After much studying (and agonizing), I bought in mid January an LN 4 1/2 smoother. Wow, all positive comments here (and from lurking elsewhere) keep coming to life every time I reach for it. For the first time I found our what a plane is ‘supposed’ to do. I also bought the York frog, but have not tried it yet.
However, I already found out, that often 4 1/2 is just too big for some smaller tasks. Now I have set my eyes on a #4. Here is my dilemma:
Should I go with #4 or the same sized bevel (bezel) up version? Both, LN and LV have them.
I came to ‘believe’ that the ‘bevel up’ is a preferable design, but no amount of speculation is to me an acceptable substitute for an actual experience (which I hope you will be willing to share).
Here are my reasons to favor bevel up:
a) less expensive (for a rare occasion not a factor in this particular case, because I am just too obsessed with getting the better design);
b) faster to switch to a different pitch by merely changing the iron as opposed to a frog;
c) consider the common (45 degree) or higher pitch: an iron bedded at 12 degrees needs 33 degrees bevel or more which translates into a longer edge retention – this could be done also with a bevel down iron;
d) much more sensitive depth of cut control (I wonder if this contributes to greater chatter resistance): for a .001″ change in the depth of cut, an iron bedded at 12 deg has to travel .0048″, while the one bedded at 45 deg only .0014″. When I ran these numbers on a calculator earlier this afternoon, they virtually pushed me to seek the wisdom on the Knots.
e) LV offers a 1/8″ iron on their (smaller) BU smoother, while LN’s is 3/16″. Does this difference translate into a tangible difference in an actual performance?
I am very thankful for any practical/empirical info – either supporting my thinking or nixing it. I’d rather be wrong in my speculations than in my actual choices.
Metod
Replies
Okay, here's a response to your observations:
a) less expensive (for a rare occasion not a factor in this particular case, because I am just too obsessed with getting the better design)
It's less expensive simply because there are less parts and less machining.
b) faster to switch to a different pitch by merely changing the iron as opposed to a frog
Well, yes--sort of. It depends on your work. A low angle plane is very good on soft wood and end grain. With the heavy irons in the LN and LV planes, it's possible to use them on hard woods with a proper bevel angle.
The more obtuse bevel angles actually change the plane into a self-limiting scraper. You can't take a heavy cut. Have you ever tried paring with a bevel angle of 50º on a chisel? It's the same thing with a plane iron. Because you're looking for a smooth plane, you may only want to take fine shavings but it's a limitation you might want to consider.
c) consider the common (45 degree) or higher pitch: an iron bedded at 12 degrees needs 33 degrees bevel or more which translates into a longer edge retention - this could be done also with a bevel down iron
Longer edge retention? Oh my, where did you hear that? Dulling is caused by wear and heat is a catalyst to wear in metal. Because of spring-back from viscoelastic deflection of the wood fibers ahead of the cutting edge, a 12º bedded plane doesn't have an adequate clearance angle with the more obtuse cutting geometry some people are talking about. This is what limits the depth of cut I mentioned earlier and it also increases friction, e.g. heat and wear to the cutting edge. Right now LV is looking at going to O-1 steel for these plane irons in the hope of increasing edge life. Personally, I think they're going the wrong direction as O-1 has a lower red hardness (heat resistance) than the A-2 they're using. I think they'll end up going to high speed steel to deal with this additional wear.
d) much more sensitive depth of cut control (I wonder if this contributes to greater chatter resistance): for a .001" change in the depth of cut, an iron bedded at 12 deg has to travel .0048", while the one bedded at 45 deg only .0014". When I ran these numbers on a calculator earlier this afternoon, they virtually pushed me to seek the wisdom on the Knots.
Ahh, you've found the only advantage of these planes if you work mostly hard woods. But then people have worked with steeper bed angles for hundreds of years to get their advantages in hard wood. Plane makers knew this a long time ago and still made their bench planes in common, York and middle pitch. There are reasons for this.
e) LV offers a 1/8" iron on their (smaller) BU smoother, while LN's is 3/16". Does this difference translate into a tangible difference in an actual performance?
I'm not sure, it depends on the accuracy of the bedding of the iron. I do have LN's 164 and it's a fine plane. It does exactly what I wanted--work well in very soft wood but mostly allow me to work end grain without fear of blowing out at the end of a full-length cut. I have no problem with saying LN's 164 is a great plane.
Thanks for your (quick) response. I am still 'sitting on the fence'.
I figured out that the lower price is due to fewer parts.
For edge retention: a few days ago I came across (did not bookmark the page - and did not spend enough time today to find and quote it) somebody's experiments. The findings were that (close to my memory) a 28 deg bevel fails faster than a 33 deg one. So this was not a speculation on my part. I did speculate that such a result could be attributed to greater heat dissipation and distribution of the cutting force to the adjacent molecules. A metalurgist should have a (much) more competent explanation.
You did help me to formulate a more focused question:
Given that (let me be specific, since you know LN 164 first hand) an LN 164 and LN 4 are set for the same pitch (45 deg or York), which one would perform better (less chatter, less tearout)?
"But then people have worked with steeper bed angles for hundreds of years to get their advantages in hard wood. Plane makers knew this a long time ago and still made their bench planes in common, York and middle pitch. There are reasons for this. "
I was wondering the same. Does it have to do (to any extent) with the fact that the planes were wooden for a very long time. I do not think (no actual experience, though) that a 12 deg wooden bed would have much sturdiness to it. It also would not support an iron well near its edge.
I am curious, whether the low angle beds came with the advent of the metal planes. Any knowledge about this?
Best wishes,
Metod
You're right about low angle planes made of wood. Structurally, a 12º bedded plane, isn't a good idea. Infills came about as a result of this, the first modern style (18th Century) infills were low angle miter and shoulder planes.
I often pare across end grain and have a chisel sharpened at 25º. Does it dull faster than my 30º honed chisels? Yep, but it also leaves a finished surface. Woodworking is loaded with trade-offs like that. It usually takes me longer to walk a few feet to my sharpening stones than to sharpen so I don't find sharpening much of an issue.
"Given that (let me be specific, since you know LN 164 first hand) an LN 164 and LN 4 are set for the same pitch (45 deg or York), which one would perform better (less chatter, less tearout)?"
Actually, they don't have the same pitch when sharpened according to LN's instructions. The cutting angle of the #164 is 37º and the #4 is 45º. On end grain and very soft wood the #164 would be better. In most common planing situations the #4 would be better. You'd be better off with the York pitch frog on hardwoods with interlocked grain. That doesn't mean that either plane is lacking in any way, just suited for different jobs--get 'em both.
......."That doesn't mean that either plane is lacking in any way-just suited for different jobs-get ' em both".
That is certainly sage advice, that is why I qouted it(;). Anyway, if you only get one now , it won't be long before you are lusting after the other...
And where have you been all this time??Philip Marcou
I do not own a LN bench plane. I do own several of their other tools (specialty planes, scrapers and saws), I love them all. I have resisted the purchase of their bench planes due to the fact that older Stanleys can be had relatively cheaply. I keep my irons razor sharp and through practice have reduced sharpening time to only a few minutes. However, even with sharp irons, awarness of grain orientation and experience I still get tearout in hardwoods (the majority of my work). I mention this because I still am interested in purchasing the LN bench planes. The main reason being that I would like to take advantage of the york pitch option. I say go with the LN #4 with the york frog. Good luck.
I am afraid I do not have much to add technically, Larry and Philip have covered all of the major points.
I hear on this board and elsewhere heaps of praise for the LA BU bench-sized planes. I've heard people who say they excel in softwoods, hardwoods, straight and curly grain. It doesn't make sense to me.
Low angle planes of this type are very good at end-grain planing, that's what they were designed for. Where they ever made in large numbers prior to Stanley? (Not counting Miter Planes).
Doing a side-by-side comparison between a common angle or high angle plane and the low angle type, equally well set up, on difficult grained hardwood is the only way to really understand the difference.
Now, full disclosure, the only large "block plane" I own is LN's No. 9 (Miter Plane). It's great for end grain trimming with a shooting board, which is why I bought it. When I had fussy grained walnut and cherry to smooth I tried it out to see how it would handle it. Not so well, it's tight throat and the ability to set for a very fine shaving helped, but I then tried my No. 4 (LN) with a tight throat and it worked better.
Finally I bought a Clark & Williams smoother (bevel down, no chip breaker) with a higher bed angle and the results were much, much better. Not a particularly scientific survey, but I remain convinced.
If low-angle, bevel-up planes are superior in use and quality of finish, I would think our early 20th century forbears would've recognized this and there would be a lot more old No. 62s rusting away in peoples basements and a lot fewer No. 5's but there's just not.
One man's ramblings...
David C
Woodworking was, at one time, referred to as one of the' practical arts' . All this technical talk I have been hearing and reading about recently regarding planes bothers me a little. I know that there are some very fine and also very expensive planes on the market today. However, think back when all woodworking was done by hand. Many carpenters, jointers, and cabinetmakers made their living with handsaws and hand planes. I believe that they , along with tool designers, came up with the most practical designs possible. Practical is the key word here. If your livelyhood depends on something, you are going to go for the most practical solution. I think that is what the old timers did. In 1950 I was enrolled in 9th grade woodshop. In this class we were taught to square up all our boards with a No 5 Stanley. All 6 sides, faces, edges and ends were planed with the No 5. Believe me when I say that students learned to grind, hone and tune their planes. I doubt if todays high end planes will do a better job. They may be better in some respects but from a practical aspect, I doubt if they can turn out more or better work. Since we don't make a living with our planes, some of us want a beautiful top of the line tool. Fine, I see nothing wrong with that. I wonder if the manufacturers of these fine tools are mostly responsible for our wanting them.
I agree! There's far too much "technical talk" around hand planes nowadays. The thing is that we're only talking about pitch angle here - not "new" technology. The same pitch angles we have today are the very same ones they've had like.....forever! While the main difference is that it's unwise to have extremely low angles in wood, its been perfectly fine for the past 160 years or so to have them in metal. So why weren't there more BU planes in the past 160 years? The short answer is that they weren't necessary! Go with the York pitch and buy the BU at a later stage if you feel you really need it.
a 45 degrees angle where the wood meets the blade. The wood does not know if this angle is from a bevel up or bevel down. If you cut your blade very short it becomes an equilateral triangle, no bevel up or down, symetrical. 45 degrees is 45 degrees. Im have 2 LN 45 degrees, my next smoother will be a LV BUS.
It seems that I have a problem in formulating my question. I am quite familiar with the suitability of various pitches (angles) for various applications/woods.
Here is one more try: would a plane that has a 12 deg bed and is equipped with a 33 deg (38 deg) iron perform (chatter resistance, quality of cut, precision control of the depth adjustment...) worse, equal or better than a plane equipped with a 45 deg (50 deg) frog and a bevel down iron?
I apologize for being so pushy. I do appreciate your willingness to share your views/opinions.
A little earlier today (for what is worth to other knotheads :), I was lucky to come across the following
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=handtools&file=articles_461.shtml
page. Had I known it before, I would not feel (ok, maybe a little collaboration...) to pester the rest of you.
Best wishes,
Metod
Boubou, and all,
The one thing I don't remember seeing mentioned in all this discussion, is that a bevel up plane iron does not benefit from the support of a cap iron, the purpose of which is to alleviate chatter. This is more of an issue, the steeper the pitch (or cutting angle) of the plane.
Regardfs,
Ray Pine
JW,
In the new bevel up planes the irons are very thick, and the iron is supported very close to the working edge. This goes a long way to eliminate chatter, I think.
I've heard it said, and I tend to agree that the main benefit to cap irons was to allow thin irons to be used, while maintaining adequate stiffness to reduce chatter.
I used to buy the chipbreaker aspect of cap irons until I got a high bed angle wooden smoother with a thick iron and no chipbreaker (Clark & Williams). It performs beautifully in difficult grain.
Many ways to a single end, I suppose.
Cheers,
David C.
Here is a review of the LV BUS
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVbevelUpSmoother/index.asp
Actually, i think both will be good, Bevel up or down.Whatever differences between them will be personal taste, planing technique. I give a bit more versatility for the BUS , since you can have the low angle with it
Bouboubomber,
It looks that you posted your message while I was typing mine. You are mentioning the same author, just a different posting location.
It seems (at least from that account) that the bevel up approach migh even be superior to the traditional one. The added ability of enabling (the original intent) low pitch is certainly a bonus. It is rather surprising, that the idea of using larger bevel irons for higher pitch did not arise sooner. But then, traditions (woodworking or otherwise) are not exactly a fertile ground or good catalist for new ideas/designs.
I take a great pleasure in a tool that performs well - but also delight in having some understanding of the principles behind it.
Edit. I just finished reading the article that you suggested. Mine addresses the LV BU jack, yours the LV BU smoother, and the smaller/lighter LA smoother. The conclusions seem pretty much the same (positive) for the bevel up design - even extended to the BU jointer. Goodie!
