Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Todd Hughes

>Pull saws are pulled because with the thin blade they would bind and kink if pushed so they have to be pulled.Once people got smart enough to figure out if they put a back on a thin bladed saw they didn't have to worry about it kinking so they didn't have to pull it anymore but instead could push it.Early primitive western saws were pull saws but evovled into the modern push saw once backs came in use and better steels alowed them to be pushed....So why would they go back to an ealier throw back style of being pulled?.....Todd

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Adam Cherubini

>It just isn't true that pulled saws have an advantage over pushed saws. Though some may disagree, I don't see any advantage in saws without set in their ability to hold a line.

A bit of saw history-

The Dutch began making wide bladed saws in the early 17th century. By the dawn of 18th, Sheffield's rolling mills were making sheet metal suitable for wide hand saws. By the late 18th, England had invented, or rediscovered, (but certainly improved in any case) the process of making a somewhat homogenous steel.

The wide bladed western saw is a tremendously challenging piece of technololgy that eluded many fine civilizations. Although I prefer western saws, I don't find that they offer significant advantages over other sorts of saws. Maybe the reason the Japanese didn't make push saws and the English didn't make pull saws is because both peoples were perfectly comfortable with what they had.

Adam

P.S. My coping saw is pull, but my hacksaw is push.

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Kevin French, Antrim NH

>I have a very nice Japanese backsaw a "Dozuki". I like the control of the saw a lot. It does take some getting use to but works better, "For ME" then a push saw when cutting DTs.

Just MHO

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

James Watriss

>I'm not convinced that the reason the Japanese stuck with pull saws is that they would kink if pushed.

The Japanese actually got their early saws, if I remember correctly, from the Koreans, or the Chinese. They weren't originally pull saws, but they were eventually modified into pull saws for a variety of reasons. The main reason is probably the Japanese sit-on-the-floor style of woodworking.

I suspect the thinner blades eventually showed up as a result of the Japanese realizing that they could get away with thinner steel in a pull saw, because it wouldn't kink, and because tension would keep the saw straight. I also have a feeling, despite the quality of Japanese tool making, that the early saws weren't as thin as they are today, simply because it would be easier to make thicker blades. There were other saws no longer produced today, used when sawing lumber was performed by hand, and the size of these saws pretty much demands that they be made of at least somewhat thicker steel.

I've used my Ryoba (Floppy, double sided saw) to cut dovetails many times. It works just fine. Tension will keep a pull saw straight. And given the ability to make a straight cut, having a thinner blade simply means having to remove less material, resulting in less effort required from the sawyer. Thin steel, IMHO, is one of the priveleges of having a pull saw, not a lamentable design consideration.

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

paul womack

>The advantage of the pull stroke (essentialy thinner blade - all the others are consequences) mst be weight against the fact that a push stroke is more ergnomic - it's easy to brace against a rear foot, and your bicep is a good deal lerge than your tricep.

Of course, the European style bowsaw could be considered to have the best of both worlds - a thin blade, cutting on the push stroke. In fact, the blade is being pulled, by the far arm of the saw.

BugBear

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Paul Kierstead

>I am picturing the bone/muscle here ... muscles contract, the Bicep is on top, would not the bicep be used for a pull saw and the tricep used for a push saw?

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Frank D. in Montreal

>I think the bicep is used to pull a push saw, and to push a pull saw (in other words, the bicep is used on both saws on the non-cutting stroke). Both saws use the triceps on the cut stroke, but differrent back and shoulder muscles.

Because....

HC Sakman

>Western backsaws are usually made by stubburn, intolerant and self-centered and self-consumed people, that's why.

Chico...

You forgot lazy and stupid!

Adam Cherubini

>

Really though...

HC Sakman

>It's a matter of anthropology, physics, anotomy, available technology and culture.

I don't know for a fact, but my educated guess is that older (earlier) saws were made rather thicker steel due to the lack of technology which allows to steel to be made thinner, yet harder and stronger.

Oriental people genetically have a smaller frame/body construction. Therefore many oriental woodworking tools were evolved in design to preserve strength and energy of the user and to increase efficiency of the tool.

Steel was not "thin" to begin with.

This stil doesn't answer your question, though, many Western mass produced saw manufacturers have been adopting Japanese saw tooth patterns yet still working with push stroke. I think "traditionalism" is the main reason why certain things are the way they are....and they should be. We don't have to "convert" each-other to get our "system" or "belief" to be generally accepted. Variety is good. Having options is good. It's always good to know more ways how to skin a deer.....or was that a cat?

For practical reasons, I made a pull stroke Western dovetail saw myself to answer your question 4~5 years ago! Though, my findings are:

Handle configuration feels weird when a Western saw is pulled to cut. I am sure that's the main reason. Many Western backsaws are available with Japanese tooth pattern but cutting in push stroke. When sawing, all the joints in the sawyer's are should line up. (Amazingly this makes the Western saws to cut much better!) Proper posture makes sawing accurate, efficient and much easier. So, when I pulled Western saw to cut, I had to twist my wrist and that was not very good. there's a reason why certain designs have evolved into certain shapes and kept that way.

Chico...

To Funny.....

Todd Hughes

>Well I'm just glad that the Japanese arn't normaly thought of as being, "stubborn ,intolerant, self -centered and self consumed people" ...Nah!

Kind of a funny augument considering we are talking about an old un evolved type of saw that is basicaly a cultural national icon of a people whose most of thier wood workers would never use a western saw apparently......Well at least I got a smile this morning! .....Todd

Re: not to mention "curmudgeonly"

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>

OT comment

Adam Cherubini

>I don't think you meant what this sounds like:

Oriental people genetically have a smaller frame/body construction. Therefore many oriental woodworking tools were evolved in design to preserve strength and energy of the user and to increase efficiency of the tool.

First, I don't think the first sentence is factual. Second, why would strength and energy conservation only apply to orientals?

I don't want to chastise you. Because I think you would join me in saying, we've heard these comments before. And they are innocently meant. But if an Asian woodworker read this, that person may be offended. And rightly so. For a long time I've heard this sentiment:

"the japanese have to pull their planes because they are too weak to push them etc etc".

I think we would all agree that Japanese pull their planes and saws because they work on the floor, or because they lived in a place without substantial deposits of iron, or because they like to pull their saws and planes. Whatever the reason its certainly not because they have some physical disadvantage they need to overcome.

Adam

Re: OT comment

HC Sakman

>Obviously it would rather be conflicting my view point. As you guessed it Adam, my intention is not offending Japanese people.

On the other hand, I mostly agree with what you said, though you can't deny the physical differences. Don't get me wrong, I am just not simply saying this race is weaker or stronger; My point is that taller people have longer arms therefore physics of longer arm of a 6' person is different than somebody at 5'5". I think it's rather ingenious how they designed their tools which work far more efficiently than their Western counterparts, regardless what the real causes are.

Chico...

Re: OT comment

Kevin French, Antrim NH

>Isn't the oriental philosophy of work to make the effort come to the body/heart? In my totally inadequate library I can't find a reference.

SO_ It has nothing to do with steel, size etc...

Re: OT comment

Pat Riley

>The size argument just doesnt stand up. As late as the civil war, the average american male was about 5'7 and wieghed 145 lbs. To be in one of Sheridans Cavalry Brigades I think the riders had to be 135 lbs or less.

I think the main reason the Japanese contiued to use pull saws was due to the wood. Mostly soft woods. If you are cutting hardwood (like in Europe) you can move alot faster with a stiff push saw than pulling. While pushing you can impart alot more downforce into the wood than while pulling. This isnt the cleanest way to cut, but it is faster. In the end, time is money, and to push (at least in hard wood) is faster.

How 'bout this?

Dennis McDonaugh

>I think its becaue western woodworkers work at a high bench where pushing is more ergonomical and Japanese woodworkers work on low bench where a push saw is more difficult to use. It's also the Japanese philisophy to pull work to the center and not push it outward.

or no bench

Adam Cherubini

>

Re: OT comment Also

Bob Hutchins in central Texas

>Statements about the average size of Americans 150 years ago are spot on. And, the reason wasn't genetics but diet. There was no appreciable body of knowledge of the science of nutrition. There was no general availability of diversity in the diet. There were virtually no pre-packaged foods, especially compared with today's offerings. There were few food preservative techniques and many of those in use adversely affected the nutritional value of food preserved. There were no scientifically accepted dietary supplements such as vitamins and minerals.

I recall reading a treatise on nutrition and average population size (height and weight) when I was in college many years ago. It cited a study that was done of Japanese people born after WWII. One finding was that those born after WWII grew taller and weighed more than generations born earlier and that this correlated with better diet that resulted from greater interaction with western food production, preservation, packaging and distribution. Widespread knowledge and use of vitamins and other dietary supplements began after WWII. IIRC, there was even a marked difference with those born after 1955 being even taller on average than even those born after 1945 but before '55.

Don't know if such a study exists of American culture over an extended period; but I'd bet that modern Americans and Canadians and Western Europeans are, on average, larger by a statistically significant percentage than their antecedents. The major change over the years has been greater diversity of food, advances in the study of nutrition and more attention paid to nutrition by parents. There are many documented cases of stunted growth due to diet deficiencies in children as they mature with differing effects depending on both the dietary deficiency and the age of the child. My Dad, raised in an orphanage at the turn of the 19th century and malnourished by the bad conduct of administrators, was only 5'6" and weighed about 130 pounds in his prime. I'm 6' and weighed about 190 in my prime (we won't talk about now). Of the six boys in the family, all were larger than Dad.

Now for some controversy: The nutritional effect has been noted in women and has been noted to have had a far smaller impact on growth. Apparently there is some biological growth inhibitor for women that occurs with the onset of sexual maturity. Combine that with the fact that human females tend to experience growth spurts earlier in life than males and to mature sexually earlier, and it might be inferred that age in combination with nutrition plays a very significant part in the effect. Note that modern women are, on average, larger by a statistically significant percentage than their antecedents in earlier generations just as are men. It is only the degree of increase that is (or was) greater in men. I haven't seen a study in some time; so this latter conclusion (on my part) could be incorrect.

Are there any nutritionist here? I'd be very much interested in reading studies that have addressed this phenomenon, especially to see the effects decade by decade. I would have cited the size of professional athletes over the last 75 years, but the widespread use of steroids (and who knows what other performance enhancing products) commonly known to exist today would skew such comparisons.

BobH, never hesitant to spend 2/100th's of a buck.

Re: OT interesting link from Plimouth *LINK*

Adam Cherubini

>I hope you enjoy this link. Also check out the "Dead at forty" link on this page. For those of you who have even a passing interest in history, I recommend a trip to Plimouth if at all possible. There is a neat, dedicated group of people there.

Adam


four foot two myth

Houses are another measure...

Mark Harrison -- in Sydney, Australia

>This is an interesting side thread.

Some years back, I visited Cook's Cottage in Melbourne. This is the cottage that Captain James Cook's family built in 1755. The cottage was relocated from England in 1934.

I remember being impressed how low all the doorway apertures were (I'm not particularly tall, 5' 9") and how small the beds were. Way smaller than my bunk in a WWII era -- albeit modernised for the aircraft -- aircraft carrier (HMAS Melbourne). I doubt that I could comfortably sleep in them.

A friend of mine used to live in a house built in the 1600's in Stratford-Upon-Avon. Again, doorways were uncomfortably small even for relatively small modern people.

So while I respect the research in that article, I still have to wonder whether it is valid. Of course, two houses hardly constitutes a statistically valid sample but I'm told that other houses of that era generally conform to these observations, in Stratford-Upon-Avon at least. Either this research is correct or our ancestors were morons. Somehow I doubt the latter was any more true than it is today.

Obviously I am talking about the houses of the common people. The grand houses are clearly in a different category.

As many more of these old homes exist in the US and UK than in Australia, I'd be interested to hear other stories.

Re: Why aren't backsaws pull-stroke?

Bill Lowrance in Geneva

>Glad I asked! Clearly the answer is "Just because..."