Hardness vs Wear Resistance?

nozh2002 said:
Well, cheap shots - what else left for you? Try to do some real testing may then you see what I am talking about. So far I only see you being the one who have "prove by test" excellence of new "supersteels" and whatever crowd of "steel experts" came up here.

This activity you have is driven not by search for truth but by search for proves for what everybody talking about - it is bit better then what other "experts" do - keyboard typing, but it is not tests. With such a flexible procedure and criteria you have no wonder that you find what you are already know - this is human nature.

But this is not testing. More like knife TV commercial.

It is really unfortunate that energy and will to do something - pretty unique here, wasted to this kind of thing, while you really may do some useful testing.
Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

I think Ankerson's tests and videos are very helpful. You think his energy is wasted. Sorry you think like that. Why don't you do some "meaningful tests" we can all take a look at? Perhaps you have, but I've not seen them Where can I find them?
 
Folderguy said:
I think Ankerson's tests and videos are very helpful. You think his energy is wasted. Sorry you think like that. Why don't you do some "meaningful tests" we can all take a look at? Perhaps you have, but I've not seen them Where can I find them?
Click to expand...

He has a web page with his rankings and results, not sure of the address right now..
 
Hey Jim, you said Elmax was in the same class as ZDP? was this with the 0551 or custom? Did you "feel" through sharpening that the 0551 may be at the lower end of the Rc range or optimal?

To me it seems good but ductile "soft" on the stones and very easy to grind. Because you have experience with the custom HT on the Elmax I would like to hear your opinion.
 
knifenut1013 said:
Hey Jim, you said Elmax was in the same class as ZDP? was this with the 0551 or custom? Did you "feel" through sharpening that the 0551 may be at the lower end of the Rc range or optimal?

To me it seems good but ductile "soft" on the stones and very easy to grind. Because you have experience with the custom HT on the Elmax I would like to hear your opinion.
Click to expand...

ELMAX is in the list, it was the 0551 and it tested at 60 RC.

The custom I tested was at 62 RC and I didn't add that data, nor the Customs in M390 (62) and CPM-10V (64.5 RC). They are all way off the scale performance wise, the difference is huge.

ELMAX sharpens up very easy and it will take a very sharp edge.
 
Folderguy said:
I've been unable to find that article online. Perhaps you have a link to it. Or maybe you could fill us in on some of those startling conclusions. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Well, the email address on the Blade website came back as 'undeliverable'.

I guess you'll have to get hold of the March issue, to read the article.

EarlFH
 
Ankerson said:
ELMAX is in the list, it was the 0551 and it tested at 60 RC.

The custom I tested was at 62 RC and I didn't add that data, nor the Customs in M390 (62) and CPM-10V (64.5 RC). They are all way off the scale performance wise, the difference is huge.

ELMAX sharpens up very easy and it will take a very sharp edge.
Click to expand...

That was about my guessed Rc, thanks!

Now just waiting to get mine back :(
 
knifenut1013 said:
That was about my guessed Rc, thanks!

Now just waiting to get mine back :(
Click to expand...

Hope you get it back soon. :thumbup:

My 2 S90V blades both tested at 60 RC.. :eek: :thumbup: :cool: :D

Just getting S90V to 60 RC is amazing in itself, having 2 production blades both come back at 60 RC is awesome. :thumbup:

They both cut exactly the same amount of rope in my testing and the difference between 60 and 59 is noticeable in S90V. :)
 
The Blade article states that rockwell hardness testing is a measure of deformation resistance of the steel, not the hardness of the carbides or wear resistance of the steel, and also that wear resistance depends on the carbides, not necessarily the hardness alone. It also says that other material properties and edge geometry are important to edge longevity and nothing stands alone as the one absolute measure of how an edge performs.

in other words, same stuff said online :)
 
hardheart said:
The Blade article states that rockwell hardness testing is a measure of deformation resistance of the steel, not the hardness of the carbides or wear resistance of the steel, and also that wear resistance depends on the carbides, not necessarily the hardness alone. It also says that other material properties and edge geometry are important to edge longevity and nothing stands alone as the one absolute measure of how an edge performs.

in other words, same stuff said online :)
Click to expand...

Oh, so nothing new or enlightening then... :D
 
Last edited:
Ankerson said:
ELMAX is in the list, it was the 0551 and it tested at 60 RC.

The custom I tested was at 62 RC and I didn't add that data, nor the Customs in M390 (62) and CPM-10V (64.5 RC). They are all way off the scale performance wise, the difference is huge.

ELMAX sharpens up very easy and it will take a very sharp edge.
Click to expand...

I assume the customs are the ones by Phil Willson? If so, is there anybody else that you know of that does heat treats as well as his.
 
sykes3170 said:
I assume the customs are the ones by Phil Willson? If so, is there anybody else that you know of that does heat treats as well as his.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. :thumbup:

I don't know of anyone else that is that advanced.
 
Ditch_Digger said:
I just don’t know what to think about Vassili.


There’s no doubt he is a genuine knife knut and has invested considerable time and money to this hobby AND been so kind to share his experiences with us for many years now. For that I thank him. I think? The problem lies in his “opinions” regarding the performance of our beloved blade steels. His findings are often VERY different than many others here, and especially conflicting of what some of our veteran “testers” report. This really has me perplexed because I don’t want to think any shenanigans are involved. ?? Does he have an agenda I’m not aware of? Too much vodka? :P This latest example was cause enough that I felt compelled to say something and ask. Can anyone offer a SERIOUS explanation?


What about you Vasilli, do you really think that Jim’s testing methodology is THAT FLAWED?! He has done a yeoman’s job of documenting, filming and sharing his results. As far as I can tell, he is a friggin’ human CATRA rope cutting machine. Don’t take this personally, but you might want to carefully think about your methodology and your “rankings”. There’s got to be something to it if you guys are getting such vastly different results! I simply have a hard time believing that having a freakin’ “notch” in your 2 x 4 is gonna make much difference nor skew the results so wildly.
Click to expand...



Since we are having the same "issues" here as in the other thread yesterday, I'm doing a copy/paste quote in an attempt to get some answers from the gallery. I find it "convenient" that Vasilli dodged/ignored the question put forth to him yet is now stirring the feces all over again. I personally feel that Jim/Ankerson has met more of a "burden of proof" than Vasilli, based on the many threads I've read now, but I want to remain objective and impartial till I/we have this resolved. If it can be at all?
 
Ankerson said:
Lets try and keep it constructive from here on shall we...
Click to expand...

Sure, if you like I can one more time explain how I eliminates base used for cutting ropes out touching edge (which make results random at least when I researched that) and how to do statistical sharpness measurements.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
Sure, if you like I can one more time explain how I eliminates base used for cutting ropes out touching edge (which make results random at least when I researched that) and how to do statistical sharpness measurements.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

You have to have a solid base for cutting rope to get consistant results I believe. The way I test anyway. As long as you are doing the same thing, cutting the same way all the time the results will be consistant and repeatable. I can get it down to + or - 10 cuts so that is very consistant and I can hang my hat on that. The rope is much more abrasive than the wood I am cutting on.

Sharpness, well as long as I use the EP and match the bevels like I do and test the sharpness Like I do I am convinced in the data. The edges settle down after about 100 cuts anyway so it's good data.
 
Ankerson said:
You have to have a solid base for cutting rope to get consistant results I believe.
Click to expand...

This is not matter of believe. If you cut butter on fine china plate - when you see edge ruined it will not be because of this steel can not handle butter, but because fine china is harder then steel. Cutting rope on hard wooden base make it random and as well greatly depends on blade geometry. Like in you concave BM710 test versus Spyderco Military. BM710 edge did not hit base at same level as Military (or did not hit at all), so results are greatly compromised because of that, which I already told you right when we discuss that first.

Same random level of load on the edge would be with straight vs curved edge etc. But it is not only placement of impact is random is case of wooden base, but power of impact is random as well.

It is very hard to have edge hit base always with same strength. Rope affect edge with same pressure - the one needed to cut rope fibers then no pressure you may be sure it is more or less even, in case of wooden base which did not get cut through pressure would vary in great numbers.

So when I tried my test with base results were unacceptable for me. It is very easy to try.

Ankerson said:
The way I test anyway. As long as you are doing the same thing, cutting the same way all the time the results will be consistant and repeatable. I can get it down to + or - 10 cuts so that is very consistant and I can hang my hat on that. The rope is much more abrasive than the wood I am cutting on.
Click to expand...

What I learn in first years of testing is that I can get any consistent results I am looking for - this is human nature. I throw two first testing sessions away - because I found that it is too much influenced by me and so just what I pleased to have not real data. So this is why it is important to have formal procedure for cutting and for measurements.

Ankerson said:
Sharpness, well as long as I use the EP and match the bevels like I do and test the sharpness Like I do I am convinced in the data. The edges settle down after about 100 cuts anyway so it's good data.
Click to expand...

If you can whittle hair it is good starting point and easy to test. But finish point is also quite important - it can not be just feeling.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Folderguy said:
And what about sharpening the blade from a power hacksaw?
Click to expand...

This is currently my favorite steel. I made a convex puukko blade and put a simple handle on it. So far it holds the best edge of all my knives. This is based on testing until the high sharpness edge is lost. I do this by cutting cardboard and testing the edge to see if it will cut a plastic grocery bag. The edges loose the ability to cut the bags quite a bit before they stop shaving my arm. So far, the HSS (M2 I think) hacksaw blade knives have been the best. I have not tried CPM M4, though I think with proper heat treatment it would be a direct step up. Someone had the source for my hacksaw blades hardness tested and found them between 64.5 and 66.

That razor sharp edge depends mostly on high hardness, which translates to high strength. The loss of the very high sharpness edge is mostly due to deformation (edge rolling). High strength resists this.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that there are so many different blade steels. Each person can find a steel that cuts longest for them, and they can all be different and all be right. Edge holding is much more dependent on the material being cut than most people realize. I don't cut much rope, or furry animal hide. I do cut quite a bit of cardboard, paracord, jute twine, food, paper, etc. For these materials, I've found a very fine grained and fine carbide size steel (M2, 12C27, 1095) are quite serviceable and keep a highly polished sharp edge for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top