Richardson Bros.
#11
  Re: (...)
Long story short, maybe. Pat brought me a Richardson Brothers saw to replace the plate a while back. It did not have the rounded finger like the others I had seen. although, I haven't actually seen very many of them. None the less I noticed a couple of nasty cracks in the handle just under the finger area. No doubt from the toe end of the back coming upward, leveraging against the handle where it bolts the spine to the finger. ( A moment about the axis ) A flawed design in my opinion. So I decided to make one for myself using a little thicker wood, a compressed slotted back, and a pin in the toe end. I was in a bit of a hurry so the rasp work was not my finest and needs touching up , ( the handle was still wet ), but you get the idea. I chose quarter cut beech both because it was easier and faster to work, not to mention cheaper than most of the woods I use, as well as a more traditional wood. I tried to stay close to the original, but since when have I ever been traditional.

So there it is. The plate is solid, will not compress backwards and the set screw is removable. I used stainless as that was what was quickly available. I may replace it with a brass one when I get the time. The plate...14" x 3.5" under spine x 0.025". 11ppi, 8*rake,x 0* fleam.





BontzSawWorks.net
Reply
#12
  Re: Richardson Bros. by RonB1957 (Long story short, ma...)
That's pretty sweet!

I'm just about ready to go for a modern-plate saw one of these days coming up. You're doing a great job.
Chris
Reply
#13
  Re: Richardson Bros. by RonB1957 (Long story short, ma...)
RonB1957 said:


Long story short, maybe. Pat brought me a Richardson Brothers saw to replace the plate a while back. It did not have the rounded finger like the others I had seen. although, I haven't actually seen very many of them. None the less I noticed a couple of nasty cracks in the handle just under the finger area. No doubt from the toe end of the back coming upward, leveraging against the handle where it bolts the spine to the finger. ( A moment about the axis ) A flawed design in my opinion. So I decided to make one for myself using a little thicker wood, a compressed slotted back, and a pin in the toe end. I was in a bit of a hurry so the rasp work was not my finest and needs touching up , ( the handle was still wet ), but you get the idea. I chose quarter cut beech both because it was easier and faster to work, not to mention cheaper than most of the woods I use, as well as a more traditional wood. I tried to stay close to the original, but since when have I ever been traditional.

So there it is. The plate is solid, will not compress backwards and the set screw is removable. I used stainless as that was what was quickly available. I may replace it with a brass one when I get the time. The plate...14" x 3.5" under spine x 0.025". 11ppi, 8*rake,x 0* fleam.










Beautiful as always but I've had the pleasure of seeing this one in person and the pics don't do it justice! You should take a pic of the underside of the handle, as I recall there is an unusual detail there.
pat
Reply
#14
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by Pat Zabrocki ([blockquote]RonB1957...)
That's probably the worst part of the whole saw. I just eyed it quickly and didn' t get the coves lined up well. One of those touch ups I mentioned.



BontzSawWorks.net
Reply
#15
  Re: Richardson Bros. by RonB1957 (Long story short, ma...)
Sorry Ron, but to me it seems a bit blocky and slab sided. Doesn't flow well, not as nice as your other saws.


Quote:

A flawed design in my opinion.





How long has that Richardson Brothers saw been in service without fail? I think it could be seen as a time tested, proven design.
Reply
#16
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by TobyC (Sorry Ron, but to me...)
Tobe...

I'm thinking that Ron wasn't trying to make this saw comparable to his other state-of-the-art saw designs. The main point to be made with this saw is to improve on what Richardson Bros. attempted to do by screwing the handle to the back and the blade and not only to the blade. Another added feature is the set-screw at the toe end to secure the back to the blade so it won't slip.

In my opinion, to totally solve the problem of cracking in the area of where the back fits into the top of the handle, is to screw the handle only to the back and not to the blade.
Catchalater,
Marv


I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.”
― Maya Angelou

I'm working toward my PHD.  (Projects Half Done)
Reply
#17
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by TobyC (Sorry Ron, but to me...)
TobyC said:


Sorry Ron, but to me it seems a bit blocky and slab sided. Doesn't flow well, not as nice as your other saws.


