Bevel Up plane question

[matt]

Hmm I seem to be posting a lot today. I wonder how that reflects on my excitment level for my new project at work....

In reading a bunch of reviews lately (mostly of BU planes). I've come accross this point a few times. That BU planes don't require as much downward pressure because the blade naturally tries to suck the plane down. I know its hard to quantify it, but how true is that statement? Is it really noticable, or is it just one of those things that people tend to mention that really doesn't make much of a difference?

[Chris in Pickering]

I have all 3 of the Lee Valley bevel up series as well as the Lie-Nielsen bevel up Jack plane and do not notice a difference between them and my standard planes.... They produce a better quality surface on some woods compared to regular Bailey planes, but the feel and motion is the same...

PS where the heck is Stittsville?

[Denis Chénard in Ottawa]

In reading a bunch of reviews lately (mostly of BU planes). I've come accross this point a few times. That BU planes don't require as much downward pressure because the blade naturally tries to suck the plane down. I know its hard to quantify it, but how true is that statement? Is it really noticable, or is it just one of those things that people tend to mention that really doesn't make much of a difference?

The wood doesn't care what the bevel is up or down, only the actual cutting angle. There might some truth to what you're saying if the effective angle is less than the regular 45 degree angle of bevel down planes. In practice I don't think you'll be able to detect a difference.

However, if the bevel up planes you are referring to are Veritas, some of them (like the bevel up smoother) are heavier than the bevel down planes of the same size, so you don't have to put as much pressure down.

HTH,

DC

[Jim in Burlington]

I don't think that's true. When using higher angle blades in BU planes more downward force is required IMO.

[derekcohen]

In reading a bunch of reviews lately (mostly of BU planes). I've come accross this point a few times. That BU planes don't require as much downward pressure because the blade naturally tries to suck the plane down. I know its hard to quantify it, but how true is that statement?

Matt

I don't see it as a factor of the BU format, per se, but rather as a result of higher mass plus, as in the case of the Veritas planes, the vertical tote which enourages a forward rather than the downward action of the Stanley and LN planes.

Here is an extract from my review of the Veritas Bevel Up Smoother (BUS) in comparison with the Veritas Low Angle Smoother (LAS). Unfortunately the images could not be copied over:

I recall when the BUS arrived and I removed it from its box. Compared to the LAS it looked squat and ungainly. And heavy. Did I mention it felt much heavier than the LAS? Or that it had a thicker, more cumbersome handle? I was determined not to like this interloper................

Of course I had to try it out. I am only made of flesh and blood. So, with a freshly honed and carefully set blade in a minute mouth … take one Cherry board ……place the BUS down on the timber. It feels as squat as it looks – like a suction on a glass plate. It feels low. Mmmm…it “feels” lower than the LAS...................

About a month ago I reviewed the LV Scrub plane and complained about the thickness of the rear tote. The BUS has the same rear tote. This time I barely noticed it..................

A short aside about the rear tote…..

I have been using the BU Jointer for the past month. It is just a superb instrument and totally outperforms every jointer I have used to date. My head had really been with the BU Smoother review I am finishing, but the Jointer gave me pause for thought in regard to the rear totes. While I still find the centre of the tote too thick for my personal tastes, it had been less of an issue than with the LV Scrub. It occurred to me that I was also not so fussed with the tote when using the BU Smoother. The question was why? The answer may have a lot to do with the weight of these planes and the momentum they achieve compared to a lighter plane.

My workbench is moderately high - 35 ½ “ - compared to those of Frank Klausz at 33” (since Frank is 6’0” tall, this bench is clearly very low) and Ian Kirby at 34” (he is 5’9”, about an inch shorter than myself). (information available from The Workbench Book by Scott Landis). It was built many years ago and before I thought to dedicate it to handtool use. It occurred to me that the smaller and lighter planes (such as the LA Smoother) require more down force, and that the thinner totes permit me a tighter grip to control them. Perhaps higher benches are better suited to planes that require less downforce?

The second factor is the angle of the tote (according to my protractor, approximately 80° for the LV and 50° for the Stanley). The angles of the LAS and BUS are the same, but significantly more upright (vertical) than the Stanley. What is the effect of this? Once again it appeared to me that the Stanley tote was designed for a different bench height (and a different era of handplaning) than the LV. More downforce may have been applied to the Stanley because benches were lower. By contrast, the natural orientation of the LV seems to be that of forward, that is, in the horizontal, and this seems to be better suited to taller benches (modern benches designed for both hand- and power tools?).

What of the front knob? The mushroom knob of the BUS is very comfortable easy to hold. It reminds me a little of the low Stanley knobs of the Type 11 and earlier era. The front knob of the LAS is smaller and more akin to modern Stanley knobs. It is also comfortable. Why are knobs round? Probably because this permits them to be held at different angles. Why does the BUS have a larger knob that the LAS? Probably because it is heavier and requires extra leverage to lift at the end of a stroke. The knobs meet different needs in different circumstances. In my opinion they suit the planes they are on.

Back to the BUS and the Cherry board…. I push the plane…. It feels like a train on tracks….. It gains momentum and it seems as if nothing can stand in its path….. It feels quite effortless – quite a different sensation to both the LAS and HNT Gordon. The latter planes need to be pressed down onto the surface. The BUS just needs to be pushed forward – its weight provides all the needed pressure downward.

Now the LAS is capable of as superb a finish as the BUS. Its performance was measured on the Camphor..............

There is a difference, nonetheless. It is simply that with the BUS it is less effort to produce these results.

Compared to the LAS, what the BUS lacks in “feel” it makes up in control. With its sole waxed, it has all the speed that one could wish for and, in this situation, it did not feel heavy.

For the full review, go to http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVbevelUpSmoother/index.asp

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Gordon Thomas]

Matt some observations:

1. the problem with the BU plane is that there is no frog to rest your forefinger. this leads to fatigue. Not important if you use the plane for short pertiods of time say twenty minutes or less.
2. I owned and returned the LV BUS and LAJ. after about fifteen minutes of using the BUS my wrist tendons were screaming. Some will respond that it has to do with bench height/ technique. I feel that it has to with the rear tote design.
3.Take a sample of woodworking magazines and see what type of planes the craftsman use - they ar mostly the Stanley tote design, bevel down.


cheers,

Gordon

[Chris in Pickering]

I cannot say that I agree with gcpt about fatigue when using bevel up planes...... You mean to tell me that your whole hand gets fatigued because your index finger has no place to rest? That is ridiculous...
What I do agree with is that most of the craftsman in wood mags are pictured using Bailey type planes, however there are 896 billion Stanley Bailey planes in existence and the bevel up style is relatively new on the market.
Christopher Swartz (Writer , instructor and advocate of hand tools) uses the Lee-Valley bevel up planes. I can only assume that he wouldn't use them if they were not a good product.

One last thing..... When I purchased my first Lie-Nielsen # 4 smoother I hated it. I wanted to sell it. But I gave it a chance. Learned to dial it in just right and to get a great edge on the iron.... After weeks of practicing, and experimenting with it, it became one of my favorites...
What I am getting at here is, if you only give a tool 15 minutes you are cheating yourself. In my case I wanted to blame the tool, but in fact it was me that was the problem....

[Gordon Thomas]

pickering woodworker:

The point about fatigue is no that the forefinger has nowhere to rest. It stems from the fact that the tendency is to grip harder with the remaining three fingers. That is what leads to fatigue.

I use the two BU planes extensively before returning them. The comment about fifteen minutes of use was to indicate how long it took for me to experience discomfort. That may be different for other folks.

Hope that clarifies my earlier post.

take care,

Gordon

[Brent in Montreal]

I agree with Pickering. It takes some getting used to but I too have come to reach for my BU's first. I find them easier to set and easier on the wrist.

I also see what Gordon is saying about fatigue because of the missing frog. Though I don't have that problem with BU planes, I do have a similar problem using gent saws. I think that it's a problem specific to the individual. Some people can go through life typing with no problem, while others develope carpal tunnel rather comparitivly soon. Not every tool is made for every person.

