cpm 110v - it seems toughness is not published?

D

dirc

Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
3,030
I've just been going thru crucible's website. They give Charpy C notch toughness values for s90v, s35vn, and of course 3v...

but the page for 110v is missing any info on it... I expect it should be rather poor, being at an insane C% (imho 2.8% is way high for a knife, but I'm no expert ofc and don't have practical experience with it)

I have to admit I really am interested in the rest of the formula, high Nb, high Cobalt, and a metric tonne of Vanadium.


http://www.crucible.com/PDFs/DataSheets2010/Datasheet CPM S110Vv12010.pdf

Would love to see the same steel but with about 0.9% C, for higher toughness uses... but spyderco uses it as is.

If anyone uses it, I'd be curious about the hardness you end up with, and how far you end up modifying geometry to make the nearly 3% carbon not chip??

Does anyone have Charpy C toughness data for it at any hardness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
The high amounts of chromium, molybdenum, and especially vanadium and niobium means that the steel wouldn’t really “work” if the carbon were reduced to 0.9%.

The toughness is likely lower than S90V so you’d probably be disappointed in the actual number whatever it is.
 
I would really be interested in Spyderco's actual return/complaint % for blades they offer in 110v. I know (or hope) the buyers should be aware of the trade off & be suitably gentle with them. But knife knuts will be knuts sometimes ...
 
for what it's worth, the s90v page gives the following data... (110v is likely pretty close)

HARDNESS(1) IMPACT TOUGHNESS(2) WEAR(3)
HRC Heat Treatment ft.-lb. (Joules)
CPM S90V 58 (A) 19 (26) 35/40
CPM 9V 55 (B) 47 (63) 35/40
440C 58 (C) 16 (22) 3/4
D2 59 (D) 22 (30) 3/4

(1) A=Hardened 2050°F (1120°C), double tempered 500°F (260°C)
B=Hardened 2050°F (1120°C), double tempered 1025°F (550°C)
C=Hardened 1900°F (1040°C), double tempered 400°F (204°C)
D=Hardened 1850°F (1010°C), double tempered 600°F (315°C)
(2) Charpy C-notch impact test
(3) Crossed-cylinder adhesive wear test (higher number = better wear resistance).
 
dirc said:
I would really be interested in Spyderco's actual return/complaint % for blades they offer in 110v. I know (or hope) the buyers should be aware of the trade off & be suitably gentle with them. But knife knuts will be knuts sometimes ...
Click to expand...
Feel free to cut mushrooms ................and some tomato :D
 
The datasheet for S110V says that it has 25% greater carbide volume than S90V, so the charpy c-notch values could very well be in the single digits.
 
I’ve wondered about this as well; an extra .5% of total carbon could be offset by the extra percentages of molybdenum and cobalt, ntm the niobium. The omission of the data is curious.
 
The cobalt is to ensure that the steel is fully austenitized at high temperature, not for improving toughness.
 
I have a folder a PM2 in s110v. I snapped the tip off twice but have not had problems with the edge chipping. I don't keep a super thin edge though. I'm Uncertain if maybe the tip was overheated or if the while knife has toughness problems. According to the forums most people are finding s110v easier to sharpen than s90v. I'm not sure what's up with that.
 
skillgannon said:
I have a folder a PM2 in s110v. I snapped the tip off twice but have not had problems with the edge chipping. I don't keep a super thin edge though. I'm Uncertain if maybe the tip was overheated or if the while knife has toughness problems. According to the forums most people are finding s110v easier to sharpen than s90v. I'm not sure what's up with that.
Click to expand...

The tips on Millie’s and pm2’s are thin enough that I’ve seen broken tips on cruwear blades. Compared with cruwear, s110v and s90v are brittle. The niobium must be responsible for s110v’s easier “sharpenibility.” If niobium or molybdenum don’t increase the toughness of s110v, then at least they make the grain more refined.
 
Differences in reported sharpenability could be due to all kinds of things, like hardness, edge geometry, or placebo.
 
Last edited:
True. The 2 steels are probably close enough in (lack of) toughness that results may be trivial. Higher carbide volume should indicate lower toughness, in theory. I have read results of testers saying that a polished edge is more easily obtainable on s110v, and that it also has higher wear resistance. I have not been able to tell the difference between my Spyderco Military’s—in s110v and s90v—with regard to ease of sharpening or edge holding. And of course I haven’t even tried to test the relative toughness.
 
Larrin said:
Differences in reported sharpenability could be due to all kinds of things, like hardness, edge geometry, or placebo.
Click to expand...
Or maybe what they use for sharpening ...................Diamond stone would sharpen with easy any known and unknown steel regardless of carbide volume ......
 
Yonose said:
True. The 2 steels are probably close enough in (lack of) toughness that results may be trivial. Higher carbide volume should indicate lower toughness, in theory. I have read results of testers saying that a polished edge is more easily obtainable on s110v, and that it also has higher wear resistance. I have not been able to tell the difference between my Spyderco Military’s—in s110v and s90v—with regard to ease of sharpening or edge holding. And of course I haven’t even tried to test the relative toughness.
Click to expand...
Convex edge is best for high carbide volume steel .Last longer and it is much more chipping resistant ......
 
Natlek said:
Convex edge is best for high carbide volume steel .Last longer and it is much more chipping resistant ......
Click to expand...

Reprofiling either blade is not in my future... also, a convex edge may last longer but it won’t cut as well, at least for what I use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top