Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)

Posted by CliffStamp 
The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 22, 2012 02:00PM
Video :





The funny part is this comment :

Quote
Suraj
Hello nice video mate... I have brought some elmax steel and i have designed a 9in chopper blade like the sog creed i will be doing a scandi convex on it. Please give your expert advice on what hardness should i do. Thank you...
Suraj Suresh 5 hours ago

We have :

-extreme high carbide steel used in a large chopping knife
-scandinavian grind

AND

-convex grind

Elmax is S60V with a lower vanadium carbide load (2.5%). There are a few curious things about this steel :

-follows the current trend of lower carbide loads in knife steels

That is an interesting thing which a lot of people have argued for a long time is sensible, but more curious :

-is trading vanadium carbide for chromium carbide

There is a rather large amount of metallurgy (especially in the patents from Crucible) about how this makes an inferior steel because chromium carbide is larger than vanadium but softer so it has less wear resistance and lower toughness at the same time.
me2
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 22, 2012 09:01PM
Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Ok, I'm fine now. I'm not sure I see the trend in lower carbide steels though.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 22, 2012 09:18PM
Consider :

-S90V -> S30V -> S35VN

or

-S60V -> Elmax

Just look at the compositions, in particular the carbide volumes. The trend is clear :

-reduce carbide volume
-increase grindability
-increase toughess

and be very vague about edge retention, i.e, don't compare Elmax to S60V or S35VN to S90V in that respect, and S35VN to S30V make reference to "users say it is pretty close".
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 22, 2012 10:48PM
ELMAX has been around for a good while and was developed for the Plastics industry along with M390 were the environment is very corrosive so both good wear resistance and stain resistance are needed.

Both of these steels have been around for a long time before anyone started making knife blades out of them.

It's the performance level and cost are the reasons for more makers going with ELMAX, it's a nice all around steel that's VERY clean and gives good edge retention with good toughness in the 59-62 HRC range.

Fits right into that same niche that S30V and S35VN are in right now, but ELMAX can be ran a lot harder in production knives than 60 HRC.

The higher carbide steels are still making headway in the higher end knives, both production and customs, more so in Customs though.

I think we will be seeing more CPM S90V finally since it's been around for a long time now and it's a proven performer.

Same with M390 and with Crucible making CPM S110V again we should start seeing more knives in that also.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2012 11:09PM by Ankerson.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 22, 2012 11:28PM
Quote
CliffStamp
Consider :

-S90V -> S30V -> S35VN

or

-S60V -> Elmax

Just look at the compositions, in particular the carbide volumes. The trend is clear :

-reduce carbide volume
-increase grindability
-increase toughess

and be very vague about edge retention, i.e, don't compare Elmax to S60V or S35VN to S90V in that respect, and S35VN to S30V make reference to "users say it is pretty close".

S60V had serious chipping issues when run harder than 58 HRC, the edge retention was good though even at that low hardness because of the carbide content. That's information from various sources in the industry.

S90V was Crucibles replacement for S60V, not S30V.....

Although CRK wanted a steel with a Vanadium content around 4% because S90V was too hard to work with and Crucible already had S30V and others were already working with that steel before CRK knew about it. It just so happens the other production makers followed CRK in using S30V.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 23, 2012 04:11AM
Quote
Ankerson
ELMAX has been around for a good while
Yeah, I was under that impression too, but it has become more mainstream in knife making only recently.
Although the fact it is more common now seems more about Boehler-Uddeholm pushing all their steels in knife making and higher visibility thanks to Kershaw.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 23, 2012 07:09AM
Quote
Ankerson

It's the performance level and cost are the reasons for more makers going with ELMAX, it's a nice all around steel that's VERY clean and gives good edge retention with good toughness in the 59-62 HRC range.

Fits right into that same niche that S30V and S35VN are in right now, but ELMAX can be ran a lot harder in production knives than 60 HRC.

Jim, Elmax is simply S60V with a lower vanadium load, the only curious thing about it is that the chromium carbide volume is significant which has to reduce its toughness over pure vanadium load steels, this is basic metallurgy. There is also no reason given as to why that degradation was made in using it as a knife steel. The fact that it is successful as a mold steel is not relevant. In the tool industry, adhesive wear will often dominant over abrasive wear and for that you need a mix of carbides in order to achieve maximum performance - but you don't get adhesive wear on a knife edge unless you are going to try to use your Elmax knife to cut annealed stainless steel on a regular basis.

