Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane!

Re: Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane! *LINK*

dave brown

>Here's a link to a nice review of the new scrub . . .


scrub review

Re: Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane!

Roger Nixon

>It is on LV's website now.

Thanks, Dave. Alf always does a nice review.

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>Any others out there?

Dave

Thanks, Roger, I know.

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>That's why the post - now. Interested in feedback by anyone who might have gotten an advanced look.

Any chance you'd - or others - know the weight of the L-N scrub? I don't see it mentioned on their website.

Regards -

Dave

Re: Thanks, Dave. Alf always does a nice review.

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Well, I'm going to limit myself to just a couple of comments, mostly with reference to some observations ALF made.

First, if it had gone my way, it would have been even heavier and longer. Unlikely many, I want mass in a scrub plane. Why, because of those there knots and uneven surfaces that ALF mentions. I want inertia on my side so that it isn't my body that is taking up the variable resistance encountered while planing rougher wood. I also like a longer plane as it gives better seperation of my hands and makes it easier to align the forces with the shoulder carraige. So, overall, I think this scrub goes in the right direction by my standards, but I would have liked to see it go much farther (and I am one who uses a scrub a lot, both to surface slabs and to try up surfaces to mount a faceplate for woodturning).

I'm tickled to see that ALF too recognized the stability advantages of an adjuster. I really wanted an adjuster on this plane, to gain that stabiliy, to make adjustments simple, and to keep the blade from heading towards my foot if I loosened up the lever cap too much.

I'm also in agreement with ALF about the new tote. Others have been more happy with it, but I find the center thickening (bump if you will) to not be at all approapriate for a plane handle. Fortunately, like ALF says, a rasp and sandpaper can rectify the error, but I really wish this wasn't necessary. Of course, unlike ALF, I found the old style quite acceptable. I could go on discussing the problems with the new style handle at length, but it seems that if I stray in that direction I get hate mail.

Again, with ALF, I find the cap iron rather flimsy. I had thought this was going to be upgraded, but it now seems not. It should be.

I have the L-N version too, and when I get a chance I'll take some weights. I've really liked the L-N. It's way more elegant than any scrub plane should be, but it does the job quite well. The problem is that I just can't bring myself to abuse it for the rougher scrub plane work. That is part of the concept behind this LV, as I interpret it. The LV will get the job done quite well, and is very cheap. You don't feel guilt putting it to its intended purpose. I can smack it around and lay it in the dirt and crash it through chain sawn surfaces and not cringe.

Overall, a plane well suited for its intended tasks, and at a price that is commensurate with them. But not the scrub plane I would have designed for myself.

As usual, Lyn...

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>your post has a lot of really helpful things to think about. I especially appreciate that you are open with regards to your preferences, and provide careful explanations.

One preference in particular caught my attention, and it was raised by Alf, as well, but from a different perspective - and that has to do with the weight/mass of the LV scrub. Most folks (my unscientific assessment) seem to consider less mass a virtue in a scrub because they say is makes scrubbing less tiring. You make a different argument, and I understand that. My guess is that - as with so many things in woodworking - this may be a preference that depends on the charactistics of the woodworker, his/her work habits and so forth. However, not being a "Paul Bunyon" type woodworker [:-)], the mass issue of the LV scrub has caught my attention.

Nonetheless, I very much appreciate your observations. And, if you did get a chance to take some weight measurements of our LN scrub, it would be much appreciated, as well.

Again, many thanks!

Regards -

Dave

P.S. I also recognize that my mass-related issues have little to do with your more insightful comments regarding this plane, and I appreciate them, as well.

Trying to avoid doing a review...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>here are the measurements and a couple of more comparative comments.

The LV Scrub weighs 1408 grams

The L-N Scrub weighs 1114 grams, appreciably lighter FWIW

The blades are essentially interchangeable between the two brands, being of comparable thickness, so if you wanted an extra blade for either, I'd just look for the best price.

A little "birdy" wanted me to attend to how the lever cap forces are distributed. So here are a few comments on that. First, though the blade width is the same, the lever cap is wider on the LV, essentially contacting the blade across its entire width. For reasons that escape me, the L-N lever cap does not contact the blade across its entire width.

