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

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

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

> 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