Is S35vn worth waiting for?

[RobME]

robme, can you explain why you disagree?

I like to hear

Data sheet is available online.

I wouldn't post it if I didn't know it was correct....

I don't do BS and smoke screens, I say what I can...... What I don't know I don't talk about.

http://www.crucible.com/PDFs/\DataSheets2010\dsS35VNrev12010.pdf

All the info is right there on the data sheet..... Everything, edge retention, toughness, impact testing..... It's all there.

If you don't believe that PM Chris Reeve and he will tell you I am sure since he had 1st hand involvement in the development of S35VN so he should know something about it.

Thank you for the link. I never said or meant to imply that you were BS'ing. Just that the way you presented that info didn't make sense to me, and I asked for more hard info. Now that I've looked at the Data Sheet (and I'm not claiming any expertise other than some empirical, in-the-field experience... I do understand why you wrote what you did... but I still read into it a little differently.

You wrote earlier, "The improvements were to make it easier to work with and finish, not to improve the performance." and also later, (S35VN) "Takes a better finish and is easier to grind than S30V and likely easier to HT."

And from the Data Sheet...
CPM S35VN is a martensitic stainless steel designed to offer
improved toughness over CPM S30V. It is also easier to machine
and polish than CPM S30V. Its chemistry has been rebalanced
so that it forms some niobium carbides along with vanadium and
chromium carbides. Substituting niobium carbides for some of the
vanadium carbides makes CPM S35VN about 15-20% tougher
than CPM S30V without any loss of wear resistance. CPM S35VN’s
improved toughness gives it better resistance to edge chipping.
Because both vanadium and niobium carbides are harder and more
effective than chromium carbides in providing wear resistance,
the CPM stainless blade steels offer improved edge retention
over conventional high chromium steels such as 440C and D2.
The CPM process produces very homogeneous, high quality
steel characterized by superior dimensional stability, grindability,
and toughness compared to steels produced by conventional
melting practices.

Machinability and Grindability :

In the annealed condition, CPM S35VN is much easier to
machine than CPM S90V and easier to machine than
CPM S30V. Similar grinding equipment and practices
used for high speed steels are recommended. “SG” type
alumina wheels or CBN wheels have generally given the
best performance with CPM steels.

My bottom line... where I was coming from is that, from the POV of the machinist - It's no more easy to work with, grind or finish - It would take the same effort and and about the same amount of time to work on. It's not easier to HT, it wouldn't take a better finish. I'll still assure you that 'time to make the blade' is relatively unaffected. Nothing much changes here as far as I see it...

What I do read from the Data Sheet, is that... this easier to machine aspect means that there would be less wear & tear on the toolroom equipment machining tools, like lathe knives or cutting tools, milling tools, grinding wheels etc.. So this equipment would have more uptime and less frequent maintenance, and this is a good thing!

CRK isn't saving any toolroom time using this steel, and I don't see how their overall production costs would be greatly affected either. But they are producing a superior blade, and that's what Chris reeve knives are all about. I hope you now understand what I had in mind when I read what you wrote. Also BTW... It seems that (contrary to what you said) the performance of S35VN (15-20% tougher without any loss of wear resistance, and better resistance to edge chipping), would be considerably improved over its predecessor. Cool!

Rob

 

[harkamus]

Way to go there.

Between those two you made the right choice for sure.

I have a feeling ELMAX is going to show up in a lot more knives in the future, it's really that good.

The steel prior to my changing it to Elmax was s30v. I was tempted to swap to s35vn, then dug around a bit and called my maker. We discussed various virtues. I did more research while on the phone. In the end, I settled on Elmax.

It was either Elmax or m390, but m390 costs a bit more than Elmax. Elmax doesn't cost much more than s30v barstock according to my maker. I kinda like that bang for the buck considering how much better Elmax is over s30v/35vn. I don't need the best of the best, but I did want an upgrade over s30v. Elmax does what I need.

 

[Ankerson]

Thank you for the link. I never said or meant to imply that you were BS'ing. Just that the way you presented that info didn't make sense to me, and I asked for more hard info. Now that I've looked at the Data Sheet (and I'm not claiming any expertise other than some empirical, in-the-field experience... I do understand why you wrote what you did... but I still read into it a little differently.

