Myth-busting

A few months ago - while attending a Lie Nielsen sponsored hand-tool show, I think I formally busted a myth. The event was held at Exotic Woods in Burlington and we were surrounded by wood, glorious wood. I was talking with a gentleman who was very interested in infill planes and wanted to review some of their features and to get my opinion on why they work the way they do. He rattled off the usuals; they are heavy - requiring less downward pressure, have a really thick iron which reduced chatter, few moving parts - fewer “tolerances” that can add up to movement (chatter), dense woods that dampens vibration, a closed tote which gives a much more responsive feedback than an open tote. As I was standing there - with a clear view of the instrument parts room over his shoulder, I blurted out;

“well... I am not really convinced that dense woods like rosewood are absorbing vibration. In actual fact, they are the worst choice for reducing vibration... they are tone woods, and highly prized for their ability to vibrate.”

There was a very long, awkward silence, and as I stood there pondering what I might have let out of the bag, I realized I had been thinking about this for some time, but had never articulated it that clearly before. And certainly not in public. The conversation continued for at least another 40 minutes and ended after he had happily tried every plane on the bench. So there it was - out in the open. And lightning did not strike me down and the earths axis appears to be unaltered.

In hindsight - it felt pretty good to toss the monkey wrench... but it did get me thinking more seriously about why infills work the way they do.

Another often quoted advantage of an infill is their weight. I am not entirely sure about this one either. I think there is some confusion between “weight” and how solid the plane feels in use. One of the true advantages of an infill plane is the lack of moving parts as they relate to the blade. The blade is fixed (crushed actually) against a wooden bed that is permanently, mechanically fastened to the frame of the plane - the metal body. The lever cap exerts an incredible amount of pressure against the blade leaving it with only once choice - to cut wood. Contrast this with planes where the blade can be moved by way of a mechanical mechanism to move it up and down, and left and right while the lever cap is deployed. Then factor in the frog being able to move forward and back at the same time. These are all great features - but they do add up to “tolerances or gaps” that reduce how rigidly the blade is held when it is presented with challenging timber. I think people experience how solid an infill feels more than the actual weight. This weight vs solid issue also explains why a Clark & Williams plane feels so great to use. Like an infill - they have no moving parts. The blade is held firmly against the bed and the iron does not have a choice but to take a shaving. The first time I tried a C&W smoother - I nearly tossed it across the room because it was so much lighter... but I very quickly adapted to it, and while it is very different from an infill plane - it does “feel” quite similar - like pushing a rock that spits out shavings.

Those of you that use or have tried both - I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions.