Edge retention, an interesting video...

It's interesting to see people who are knowledgeable about knives coming to the conclusion that knife steels don't matter very much.

I can't explain that.

The OP's video post seems to be repudiated by the maker in the second video. Cliff's video strikes me as smoke and mirrors.

Opposite those opinions are a mass of scientific evidence that show difference heat treats and steel alloys can make a huge difference in edge wear, strength, toughness, etc.

In my own use, I find it easy to tell a high-wear steel like K390, M4 or S110V from my Aus8 or 1095 blades.

I have to cut a lot of salmon berries to keep my trails open, and when I switched from 1075 steel to 3V, I found that my machete could cut longer and better, with less edge damage.

And Ankerson's tests cannot be ignored. They were very well done. And they show a huge difference in edge wear between steels of different alloys, grinds and heat treats.
 
Twindog said:
It's interesting to see people who are knowledgeable about knives coming to the conclusion that knife steels don't matter very much.

I can't explain that.

The OP's video post seems to be repudiated by the maker in the second video. Cliff's video strikes me as smoke and mirrors.

Opposite those opinions are a mass of scientific evidence that show difference heat treats and steel alloys can make a huge difference in edge wear, strength, toughness, etc.

In my own use, I find it easy to tell a high-wear steel like K390, M4 or S110V from my Aus8 or 1095 blades.

I have to cut a lot of salmon berries to keep my trails open, and when I switched from 1075 steel to 3V, I found that my machete could cut longer and better, with less edge damage.

And Ankerson's tests cannot be ignored. They were very well done. And they show a huge difference in edge wear between steels of different alloys, grinds and heat treats.
Click to expand...

I personally would criticize Cliff for relying almost solely on blade geometry to produce cutting ability—and to a certain degree he has a point. Throw an Opinel into a cardboard cut test and it will probably cut forever—but most of us also appreciate retention of a refined apex, as yourself with your 3V chopper. His 3cr kitchen knives would not cut it for guys like us.

Wood is a far less abrasive medium so I imagine you’ll see a massive improvement in edge retention with your work. Cut used carpet, though, and I’ll bet not only you’ll see little difference in edge retention (because they’ll both be dull basically instantly), but that you’ll prefer thinner and thinner geometries over specific steels.

And that’s exactly what Ankerson’s incredible testing showed: the massive impact of, one, hardness (within individual blade steels), and two, the effect of thinner BTE thicknesses and overall geometry.

These are factors I absolutely agree with you on, which is why it pisses me off so bad when manufacturers insist on running blades at debatably pathetic hardnesses. 58 on D2 for an EDC blade (not a chopper)? Like, what is that shit? Grow some balls an put out a 62 rockwell blade! The difference would be night and day with 4 additional points.

But yeah, there’s so much to a blade’s cutting ability that these instant-edge killer tests and paper slicing really don’t tell us much. Cardboard, specifically, is more of a geometry test then anything. Rope looks like it strikes a nice balance between effective/efficient abrasion and consistency, though, as seen with Pete’s and Ankerson’s testing
 
Beansandcarrots said:
I personally would criticize Cliff for relying almost solely on blade geometry to produce cutting ability—and to a certain degree he has a point. Throw an Opinel into a cardboard cut test and it will probably cut forever—but most of us also appreciate retention of a refined apex, as yourself with your 3V chopper. His 3cr kitchen knives would not cut it for guys like us.

Wood is a far less abrasive medium so I imagine you’ll see a massive improvement in edge retention with your work. Cut used carpet, though, and I’ll bet not only you’ll see little difference in edge retention (because they’ll both be dull basically instantly), but that you’ll prefer thinner and thinner geometries over specific steels.

And that’s exactly what Ankerson’s incredible testing showed: the massive impact of, one, hardness (within individual blade steels), and two, the effect of thinner BTE thicknesses and overall geometry.

These are factors I absolutely agree with you on, which is why it pisses me off so bad when manufacturers insist on running blades at debatably pathetic hardnesses. 58 on D2 for an EDC blade (not a chopper)? Like, what is that shit? Grow some balls an put out a 62 rockwell blade! The difference would be night and day with 4 additional points.

But yeah, there’s so much to a blade’s cutting ability that these instant-edge killer tests and paper slicing really don’t tell us much. Cardboard, specifically, is more of a geometry test then anything. Rope looks like it strikes a nice balance between effective/efficient abrasion and consistency, though, as seen with Pete’s and Ankerson’s testing
Click to expand...
I agree. D2 at 58-59HRC just doesnt do it. Its a TOOL STEEL. Minimum of 60HRC best would be 61ish.
I run Zwear at 62HRC and it kicks ass.
I agree sme manufacturers need to bring up the hardness on folding kmives. Its a EDC knife, doesnt need to be chopper tough.
 
I'm happy to see that in some hands the steel choice does not affect usability. As a hobbyist, I'd like to stop fretting about steel choice above D2 or Sandvik 14c28n. I'd rather think about geometry, blade length, appearance, quality of construction, weight, and pleasure in handling. Plenty there to keep me busy. The manufacturer who makes a knife I might like can concern himself about the steel choice.
 
BruceMack said:
I'm happy to see that in some hands the steel choice does not affect usability. As a hobbyist, I'd like to stop fretting about steel choice above D2 or Sandvik 14c28n. I'd rather think about geometry, blade length, appearance, quality of construction, weight, and pleasure in handling. Plenty there to keep me busy. The manufacturer who makes a knife I might like can concern himself about the steel choice.
Click to expand...

That's a fair comment. But I'd add that these super steels allow the maker to use much more acute blades and edges without damage, compared to more common steels. Geometry cuts, and high-end steels support much more acute geometry.

One of my chef's knives is a Takada in super blue steel hardened to 64 Rc. The edge is just 0.009 inches wide, so it cuts like a laser. But it's not very tough. If I cut an avocado in half and use the tip to pop out the seed, I'll chip the tip off of the Takada. My chef's knife in AEB-L is a lot tougher and I can pop that seed without concern. But the Takada cuts much better and holds an edge forever.

In addition, the thin edge means that when I do need to sharpen or touch up the edge, it's a breeze to do because there is so little steel that needs to be removed.
 
BruceMack said:
I'm happy to see that in some hands the steel choice does not affect usability. As a hobbyist, I'd like to stop fretting about steel choice above D2 or Sandvik 14c28n. I'd rather think about geometry, blade length, appearance, quality of construction, weight, and pleasure in handling. Plenty there to keep me busy. The manufacturer who makes a knife I might like can concern himself about the steel choice.
Click to expand...
You make a fair argument, it's more then what the steel name of the week is, but there are also those of us that appreciate the performance.

It wouldn't be fair to punish more discerning and demanding users that like to sharpen and appericiate the finer details.

No one needs a Lamborghini but that doesn't mean we all should be forced to drive a Prius.

Blade design, Heat treatment, geometry are extremely important but you're not going to get the performance if you're trapped with lower alloyed steels.

We want options
 
Twindog said:
It's interesting to see people who are knowledgeable about knives coming to the conclusion that knife steels don't matter very much.
Click to expand...

I actually came to that conclusion a few years ago based on preference, use, and testing. Comparing S30V and 8Cr13MoV showed no difference through the duration of the test. There probably was a difference, but I couldn't see it, and I was testing sharpness with more sensitivity than shaving hair or slicing paper. After that I ran am endurance test with a cheap knife. If loosing paper slicing ability is the stopping point, you can cut thousands of feet of cardboard with knives under $10 using steels the manufacturer doesn't identify. Finally, I compared S110V and BD1 in both testing and use and couldn't tell a difference. Sharpness was checked using both comparative methods like in this thread's subject video and fairly sensitive methods used in the S30V vs. 8Cr13MoV earlier. The differences between popular cutlery steels aren't that large in edge holding for hand held knives, so I buy designs I like with steel considered 4th or 5th on the list.
 
IMO, what he did wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t a test with conclusive results. I think that these tests fail at showing edge retention difference between the steels because he only had one of the two ultimatums of edge retention (sharp but not dull).

An edge falling out of “hair-xxx” type sharpness is easy, but with a good edge, falling out of a “working edge” is going to take a while. So I think he got that part right

I’d like to highlight this little test, it took a sharpened blade, and set the perameter for sharpness (putting x amount of pressure for a cut of rope instead of cutting paper). I would like to think that this test had a direct definition for what sharp is for them, and that allows this test to be replicated with similar results.

TLDR: please use the scientific method and finish your tests lol
 
Last edited:
Welp... At least he stuck to the scientific method, and for that, I am satisfied. I don't know what to say about his results, maybe it's because he used 'toothy'/'working' edges instead of polished ones, or maybe because of the type of rope. I think he knows what he's doing in terms of sharpening, and him not getting the same results as everyone else is just another data point. He is an excellent sharpener, and as clickbaity as he is, shaving hair off of one stone is something that I appreciate seeing
 
Definitely an interesting video. Lots of variables indeed.

He did not define reliably slicing printer paper. Which is why he didnt come to a clear conclusion for those tests. I see alot of folks do this. Sure it'll cut paper but he was having issues reliably starting the cuts. But they still slices once he got it going.

In any case. There will always be variables and data points are very welcome.
 
I think this is a great test although not in the spirit of advancing metallurgy knowledge for knifemakers.

It runs counter to the average knife nut in search of super steel but for everyone on the forum we often get into hot, heated discussions over steel properties that in the end have no bearing on 90% of forum members cutting chores.

Yesterday I spent a good amount of time cutting clear box tape with an Elmax blur.

As I'm moving my home I've been doing more cutting that I normally do but still not anything that would ever stress test a knife edge.

I don't care I'm still gonna run out and go get a new knife in whatever steel I happen to want. That said I don't poo poo 440c or sandvik. It also doesn't change the price difference for me between those steels and say cruwear.

Are these "official" tests at the end of the day really a means of validation of industry tiered pricing for knives to provide variety of price and perceived value to knife consumers?
 
Last edited:
Some seem to be unhappy because their favorite supersteel was beaten by simple basic steels, and they argue that the test was wrong or not enough scientific. However, It was a good user's test and it showed one hard fact; one experienced knife user did not notice difference between S30V, 8Cr13MoV, and 1080 steel blades.
 
Juha Perttula said:
Some seem to be unhappy because their favorite supersteel was beaten by simple basic steels, and they argue that the test was wrong or not enough scientific. However, It was a good user's test and it showed one hard fact; one experienced knife user did not notice difference between S30V, 8Cr13MoV, and 1080 steel blades.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Yes, what you call a "hard fact" is that someone testing a very small sampling different steels in a poorly controlled way did not find much difference. What you're missing is that the internet is filled with "hard facts" that are contradictory. You're focusing on "the fact" that someone found this particular result. We should be looking for real facts about steel performance. When someone comes up with an outlier, we like to figure out why.

Do you really think that Ankerson could not tell the difference between Aus 6 and K390 in his rope-cutting tests? Or D2 and S110V? So you really think that D2 is just as tough as 3V? Can you really ignore all the scientific data that, when variables are controlled, high-wear steels are really high-wear steels? Can you ignore how manufacturers have have adopted high-performance steels to lower their production costs? Do you think the Blade Sport winners don't use simple steels because they have been duped into thinking their high-performance steels are better? Do you really think that the CATRA tests that B/U publishes comparing its own steel alloys to each other are just nonsense? Do you think that world renowned knife makers who specialize in high-performance steels do so because they are clueless that simple steels will perform just as well? It doesn't make sense.

The truth is that knife-steel performance is not a simple thing. It's almost infinitely complicated. It's super expensive and time consuming to run scientific studies. It's easy to run makeshift experiments and come up with mixed results. I've done it myself.

But the idea that all these high-performance steels make no difference doesn't make sense. Of course, there are "hard facts" that some people believe the earth is flat. It's absolutely true that some people believe the earth is flat. That "fact" doesn't make the earth flat.
 
Unless you subject your knife to extreme hard use on really obnoxious material you are just wasting your money on high priced steel.
The average knife owner will get by fine with the older "inferior":rolleyes: blades.
 
Twindog said:
You're missing the point. Yes, what you call a "hard fact" is that someone testing a very small sampling different steels in a poorly controlled way did not find much difference. What you're missing is that the internet is filled with "hard facts" that are contradictory. You're focusing on "the fact" that someone found this particular result. We should be looking for real facts about steel performance. When someone comes up with an outlier, we like to figure out why.

Do you really think that Ankerson could not tell the difference between Aus 6 and K390 in his rope-cutting tests? Or D2 and S110V? So you really think that D2 is just as tough as 3V? Can you really ignore all the scientific data that, when variables are controlled, high-wear steels are really high-wear steels? Can you ignore how manufacturers have have adopted high-performance steels to lower their production costs? Do you think the Blade Sport winners don't use simple steels because they have been duped into thinking their high-performance steels are better? Do you really think that the CATRA tests that B/U publishes comparing its own steel alloys to each other are just nonsense? Do you think that world renowned knife makers who specialize in high-performance steels do so because they are clueless that simple steels will perform just as well? It doesn't make sense.

The truth is that knife-steel performance is not a simple thing. It's almost infinitely complicated. It's super expensive and time consuming to run scientific studies. It's easy to run makeshift experiments and come up with mixed results. I've done it myself.

But the idea that all these high-performance steels make no difference doesn't make sense. Of course, there are "hard facts" that some people believe the earth is flat. It's absolutely true that some people believe the earth is flat. That "fact" doesn't make the earth flat.
Click to expand...

Let's say it is hard but subjective fact. It is important to note that everybody does not feel supersteels better, but I am pretty sure that everyone feels that steel blade is better than bronze blade; threfore, the latters are absolote. Of course there is many situation where supersteels outperform basic steels, particularly in industrial machine blades.
 
Juha Perttula said:
Let's say it is hard but subjective fact. It is important to note that everybody does not feel supersteels better, but I am pretty sure that everyone feels that steel blade is better than bronze blade; threfore, the latters are absolote. Of course there is many situation where supersteels outperform basic steels, particularly in industrial machine blades.
Click to expand...

I can't quite tell what you're saying. Do you think that high-wear knife steels -- such as K390, M390, M4, S90V, 10V, etc. -- have significantly better edge retention in cutting common, abrasive materials than more traditional steels like AUS 8, 1080, 1095, A2, O1, 440C, etc.?
 
Twindog said:
I can't quite tell what you're saying. Do you think that high-wear knife steels -- such as K390, M390, M4, S90V, 10V, etc. -- have significantly better edge retention in cutting common, abrasive materials than more traditional steels like AUS 8, 1080, 1095, A2, O1, 440C, etc.?
Click to expand...

I am most familiar with wood working. Birch, pine, etc. do not contain abrasive particles (some tropic wood contain abrasive inclusions), and for that reason, abrasive wear resistance is not important for me. So, I am not expert on abrasive wear, but I am very interested in other people test results. I suspect that maybe there is some hype with supersteels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top