LV Bevel Up Smoother vs Low Angle Smoother

Re: LV Bevel Up Smoother vs Low Angle Smoother

Brent Smith

>I have the LA smoother. I bought it before the BU planes were on the market. If I were buying today, I'd buy the BU. It is a heavier plane and has the added attraction of allowing trading blades with the BU Jack and Jointer.

Brent

Re: LV Bevel Up Smoother vs Low Angle Smoother

Ed Mulligan, Cape Cod

>Chris -

The LA smoother works well for shooting. The BU smoother isn't designed for shooting.

Ed

But, but, but,....

Hoa Dinh in Union City

>"The LA smoother works well for shooting. The BU smoother isn't designed for shooting."

... sooner or later, you'll end up buying the LA jack anyway. Due to its heftiness, it shoots much better than the LA smoother.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't know yet), when it comes to hand planes, one is never enough.

-- Hoa

Re: LV Bevel Up Smoother vs Low Angle Smoother

Bob Fawcett

>I have the BU smoother and LA jack, and soon to add the Jointer (late Christmas present). I can't think of a better "set". I got the Jack first, and would do it again. I use it for shooting and it works well for that. The BU smoother is designed to do 1 thing, smooth. It does that very well. If you want something to do many things well, I think the LA Jack is hard to beat. I have used it to joint, shoot, smooth, and everything else. It was my first and only handplane for a while.

LV BUS vs LAS - review *LINK*

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Hi Chris

In the course of reviewing the LV BUS I also compared it to the LAS, both subjectively and objectively. The link for the review is below. It is LONG, and the LAS data is in the last segment.

Regards from Perth

Derek


Review of LV BUS

Re: LV BUS vs LAS - review

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Great article, Derek. Thanks very much!

OT... should we put up some sort of FAQ?

James Watriss

>I realize this may come across as pretentious on my part, or it may sound grouchy, or whatever... I don't mean it to be.

I remember a few years back, when I was a regular contributor to a mountain bike message board, (mtbr.com) it got to a point where a handful of the regulars got together to put up an FAQ on disc brakes. Some of us had answered the same questions so many times about disc brakes in general, and some brands in specific, that we had saved word documents on our computers to copy and paste from. And it had gotten to the point where so many of us had answered the same questions so many times, that some of us had stopped answering, and one or two started telling people to just check the archives.

I love this forum. I think it has a lot to offer the woodworking community at large, becuase hand tools can do a lot of things that power tools can't sometimes, with less noise, and sometimes with much more satisfaction.

I can't bash anone for asking about Low-Angle/Bevel-up/Mutant Block Plane smoothers and jack planes. They've become very popular, and for very good reason. But this is one of those threads that I see in here on a regular basis, and this morning, I heard that cranky voice in the back of my skull grumbling "Read the archives."

Generally, I like answering questions, in the highly unlikely event that I have anything relevant to say. And I love passing on whatever it is that I know. Some things can be (are) addressed in the articles section. Still, articles are often one-man (or one-woman) shows, and there are quite a few people in here that have good things to say, and points to argue from differnt sides, But I don't see them in here as much anymore. An FAQ at the top of the forum page is something that can be easily pointed to, so that the serious regulars in here that I like to hear from can get down to business on something new or different, and might help them rekindle interest in something more than just lurking.

Naturally, I have no idea what those topics might be. But it seems like the forum is approaching a stage where it'd be possible to put up a basic "primer" of what we/y'all collectively know, to help some things keep from getting stale. That way the best of what's been in here can be preserved in an easy to find location, (who really wants to root through archives, anyway?) and questions can become more specific if someone doesn't understand some aspect of what's already been written up.

Just an idea.

Couple of thoughts

Dan Donaldson

>A good place for items like this might be in the articles pages. There are a fair number of articles that are collections of threads from the message boards. If anyone is interested in doing it, they can collect the general wisdom from threads on just about any subject and make an article out of it to send to Garrett. It may be that many of the subjects are already covered in the articles already there. I would encourage everyone to take a look at the articles pages to become familiar with what is there. New ones are going up all the time, and there is a lot of good info.

Re: Couple of thoughts *LINK*

Derek

>Dan,

Has anyone considered a "wiki" type of database? Check out the link if you are not familiar with them.


http://www.wikipedia.org/

Re: Couple of thoughts

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I proposed it more than 18 months ago in private. Interest was non-existant. I proposed it more than 18 months ago in private. Interest was non-existent.

Still, however, I think the idea has merit. (And yes Rod, :) I�m fully aware of all the political limitations of a Wiki� I still hold the, perhaps na�ve, belief that it is a good idea.)