replacing Bedrock yokes

Re: No, but

Dale Stansbery


>I've often wondered why some enterprising blade/chip breaker maker hasn't come up with a breaker that has tabs punched down above and below the adjustment tang hole to engage the shorter tangs on Stanley planes. It would take a punch die set up to do it, but it would open up the entire Stanley market to thick irons. Hmmm, I suppose I should run this by the patent office before posting :-).

Re: No, but

les winter


>You know, I was thinking of ordering a non-punched chip breaker and doing what you said, or some sort of small sqaure tube to extend the yoke upwards. But if the LN yoke fits, it's the most elegant solution, I think.

Les

Re: No, but

William Duffield, on the Cohansey


>One of the small quality details I appreciate in the L-N planes is the reduced backlash in the depth adjustment, when compared to other Bailey patent planes by other manufacturers. This is due in no small part to L-N's quality control of the dimensions of the yoke and chip breaker. Somehow, I don't see stamped bosses on the chip breaker contributing to a tight adjuster operation. To the contrary, I think such a retrofit would only increase the mushiness of the adjuster. Brazing or welding tabs, followed by precise machining of the gap between them, could be made to work, but at what expense? Of course, we have all learned to accept and deal with quite a bit of backlash, just as we accept (and often praise) mushy suspensions in our passenger vehicles.

I hate backlash

jim reed @ tallahassee


>Some (Stanley) planes are just *eat up with it.* Others can be a dream. Those are the ones that are kept for the user box. Surprisingly, some the planes in my collection with the smallest amount of backlash are Craftsmans from the 1950s.

Re: I hate backlash

Dale Stansbery


>I've seen a number of the brass adjuster knobs that were badly worn because they were used with the lever cap locked down tight. That introduces a bunch of backlash. I still think that if you were starting with a blank chip breaker, tabs could be punched down with an opening no larger than the original hole, or even smaller for that matter, and let the user custom file it to exactly fit the yoke tang. They wouldn't have to be bent down 90 deg., just depressed about the thickness of the chip breaker.

Re: possible backlash solution

George in Lowell, Mich.


>Has anyone tryed to add a glob of brazing rod to the tip of the yoke? This could be easily done with a propane torch. It could then be filed to just fit the opening. Probably .015"-.020" to each side of the tip would make it "snug as a bug". I would let it cool slowly though to help prevent it from being brittle.

George

Re: it fits, but

les winter


>The yoke fits provided I use the old pin; the new LN pin is slightly too big in diameter. But, the tang on the top is too fat, front to back, to penetrate my Hock chipbreaker. I'll look at my LN8 chip breaker; I'll bet it has a bigger opening. If so, then I'll open up the Hock a bit and we shall see what we shall see. It'll be a few days.

Les

I found the problem

les winter


>The yoke tang fits, just barely, into the chip breaker opening. The problem is that it doesn't penetrate very far and holds the blade/chip breaker up off the frog. I think that's to coordinate with a 0.140" thick blade. I'll make a cardboard shim to approximate a thick blade and try that.