- Thread starter
- #21
Working on a bevel angle calculator, looking for input
- Thread starter Kavik79
- Start date
The visual can't be repaired without some work. Typically it's not worth the hassle to correct.
The wavy is there because of the varying spine, chances are , that is combined with the grind itself along with a few years of honing
What type stone are you honing on?
The wavy is there because of the varying spine, chances are , that is combined with the grind itself along with a few years of honing
What type stone are you honing on?
- Thread starter
- #23
Yeah, I'm not overly concerned with the waviness, I'd prefer if it wasn't there, but I'm happy to live with it as long as it performs
a few years
yeah, it's an 1820-ish Joseph Elliot's
So far I haven't gotten past the Norton 1K, lapped on a DMT8c....though I honestly haven't spent TOO much time with it on the stone yet, taking it slow so I don't mess it up. My honing has improved, but I'm still plenty green
so....no one seems concerned about 20+ degrees on the bevel though??
a few years
yeah, it's an 1820-ish Joseph Elliot'sSo far I haven't gotten past the Norton 1K, lapped on a DMT8c....though I honestly haven't spent TOO much time with it on the stone yet, taking it slow so I don't mess it up. My honing has improved, but I'm still plenty green
so....no one seems concerned about 20+ degrees on the bevel though??
Here is a tutorial. Many of us think bevel angle is important.
http://www.artisanshaving.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=562
I think bevel angle is more important in shaving comfort than most of the factors we worry to death on the forums. It may be because I have very sensitive skin and very tough whiskers. The window for good bevel angles is smaller than the range on vintage razors I own. Razors get sharper as hone wear occurs and below 15 degrees is too acute for me.
http://www.artisanshaving.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=562
I think bevel angle is more important in shaving comfort than most of the factors we worry to death on the forums. It may be because I have very sensitive skin and very tough whiskers. The window for good bevel angles is smaller than the range on vintage razors I own. Razors get sharper as hone wear occurs and below 15 degrees is too acute for me.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #25
thanks for the support and info Brownbear
so.....yeah, everything I worked up for the first section of my calculator is right there in the one from coticule.be that that article references....right down to entering your tape thickness. So, I guess if I'm crazy for figuring this all up, at least I'm in good company and on the same track
so.....yeah, everything I worked up for the first section of my calculator is right there in the one from coticule.be that that article references....right down to entering your tape thickness. So, I guess if I'm crazy for figuring this all up, at least I'm in good company and on the same track
Chances are your not hitting the tip enough. turn your stone on it's side and work on the tip. So effectively you are using a narrower stone.
Once you have the tip popping like the rest of the edge go back and do some passes on the stone as you would normally use it.
Lets say you flatten the spine to correct the varying thickness, you have also moved the contact point of the razor on the stone. So while you have correct the spine issue, chance are the angle is still going to vary some.
Assume you do that work and your tip angle is still around 20 deg. The only way to correct it at that point is to regrind the hollows, which most don't have the tools to do.
It one of those things where it's easier to work with what you got (honing the razor the the way it is). Then to try and correct it with more tools and take the change you'll ruin the razor for good.
Once you have the tip popping like the rest of the edge go back and do some passes on the stone as you would normally use it.
Lets say you flatten the spine to correct the varying thickness, you have also moved the contact point of the razor on the stone. So while you have correct the spine issue, chance are the angle is still going to vary some.
Assume you do that work and your tip angle is still around 20 deg. The only way to correct it at that point is to regrind the hollows, which most don't have the tools to do.
It one of those things where it's easier to work with what you got (honing the razor the the way it is). Then to try and correct it with more tools and take the change you'll ruin the razor for good.