Under the blade, the L-V has a forward bedding surface that extends almost twice as far rearward as the L-N. Not only does this allow more mass coupling with the blade, but more importantly, it allows the pressure of the lever cap to be more closely centered (front to back) over the bedding surface. On the L-N the lever cap forces occur very close to the rear edge of the forward bed. Not the best arrangement IMO.

Now these are things that L-N could easily rectify if they chose to, though it would take a minor altering of the casting (to increase the bed) and widening of their lever cap. Otherwise, they L-N has a very nice lever cap, being brass, thicker and more rigid compared to the L-V.

Finally two more points to give consideration to. One is the width of the planes. Though of the same blade width, the LV body, as has been discussed by ALF and others, is much wider than the original Stanley and the L-N update. This adds mass, which I like, but it also means that the body moves though a much wider swath than the blade. Not so bad with flatter or convex surfaces, but when trying to flatten more concave surfaces the body can hand up by its edges unless the blade is extended quite a bit. I had suggested the edges of the sole be deeply chamfered to minimize this effect, but those comments apparently were dismissed.

The other issue involves the handles. For my tasks, the original Stanley/L-N forward knobs are a bit too small and dainty. They have less size to hold on to, but more importantly, they keep the hand down near the surface of the wood. No this is a great thing with a smoothing plane, but its not so great when rough planing the coarse uneven surfaces that a scrub so often gets used for. Believe me, if you haven't already experienced it for yourself, it's no fun to accidently drag your palm across such coarse splintery surfaces.

In contrast, the LV forward knob is both larger and higher. It may be a bit too high, but overall I much prefer the LV size and clearance compared to waht the Stanley/L-N knob affords. Indeed, the L-N knob just seems downright dainty compared to the LV, so give me the LV version.

But when it comes to the tote, I find the L-N tote to come out on top (though I do prefer the dual fixing rods of the LV). The L-N tote is more angled, smaller in diameter, and more consistent in size. All my fingers fit comfortably around the L-N, and I can shift my hand up and down the tote slightly to deal with different bench heights. The LV version is very poor in this respect, for me, but as has already been stated, the handles are wood and we are woodworkers (and some even turners), so it should be quite possible to customize the LV handle to ones hands, indeed, the added "meat" of the LV handle offers greater opportunity to do this than does the L-N. It's just that I think many of us aren't thrilled by the idea of engaging in that task with a new plane.

Dammit, it's hard to make all these obervations and comparisons meaningful without a full and proper discussion that places everything into perspective, but I REALLY am trying to stay away from doing reviews.

Re: Just a little more on weights

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>As I said above, the

L-N Scrub is 1114 grams

LV Scrub is 1408 grams

in contrast, and why I don't find either of these planes heavy at all:

The soon to be released

LV LA SuperSmoother is 2204 grams

the

LV LA Jack is 2606 grams

and my new

SMT Loopy is 2998 grams (the old one is 2856)

So really folks, if you think the LV Scrub weighs too much you either need to plane more, or go get a copy of Dave Draper's Brother Iron/Sister Steel and get to work lifting some weights. :-)

Some of my thoughts and experiences...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>I'm not fond of the large knob on the LV scrub or more specifically, I don't like the thick stem of the knob.

I often use an overhand grip on the front knob while planing and I cannot use that grip comfortably with the LV Scrub knob. I did bring that up as an issue but I noticed no difference between the pre-production and final versions. However, the size of the knob does not provide any impairment of its use for me, in general.

On the other hand, the tote seemed fine for me. I never noticed any issues with it.

I wondered about the lack of an adjuster yet I had no issue with a lack of one during usage and I don't consider it that important.

Overall it's certainly well made as people have come to expect from Veritas/Lee Valley.

One thing that I found peculiar (in my opinion at least) is addition of the set screws that are found on the other Veritas planes such as the shoulder planes. It's a nice touch but something I did not expect to see on this plane.