Thanks for helping out.
Best wishes,
Metod
Edited 2/20/2006 3:24 pm ET by Metod
"But then, traditions (woodworking or otherwise) are not exactly a fertile ground or good catalist for new ideas/designs"
Or...
It may be that the traditional design, developed over the past two or three millenia by people who used hand tools every day to make their living, is best.
David C.
It may be that the traditional design, developed over the past two or three millenia by people who used hand tools every day to make their living, is best.
David C.
this kind of reply is exactly why I replied!! Yup, people have also been riding horses for 2 or 3 millenas before the invention of the car. Dying before all the new medical technology. etc, the list goes on.
Of course, if something has been used for thousands of years it most likely is good. But it would be backwards to think that todays engineers can not improve over yesterdays craftsman.
Or maybe we can all go back to making smoke signals for this forum like it was done for millenias before, instead of using computers and internet
BBB:
I think if you go back and re-read my post you will see three words that perhaps, in your rush to defend and champion innovation in the face of my seemingly blatant Ludditism, you seem to have missed:
"It may be" I was not making any blanket statement.
I was responding to the originator's statemen about tradition and innovation. New isn't necessarily better, or worse, I was simply pointing that out.
Further, the specific "innovation" a low angle, bevel-up, bench sized plane was not in fact what I was referring to, that concept is a century old at least, Stanley introduced the No. 62 in 1905!
What I was specifically was referring to is the idea that one single plane and a bunch of different irons was superior than keeping separate planes set up and ready for different tasks.
Do not worry, I am not suggesting that you throw down your cell phone or turn in your extended cab pick'm up truck. Those kind of nonsensical exaggerations are funny, but the point of the argument is obscured.
I think that in this day and age of inexpensive jointers, planers and random orbital sanders, planes themselves are unnecessary. Those of us who choose to use them are doing so in part because of tradition.
David C.
Well I admit, i got a little excited there.
I agree sometimes innovation is good, sometimes not. Glad we are somewhat on the same wavelenght. you say "
I think that in this day and age of inexpensive jointers, planers and random orbital sanders, planes themselves are unnecessary. Those of us who choose to use them are doing so in part because of tradition.
David C."
I think its more than just tradition, in my case anyways, its an extension of why i do woodworking, to work with my hands, using planes is closer to that than a jointer.
Also i find that when you are proficient, or somewhat proficient, with handtools, it is often faster to use them than power ones. Quieter less dusty and safer.
I don't know if the word 'unnecessary' should be used for handplanes. If the point of power tools is efficiency, grabbing a handplane, slapping a piece of wood in a vise and doing a few passes to make it straight and smooth is more efficient than setting up a jointer and running the board through unless the amount removed by the jointer is the same as the jointer's setting. In my case and that of quite a few others, I have to back my pick'm up truck out, drag the jointer out so I can uncover it, connect it to the DC and plug it in. Then, I can set the infeed to the right height and joint the board. With a handplane, I'm well on my way to the next operation by the time I get the jointer plugged in. My next house will be totally different- I'll be able to do a lot of this stuff in the basement or in a dedicated space. If there is a large amount of lumber to mill, obviously, the power tool does it a lot faster. There is a certain satisfaction to working wood by hand that just doesn't come from doing every operation with power tools and in my case, I think some of that comes from the fact that I have at least one ancestor who was a cabinetmaker.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
My point in using the work "unnecessary" in relation to handplanes was in the context of innovation, tradition and evolution of woodworking.
There was a day, prior to the mid 19th century, that if you wanted a board surfaced, for any end use, planes were the most expedient way, and therefore necessary if you made your livelihood woodworking (unless you were a turner or chair bodger etc).
My point was that today there are alternatives. These alternatives may not produce such good results, they may arguably not even be a efficient, but it is possible for a person to make a competant and attractive (depending on your taste) furniture piece without ever touching a handplane.
So while planes may still be desireable for purposes of convenience and aesthetics, they aren't strictly necessary.
BTW, I own dozens of planes and regularly make furniture starting from roughsawn wood, never using electrons except for lights and radio.
I do not think it necessary to build this way, but for me the tradition of woodworking, the creative process and the mastery of the tools is part of the appeal.
David C.
I think that in this day and age of inexpensive jointers, planers and random orbital sanders, planes themselves are unnecessary. Those of us who choose to use them are doing so in part because of tradition.