You wrote earlier, "The improvements were to make it easier to work with and finish, not to improve the performance." and also later, (S35VN) "Takes a better finish and is easier to grind than S30V and likely easier to HT."

And from the Data Sheet...
CPM S35VN is a martensitic stainless steel designed to offer
improved toughness over CPM S30V. It is also easier to machine
and polish than CPM S30V. Its chemistry has been rebalanced
so that it forms some niobium carbides along with vanadium and
chromium carbides. Substituting niobium carbides for some of the
vanadium carbides makes CPM S35VN about 15-20% tougher
than CPM S30V without any loss of wear resistance. CPM S35VN’s
improved toughness gives it better resistance to edge chipping.
Because both vanadium and niobium carbides are harder and more
effective than chromium carbides in providing wear resistance,
the CPM stainless blade steels offer improved edge retention
over conventional high chromium steels such as 440C and D2.
The CPM process produces very homogeneous, high quality
steel characterized by superior dimensional stability, grindability,
and toughness compared to steels produced by conventional
melting practices.

Machinability and Grindability :

In the annealed condition, CPM S35VN is much easier to
machine than CPM S90V and easier to machine than
CPM S30V. Similar grinding equipment and practices
used for high speed steels are recommended. “SG” type
alumina wheels or CBN wheels have generally given the
best performance with CPM steels.

My bottom line... where I was coming from is that, from the POV of the machinist - It's no more easy to work with, grind or finish - It would take the same effort and and about the same amount of time to work on. It's not easier to HT, it wouldn't take a better finish. I'll still assure you that 'time to make the blade' is relatively unaffected. Nothing much changes here as far as I see it...

What I do read from the Data Sheet, is that... this easier to machine aspect means that there would be less wear & tear on the toolroom equipment machining tools, like lathe knives or cutting tools, milling tools, grinding wheels etc.. So this equipment would have more uptime and less frequent maintenance, and this is a good thing!

CRK isn't saving any toolroom time using this steel, and I don't see how their overall production costs would be greatly affected either. But they are producing a superior blade, and that's what Chris reeve knives are all about. I hope you now understand what I had in mind when I read what you wrote. Also BTW... It seems that (contrary to what you said) the performance of S35VN (15-20% tougher without any loss of wear resistance, and better resistance to edge chipping), would be considerably improved over its predecessor. Cool!

Rob

I think you have completely missed the whole point and I am not going to get into a steel 101 conversation here, you are completely missing the whys here, why they are saying what they are.......

And in missing those you don't understand what it all means, you would have to understand what the alloys do and how they makes the steels react and at what percentages make a difference, how much of a difference they make and what doesn't.

There is always a trade off, to get something they have to give up something else, lower or remove an alloy or add an alloy will make a change and that change could be either positive or negative or both depending on how you look at it and what they were looking to accomplish by making a change.

I don't have the patience for it....

They accomplished in S35VN what they wanted to, it will make a nicer looking knife blade in the finished product while being easier to grind than S30V.

That big whopping one pound of impact resistance is nothing when comparing the two in the end, so small it wouldn't even be noticed in the end product.

Wear resistance, well that could be small enough that it would take CATRA to see the difference in the two steels and there will be a difference due to the difference in alloy content and percentages, that is something that just can't be avoided in the end.

Better blade?

It might look better, it might be more chip resistant and it might be stronger to such a small amount that won't make a difference.

In the end as I said before, from the end users POV they will be like the same steel performance wise and they won't be able to tell the difference in them.

 

[Ankerson]

The steel prior to my changing it to Elmax was s30v. I was tempted to swap to s35vn, then dug around a bit and called my maker. We discussed various virtues. I did more research while on the phone. In the end, I settled on Elmax.

It was either Elmax or m390, but m390 costs a bit more than Elmax. Elmax doesn't cost much more than s30v barstock according to my maker. I kinda like that bang for the buck considering how much better Elmax is over s30v/35vn. I don't need the best of the best, but I did want an upgrade over s30v. Elmax does what I need.

