Veritas planes

[silentC]

For myself I would rather have several planes, and swap them around as needed

Same here, I just thought it might be an economical way to have the best of all worlds. Or maybe you could buy an extra frog for each plane, which should be cheaper than buying the whole plane. But they don't seem to be offering that as an option.

[planemaker]

I have an idea the new frogs will only fit to this range of planes. Same as with the front and rear totes.



Question was asked on another forum site.

Will the new totes(handles) for the custom planes fit the low angle jack plane.

Thanks"

Thank you for your inquiry. The new totes are actually designed for the custom planes and will not fit with any other models of Veritas planes.

Should you require any further assistance, please feel free to contact us at any time.

Regards,


Customer Service Representative
Lee Valley Tools Ltd.

[silentC]

I have an idea the new frogs will only fit to this range of planes.

Yes I would expect that to be the case. I was thinking you could buy one full plane and a spare frog or two for when you need it.

[derekcohen]

Silent

I have no doubt that you will be able to order more than one frog with a purchase, or get an extra later if you wish. It is just that at this stage, with a brand new launch and one that required coordinating a large number of parts, that there few extras.

I am sure that in a couple of months you will be able to order what you want, possibly handles as well for the BU planes (Rob Lee has mentioned this).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Some good info on the reasoning behind the use of a cap iron (or chipbreaker as is its often mistakenly referred too)

http://paulsellers.com/2013/12/caps-chip-breakers/

And here from Lie Neilsen who still use the term chipbreaker, when it primary role as Paul Sellers points out, is to dampen the vibration to the cutting iron.

http://staging.lie-nielsen.com/lie-n...-chipbreakers/

Here we have LV using the correct terminology and function.

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/pag...68&cat=1,41182

General summation: Vibrations from the body of the metal plane need to be dampened by the use of a cap iron to prevent them from passing through to the cutting iron. A problem commonly referred too as chattering.

Wooden bodied planes do not suffer the vibration issues that a mental bodied plane has. The wooden body is able to absorb these vibrations. As such, the cutting iron normally does not require the use of a cap iron.

Stewie;

[derekcohen]

General summation: Vibrations from the body of the metal plane need to be dampened by the use of a cap iron to prevent them from passing through to the cutting iron. A problem commonly referred too as chattering.

Wooden bodied planes do not suffer the vibration issues that a mental bodied plane has. The wooden body is able to absorb these vibrations. As such, the cutting iron normally does not require the use of a cap iron.

Stewie, is this what you believe to be the role of a chip breaker (no, not a cap iron)?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[derekcohen]

Stewie, about those references of yours ...

Paul Sellers wrote: "This ‘chip-breaker’ is the cap made from plate steel locked beneath the wedge or the lever cap that flexes the two-component cutting assembly to reduce vibration by causing tension in the cutting iron and the cap iron and so prevent chatter. It neither causes the wood to chip nor prevents the wood from chipping."

and Lie-Nielsen wrote: "A big part of a chipbreaker's function is to dampen vibration, but chipbreakers on metal bench planes are usually quite thin. Traditional wooden planes, infill planes and Japanese planes typically have much thicker chipbreakers (as well as thicker blades)."

as did Lee Valley: "A cap iron serves to stiffen a plane blade, helping to damp vibration and reduce the potential for blade chatter."

And they are all WRONG!

This is an outdated concept, and it has been totally debunked in the past few years. You need to watch this video by Kawai and Kato (Yamagato University), who demonstrated that the "cap iron" - when correctly set up - has the function of redirecting the shaving (chip) and changing the way it breaks ... hence a chip breaker.



David Weaver wrote a good article here:

http://www.woodcentral.com/articles/test/articles_935.shtml

These photos were taken on the spur of the moment, so it is not intended as an experiment. Still, you can see the result. The chip breaker was set close (about .3mm). The wood used is a scrap of Fiddleback Jarrah from my chair build. This stuff just tore out with the spokeshaves in my build, which forced me to use rasps. Here I am using it with the LN #3 with a 55 degree frog planing into the grain (look at the side), just to make it more difficult.




Here is a close up of the shavings - pretty typical straight shavings when the chip breaker is working ...



With just a rub of wax, the finish is pretty good ...



Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Quote from Rob Lee on their new range of Veritas Planes.

These planes can be used bevel down, with or without a chip breaker (cap iron), as the adjuster engages a repositionable blade carrier that is independent of chip breaker. It does not have to be removed for honing, and the carrier also registers the chip breaker – preserving the last location. If the bed angle is low – the blade can also be used bevel up, for high angle applications (though we do not claim this as a feature). These planes represent another distinct choice (or 10,000) in the range of choices available – either new or used.

I get that if you’re happy with whatever planes you have – there’s no reason to buy any one of these. There are few hand tools that are ever made redundant by newer versions. At the same time – newer versions of many tools have much to offer people who have yet to make a choice.

Cheers –

Rob

[planemaker]

Derek. The 55 degree bed on your LN 3 is whats allowing you to plane the the Fiddleback Jarrah and not experience tear out. That's what the high bed is designed to do. It looks like you have a thicker iron fitted to your plane. Although the If the plane's design does not allow it, theoretically you could remove the cap iron and still achieve those thin curly shavings.

Stewie;

[planemaker]

The tests done by the Yamagato University do not take into account the important role the planes sole and mouth contribute to planes design to effectively reduce the potential of tear out. Also note that the tests were conducted with the blade edge working against the grain to maximize the resulting tear out.

