WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

infill question

Posts

infill question

#1

infill question

tgret

>[this should have been posted over here in the first place!]

i have been using a bedrock 604 for a while now and have been very happy with it. i recently had an opportunity to briefly try an ashley isles infill a5 and was amazed at how well it felt to use (whether the results in terms of finish were any better than the 604, i couldn't say, but using it felt like a diffent world).

my question is do most of you experts on infill planes believe that they work better (however you personally define that) than "standard" frog based bailey/bedrock style planes?

to the extent that the answer to the above questions is yes, how much of a functional difference might there be among ahsley isles, shepards, st. james bay and even something as pricey as a sauer and steiner? i'd be very interested in hearing from anyone that is familiar with these different brands of new infills and hearing any comparisons among them. many thanks. t.

Re: infill question

#2

Re: infill question

Cameron

>What you're experiencing is probably more to do with the pitch of the bed/frog and the mass of the plane, rather than a "wood vs. metal" aspect of it. The mass of the blade is a big factor as well.

Re: infill question

#3

Re: infill question

paul womack

>rather than a "wood vs. metal"

I keep hoping one of the infill makers would do "the" experiment - by substituting a metal bed for the usual wood.

I've never seen a convincing pdeudo-scientific experimental justfication for the "wood bed absorbs shock" claim for infills.

I am especially skeptical, since some infills support the blade on metal near the all-important cutting edge ( on a "throat plate").

BugBear

Re: infill question

#4

Re: infill question

Cameron

>Well is has been scientifically proven hundreds, possibly thousands, of times that wood absorbs shock better than metal. There would be a slight factor involved in the bed of an infill plane but the bigger factors are that there's just more mass to these planes in general. The mass itself absorbs the shock moreso than the material involved.

Re: infill question

#5

Jim in Burlington Ont.

I'm no good at links

Jim in Burlington On

>But there's a big thread a while back called Infill vs bedrock

I asked a similar question after reading a article by David Charlesworth wether a Infill was better than a bedrock plane.

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.