Thread: Melbourne Tool Company

Cryogenic treatment in high hardness tool steel pretty much does one thing. It trades toughness for hardness and it makes the whole hardening process more forgiving if the soak temperature prior to quenching is a little too high.

that's it.

if you cryo treat car doors or cardinal feet and sponge hardness, it's not the same thing. It changes the remaining structure, it doesn't add toughness no matter what anyone claims when the point is a high hardness steel, and I doubt that it does too much to distribute carbides more finely when steel is properly soaked before quench.

Here's what it does - it converts more austenite from the soak (nonmagnetic structure) to martensite. martensite is the tempered material that we like in steel. if the conversion is not complete, we end up with a matrix of martensite with austenite still present (retained austenite). Retained austenite is both soft (tough) and less stable. In the hardening process, you:
1) transition the steel to austenite
2) quench it and try to convert as much to martensite as possible
3) you temper the martensite so that it is still hard but that it's tough enough not to be too fragile

In most tool steels, there's a sweet spot around 400F where this occurs.

if you do a poor job with #2, when you temper at 400F, the steel ends up too soft if you compare it to something that reached high hardness.

Two things occur in a tool edge:
1) strength (how hard a steel is - the harder it is, the harder it is to make it deform)
2) toughness (once a steel is subjected to forces and begins to deform, how much will it tolerate before it breaks)

hard 1095 is very strong, but not tough enough. We don't want deformation, but we also don't want steel to break out so easily when it's just barely deformed

The trade to get steel harder and slightly less tough is usually a good one for woodworking tools. An edge seems more crisp, it can be held more finely, and the tool is less likely to deform.

The *real reason* that cryo treatment is used on A2 and V11 is a combination of forgiveness for sloppy heat treatment, and to get higher terminal hardness. V11 and A2 do not have great terminal hardness potential. In fact, I think LV is generally using V11 at really what it's upper limit is, and not sure where they're tempering it, but it may be lower than 400F

oK, now I found a standardized chart and already have to revise something I said earlier.

....when you drive M2 to high hardness (like 64 on the C scale, where it works just fine), its toughness isn't any better really than high hardness V11.

We rarely see it in tools at really high hardness. It's usually in inexpensive turning tools, and then on top of that, soft, where it will be tough when abusers get involved (less breaking off of tool ends, and easier to sharpen on aluminum oxide wheels).



....


I don't like V11 for much. I was enamored with it in controlled testing but then when I went back to woodworking, that wore off as it is very poor in rough work and if you work mostly by hand, rough work will always be involved (anything including pin knots, interrupted cuts, planing out saw marks, etc, all will cause it to chip easily).

But it's not a "terrible steel", it's just a trade off in edge fineness, potential high hardness, for wear resistance gotten by high chromium carbide volume.

The knife critics on the metallurgy side don't like it because you can get the same wear resistance with much less vanadium and have a far tougher steel remaining, or get the same toughess and greater wear resistance.

but not many on here would tolerate a steel with much vanadium in it as it sharpens slowly even on diamonds and it grinds really slowly, even on CBN, unless it's left soft.

And that last part is one of the tricks often done with high alloy steels to make them sharpenable - leave them a little soft so they can be sharpened on normal stones.

The only tool I've heard of using 10V or something with relatively high carbide volume of vanadium is the Eckert 10V iron. if it's high hardness, it will grind slowly and be very abrasion resistant.

------------


that's all fact stuff - here's my opinion on why A2 ever got popular over relatively higher hardness O1 - because i's easier to heat treat and manufacture if dimensional stability is important. it wears only slightly longer and the edge is usually terrible in the longer wear period.

In order to properly compare edge life, you have to test high hardness O1 against A2, not LV's low hardness O1. I have no clue what they're achieving with their hardness range, but that's their problem. Comparing A2 to their O1 isn't an accurate comparison because the hardness is well different.

If you harden O1 to 62 and compare edge life, by the time O1 is dulling, it is still very uniform and you should be resharpening anyway...

-----------------

one last fact on tempering - I stated 400F as a sweet spot. That's for XHP/V11, A2, O1 and I like that for 26c3, which you'll never see commercially, but makes a better chisel than anything LN or LV make (it is very similar to japanese white 1B, so this isn't a real surprise, but it can be thermally cycled in propane forge and achieve higher hardness than V11 and higher toughness at the same time without anything more than quenching in a fast quench oil , or even better, that plus throwing the quenched item in the freezer to finish).

once you get into high speed steels or steels with two temper ranges, it's not uncommon to see tempering temperatures around 1000F. I can't see those becoming too popular for woodworking.

to compare A2 to M2 and see that M2 is preferable to A2 (but rarely seen, anyway) look at Beach's edge tests. A2 can potentially be a lot tougher than V11, but it doesn't make any difference if the hardness isn't there to get that to occur. I see no reason to use a2 if V11 is available at a similar price, but the comments about A2 being harder to sharpen than V11 are false. V11 grinds and hones more slowly. it's higher hardness, though, and it seems like it gets sharp easier - that doesn't negate the *fact* that on the same abrasive, it grinds away more slowly.

