. On the other hand, I've only used mine for chair parts, not 12 foot oars, so maybe I don't apply the same level of force.

Good luck,

Dave

Dave Mount, northeastern MN

And a couple more...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>Thanks for the info, Dave. Couple thooughts I had, which go along with what you said:

• I wasn't sure about the holding capacity with the small bodger-style crossbar, either, and was planning on using something more dumbhead-shaped instead of the bar. To accomodate this, I was thinking of making the sides of the yoke more triangular (wider at the top), to facilitate a better grip on the crossbar/head. That change would also allow better positioning of the pivot point, maybe improving the overall mechanical advantage.



• If I go with the Langsner-style dumbhead, I was pondering on somehow facing the head with a removable face, so that different profiles could be used on different projects.

So which LV spokeshaves are you using? You try the concave one? Huh? Huh? ;)

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

David Miller from Iowa

>Well - it helped a lot that I had made and heavily used the one according to Langsners specs. I made mine taller (I'm 6'2) and longer from the gripping point back (I must have longer arms than Drew). The added height also affected the pivot ratio so I played around with that as well. I got it so I could clamp 0-4+ inches thick without changing the pivot, so I eliminated the adjustable part entirely (I still have a couple other horses if I need to go thicker, but I have not had the need). My longer legs aided in getting this to work comfortably.

Re: Friendly...

David Miller from Iowa

>I found it to be a real pain, but I use mine for all sizes of stuff. If all one id was short small chair parts I suppose it wouldnt bother

Re: And a couple more...

David Miller from Iowa

>If you go with the dumbhead (which I prefer) you can make one side a couple inches higher than the other - this would allow you to just switch sides rather than heads.

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

John

>I really don't think the holding power of the Boggs style horse is an issue to be concerned with. I took a chair making class from Brian last year. Even with his agressive approach to removing material I cannot remember any issues with holding power of his style of shave horse. The only word of caution I can share...don't modify his design to a great degree, one of the students in the class did just that, resulting in the clamping head assembly breaking during one of Brian's demonstrations.

John

I don't get it...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>New job or fetish? Shaving horses! The SPCA or Peta need to be notified.

Scott, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it surf...

Re: Veritas spokeshaves

Dave Mount

>Well, since you asked. . .

I was lucky enough to have a birthday in September when Lee Valley put the set of three on sale for $150 or so, and SWMBO got the whole set for me. And $150 was a steal IMHO -- they're still a good value at the current price. These are way above your run of the mill shave. I'm using all three routinely on the run of chairs I'm working on. Right now I'm making octagons round, so I rough things out with the straight shave, and do the final shaping with concave set very fine, just to take off the high spots. The round (convex) face gets used to shape the inside curves on the bent back posts.

I will have to say, that these aren't really for rough work as they come. Even without the shim in place (they provide a shim to put under the iron to close down the mouth more, if desired), the mouth is pretty fine, finer than you'd want for working green wood. But in this dry stock, the mouth is fine enough you can get away with working against the grain to some degree, at least if you've got the iron sharp. I don't know if you could get a thinner iron to open the mouth some for rough work. On the other hand, with vintage shaves so cheap, I'm not sure why one would bother (although I find the round handles way more comfortable than cast iron gull wings).

Aside from the fine mouth, the two most significant features are that the entire area where the iron rests against the body is machined flat, and the iron is 1/8" thick -- big differences from your standard Stanley. The result is zero chatter.

I've never used some of the really expensive shaves, but it's hard for me to imagine getting much more from a shave than you get from the Veritas shaves.

One thing I have noted is that the radius of the round bottom (convex) shave seems to be a little larger than other round-bottom shaves. On the chair legs I'm shaping now, there's an inside curve I can't quite get into.

Try 'em, you like 'em!

No affiliation,

Dave

Dave Mount, northeastern MN

Re: Shave Horse Design Considerations...

MikeS

>I have the Boggs (bodger's) style shaving horse. I am very happy with it. However, when I started construction, I just picked a style and proceeded. The entire construction was less than a day, and I used about $10 in materials.

Seems to me the main advantage of the dumbhead style is the ease with which you can switch positions of the work since you have unobstructed access from the side. Also because of the unobstructed access, you can hold wider pieces. If you are working a lot of shingles or splats, for instance, that is a real advantage. The bodger style head just won't accomodate them.

The main disadvantage would be that you are racking the vise each time you clamp, since the work only rests on one side. Over time, there may be a tendency for the entire structure to loosen. The bodger's head should remain inline better.

So far as the holding capacities go, both can accomodate fairly thick pieces. The principal refinement of Boggs was to incorporate a rack and pawl mechanism that allows adjustment of the clamp depth without getting off the horse. You pretty much have to disassemble the clamp head and change pivot holes on a dumbhead (or a conventional bodger's, for that matter). Those who aren't adjusting between thin work and 4 inch thick work have a lot better backs than I do.

To insure a good hold on the work, I made both the upper and lower jaws from softwood. In fact, I built almost the entire horse from three or four KD 2X4 studs. I sorted and found some relatively knot free. Unlike Brian, I joined with carriage bolts, lag bolts and deck screws. The rack, the pawl, and the clamp arm parts I made from white oak scraps.

An advantage of the rack and pawl mechanism is that it will hold other jaws. For instance, I made a carving table mounted to a duplicate rack piece that I can just slip in and use the bench for carving.

Why is the grip poor?

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Please expand on that....I use it predominately to hold long, heavy oars for shaping and don't have that trouble.

Well, it's probably 'cause...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>...the thing's been used and abused for too long. Heard from someone today who'd taken a class with Jim eight years ago, thought he'd used the same horse, and recalled that it was rickety then.

The head's loose on the arm tenon. The shoulders are completely rounded. The tusk holding the works in place isn't a tusk, but what appears to be a round spindle jammed in place and sawn off. It's utilitarian, and it works, but it took me a bit of wrestling to get my work done on it. How much of that is me versus the horse is open for debate. But, for whatever reason, I have to stand on the treadle in order to get enough grip to work. My experience is limited to this one example; I just wanted to make sure that it's not representative of the class.

Not planning on working long oars, but would like to tackle a large settee someday. I'll admit to not yet having any better grasp on what style I should start with. But I'm loving all the input!

Thanks, everyone.

Scott

Re: Well, it's probably 'cause...

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Only takes 6 to 8 man hours to make that bench....it's no big deal.

Just make the arm-seat tolerances tight on a single-pedal design like this one so the arm doesn't twist right or left in use.