Interesting video on carbon vs. stainless

I get the impression that was either made by very smart people who missed the point more than a little or, in trying to dumb it down, lost track of the point. They touched briefly on edge geometry, but failed to emphasize that it will have vastly more impact on initial performance/sharpness than steel type will, it's cool and interesting that they got into carbides and grain structure a bit but didn't really mention how it varies from steel to steel and how dependent it is on heat treat.

Basically, it seemed to vacillate between technical metallurgy and oversimplification in a way that left me interested, but frustrated. I am personally of the opinion that one of the very first things anyone making a carbon vs stainless comparison should do is mention that there a dizzying variety of both steel types.
 
I have mixed feelings about this video. I really like that they took the question seriously and did some real testing. I'm not convinced that their testing was as good as it could have been, but it wasn't terrible and it was a good start.
That said, I had a hard time figuring out what question they were trying to answer. In the end, it came down to this knife vs that knife rather than stainless vs carbon. All of the knives had different hardnesses and geometry, not to mention different inherent qualities of the steel. Does the "stainless vs carbon" question every really mean "is carbon always better than stainless?" Or does it mean better on average? Or that the best carbon steel is better than the best stainless steel? Without a clearly defined question, no amount of testing, however sophisticated, will get you anywhere.
Personally, I am really into carbon steel right now — actually I'm into one carbon steel in particular (52100) expertly heat treated to RC62 (by Peter's). I am going to try AEB-L next and I am open to the possibility that I'll like it more.

- Chris
 
I love me some real carbon steel. Although I feel like the purspose was to upsell that $380 Kramer paper weight, comparing it to a Sabatier and Victorinox is beyond silly.
 
I mean, to thE average home cook watching america's test kitchen on public access tv, yeah the victorinox is gonna be the better bet. There's certainly nothing wrong with the vic. Maybe if you're breaking down cases and cases of veg all day every day then yeah, you might want something different... but if I was gonna recommend any of those knives to my mom i'd probably recommend the vic.
 
Hesparus said:
Bill - No. Do you recommend something else?

- Chris
Click to expand...

I personally like a triple quench. but have no problems with others hardening their steel differently. I was just wondering if you had done any comparisons that you would like to share.
 
I'm just a grinder monkey —*I leave the intricacies of heat treating up to much more skilled people. But I am really curious about that question, too. It should be easy enough to test even in a quantitative way with modern metallurgical tools. I'm very happy with the performance of the blades I get back from Peter's, but if the triple quench is noticeably better, I'd rather have my blades done that way.

- Chris
 
I thought they did a good job of presenting their conclusion - both steels can work. They should have torture tested a cheaper carbon knife though, to be fair. That $300 knife against a $50 carbon steel and the Vic would have been very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top