There is no way to argue Elmax has an optimal configuration for a knife steel from a metallurgical perspective which is why it is not argued. The metallurgy for this can be seen directly in the patents for the PM steels and how they realized that MC carbide optomization produces the toughest steels with the minimal aggregates and highest abrasive wear. Of course this is not new in metallurgy this is why the cold work steels all did the same thing (though they used tungsten due to availability at the time) when they were trying to achieve wear resistance in thin cross sections (the D2 series gain high wear in a thick cross section).

All you are seeing is nothing more than other manufacturers trying to expand their market by marketing steels into another market.

Quote

The higher carbide steels are still making headway in the higher end knives, both production and customs, more so in Customs though.

As noted, carbide volume isn't increasing, in the US it flared up significantly in the late nineties and early 2000's but has now clearly dropped back. Many have in fact returned all the way back to ATS-34 which was introduced in 72 and it and the PM version (which will be identical in properties aside from manufacturing) are now very popular on high end knives.

The curious thing again is that ATS-34 also can not be argued to be an optimal knife steel because of what value is that high percentage of Moly? It is only used in the original configuration/usage to give it high temperature resistance and this is only achieved when it is tempered hot which no one does any more because it is finally accepted that this decreased toughness and corrosion resistance.

It is used now simply because it is available and branded. There is no way to argue that reducing the Moly would not make a directly superior steel but for that to be done it would have to be :

-melted just for that narrow purpose
-and rebranded

Both of these have a very high cost, hence the use of existing steels.

The very high carbide steels which were experimented with (S125V, T15, 121 REX) never went into significant volume for the downside of high carbide steels which are exaggerated at those levels.

You are also only looking at a small section of the custom market, there are entire sweeping divisions that do not use high carbide steels at all and never have and never will as carbide volume only degrades the performance there.

It is also trivial to find very well respected custom makers using AEB-L which is in fact carbide neutral but it performs very well because it has :

-very high toughness (for a stainless steel)
-ease of hardening to 63-64 HRC if desired
-trivial sharpening to extreme edges
-the maximum ability to hold a high sharpness

There is no way you can see S30V -> S35VN as anything but a reduction in carbide volume for the reasons noted, and it is accepted fairly uniformly as a superior replacement just like S30V was over S60V/S90V for the same reasons, lower carbide load and higher ease of manufacturing, toughness at the cost of abrasive wear.

Quote
Ankerson
S60V had serious chipping issues when run harder than 58 HRC, the edge retention was good though even at that low hardness because of the carbide content. That's information from various sources in the industry.

From a metallurgical standpoint Elmax is what was described, it is simply S60V with a lower Vanadium load, it has the same hardening response as S60V, it has to for reasons noted. It would be expected to have a slight increase in toughness for that reason just like you would expect a slight increase in toughness in S35VN over S30V for the same reason as carbide volume decreases toughness.


Quote

S90V was Crucibles replacement for S60V, not S30V.....

Jim, what was noted was :

-S90V -> S30V -> S35VN

The progression of steels in knives was S90V, then S30V then S35VN, and the reasons for that were as given :

-increase grindability
-increase toughess

at the expense of carbide volume and thus abrasion resistance.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 23, 2012 10:55AM
Quote
CliffStamp
Quote
Ankerson

It's the performance level and cost are the reasons for more makers going with ELMAX, it's a nice all around steel that's VERY clean and gives good edge retention with good toughness in the 59-62 HRC range.

Fits right into that same niche that S30V and S35VN are in right now, but ELMAX can be ran a lot harder in production knives than 60 HRC.

Jim, Elmax is simply S60V with a lower vanadium load, the only curious thing about it is that the chromium carbide volume is significant which has to reduce its toughness over pure vanadium load steels, this is basic metallurgy. There is also no reason given as to why that degradation was made in using it as a knife steel. The fact that it is successful as a mold steel is not relevant. In the tool industry, adhesive wear will often dominant over abrasive wear and for that you need a mix of carbides in order to achieve maximum performance - but you don't get adhesive wear on a knife edge unless you are going to try to use your Elmax knife to cut annealed stainless steel on a regular basis.

There is no way to argue Elmax has an optimal configuration for a knife steel from a metallurgical perspective which is why it is not argued. The metallurgy for this can be seen directly in the patents for the PM steels and how they realized that MC carbide optomization produces the toughest steels with the minimal aggregates and highest abrasive wear. Of course this is not new in metallurgy this is why the cold work steels all did the same thing (though they used tungsten due to availability at the time) when they were trying to achieve wear resistance in thin cross sections (the D2 series gain high wear in a thick cross section).

All you are seeing is nothing more than other manufacturers trying to expand their market by marketing steels into another market.

Quote

The higher carbide steels are still making headway in the higher end knives, both production and customs, more so in Customs though.

As noted, carbide volume isn't increasing, in the US it flared up significantly in the late nineties and early 2000's but has now clearly dropped back. Many have in fact returned all the way back to ATS-34 which was introduced in 72 and it and the PM version (which will be identical in properties aside from manufacturing) are now very popular on high end knives.

The curious thing again is that ATS-34 also can not be argued to be an optimal knife steel because of what value is that high percentage of Moly? It is only used in the original configuration/usage to give it high temperature resistance and this is only achieved when it is tempered hot which no one does any more because it is finally accepted that this decreased toughness and corrosion resistance.

It is used now simply because it is available and branded. There is no way to argue that reducing the Moly would not make a directly superior steel but for that to be done it would have to be :

-melted just for that narrow purpose
-and rebranded

Both of these have a very high cost, hence the use of existing steels.

The very high carbide steels which were experimented with (S125V, T15, 121 REX) never went into significant volume for the downside of high carbide steels which are exaggerated at those levels.

You are also only looking at a small section of the custom market, there are entire sweeping divisions that do not use high carbide steels at all and never have and never will as carbide volume only degrades the performance there.

It is also trivial to find very well respected custom makers using AEB-L which is in fact carbide neutral but it performs very well because it has :

-very high toughness (for a stainless steel)
-ease of hardening to 63-64 HRC if desired
-trivial sharpening to extreme edges
-the maximum ability to hold a high sharpness

There is no way you can see S30V -> S35VN as anything but a reduction in carbide volume for the reasons noted, and it is accepted fairly uniformly as a superior replacement just like S30V was over S60V/S90V for the same reasons, lower carbide load and higher ease of manufacturing, toughness at the cost of abrasive wear.

Quote
Ankerson
S60V had serious chipping issues when run harder than 58 HRC, the edge retention was good though even at that low hardness because of the carbide content. That's information from various sources in the industry.

From a metallurgical standpoint Elmax is what was described, it is simply S60V with a lower Vanadium load, it has the same hardening response as S60V, it has to for reasons noted. It would be expected to have a slight increase in toughness for that reason just like you would expect a slight increase in toughness in S35VN over S30V for the same reason as carbide volume decreases toughness.


Quote

S90V was Crucibles replacement for S60V, not S30V.....

Jim, what was noted was :

-S90V -> S30V -> S35VN

The progression of steels in knives was S90V, then S30V then S35VN, and the reasons for that were as given :

-increase grindability
-increase toughess

at the expense of carbide volume and thus abrasion resistance.

S90V wasn't used in standard production knives until just recently with the Spyderco South Fork, there have been sprint runs over time in S90V though. It was used in customs by makers that could work with it.

S90V sees more use outside the knife industry as always has.

ATS-34 and 154CM have been used for a very long time now, 154CM used to be used in the aerospace industry for jet engine fan blades, might still be today.

RWL 34 and CPM 154, the PM versions are not widely used except in Custom knives, although CPM 154 is making some inroads into the Production knife market, Kershaw and Strider both are using it now. CPM 154 was developed as a knife steel for the Custom makers since they were having issues with S30V at the time.


Quote

The fact that it is successful as a mold steel is not relevant. In the tool industry, adhesive wear will often dominant over abrasive wear and for that you need a mix of carbides in order to achieve maximum performance

Never said it did, I was just pointing out the history of the steel and how it was used and still is used outside of knife blades.


Nothing has really changed, the same steels are still being used today as have been for a long time now, VG-10, 154cm, AUS-8, S30V, AUS-6, 440A, and countless mystery steels.

