A medium bounds for performance : chopping

[Cobalt]

I think that the worth of something is based on more than just performance. It is durability as well as quality control etc. The 300 dollar hatchet may not perform 10 times better, but it should have a steel that gives it greater durability, less cances for faulty heat treat, better QC, better handle materials etc.

I would consider it like comparing a Lexus to a Ford Tempo. The Tempo will get you from point A to point B and exceed the speed limmit if you need to. The lexus wll perform better, and last much longer doing it and will not look like it was dragged through the Sahara after 3 years.

I don't consider 700 chops incredible performance. I have done 5 times that amount with my 10 inch blade before it wouldn't shave but it would still cut.

 

[Elen]

I think that the worth of something is based on more than just performance. It is durability as well as quality control etc. The 300 dollar hatchet may not perform 10 times better, but it should have a steel that gives it greater durability, less cances for faulty heat treat, better QC, better handle materials etc.

I would consider it like comparing a Lexus to a Ford Tempo. The Tempo will get you from point A to point B and exceed the speed limmit if you need to. The lexus wll perform better, and last much longer doing it and will not look like it was dragged through the Sahara after 3 years.

I don't consider 700 chops incredible performance. I have done 5 times that amount with my 10 inch blade before it wouldn't shave but it would still cut.

To me, performance does include durability. You can't perform if you can't perform reliably. And reliability is durability.

The car analogies are something that always amuse me, by the way. Your analogy is nice, but usually people compare something like a cheapo Toyota with a Mercedes. That's one of the funniest comparisons ever, to me, because Mercedes cars are notoriously unreliable for their price, even compared to those cheapo Toyotas.

700 chops indeed isn't amazing. But if you read Cliff's post, you'll notice that the hatchet didn't lose its cutting ability after 700 chops - only its ability to shave. That hatchet will still chop wood after more chops than you can count in any normal usage.

I think Cliff is spot on about linear performance increase being unrealistic. Law of diminishing returns and all. That just goes a long way to show that perhaps spending 500 $ on an axe isn't the brightest of ideas conjured up by humanity.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think that the worth of something is based on more than just performance. It is durability as well as quality control etc.

There is this, but if you look at products like the Fiskars I think the quality control is not likely to be a problem, In general there is probably better quality control in such products than a lot of hand forged products that do not use rigerous methods for temperature and time, Cashen has spoke about this significantly. But yes, those are valid points in general.

I don't consider 700 chops incredible performance. I have done 5 times that amount with my 10 inch blade before it wouldn't shave but it would still cut.

It was not my point that it was, but more so to just make a somewhat reference point. If you can do this with a hatchet then should you be impressed that a $350 bowie can cut down a few sticks and still shave? I do not think so, but yet there is a single 2x4 cut for the ABS as a test of edge holding? This to me just seems far too low.

That hatchet will still chop wood after more chops than you can count in any normal usage.

Yes, I keep my axes sharp enough for precision cutting in general, but quite frankly, large chopping tools are sharpened about once a week in general assuming you use them all day and even then you are mainly repairing the heavy impacts, not the wear from cutting wood.

I think Cliff is spot on about linear performance increase being unrealistic. Law of diminishing returns and all.

I think Joe Talmadge was one of the first to argue that viewpoint. He was noting it as I entered the discussion in the late nineties.

-Cliff

 

[knifetester]

Interesting thread.

Just a few quick comments:
As the axe has been reground, Cliff is really giving the performance figures for a reground fiskars. Similiar to comparing a stock Ontario Machete with a Hossom Reground one. While a Hossom reground machete might be able to clear an acre and a half of brush before losing shaving sharpness, perhaps the stock Ontario would only cut one acre. This assumes the stock machete had actually been sharpened but not the primary grind re-ground. Re-grinding a tool can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse at times.

Similiarly, f I asked Tom Krein to regrind a knife for me (for example a Benchmade 710HS), is accurate to cite its performace as being represented of 710's in general. Not in my mind.

As well, the statements about QC above are well worth noting. Hopefully there is a higher level of quality control in a high end hatchet (for example a Lee Reeves) than a cheap fiskars. Thus comparing one Reeves' axe to another should be more accurate.
With a Fiskars, estwing, or others, isn't more likely that one person could be using an axe of greater quality (for example a superior heat treat) than someone using the same brand of axe a few towns over.

I have concerns over the durability of the head being hafted with a wrap around of plastic. It seems to abbrade as the axe is used. That being said I have seen some pretty mangled looking Fiskar's axes at campsites whose heads were still secured jsut fine.