- Thread starter
- #27
turning it on it's side isn't an option for me, it's a 220/1k combo stone.
you're right thought that the angles at the 5 different points would still be a little off if the spine was flattened, but they'd be closer than they are now. The toe wouldn't remain around 20, that would actually change the most.
this is what I get in my calculator if I flatten the whole spine just enough to meet the current narrowest spot:
Still some variations, but now it would only be half a degree off instead of a full degree, and 19.17 being the widest angle instead of 20.14
If I removed just a quarter of a mm from each side after it was flat I would get these numbers:
Same half degree variation, but now with everything at 17.54 degrees or under
I certainly don't want to go so far as regrinding the razor. Even if I had the tools and skills to do so, I wouldn't want to do that to this one and alter it's original shape. However, I don't feel like correcting years of uneven hone wear would be doing it any disservice, in my eyes.
In theory, it looks like by touching nothing other then the spine it could easily get back to a closer range than where it's at now. Closer in both variation and target angle.
Unless I'm missing something else......it doesn't seem like that should cause any problems? Only if it had gone the other way and still left me with too wide of an angle/variation after the spine correction, right?
And BTW, thanks Brian, while it hasn't exactly been on topic for the calculator discussion, it's is very helpful to get more knowledgeable opinions and talk this stuff out
you're right thought that the angles at the 5 different points would still be a little off if the spine was flattened, but they'd be closer than they are now. The toe wouldn't remain around 20, that would actually change the most.
this is what I get in my calculator if I flatten the whole spine just enough to meet the current narrowest spot:
| Toe | Mid-Front | Middle | Mid-Rear | Heel | |
| Spin Width | 5.95 | 5.95 | 5.95 | 5.95 | 5.95 |
| Bevel Width | 18.39 | 18.35 | 17.87 | 17.98 | 18.39 |
| Bevel Angle | 18.61961 | 18.66056 | 19.16646 | 19.0481 | 18.61961 |
Still some variations, but now it would only be half a degree off instead of a full degree, and 19.17 being the widest angle instead of 20.14
If I removed just a quarter of a mm from each side after it was flat I would get these numbers:
| Toe | Mid-Front | Middle | Mid-Rear | Heel | |
| Spin Width | 5.45 | 5.45 | 5.45 | 5.45 | 5.45 |
| Bevel Width | 18.39 | 18.35 | 17.87 | 17.98 | 18.39 |
| Bevel Angle | 17.04275 | 17.08018 | 17.54253 | 17.43437 | 17.04275 |
Same half degree variation, but now with everything at 17.54 degrees or under
I certainly don't want to go so far as regrinding the razor. Even if I had the tools and skills to do so, I wouldn't want to do that to this one and alter it's original shape. However, I don't feel like correcting years of uneven hone wear would be doing it any disservice, in my eyes.
In theory, it looks like by touching nothing other then the spine it could easily get back to a closer range than where it's at now. Closer in both variation and target angle.
Unless I'm missing something else......it doesn't seem like that should cause any problems? Only if it had gone the other way and still left me with too wide of an angle/variation after the spine correction, right?
And BTW, thanks Brian, while it hasn't exactly been on topic for the calculator discussion, it's is very helpful to get more knowledgeable opinions and talk this stuff out
You're assuming the distance from hone to edge will stay the same after you removed the steel.
My guess is it won't.
Even though you will be removing steel, chance are you'll also be moving where the spine sits on the stone.
So lets say the distance from the where the spine set on the stone to the edge is 18mm.
Once you flatten the spine you also move where the spine and hone meet. So now, after flattening the spine, the distance from where the spine meet the hone, to the edge measures 16-17mm.
In my opinion the only way to make a noticeable change to the existing angle would be to flatten the spine, then regrind the hollow to move where the spine sit on the hone back to the original place
My guess is it won't.
Even though you will be removing steel, chance are you'll also be moving where the spine sits on the stone.
So lets say the distance from the where the spine set on the stone to the edge is 18mm.
Once you flatten the spine you also move where the spine and hone meet. So now, after flattening the spine, the distance from where the spine meet the hone, to the edge measures 16-17mm.
In my opinion the only way to make a noticeable change to the existing angle would be to flatten the spine, then regrind the hollow to move where the spine sit on the hone back to the original place
Last edited:
Slash McCoy
I freehand dog rockets
No that's not quite right.