With a 6" jointer and a 13" planer, a hand plane is really the only solution for flattening a piece of 16" stock. A jointer/planer pair that handles 16" stock is not inexpensive by any standard that applies to me.
An ROS does not do the job of a plane. The surface it leaves is not as smooth as what I can get with a sharp 4 1/2.
If the work one does not require planes, or if one prefer not to use them, they don't belong in that person's shop. But you overstate the case when you say tradition must necessarily be part of why others use them. :)My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
John,
You are correct, for very wide stock a plane is necessary for all but the largest cabinet shops. You can see my post above for why I used the term "unnecessary."
Two hundred years ago, if you wanted a table, the first step was to fell a tree or find somebody who had.
Today if you want a table, a trip to Walmart or to tha mall is the first step for the vast majority of people in this country.
In that context, planes are unnecessary. But for woodworkers making fine furniture in small quantities planes still have a very important role.
Cheers,
David C.
David,
I see a difference between a principle (a physical law, if you will) and the various designs that implement it. In particular, I am referring to the principle (discovered many moons ago) that low pitch works best fot the endgrain and is ok for softwoods, while the higher pitches are desirable for hard and 'untame' woods.
A goal of a particular design is to put these principles to work. Wooden planes certainly do not favor low beds, so high beds became 'traditional' just because they were the only viable ones.
Kayaks come to my mind. Their (optimal) shape hasn't changed much over the centuries. But tell an Eskimo of yesterday, thay they can be built with the 'skin only' (no frame). Enter new materials (plastics, epoxy, fiber glass) and there you have it. So much for the tradition.
A traditional design in itself is not a guaranty that it will not be followed by a better one. Tradition often blinds and shackles people to seek progress(better ways). This fact is often expressed as 'that's how I was taught'. And by 'I', hands and mind are meant.
I much favor the idea that 'hands are to be taught and mind to be educated'.
You can have a highly skilled woodworker (or some other activity) who was well taught - but can do only what he/she was taught and not much more.
Best wishes,
Metod
I am in agreement about what a low angle plane is good for. As I said in the above post, the LA, BU bench-sized plane is not new. But they're being touted as this incredible new innovation.
I've yet to find anyone who can explain why a LA, BU plane performs better than a dedicated plane with a bed angle matched to the job.
But I have a theory. The common angle of 45-degrees seems to me to be a compromise. If all one owns is a Stanley No. 4 (for instance), then that person is only able to plane successfully some of the wood they encounter. If that one plane is Dad's rusty old Stanley and perhaps, not terribly well tuned. It would be easy to be frustrated with all such planes, and then to generalize.
Along comes this "new" type of plane that's gotten lots of press, it's reasonable in price (compared to similar sized and quality common angle planes) and so it is purchased.
When it comes out of the box it's flat soled, well tuned, thick ironed and with a lick or two over the billion grit waterstone, wicked sharp. A few passes over some scrap, some whisper fine curlies and lo, the brow ridge grows and the knuckles drop! A Neanderthal is born this day.
"Why haven't I gotten such good results from my rusty old Stanley?" The inevitable question is posed, "It must be because these innovative new planes are better than the old ones!" The fact that you can buy irons with different angles for hardwood and cantankerous grain is just icing. Then they join the choir of the converted.
But all it is, when all is said and done, is a well tuned plane with a certain bed angle which can be expected to work as well as any other good quality, well tuned plane of a certain bed angle.
The only reasons I can see to own one is if you want to limit the number of planes that you own, or if you would rather not spend the money on great bench planes or the time to properly fettle old ones. Or if you are in business reconditioning end-grain butcher blocks, which is what Stanley intended it for.
But, I may be wrong! Or just a grumpy old fart with 50 or 60 planes whose existence I must justify.
Cheers!
David C.
David, I agree with you, i started with an old record untuned plane. Then comes along a LN plane!
What a revelation. Even changing the blade on the record for a LV thicker blade made a difference. However,as i stated before, 45 degrees is 45 degrees. My opinion, though i have yet to try a bevel up smoother, is that for 2 planes of similar quality, it will be very hard to see a significant difference. Maybe people will prefer one over the other for different reasons, such as planing technique, or the convenience of changing blades to get a different angle ( some may prefer to have a different plane for each angle) etc. I agree, also about the fact that the blade is supported all the way and being thicker, chatter should not be a problem even with no cap iron. Looking forward to geting one so i can give you a hands on report
I just gave in and ordered a LV BUS with the 3 different blades.
with the 3 different blades.
