A closer cutting test

[hank_rearden]

to the mule collectors, have you tried using your knives for a fair cutting test, just to compare one steel from the other? i find some of the published tests here questionable. for instance, a zdp endura versus an m390 BM 710 is hardly fair, knife-wise, when the procedure employed is slicing on a cutting board. anyone?

 

[The Mastiff]

Hank, all tests I've seen are criticized in some way. I don't know of any way to get a completely objective test with results that can be repeated by others at anywhere close to my level of time and resources available. I am very glad the guys that do test do it and share their results. Sure one can nitpick something about their tests but why? I don't accept them as some sort of divine truth and don't think they are intended to be. I do find there is something to learn and discuss with these tests even if they aren't perfection.

Do you have any idea how much time, money and resources Jim Ankerson has put into his tests for instance? All for reasons I believe are pretty altruistic. He gets nothing from them other than requests to test more knives.

I couldn't do it as good as he does much less improve on it. If you have the time and resources please add to the knowledge base here even if it is imperfect.

Joe

 

[Boris74]

The only way anyone will know if a steel will work for them is to get it and use it the way you are going to use it. A cardboard test and fancy machine tests will tell you exactly nothing how a steel is going to work for you.

I have yet to see a "test" conducted in a lab match my experience using a steel.

 

[Comeuppance]

The biggest issue with cutting tests is the ridiculous number of variables in play. It's an almost useless measurement if the blade steels are roughly comparable, and even if they weren't roughly comparable, all you know is how that steel handled that specific cutting test with that specific grind with that specific blade thickness and that specific sharpening job - which by itself is too variable to allow for particularly meaningful testing unless you precisely machine identical blades with identical heat treatments and then grind them absolutely identically.

It's a great excuse for bored people to cut a bunch of stuff and feel scientific (LOOK AT THIS GRAPH, GUYS. I HAVE A PHD IN PVD PD-1) and for a bunch of steel snobs and armchair bushcrafters to balk at the results, criticize the methodology, and still walk away with their opinions unchanged.

CATRA is the closest, AFAIK, to being the standard cutting test. Even then, it's not so reliable or useful. I would argue that a rough understanding of the chemical composition really tells you everything you need to know about the potential performance of a steel - which is all you can really know anyway. With variable heat treats and grinds, the actual performance is always going to be notably different from the potential performance.

 

[Cobalt]

Here is the problem with a cutting test:

1. It is almost impossible to duplicate conditions from knife to knife. Exact weight of knife plus pressure. Too much pressure on one knife changes results.
2. Media is not exactly the same every time, and definitely not rope or cardboard.
3. Personal bias. We are all human
4. A steels performance will vary on different materials. Paper, rock, Scissors holds true in knives. Steel A will do much better than steels b,c,d on rope, but steels c, and d may do much better on card board or other media.
5. Rc variations make a huge difference. A 62 steel will have better performance than a 58 steel. Apples to oranges.
6. HT variations even within a steel.

in the end, to many variables to consistently make a conclusion.


The only way to overcome some of the above is to do large sample sizes of each steel, like 100 of each. Then you get a good average. But unless your are Donald Trump, this is nearly impossible.