So they aren't moving towards anything, it's more like they are still using.........

Spyderco is moving away from 154cm in some of it's models and replaced it with S30V, that's an increase in carbide volume and only uses S35VN in one model, the Native 5.

S35VN, well that's still a question mark as it hasn't been around that long yet and only in a few models so time will tell what happens to that, the other makers just didn't jump on CRK's bandwagon this time like before....... winking smiley

Benchmade has standard models in M390 now, more than one.......

But they still use 154CM also.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2012 11:41AM by Ankerson.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 26, 2012 08:38PM
Quote
Ankerson
S90V wasn't used in standard production knives until just recently with the Spyderco South Fork, there have been sprint runs over time in S90V though. It was used in customs by makers that could work with it.

That is the point, there was some experimentation with the ultra-high carbide steels in production, but they never could achieve enough use to replace the standard of ATS-34 because the performance wasn't there, though the carbide volume/wear resistance certainly was.

Quote

Nothing has really changed, the same steels are still being used today as have been for a long time now, VG-10, 154cm, AUS-8, S30V, AUS-6, 440A, and countless mystery steels.

So they aren't moving towards anything, it's more like they are still using.........

The history is very clear :

ATS-34 -> S60V / S90V -> S30V -> S35VN / 154CM

That is a clear trend towards low carbide stainless. S90V was introduced to optomize the carbide volume, by shifting towards MC carbide, however it did not significant increase workability and thus it had limited production value, there is little market for a steel manufacturer in small scale, thus Crucible had to look at volume sales hence S30V because S60V / S90V could not.

S30V was specifically designed to reduce the carbide volume, S35VN is exactly the same, again reduce the carbide volume. In both cases this produced increase workability (ease of heat treatment, grinding, machining, finishing, etc.) an increase in toughness and edge stability and of course a decrease in wear resistance.

These steels are the dominant stainless steels in the NA market, and show a clear trend.

Even more telling is that 154CM is that many high end knives have cycled back to 154CM, though arguing that in the first year of S30V would have been extremely difficult due to the hype, but now that has passed the reality has set in and no one now looks at 154CM custom knives as being low end compared to 35VN.

Outside of the main trend you can clearly see stainless steel production knives starting to use the same type of steels as are used in the forged knives and regarded as high performance there, Kershaws use of the Sandvik steels, Spyderco's use of the same class of steels, etc. .
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 26, 2012 09:22PM
Quote
CliffStamp
Quote
Ankerson
S90V wasn't used in standard production knives until just recently with the Spyderco South Fork, there have been sprint runs over time in S90V though. It was used in customs by makers that could work with it.

That is the point, there was some experimentation with the ultra-high carbide steels in production, but they never could achieve enough use to replace the standard of ATS-34 because the performance wasn't there, though the carbide volume/wear resistance certainly was.

Quote

Nothing has really changed, the same steels are still being used today as have been for a long time now, VG-10, 154cm, AUS-8, S30V, AUS-6, 440A, and countless mystery steels.

So they aren't moving towards anything, it's more like they are still using.........

The history is very clear :

ATS-34 -> S60V / S90V -> S30V -> S35VN / 154CM

That is a clear trend towards low carbide stainless. S90V was introduced to optomize the carbide volume, by shifting towards MC carbide, however it did not significant increase workability and thus it had limited production value, there is little market for a steel manufacturer in small scale, thus Crucible had to look at volume sales hence S30V because S60V / S90V could not.

S30V was specifically designed to reduce the carbide volume, S35VN is exactly the same, again reduce the carbide volume. In both cases this produced increase workability (ease of heat treatment, grinding, machining, finishing, etc.) an increase in toughness and edge stability and of course a decrease in wear resistance.

These steels are the dominant stainless steels in the NA market, and show a clear trend.

Even more telling is that 154CM is that many high end knives have cycled back to 154CM, though arguing that in the first year of S30V would have been extremely difficult due to the hype, but now that has passed the reality has set in and no one now looks at 154CM custom knives as being low end compared to 35VN.

Outside of the main trend you can clearly see stainless steel production knives starting to use the same type of steels as are used in the forged knives and regarded as high performance there, Kershaws use of the Sandvik steels, Spyderco's use of the same class of steels, etc. .

Quote

The history is very clear :

ATS-34 -> S60V / S90V -> S30V -> S35VN / 154CM

That is a clear trend towards low carbide stainless. S90V was introduced to optomize the carbide volume, by shifting towards MC carbide, however it did not significant increase workability and thus it had limited production value, there is little market for a steel manufacturer in small scale, thus Crucible had to look at volume sales hence S30V because S60V / S90V could not.

Like I said, they are still using, all of that happened a long time ago so nothing has changed towards the lower alloy type steels.

New steels are being used, yes S35VN is brand new, steels like ELMAX, M390, CTS-XHP, 20CV are being used, a few more new steels like those from Carpenter have been introduced like CTS-20CP and CTS-204P.

154CM has been around for a very long time, that and ATS-34 and both used in knives still today.

S90V wasn't used except in customs so that really isn't an issue because it was to replace S60V in other uses outside of the knife industry, same with S110V, S125V and S150V.


Quote

Outside of the main trend you can clearly see stainless steel production knives starting to use the same type of steels as are used in the forged knives and regarded as high performance there, Kershaws use of the Sandvik steels, Spyderco's use of the same class of steels, etc.

In low end knives nothing has changed either, they are still using cheap lower alloy steels just like they always did, that's part of the reason why they are lower cost. They aren't going to use a steel that costs $35 a pound to make $20 knives, they will use that $2 - $8 pound steel for those types.

One of the only exceptions to this are those overpriced coated lawnmower blades being sold by a certain company that I won't name.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 27, 2012 10:42AM
Quote
Ankerson
S90V wasn't used except in customs so that really isn't an issue because it was to replace S60V in other uses outside of the knife industry, same with S110V, S125V and S150V.

Jim, that is exactly the issue. S60V was attempted in several production knives, Spyderco and Kershaw both offered production knives in S60V. S90V was brought into the industry as an upgrade/replacement for S60V, production knives were again made from it, but again it could not achieve a significant market share. The problems with it and S60V were simply due to the carbide volume. Crucibles S30V when released very quickly achieved a large market share - again precisely because of the lower carbide volume. After years of use, and achieving almost market saturation, S30V was upgraded to S35VN which is again another step to reduce carbide volume, again because of the issues with carbide volume in S30V which were the same as S60V/S90V.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
November 27, 2012 11:26AM
Quote
CliffStamp
Quote
Ankerson
S90V wasn't used except in customs so that really isn't an issue because it was to replace S60V in other uses outside of the knife industry, same with S110V, S125V and S150V.

Jim, that is exactly the issue. S60V was attempted in several production knives, Spyderco and Kershaw both offered production knives in S60V. S90V was brought into the industry as an upgrade/replacement for S60V, production knives were again made from it, but again it could not achieve a significant market share. The problems with it and S60V were simply due to the carbide volume. Crucibles S30V when released very quickly achieved a large market share - again precisely because of the lower carbide volume. After years of use, and achieving almost market saturation, S30V was upgraded to S35VN which is again another step to reduce carbide volume, again because of the issues with carbide volume in S30V which were the same as S60V/S90V.

The carbide volume in S90V was a problem because it made it hard to work with, hard on equipment and the HT temps are very high at 2150 F so most of the Custom makers wouldn't even work with it then. Now it's starting to be used more finally.

S110V is extremely expensive due to loss in material when it's rolled out, that's about a 50% loss and it's very hard to work with due to the very high wear resistance. The benefits are there though as it's not chippy and can be taken to a very high hardness range, combine that with the extreme wear resistance and the ability to be taken to very thin grinds.

S60V had serious chipping issues above the 55-56 HRC range, it was just one of those formulas that didn't work out very well for knife blades, S90V doesn't have those problems, neither does S110V, both are a lot higher Carbide content than S60V.

S30V was great in the original formula from the original heat, could be taken to the 62 HRC range and most of the early testing was from that run, then they changed it and the problems started until they finally figured out how to work with it.

S35VN is interesting and I don't see the need for it as it really doesn't improve on what S30V is other than it's easier to finish and supposed to be tougher than S30V is. The jury is still out on that one though so time will tell what happens with that, still too early to say for sure and with ELMAX picking up popularity quickly S35VN might not take hold like S30V did.

S30V took off because most of the production makers jumped on CRK's bandwagon back in 2001, but it took a lot of years to get the kinks worked out of it and in the end turned out to be a good steel, hard to HT though still.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 02, 2012 08:29AM
Quote
Ankerson
The carbide volume in S90V was a problem because it made it hard to work with, hard on equipment and the HT temps are very high at 2150 F so most of the Custom makers wouldn't even work with it then.

Exactly, the carbide load is too high, hence S30V was introduced with a much smaller load.

Quote

S60V had serious chipping issues above the 55-56 HRC range, it was just one of those formulas that didn't work out very well for knife blades, S90V doesn't have those problems, neither does S110V, both are a lot higher Carbide content than S60V.

S60V has issues because the carbide load was too high.

S90V specifically reduced the aggregate by moving the carbides towards MC type over the large chromium aggregates, however it still has all the problems associated with a high carbide load, even more so in S110V, etc. . These are material facts, arguing against them is nonsensical. I would like to see either the materials data you have which supports that because it is trivial to show materials data which contradicts it and notes how the very high carbide volume in those steels reduces edge stability and toughness increase complexity of hardening and reduce grindability/sharpening.

Quote

S30V was great in the original formula from the original heat, could be taken to the 62 HRC range and most of the early testing was from that run, then they changed it and the problems started until they finally figured out how to work with it.

Jim, the problems with S30V was again the carbide load which is why S35VN has a reduced carbide load, this isn't conjecture it is a direct response from a large steel mill from its customer base. What are you arguing that Crucible did this on a lark and charged one of the most dominant steels in the NA market without a market survey?

The batches of any steel always have variances, the allowed tolerances are in the steel specifications and can be expecte to change hardening responses by 1-2 HRC. This is why batches when bought have to be asked for a spec sheet or batch sheet to adjust HT specifically for that batch. What change specifically do you allege Crucible changed with S30V to reduce the toughness and edge stability and what is the source?

You do realize that this if true, it is a clear example of fraud because you can not sell a steel under the same name as another which is outside the listed elemental composition.

Quote

S35VN is interesting and I don't see the need for it as it really doesn't improve on what S30V is other than it's easier to finish and supposed to be tougher than S30V is. The jury is still out on that one though so time will tell what happens with that, still too early to say for sure and with ELMAX picking up popularity quickly S35VN might not take hold like S30V did.

Jim, S35VN was designed specifically to reduce the carbide load in S30V and thus improve the grindability, ease of HT and edge stability. S35VN is already market dominant having taken over the S30V market.

Elmax is again nothing more than S60V with a lower vanadium carbide load, again the same trend, decreasing carbide load.

Quote

S30V took off because most of the production makers jumped on CRK's bandwagon back in 2001, but it took a lot of years to get the kinks worked out of it and in the end turned out to be a good steel, hard to HT though still.

Jim, this is nonsensical, do you know how many variables there are in HT'ing a steel, it does not take years to develop that, and the methods to hardened are already worked out in the compositional stage. They are also based on known metallurgy and the effect on changing HT to the micro-structure.

If you want to see how this is done look at Landes response to how to HT 3V on Cashen's board when there were issues noted with an attempt by a maker to harden it. There is no vague notions of optimization just a clear description of how and what and why things have to be done and this was immediate, not months, not days. The idea that it took years for the professional metallurgists at Crucible to figure out how to harden a steel for a knife is beyond silly.

I was just talking to reps from Carpenter on the metallurgists they sent to investigate the problems Spyderco was having with CTS-BD1, it did not take them years, not months, not even days to determine the problems. It took one site visit and an immediate conclusion upon inspect to both realize why there was a problem and how to solve it.

Any metallurgist who could not do this in an extremely short period of time would be laughed at. Try talking to someone like Landes who works as a heat treating consultant, these problems are solved immediately, anything else is just shill marketing.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 16, 2012 01:40AM
i am always thinking of retention was a conception that over Emphasized,

retetion is not an important factor should be considered , i think , especially almost all steels are good enough for cutting when HT were right.


slicing woods and cutting meat , all my knife are cool except 1055 from coldsteel.


so , why are you guys sooooo fussy at the retention factor ?


i think , the Toughness and strength both are mostly Ignored Virtues in the knife-making society , s30v 、vg10 、vg1、154cmp etc. those things are same category just suited for making chef 、edc knives , not for making swords 、chopper ,or even military knives.


that my two cents on the steel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2012 01:41AM by dingy.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 16, 2012 02:46AM
Quote
dingy
so , why are you guys sooooo fussy at the retention factor ?
I'd say that would be because toughness without edge retention is fairly easy to attain.
If you look at Noss videos, which address mostly toughness, you'll see many cheap knives scored pretty high, like CS GI Tanto
Or I can remember an article, I think from Cashen although not sure, which addressed the ABS bending test that stated most of the time it was done simply by dropping hardness several points.
So both toughness and edge retention is more difficult to attain.

That said I don't necessarily disagree with you. It's quite suprising how much more people are willing to pay for marginal increase in edge holding even at the expense of toughness.
I'd say that comes both from the fact many people are not good at sharpening and also the obsession with owning the best knife there is and mocking people with "inferior" knives.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 16, 2012 06:46AM
Quote
dingy
i am always thinking of retention was a conception that over Emphasized,

Edge retention is promoted fairly strongly when new steels come out, it is in fact often the main promoted advantage of the steel. Even more specific, it is usually only talked about in one aspect which is edge retention at very low sharpness, which is different from edge retention at a very high sharpness as they require different properties, a lot of carbide increases one but decreases the other for example.

Personally it has been a long time since I have been that focused on edge retention in a steel and I would never get a custom knife made now with one of the ultra-high carbide steels, aside from an experiment the performance simply isn't there is every other aspect and it is very easy to adjust the edge angle/finish to get very high slicing aggression and edge retention if desired, much more so than the change a steel can make.
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 17, 2012 09:22AM
Quote
CliffStamp
Quote
dingy
i am always thinking of retention was a conception that over Emphasized,

Edge retention is promoted fairly strongly when new steels come out, it is in fact often the main promoted advantage of the steel. Even more specific, it is usually only talked about in one aspect which is edge retention at very low sharpness, which is different from edge retention at a very high sharpness as they require different properties, a lot of carbide increases one but decreases the other for example.

Personally it has been a long time since I have been that focused on edge retention in a steel and I would never get a custom knife made now with one of the ultra-high carbide steels, aside from an experiment the performance simply isn't there is every other aspect and it is very easy to adjust the edge angle/finish to get very high slicing aggression and edge retention if desired, much more so than the change a steel can make.

man , you are right ,

i have Qs to ask you .

first , about Ankerson's rope cutting test are there Controversial aspects ? i mean such as edge geometry and initial sharpness before testing were sharpened to the same ?

second , Are you satisfied with Infi cutting retention ?
Re: The ultimate knife for Chris (me2)
December 17, 2012 06:17PM
Quote
dingy
first , about Ankerson's rope cutting test are there Controversial aspects ? i mean such as edge geometry and initial sharpness before testing were sharpened to the same ?

The method Jim uses was I believe developed by Goddard, later used by Wilson, and other makers have also used similar but more subjective. Fowler does it for example but doesn't measure anything, just goes by feel and also does a lot of things he doesn't describe openly such as he strops the blade on his hand when it stops cutting, etc. . There is nothing controversial about it that I am aware of and as long as you realize what he does and how he measures then you should be able to draw sensible conclusions, i.e., it is a very coarse measurement as the sharpness is measured +/- 100%, and it is a one point comparison at low sharpness so you would expect results to correlate very strongly to wear resistance and therefore carbide volume especially MC type.

Quote

second , Are you satisfied with Infi cutting retention ?

For large blades yes, but for large blades edge retention is like ranking a MMA fighter by his beard. I have never actually had a large blade wear down and have to sharpen due to edge retention unless I was doing stock cutting, and even then it takes a long time. The most important thing in large blades is resistance to damage and ease of grinding because large blades will always end up blunting by accumulating small bits of damage unless you are going to wash the wood you cut.

INFI doesn't in general get praised for its individual properties but for its blend of properties and the main attribute is actually the level of quality assurance/checks. Even though Busse has always promoted his blades for heavy use, and they are among the most used blades (judging by forum, YT, etc.) they have easily the lowest reported failure rate, so much so any time there is a problem it turns into a major event.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login