Remember what you are doing is measuring sides of a right triangle and calculating the acute angle. The hypotenuse is measured from the widest point of the spine, not the nearest edge of the hone wear plane of the spine to the edge. As the spine wears, that point will actually be further away from the edge, increasing the hypotenuse, assuming edge wear is not enough to counteract that. There is no need to do any grinding of any hollow. To increase the bevel angle, one tapes the spine so that wear on the edge is proportionally greater than that of the spine. To decrease the bevel one could tape or otherwise protect the edge or else simply hone with spine pressure so that the spine reduction is proportionally greater than edge loss. Easy peasy.
Remember what you are doing is measuring sides of a right triangle and calculating the acute angle. The hypotenuse is measured from the widest point of the spine, not the nearest edge of the hone wear plane of the spine to the edge. As the spine wears, that point will actually be further away from the edge, increasing the hypotenuse, assuming edge wear is not enough to counteract that. There is no need to do any grinding of any hollow. To increase the bevel angle, one tapes the spine so that wear on the edge is proportionally greater than that of the spine. To decrease the bevel one could tape or otherwise protect the edge or else simply hone with spine pressure so that the spine reduction is proportionally greater than edge loss. Easy peasy.
I would agree if he had a straight ground modern German blade but he's working with a 1820's smiling blade.
Once the spine is evened out, he could effectively end up with what would amount to a 6/8 middle and 5/8 tip both with the same spine thickness.
If that turns out to be the case there will be a difference in the angle.
It would depend on how accurate the grind is from top to bottom.
Once the spine is evened out, he could effectively end up with what would amount to a 6/8 middle and 5/8 tip both with the same spine thickness.
If that turns out to be the case there will be a difference in the angle.
It would depend on how accurate the grind is from top to bottom.
- Thread starter
- #31
I'm not sure if your assumption on that would be right or not.....
The Bevel Height for this is measured between the edge of the blade and the far side of the hone wear, closest to the spine, not to the closest part that touches the hone.
If I ground parallel to the center of the blade, then yes, it would move the angle of the blade on the stone. But if it was thinned out by taping the blade and 'honing' the spine, I believe it would only make for a wider spine wear area, but wouldn't lift the spine higher
Like this pic...rough eyeballing just for a quick sample....the green line would be the current bevel angle, the green filled area would be the current spine wear section. Red line would be the new bevel angle and red filled area would be the new spine wear area. As you'll see, no area in the red would raise the spine further off the hone than the green does, and it will only make the Bevel Height measurement longer, indicating it would actually make a bigger difference in lowering the bevel angle than I first thought (in other words, I might not even have to consider removing the additional quarter mm per side)
The Bevel Height for this is measured between the edge of the blade and the far side of the hone wear, closest to the spine, not to the closest part that touches the hone.
If I ground parallel to the center of the blade, then yes, it would move the angle of the blade on the stone. But if it was thinned out by taping the blade and 'honing' the spine, I believe it would only make for a wider spine wear area, but wouldn't lift the spine higher
Like this pic...rough eyeballing just for a quick sample....the green line would be the current bevel angle, the green filled area would be the current spine wear section. Red line would be the new bevel angle and red filled area would be the new spine wear area. As you'll see, no area in the red would raise the spine further off the hone than the green does, and it will only make the Bevel Height measurement longer, indicating it would actually make a bigger difference in lowering the bevel angle than I first thought (in other words, I might not even have to consider removing the additional quarter mm per side)
- Thread starter
- #32
LOL that's what I get for not checking for new posts when I stop to eat in the middle of writing my response.
Thanks slash for confirming that I was thinking about it correctly where it comes to metal removal at the spine.
As for the smile....it's only a slight one. And as I said, I agree that it would still be a slight difference in angle between the toe and the center....but as my table showed, flattening the spine would actually bring them closer in this particular case than leaving it as is. If everything were to be perfect, the narrowest part of the blade would have the narrowest spine....but as of now it actually has the thickest spine of all of it
Thanks slash for confirming that I was thinking about it correctly where it comes to metal removal at the spine.