As regards durability of the edge- with a Fiskar's I would imagine you may see superior durbaility against impacts with rocks and such compared to a Gransfors because the edge and bit are much thicker in profile.

Lots of cheap soft steel is going to be tougher than a lesser cross section of higher quality, harder steel.

Regardless of all that, there may be other reasons to pay higher prices for some things, not just improved performance, i.e. better comfort, better looks, or just personal preference.

As an analogy, a Toyota Camry may be better than a Chevy Impala by every single objective standard, better: fit and finish, reliability, gas milage, power, smoothness, comfort, power, crash ratings, handling, lower price, etc.

Still, if I worked as a member of the UAW or CAW, or another similiar labor union, I may not want to buy a car produced by non-union labor.

Further, price does not always equate to performance. If it did, Opinels would cost far more than they do, while certain makers would be forced to lower their prices exponentially.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

As the axe has been reground, Cliff is really giving the performance figures for a reground fiskars.

This is true, in retrospect it would have been interesting to do a detailed comparison before and after, even with edge retention as subjective as in the above.

I have concerns over the durability of the head being hafted with a wrap around of plastic. It seems to abbrade as the axe is used.

As did I for the same reason, but it has been used a lot with little effect. Much more I can guarantee than the majority of custom axes costing 10x as much.

Further, price does not always equate to performance.

True, but those selling them often promote it and in those cases they should be held accountable.

-Cliff

 

[hardheart]

For the car analogy, it would be akin to claiming superior performance from a Ferrari through such rigorous testing as starting when you turn the key (push the button) and backing out of the driveway without exploding. A Kia can and will do the same, so Ferrari should be showing 1/4 mile, skidpad, or other actual measures that a vehicle of 10% the price can't match.

 

[Elen]

I think Joe Talmadge was one of the first to argue that viewpoint. He was noting it as I entered the discussion in the late nineties.
-Cliff

You know, I wouldn't be very surprised if I heard that some 2000 years ago, some blacksmith said: "Yes sir, centurion, I could make this blade still more durable, but it would cost you thrice the denarii, and the blade would be only ever so slightly better than now."

 

[Andros]

Hey, it can be, depending on where you're driving those things. The top speed may not be ten times better, but race track performance is way more than just ten times better.

I think that for the true driver race track performance is the key that would make people with the appropriate funds buy a FERRARI!

In general it is probably unreasonable to expect a linear gain in performance because the cost increases dramatically as you keep refining the performance.

Exactly the point I wanted to make when I quotted the car comparison in my previous post #18.

My point was more along the lines that the performance being promoted as acceptable/superior is usually below the capability of even low end blades.

-Cliff

It appears with all the data that you have provided here that clearly this is the case (although more could be added to solidify this conclusion). Given this is how things are, I can't help but wonder what can a consumer actually do to make sure that his hard-earned money go to a worthy product and by that I mean a product that is really worth spending your money on.

 

[Cobalt]

700 chops indeed isn't amazing. But if you read Cliff's post, you'll notice that the hatchet didn't lose its cutting ability after 700 chops - only its ability to shave. That hatchet will still chop wood after more chops than you can count in any normal usage.

I think Cliff is spot on about linear performance increase being unrealistic. Law of diminishing returns and all. That just goes a long way to show that perhaps spending 500 $ on an axe isn't the brightest of ideas conjured up by humanity.

I understood clearly Cliffs post. And when I mentioned that my 10" blade lost it's ability to shave after around 5 times that many chops, it would also still cut easily.

I cannot say if $500 on an axe is worthy or not, but I would venture that it is not, but I am no expert on axes, hatchets, hawks. I can say that I have many blades whose edges will outlast that hatchet easily 5 to 1 and that is being conservative.

 

[Elen]

I understood clearly Cliffs post. And when I mentioned that my 10" blade lost it's ability to shave after around 5 times that many chops, it would also still cut easily.

I cannot say if $500 on an axe is worthy or not, but I would venture that it is not, but I am no expert on axes, hatchets, hawks. I can say that I have many blades whose edges will outlast that hatchet easily 5 to 1 and that is being conservative.

I see. So you're telling me (and everyone else, of course) that you have used that particular axe, and have used it to chop wood until it no longer had an edge that can chop wood? And that after the some thousand chops this took you, you've tried the same with a knife, and done better? Alright, let's see it.

 

[Andros]

I understood clearly Cliffs post. And when I mentioned that my 10" blade lost it's ability to shave after around 5 times that many chops, it would also still cut easily.