[blockquote]Quote:

A flawed design in my opinion.





How long has that Richardson Brothers saw been in service without fail? I think it could be seen as a time tested, proven design.


[/blockquote]

I agree on the looks. It was a copy, but functional.

Making the handle thicker is more comfortable in my hand and should be a little stronger. The time tested design has proven to be no different than the other designs of the time, in my opinion, but drilling, tapping, and placing a set screw in a folded back adds at least three more processes to the manufacture to that saw. I am sure even then they had to keep cost down. Not attaching the plate at all to the handle leaves the plate to completely support itself, making the saw harder to control due to flex, particularly on thin plates, and in the end will make it just as susceptible to breaking from those side to side forces now solely on the spine area of the saw handle. The only real answer to wood cracking under duress is composite material. Lee valley etc.. The pin I placed in the toe end of the saw does not address the side to side forces. Just the tension/compression forces that allow the plate to move backwards or up /down vertically. A down side to folded backs , which is all they could use back then. Folded backs can loose some of their spring force through time, depending on the type of steel used, etc. In fact, every type of saw back made, folded, slotted, laminated, metal, wood, composite, etc. has an up side and down side. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. So we do what we can with what we have. If it works for you, use it. The original was a 1" folded brass back. A solid slotted back was just ideal for this particular saw in my opinion. So I decided to give a go as a diversion. ( ADD )

We'll see how it holds up.


Something a little different, anyway. Best wishes.
BontzSawWorks.net
Reply
#18
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by TobyC (Sorry Ron, but to me...)
The aesthetic doesn't bother me, but at the same time I kind of remembered this image

....

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/jenjen_bunny...333-fanart
Chris
Reply
#19
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by C. in Indy (The aesthetic doesn'...)
I am showing my age, but I actually went to the drive in to see "yellow submarine"

BontzSawWorks.net
Reply
#20
  Re: Re: Richardson Bros. by RonB1957 ([blockquote]TobyC sa...)
RonB1957 said:


[blockquote]TobyC said:


Sorry Ron, but to me it seems a bit blocky and slab sided. Doesn't flow well, not as nice as your other saws.


[blockquote]Quote:

A flawed design in my opinion.





How long has that Richardson Brothers saw been in service without fail? I think it could be seen as a time tested, proven design.


[/blockquote]

I agree on the looks. It was a copy, but functional.

Making the handle thicker is more comfortable in my hand and should be a little stronger. The time tested design has proven to be no different than the other designs of the time, in my opinion, but drilling, tapping, and placing a set screw in a folded back adds at least three more processes to the manufacture to that saw. I am sure even then they had to keep cost down. Not attaching the plate at all to the handle leaves the plate to completely support itself, making the saw harder to control due to flex, particularly on thin plates, and in the end will make it just as susceptible to breaking from those side to side forces now solely on the spine area of the saw handle. The only real answer to wood cracking under duress is composite material. Lee valley etc.. The pin I placed in the toe end of the saw does not address the side to side forces. Just the tension/compression forces that allow the plate to move backwards or up /down vertically. A down side to folded backs , which is all they could use back then. Folded backs can loose some of their spring force through time, depending on the type of steel used, etc. In fact, every type of saw back made, folded, slotted, laminated, metal, wood, composite, etc. has an up side and down side. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. So we do what we can with what we have. If it works for you, use it. The original was a 1" folded brass back. A solid slotted back was just ideal for this particular saw in my opinion. So I decided to give a go as a diversion. ( ADD )

We'll see how it holds up.


Something a little different, anyway. Best wishes.


[/blockquote]


I really wasn't trying to be negative, just tellin' it like I see it.



I like a thicker handle too,... 'bout an inch feels good to me.



Please don't use composite handles!

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)