Eventually I may get around to publishing review of the Mk II honing guide. The plan is to review it and compare it to the Mk I and an eclipse style jig I have. I have about 70 blades and lots of chisels that could use some honing with so I won't lack any experience in using it.

Of course, this is yet another thing to do along with all the other things on my large todo list....

Re: Just a little more on weights

Alice Frampton, UK

>Lyn,

Funny thing; I don't find the bevel-up jack heavy at all, so maybe it's less the weight than the distribution of it? And sometimes you, well okay, I want weight, and sometimes I just don't. I'd sooner have to power my way through the odd tough bit with a lighter scrub than heave around extra mass unnecessarily the rest of the time. But then I have been neglecting my weight training recently... (Grin)

Oh, and don't tell Rob and co., but I prefer the MkI tote to the MkII. I'm punching the air going "yessss!", because it's not just me who doesn't like it. I'm beginning to wonder if it's not me with the Freaky Hands at all...

Anyway, your comment "Overall, a plane well suited for its intended tasks, and at a price that is commensurate with them. But not the scrub plane I would have designed for myself." sums it up for me just perfectly. Just for the opposite reason... Anyone mentioned recently that you're a loss to the tool review-reading world? :~(

Cheers, Alf

Re: Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane!

Angus Barclay, in New Zealand

>Not a direct comment on the LV scrub (which is probably a perfectly good plane) but have you considered converting an old bench plane to scrub duty? Scrub planes sure can pile up chips in a hurry but scrub planing isn't rocket science and scrub planes aren't high performance machines.

By NOT buying a LV scrub, you could spend the money to pay for most of a LV low-angle block or more than half of a LV medium shoulder. Opinions on Woodcentral and elsewhere suggest that both incorporate significant, worthwhile and desirable improvements on previous planing technology. They may make more sense if you've got the urge to spend hard-earned dollars on a quality plane.

regards

Angus Barclay

Re: Just a little more on weights

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>Hi Lyn -

Just a note to say, thanks, for taking the trouble to weigh and post the various weights of these planes. I don't have a scrub and I lack your experience at dimensioning and squaring wood. So I appreciate hearing about your experience. I do wonder if one's take on the "appropriate" weight for a scrub might be related to the kind of wood one works.

Also as for weight comparisons with Scrubs, and Jacks and Smoothers, I'm not sure that's a valid comparison - or how far you can take it - since the nature of the way you work the tools and apply them to the wood are so different.

Still, just a thought, not an assertion. And there's no doubt I need to start pumping some more iron!

Again, thanks.

Regards -

Dave

Thanks, Christopher

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>Thanks, Christopher.

I appreciated your post. You raise a number of interesting points.

Regards -

Dave

Re: Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane!

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>Hi Angus -

Thanks. I appreciate the perspective of your post, however, I do already have a adjustable mouth low angle block plane (several actually) (not LVs), as well as an LN 73. But what I don't have is a power planer (and I don't plan to get one due to space and noise constraints) - nor a scrub for heavy stock removal.

I have thought a modifying a #5, but am persuaded that (if you don't have a power planer) a dedicated scrub is worth it. What I have also considered - and is still not out of the question - is building a Krenov-style scrub (but with a horn - and perhaps a razee style handle). Afterall, as you say, scrubs aren't rocket science.

Regards -

Dave

I was about to suggest

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>a wooden scrub plane. At various times, people who have the ECE scrub have commented on liking it, and building a Krenov-style scrub plane should be very simple - no fussing about with getting the mouth opening just right, since + or - 1/8" would be no big deal.

I built my butt hinge mortise plane, basically a small-scale scrub with a seriously wide mouth, in a couple of hours, and a scrub would have been faster.

Cost would be nice, too - buy a replacement iron from any of the scrub makers, toss in a few pfennings for hardware, and you're on the way.

Re: Just a little more on weights

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Alf,

I think you touch on a interesting point, that is, the percieved weight of a plane may vary according to other factors. I am one who enjoys using the L-N #8 and the LV LA Jack. I suspect some of the reason why their considerable weight is more tolerable is because one's grip is spaced farther apart. Narrow spacing is going to put more load on the triceps, wider spacing is going to move the load more up into the shoulders where the larger muscle groups come into play. A wider spaced grip tends to result in one keeping one's elbows in closer to the body, and using the shoulders and more of the body to drive the plane. One just doesn't try to drive these big planes with arm movements, but it is so easy to fall into that with a small plane.

