Thread: Wooden Plane Throat Geometry

Interesting, Paul. I like to read articles where there are good working hypotheses to back up opinions. May turn out to be not the full story, but at least he's tried to put it on a rational basis.

Ever since I started using planes, which will be well over 55 years ago, I've been learning (painfully slowly!) what does & doesn't work for me. As I read about the various things that affect planing performance, I've tried to apply each 'lesson' to my own tools. Overall, the performance of my planes is vastly better than when I began, but perhaps not up to the level of some I read about. There are a few things that stand out to me as essential, other things are optional, or heavily dependent on particular circumstances. I would argue that the only planes most of us need to really fuss about are smoothers - the rest are basically 'roughing' tools. Of course you don't want them to be too rough, you want to be able to glue up straight off a jointer, or what would be the point? However, a teeny bit of tear-out is not going to materially affect the aesthetic or structural qualities of your average edge-join, is it? So horses for courses.

My mantra would be "Sharp blades, properly-fitting cap iron/chip breaker on double iron planes, a firm blade-bed, and a reasonably flat sole (flat to woodworking tolerances, not rocket-engine requirements!) are the essentials". Attend to those & you'll get very satisfactory performance in at least 90% of situations, I reckon. But it's surprising how much it depends on the wood you are trying to plane!

I have a choice of cutting angles from ~32 (B.U. jobs) to the 60 degree double-iron infill (my avatar), and it's sometimes surprising to me what works best. Usually, it follows the rule of thumb that high cutting angles suit hard gnarly woods best, but there are a significant number of situations where a bog standard Bailey #4 has done the best job for me. (??) And there are some woods like the Dead-Finish Cliff sent me a couple of years ago, that no plane in my arsenal could handle. It's moments like that I'm pleased I have my scraping plane....

One thing I have never been able to achieve is the super close-set cap iron that's supposed to turn that shaving the instant it's lifted. There was a lengthy discussion on this a few months ago, and some people can obviously achieve great results, but if I go closer than about a mm with any of my double-iron planes, I get no improvement in performance, & crepe shavings that choke the escapement & drive me nuts! The flaw lies in me, no doubt, but I long ago decided it isn't worth the hassle, so I stick with my 'crude' 1mm (sometimes more) setback. And yes, my cap irons are honed & fitted to moon-rocket tolerances.

All good fun...
Cheers,

Ian

Nicely summed up for most practical purposes.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

One thing I have never been able to achieve is the super close-set cap iron that's supposed to turn that shaving the instant it's lifted. There was a lengthy discussion on this a few months ago, and some people can obviously achieve great results, but if I go closer than about a mm with any of my double-iron planes, I get no improvement in performance, & crepe shavings that choke the escapement & drive me nuts! The flaw lies in me, no doubt, but I long ago decided it isn't worth the hassle, so I stick with my 'crude' 1mm (sometimes more) setback. And yes, my cap irons are honed & fitted to moon-rocket tolerances.

All good fun...
Cheers,

I'm going to cover your issue on a youtube video at some point in the near future (probably this weekend). it's easier probably to solve visually than it is in text. You should be able to set the cap iron as close as you could want to without causing any problems. It may just be that the plane or cap iron needs just a little bit of modification, but it's easier to know what the problem is after troubleshooting 10 than it is 1.

It can be fairly difficult to use a wooden plane ( of vintage design ) for fine work if you can't set the cap iron close. The first few I had, I didn't really like very much. Chatter, tearout, adjustment problems.... I thought maybe the guys who used those planes were just tough and dumb (which is an unreasonable thing to think given that those folks made a living with those tools and I doubt they'd spend 12 hours a day working themselves into a froth of anger over substandard tools). After getting all of those things figured out, I wouldn't trade a wooden plane for anything at this point.

Building some planes from scratch helped greatly in getting everything figured out, but that certainly doesn't seem like a reasonable amount of work to do just to learn how to tune a plane!!

Interesting comments, Ian.

One of the thoughts that comes to me is a question - do you believe that handplanes reached a zenith, say 100, 200 years ago? After all, a million Stanley planes were made, with little change to the shape of the handle, and the use of a double iron?

Following this, is there room for design improvements in the handplane? I do not mean additions that make setting up easier, such as setscrews, or tighter tolerances, but design changes that improve the functionality of a handplane.

Would one include improved ergonomics as an "improvement". The fact that a plane will work because the blade is sharp and is bedded securely does not constitute, in my book, what defines a good plane. It defines an adequate plane. The question then is, do we accept adequate planes, or do we search for something more?

With regard to the chipbreaker, if you are not setting it around 0.4mm from the edge of the blade, you are definitely not going to have any benefit from it - 1mm from the end is simply too far. In part, this says that, if the chipbreaker is well set up, as you believe, then the problem is that the mouth of the plane needs to be opened up. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but mouth size stops being important when the chip formation changes (to Type 1). In part, it takes practice. Like anything. And it changes everything - look at what I could achieve with a 42 degree frog on highly interlocked grain in my review of the Veritas Custom Planes. A high cutting angle works - more easily, but not as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, I only have time for a brief reply atm, but would like to address a couple of points.

I think my chipbreaker problem possibly stems from too high an an angle where it meets the blade. From what you & others have written, it needs to be laid back quite a bit from the 80 degrees or so that mine all seem to be. I'm not really sure what the tangent would be at the meeting point, but it's steep, and has been increased a bit from the original by my cleaning-up & polishing of them. I discovered many years ago, that a polished chipbreaker makes a bit difference to shaving ejection, but in retrospect, I may have been a bit too enthusiastic on some planes.