Being about the same price as S35VN and having better performance all the way around it's very positive.

 

[PoundHound]

Holy cow, got way more info out of this thread than i thought i would.
Bottom line for me is...i'm going to wait until autumn to see if the S35vn's start rolling out in the Chris Reeve's, etc. and try to snag something that i want then.

 

[PassinBy]

after reading & based on feedback here, s35vn seems to hv not much of a difference in a user point of view, I cant help but ask:
1) is s35vn >s30v price wise?
2) if 1) is true, wts the point of switching? you pay more for no close to zero improvement? yes, you can argue the steel might be more expensive, but it also = wear less on maker's part = save expenses. What benefit user gain other than labelling the next super steel?

 

[Ankerson]

after reading... & based on feedback here, s35vn isn't much difference in a user point of view, I cant help but ask:
1) is s35vn >s30v price wise?
2) if 1) is true, wts the point of switching? you pay more for no close to zero improvement? yes, you can argue the steel might be more expensive, but it also = wear less on maker's part = save expenses. What benefit user gain other than labelling the next super steel?

The point of S35VN was to make it easier to work with and make knife blades out of.

They wanted to make the steel easier to finish or take a better finish to give the end users a nicer looking blade.

They wanted to address the chipping issues of S30V, mostly due to Heat Treating and S30V isn't the easiest steel to HT and can become chippy around 60 HRC if it's not done properly.

They addressed all of those issues and the end result was S35VN, they had to change the name to S35VN due to the change in alloy content instead of just improving S30V and keeping the name the same.

If you look at the Crucible data sheet and compare S30V and S35VN looking at all the numbers etc they aren't hiding anything, the steels do what they do and Crucible is very up front with it.

Anything other than that is hype and marketing or Cool-Aid as we call it....

 

[Bruceter]

.... like lathe knives.....

CRK isn't saving any toolroom time using this steel, and I don't see how their overall production costs would be greatly affected either.

Rob

What is a lathe knife? Is is something like a turning tool? I have never heard of a lathe knife.
If the steel is easier to polish, it would take less time and less materials to achieve the same level of finish. Less time and less material equals lower production costs.

Bruceter

 

[RobME]

I think you have completely missed the whole point and I am not going to get into a steel 101 conversation here, you are completely missing the whys here, why they are saying what they are.......

Listen my friend; This is a tempest in a teapot, and I don't want to get into it with you either. I think you missed my point also.

Let me be clear on three things...
1.) As far a S35VN having superior machinability and improved characteristics - I was just quoting the data sheet.

2.) As far as S35VN having better performance characteristics (as a blade steel) for the end user - I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU! It would be no different than the S30V blades. Any performance improvement would be negligible and insignificant and not even noticeable from a users perspective.

3.) The improvements outlined in the data sheet benefit the cutting tools. That's my point. Doesn't change setup time or the relative machining time to do the job. Be it lathework, millwork, edm work or grinding etc., we're not talking significant time savings to lower production costs or increase throughput. I don't see higher margins for CRK on these knives.

If there are any performance advantages... at least from a marketing perspective... CRK can claim, ongoing refinement of their product. And... from a toolroom production perspective the $avings from less wear & tear on the shop cutting & grinding tools do add up in the long run.

Ankerson... I don't think I missed your points before. Maybe I wasn't clear enough expressing my own because I believe you missed them also - but hopefully I've clarified them. And now you can see that with your main point, I'm in complete agreement.

If you still take exception to the rest of what I've posted... (I don't see how or why you would), perhaps the lack of precision in conveying my thoughts is all my own fault.

Again, I'm certainly no expert. I've worked in sizable and sophisticated toolroom, that specialized in building and maintaining compound and progressive stamping dies, (also in a high speed stamping environment) and also in a pretty large metal finishing facility... but it's been a while. I'm not bragging... just the opposite. But things change and if you still feel I've missed your point well... I give up. I'm done... I don't want to be an expert. And, thank you for sparing me the Steel 101 rap. (with respect)

Rob

 

[RobME]

What is a lathe knife? Is is something like a turning tool? I have never heard of a lathe knife.

Yeah, the cutting tool... turning tool... it's sometimes called a knife. Was all I meant.

If the steel is easier to polish, it would take less time and less materials to achieve the same level of finish. Less time and less material equals lower production costs.
Bruceter

Lower production costs? That's like a textbook conclusion. Works in theory. In this knife-making scenerio I don't see it. Go into a labor intensive production toolroom where multiple parts undergo multiple operations and all come together in the end. Shave a small bit of time from a few operations and the overall production costs don't necessarily come down. My point is... if the blade steel is 20% easier to machine... and a few moments / minutes are saved in a step or two of the operation, then nothing really changes as far as CRK's overall costs of production.

 

[Gunny Bob]

"We are living in great times right now in the knife industry."

Couldn't agree more, Jim.

Future knifeknuts will recall these days as the Golden Age of steels.

 

[Ankerson]

Listen my friend; This is a tempest in a teapot, and I don't want to get into it with you either. I think you missed my point also.

Let me be clear on three things...
1.) As far a S35VN having superior machinability and improved characteristics - I was just quoting the data sheet.

2.) As far as S35VN having better performance characteristics (as a blade steel) for the end user - I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU! It would be no different than the S30V blades. Any performance improvement would be negligible and insignificant and not even noticeable from a users perspective.

3.) The improvements outlined in the data sheet benefit the cutting tools. That's my point. Doesn't change setup time or the relative machining time to do the job. Be it lathework, millwork, edm work or grinding etc., we're not talking significant time savings to lower production costs or increase throughput. I don't see higher margins for CRK on these knives.

If there are any performance advantages... at least from a marketing perspective... CRK can claim, ongoing refinement of their product. And... from a toolroom production perspective the $avings from less wear & tear on the shop cutting & grinding tools do add up in the long run.

Ankerson... I don't think I missed your points before. Maybe I wasn't clear enough expressing my own because I believe you missed them also - but hopefully I've clarified them. And now you can see that with your main point, I'm in complete agreement.

If you still take exception to the rest of what I've posted... (I don't see how or why you would), perhaps the lack of precision in conveying my thoughts is all my own fault.

Again, I'm certainly no expert. I've worked in sizable and sophisticated toolroom, that specialized in building and maintaining compound and progressive stamping dies, (also in a high speed stamping environment) and also in a pretty large metal finishing facility... but it's been a while. I'm not bragging... just the opposite. But things change and if you still feel I've missed your point well... I give up. I'm done... I don't want to be an expert. And, thank you for sparing me the Steel 101 rap. (with respect)

Rob

Ok Rob it's all Good.

Yeah they can claim improvements as long as they don't start saying it will perform better than S30V edge retention wise, they just won't say how small those improvements are and they aren't saying that because all people have to do is look at the data sheet.

In the end we have to give credit to Crucible and Chris Reeve for doing exactly what they set out to do.

Any hype or Cool-Aid wasn't started by Chris Reeve from what I have read him saying about it.

 

[jaymeister99]

The steel prior to my changing it to Elmax was s30v. I was tempted to swap to s35vn, then dug around a bit and called my maker. We discussed various virtues. I did more research while on the phone. In the end, I settled on Elmax.

It was either Elmax or m390, but m390 costs a bit more than Elmax. Elmax doesn't cost much more than s30v barstock according to my maker. I kinda like that bang for the buck considering how much better Elmax is over s30v/35vn. I don't need the best of the best, but I did want an upgrade over s30v. Elmax does what I need.

Has anybody seen any data comparing Elmax to S30V and/or S35VN? I got a couple of sheets of Elmax I got when I couldn't get my hands on S35VN at AKS. My next knife will be made from 440C, then I got two that will be Elmax.

 

[harkamus]

Has anybody seen any data comparing Elmax to S30V and/or S35VN? I got a couple of sheets of Elmax I got when I couldn't get my hands on S35VN at AKS. My next knife will be made from 440C, then I got two that will be Elmax.

Direct comparisons? Probably not. Catra data sheets should be out there though. I've seen the literature. I'd just look up all three Catra data sheets and half at it.

If you want informal data, Ankerson has tested all three.