Companies need to start issuing verified third-party HRC tests.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banter 247 said:
It seems like the conclusion is that some favor more data, some do not, and others are indifferent. Fortunately, the testing is still being done, now with better steps for verification and reporting in place, so people will remain free to observe or ignore it as they prefer.

High five?
Click to expand...

It might not matter in the grand scheme of things but I did want to point out that it is unfortunate that your efforts, academic as they appear to be, have been mixed up in the slew of misconceptions, misguided accusations, and wild leaps to conclusions.

I have no problems with deeper learning, especially in pursuits that might interest any given individual, it is just sad that so many have manipulated those good intentions to serve toxic ends and spread so much misinformation.
 
Pàdruig said:
It might not matter in the grand scheme of things but I did want to point out that it is unfortunate that your efforts, academic as they appear to be, have been mixed up in the slew of misconceptions, misguided accusations, and wild leaps to conclusions.

I have no problems with deeper learning, especially in pursuits that might interest any given individual, it is just sad that so many have manipulated those good intentions to serve toxic ends and spread so much misinformation.
Click to expand...

I very much appreciate where your heart and thoughts are in that.
 
Banter 247 said:
It seems like the conclusion is that some favor more data, some do not, and others are indifferent. Fortunately, the testing is still being done, now with better steps for verification and reporting in place, so people will remain free to observe or ignore it as they prefer.

High five?
Click to expand...
I'm fine with more data, I just happen to think that's all it is in the technical definition of the term. Data: Raw, unprocessed facts that are fundamentally random and useless until they're properly catalogued and organized. What I want to see more of is information, rather than data, and, IMHO, testing single blades somewhat randomly gives us very little of that.
 
Government regulation like the FDA with food seems to be our only answer. We can have RC testers traveling the country, conducting tests. Each manufacturer will be required to pass inspections and have a separate office just for the inspectors use when they are there. This should keep everyone happy since we can’t trust the manufacturers much more than we can some random guys on the net.


/rant o_O
 
ScooterG said:
Government regulation like the FDA with food seems to be our only answer. We can have RC testers traveling the country, conducting tests. Each manufacturer will be required to pass inspections and have a separate office just for the inspectors use when they are there. This should keep everyone happy since we can’t trust the manufacturers much more than we can some random guys on the net.


/rant o_O
Click to expand...
I'm officially applying for your position. I have no real qualifications for the job, but am enthusiastic about the opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you regarding a mutually agreeable time for an interview.

Sincerely,

Random Hobbit
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Your suggestion that they test 100% of some batches? Seems a whole lot different than testing 1.5% consistently.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand how modern manufacturing works at this point. How do you think they create the baseline that supports 1.5% standard batch testing? What do you think happens when they change tooling? What do you think happens when they restart the line? What do you think happens when 1.5% of your batch fails QA? You don't just flip a switch and knives appear, boxed and ready for shipping. Manufacturers track shrink for a reason.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I'm fine with more data, I just happen to think that's all it is in the technical definition of the term. Data: Raw, unprocessed facts that are fundamentally random and useless until they're properly catalogued and organized. What I want to see more of is information, rather than data, and, IMHO, testing single blades somewhat randomly gives us very little of that.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome to seek out, generate, or provide information as you prefer it to be done. A lot gets lost in writing, so let me add that I say that without any snark or hostility. I love seeing new things come to light, and welcome all of it.
 
Banter 247 said:
You are very welcome to seek out, generate, or provide information as you prefer it to be done. A lot gets lost in writing, so let me add that I say that without any snark or hostility. I love seeing new things come to light, and welcome all of it.
Click to expand...
I take it in the spirit in which it's intended. I hope y'all keep doing what you're doing. I just think it has a long way to go before it becomes really useful tool capable of making accurate predictions.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I take it in the spirit in which it's intended. I hope y'all keep doing what you're doing. I just think it has a long way to go before it becomes really useful tool capable of making accurate predictions.
Click to expand...

I agree. We need a lot more to get good sample sizes.

M’lady is done preparing. I’m out for awhile. Happy 4th!
 
Should we trust hardness values on one-off knives hand-written by custom makers on those cards???
 
miso2 said:
Should we trust hardness values on one-off knives hand-written by custom makers on those cards???
Click to expand...
If the maker has a reputation for hitting their goals, then yes. If they are saying "tested to" and providing evidence, then sure, pay the piper. I think that the chance of knives getting caught out means that it will keep honest guys honest, and the cheats will still fly by night. But if the expectation is that each knife is independently tested, then be prepared for the added costs.

I'm reminded of a couple years ago a guy came in to complain about a custom Winkler that he had bought and it was very sub-par. Pretty mad about it because he was the fourth or so owner (Going from memory so probably all wrong) but the first to use it. Spent a lot apparently. Someone mentions that a bad batch had gone out, been found out, but not all the knives had been replaced. Turns out this was the last or second to last bad blade in circulation. They fixed him up right away as soon as the problem was found. Now this is a bit of an odd case, the knives hadn't gotten final heat treat, so they were dead soft. Not the case of 2-3 points from spec. Point is, a reputable company maintained their reputation by actively working to hunt down the bad blades and get them replaced.

I think what is more important is a good understanding at this level of the hobby of expectation and marketing departments both giving us the info we want, but also selling knives. We need to be understanding that an HRC number and and alloy is still not enough info to decide from spec what a knife should preform at. Blade steel choices are complex, some guys are just going to want a certain alloy, a maker might get the best out of an alloy, or a use condition might demand an alloy. I like more info than less, but I also think that we need to acknowledge that just raw data isn't always enough. Sometimes we ask for things without realizing that we are holding a monkey's paw.
 
AmosPaul said:
I know I have willingly paid more for an M390 blade because of the steel's reputation.

No longer.

Sure, Lionsteel's hardness is not as low as it was originally thought, but their heat treatment is still not optimal.

I'm surprised at the number of people who don't care how their blade is heat treated. I'm guessing most are just W&C dwellers trying to provide drama for their entertainment.

I like to be able to process a deer without stopping to re-sharpen, so edge holding is important to me.
Click to expand...

What's that supposed to mean? Care to clarify or expound? o_O
 
I just read this thread from beginning to end and I honestly forgot what the thread was really about by the time I got to the end.
 
FiveToes said:
I'm not sure you understand how modern manufacturing works at this point. How do you think they create the baseline that supports 1.5% standard batch testing? What do you think happens when they change tooling? What do you think happens when they restart the line? What do you think happens when 1.5% of your batch fails QA? You don't just flip a switch and knives appear, boxed and ready for shipping. Manufacturers track shrink for a reason.
Click to expand...

I hope everyone realizes how lucky we are to have you contributing...there's never been anyone in the history of Bladeforums who knows as much about manufacturing and quality assurance as you do. Please don't ever stop posting.
 
Pretty sure this thread has run its course and has sufficient representation of all the relevant opinions, suggestions, and stances.


Final thoughts from the OP:
I’m no longer quite as gung-ho about the idea since, as many have pointed out, the inherent value of the HRC metric is questionable and does not necessarily reflect the overall quality of the heat treatment. It’s a single data point among many that determine how good a blade will be at cutting; it would be more useful overall to see CATRA test results, which I could envision only a few companies actually bothering to do when they were really trying to advertise how good their knives are at keeping an edge.

I do still firmly believe any advertised HRC ranges should match the finished product, and I hope that manufacturers will work more closely with their marketing departments to establish more accurate ranges.

That said, it may be more of a moot point to ask for more transparency given that most of the manufacturers that we would trust to use modern alloys already have a good reputation for QC and heat treatments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top