Stewie;

[derekcohen]

Derek. The 55 degree bed on your LN 3 is whats allowing you to plane the the Fiddleback Jarrah and not experience tear out. That's what the high bed is designed to do. It looks like you have a thicker iron fitted to your plane. Although the If the plane's design does not allow it, theoretically you could remove the cap iron and still achieve those thin curly shavings.

Stewie, I took those pictures for someone else on another forum, so the context is different. Nevertheless I can assure you that this LN would not avoid tearout planing into the grain, as it does here, with only a 55 degree cutting angle. For much of the wood I work with, this plane does not cope planing with the grain (with the chip breaker pulled back).

The close set chip breaker "adds" the equivalent of about 10-15 degrees of cutting angle. It does this by forcing the wood to break at the edge rather than in front of the blade. This makes all the difference.

Rob Lee is fully aware of the part played by the chip breaker in extending its performance. That is why there is one on the new BD planes. The blades are thick enough not to need extra support - which is the concept you appear to support and therefore call it a cap iron, that is to stiffen the blade. The original design of the LV plane was conceived at least a year before we (some of us, at least ) recognised what the chip breaker was capable of (known for a long, long time before this, but "lost" by modern teachers and writers). The early prototype did not have a chip breaker. It was designed in with this purchase in mind. Still, not everyone wants to use it this way - it is fiddly to do - and so there are choices that include the bed angle of your preference.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[derekcohen]

The tests done by the Yamagato University do not take into account the important role the planes sole and mouth contribute to planes design to effectively reduce the potential of tear out. Also note that the tests were conducted with the blade edge working against the grain to maximize the resulting tear out.

Stewie;

Hi Stewie

How does a plane sole contribute to the prevention of tear out?

The K & K tests remove variables that may contaminate research results. Would you suggest that this is not appropriate here?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Hi Derek. We have slightly differing views on the role the cap iron plays in reducing tear out.

As I see it our role is to then put forward the facts for and against that argument.

From the resulting information gathered, it should make it a little easier for the readers to determine some form of objective opinion.

Its the right timing to move on to another subject.

Cheers, Stewie.

[IanW]

Derek & Stewie - we are getting off-topic a bit, though I the chip-breaker/cap iron discussion is relevant to these new "select your bits" planes, since your needs may be met by either blade angles or set of the cap-iron (or both).

This subject has come up numerous times, now, & there is something missing that prevents us from a resolution. I am in the camp that says the cap -iron's primary function is to pre-tension the blade, in a bog-standard Bailey type, or any plane that uses a thin cutter. The reason I give for this is that without a cap-iron, or one that is improperly fitted, or too much overhang beyond the frog bed, these planes won't work worth a damn - the pre-tensioning function is absolutely necessary for function. BUT, if I move the cap-iron too close to the edge on most of my planes, I get decidedly inferior performance. I have fitted all my cap-irons as close to perfect as I can get them, and polished their leading edges, but if I reduce the gap too much, all I get are crinkled shavings and very poor cutting. Pull it back to slightly more than a 1/32nd", & all is well. This has been my experience all my woodworking life.

However, I cannot disregard good empirical evidence! What Derek showed mounts a pretty solid case for the close-set cap-iron doing something more than pre-tensioning a blade. What we need to figure out, is what's different with your set-up & mine, because I think the secret lies therein. There are a couple of variables I can think of, that may be operating (& no doubt there are others I haven't thought of!). The first is the actual wood we generally plane, which will naturally have some effect. But possibly, the more important variable is the actual angle of the chip-breaker where it meets the upper surface of the cutter. On standard Bailey combos, the rolled-over end meets the blade at a pretty steep angle. It varies quite a bit between my planes (either because of manufacturing variance or subsequent attempts at getting them to fit properly), but I would estimate they are all greater than 75 degrees at the point where they actually meet the cutter surface. Since this angle is likely to have a big impact on how much & how easily the shaving gets turned, could this be a key factor???

And on the original topic, I think being able to cook your own plane to some extent can't hurt at all. There is a very long history of users modifying their tools to suit their own anatomy or work habits, so making it easier to do that seems like a perfectly logical way to go. Back when I was a penurious younger woodworker, I would also have been very attracted to the idea of having interchangeable frogs, but agree that it would soon have become a pita rather than a boon. There just isn't any substitute (imo) for having a few planes set up for different tasks on most jobs I do. I'm just congenitally incapable of planning my workflow sufficiently well to do otherwise - as sure as eggs is eggs, I would 'convert' my plane only to find within 5 minutes that there were a couple of other tasks that required the previous setup, which had to be done before proceeding!

Cheers,

[hiroller]

I've watched the video a few times now. There are three points that stand out to me.
1. They prove that a chip breaker can be used to advantage but it is not necessary - as they achieved exactly the same performance against the grain, without a chip breaker, by setting the shaving to half the thickness.
2. They don't consider the impact of having a tight mouth. There is plenty of evidence for the benefit of a tight mouth with very fine shavings for preventing tear out on a smoothing plane.
3. The don't consider various blade angles. There is enough variation of their results in the small changes that they tested to believe that increasing blade angle may have similar impact to the use of a tight chip breaker.

In summary, they prove that a well set up chip breaker can deliver great performance but to me, they don't prove that it's the only way.