Brief review Kershaw Cyclone Ti/ZDP

[Cliff Stamp]

The blade shape is quite pleasing and looks to be strong. Handle has a nice hump on the back.

The flow of the handle over the blade is nice. Is this made in a nonmetallic handle?

-Cliff

 

[thombrogan]

If you'd ever handled a finely ground blade in a thin blade you'd know what he was talking about, especially in a steel as fine as ZDP189 ...

Actually, he has. I thinned the heck out of a blue Delica 4 with solid ZDP (the primary now travels well into the opening hole) and loaned it to Thomas W for evaluation. Even moved the pocketclip for right-handed tip-down carry.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Excellent, now hopefully he can exert some influence on Kershaw to stop shipping their small folding knives with edges which are suitable for froes. Now if they want to make froes, it is cool, I could use a nice one. I'd like 1084/L6 damascus. Clements can sheath it.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas W]

I'm just at a point Cliff of where we are thinking seriously of starting our own forum here, and formally becoming part of the BF community.
Kershaw finds value here, and enjoys the communication with its customers, and potential ones as well.

To have one of the forums most senior and respected members taking us to task on our core steel, special projects, our geometry/steel dependence as well as stating we are ignoring our geometry/knife...well that doest leave a whole lot positive to talk about.
It seems to me that having a dedicated forum may be a bit counter productive if you are constantly on us about every aspect of our business.

We really would love to win you over Cliff, but I'm not sure that we will ever be able to do that. I was done with BF's after our last back and forth, there is just no time for all the drama (at least on my end). I understand that there are differences and opinions that will be thrown out (not all positive), but Cliff, your a level up than most.

In talking with Sal, Devin, and Larrin yesterday at the OKCA show (great show btw) did they talk me into continuing on, but I am still questioning our own forum.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

... taking us to task on our core steel, special projects, our geometry/steel dependence as well as stating we are ignoring our geometry/knife...

It isn't about you Thomas, stop spreading misinformation and propoganda. It is about FACTS about performance and steel, which I have DOCUMENTED long before you were on the forums and even before these forums existed. So what you have statted is utter nonsense and outright lies. If you actually read other posts on the forums you would note I make positive statements about Kershaw knives and negative statements about other manufacturers on a regular basis.

-Cliff

 

[msiley]

The drama, the drama!
For the rest of us (remember us) this needs to stop between the two of you, please!

Here's my take from an impartial party (me).

1) If it wasn't for the info about Kershaws on BF I would of never
have bought one (or the next X number I plan on buying).
So a sponsored forum would be a good thing for Kershaw
marketing wise.
2) Thomas W, you can't tell us that you won't sponsor
a forum based on your discrepencies with Cliff. There's
more then Cliff on these boards. What about the rest of us?
We still like you.
3) If you plan on sponsoring a forum you'll have to take
the 'good' with the 'bad.' From my perspective
I see more good and even the negative is good.
Sure you may get some nasty comments but that leads to #4.
4) You don't have to defend Kershaw against Cliff Stamp.
This isn't a battle between the two of you. If you don't
like what he has to say then you can choose to ignore it.
I've said 'negative' things about Delicas and Sal ignored me!
(I'll even say it again... the FRN handles are too abbrasive!)
5) Cliff. I know I probably couldn't persuade you in any way
since you wouldn't care. That being said, do you see
a way to reconcile your differences with Thomas W in a reasonable
and respectable manner ever? (i.e. besides them turning Kershaw
over to you) You are both two people who love knives... I
see some common ground in that... and I personally don't
think either of you are evil/lying/bastards (as you _may_ see each other).

I'm all for spirited debates but we need to draw the line somewhere.
Otherwise, what we'll have is nothing but flame wars.... which
will get us pretty much nowhere.

We are a community and like every community we have
different types of people that need to work and live together.

Let's get the focus back on the knives.

my .02 .... mike siley

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I'll even say it again... the FRN handles are too abbrasive!

All of them? I like the FRN grips, the stainless ones are useless though. Too heavy, slick and uncomfortable in temperature extremes. Try using them in hot climates where your hands are slick a lot. I wish they would get rid of the liner locks on the large knives as the compression is way more stable, but a lot of people like the ease of opening and closing on the liners. My biggest problem with comfort is usually clips and sharp edges on handles. I have had many folders actually cut my hand open on a hard stab as some part of the grip went right through the skin. Not overly sensible to have a sharp handle, but R&D often ignores such fundamental points.

That being said, do you see
a way to reconcile your differences with Thomas W in a reasonable
and respectable manner ever?

Don't have any, he is paid by Kershaw to promote their products and his activity here is part of that. He is supposed to market and he feels that his actions towards me are the best defense of my criticisms. He is only doing his job, to judge him as a person because of that would be illogical. I don't know him as a person, if I did it would not effect how I viewed the knives anyway.

To even imply such is quite absurd. I sponser an independent research group which does blind testing. It would be idiotic to do that and then be personally biased for obvious reasons since they will evalute knives/steels I comment on. I am confident (as I always have been) in that what I say is based on FACTS and thus have no problem with thier independent verification of my statements. I have in fact been doing this long before Bladeforums as I was doing passarounds on my knives before this forum existed.

If Thomas wants me to stop noting he is a lier and spreads propoganda/misinformation then he can simply stop doing it, it isn't complicated. In each of these threads he is always the first one to make it personal by responding to FACTS I state about the knives to a personal rant on me. I just retort the absurd comments he makes.

In the above did he ever once defend why the edge on that knife was thicker than is necessary on a 10" chopping bowie? This isn't exaggeration, again it is actual FACT. No, instead he ignores FACTS and turns the thread personal and then turns around and plays the victim. This is all just spin and propoganda.

I like the looks of the Cyclone, not "tactical", clean blade shape, handle looks solid in profile. Likely decent for EDC once Krein reground it, I don't have Thom's patience to fool around with 0.030" edges anymore on that size of knife. I'd prefer FRN or similar handles, don't like metals in knives outside of the blade.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas W]

If it wasn't for the info about Kershaws on BF I would of never have bought one (or the next X number I plan on buying). So a sponsored forum would be a good thing for Kershaw marketing wise.

No doubt.

Thomas W, you can't tell us that you won't sponsor
a forum based on your discrepencies with Cliff. There's
more then Cliff on these boards. What about the rest of us?
We still like you.

I never said I wouldn't, I said it may be counter productive.

If you plan on sponsoring a forum you'll have to take the 'good' with the 'bad.'

I mentioned that in my statement.

You don't have to defend Kershaw against Cliff Stamp.This isn't a battle between the two of you. If you don't like what he has to say then you can choose to ignore it.

Fair enough.

I'm all for spirited debates but we need to draw the line somewhere.
Otherwise, what we'll have is nothing but flame wars.... which will get us pretty much nowhere.

Agreed.

So what you have statted is utter nonsense and outright lies

Cliff please, you have ripped us on 13C26 (our core steel) multiple times. this is your quote just from this thread based on a special project:

They seem to be ignoring geometry/steel dependence so it doesn't surprise me that geometry/knife is ignored as well.

 

[Thomas W]

A current issue I have with you Cliff is that you are always the most critical on our stuff, and yet you self admit that you have never used or even held the knife or steel you're commenting on.
13C26 has been reported positively on by all sorts of folks on the forum, yet you have ripped it? How can you do that when you never have even used it? No doubt you will rationalize this, but again who has time for this kind of communication?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

A current issue I have with you Cliff is that you are always the most critical on our stuff ...

Not even close, again this is just lies and propoganda just like your use of terms like "ripping" which is vague and meaningless slang meant to do nothing but induce emotional responces and is hardly conductive to productive discussion.

I have been consistent in the comments I have made in the above about geometry and steel for the LAST TEN YEARS. Again all you do is try to spin this as if it was a personal issue ignoring the FACTS that this was all said before you were here, before Kershaw was mentioned here, and before these forums were even here.

... you self admit that you have never used or even held the knife or steel you're commenting on.

Don't need to hold a pocket knife with a 0.030" edge to know it is absurd unless you are making the knife to cut nails. This is because I have used other knives in that geometry and all around it. You again even ignore the fact that in this thread the knife in question was reground to a profile which I suggested initially.

Similar for steels, read Landes book and you will realize that I have used extensively the same class of type I steel of which 13C26 belongs not to mention steels which fall all around it on the tie line diagram for C/Cr stainless and 12C27 and 12C27M. And again further my comments are supported by PUBLISHED research by makers who use the steel in thier knives.

As for 13C26, I was always postive about the use of low carbide steels in knives, again for ten years now. What I was critical in Kershaws use was that the heat treatment was not optimal for that knife and given it they would be better served by 12C27M and the knife would be tougher and more corrosion resistant at the origional hardness. I noted this EXACT SAME POINT in a recent thread in the Spyderco forum in regards to steels/geometries.

Similar that the edge geometry is completely unoptomized (actually opposite) for the intended performance of the steel because it ignores the inherent edge stability of the steel and thus compromises its greatest advantage and makes it useless in that regard. This is all PUBLISHED research you can go look up.

-Cliff

 

[Thomas W]

Maybe db was right, if I would just send you some knives everything would be better. The past has indeed proven this method to be effective with you. Do you want me to send you some knives Cliff?

I'm out of this thread Cliff, have fun.

Sorry Sal, I forgot your advice. Never was the fastest learner in the class.

 

[msiley]

All of them? I like the FRN grips, the stainless ones are useless though. Too heavy, slick and uncomfortable in temperature extremes. Try using them in hot climates where your hands are slick a lot.

The FRN on my Delica 4 rips up my hands when I'm cutting
something that needs lots of leverage and lots of cutting.
Which is mainly hard woods. Same thing with my
BM Mini-grip... it's a lot better now that I sanded down the
grippiness of it. Maybe BM needs to make a Mini Not So Grippy Griptilian.

Maybe I'm too strong and my skin is too... refined?

I don't mind metal handles if there is some sort of
texture to it or the shape of the handle allows there
to be a decent level of security. In general
for hard use folders I like G-10.

 

[Thomas W]

Cliff, if you could answer one more question that was left unanswered from another thread, thanks.

I am having trouble finding all of your publications. I don't why it is so hard finding all of them
Can you post your CV? Exactly which journals have you published in?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Maybe db was right, if I would just send you some knives everything would be better. The past has indeed proven this method to be effective with you.

Again more lies, and a direct implication that if you sent me knives it would influence my statements. Which like the rest of your nonsense ignores actual facts and tries to spin propoganda. Again as I have noted several times in the above, the comments I made are GENERAL not specific to Kershaw and have been said years before you or Kershaw were mentioned on this forum, or this forum existed. Plus as I have noted several times in the above, I have an independ research group of several dozen people who will be evaluating knives that I obtain. You realize just how absurd it is to imply that all of them are puppets as well. But of course you will spam your propoganda across anyone including guys like Landes, Swaim, Johnston, Talmadge, etc., who have all directly supported the work I have done with independent work of their own. When you say I am biased you automatically say everyone is biased who supports similar criticism. As noted, this is also suppored by peer reviews research such as Landes research on steels where he notes that type I steels need very thin edges and acute angles to out perform the high carbide steels. At obtuse angles they will be INFERIOR because the edge itself is then inherenntly stable. But I guess him, the guys who reviewed his thesis, both internal and external examiners, they will all biased against you as well Thomas. Utter nonsense.

Cliff, if you could answer one more question that was left unanswered from another thread, thanks.

My background is in atomic and molecular physics so I have published about a dozen papers in those respective journals, physical review letters and such. They are on the subject of collision induced absorption through the induction of temporary dipoles during collisions between molecules and atoms. The work mainly considers binary (two body) interactions. Most of my work was in developing the algorithms to handle the nonlinear analysis of the complex modeling functions.

The FRN on my Delica 4 rips up my hands when I'm cutting
something that needs lots of leverage and lots of cutting.

I never had that problem in general. I do have issues with the inside of the slabs always been too sharp, I sand them down and it is fine, but I'd like to see them rounded initially.

In general
for hard use folders I like G-10.

Yeah, its more expensive than FRN though, but on a really heavy use folder (prying/impacts) you can make an arguement for its strength. Though to be frank, I think it takes a massive blade to be able to take such strains that would deform FRN anyway and you are really then starting to push on what folders are likely designed to do.

-Cliff

 

[rottwang]

Cliff -- Read this.

Your opinion on Kershaw's factory grind could probably be found in two dozen different threads. You may be an authority on the subject, as knowledgeable as you are. However, regardless of if you are right or not, continually harping on about the same grievances makes you appear like you have an axe to grind (…'knife' to grind?), or some kind of petty vendetta.

 

[rottwang]

. (snip)

 

[acourvil]

Just a couple observations from a relatively new forum member.

I've read a bunch of things that Cliff has writtten, some of them with great interest. Some of those messages have great factual basis, although there is content fairly often that looks more like subjective opinion to me than fact, but each of us can make our own judgments. There are other messages where I see him drop into hyperbole and personal attacks, and I just stop reading.

I have to say that I think that Cliff's recent messages are pretty ironic. For example, in the one posted a little beofre noon, he writes a paragraph disclaiming any personal bias, but then immediately follows it with one calling Thomas a lier, and then by one accusing Thomas of turning the thread personal and ranting.

I would also have to say that almost all of what I have seen from Thomas' messages has been informative and helpful. The only exceptions I've seem have been when he has been goaded into a reponse to personal attacks.

I have a request for Cliff: do as you say, and just stick to facts. Opinions are o.k., too, if they are directed at materials, construction, etc. But cool it with the opinions about people, especially those you don't know.

And a request for Thomas: keep participating in the forums and providing the insight and assistance that you are well known for. There's a lot of us that mostly just read, but we really do a appreciate what you do. You can ignore inappropriate comments from Cliff or anyone else; that's what the rest of us do.

Oh, and since this thread is _supposed_ to be about the ZDP mini cyclone, I'd have to say my initial impression is very favorable. I haven't had time to do any real testing, but it was razor sharp out of the box, and feels great in my hand, with a very solid lock-up. I can't think of anything that compares at the price.

 

[J-san]

I also like my ZDP Cyclone. Very comfortable handle and a nice, solid feel to it. I also feel the same about the blade being too thick. I would like to have my Cyclone reground to a thinner edge, but I can be rough on my knives at times. For you knife gurus, what edge thickness would be recommended for this blade if I were to ask Mr. Krein to regrind it for me? What type of grind? Looks like the Cyclone has a flat grind. I don't do hacking/chopping with my knives, but I will use them to prepare food (twisting/prying meat from bone), cut cardboard, rope, zipties, plastic packaging, etc. I don't need to shave the ink off newsprint, but I do want my blade to be a good slicer, yet have enough bulk to stand up to a little abuse.

Thanks!

- jason

 

[HoB]

Cliff, I don't know what has gotten into you lately and I used to have a lot of respect for you but since about the beginning of this year I am taking aback by your internet presence. You seem to be using terms like "liar", "shill", "propaganda" etc. way to liberal for my liking lately. Now, somebody who uses such terms with a frequency like you do, opens himself up to a lot closer scrutiny than someone else.

In the last 13C27 thread you have stated the following:
"People with no experience and background heavily critize me on topics I have published papers in and where I have been numerously held to rigerous and indepent verification."
"Numerously", that is a term I would have expected to hear some someone like Eisenthal or Shen, maybe even from my advisor, but not from someone who is a year out of gradschool. Self aggrandizing statements like these have made me go to the trouble and trying to find these publications of yours. And don't even dare to suggest I quoted you out of context. I haven't.

I have searched the two largest online databases for scientific papers, "scifinder scholar" and "isiknowledge" neither of which are free services. Especially isi is extremely powerful and I have yet to find a paper that is unknown to isi. Even conference publications of major conferences are listed, which obviously do not count as "peer reviewed papers". I find exactly two papers with you name, neither of which you are first author of. Both are on collisional energy transfer. Since your name is Clifford Stamp which is also the name under which you have defended your thesis, it would be reasonable to assume that this is also the name under which you publish your papers. Therefore a search for C* Stamp should yield the desired results (* being a placeholder for what ever letters may or may not follow).

1.) Two papers are not "numerously", even a dozen is not.
2.) Two is not a dozen.
3.) Nobody here as ever criticized you on collisional energy transfer, so to claim that "people have critized you on topics you have published papers in" is empty rhetorics.

You have ignored several calls for your CV or publication list. I don't think you have the right to do so any longer. At the moment you have three strikes against you. Unless you provide full and convincing proof that you are what you claim you are, I must come to the conclusion that you are the liar in this group and have practicing nothing but self-propaganda. That is nonewithstanding your contributions to the "knife-world".

I am sorry that this had to be this way, but I must say I am very disappointed and feel mislead by you. I hope you can clear this up but frankly I am a bit skeptical that your CV will show anything relevant that isi doesn't list. I get pissed when get lied to, whether it be Mick Strider or Cliff Stamp. I will of course publicly appologize, if I am wrong on all three accounts. If I am only wrong on 2.) I have to think hard about how to respond.

If for some reason you don't understand what I want to see from you, I can list my own publication list as an example. I am reluctant to post personal information, but the publication list is a matter of public record anyways.

Sorry, gull wing, that your thread is now bound to go to hell, but quite frankly, I've had it.

Addendum: Since you are not a solid state physicist working on spin-relaxation in superconductors you can not be P.C.E Stamp either (not to mention that you can hardly have published as early as 1987) and hence you are not to be found in Phys. Rev. Letters either nor in any other APS Journal. That would be your fourth strike. (That, btw., is searcheable for anybody, just go here: http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=PRLTAO&ONLINE=YES).

 

[db]

Cliff, I don't know what has gotten into you lately and I used to have a lot of respect for you but since about the beginning of this year I am taking aback by your internet presence. You seem to be using terms like "liar", "shill", "propaganda" etc. way to liberal for my liking lately. Now, somebody who uses such terms with a frequency like you do, opens himself up to a lot closer scrutiny than someone else.

In the last 13C27 thread you have stated the following:
"People with no experience and background heavily critize me on topics I have published papers in and where I have been numerously held to rigerous and indepent verification."
"Numerously", that is a term I would have expected to hear some someone like Eisenthal or Shen, maybe even from my advisor, but not from someone who is a year out of gradschool. Self aggrandizing statements like these have made me go to the trouble and trying to find these publications of yours. And don't even dare to suggest I quoted you out of context. I haven't.

I have searched the two largest online databases for scientific papers, "scifinder scholar" and "isiknowledge" neither of which are free services. Especially isi is extremely powerful and I have yet to find a paper that is unknown to isi. Even conference publications of major conferences are listed, which obviously do not count as "peer reviewed papers". I find exactly two papers with you name, neither of which you are first author of. Both are on collisional energy transfer. Since your name is Clifford Stamp which is also the name under which you have defended your thesis, it would be reasonable to assume that this is also the name under which you publish your papers. Therefore a search for C* Stamp should yield the desired results (* being a placeholder for what ever letters may or may not follow).

1.) Two papers are not "numerously", even a dozen is not.
2.) Two is not a dozen.
3.) Nobody here as ever criticized you on collisional energy transfer, so to claim that "people have critized you on topics you have published papers in" is empty rhetorics.

You have ignored several calls for your CV or publication list. I don't think you have the right to do so any longer. At the moment you have three strikes against you. Unless you provide full and convincing proof that you are what you claim you are, I must come to the conclusion that you are the liar in this group and have practicing nothing but self-propaganda. That is nonewithstanding your contributions to the "knife-world".

I am sorry that this had to be this way, but I must say I am very disappointed and feel mislead by you. I hope you can clear this up but frankly I am a bit skeptical that your CV will show anything relevant that isi doesn't list. I get pissed when get lied to, whether it be Mick Strider or Cliff Stamp. I will of course publicly appologize, if I am wrong on all three accounts. If I am only wrong on 2.) I have to think hard about how to respond.

If for some reason you don't understand what I want to see from you, I can list my own publication list as an example. I am reluctant to post personal information, but the publication list is a matter of public record anyways.

Sorry, gull wing, that your thread is now bound to go to hell, but quite frankly, I've had it.

Addendum: Since you are not a solid state physicist working on spin-relaxation in superconductors you can not be P.C.E Stamp either (not to mention that you can hardly have published as early as 1987) and hence you are not to be found in Phys. Rev. Letters either nor in any other APS Journal. That would be your fourth strike. (That, btw., is searcheable for anybody, just go here: http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=PRLTAO&ONLINE=YES).

Thanks for the link, its really a good one.