Plane Iron Tests


-----------

One last fact - steve knight made cryo hardened O1 People posted all kinds of stupid opinions about how it was a waste or it wasn't or what magic it did. It simply did this - it converted more austenite to martensite and allowed the knight irons to be higher hardness at the same tempering level. that resulted in an edge that's stronger (but not tougher - it was still tough enough) and that held itself together and wore slightly longer .Higher hardness of same alloy without a lack of toughness translates to better wear resistance. up to 20% or so.

So LV's choice of basically site hardness for O1 leads to an iron or chisel that lacks strength and in the iron form, also will plane fewer feet before needing to be resharpened.

Older english tools for fine work didn't delve into this lower hardness range - they're in the low 60s, as are vintage razors. It wasn't by accident that they were there.

One last follow up here for anyone who actually wants to understand what's going on with cryo.

Cryogenic Processing of Steel Part 1 - Maximizing Hardness - Knife Steel Nerds

this is a semi-technical discussion from a phd metallurgist who works a day job but also specializes in knife information. Knife people are the closest we're going to find to having useful information for woodworking, but everything is not directly applicable (knife people love toughness, stainlessness, etc, and often will use steel or specs that aren't that good for woodworking).

...................

And a missed comment on why i think M2 is a better choice if done well than V11 - both of them grind slowly compared to plain steels, but V11 is not heat tolerate. M2 is - so you can grind it with a heavy hand and not care. M2 edge life is about 15% less than V11 at same hardness and could easily be made for the price of A2.

When it comes to kitchen knives, though, I like XHP. I think LV ought to make a line of kitchen knives in V11, but they wouldn't be able to make any that match mine because they'd have to grind them thick enough to protect the tips against an average consumer's habits.

Originally Posted by dschumy

simply because I've got a Luban/QS/Woodriver/Juuma L.A. plane already, which is the best plane out there (at any price point).

I have a couple of Luban tools too, and they're great for a price. But they're nowhere near the best planes out there. Not even close.

Originally Posted by dschumy

Veritas has gone from Timbecon's range entirely (because everyone bought Luban).

Also not true, but the next reply will help explain why.

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

What did surprise me though is the news that MTC is actually a Timbecon subsidiary. I had suspected the two companies were related in some way even if it was just through supply contracts but didn’t consider direct ownership.

This doesn't surprise me at all. But a little history is needed.

So, the reason for Timbecon selling Luban and not stocking Veritas. Is it because Luban uses some mystical manufacturing technique that produces superior tools which make unicorns smile? No.

It's because they can get them.

Timbecon would rather be selling Veritas (and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff if they could get them). So why don't they? Carbatec.

In short, Timbecon had a barny with Carbatec over the prices and availability of Veritas and a range of other products which they supplied to Timbecon. As a result, Timbecon began seeking alternative suppliers and getting away completely from products that Carbatec supply.

Interestingly, it wasn't the Veritas products that pushed them over the line - it was Kreg jigs and screws.

I'm sure it wouldn't have helped Timbecons relationship with Lee Valley that they started selling their own branded copies of Veritas products while they were still selling Veritas.
Here's an example.

https://www.timbecon.com.au/torquata...addle-kit-of-5

Originally Posted by derekcohen

A few comments from me ... more like a rant ... sorry ...

I am once again charmed by your views on my content.

Originally Posted by Colin62

It’s not the worst review I’ve seen on YouTube, but I’d not make a purchasing decision based on his word. Looking over his shoulder at his tools in the background, he’s not a hand tool specialist, all I could see were power tools.

You are correct, I am not a hand tool specialist, though my hand tools are largely kept in the drawers directly underneath my workbench rather than out of the shelves. The next workshop will be be considerably different, but thats a matter of time.

I would never recommend buying anything from any single persons advice. Just use it as a data point.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Quite a few thoughts come to mind when evaluating a "review" - Social Media Influencers, Cash for Comment, credibility .... etc. I accept his disclosure statement in good faith.

I prefer the term "influenzer".

My goal with the video wasn't to spend 6 months analyzing everything I could about it, but to get some information out so people could see something other than the marketing material - particularly while they were on the introductory sale - so that others could realise they weren't getting a bargain Australian made plane that'd somehow compete with LV/LN.

Originally Posted by auscab

The guy in the Plane review video says the bed is painted.
The bed and rest of the internal surfaces looks more like an acid treatment rather than paint I think . Possibly that Phosphoric acid method . That's probably better than paint .

