How do blade-makers decide on the grinds used for a specific model?

[ooitzoo]

I've been thinking about how the major knife makers (e.g. Benchmade/Spyderco/Kershaw) decide on what kind of grind they are going to use for a given knife model. There doesn't seem to any really method to it as far as I can tell. For example, I prefer FFG blades for EDC but I very much like Endura Wave (which is saber ground) for EDC. How did Spyderco make the decision to saber grind the Endura wave vs. FFG on other Endura models? Is one grind more expensive to produce then another? Is there a noticeable difference between FFG and saber grind (they seem like they would be very similar)?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

It used to be a saber grind on all Delica and Endura models, which was stronger laterally but not as good of a slicer. The switch happened just in the past year or two. The saber grind was kept on the waved models because of how narrow the blades are. A full flat grind would have made them rather delicate.

 

[ooitzoo]

It used to be a saber grind on all Delica and Endura models, which was stronger laterally but not as good of a slicer. The switch happened just in the past year or two. The saber grind was kept on the waved models because of how narrow the blades are. A full flat grind would have made them rather delicate.

Interesting. Why do they need more stability laterally? Is that in the event of minor abuse?

My Sage 2 is FFG and seems pretty stable (I know its more expensive but still.)

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Interesting. Why do they need more stability laterally? Is that in the event of minor abuse?

My Sage 2 is FFG and seems pretty stable (I know its more expensive but still.)

Bingo. Basically since the Delica and Endura were their workhorse models they originally had the thicker grind on them. The average non-knife guy had the tendency to break anything more delicate.

 

[AfterTFD]

Generally speaking the more "light chopping" a blade is likely to encounter the more sense it makes to have the blade thicker towards the edge. The toughness of the steel at its given heat treatment is highly relevant. Big half moon chunks of steel missing means the edge should have been thicker.

Hollow grinding is the least expensive to do in a mass-production environment. I believe it has no place among hand-crafted work knives.

Full flat grinding is more costly but is better than hollow for all tasks in my opinion.

The expression "saber grind" can refer to something like the old spydercos or it can be used to refer to the scandi grind. The first isn't really great for anything but is less vulnerable to prying damage than FFG. The scandi grind has so many variations that general statements aren't worth much. It can be convex, it might have a small sedondary microbevel, or it may be one flat grind all the way to the edge.

Convex is the geometry of real performance.

 

[Tsujigiri]

Flat grinds are a little more expensive because you can't grind both sides at the same time. But a very high saber grind (like on the ESEE Junglas) will perform the same as a comparable flat grind. I like hollow grinds because they give you a thin slicing edge, but with a strong spine for strength, and they aren't too expensive to make. Ultimately, though, how thin you grind the knife depends on what you're going to use it for.

Oh, and for the most part, chisel grinds are pure laziness IMO.

 

[Mitchell Knives]

Large factories determine what grind to use based upon the manufacturing equipment they have available, the stock thickness and the intended use of the blade. Equipment considerations are probably the biggest factor.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Big half moon chunks of steel missing means the edge should have been thicker.

Or that the heat treatment should have been softer.

 

[neuron]

Not much to add except to say nice topic for a thread. :thumbup:

 

[AfterTFD]

Or that the heat treatment should have been softer.

Yes, this also happens. I believe that for the most part larger manufacturers avoid making their blades too hard.

 

[Poez]

I guess knife manufacturers utilize services of experienced and talented knife designers who make the decision based on their personal understanding of the particular knife purpose and function, as well as their personal preference.
Not a rocket science anyway.

 

[AfterTFD]

I'm sure that happens less often than you think it does. Equipment considerations are of great importance.

Here's a few hypothetical questions for you. What would be the financial investment for W.R. Case & Sons to start flat grinding the blades on their folding knives in house? We're talking buying equipment, installing it, maintaining it, training staff, etc. How would that effect the collection value and image of their knives? What percentage of customers would perceive a performance gain? Which distributors would have a strong opinion on the subject and how would they react?

Those are the kind of questions large manufacturers ask themselves. "Which grind cuts better" is not the same kind of question as "how do we turn steel into money". The second question is very important. The first not so much.

 

[ooitzoo]

Bingo. Basically since the Delica and Endura were their workhorse models they originally had the thicker grind on them. The average non-knife guy had the tendency to break anything more delicate.

This feel rather foolish to me (the knife maker deciding to saber grind over flat grind bc they feel their knife might get abused) as it puts the needs and wants of the novice over that of an experienced and knowledgeable user. In other words, it feels like they would be putting the fringe ahead of their core customers if this were true. I am not saying its not just saying it feels like a bad strategy for a knife company.

Generally speaking the more "light chopping" a blade is likely to encounter the more sense it makes to have the blade thicker towards the edge. The toughness of the steel at its given heat treatment is highly relevant. Big half moon chunks of steel missing means the edge should have been thicker.

Hollow grinding is the least expensive to do in a mass-production environment. I believe it has no place among hand-crafted work knives.

Full flat grinding is more costly but is better than hollow for all tasks in my opinion.

The expression "saber grind" can refer to something like the old spydercos or it can be used to refer to the scandi grind. The first isn't really great for anything but is less vulnerable to prying damage than FFG. The scandi grind has so many variations that general statements aren't worth much. It can be convex, it might have a small sedondary microbevel, or it may be one flat grind all the way to the edge.

Convex is the geometry of real performance.

Doesn't CRK make used of hollow ground blades? I happen to have a couple and its one of my favorite grinds (after FFG).

Flat grinds are a little more expensive because you can't grind both sides at the same time. But a very high saber grind (like on the ESEE Junglas) will perform the same as a comparable flat grind. I like hollow grinds because they give you a thin slicing edge, but with a strong spine for strength, and they aren't too expensive to make. Ultimately, though, how thin you grind the knife depends on what you're going to use it for.

Oh, and for the most part, chisel grinds are pure laziness IMO.

Why would a FFG be more expensive then a comparable saber grind? Why can't you grind both sides at once (assuming you can with a saber grind)? To me it seems like FFG is like a saber grind but only with the relief cut starting way higher.

Large factories determine what grind to use based upon the manufacturing equipment they have available, the stock thickness and the intended use of the blade. Equipment considerations are probably the biggest factor.

Makes sense to me that equipment constraints are a huge dependency for knife makers. I guess the real question is how they decide which knife models get use of which equipment? For example, why is the Manix 2 now a saber grind while the sage series is a FFG?

I guess knife manufacturers utilize services of experienced and talented knife designers who make the decision based on their personal understanding of the particular knife purpose and function, as well as their personal preference.
Not a rocket science anyway.

It seems like there is a lot of importance placed on the grind of a given knife so how does the designer decide "X grind vs. Y grind"?

I'm sure that happens less often than you think it does. Equipment considerations are of great importance.

Here's a few hypothetical questions for you. What would be the financial investment for W.R. Case & Sons to start flat grinding the blades on their folding knives in house? We're talking buying equipment, installing it, maintaining it, training staff, etc. How would that effect the collection value and image of their knives? What percentage of customers would perceive a performance gain? Which distributors would have a strong opinion on the subject and how would they react?

Those are the kind of questions large manufacturers ask themselves. "Which grind cuts better" is not the same kind of question as "how do we turn steel into money". The second question is very important. The first not so much.

Agreed on this point. But I am assuming that the equipment is already there. For example, Spyderco clearly has the equipment in place to do pretty much any kind of grind they wish. Is it purely a matter of investment return? For example, the sage has a profit margin higher then the endura so make use of the more expensive equipment on the sage to recoup that investment?

 

[AfterTFD]

Doesn't CRK make used of hollow ground blades? I happen to have a couple and its one of my favorite grinds (after FFG).

I've never examined a knife by CRK but if I remember right their hollow grind is very shallow (close to a flat grind). A full height shallow hollow grind is not bad. Nothing worth noting is sacrificed in my opinion. If any folder from CRK ever appealed to me I wouldn't care whether the blade was flat or shallow hollow.

Why would a FFG be more expensive then a comparable saber grind?

More steel must be removed. The expression "saber grind" may refer to a blade with either a flat or hollow bevel. When making a hollow beveled saber grind both sides may be ground at the same time.

Makes sense to me that equipment constraints are a huge dependency for knife makers. I guess the real question is how they decide which knife models get use of which equipment?

What a maker might do is make some blades in their own shop and outsource other projects overseas. That way they only need the equipment for what they will actually be doing. Another possibility is a maker might try to figure out which models are more likely to have their sales affected by the grind of choice. For example, a larger knife with a fresh new super steel blade might take up all of the time getting flat ground on the best equipment while the keychain-sized models get hollow ground at the same time. I don't know what strategy Spyderco uses.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

This feel rather foolish to me (the knife maker deciding to saber grind over flat grind bc they feel their knife might get abused) as it puts the needs and wants of the novice over that of an experienced and knowledgeable user. In other words, it feels like they would be putting the fringe ahead of their core customers if this were true. I am not saying its not just saying it feels like a bad strategy for a knife company.

Their core customers are still the common man. That never stopped being a thing--just over time, and partly through the high degree of education they try to bring to the knife-buying experience for the layman, they've converted a lot of laymen into aficionados. Early on as a company the Delica and Endura models had needle-like tips. The common man, their biggest market sector, was snapping tips off left and right, so they had to redesign the tip geometry to be a little more robust. Now, their customers have been clamoring for the Delica and Endura in a full flat grind, so they changed it. I'm sure they would have made them like that from the get-go if they could have sold them without them all being broken. You have to understand, though, that those are their flagship models and have been since shortly after they started making knives. As such it's the model most stores carry, which means the average person is most likely to encounter that model rather than others. It has to be able to deal with hard use in the hands of people who aren't necessarily the most talented with a knife. Few people complain that the Buck 110 isn't flat ground. Nor do they complain that the Gerber Paraframe isn't. Or the Benchmade Griptilian. See the pattern with flagship models? Sure there are examples of ffg flagships from other companies (every Victorinox model, for instance) but they're comparatively rare to see vs. a slightly more robust grind. Hence it's a rather fascinating indicator of market trends and demand that Spyderco switched the grind. Either their core market is shifting, or maybe just maybe the average purchaser is more informed than they wore a decade ago.

 

[Poez]

...Hence it's a rather fascinating indicator of market trends and demand that Spyderco switched the grind. Either their core market is shifting, or maybe just maybe the average purchaser is more informed than they wore a decade ago.

... or they are just making a big mistake. Is also a possibility.
This variety of grinds is not always a good sign. And the changes are not necessarily consumer-driven. Spyderco is a good example because it is very prone for the thing which marketing textbooks call a Line Extension. Probably more prone than anybody else in the industry. And that product manipulation may lead them into serious trouble. But it is just by the way...
If coming back to the topic - I still believe that practical people in the industry do not spend so much time around the grind type for each particular model. There is certain fashion trend, there is sales statistics and there is equipment with uneven capacity utilization... And if you consider all these factors, the answer will become obvious - even without spending too much time on fantasizing all the ways how the consumer will use and abuse the product. What consumer do with the knife is outside the manufacturer's control - so not much use to worry about that.
The general consumer do not change that much. What changed dramatically - is the whole distribution and retail system for knives. That led to both model line explosion, and industry transformation. Well, here comes again...
Grind is not that important a factor for manufacturer to spend too much time on. As I have said, I am pretty sure that it is quite obvious to them most of the time. And if it is not - they just toss a coin.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I would argue that it's very important, as if the grind is inappropriate for the role the knife is designed to play, the customer will be dissatisfied with the product. The piece must be engineered to reduce the likelihood of failure under consumer-based "normal use." This builds satisfied customers and eases the load on the warranty and customer service departments. So yes, I think it is important to manufacturers.

 

[ooitzoo]

... or they are just making a big mistake. Is also a possibility.
This variety of grinds is not always a good sign. And the changes are not necessarily consumer-driven. Spyderco is a good example because it is very prone for the thing which marketing textbooks call a Line Extension. Probably more prone than anybody else in the industry. And that product manipulation may lead them into serious trouble. But it is just by the way...
If coming back to the topic - I still believe that practical people in the industry do not spend so much time around the grind type for each particular model. There is certain fashion trend, there is sales statistics and there is equipment with uneven capacity utilization... And if you consider all these factors, the answer will become obvious - even without spending too much time on fantasizing all the ways how the consumer will use and abuse the product. What consumer do with the knife is outside the manufacturer's control - so not much use to worry about that.
The general consumer do not change that much. What changed dramatically - is the whole distribution and retail system for knives. That led to both model line explosion, and industry transformation. Well, here comes again...
Grind is not that important a factor for manufacturer to spend too much time on. As I have said, I am pretty sure that it is quite obvious to them most of the time. And if it is not - they just toss a coin.

This I have to disagree with. If it were true the blade makers don't really care about grind and, by extension, varying grinds don't add any value then why would blade makers invest in people and equipment necessary to create varying grinds. There has to be a driver for them to go out and buy equipment.

I would argue that it's very important, as if the grind is inappropriate for the role the knife is designed to play, the customer will be dissatisfied with the product. The piece must be engineered to reduce the likelihood of failure under consumer-based "normal use." This builds satisfied customers and eases the load on the warranty and customer service departments. So yes, I think it is important to manufacturers.

Agreed on the satisfied customers = repeat customers + reduced strain. Question really is, how does a customer who knows little go from a cheaper saber grind endura to a more expensive FFG sage? The company has to do something to make the investment worthwhile.

 

[cricketdave]

they work on advertising, and better fit and finish, upgrades in steel and locks and grip material. those all bump it up for the customer to visually see that its worth more money.

cricket

 

[stabman]

Their core customers are still the common man.

Bingo.
This is sadly something that snobs tend to forget.