Of course the old timers, who used the planes for hours on end, quickly refined their technique so as to use body mass, rather then rapidly fatigued arm muscles, to keep at the task. Not unlike how one learns to swing an wood axe or pick axe very differently if one really has to engage in the activity for any period of time.

BTW. I'm only half joking about the weight lifting. It really will make a difference in one's planing stamina, not only because of strength, but because of the understanding you gain of how your muscles deal with moving weight.

Re: Just a little more on weights

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>The points you raise are worthy of some speculation.

Planing style surely makes a difference. It's funny but I actually like planes of quite different weights. I really like the Mujingfang Smoother and the Primus Improved Smoother. They work great on hard dense woods, and are nice break from the other heavy planes, but then I don't ever take much of a shaving with these.

There have been some very old, and usually entertaining debates between the Japanese light plane/quick stroke/pull technique vs the heavy infill/iron plane with its long slow pushing strokes. Obviously both can achieve excellent results, and have their devotees. And of course, bringing it back to your comments, the density of the woods of the respective cultures tended to differ, and one wonders how much was an outgrowth of this.

As I mentioned in my comments to ALF above, I think the perceived weight is going to depend a lot on handle spacing, and also on the type of handles included (one thing I don't like about the Norris style infills is the front bun that makes no accommodation for lifting a heavy plane up from the wood).

There really a long discussion that can take place on this, and this isn't the best timing. I will reiterate again, however, a point I've been trying to drive home to the plane manufacturers: the next big break through in plane design will be in ergonomics. Alas, improved ergonomics is will likely modify the appearance of the plane from the familiar images we now hold, and I suspect many a manufacture really fears what that might bring.

Re: I was about to suggest

Frank D.

>If I needed one again I'd build a Krenov-style, it's a great project for a first plane. I have an Ulmia which is a lot like the ECE, and I love it. Using a scrub is kind of like firing a machine gun (I imagine...), short rapid strokes to take off relatively small high spots quickly. I prefer heavy planes usually, the heavier the better, but for a scrub the short strokes mean you don't have much time to get the plane up to speed and it's also an advantage to be able to pull the plane back quickly. Weight helps with intertia, but so does plane speed. So I think the advantage of a heavy plane is more for taking longer strokes, and when you don't have to pull the plane backwards quickly. Light weight is IMO an advantage for scrubbing.

Re: Thanks, Dave. Alf always does a nice review.

paul womack

>Overall, a plane well suited for its intended tasks, and at a price that is commensurate with them. But not the scrub plane I would have designed for myself.

But is a "dream" scrub plane a contradiction in terms?

BugBear (with thoughts of a Holtey scrub :-)

Re: Fess up: The new LV Scrub plane!

paul womack

>Heh. I wonder if our "friend" Lawrence Leong saw that review...

BugBear

Re: I was about to suggest

paul womack

> building a Krenov-style scrub plane

Probably better to go Knight-style, laminated construction, but with proper wedge abutments. There's a lot of force in scrubiing and Krenovian planes are known to have "issues" with cross pins breaking sometimes.

BugBear

Speaking of Knight-style Scrub Planes...

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Steve sells this one. Has anyone around here used it?

Re: Speaking of Knight-style Scrub Planes...

paul womack

>IMHO a scrub plane needs "more" handle than that.

BugBear

Razee model

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>Hi Bugbear -

Steve Knight's website says he also sells a Razee-style scrub (for a little more) - but I don't believe it's pictured on his site. That might be enough handle - on the other hand a horn or knob might be nice, too. I note that the ECE Primus has a kind of raised rear-handle/blade support (plus a horn). Personally I think a horn and a razee handle might be best - but those add weight - ironically, the very thing I was concerned about in my posts above with Lyn. Consistency can be such a pain :-)

Regards -

Dave