That (near as I can figure) is the only technical advantage that bevel ups have over bevel downs; their ability to switch between low, standard and high angle simply by changing the blade..Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I wonder what technical advantages did the designer(s) of the original Stanley 164 have in mind. The idea of using various bevels for the irons seems (to me) to appear several (how many?) years later.
Just curious. Maybe this design aspect is getting too much of my attention.
Metod
I think the "technological advances" of a low angle BU plane is somehow lost if they've been around for 160-200 years and very few people cared about them enough to have them as a bench planes. Even the Stanley #62's, #64's and #164's have been around for 75-100 years. Sure, the newer planes are machined better than the Stanleys and have MUCH thicker blades (a huge improvement) but, for the most part, the BU aspect of the newer planes is a marketing gimmick that's working very well it seems.And I haven't even begun to talk about the blade edge retention - or lack thereof - which is an issue that both Veritas and Lie-Nielsen have said they're looking into. I don't fully understand it myself (because I've not read all of the literature) but if both the companies who make the BU planes recognize that there's a bit of a problem with edge retention in the BU planes then there just might be something in it?
I should add that I do like the BU planes alot. They're made well, they're cool to look at (I like the look of the Veritas more) and they work great. I'm just not convinced by the BU argument, that's all.
Not exactly a plane expert, but my understanding is that block planes are all bevel up. The relatively new thing is making humungous block planes for general use.
Anyhow I talked with one of the Lee Valley plane gurus the other day and he patiently explained the merits of BU planes (pointing out they make both) along with showing me how to tune my brand new Veritas low angle block plane.
I went home, did as he said, and was able to use the block plane to smoth a big piece of oak I had machined. I know I'm not supposed to use a block plane as a smoother, but I figured lets see. I produced shavings which were incredibly thin - almost like dust. Maybe the edge needs honing, but ti still seems pretty sharp after all the planing I did. And that is a small blade.
So, again, I'm not an expert, but heck, if I can smooth out the machine marks of a big piece of oak with a little block plane, I can only imagine what I could accomplish with a full sized BU smoother.
My guess (and its only a guess) is that they were produced to work boards that respond better to lower angles of incidence, standard and high angles being covered with other tools already in production... When it aint broke, why fix it..???
The later concept of multi role planes probably stems from guys like myself, trying to get maximum capability from a limited budget..
just my tuppence worth.. ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
My sincere appreciation to all posts to me or otherwise on this thread. I hoped for a few responses - but got much more in return.
Until a few weeks ago I was not 'design-obssed'. I bought three (new) Records, #4,5,7 when I started to be interested in woodworking. Being self-taught, I did not know what to expect. The were so-so (unimpressive) which is why I never really warmed up to them. The idea that one should 'fix' (read: fettle) something brand new, was completely alien to me.
I am probably advertisers' worst nightmare: If something has to be heavily advertised, it is probably not all that good. That goes for advertising in general, not just for woodworking gadgets. When in one of those moods (mental modes?) I would study an ad, and try to deduce to what kind of consumer it is directed. Call me a snob, but our collective consumer stupidity (I am not without my contributions) is a goldmine for adverisers. I'd love to write ads (reading them is a lot of fun too) ads for the funeral industry...
How about a thread about the woodworking products fot the 'needy ones'?
Anyway, I had very little info about the bevel up design (LV catalog, LN page), so I sucked myself into it.
At this point I am quite firmly on the side of 'bevel up'. As I said in my original post, I have (as of mid January) a LN with regular and york frog. Had I known (and were suitably obsessed) before what I 'know' now, I would probably bought a LV BUS. I have no regrets about LN - I finally know what a plane can do.
There are still some questions that I am trying to formulate. I'll be back soon.
Best wishes to all - you are a great bunch :)
Metod
Midnight wrote:
"That (near as I can figure) is the only technical advantage that bevel ups have over bevel downs; their ability to switch between low, standard and high angle simply by changing the blade."
-----
I'd say the other big advantage to the LV BU Jointer, Jack and Smoother is that it makes a good "system" of planes. I'm not that interested in starting a big collection of planes but I do prefer planes over power tools for squaring and surfacing my projects. These three planes all share the same blades. This is a big selling point IMO.Another "technical advancement" on the LV planes that is a big improvement is the blade set screws on either side that prevent blade shift. I haven't noticed this in other planes.What is very appealing is that someone has taken a slightly fresh approach to plane design and is producing a high quality tool at a reasonable price and delivering it with good customer service. I just spent my power jointer budget on a set of three BU LV planes and I couldn't be happier. Best of luck!