One point I would like to make is that the pursuit of perfection in planes, though a laudable undertaking in its own right, isn't totally necessary for 99% of people in 99% of situations. A 'reasonably' set-up plane can do a very good job of getting your work to a very good degree of finish, allowing the rest to be done by other standard means, and for many people, that is the most time-efficient and simplest way to go. I have been firmly in that camp for most of my woodworking life, I'll freely admit. So while I always read with interest on how to make good planes better, and try all ideas that seem practical, the law of diminishing returns cuts in, and there have been long periods where I reckoned I had things good enough for all practical purposes. Perhaps, now I have a bit more time, I'm ready to push on up that final ridge or two to the top of the hill.....

Cheers,

A rounded over 50 degree angle (where 50 is the steepest point) would be better. It may be as simple as rounding off the top of your cap iron angle so that the steepest part (right at the iron) is only about 50 degrees. That should shoot the shaving up into the wear at an angle that it can still leave instead of bunching up.

It is not the tools we use which make us good, but rather how we employ them.

Originally Posted by planemaker

It is not the tools we use which make us good, but rather how we employ them.

I'm not disagreeing, but why then work so hard at the planes and saws you build? What's the point?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by IanW

So while I always read with interest on how to make good planes better, and try all ideas that seem practical, the law of diminishing returns cuts in, and there have been long periods where I reckoned I had things good enough for all practical purposes.

Ian

I think the law of diminishing returns is one of the most significant statements that we live by.

I would compare it to measurements. We can measure something to three, four or more decimal places, but in practice, can we cut to that level of accuracy? Probably not.

That doesn't mean, like you, that I don't admire the pursuit of excellence, but truthfully it becomes an indulgence: A fetish almost. I am not above the occasional fetish myself, but it is necessary to recognise what it is: An amusement.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by derekcohen

I'm not disagreeing, but why then work so hard at the planes and saws you build? What's the point?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek

Ian may be too modest or at the moment too busy to reply, but as the owner of a number of his tools I think I can say that his tools have a balance. By that I mean they are beautiful, and although they could be better not by any reasonable yardstick. Not by that infinitesimal refinement and I think that is what Ian means.

Probably a better example is Ian's marking guages, which 99% of woodworkers would be thrilled to own. The other 1% want a guage made by Colen Clenton at five times the price.

We are then very truly in the realms of the rarefied atmosphere and a place where most cannot afford to go.

Having visited Ian's home, I don't know where he ever found the time to produce all the work he has done. I think if he was chasing that last refinement his production level would have been significantly reduced.

Another analogy I can point to is in the world of handsaws (my fetish ). There is often minimal differences between the top model saw and a mid range saw: Often only the level of polish on the sawplate and cosmetics such as wheat carving. The fact is that there is minimal, if any difference in performance. None in practical terms and a classic example of the law of diminishing returns.

I should lastly add that I have two of Ian's backsaws so I am not without prejudice in this matter, but for me they can hardly be improved. Yes, they could have an unbelievable etch added and yes the medallion could have an intricate stamp, but no, they wouldn't perform better.

Regards
Paul

Hi DW. Your step by step tutorials on traditional plane making are highly informative, and represent an excellent resource for those wanting to learning how to do it.

Excellent work.

regards Stewie.

Probably a better example is Ian's marking guages, which 99% of woodworkers would be thrilled to own. The other 1% want a guage made by Colen Clenton at five times the price.

Hi Paul

Thank you for the idea above. I'll come to this in a moment.

What you need to be aware of is that Ian and I are good friends. Ian has visited my home on a couple of occasions (not enough) and played in my workshop and seen what I have built. I own a couple of his saws, which I prize and use whenever I can. I know what he can do, has done, and the comments made earlier were not about Ian. They were about tool design and how far we take this - whether enough is enough or not.

The example of the marking gauges is an ideal one, though perhaps not for the reason you had in mind (Indeed, it may be quite different).

Colen Clenton is a really good bloke and he makes spectacular tools. I imagine anyone would be prepared to sell a body part to own one of his square or a marking gauge. I am short a body part or two, myself

Given the choice of one of Ian's or Colen's marking gauges, I would immediately plump for Ian's. Regardless of money involved. Why? Because it is a much better design in an important aspect. Design is the issue here when it comes to the practical aspect of using the bloody thing.

It is not about built quality. It is not about the pointy bit that scrapes along the wood. Both these are important, but less so that the way the tool works. It is about ergonomics. This may not be important for 99% of users ... until it is pointed out to them - and then I am sure that they, like myself, will go with Ian's gauge over Colen's.

What is it? It is the placement of the adjusting knob. Ian has his on the top of the fence ...



Colen has his on the side of the fence (below is one of Colen's as well as a Kinshiro, which is the best gauge in the world. Both below are mine) ...




The difference is between a gauge that may be used one-handed and another that requires two hands to set up. Both gauges work as well as the other once set up, so the absence of the one-handed set up is not going to be a factor or an issue in the lives of many ... until they experience what it could be like to use.

So, what about handplanes and saws and other tools? Is the fact that they work enough?

There is a law of diminishing return in everything. We have to draw the line somewhere .. but not all the time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek

Thank you for your comments. I was aware that you and Ian are friends. Perhaps I was being a little over-reactive. Probably the issue for me was Ian's remark on the law of diminishing returns.

Clearly, different circumstances will provide a different return.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by planemaker

Hi DW. Your step by step tutorials on traditional plane making are highly informative, and represent an excellent resource for those wanting to learning how to do it.

Excellent work.

regards Stewie.

Thanks for the kind words, stewie. I hope to wrap those up soon (this weekend), and though they will not entertain someone who doesn't want to make planes, I hope that someone who does want to make planes, or even replace broken or missing parts in old planes, will find them useful.