Derek,
I wrote this to Philip and he seemed to think it should be bounced over to you.
<<I have noticed the general thrust angle on a Stanley style planes is defined by the intersection of the rear tote web top and the lower handle body and seems to be generally directed to match the angle of attack of the plane to the work, rather than that angle required to direct force to the actual cutting bevel. The Stanley totes rarely change. Sometimes putting the thrust way behind the blade ( a #7) and other times, far in front (a #2).>>
In plane construction, is there any reason – since generally accepted technique would have the plane presented toe to heel with the weight force shifting backward with the progression of the cut, that the angle of attack (via the tote) should not match the angle of the cutting bevel itself? Since somewhere on the curve of the rear tote there is a thrust area to move the plane forward and down anyway, would there not be a reason to concentrate the apex of the tote thrust directly toward to the bevel, changing with each length of plane?
In my view, one can hardly not do it on very small planes such as a coffin or a block, but on planes in general would it not be better to custom the tote to the exact plane’s cutting angle rather than rubber stamp the same tote on all, ala Stanley?
I mean you don’t purposely shank (golf term) a chisel to hit off center of thrust.
Thoughts?
BB
Replies
Hi BB
There are a number of factors that come intom play when designing a tote for a plane.
Possibly the more obvious - and easier to ilustrate - decisions lie with the differences between the Veritas BU and the Stanley/LN BD planes.
Here is a picture of a Stanley and Veritas head-to-head ..
View Image
What is obvious is the angle of the totes - the Veritas is very much more vertical than the Stanley.
There are two points one might associate with or assume from the Stanley design - the first is that the lower angled tote will allow for greater down force when planing. The second is that this is easier to do on a lower bench. A traditional approach.
The extrapolation is that the higher Veritas tote is suited to pushing forward rather than pushing downward. Two points come with this - it suits heavier planes and planing on higher benches. A modern approach (one that suits a combination of hand- and power tools)?
I'd add a third point to each. The BU planes have a lower centre of gravity and a lower centre of effort. Pushing forward suits this very well. Stanley BD planes have a higher centre of gravity and a higher centre of effort. Pushing down is important here.
Customing totes? Absolutely. Why not ... they are yours, are they not. Do with them what you will. I have modified many totes, including a few Veritas ..
My LA Smoother ..
View Image
This is a light plane, one that benefits from downforce. The tote is now lower, about midway to a Stanley angle.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 9/29/2008 1:27 pm ET by derekcohen
Derek,Thanks for your input. It seems like most manufacturers / designers are doing their totes for the generic woodworker rather than the best design for each individual plane series that would maximize planning while minimizing effort.
As to customizing totes - "Customizing totes? Absolutely. Why not ... they are yours, are they not. Do with them what you will. I have modified many totes, including a few Veritas .." , I was referring to original manufactures - LN, LV, etc. doing the work before the fact - not end users. I like what you did with your LA Smoother . Your LA smoother reflects my question better than my verbiage. Much more handsome but also, as you said, your design redirects a much greater down force than the LV original tote. But why didn't LV do it from the get go?Thanks again.BB
BB,
It is nice to know that I am not the only one questioning the traditional totes. I just designed and made my own plane(s) in pursuit of something (subjectively) better. I tried to retrofit my LNs and Records first, but my ideas were not compatible. I hope to post some pictures in a few days.
Best wishes,
Metod
Metod,Great!
Look forward to seeing them.BB
BB,
You appear to think that all planes need a tote which enables more "down force" to be applied , or that you prefer this. Is this correct?
Assuming all is well with the plane , then generally speaking heavy planes are better with a more upright tote. I would still rather go with "what feels better".Philip Marcou
Philip,"You appear to think that all planes need a tote which enables more "down force" to be applied , or that you prefer this. Is this correct?"No, not at all. In Derek's plane, other than esthetics, I perceived, perhaps wrongly, that yes, for that plane, his customization seem to make more sense and also that, again, for that plane the more downward thrust seemed appropriate. Not for all planes but for that one.I'm just wondering if there are "rules" that govern the placement and angle of the tote or is it just tradition. If it's just tradition and one were innovating, I wonder if changing the angle of the tote specifically for each plane length/style would or would not be of advantage in working the wood. Records/Stanley/Bailey/Cliffy's and some LNs / LV benches seem to be done by pro forma rather than the best needs of the individual tool. Kind of one tote fits all.I'm not sure I would agree that heavier planes are better with a more vertical tote. Generally maybe - but for me - for example, the way I use a 7 Lb bronze 4.5 smoother is with shorter strokes on more gnarly woods and in that case I would prefer a tote that mirrored the blade's bevel or at least was more down angle. Conversely , I use a much longer running stroke with a heavier 8 Lb #7 jointer and much prefer the more vertical tote. Both heavy planes but with different stroke usage.I agree with going with" what feels better" and it is a matter of workability but I would point out very few manufacturers have provided woodworkers with few if any alternatives.
I understand at your scale it would be impractical, perhaps in light of the beautiful tools you make - a sacrilege, but on a larger (not big) scale, I think if LN can offer 3 frogs, then they might also be capable of vending alternate tote angles if there was a market for them. Just thoughts.RegardsBBEdit: perhaps we stay the same because to much wrist strain from changing the angles. The current ones are easier from that standpoint:)
Edited 9/30/2008 4:53 pm by boilerbay
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled