The short version of what I'm about to say:
Bearings shouldn't only be for flippers, and flippers don't always need to be on bearings.
I love ball-bearing flippers. When a bearing pivot is in tune with a firm detent, a flipper will gleefully fly open with the flick of a finger and glide gently closed on it's own gravity.
However, my 5 year-old Kershaw Chill, running on washers and a rather soft detent, deploys as reliably as my bearing flippers, if not quite as gracefully.
This sub-$20 knife, designed by flipper pioneer RJ Martin and manufactured in China, succeeds by virtue of design, engineering, and execution,
and despite the absence of a ball-bearing pivot (or a godforsaken Speedsafe).
There is a perception that ball-bearings allow a knife to deploy faster, which may be true, but to me that is an aesthetic benefit rather than a practical one.
The same is true for "free-falling" blade closure; since most bearing flippers are liner- or framelocks, one's thumb must cross the blade path to close the knife,
which negates any useful benefit of free-falling closure.
The practical advantage of a ball-bearing system is to eliminate blade play. Washers require some (or a lot of) play to function smoothly,
depending on how close the tolerances of the whole system are. Ball-bearing pivots operate best when they are as tight as possible without seizing up.
If your ball-bearing pivot is feeling sluggish, it's probably either dirty or not tight enough.
With washers, tuning the pivot is always a compromise between blade play and friction, and the happy medium will be different for every knife.
On a knife with a thumbstud and liner- or framelock, running on washers, I'll tighten the pivot to elminate blade play.
On a flipper with washers, I'll run the pivot slightly looser to help deployment, at the expense of a little blade play.
Ball bearings largely eliminate the need for this compromise. The downside is... I can't think of one.
So why aren't ball-bearings utilized on more non-flipper folders? Wouldn't most modern folders benefit from a smooth, tight pivot?
In particular, there are two systems which I think would benefit enormously from incorporation of a bearing pivot:
The Compression lock and the Axis lock. Think about it.
Both systems allow for one-handed closing without one's fingers crossing the blade path, and both locks essentially eliminate vertical blade play.
My Mini-Grip needs a perceptible amount of horizontal play to fall closed reliably.
My Sage 5 locks up like a vault, but requires a wrist flick to close one-handed.
These are hardly criticisms, I like both knives the way they are. The Sage 5, in particular, is amazingly smooth on phosphor bronze.
But imagine... if your PM2, or your 940, locked up with ZERO play and fell closed like it was sliding on glass...
So, why don't we have this?
I'm not just asking rhetorically, as there may be good reasons why Spyderco and Benchmade have seemingly never used ball-bearings in conjunction with their signature in-house lock designs.
But it seems like a no-brainer.
Sal, Benchie, if this is not already in the works for future designs, please make it happen.
Thanks!
Bearings shouldn't only be for flippers, and flippers don't always need to be on bearings.
I love ball-bearing flippers. When a bearing pivot is in tune with a firm detent, a flipper will gleefully fly open with the flick of a finger and glide gently closed on it's own gravity.
However, my 5 year-old Kershaw Chill, running on washers and a rather soft detent, deploys as reliably as my bearing flippers, if not quite as gracefully.
This sub-$20 knife, designed by flipper pioneer RJ Martin and manufactured in China, succeeds by virtue of design, engineering, and execution,
and despite the absence of a ball-bearing pivot (or a godforsaken Speedsafe).
There is a perception that ball-bearings allow a knife to deploy faster, which may be true, but to me that is an aesthetic benefit rather than a practical one.
The same is true for "free-falling" blade closure; since most bearing flippers are liner- or framelocks, one's thumb must cross the blade path to close the knife,
which negates any useful benefit of free-falling closure.
The practical advantage of a ball-bearing system is to eliminate blade play. Washers require some (or a lot of) play to function smoothly,
depending on how close the tolerances of the whole system are. Ball-bearing pivots operate best when they are as tight as possible without seizing up.
If your ball-bearing pivot is feeling sluggish, it's probably either dirty or not tight enough.
With washers, tuning the pivot is always a compromise between blade play and friction, and the happy medium will be different for every knife.
On a knife with a thumbstud and liner- or framelock, running on washers, I'll tighten the pivot to elminate blade play.
On a flipper with washers, I'll run the pivot slightly looser to help deployment, at the expense of a little blade play.
Ball bearings largely eliminate the need for this compromise. The downside is... I can't think of one.
So why aren't ball-bearings utilized on more non-flipper folders? Wouldn't most modern folders benefit from a smooth, tight pivot?
In particular, there are two systems which I think would benefit enormously from incorporation of a bearing pivot:
The Compression lock and the Axis lock. Think about it.
Both systems allow for one-handed closing without one's fingers crossing the blade path, and both locks essentially eliminate vertical blade play.
My Mini-Grip needs a perceptible amount of horizontal play to fall closed reliably.
My Sage 5 locks up like a vault, but requires a wrist flick to close one-handed.
These are hardly criticisms, I like both knives the way they are. The Sage 5, in particular, is amazingly smooth on phosphor bronze.
But imagine... if your PM2, or your 940, locked up with ZERO play and fell closed like it was sliding on glass...
So, why don't we have this?
I'm not just asking rhetorically, as there may be good reasons why Spyderco and Benchmade have seemingly never used ball-bearings in conjunction with their signature in-house lock designs.
But it seems like a no-brainer.
Sal, Benchie, if this is not already in the works for future designs, please make it happen.
Thanks!