Attachment 511369

Showing my ignorance, I was not aware of that being a finish option.
When I asked "MTC" about the bed being painted, the response was

Yes, painting the bed surface is unusual, and I don’t think it was a deliberate choice. Being the first batch of finished planes that's the result we received. There were no surface finish notes on the final drawings and the sample planes that had been provided previously had been unpainted. I would put this down to first batch teething issues.

My assumption is if it was an acid treatment rather than paint, they'd point that out/defend it, but given some of the other knowledge gaps Timbecon have, I don't think that necessarily seals the deal!

Originally Posted by auscab

All these reviews and specs on websites and I cant see a weight for any of these block planes !

Anyone know what they weigh ?

757g according to the kitchen scales (boy it was a bad choice to pick that up at 7am, almost lost my fingers from the cold).
photo_2022-06-02_07-05-46.jpg

Originally Posted by VikingCode

I would never recommend buying anything from any single persons advice. Just use it as a data point. .......

I prefer the term "influenzer". .......

My goal with the video - so that others could realise they weren't getting a bargain Australian made plane that'd somehow compete with LV/LN.

Great advice! Thank you for taking the time to produce the video and to compile a review.

Unfortunately the advertising spin, though whilst most likely complying with ACCC and the ACL, gives the impression that MTC and its products are "Australian." Not directly or prominently saying "Made in China / PRC / Taiwan etc" on their website is no mistake on their part.

"Woodworkers need tools that are genuine, accurate and authentic."

However Timbecon do disclose the country of origin listed under the "specifications"

TIMBECON MTC.jpg

Whatever our views, or the companies commercial motivations, we should be thankful that Timbecon & MTC are investing in the initiative and that they are offering wood workers options and choices - to some degree. The whole wood hobbyist offerings are littered with generic clones in hand tools and machinery - what really differentiates one "brand" from another?

Personally, I'm very suspicious of any advertising that makes prominent the term "Australian" or the Aussie flag - unless they are also licensed to use the "Australian Made Logo."

The reality these days is that it is increasingly difficult for any onshore manufacturer to claim 100% "Australian Made."

"Australian Designed" or "Australian Owned" may seem to offer some comfort however there are many examples of importers making those claims then supplying very shoddy imported products from hand tools, electric bore pumps, wood working machinery, campers, trailers, caravans, horse floats, ........ that have "burned" consumers very badly both financially and physically.

However there are far more genuine retailers / importers who do "the right thing" - its up to the consumer to decide if they are genuine or otherwise. It really is Caveat Emptor - far more than we realize.

Vikingcode/wood knight, thank you for your measured (& polite) response. I suggest that in view of your stated aims in producing the video, the comments here may have been a bit over-critical, but be aware this section of the forum attracts a bunch of hand-core tool "enthusiasts" who take the business very seriously indeed, and what they expect in tool reviews is a discussion of all manner of arcane aspects that the average bloke neither knows nor cares about. I think your review fulfills its task for its target audience.

Most of the contributors to this section own similar low-angle planes with the now-ubiquitous, modified Norris adjusters. What they would be looking for is some sort of comparison of its functionality vis a vis those of Lee Valley & Lie-Nielsen, as Robert Howard does in his AWR review. It seems MTC use the same additive thread arrangement as the Veritas, which in its original incarnation can make very fine adjustments an exercise in frustration. That's probably something a newbie would neither know nor care about.

I would have shied off a MTC plane on the basis of that bed machining on the plane you got. As has been pointed out, machining marks are not necessarily deleterious to performance, as long as the blade can sit flat & make good contact across the bed at the points where lever-cap pressure is applied it should work satisfactorily. I would expect to see some evidence of milling on any machined bed, but the irregular tracks & "dig-ins" on the plane you reviewed are way above my expectations & at the least an indication of very sloppy work by the mill operator. One couldn't help wondering what other aspects of the tool may may have received less than careful attention. As it turns out, neither of the two subsequent reviewers got badly-machined beds, so yours seems to have been a one-off.

I think the general tone of the reviews so far indicate pretty much what you'd expect - these are quite ok tools that may lack some finesse, but are perfectly capable of doing their job and at roughly half the price of the top-end models, a reasonable choice for those starting out on a limited tool budget....

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

Unfortunately the advertising spin, though whilst most likely complying with ACCC and the ACL, gives the impression that MTC and its products are "Australian." Not directly or prominently saying "Made in China / PRC / Taiwan etc" on their website is no mistake on their part.

Thats the bit that got me a bit frustrated too. I think "Australian Designed" would have been OK (maybe 'less bad'), but specifically calling it "Melbourne Tool Company" implies a lot more local involvement. With no ABR registration for MTC, two of the three words in the name are pretty questionable!

