The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, I just didn't want to bring another thread from the ground.
I like you tests, and I think that eliminating the wooden board is an easy and effective way of clarifying some test data. But still looking at the numbers, they confuse me quite a bit. How can you rate one Steel over another, when there is a big difference in results within the same knife.
Take Yuna for example, after 200 cuts the difference between 1st run (80) and 2nd run (50) is 38%. Or ELMAX after 100 cuts doing on a 1st run (45) and on 2nd run (65). That's 31% difference. After how many cuts do you establish the winner?
There are also cases when blade is doing better after more cuts. That is weird. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole 500 post in those 3 threads you have links to, but I have read some opinions about some weird thing like carbides alignment and blade doing better after several sharpening... I think the problem is that you're doing the sharpness test in one spot on the blade. Why not to put 5 dots and do 4 cuts on each spot, instead of 21 cuts on one spot. The CATRA machine for example doesn't have such flaw, because it does the cut/test with couple of inches on the edge.
Then on top of different results from the same knife, there is a big variance within the same steel from different manufacturers. The good thing is that you're listing the exact knife in your rating. But still, how can you rate one steel better than the other when there is so much weird stuff is going on? Even rating one knife technically might be incorrect, because the same knife on a 3rd run might show different result (but that will improve statistics). Also, is there a guarantee that if I buy the same model as you have tested, it will behave exactly the same way as yours?
At least the numbers from CATRA machine come from the same manufacturer (if I understand this correctly)? They can easily test 10 knives with the same steel and come up with average number that they can compare to the average number of the other steel (I have no clue how they actually do it).
But also that data from manufacturer's CATRA will be valid only to that particular manufacturer and their heat treatment. As everybody knows (and very nicely shown by you) same steel can be heat treated by different manufacturer very differently. More than that, even if data shows that edge is more wear resistant, it doesn't mean that steel is "better", because there is no toughness in the equation. All that it would mean that Steel A @ X HRC is more wear resistant than Steel B @ Y HRC. Without toughness it is difficult to proclaim one "better overall", than another. Better for whom and for what purpose? ZDP @ 67 HRC holds edge very long, but isn't very durable (at least from one manufacturer). That actually might be why manufacturers don't want to disclose CATRA test results. They have to find a spot where wear resistance, toughness, ease of sharpening would appeal to the public. The CATRA data alone might not speak in their favor.
I wish Spyderco post CATRA numbers for their Mules. That would be pretty awesome.
I think your tests are generally good, but they are missing more statistics to be really accepted. I understand that you cannot test the same knife 10 times, or better yet 10 different knives of the same model, or 100 knives with the same steel from different 10 different manufacturers, but without it I just don't know how anybody can say that D2 (replace the name) is better than S30V (replace the name) or vice versa. In some way you might even say that very subjective opinion of 100 owners from some use and subjective comparison, might be a better indicator than a result of one of your(or somebody else) tests. Another problem of course is that those 100 subjective users might not have the same reference point. I wish there be more people trying to do something like you, but I sure am way too lazy to do it and prefer to spend my time on something else
. I appreciate your efforts though.
I was fortunate enough to get both the RSK Mk1 and the mini in CPM M4. Carbide rich with a high flat grind. Now I hear from someoneAhhhh, I see. That introduces the other big variable there, which is blade shape. I really like the Ritter blade shape, but YMMV. I like it enough that I might buy that over a "better" steel. . . .
...
in another thread that Benchmade's M4 is soft at 60-62 
I agree that blade-shape definitely plays a major role. 
Are your tests published or on video anywhere? This thread is confusing to the average user (read = "me") who finds almost all folding knife steels to be quite good for light to medium use.
I don't use my knife to cut 100's of cardboard boxes into slivers or draw them through yard after yard of drywall or used carpeting. There are inexpensive tools with replaceable blades for drywall and carpet cutting.
I don't sit at a table and cut 50 yds of hemp rope into tiny sections either. these aren't real world tests of useable sharpness IMHO.
I pull out my my folder to open a priority mail box (short cut through thin cardboard), whittle a toothpick in the orchard. I shave thin slices of wood like Ankerson does to get a fires started and have even batoned through small peices of wood for kindling. Anything more than that is probably out of the line of my use and can be done with an Ontario RAT-1 folder as well as a Benchmade 710, Spyderco Military and a whole slew of other offerings.
I would like to see exactly what the 41 blades and their steel, angle of bevels on the edges, the manufacturers, the actual tests, etc. you're referring to.