I cannot say if $500 on an axe is worthy or not, but I would venture that it is not, but I am no expert on axes, hatchets, hawks. I can say that I have many blades whose edges will outlast that hatchet easily 5 to 1 and that is being conservative.

Could any of those be from the Wauseon factory?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Given this is how things are, I can't help but wonder what can a consumer actually do to make sure that his hard-earned money go to a worthy product and by that I mean a product that is really worth spending your money on.

Ask for statements about performance.

I can say that I have many blades whose edges will outlast that hatchet easily 5 to 1 and that is being conservative.

I would hope so. I would wonder though at the real practical advantage, I would prefer greater hardness to minimize damage more so than edge retention as I think that is fine, personally any way, here. I think Possum had the right idea with the shock steels at ~60 HRC. I think sensibly you can forget about edge retention via wear for chopping tools, it is simply too slow for even rather low end steels as illustrated here.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

I see. So you're telling me (and everyone else, of course) that you have used that particular axe, and have used it to chop wood until it no longer had an edge that can chop wood? And that after the some thousand chops this took you, you've tried the same with a knife, and done better? Alright, let's see it.

No, I am not telling you that, but since you have a hard time reading, Cliff has already tested it and done 700 chops. I am telling you that I have knives that will chop 5 times that much before they loose their ability to shave but can still cut. Oh, and I would not waste my time on something that has 4 inches of edge and is over 16 inches long. If all I did was chop it might be worth it, but a khkuri or large blade is infinitely more usefull for my purposes.

Oh, and yes that means thousands of chops. I use to chop two Cords of wood every wnter for many years and I did that all with a 10 inch blade and a large khukuri. If you know what a cord of wood is, then you know how much chopping I had to do.

Could any of those be from the Wauseon factory?

Yes, they all are. :thumbup:

 

[Elen]

No, I am not telling you that, but since you have a hard time reading, Cliff has already tested it and done 700 chops. I am telling you that I have knives that will chop 5 times that much before they loose their ability to shave but can still cut. Oh, and I would not waste my time on something that has 4 inches of edge and is over 16 inches long. If all I did was chop it might be worth it, but a khkuri or large blade is infinitely more usefull for my purposes.

Oh, and yes that means thousands of chops. I use to chop two Cords of wood every wnter for many years and I did that all with a 10 inch blade and a large khukuri. If you know what a cord of wood is, then you know how much chopping I had to do.

Good for you! Now let it be known to all, that ye hatchets and axes are not shaving instruments, but for making larger pieces of wood into smaller. In such use retaining a shaving edge is slightly less than essential and necessary. That's why I find the whole shaving thing with hatchets a bit odd. You see, I don't measure the quality of hatchets by how long they shave. I actually measure it by how much wood they'll chop before they won't chop any more. And thanks for the help in reading comprehension, too. I can read pretty well, but sometimes I'm not sure why people write the kind of things they do.

Thousands of chops is a lot of chops. I've had to chop a lot of wood, and after the first thousand it gets a bit boring. So boring, in fact, that I can't be bothered to test the edge for shaving sharpness anymore! I'm more of the dull type, entirely pleased to just chop until it no longer chops or chops real bad, and needs sharpening. I have quite a few knives, and some of them maintain their shaving sharpness much longer than any axe or hatchet I've used. But few of them are as convenient choppers as even that little Fiskars, what with all the weight of the knife typically much more evenly distributed along the full length of the knife than is the case with axes.

Good point about the length of the edge against the full length of the instrument. Efficiency is important. That's exactly why I like light-weight knives and relatively small axes or hatchets. That way, I can sometimes save weight and still get decent tools, compared to lugging around a pair of huge knives (wouldn't want to get caught anywhere with just one knife, would we).

But, I digress. Let us get back to the topic of just what we should reasonably expect from "high end" knives and hatchets with regard to edge retention. You've said 5 times better is a conservative estimate. I think I can agree with that. I also agree it's probably conservative. Maybe 7 would be more realistic (and less cautious) an estimation?

 

[Cobalt]

Good for you! Now let it be known to all, that ye hatchets and axes are not shaving instruments, but for making larger pieces of wood into smaller. In such use retaining a shaving edge is slightly less than essential and necessary. That's why I find the whole shaving thing with hatchets a bit odd. You see, I don't measure the quality of hatchets by how long they shave. I actually measure it by how much wood they'll chop before they won't chop any more. And thanks for the help in reading comprehension, too. I can read pretty well, but sometimes I'm not sure why people write the kind of things they do.

Thousands of chops is a lot of chops. I've had to chop a lot of wood, and after the first thousand it gets a bit boring. So boring, in fact, that I can't be bothered to test the edge for shaving sharpness anymore! I'm more of the dull type, entirely pleased to just chop until it no longer chops or chops real bad, and needs sharpening. I have quite a few knives, and some of them maintain their shaving sharpness much longer than any axe or hatchet I've used. But few of them are as convenient choppers as even that little Fiskars, what with all the weight of the knife typically much more evenly distributed along the full length of the knife than is the case with axes.

Good point about the length of the edge against the full length of the instrument. Efficiency is important. That's exactly why I like light-weight knives and relatively small axes or hatchets. That way, I can sometimes save weight and still get decent tools, compared to lugging around a pair of huge knives (wouldn't want to get caught anywhere with just one knife, would we).

But, I digress. Let us get back to the topic of just what we should reasonably expect from "high end" knives and hatchets with regard to edge retention. You've said 5 times better is a conservative estimate. I think I can agree with that. I also agree it's probably conservative. Maybe 7 would be more realistic (and less cautious) an estimation?

LOL, I know the feeling. I have chopped for hours and after the first hour, you really don't care what happens to the tool or the wood. So that is why I say conservative, because I know that at 3k to 4k chops the knife still easily cut anything including my finger.

Unfortunately, I do not own any high end hatchets, so I cannot say how much better they should be than Cliffs Hatchet. I also have not tested my hatchets, since I do not care for them much. But if I were to get a hatchet, I would want one made of S7 or S5, so it would not crack or chip. Then I would get as thin a profile that would allow me to chop without binding, which is the biggest pain when you chop.

My HI khkuris had very thick edges and chopped well even though they could not cut well after a very short time. They had so much steel behind the edge that blunting didn't make much a difference.

However, my Ghurke house Khukuris litterally self destructed on wood after only an hour of chopping. One came apart at the handle and the other went from having a straight edge to having a serrated edge in short time.

My SHBM just kept on chopping and chopping and chopping and could still shave hair. After 50-60 hours of chopping it still cut anything really well but could not shave. In fact in that entire 4 week 2 cord chopping session it never lost it's edge to the point where it could not cut. I would sharpen it with 220 grit sanpaper on the convex side and 800 grit on the flat side just to get the bur off and it would shave hair. That sharpening would take me less than 5 minutes.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

That's why I find the whole shaving thing with hatchets a bit odd.

With me it was the simple fact that if I had to chop until I sharpened them for that purpose the comparison would be a fair bit too long. I was using it more as a steel reference than a actual tool one. That being said, when I do carry a decent hatchet I do use it for a lot of knife like work so the ability to hold a fine edge counts. For larger axes, well yes, all they do is pretty much chop.

Let us get back to the topic of just what we should reasonably expect from "high end" knives and hatchets with regard to edge retention.

I wuold think that makers should voice their opinion there, this would seem to be the place for it and they should know obviously.

But if I were to get a hatchet, I would want one made of S7 or S5, so it would not crack or chip. Then I would get as thin a profile that would allow me to chop without binding, which is the biggest pain when you chop.

Yeah, that seems ideal to me as well.

-Cliff

 

[Cobalt]

oh, that's right my swamp rat hawk is made of modified S7.
but I have not even used it yet.

 

[Ebbtide]

Same old stuff...
Jerry sez:

Cutting a nail driven into wood then bent 45 degrees is a great cutting test and does indeed apply huge lateral force to the edge.

cliff sez:

Assuming this is a perpendicular cut, then the same commentary applies.

cliff then gets in snide remark:

It is a sideshow event as it doesn't correlate to actual impacts in use.

Comments like that just ruin cliff's credibility.

I wuold think that makers should voice their opinion there, this would seem to be the place for it and they should know obviously.

The reason 'makers' don't comment here more is painfully obvious.

 

[Andros]

Yes, they all are. :thumbup:

It doesn't surprise me a bit:thumbup: !

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The above is as always a misquote, I noted that a single chop to cut through a nail in the manner Hossom described is a sideshow type event, it does not correlate well to impacts in use because it is far too static. Attempting to cut through a nail while it is in a piece of wood is of course representive of use because obviously it is of course the same thing. So if you want to see how a edge behaves if you hit a nail while chopping wood, then simply put some nails in wood and chop into them. If you want to chop up nails as Hossom described then that is fine and it shows how well your blade chops up nails, but that does not show how it will handle dynamic impacts in use for reasons noted.

-Cliff