Originally Posted by IanW

I would have shied off a MTC plane on the basis of that bed machining on the plane you got. As has been pointed out, machining marks are not necessarily deleterious to performance, as long as the blade can sit flat & make good contact across the bed at the points where lever-cap pressure is applied it should work satisfactorily. I would expect to see some evidence of milling on any machined bed, but the irregular tracks & "dig-ins" on the plane you reviewed are way above my expectations & at the least an indication of very sloppy work by the mill operator. One couldn't help wondering what other aspects of the tool may may have received less than careful attention. As it turns out, neither of the two subsequent reviewers got badly-machined beds, so yours seems to have been a one-off.

On one of the FB groups another bloke posted a photo of his, with similarly bad but not identical machining marks. The difference in pattern was best described by a friend as "like an apprentice in a clapped out bridgeport odd" - hand milled but without precision tools or training perhaps? It's hard to tell. MTC said it was on the "extreme" end, but still "within tolerance".
As you said, it isn't the be-all-end-all of whether a plane is good/bad/otherwise, but when there is a comparable option available from Luban with uhh.. less 'creative machining', it doesn't stack up well for MTC.

James (FixItFingers) had the machine marks, but certainly nowhere near the level mine were. It'd be interesting to compare the patterns though.

It's hard to gauge if the AWR review did have a better bed or not as there are no photos, and/or if it was sampled to them or not (MTC have a full page ad a few pages before the review, but people wonder if youtube videos are impartial enough!). I can't believe Robert didn't kick up multiple pages of rage about the steel used in the blade though!

I think the general tone of the reviews so far indicate pretty much what you'd expect - these are quite ok tools that may lack some finesse, but are perfectly capable of doing their job and at roughly half the price of the top-end models, a reasonable choice for those starting out on a limited tool budget....

The price is 100% the killer. Your other options for similar priced new planes are Luban (Good!), Stanley at Bunnings (not as... good), or Groz/Trojan. Particularly starting out, if it's your first plane, buying used can be tricky if you don't have somebody to help set it up. Do trash and treasure markets exist in plague-y times? The closest to me has been taken over for COVID testing permanently, so thats another option gone. Vintage Tools in Melbourne currently have a #18 Stanley in good condition for $160, a good option if you know they exist (which those starting out wont)

Originally Posted by VikingCode

757g according to the kitchen scales (boy it was a bad choice to pick that up at 7am, almost lost my fingers from the cold).
photo_2022-06-02_07-05-46.jpg

Thanks for the replies to this thread VikingCode . And for the weight of your plane .

I measured these two the other day.
650g and 579g

IMG_0856a.jpgIMG_0857a.jpg

I was using these two on a job and a combination of weight and blade dulling and also because it was a table edge so the plane is on its side and has to be a one hand method had me constantly hitting a wall . The plane stopping mid shaving. More weight and a more fancy blade possibly may make all the difference to that one type of operation .
More often the horizontal use of these two of mine has me using two hands on them and double the power, so no problems .

I have never thought extra weight was a good thing in hand planes but this one handed entry vertical use before the blade engages timber is a situation that could be the opposite.

Not sure I'll go straight out and buy one. But if I get a chance with one of my visiting woodworkers. Id be jumping in to test that theory out.

We have

830 g for the Woodriver BP
757 g Melbourne Tool Company
650 g Vintage Stanley 65
579 g Vintage Stanley 60 1/2 ?

A Veritas and Luban weight would be good to see. Any others as well.

I have started a new thread regarding the Block plane weights .
See link below.

Block Plane Weights

One of my major frustrations is that apparently there is no legal requirement to display an ABN or ACN or even the full legal company name on a website in Australia, even a .com.au domain.

There is a requirement to have an ABN to obtain/register a .com.au domain name, but once registered its up to the website domain name owners discretion to display the ABN etc on the website. I believe that for sales under $1000 there is also no mandatory requirement to provide an ABN or ACN or even the full legal company name on an invoice. Over $1000 - yes! Under - no or at best optional????

I prefer to know who are we really dealing with!

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

... There is a requirement to have an ABN to obtain/register a .com.au domain name, ...

Are you sure about this, Mobyturns?

Several times I have dealt with a com.au website only to later find that I a dealing with an American, British or Chinese firm. Seems anyone can acquire a com.au website.

... I prefer to know who are we really dealing with!

Me, too. But it can be hard.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Are you sure about this, Mobyturns?

Several times I have dealt with a com.au website only to later find that I a dealing with an American, British or Chinese firm. Seems anyone can acquire a com.au website.




Me, too. But it can be hard.

Yes, he's correct. An ABN is a requirement to register a .com.au domain.