OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
253141 | Derek Cohen <derekcohen@i...> | 2015‑01‑24 | Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review |
I posted these links on a couple of forums, but many here do not travel, and for then it will be new. While the recently-released Veritas Custom Planes are the apparent central focus, the material goes beyond them. they are merely the vehicle that delivers the ideas. One thing lead to another, and I wrote a series of articles … four in all. It began with the idea that if one could design a plane of their dream, what what you include? I have a Veritas "custom" jointer and "custom" smoother. I also have a bunch of alternate parts … and together they offer the opportunity to explore different combinations. And then compare these with BU equivalents and Stanley equivalents …..... You get the message. It became bigger than Ben Hur. The articles could be a springboard for an interesting discussion here. Some of it is old stuff (for a few), but there is also new stuff (probably for most). In order .... 1. Introduction: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustom Planes1.html">http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html 2. Designing a Plane: tips on choosing and tuning: http://www.inthewood shop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2.html">http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Too lReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes2.html 3. Designing a Plane: Knobs and Handles – or how we really use a plane! : http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html">http://ww w.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html 4. To Chipbreak or Not to Chipbreak: frog angle choice : http://www.int hewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4.html">http://www.inthewoodshop.c om/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4.html Happy New Year and … Regards from Perth Derek |
|||
253216 | Thomas Conroy | 2015‑01‑27 | Re: Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review |
Derek Cohen wrote: >It began with the idea that if one could design a plane of their dream, what what you include? I >have a Veritas "custom" jointer and "custom" smoother. I also have a bunch of alternate parts ? and >together they offer the opportunity to explore different combinations. And then compare these with >BU equivalents and Stanley equivalents ?..... >"3. Designing a Plane: Knobs and Handles ? or how we really use a plane! : >http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html">http:/ /www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes3.html< Hi, Derek, I think you missed a couple of important points in your admirable discussion of plane handle design. Your presumptions probably come from the shape of your hands and how you use them, and my responses come just as much from the shape of my hands and how I use them, including non-woodworking things I have done in the past. 1. Angle of the rear handle. You prefer a very straight handle, and reduce the various designs to single straight lines of application of force. The suggestion is that the upper part of the Stanley hump-back design is not actually doing any work. However, when I half-close my hand, palm up, and lay a stick along the padded area between the base of the fingers and the deep lines in the palm, I can see that the base of the thumb is closer to the stick than the heel of the hand. As I close my hand more, the base of the thumb comes forward and emphasizes the difference. For me, to push forward on a plane or saw handle I need an angle in the line of the handle, which is seen as the hump on the back of Stanley handles and on many saw handles. If I have a nearly-straight handle, most of the pushing will be done by the web and base of the thumb, not by the heel. So I think that the line of a plane handle (or saw handle, for that matter) is best expressed by two lines, an upper and a lower one, and the angle between them. Clearly, everyone has enough difference in their hand shape to want a different included angle or "hump" for comfort. When I first got my Stanley planes I carved them down a bit for more comfort, and for me this was mostly in two places: under the little finger, in the short leg against the plane bed; and under the web of the thumb, in effect increasing the hump (the internal angle) of the handle. I think your hands are probably much straighter than mine (or perhaps I have more fat in the base of the thumb), so you prefer a straighter handle. But its a mistake to think that forward force is transmitted to the Stanley handle only in the lower part of the handle, or that the main effect of the apparently greater lean forward is to throw pressure downward. Multiplying the number of handle shapes does not seem to me to be the way to deal with fitting a plane or saw handle to the individual user. Rather, I think you should start with a slightly oversize handle and gradually whittle away the areas that are uncomfortable or even most noticeable. Fairly soon you will have a shape which fits your own hand and manner of work. Among other things, you are likely to find that the cross-section near the top of the handle is different from that near the bottom, that neither is bilaterally symetrical, and that the two approxlimate ovals of the cross-sections are rotated in respect to each other, with (for me at least) the upper oval being rotated some degrees counterclockwise seen from above. Among other advantages, a handle fitted in this way will not tend to throw the plane into counterclockwise rotation as the right hand is tightened. 2. Hold on the knob. In discussing the various knob options offered, you show that you grip all of them in more or less the same manner, with the fingers curled around the stem of the knob. Even when you are placing pressure directly down on a wide, short knob, the curl of the fingers is a part of your grip. Although I began planing with Stanleys, I find that over the years I have made more and more use of old woodies, and find that the natural left-hand grip for these is much more natural to me. A woodie must be held with the palm over the top of the plane, thumb pointing back toward the right hand and little finger closest to the front. There is no curl under. Most of what the hand does is to push downward; the fingers and thumb press the body to lift the plane off the wood on the backstroke. This kind of grip is not hard, with a bit of adjustment, on a low-knob Stanley; it is completely impossible on a high-knob. The down- pressure grip is even easier with the broad, square, barely undercut front handles on many infill bench planes. In this context, consider the grip used by Frank Clausz in your photos, finders together and stacked one over the other, curled toward the back. This is a hand trained on horned planes, and it is used mostly for lifting the plane for the backstroke. He is using a high-knob plane and might be even more comfortable with a front knob shaped to the likeness of the German horn. This is just guesswork, of course. I don't mean to suggest that any one way of holding the front of the plane is right. However, I would suggest that analysis of the front knob would better start with grip styles rather than knob shapes; and that grip styles are easily seen on the traditional wooden planes that evolved to accomadate them. Now, if LV wants to be really innovative in their front grips, here's an idea: instead of three variations on the same style, how about front grips made closer to the pre-Bailey shapes: To start with, add the options of a square British Infill style filling out the front of the body and rising in a rounded-edge square (I actually made one like this for a #3, and it suits me very well); and of a tall, writing, asymmetrical German horn. Almost like the aftermarket hoods they used to sell for Volkswagen beetles, your choice of Rolls-Royce, 1940s Packard, or Mercedes. Hmmm... maybe not quite the right analogy... Tom Conroy Berkeley |
|||
253241 | Derek Cohen <derekcohen@i...> | 2015‑01‑28 | Re: Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review |
In reply to Tom, who wrote .. > I think you missed a couple of important points in your admirable discussion of plane handle design. Your presumptions probably come from the shape of your hands and how you use them, and my responses come just as much from the shape of my hands and how I use them, including non-woodworking things I have done in the past. Actually, while I do prefer the longer flat of the Veritas handles, it was the my research that discovered that I was not alone in this, and that this was (1) due to the way the plane was pushed (rather than held), and (2) that this method was shared by a great many distinguished woodworkers. In other words, the handle shape is associated with ergonomics of pushing rather than the shape of one's hand. > ".... But its a mistake to think that forward force is transmitted to the Stanley handle only in the lower part of the handle, or that the main effect of the apparently greater lean forward is to throw pressure > downward." It would be interesting for others to make some of their own observations in this regard - particularly when the iron begin to dull a little. > "Although I began planing with Stanleys, I find that over the years I have made more and more use of old woodies, and find that the natural left-hand grip for these is much more natural to me. A woodie must be held with the palm over the top of the plane, thumb pointing back toward the right hand and little finger closest to the front. There is no curl under. Most of what the hand does is to push downward;" That is exactly what I described about the knob on a Veritas-Bailey metal plane. You are supporting my observation. > "In this context, consider the grip used by Frank Clausz in your photos, finders together and stacked one over the other, curled toward the back. This is a hand trained on horned planes, and it is used mostly for lifting the plane for the backstroke. He is using a high-knob plane and might be even more comfortable with a front knob shaped to the likeness of the German horn. This is just guesswork, of course." I cannot find a video of Frank using a horned (ECE) smoother, but here is a video of Kari Hultman with hers .. https://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=9AqI6P12uGg What is relevant, in the context of plane ergonomics, is how she uses it. It seems to me that her backhand pushes on the heel on the horizontal, while the front hand (on the horn) does not grasp it for grip or forward thrust, but stabilises her hand and then pushes down on the toe. What do others think? Regards from Perth Derek |
|||
253242 | Michael Blair <branson2@s...> | 2015‑01‑28 | Re: Veritas Custom Planes - more than a review |
> Actually, while I do prefer the longer flat of the Veritas handles, it > was the my research that discovered that I was not alone in this, and > that this was (1) due to the way the plane was pushed (rather than > held), and (2) that this method was shared by a great many > distinguished woodworkers. In other words, the handle shape is > associated with ergonomics of pushing rather than the shape of one's > hand. The ergonomics involved in using a plane are far more complex than the mere shape of the tote. Your whole body is involved, along with the height of your bench (if you are using one). The handle alone really doesn't tell the whole story. It's fine that "a great many distinguished woodworkers" agree here. But compare this to the thousands of woodworkers whose daily work experience was the basis of the design used by Stanley and just about every other plane maker of the 19th Century. I'm going to need a lot of convincing to believe the experience of distinguished woodworkers trumps the experience of thousands of men who worked for a living by their tools over a period of 200 years. >> ".... But its a mistake to think that forward force is transmitted to >> the Stanley handle only in the lower part of the handle, or that the >> main effect of the apparently greater lean forward is to throw >> pressure downward." It is indeed a mistake. First of all, you don't want downward pressure on the back of the plane until the tote is over the wood being worked. But the fact that forward force is transmitted to the Stanley (and just about any other 19th Century plane) is clearly proved by the classic breaks found in plane totes. It is inarguable that these breaks are the result of forward force applied to the top of the tote. > What is relevant, in the context of plane ergonomics, is how she uses > it. It seems to me that her backhand pushes on the heel on the > horizontal, while the front hand (on the horn) does not grasp it for > grip or forward thrust, but stabilises her hand and then pushes down > on the toe. At the beginning of a cut, one does use the horn to pull the plane forward as well as pressing the plane down (a function of the bottom edge of the hand). At the end of the stroke when the front of the plane is off the wood, there's still a pull function as well as a stabilizing function. It's not really a lot different from a knob, except that a right handed horn cannot be easily used by a left handed carpenter. Mike in Sacto |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |