Thread: HNT Gordon video - bevel angles

That blows a few assumptions away.

I think that's really great. I admit that it took me a while to figure out that the reason my planes were "skating" (my word. he says "balking") over harder woods was that they were dull. The correlation was there, so I now keep them sharper and have improved my sharpening technique considerably, but I never really had a solid grasp of the physics behind it.

The "lower wear bevel" concept, however, now makes that absolutely crystal clear. It always concerned me that a plane that wouldn't cut in a hard Eucalypt would cut in something more medium like Silky Oak, but now it makes perfect sense. The silky oak is easier to press down, thus clearing the lower wear bevel and engaging the remaining cutting edge.

Thanks for sharing! This has been a significant "Aha!" moment for me.

Cheers,
Luke

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

That blows a few assumptions away.

Not sure what your assumptions were, Chris, but it was certainly an informative video!

I do like a bit of good analysis, and what Terry said makes perfect sense (not least because it re-enforces my own mild prejudice agin' bevel-ups as bench planes ). They have their place, I agree, but I've always found BD planes with higher bed angles worked best for me on cranky hardwoods. Hadn't thought about the radii of the trailing bevel wear & the clearance angle relationship before, but I've long known that maintaining as high clearance angle as the blade steel will allow makes for better planing. Now I've watched that video, I understand why!

Thanks for drawing our attention to that Paul....

It is not as clearcut as Terry appears to make it.

Firstly, I agree with the wear bevel issue on a BU, as described (although I would say that it is over-represented here. There are many tens of thousands of happy BU plane users around the world, and they have not complained). Importantly, I do not think that the "shape" of the bevel (in Terry's cutouts) is necessarily accurate. This is the fertile imagination of Brent Beach. I know the microscope Brent uses - I have the same one! - and the resolution is very low end. You definitely will not see a shape such as the one described. I have done many blade tests, and the microscope images were only to add information. They were never used as "proof". Example: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...g-5Steels.html

The position of the wear bevel on the BU plane blade makes it an ideal candidate for using David Charlesworth's Ruler Trick. This 2/3 degree back bevel would remove the wear bevel and prevent it occurring. In other words, BU planes benefit from a different way of sharpening.

Secondly, BD planes with a high bed experience a problem of their own (compared with planes with lower beds, such as common angles) - the higher the bed, the greater stress on the bevel edge. High angle (such as 60 degrees) planes do not have the edge longevity of lower angle planes (again, such as a common angle or 45 degrees).

Further to this, the tests I ran on a shooting board demonstrated conclusively that BU plane with a 12 degree bed + 25 degree bevel blade far outlasted a BD plane with a 45 degree bed. Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html

Thirdly, there is the argument that a high angle bed is the weapon of choice against tearout in interlocked grain. But what about the performance of a common angle using a double iron (blade + chipbreaker), such as a Stanley #4, versus a high angle, single iron configuration, such as a HNT Gordon Smoother. The common angle will last longer and control tearout better than the single iron plane with a high bed.

Please understand that I am not taking a swipe at Terry. I own and use several of his planes, both bench and joinery, and they are excellent. I also have been involved with the development of BU planes for yonks, and they are excellent. My preferred users today are Bailey pattern BD planes - because they are excellent.

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's my opinion that a lot of the analysis on Beach's site, and a lot of these cut and pasted discussions of clearance, etc, create a lot of "problems" in the minds of amateurs, problems that don't really exist in practice. The K&K wear profile is a good example. I have seen several times now where people have concluded that the cap iron should be set off far enough to prevent this wear in most planing, but from the practical standpoint, it's a lot like the scare talk about how hard it is to remove the wear bevel on a BU plane. When that first came up, I had a BU plane that I used regularly and I supposed that I might have that problem, but looking back on it, I don't think I did, and even if I did, it would be five seconds on a stone to remove the extra wear.

One of the least practical planes in terms of edge longevity is a single iron steeply bedded plane. It is substantially inferior to a common pitch plane with a cap iron, but perhaps more accessible for a beginner to use. Substantially inferior because the same plane will plane fewer feet before resharpening, will provide more resistance, less ability to take a shaving beyond a thin shaving, and the iron mated to a properly set cap iron will continue to plane further into the edge wear cycle than a single iron plane - let alone one where edge wear is accelerated because the angle of attack is increased.

Left in a vacuum reading Beach's site and some of the other discussions about wear bevels and clearance, etc, one might conclude that one of these plane types was almost completely incapable of being used.

There is one useful thing on Beach's site, and that is the wear pictures demonstrating how much some irons wear and what the edge looks like when the wear occurs (though there's probably a lack of emphasis on the importance of the edge condition vs. the wear bevel - Brent is fascinated with wear resistance more than edge quality). The other thing about the site is the horrid description of sharpening methods, and the dismissal of the cap iron. The experimenters (that's what I'll refer to when one thing is compared to another in a vacuum but without the context of actually doing anything) generally (and Brent is included in this) seem to believe they've achieved some sort of scientific proof that casts doubt on all else - including those things actually proven in work. It's very unimpressive.

It reminds me of old wives tales, which get started because some part of them either has a kernel of truth or has something that seems like it could be true, but the OWT on the whole doesn't hold water.

A good craftsman would ask if something allows him or her to do work faster, cleaner or with more ease and less effort, and allow their sense to determine whether or not something was acceptable. Little tests that don't have anything to do with actual woodworking don't amount to much when work in context suggests something different.

DW; there are many members on this forum site who also have enough experience within the use hand planes to make their own judgement on the validity of the information being provided within the video.

Stewie;

Stewie, I'm curious as to why you think Beach's page is beyond criticism.

Certainly there are plenty of people who can draw their own conclusion, but some percentage of people who read and post or who read and don't post put too much stock in the guruism with the "scientific tests". The ones who are far along aren't likely to be taken in and waste their time putting stock in any of this stuff - or even being able to sit through the video (I know when I was a beginner, I'd have eaten it up. I was taken by larry's incorrect argument, then I thought Beach's page was tops for what I should do to find an iron, and then I finally got enough experience to realize that a decent craftsman would be able to make do with any kind of kit. I'm sure there are people who are in the same place I was, spending as I did thinking they're spending productive money).

Stewie started this thread on the SMC forum as well, and so I will cross post what I wrote there.

I agree that BU planes are more vulnerable to a growing wear bevel. I also agree on the general shape of the wear that takes place at the bevel. What I wrote was that this was pure supposition by Brent at the time. He came up with this by deduction from photos. However these photos were really poor in detail. If you look at the pictures supplied from the Kato research, you will note that there is more wear on the upper side (which would be the bevel side of a BD plane). The images produced by Steve are similar. Those from Brent show an equal amount of wear to the face and back of the bevel. This exaggerates the amount of wear behind the bevel. And it was Brent's photos that were used by Terry.

The fact is that all the various types of planes work within a range of compromises. They all have strengths and weaknesses. I love the fact that high cutting angles tame the interlocked grains of the woods I use. I used BU and high bed planes for a number of years ( and still use them) before learning to use the chipbreaker on a common angle BD plane.

The chipbreaker enables a lower cutting angle to be used, which produces a plane with a potential to be pushed more easily and produce a clearer surface. Setting a chipbreaker is more difficult to learn, however. A common angle plane is easier to push, but one would not want to plane without the chipbreaker on interlocked Australian woods, and so the chipbreaker should be mastered if you plan to use a BD plane, such as a Bailey type.

The BU plane is the easiest of all to set up, but the most work to prepare the blade(for one who prefers to freehand sharpen, such as myself). The Ruler Trick can take care of the wear bevel. The decision to use a BU plane must factor this in. It is a no-brainer for one using a honing guide.

The high angle plane (55-60 degree bed) produces the same performance as the BU plane (equally set with a high cutting angle). The HNT Gordon planes have a low centre of effort, and their feel/feedback is similar to a BU plane. Other types of high bed planes, such as a LN with a 55 degree bed, are noticeably harder to push. The high bed also increases wear on the bevel and the edge is not held as long as a common angle plane.(Edit to add: All high cutting angles have reduced wear compared to lower cutting angles - just look at the longevity of a scraper blade and the heat created at the edge. In the video Terry pointed this out as negative of BU planes, and neglected - or did not recognise - that a high angle bed creates the exact same circumstance).

There has been a push to develop more abrasion-resistant steels over the past decade especially. Even HNT Gordon have done so, offering HSS blades. Some of these, such as PM-V11, can become a game-changer for those working abrasive woods. I do not see the difference in honing a BU plane dulled "prematurely", owing to the incursion of a wear bevel, from the wear on a high angle BD plane, or due to the softer steel on a common angle BD plane. I have Clifton blades (considered one of the last of the hand-hammered O1 types) to use in my LN planes, but they last a few strokes. The blades get very sharp, but still it is inconvenient. I have PM blades in the low bed BD Custom Veritas, and they hold an edge longer than all. Certainly longer than a Tool Steel blade in a HNT Gordon.

This is not a comment on plane performance. Depending on how used and how set up, they can all function very similarly. And the blades all hold for a similar duration depending on how they are prepared and set up. 10 years ago I made comparisons in reviews that were less flexible than I make today. I hope that this reflects that I have developed a wider lense. The review by Terry does not show a wide lense.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The point of Terry's video was to "prove" that BU planes are not in the race. I find this distasteful by a manufacturer to knock the "opposition". I was saddened to see this from Terry, whom I hold in high regard.

The review by Terry does not show a wide lense.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I don't recall Terry mentioning any other manufacturer and he made it quite clear that the video was to explain the reasoning behind his choice of geometry for the blades of the planes he manufactures.
You have a widely publicized association with LV Derek and I think it is unfair of you to put words in Terry's mouth. I can only see one person 'knocking' the opposition here.

It would be hard to draw any other conclusion, points from the video were:
* "other people have asked if I would make a plane of this type because they would rather buy a plane made in australia".
* Who else makes low angle planes with any frequency - two infill plane makers?

It's a strange thing to even posit because it takes an industrial operation to make that type of plane for a reasonable amount of money. One wouldn't be able to assume anyone other than lee valley, perhaps you could also draw a parallel to lie nielsen, but 98 out of 100 people would say LV if you said "bevel up" because the BU planes are more of a sideshow for LN.

Originally Posted by NCArcher

I don't recall Terry mentioning any other manufacturer and he made it quite clear that the video was to explain the reasoning behind his choice of geometry for the blades of the planes he manufactures.
You have a widely publicized association with LV Derek and I think it is unfair of you to put words in Terry's mouth. I can only see one person 'knocking' the opposition here.

As David (DW) pointed out, it is impossible to miss the connection between LA/BU planes and LN and LV. They are the dominant manufacturers of this type of plane.

Incidentally, I do not hide my association with LV. I do attempt to be as objective as possible. They come in for criticism as quickly as any other manufacturer when I see an issue (for example, look at the recent review I posted here of their latest beader). I have known Terry for a long time, and both admire the tools he makes and enjoy his company. I do not always agree with his views, but that does not change my opinion of him as a great gentleman and craftsman.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by Stewie Simpson

Derek; you rightly point out that this video was recently posted on the Ubeaut Forum. There has been a total of 4 comments made in relation to that video, your comment being the last one.

The following details the 3 previous comments made;



#That blows a few assumptions away.


#I think that's really great. I admit that it took me a while to figure out that the reason my planes were "skating" (my word. he says "balking") over harder woods was that they were dull. The correlation was there, so I now keep them sharper and have improved my sharpening technique considerably, but I never really had a solid grasp of the physics behind it.

The "lower wear bevel" concept, however, now makes that absolutely crystal clear. It always concerned me that a plane that wouldn't cut in a hard Eucalypt would cut in something more medium like Silky Oak, but now it makes perfect sense. The silky oak is easier to press down, thus clearing the lower wear bevel and engaging the remaining cutting edge.

Thanks for sharing! This has been a significant "Aha!" moment for me.


#Not sure what your assumptions were, Chris, but it was certainly an informative video!

I do like a bit of good analysis, and what Terry said makes perfect sense (not least because it re-enforces my own mild prejudice agin' bevel-ups as bench planes ). They have their place, I agree, but I've always found BD planes with higher bed angles worked best for me on cranky hardwoods. Hadn't thought about the radii of the trailing bevel wear & the clearance angle relationship before, but I've long known that maintaining as high clearance angle as the blade steel will allow makes for better planing. Now I've watched that video, I understand why!

HNT Gordon video - bevel angles



Stewie

You really need to begin thinking for yourself and not repeating the words of others. None of the quotes reflect a comparative analysis. They are one dimensional comments.

If you are determined to find fault (with whatever), please come up with some original thoughts, and preferably with some evidence to back up your statements. I can just imagine your reaction when Paul (at the Ubeaut forum) posted that video link, and you go "Oh goody .. something that I can use to knock BU planes!". You are so transparent.

I've talked planes with Terry Gordon on many occasions. I've shared a bench with him at wood shows a couple of times. I have known him for many years and have much respect for his planes, which I own and use. However he remains one-eyed about high angle planes, for example does not believe that the chipbreaker has any value, and he sees BU planes as the competition. I wish that he had not made this video - it was so unnecessary to deliberately take a shot at the other side. I have always viewed him to be a gentleman - which he remains in my eyes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Stewie, the least you could do is add that you have copied the above from the SMC thread that you started (after reading Paul's initial post). Not that many others there are interested. Are you dobbing me in here? I rather doubt that Ian and others will see my comment as a denigration of them.

Please note that David (DW) is making here the exact same comments as myself. Makes you think ....... ?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek; I can only offer you the same advice I gave to DW; there are many members on this forum site who have enough experience within the use of hand planes to make their own valued judgement on the validity of the information being provided within the video.

Listen and respect those opinions, and stop portraying yourself as some untouchable demi-god within the hand tool world.

Stewie;