Another "technical advancement" on the LV planes that is a big improvement is the blade set screws on either side that prevent blade shift. I haven't noticed this in other planes.
It is an interesting idea, although I've not noticed in all my years using hand planes a problem with shifting irons.
I am a bit dubious about the idea of drilling & tapping holes roughly in line with the mouth of the plane, it seems to me to create a weak point, but likely they increased the cheek thickness, or casting in a boss, to overcome this. Mr. Lee is pretty smart, so I imagine he's got it covered. I haven't seen one in the flesh.
David C.
"Another "technical advancement" on the LV planes that is a big improvement is the blade set screws on either side that prevent blade shift. I haven't noticed this in other planes."While they didn't use set screws per se', Norris and a few other infill makers were doing this 100 years ago.
Edited 2/22/2006 12:24 pm ET by Pete B
I'd say the other big advantage to the LV BU Jointer, Jack and Smoother is that it makes a good "system" of planes.
Commonality / interchangability of parts is certainly a wise move, but bevel ups by no means have monopoly on this... I have the L-N #4 1/2, #5 1/2, #6 and #7... all 4 planes share the same blade, chip breaker, lever cap and frog; with a spare blade honed to a radius and a york pitch frog I give myself 16 different set up permutations... Like you I've no interest (much less the budget) to dedicate a plane to each of those permutations... Systems approach... gotta love it.. ;)
I haven't noticed this in other planes.
I can't say I'm alltogether sold on the grub screw idea.. Whenever I remove the blade to sharpen it I destroy whatever setting it was at... a couple of minutes spent resetting it is unavoidable, and once done, that setting is locked down by the lever cap and will only change if I do something deliberately... I don't see how grub screws give an advantage here... It's probably just me... <shrugs.>..
What is very appealing is that someone has taken a slightly fresh approach to plane design and is producing a high quality tool at a reasonable price and delivering it with good customer service. I just spent my power jointer budget on a set of three BU LV planes and I couldn't be happier.
No arguement from me there.... It's good to see a little "out of the box" thinking put to good use, and refreshing to see that it's proving popular with end users. When you get right down to it, the board doesn't know or care whether its being worked with a bevel up or down plane... all that counts is that you have tools that you're comfortable with and that they're capable of getting the job done to your required standard... Having tools that you can confidently put your faith into is in my experience, priceless... It lets you focus on your technique, giving the capability to simply "get it done...."
;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I like the grub screws for making minute adjustments to the blade angle. Loosening one and tightening the other a 1/4 turn or less lets you nudge the blade with more accuracy than the adjustment lever at the top of the blade, for me anyway.A side benefit of the bevel up is a lower center of gravity for the whole tool. For the record I don't think bevel up is *better* by itself than Bailey designs and may have a shortcoming or two coupled with it's advantages. What tool doesn't!!!
These planes are just a nice option at a good price point. If the appeal to you for any reason they are worth a try. If you don't like them they'll be very easy to resell.I saw a few on eBay yesterday that were within $20 of the retail price.
I have a LN #4 with the high angle frog and the LN #164 low angle smoother. Get the #164 with a couple of extra blades for regrinding. The #164 does everything the #4 does and more. Works great as a smoother on hard and soft woods, steeper grind for hardwoods, lower grind for softwoods, lowest grind for endgrain. I have a ton of planes, Stanleys, Records, self-made, and LN. I consider the #164 to be the best plane I own. I also wouldn't hesitate to buy the bigger of the two Lee Valley low angle smoothers. Everything I have read about that plane is that it is the equal of the #164 I own (some say even better). Either way I would be surprised if you came away with buyers remorse.
Gdblake,
Thanks for your input. I was hoping that somebody would have and share actual experiences with (any) bevel up planes and different angled irons.
At this point I am pretty much settled on getting LN 164 - so your experience with this particular plane makes me feel even less hesitant about my plans.
LV bevel up smoother would be a serious contender. Since I already have a LN 4 1/2, it would mean a duplication. LN 164 is the same size as #4, and fits what I am looking for.
LV LA smoother is a bit longer (the same as the BUS), but it is mostly the thicker iron of 164 that is tipping the scales.
Best wishes,
Metod
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled