LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews *LINK*

Nice review! One question

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>In the jointer fence section, you mention that the 45 degree wooden wedge needs to be impractically large, losing much of the width of cut. Why not attach the wedge with the diagonal against the fence? That would solve both problems, and would also trap the wood, resulting in a steadier cut.

Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance here, but that struck me right away...

DC

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Kierstead

>"A set back mouth. While it shares the same overall length as the Stanley #7, the BUJ has its mouth set further back and at the same distance from the toe as that of a Stanley #8. This offers the equivalent registration area as a #8 jointer plane. The rear of the sole (mouth to heel) is the same as a #7."

Mmm... if the toe to mouth is the same as a #8 (longer then a #7) and the mouth to sole is the same as a #7, then is this plane is significantly longer then a #7? Must be a typo in there somewhere (or I am blind, not unheard of)

Great stuff! However, a problem...

Christopher Fitch@Memphis

>Three of the images show as large black boxes in Firefox

The URLs for these 3 are:

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contributors/2dCohen/LVBevelUpJointer/index_files/image026.jpg

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contributors/2dCohen/LVBevelUpJointer/index_files/image028.jpg

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contributors/2dCohen/LVBevelUpJointer/index_files/image030.jpg

They are the images from the section titled: Flattening Boards.

However they show up in IE 5.0. Your page is returning a different image to Firefox than IE. In IE, I receive the following images:

image025.jpg

image027.jpg

image029.jpg

which all display fine in Firefox.

Comments:

1) Nice use for the plane+fence as a bed-up Planing surface. I would have probably never thought to use it like that.

2) Also, you provided me with another use for my 778!

3) Nice one also on the home-made 45 deg. fence.

Overall, very nice review...

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

gordon thomas

>Good review as usaul Derek. However, I did not see mention of the bevel you used for edge-jointing.

cheers mate,

Gordon Thomas

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Derek,

Great review. However, I can't help thinking that given the different angles, that in some ways this is comparing apples to oranges... I would be very interested to see what the results would be where a back bevel was placed on the Stanley blade so that equivilant angles were being compared.

Has anyone done such a comparison?

cheers, Paul

I agree with Paul

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I haven't fully sat down and digested the complete article yet as I have my own projects on the go but noticed the tearout difference between the 45 degree Stanley and the LV 45 degree were not significantly different IMO.

Cheers

Dan Clermont

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Paul

I think the performance from 'my' Stanley jointer is really good at a 45 degree cutting angle, and I have no doubt that it could be improved with a 15 degree backbevel (to bring it up to a 60 degree cutting angle). I am confident that this would raise the cutting ability to close to, but not quite, that of the BUJ. However ...

It is important to remember that we evaluate performance on several factors. One other is the ease of changing blades, and here the BUJ scores heavily over the Stanley. Another is the comfort and controllability of the BUJ over the Stanley, which was evident to me. Others may not agree here.

Should one rush out and buy the BUJ if you have a #7? The answer lies with your priorities. For the type of wood I use, the BUJ is a great asset. I love my #7 and will continue to use it on less demanding timber.

One last point about backbevels: I could not do that with my current blade since it is laminated steels.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>A thoughtful consideration. One might say my second study has deal directly with your question, though not with Stanley's (rather LV and L-N bevel down planes) and with smoothing planes rather than long planes.

Within the limited range of commercially available possibilities I could compare, putting a 5 back bevel on a blade bedded bevel down at 45 degrees, or using a flat backed blade with a 50 degree frog, will yeild virtually identical results. To the extent there was any variance between them (and I don't believe there was a statistically significant amount) it was in favor of the back bevel.

However, back bevels will not always buy one the same level of improvement as similar changes in effective cutting angle on a BU plane. On some hard dense woods, the improvement from back beveling falls off around 57-60 degrees, while the same effect is not found on a quality BU plane. I suspect there are two reasons: 1, the frog structure itself may not be sufficiently rigid in the face of these very steep angles; 2, the thicker BD blades lack sufficient support behind the edge (both support from the blade and support from the bedding surface) to optimally stabilize the BD blade at the highest angles. I'm going into this in some detail in my write up of the second plane study.

So, would the Stanley have shown improved performance with back bevels that brought the effective cutting angles to ones comparable to the LV BD plane--almost surely yes. But would they have allowed a similar level of performance in the over 60 degree range--my experience would suggest not. Of course Derek is in the position to determine this directly.

Re: Nice review! One question

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Denis

I am definitely spatially-challenged. Can you draw this as I am having much difficulty visualizing what you are describing. I am sure that there are alternatives to my solution.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Great stuff! However, a problem...

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Christopher

I am having this looked into at present (or should I say it is being looked into by Wiktor). You are not the only one who has noticed this. For most (and myself), however, all the links are present.

Garrett will be placing the Article in the library here, so that may also deal with any such problems.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>"Mmm... if the toe to mouth is the same as a #8 (longer then a #7) and the mouth to sole is the same as a #7, then is this plane is significantly longer then a #7? Must be a typo in there somewhere (or I am blind, not unheard of)".

Hi Paul

I'm afraid you are indeed blind! :)

The toe-to-mouth of the BUJ is the same as the #8 (as measured)

The BUJ and the #7 are indeed the same length overall (as measured).

Therefore the mouth-to-heel of the BUJ is shorter than the #7 (as measured).

In short, the registration area at the front of the mouth is the same for the BUJ and the #8.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Hi Derek,

Thanks for the reply. In addition to all the other helpful info you provide. In the future, it would be nice to see reviews that controlled the relevant variables as much as possible. Such things are cutting angle, chip breaker thickness and type, blade thickness and type, etc. would allow a clearer picture of what other issues are contributing to the quality of the surface produced.

I for one, would like to see a more detailed discussion of adjustment, because, in my experience I find the LV more difficult to adjust for fine shavings, than other designs. I will admit that I haven't had as much time to play with the LV planes as I would like, but after the last wood show I attended, I came away with the distinct impression that sneaking up on a shaving was much harder with LV than others. How much of this was due to the adjuster design and how much was due to the .003" (concave) tolerances for the sole will require further study. I suspect it is a combination of both. The selectivity (to take a term from my radio life) of the depth adjustment would be interesting to quantify, and could be easily done.

While the ease of changing blades my be of use to some, for those of us who prefer to have a seperate plane tuned for particular tasks, this does not mean as much.

Again, thanks for the helpful info. Looking forward to more in the future.

cheers, Paul

Gordon, 50 degree bevel/62 degree cutting angle

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Hi Lyn,

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I have been looking forward to your second test results for some time. I am assuming you have controlled, as much as possible for relevant variables, such as blade thickness/type, chipbreaker thickness/type, cutting angle, throat width, sole flatness, etc. I would also be very interested in your impressions as to ease of adjustment and other ergonomic issues.

Thanks again for your time and attention.

cheers, Paul

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Paul

Your points made me aware of so many factors that could have been raised and discussed, but obviously were not.

For example, I said very little about the 'process' of adjusting a blade in the BUJ - things like backlash, the part played by the set screws, the lateral adjustment knob - mainly because these had been discussed on previous occasions (e.g. in the BUS review). A voice in my head kept saying that I should approach this review as though it were quite distinct from previous reviews. However, it was getting out of control with length already, and some detail was omitted. I countered my neurosis here by saying to myself that I will deal with it if/when someone raised the point.

The short answer (someone out there is saying, "thank god for that") is that the LV BU planes are ALL very easy to adjust. The BUJ is no exception. There is minimal backlash when adjusting blade projection. This is an absolute revelation when one does it after a Stanley plane. Obtaining a fine setting is really, really easy. MUCH easier than any Stanley plane out there with a frog. PLUS (and I know I have said this in the article) repeat settings are a snap with the depth screw.

I am not the greatest fan of the lateral adjustment part of the Norris-type lever. I find that it does not make fine adjustment enough - or perhaps I am a bit ham-fisted. So I prefer to tap (with a finger) on the blade itself. I have not heard others complain about this, so I might be alone here.

Overall (see - trying to keep this short), the 'ease of use' factor of the BUJ is one of its big drawcards. This goes for all the BU planes, which is why they are ideal for the novice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Yah, it has been a very long time.

The primary thrust of this last investigation has been to look at the influence of effective cutting angle within a given plane model (though of course, comparisons across models and types becomes inevitable). Keeping the same plane, while varying the effective cutting angle offers the greatest control over most of those variables, such as sole flatness etc. That was relatively easy to do for BU planes and BD planes that had optional frogs or when BB's were employed to abtain alternate effective cutting angles.

It was not possible with some styles of planes, such as infills and most woodies, so in these cases a brace of planes fairly uniform in characteristics but for bedding angle were employed, such as a full set of Shepherd infills, or a full set of Knight wooden finish planes. Not as tightly controlled as using the same plane, but with some careful tuning (all done by me), they were pretty close.

Still, I don't believe precise matching of characteristics is necessarily the requirment for making comparisons when the criteria is quality of surface finish. I most often approach things from the aspect of adjusting each plane to achieve optimal performance for a given planing task (which often varies by species and even board). Thus, I find a more pragmatic comparison to be comparing two planes with each plane having, for example its mouth set to the size that allowed the best surface finish, rather than comparing two planes where each had the identical mouth size. This makes comparisons much more involved, as for each sample, one must first explore the range of parameters, and their interactions, that lead to the best possible surface finish, and only after those parameters are established does one document the measurements for comparison to other effective cutting angles, planes, etc.

I really hear you with regards to the significance of things like ergonomics. Of course the problem is that what is optimally ergonomic for one is not always the best for another. There are two planes that are simply wonderful fits for my hands: the ECE Primus Improved Smoother and the SMT custom infill. Yet I suspect that another could find them a poor ergonomic fit for them. So about all one can do at that level is think through why a given plane seems to be a good fit, and then describe this to the reader. The best reviewers, like ALF and Derek do this, but it really is not always an easy task to be able to determine what is likely a good fit for ones ideosyncracies, and what is just generally good design.

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Hi Derek,

Thanks for the reply. Guess our experiences with the depth adjustments are very different. Perhaps it was due to some problems with the ones available at the LV booth I attended. I am going to have the opportunity to spend some more time with various ones soon, and may post the results here, if they would be of any use to anyone.

Thanks again for the time, and attention.

cheers, Paul

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Hi Derek,

First off, my congratulations on a most attactive table (nice floor too). Second, let me express my appreciation for another great review. I very much like the style you have developed for doing them, and have enjoyed every one.

Your reviews always reveal that you not only actually use these tools, but that you are thoughtfully appraising them as they are put to use. I like that. I must say that I am often amused with how frequently you report on the very things that I had noted in my feedback to LV, or had told myself I needed to comment on to others. That happend again with this review, where you found fault with the front knob in the very way that it has bothered me. I've already told Rob that I wished it was a solid wood knob using a stud, both for comfort reasons, and to make it more aesthetically consistent with its siblings.

I will also take this opportunity to express my dissapointment with the fence. While the fence can be a great addition, it falls short of what I would have prefered. For one, it is a single plane fence, as at this point it only affixes to the BU jointer. I would have prefered a fence that was capable of being fit to the LV 5.25W, and also the BU Jack (and maybe #6 as well). Now I realize that a magnetic version of this fence is available, but it seems rather inelegant to have to purchase two virtually identical fences in order to cover more than one plane. Second, I bemoan the lack of angle adjustment integral to the fence. Here, you and I differ slightly, as I would prefer a longer plane to chamfer the edges of table tops and the like, and I do wish to be able to choose an lesser angle than 45 degrees for the purpose. These are tiny quibles, though, about a most desirable plane.

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

paul womack

>reviews that controlled the relevant variables as much as possible.

If one had a CNC shop and a lot of money and time, such a review could be done. Indeed, I understand that Lyn, with some assistance from the plane making community, is making a "best effort" at such a review.

But, in the majority of cases, a review may be "absolute" (i.e. a non-comparitive opinion of one plane), or "comparitive" (a small pool of planes AKA a "shoot out").

In the latter, whilst one might like to control the variables, the variables are NOT independant. AFAIK there is (for example) no practical way to examine how a Bailey #7 performs without a chip breaker, or with a 1/4" thick blade.

When someone contributes a review, the reader simply has to bring their own estimation and judgement of the reliability of the reviewer to bear.

In this particular instance I know (from previous articles and posting son multiple forums, and over multiple years) that Derek is a woodworker of skill and experience, and that he is open and honest in his opinions.

I weight his opinions on the Lee Valley Bevel Up Jointer accordingly.

BugBear

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Alice Frampton, UK

>I for one, would like to see a more detailed discussion of adjustment, because, in my experience I find the LV more difficult to adjust for fine shavings, than other designs. I will admit that I haven't had as much time to play with the LV planes as I would like, but after the last wood show I attended, I came away with the distinct impression that sneaking up on a shaving was much harder with LV than others.

Hi Paul,

Bevel-up, or bevel-down? The nature of the beast makes the adjustment finer on all bevel-ups (greater ratio of "along" movement to "down"). Trouble is it's a long time since I had my hands on a LV bevel-down to remember what the depth adjustment felt like, but it would definitely be less sensitive than on the BUs. May not be the issue you had, but fwiw...

Cheers, Alf

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Alice Frampton, UK

>Second, I bemoan the lack of angle adjustment integral to the fence.

You're not the only one...

Cheers, Alf

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Alice Frampton, UK

>As I said elsewhere; Nice one, Derek.

Cheers, Alf

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Rob Lee

>Yeah - but you have to make your comments before we order parts.... :)

The knob change to the solid front is planned....and may even be in place now....!

Cheers -

Rob

LV BU vs LV BD Adjust

Brad in Ottawa

>Alice,

I have easy access to both and you are correct. The LV BU adjuster is heads and shoulders above the LV BD for adjustment.

Brad