Are the "teething problems" of S30V and S35VN gone?

Here was a thread about the knife article using test mules made by Bob Dozier:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...catra-results-for-six-crucible-steels.769910/

"These were hollow-ground 0.125" test blades heat treated by Bob Dozier to Rc 60-61. There's a five page article about sharpening and cardboard cutting after the CATRA test, but here are the objectively measured results. The test is cutting against stacks of 5% silica cards with a 50 newton force applied throughout a 40mm cutting stroke at 50mm/sec. Here is the CATRA page with a video example at the bottom http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468 "

Note it was way off in the year published. 440C wasn't even represented but 440V/S60V was. No Infi or D2 either. In fact it has no real similarities to Gaston's description of this or the other explanations about the "test". His results and steels represented in the test have changed several times over the years with each retelling. I recommend reading some of the old threads to see just how much the story differs. The only similarities are how 440C dominated or "crushed" everything else in all tests according to him. He even has stated 2 or 3 different knife magazines. He will say this isn't the test of course but he has had 3 years to disprove that and come up with the one he has referenced so many times in so many different threads.

One of many examples of his version of the test again played out in a similar way:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/why-440c-lost-popularity-in-spyderco-knives.1307425/page-3

Another beginning on post #38 of this thread:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/154-cm-and-cpm154.1423070/page-2

 
Last edited:
"Any idea how much truth there was to the stories of ZT with its early use of Elmax? Is there any validity to the claim they were some how messing this steel up?

Because I own the first ZT0801 which features Elmax steel. I first heard the rumors about ZT botching the treat on Elmax. I got my 801 just before those these rumors started. On mine it was completely finen

So do you know? Does anyone know? Was ZT fudging up Elmax or is it all just a buncha nonsense?"

I really don't know any knife companies that give the details of the heat treat they use. It's proprietary information. I have knives in Elmax from before the whole problem began and have great results with both. The first was a Kershaw Speedform 2, then the ZT. It's a clean, fine grained steel that takes great edges and cuts fine with no unusual traits. That's about all I can say without speculating which helps no one. If they changed heat treat mid stream I don't know anything about it.

Joe
 
The Mastiff said:

Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468
Click to expand...

The 3V and S30V results don't square with common wisdom. S30V should have better edge retention than 3V. 3V is noted for its high toughness and reasonable wear resistance. If it really had a 26 percent advantage over S30V in wear resistance, there would be no reason to go with S30V, other than stain resistance. Even Crucible says S30V will outlast 3V on edge wear, and it makes both steels.
 
"The 3V and S30V results don't square with common wisdom. S30V should have better edge retention than 3V. 3V is noted for its high toughness and reasonable wear resistance. If it really had a 26 percent advantage over S30V in wear resistance, there would be no reason to go with S30V, other than stain resistance. Even Crucible says S30V will outlast 3V on edge wear, and it makes both steels."

I thought so too. I don't know how Bob Dozier heat treated the mules and that can affect toughness and wear resistance. As far as CATRA goes that is pretty standard with no real advantage to either steel. Just results. All I can say is in that case, on that day with those mules common wisdom was not.....accurate. :)

Joe
 
shinyedges said:
Edge strength and toughness effect wear resistance. I'd agree from my use over the last few years 3v is more wear resistant.
Click to expand...
A another thing to consider is the application. The toughness and edge strength you mention is on the thin piece of metal that makes up the edge. S30V can still have better wear resistance, but have strain characteristics in response to stress that make it less suitable.
Lastly and most important this test was done at 60-61 RC. Benchmade runs their S30V at 58-60 RC. Perhaps the hardness was a bit high for S30V and it would have performed better a wee bit softer. Either way it is just more evidence reinforcing my view that 3V is one of the best cutlery steels.
 