[Chris in Pickering]

I am not sure that I prefer my BU planes, but like them just as much.
Sometimes they do the trick when nothing else does...
If all planes had the same effect on every type of wood, I would only have one (and a bunch of cash in my pocket!)

[derekcohen]

In a recent comparison of totes, I measured the angle of a #4 1/2 Stanley (a Type 12) and a Marcou BU smoother at 64°, the LN #4 1/2 at 69°, and the LV BUS at 75°.

Comfort was, however, not just a function of the tote angle. What I liked about the lower angled totes was the fit to my hand. I much preferred the shape of the Stanley to the shape of the LV when just holding it. If standing over the plane (as when one might if using a traditional bench, which is low), I also find that the downward push favours the Stanley design. With heavier planes, when all one needs to do is push forward, then the higher angled tote of the LV was preferred. This is for two reasons: firstly, you no longer have to grip the tote to control downward presure and so issues of discomfort are minimised. Secondly, the LV feels significantly larger than the Stanley and LN. It is a full four-finger grip compared to the three-finger grip of the Stanley/LN. As a result it is easier to get one's weight behind the tote. The Marcou may have the same shape and angle as the Stanley, but it is larger and thicker, and also a four-finger grip. It seems to combine the best of both worlds. It is a very heavy plane (3 1/2 Kg) and is pushed forward rather than pressed down.

On lighter planes, where one's weight needs to aid in holding the plane flat to the surface, then there is no contest - I much prefer the shape of a Stanley to the LV. However, it would be interesting to make a replacement Stanley tote that is larger and offers a four-finger grip.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris in Pickering]

Derek.....

I forgot to mention...... I have read your reviews long before seing you on this forum..... They are a pleasure to read and very descriptive.
Not sure where you find the time to keep up less experienced woodworkers informed, but you do a nice job.
So when are you doing a training session for us Canadians down under?

[Frank D.]

I have the LV LA jack, and I really liek it, but I will eventually get around to modifying the handle. When I plane for more than half an hour I develop soreness and eventually blisters on the palm of my hand, and find it quite uncomfortable to use during long sessions. I've planed for hours on end using my LN planes (both BU and BD) and have never experienced such a problem.
AS to which kind of plane I prefer, the jury is still out. I think it depends a lot on the wood I'm using, but I like both types of planes for different reasons.

[derekcohen]

So when are you doing a training session for us Canadians down under?

Hi PWW

That would be fun. I'm not sure that I really know any more than many of you. I just have an interest in pulling things apart - much as I did as a kid.

Thanks for the kind words.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Gordon Thomas]

Frank:

your candour is appreciated by us all.

take care,

Gordon

[Brent in Montreal]

Hi Frank,

I think it just goes to show what I said earlier about it being person specific. When I use LN's LA my hands get tired quickly and I get a sore spot on the inside of my thumb ( really too bad, since I love the plane for short use). On the other hand, with my LV BU I can go on for quite a while with no negative impact. Different strokes for different folks. If One plane or one manufacturer's planes worked for all, we'd all (as Pickering said) have alot more money in our pockets, and, there'd be a few manufacturers crying the blues

[Gordon Thomas]

Derek:

I would like to suggest that in future reviews you engage folks with different size hands. I have small hands and that is a contributor to the problems I experienced with the LV tote.

cheers,

gordon

[derekcohen]

Hi Gordon

I agree with you that the LV tote can be large for some. I know I have commented on that in the past. I have a large number of Stanley bench planes, which I use quite frequently, but after using planes with large totes I now feel that their totes are quite small. I have "average" size hands.

One of my "grand" plans is to get a bunch of w'workers together, of different heights, and get them to judge which angle tote is preferred at different bench heights. Of course, this is a totally impractical affair, and it is made even more so when we need to factor in hand size, weight of plane, depth of cut, hardness of wood, experience of the user, the way the plane is held .... the list is endless.