As for the smile....it's only a slight one. And as I said, I agree that it would still be a slight difference in angle between the toe and the center....but as my table showed, flattening the spine would actually bring them closer in this particular case than leaving it as is. If everything were to be perfect, the narrowest part of the blade would have the narrowest spine....but as of now it actually has the thickest spine of all of it
Do you have a pic of the razor?
- Thread starter
- #34
- Thread starter
- #35
Just finished with the section for how to figure out a new spine width.
After acquiring the current spine width and bevel width, I used those two figures to calculate the third side of the right triangle that can't be measured, the line in the center of the blade, we'll call that "True Blade Width".
Using that "True blade width" and the desired bevel angle, I was able to calculate the required spine width to meet that angle at the current bade height
Also included widths for +/-1 degree in 1/2 degree increments in case someone wants to see if they can get close to the target without altering too much of the spine
Then threw in the new Bevel Angle that should be created just to check and make sure it was all correct, and when I plug the new numbers into the original calculator everything checks out perfectly.
I'm attaching a screenshot to show better what I mean. In column 1 on the left are 1 of my original measurements. Those numbers were added to the calculator on the right, requesting a 16 degree bevel. Column 2 on the left was just me entering the new numbers from the right to check that my formulas were right
After acquiring the current spine width and bevel width, I used those two figures to calculate the third side of the right triangle that can't be measured, the line in the center of the blade, we'll call that "True Blade Width".
Using that "True blade width" and the desired bevel angle, I was able to calculate the required spine width to meet that angle at the current bade height
Also included widths for +/-1 degree in 1/2 degree increments in case someone wants to see if they can get close to the target without altering too much of the spine
Then threw in the new Bevel Angle that should be created just to check and make sure it was all correct, and when I plug the new numbers into the original calculator everything checks out perfectly.
I'm attaching a screenshot to show better what I mean. In column 1 on the left are 1 of my original measurements. Those numbers were added to the calculator on the right, requesting a 16 degree bevel. Column 2 on the left was just me entering the new numbers from the right to check that my formulas were right
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #36
It's easy.
Well, lucky for me I was able to simplify it just a bit from that
Unfortunately......I can't seem to attach the file, even though it says below that xls files are acceptable
- Thread starter
- #37
here you go.....if anyone wants to check it out you can download it with this link:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx16McVGFvBtdlNTTzNXYTV6bTQ/edit?pli=1
Just click File on the left hand side and select Save, then run it from your computer.
No macros to worry about, formulas only.
Feedback on the tool itself would be appreciated.....I think we've covered whether or not everyone feels it's useful to know a bevel angle
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx16McVGFvBtdlNTTzNXYTV6bTQ/edit?pli=1
Just click File on the left hand side and select Save, then run it from your computer.
No macros to worry about, formulas only.
Feedback on the tool itself would be appreciated.....I think we've covered whether or not everyone feels it's useful to know a bevel angle
I was expecting a razor in poor condition but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you may be over thinking a bit but I'm interested to see how it go's once you grind it down.
Be sure to let use know how it goes when you finish up.
I think you may be over thinking a bit but I'm interested to see how it go's once you grind it down.
Be sure to let use know how it goes when you finish up.
- Thread starter
- #40
Seraphim....
MileMarker,
This blade was in decent shape when I got it, but prior to sanding it down and shining it up, you could see that the spine wear was pretty uneven, even at the same points on opposite sides of the blade. Like I said, I haven't made up my mind for sure about doing this yet, but if I do I will certainly share the results, good or bad
MileMarker,
This blade was in decent shape when I got it, but prior to sanding it down and shining it up, you could see that the spine wear was pretty uneven, even at the same points on opposite sides of the blade. Like I said, I haven't made up my mind for sure about doing this yet, but if I do I will certainly share the results, good or bad