Jhansenak47 said:
A another thing to consider is the application. The toughness and edge strength you mention is on the thin piece of metal that makes up the edge. S30V can still have better wear resistance, but have strain characteristics in response to stress that make it less suitable.
Lastly and most important this test was done at 60-61 RC. Benchmade runs their S30V at 58-60 RC. Perhaps the hardness was a bit high for S30V and it would have performed better a wee bit softer. Either way it is just more evidence reinforcing my view that 3V is one of the best cutlery steels.
Click to expand...
I agree, who knows what could have skewed the results for that specific test. I can only speak to what I've personally experienced which is completely non scientific, but counts for something (to me anyway).

3v has become my favorite steel as well, and that's a tough crown to wear because I am a demanding knife user who analyzes everything.
 
Gaston444 said:
JDavis has no duty, or even reasons, to provide Sal an opportunity to mitigate the result of his efforts...: The very act of sending it back implies these is something wrong with his results: Why would HE have the responsibility to negate his own effort?
Click to expand...

If his intentions were actually to work toward advancement of knowledge for the betterment of the knife community then, yes, he should have sent it in to be examined. If there is a problem, a reputable company has a definite self interest in fixing it to maintain their reputation and minimize profit draining warranty claims. If it's a problem that only shows up occasionally instead of a problem with all of them, then being able to examine the bad ones is probably about the only way for a manufacturer to see what's going wrong and track down the cause so it can be fixed. Fixing the problem is better for the company and better for the knife buying community than sensationalism and finger pointing.

On the other hand, if, strictly for the sake of argument, someone had intentionally done something to the steel (such as overheating the edge and ruining the heat treatment) before the cameras rolled for the purpose of making a sensationalist, clickbait video to increase traffic on their channel, they certainly wouldn't want an expert to examine it afterwards. Too much chance of getting caught in your bs.

Gaston444 said:
It is up to Sal to send him a knife that succeeds, not the other way around...
Click to expand...

This isn't how warranty generally works. You need to send in your bad example. Aside from the company wanting to examine the bad ones as I mentioned earlier, the less scrupulous people in society would be free to falsly claim they got a bad blade (or anything else that's warrantied for that matter) and just receive a second one for free. That free blades for liars program would need to be paid for by passing the cost on to honest consumers through price increases.

Gaston444 said:
That what he did was wrong changes nothing about the tests themselves.
Click to expand...

It certainly changes how much trust you can put in the results shown. A test is at best meaningless if you can't trust the people that did it and at worst intentionally deceptive. A dishonest person can rig a test to show a desired result from which they can personally gain.

Gaston444 said:
Run your nail and you'll see all CPM steels are all exactly the same in that regard: They are, first and foremost, industrial steels pressed into thin-edge knife applications were they don't belong.
Click to expand...

As opposed to, something like D2 tool steel that traces its history back to dies for WWII production lines? Very few steels were originally developed for cutlery purposes. Almost every steel is an "industrial" steel. Fortunately, that doesn't negatively impact knives in the least. In fact it helps tremendously. Knife makers and manufacturers have a dizzying array of steels to choose from. They can pick a steel that has the properties they want for a particular design. What that particular alloy was originally formulated for makes no difference at all when its properties are right for a particular knife.

I carry an s35vn bladed folder (ZT) while working and I use it pretty hard. I don't do formal testing, but s35vn has proven up to ranch use so far.
 
I always have an s30v folder (spyderco) in my pocket every time I leave my house, my room even. I like to mix it up though, and often carry a ct204p folder (ZT) as well. I don’t use them for chopping though, I like 5160 fixed blades or 5150 hawks for those tasks. All of these can be refined by an 8000 grit waterstone or a dmt
 
Well put Hex.
I don’t get how anyone can see that any other way.
I know if I got a blade that didn’t perform, I would send it in to the manufacturer. Especially when the owner of the company reaches out to me.
I guess some people would rather not send it in and hold it over the company’s head.
I just don’t get it.
Joe
hexenjager said:
If his intentions were actually to work toward advancement of knowledge for the betterment of the knife community then, yes, he should have sent it in to be examined. If there is a problem, a reputable company has a def self interest in fixing it to maintain their reputation and minimize profit draining warranty claims. If it's a problem that only shows up occasionally instead of a problem with all of them, then being able to examine the bad ones is probably about the only way for a manufacturer to see what's going wrong and track down the cause so it can be fixed. Fixing the problem is better for the company and better for the knife buying community than sensationalism and finger pointing.

On the other hand, if, strictly for the sake of argument, someone had intentionally done something to the steel (such as overheating the edge and ruining the heat treatment) before the cameras rolled for the purpose of making a sensationalist, clickbait video to increase traffic on their channel, they certainly wouldn't want an expert to examine it afterwards. Too much chance of getting caught in your bs.



This isn't how warranty generally works. You need to send in your bad example. Aside from the company wanting to examine the bad ones as I mentioned earlier, the less scrupulous people in society would be free to falsly claim they got a bad blade (or anything else that's warrantied for that matter) and just receive a second one for free. That free blades for liars program would need to be paid for by passing the cost on to honest consumers through price increases.



It certainly changes how much trust you can put in the results shown. A test is at best meaningless if you can't trust the people that did it and at worst intentionally deceptive. A dishonest person can rig a test to show a desired result from which they can personally gain.



As opposed to, something like D2 tool steel that traces its history back to dies for WWII production lines? Very few steels were originally developed for cutlery purposes. Almost every steel is an "industrial" steel. Fortunately, that doesn't negatively impact knives in the least. In fact it helps tremendously. Knife makers and manufacturers have a dizzying array of steels to choose from. They can pick a steel that has the properties they want for a particular design. What that particular alloy was originally formulated for makes no difference at all when its properties are right for a particular knife.

I carry an s35vn bladed folder (ZT) while working and I use it pretty hard. I don't do formal testing, but s35vn has proven up to ranch use so far.
Click to expand...
 
Lapedog said:
Any idea how much truth there was to the stories of ZT with its early use of Elmax? Is there any validity to the claim they were some how messing this steel up?

Because I own the first ZT0801 which features Elmax steel. I first heard the rumors about ZT botching the treat on Elmax. I got my 801 just before those these rumors started. On mine it was completely finen

So do you know? Does anyone know? Was ZT fudging up Elmax or is it all just a buncha nonsense?
Click to expand...

All I know about this is that I have a Speedform 2 and a 0561 that I have had zero problems with.
 
Twindog said:
The 3V and S30V results don't square with common wisdom. S30V should have better edge retention than 3V. 3V is noted for its high toughness and reasonable wear resistance. If it really had a 26 percent advantage over S30V in wear resistance, there would be no reason to go with S30V, other than stain resistance. Even Crucible says S30V will outlast 3V on edge wear, and it makes both steels.
Click to expand...

The edge stability of 3v probably helped it. Thus the superior edge stability + wear resistance of 3v translates into longer edge holding than s30v can make up for with its edge stability + superior wear resistance.

That is the same results I got with my Elmax from KAI during the rumors. It all seemed to work great. I was just wondering if there was any truth to those rumors at all. Like did someone get a bunch of botched Elmax from KAI or are they just repeating BS they hear.
 
Last edited:
"Like did someone get a bunch of botched Elmax from KAI or are they just repeating BS they hear."

Lapedog, all I can do is speculate and you probably know which way I'm leaning. I have seen one guy post a test result and then saw it repeated by others. Pretty soon the first guys sharpening problem became first a bad batch of steel then a heat treat issue, then a grinding problem overheating the steel. This is the classic "jump on the bandwagon" effect. It's easy to see why politicians/parties make such an effort to control the narrative. Repeat something enough times and it becomes a fact that people will claim they saw with their own eyes. It is human nature to an extent. Note no response from Gaston. He will pop up an a few weeks repeating the same story about the 99 Knives Illustrated article . Despite being called on it every time he will casually repeat it as fact and ignore all the other stuff that goes along with it. Normally I could care less but when it comes to people who are learning I think it's important to give them an opportunity to have the truth along with the non truth to let them decide from. When they gain enough experience things become clearer.Threads like this tend to come to the top on searches therefore it helps to have accurate info in them.

