Wow! A lot of work and a lot of food for thought! A monumental effort.I haven't read the chapter on chipbreakers & frog angles, yet - I will do that when I have enough time to read carefully & take it all in.
See AlsoCertificate of Registration - LCIE Bureau Veritas · Scope for the part detailed on page 2 & 3 of this certificate. Bureau Veritas Rua Joao de Barros, N° 56 Bairro das Ingombotas - [PDF Document]VERITAS Design Group on LinkedIn: #veritas #suriahills #architectureexcellence #asiapacificpropertyawardsStudent group appeals to Singapore university to review ‘sharp’ 36pc fee increase for hostel roomsSo far, I am pretty much with you all the way, and the areas where I might not agree fully are probably too subjective to argue rationally (but I'll try - see last couple of paragraphs)!
I totally agree on the desirability of 'mushroom' knobs - been singing the praises of these for a couple of decades, now. My take is that they encourage a flat-palm grip which makes it easy to bear down on the toe as you start the cut, which helps to keep the body of the plane level & not create a 'hill', particularly on short boards. As you progress through the cut, you automatically ease off the pressure so that by the end of the cut, as the blade goes over the edge, any downward pressure is on the rear handle only. All my planes have had those tall knobby things replaced with lower mushrooms long ago.
You have also illustrated rather well 'how to push a plane'. As you imply, long use of a tool brings you to adopt body positions that work over long sessions, which means, essentially, minimising muscular effort. Having your forearm roughly horizontal is 'right' for handles with a mean angle of around 70 degrees. Lay your arm flat, with your wrist in a 'neutral' position & close your fist. The angle your closed fist makes is (surprise) about 70 degrees, unless you are an anatomical anomaly. Pushing with your wrist in that 'neutral' position is less tiring than if you had to twist it up or down a bit. It makes perfect sense that you adopt postures that 'get behind the tool', as I was always encouraged to do. For planing, you most certainly want to bend into the job to bring hip & lumbar muscles into play, so the bench height that best suits you is one where it gives you just the right amount of stoop for a comfortable & sustainable 'power posture'. Using 'postural muscles' in a steady, rythmic process is good. Without getting too technical, these muscles are not only bulky & powerful, they can sustain steady effort over a long period, while your arm muscles are full of so-called 'fast-twitch' fibres that develop lots of power, but tire more quickly. Ask any rock-climber.
Now for the more subjective issue. The one point we will never agree on is that those Veritas handles are in any way comfortable! Call me a pig-headed old fuddy-duddy, or what you will, but they just do not fit my hand. I think there is more in the shape of the 'traditional' style handle than the mean angle, which as you point out, is similar for both (somewhat to my surprise, I confess). That shape goes back a good deal beyond Mr. Stanley, and evolved by trial and error over a very long time, so let's not discount it too readily. What is it, exactly, about Veritas's sticks I find so uncomfortable (I refuse to call such crude chunks of wood handles!
)? First off it's the cross-section shape that I dislike most. The more oval cross-section of the 'traditional' handle (& I'm talking pre-1940 shape, not the lame excuses that were stuck on the degenerate post-war things), lets my hand close more naturally. Have a look down your partly-closed hand & you'll see the fingers & palm describe an oval, not a square with 4 corners knocked off).
Now about that exaggerated reverse curve. I suggest the reverse curve on the back of the top half fits the ball at the base of your thumb. The straighter profile of a Veritas handle doesn't, so even though the mean angle of the grips are similar, it puts the pressure more on the ball rather than distributing it over the whole palm area.
And finally, a somewhat less subjective point. Although a freshly-sharpened plane does cut with little or no downward pressure, a blade gradually dulls as you use it, and it takes increasing amounts of pressure to make it bite. At first one does this subconsciously, but after a while, depending on how quickly the blade is dulling & how sensitive you are to the feel of a tool, you will be conscious of it, & realise a trip to the stones is called-for. You can demonstrate this to yourself very easily, by sharpening up your favourite plane, and laying into a piece of She-oak, or other species that has a rapid dulling effect. It will only take a dozen or so strokes before the plane is not taking clean shavings without a little applied pressure. So while you may not notice it in a few test cuts to asses handle comfort, I maintain a certain amount of downward pressure is a necessary part of most normal planing sessions. If you carefully watched someone planing long enough for the blade to dull a little, I bet you would see that forearm creep up a little to apply a bit of 'cutting' pressure. I reckon that the shape of the traditional handle makes it easier to shift the direction of the force a little, whereas I find the Veritas style imposes more of a 'one position' grip.
My hands are becoming increasingly arthritic, & handle comfort is getting to be a bigger & bigger issue for me. I may change my mind in the future, but for now, it's the old-style, curvaceous, oval cross-section handle for me, every time....
Cheers,
)? First off it's the cross-section shape that I dislike most. The more oval cross-section of the 'traditional' handle (& I'm talking pre-1940 shape, not the lame excuses that were stuck on the degenerate post-war things), lets my hand close more naturally. Have a look down your partly-closed hand & you'll see the fingers & palm describe an oval, not a square with 4 corners knocked off). 