I have been discussing these matter recently with Thomas Lie-Nielsen, with the intention of putting together a research design. His belief is that a user's experience plays the mojor role in the outcomes of planing - that is, how one can make a tool perform for them. So some succeed while others struggle, and all with the same tools and conditions in which they are used. He makes a strong point, and I agree - there are just so many variables involved that singling out one or two is being simplistic.

Where does this take reviews (such as mine) and research? I guess we muust keep in mind that they are one person's experience and must not be considered to be an absolute.

And all of the above ramblings are just one person's opinion. :D No doubt there are many others, and I would love to hear them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Gordon Thomas]

Derek:

I for one would like to see more discussion of ergonomics in tool reviews. It seems that reviews generally emphasise the tool's performance over comfort, particularly when the tools is used for an extended period (subjective term ).

I have stated before that I find the higher end manufacturers to be so close in performance so as not to make any discernable difference to myself. However, when it comes to ergonomics it is quite another matter. As Brent and Frank noted their experiences are widely different.

Finally, aesthetics figure in my estimation of the tool. If it looks right (much like a golf club) then I have a better chance of producing the best work that I am capable of.

Again what looks right to me may not to some one else.

My idea is that you ask the test subjects to rate under the three headings of "performance, ergonomics and aesthetics". That should really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

cheers,

Gordon

[derekcohen]

Hi Gordon

Again I agree with you completely.

One of the reviews I want to do - but have shelved (as the time is not right "politically") - is to compare and contrast the LV BUS and the LN #4 1/2. When I say this to others they assume I want to compare their perfomance planing wood, as if I was seeking a conclusion as to which plane is best. This is far from my intent. What I would want is to compare them on ergonomics, ease of blade adjustment, blade changing, comfort, feedback from the wood, etc. In other words, the type of questions that most people really want to know. Of planing performance, well I really think that they are much of a muchness (I have used both) and that differences could just as easily be down to the experience of the user, the sharpness of the blade, and the wood used.

But this is not a good time to take on something that is likely to draw on rivalries. In my past reviews I have contrasted planes, usually including a plane that everyone can relate to. Some misunderstand my intent - there is never a "plane-off" but rather a contrast, which is intended to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the plane being reviewed.

But I do plan to focus more on these issues in the reviews to come.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[matt]

My idea is that you ask the test subjects to rate under the three headings of "performance, ergonomics and aesthetics". That should really put the cat amongst the pigeons.


I'm not sure that aesthetics really has any place in any review/test (or at least not 1/3). Aesthetics is something very personal. What looks great to me might look like ass to you. Nothing wrong with that, thats just being human. For me, as the buyer, I don't care what anybody else thinks of what a tool looks like. The tool is meant to be used and enjoyed by me. I think all a review needs to do for this is post serveral pictures from different angles and I can decide for myself.
Now if I was buying the tool to put in a glass box on my fire place mantel... thats a different story... :D

Oh and I guess a manufacturer would like to see an aesthetics section, but then again they've probably already done their own tests for this...

[derekcohen]

Aesthetics is important for most, I suspect, when a plane gets to a certain price range. Indeed, some are no doubt principally purchased as art. Look at Holtey, Anderson and, recently, Marcou.

But how does one rate or measure this in a review? Much too personal, I believe. One man's meat ....

Here are a few plane's off my bench ... LV BUS, Marcou S/15, LN #4 1/2, and a Spier infill I renovated.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/Infillandmore2.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Denis Chénard in Ottawa]

What wood did you use on your Speiers? I have a Shepherd kit to fill, and the suitable wood that I'be been able to find would set me back many hundreds of $$$...

I'm concerned about the stability of the infill wood, since it has no place to expand...

DC

[derekcohen]

Hi Denis

The infill is Tasmanian Blackwood. It is just the most beautiful wood imaginable. Amazing chatoyance! Very stable and moderately hard. The shavings are Tasmanian Blackwood, as is the board under the Spiers. The tote is Jarrah (very hard).

A write up of the restoration can be found here: http://www.wkfinetools.com/restore/inFillSmoother/index.asp

It is an interesting read.

Regards from Perth

Derek