Joe
 
Last edited:
palonej said:
Well put Hex.
I don’t get how anyone can see that any other way.
I know if I got a blade that didn’t perform, I would send it in to the manufacturer. Especially when the owner of the company reaches out to me.
I guess some people would rather not send it in and hold it over the company’s head.
I just don’t get it.
Joe
Click to expand...
The most logical conclusion is that something on the blade was changed by the individual and that change caused the problems.

Giving it back to the maker would reveal the cause of the problem and place the fault on the shoulders of the individual making the claim.

For some sort of social media personality that type of truth would be a crippling blow to their credibility. They would tend to avoid the truth at all costs.
 
Danke42 said:
The most logical conclusion is that something on the blade was changed by the individual and that change caused the problems.

Giving it back to the maker would reveal the cause of the problem and place the fault on the shoulders of the individual making the claim.

For some sort of social media personality that type of truth would be a crippling blow to their credibility. They would tend to avoid the truth at all costs.
Click to expand...

Not CPM-related, but I remember something similar that happened on the Spyderco forum (not the one here on BF) several years ago, where a guy started a thread claiming that H1 does rust, because he made his Tasman Salt (H1 steel) rust (he kept it on a boat or something). He had photos as proof, and seemed real proud of his achievement. Someone pointed out that it wasn't actually rust; that it was actually a buildup of algae or something that had formed over the blade, and that if it were cleaned up (he never washed or wiped the blade off), the H1 blade would still be intact underneath the gunk. IIRC, someone may have even offered to have a look at it if he would send it in. As I recall, once that was pointed out, the guy who started that thread never replied again and seemed to disappear.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I think the teething problems are over.

No issues with my S30V and S35VN in Spyderco and Chris Reeves except me pushing it beyond its own limitations.
 
The Mastiff said:
Here was a thread about the knife article using test mules made by Bob Dozier:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...catra-results-for-six-crucible-steels.769910/

"These were hollow-ground 0.125" test blades heat treated by Bob Dozier to Rc 60-61. There's a five page article about sharpening and cardboard cutting after the CATRA test, but here are the objectively measured results. The test is cutting against stacks of 5% silica cards with a 50 newton force applied throughout a 40mm cutting stroke at 50mm/sec. Here is the CATRA page with a video example at the bottom http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468 "

Note it was way off in the year published. 440C wasn't even represented but 440V/S60V was. No Infi or D2 either. In fact it has no real similarities to Gaston's description of this or the other explanations about the "test". His results and steels represented in the test have changed several times over the years with each retelling. I recommend reading some of the old threads to see just how much the story differs. The only similarities are how 440C dominated or "crushed" everything else in all tests according to him. He even has stated 2 or 3 different knife magazines. He will say this isn't the test of course but he has had 3 years to disprove that and come up with the one he has referenced so many times in so many different threads.

One of many examples of his version of the test again played out in a similar way:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/why-440c-lost-popularity-in-spyderco-knives.1307425/page-3

Another beginning on post #38 of this thread:
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/154-cm-and-cpm154.1423070/page-2
Click to expand...


That is NOT the test I was talking about. The test I was talking about was around 1999 and included 440C and a sample of INFI, and there was only two CPM steels involved. It was the first independent test to ever include INFI and any CPM steels: CPM 3V and maybe SS100...

That this is not resolved, and that people claim I am actually making this up, shows what memories here are like...:

th


The magazine I'm pretty sure was Knives Illustrated, and you keep bringing up the same irrelevant trash time after time. I wonder if you are not the guy who steered me away from it...

Gaston
 
18 years is a lifetime for some members, and s30v is at least “tougher” than s110vwhich is the champ at cutting carpet and rope by a well-respected tester, if I’m not mistaken. I like it better than 14c28n, 420HC, vg10 and in a small blade at least better than 440c or 154cm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top