My List of Steels in order for Edge Retention So Far

broos i guess you were just another in a long line of [preceeding yourself ]of people critiqueing efforts made by people doing the work. really i need to say you are certainly welcome for any opinions you wish to voice.my own opinion is i would like to see cutting done & results posted before 'Sunday Warriors" started in with all of the what ifs & what woulds happen.i'm not saying you are of the fore mentioned group just that very few of us on the forum seem to do any of the sweating.i can certainly assure you that a knife that will cut cardboard for 13 minutes & shave hair will clean 3 whitetail deer & then shave hair.this non -empirical activity has been demostrated by myself & many hunting partners since 1979.the tests certainly give a good idea of what will perform & in how efficient a manner.thanks for replying dennis.
 
DennisStrickland said:
vassili you have done a massive amount of testing , i'm not fighting anyone but only wish we would see more people actually cutting instead of looking at charts.
Click to expand...
Dennis, more testing by users is certainly welcome, but I would argue that at least minimal theory is required and very helpful to avoid skewed results.
For starters, when comparing "steels" it is obvious initial conditions have to as close to identical as possible, steel properties permitting. Otherwise it becomes knife vs. knife, not steel vs. steel.
For the same reason, doing knife vs. knife test and them passing them as "steel vs steel" testing is not science at all.
 
my friends i certainly agree that the greatest elimination of varibles will be a sounder test however anyone wishing a completely empirical result needs to mostly eliminate the biggest variable of all, humans.
 
DennisStrickland said:
my friends i certainly agree that the greatest elimination of varibles will be a sounder test however anyone wishing a completely empirical result needs to mostly eliminate the biggest variable of all, humans.
Click to expand...

Something like Spydercos cutting machine. :D

But then we don't have access to that...

So we do it by hand with the most common media that just happens to be cardboard. :)
 
DennisStrickland said:
my friends i certainly agree that the greatest elimination of varibles will be a sounder test however anyone wishing a completely empirical result needs to mostly eliminate the biggest variable of all, humans.
Click to expand...
I've had very long debates with Broos about elimination of human factor from testing.
It's not that straightforward. IMHO for knife testing it has to be accounted for, and for many other testing as well.
But for steel vs. steel it has to be eliminated or reduced to minimum.
It's not all black and white for knife testing ;)
 
These tests are okay for the stated purpose. I will say that if Jim is truly unbiased he will be the first human being to ever achieve that state of mind. Bias can and is introduced in so many ways, some of it at the subconscious level. Even so, I believe he thinks he's unbiased when it comes to these tests so I will leave it at that. Since so much of this test is dependent on his technique (the human factor again), I would like to see him try more copies of the same knife, not just one. For example, he could try three copies of the Spyderco Mule in S35VN. If his results vary between copies of the same knife of the same steel then he could examine and perhaps quantifying a margin of error that could then be translated between knives and steels. Since his results are primarily subjective (I know, I know, video evidence, but the videos can't show how much force he is applying during a cut), then only he will know the difference if any between these knives, but he will be able calibrate from that point forward. Finally, he might want to go back and retest some of his earlier efforts because inevitably his own cutting technique will have changed from the first knife to the last. Most likely it will have improved through practice, but sometimes fine skill levels actually deteriorate. Again indexing them against one another may provide valuable insight. Anyway, my two cents. Keep up the testing. It is always interesting. Thanks
 
I think part of the problem is that people take critics or disagreement with their interpretation of the test results as test criticism itself.
 
Steelhed said:
These tests are okay for the stated purpose. I will say that if Jim is truly unbiased he will be the first human being to ever achieve that state of mind. Bias can and is introduced in so many ways, some of it at the subconscious level. Even so, I believe he thinks he's unbiased when it comes to these tests so I will leave it at that. Since so much of this test is dependent on his technique (the human factor again), I would like to see him try more copies of the same knife, not just one. For example, he could try three copies of the Spyderco Mule in S35VN. If his results vary between copies of the same knife of the same steel then he could examine and perhaps quantifying a margin of error that could then be translated between knives and steels. Since his results are primarily subjective (I know, I know, video evidence, but the videos can't show how much force he is applying during a cut), then only he will know the difference if any between these knives, but he will be able calibrate from that point forward. Finally, he might want to go back and retest some of his earlier efforts because inevitably his own cutting technique will have changed from the first knife to the last. Most likely it will have improved through practice, but sometimes fine skill levels actually deteriorate. Again indexing them against one another may provide valuable insight. Anyway, my two cents. Keep up the testing. It is always interesting. Thanks
Click to expand...

I do not think that we should account such a generic statement about everybody being biased, until you put your own results on a table - all this questioning someone else effort is just another type of typing effort - exercise in public talks.

Whatever someone can say - this is one of few test results available.

It may be nice to say that they are OK only for stated purpose, but with this being only test results available - you have no other option, but some speculations, marketing handouts and proud owner "evidences" all other things which mean nothing. And until there are other test results - you have to deal with whatever present. So if you can do better - show us, if you can type - everybody here can.

You may have your opinion - we have test results.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
It's easier to find hundreds of black swans than one unbiased person.

I personally like the work Ankerson's doing and feel it benefits the knife community at large. The work may boil down to showing how these specific knives with final edges applied with Ankerson's EdgePro technique and equipment maintain a razory edge after cutting carboard with Ankerson's technique, but that still tells us something.
 
Gator97 said:
Well, what can I say...
I got rehardened 154CM blade, which now is 62HRC, and it outcuts M2 at 59-60HRC by significant margin, same for S30V at the same hardness and I am sure it will outcut 110V and few others at 58-60HRC. I wouldn't consider 154CM a better steel per-se.
It's knife vs. knife.
Click to expand...

this is the other reason why all those test are useless steel wise. this and blade geometry (not edge geometry only but the whole grind) will change the result of atest by a wide margin. probably more than the 50K$ spyderco machine vs hand and cardboard imo.

it's a great effort to test so many knives but please don't make conclusion about steels, it just means nothing.
 
nozh2002 - As President Reagan might have said - "There you go again." Every time someone says anything about someone's test results, yours included, your refrain is "try testing yourself." Following this logic would put every consumer product test group out of business. I mean don't dare draw any conclusions, pro or con, from reading someone else's report on test results. Instead you should go out and crash a few cars yourself before you comment on the results. That's ridiculous.

I can certainly comment on methodology based on the evidence presented by the tester. This is called peer review in scientific circles, and it does not require that a reviewer/commenter conduct the test himself. Besides, I believe my comments are constructive and supportive precisely because I have no intentions of reproducing Jim's efforts. I want him to continue. I find them interesting, but I would find them even more so if he added some baseline comparisons to tease out any margin of error in his technique. He does not have to do that of course, but I would find the results even more informative.

Remember, no one put a gun to his head and forced him to do these tests, and the same applies to your efforts. You chose to do them for your own reasons, and then you chose to post the results in a forum populated by intelligent, technically minded people with a great interest in knives. It is too late to be thin skinned about it now. Let your technique and test results stand for themselves if they can, and take the criticism (and praise) for what it's worth.

And by the way, your post only supports my observation about human bias. As does my own response here. :)
 
pwet said:
this is the other reason why all those test are useless steel wise. this and blade geometry (not edge geometry only but the whole grind) will change the result of atest by a wide margin. probably more than the 50K$ spyderco machine vs hand and cardboard imo.

it's a great effort to test so many knives but please don't make conclusion about steels, it just means nothing.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you know what are you talking about. Can you do some homework first and learn about this tests - this was addressed many times and yes all those factors are eliminated so test shows how given steel from given manufacturer performs and this has nothing to do with geometry - length, width, weight, moon phase and other things people get used to come up to critisize others effort.

Now there is no Spyderco machine. There is CATRA test machine.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Steelhed said:
nozh2002 - As President Reagan might have said - "There you go again." Every time someone says anything about someone's test results, yours included, your refrain is "try testing yourself." Following this logic would put every consumer product test group out of business. I mean don't dare draw any conclusions, pro or con, from reading someone else's report on test results. Instead you should go out and crash a few cars yourself before you comment on the results. That's ridiculous.

I can certainly comment on methodology based on the evidence presented by the tester. This is called peer review in scientific circles, and it does not require that a reviewer/commenter conduct the test himself. Besides, I believe my comments are constructive and supportive precisely because I have no intentions of reproducing Jim's efforts. I want him to continue. I find them interesting, but I would find them even more so if he added some baseline comparisons to tease out any margin of error in his technique. He does not have to do that of course, but I would find the results even more informative.

Remember, no one put a gun to his head and forced him to do these tests, and the same applies to your efforts. You chose to do them for your own reasons, and then you chose to post the results in a forum populated by intelligent, technically minded people with a great interest in knives. It is too late to be thin skinned about it now. Let your technique and test results stand for themselves if they can, and take the criticism (and praise) for what it's worth.

And by the way, your post only supports my observation about human bias. As does my own response here. :)
Click to expand...

I agree what you just sad quite ridiculous.

I did not see too much people questioning car tests because they feel to question something. This is area for people who know what they are talking about.

Again you may have your opinion, but it does mean nothing to me - you are not one of us. You just came to discussion and expect me to listen. Will you do same in let say Nuclear physics forum? or car crash test expert forum?

Again with all respect your right to have opinion, I like to keep my right to ignore it, simple because I know what I am doing for five years and you do not have it.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I find the test results for CPMS35VN to be extremely interesting, especially since it was my knife that was tested. Somewhere on BFC (perhaps Knarfeng?) they listed the hardness of the S35VN mules at an average of 58.5 HRc. This steel has gotten little ink compared to some of the other "supersteels", but seems to perform very well.

Jim said it was quite a bit better than S30V in his tests, which is usually run at a little higher Rockwell (59-60). I know the M4 Mules are much harder, around 62-64, yet Jim rated the S35VN higher even than those.

I am not saying that S35VN is "better" steel than M4. All kinds of practical cutting experience points to M4 at higher Rockwell being one of the very best at edge retention (specifically to failure). What I think these tests indicate better than anything else is just how foolish it is to say one steel is "better" than another, without being VERY specific about just which parameters are being considered. I also think we need to keep in mind just how blessed we are to have so many excellent steels to choose from--we really are in the Golden Age of cutlery steels.
 
nozh2002 - Ad hominem argument? Are you kidding me? And an appeal to authority? You being the authority? Before you engage in debate you might want to put down your knives and do some reading on the rules of engagement.

I am not one of you? If you are representative of a group, well you are right, I am not one of you. Thank you for excluding me. Of course I would never be a member of a group that would include me in the first place. ;)

Yes, I would say the same thing in any forum given the same context. And I have. As you may have noticed I have a few posts here myself and I have been a member longer than you - but then what does any of that matter? Even if this was the first time I posted my words have to stand by themselves. So do yours.

I don't care how long you have been cutting string or rope or whatever. If you post your test methodology and test results they are subject to review and possible criticism. Do you think you are God's gift to knife testing? Give me a break.

All of this is off thread and I apologize for that. Ankerson's tests interest me. I commented on them. Yes, you can take it or leave as you wish. Just as I can take or leave your test results. I decided to leave them long ago when you decided to take yourself too seriously.

While I am on this rant let me say this. People and companies put their heart and souls into making knives, and then someone comes along like yourself and decides to test them. Whether you realize it or not your test results influence others, and in some cases decisions on what to buy and what not to buy are made based on that influence. So in effect you have set yourself up as a self-styled critic of someone else's blood, sweat and tears, and when you rank your knife test results you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - criticizing someone's efforts when you have not made the effort yourself - in this case knifemaking. This is why your argument against my comments is both specious and ironic. This does not mean people should not test knives, or that testing has no value. It does mean you should do so with some humility and a genunie sense of responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

And of course I have now taken myself too seriously. None of the foregoing is directed at Ankerson and his tests, and again I apologize for highjacking this thread. Test away.
 
nozh2002 said:
Can you do some homework first and learn about this tests - this was addressed many times and yes all those factors are eliminated so test shows how given steel from given manufacturer performs and this has nothing to do with geometry - length, width, weight, moon phase and other things people get used to come up to critisize others effort.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

please,

teach me !

how have you eliminated geometry from your test ? i may have missed it.

you are perhaps THE knife tester here but i am a knife user. i use kitchen knives for a living and sharpen them almost every single day. and from my experience the geometry of the last inch of blade as A LOT to do with edge retention given the same final edge.

i've verified this with two same knives (hiromoto AS gyuto, aogami super, 63-4hrc) , one i bought for me, the other i bought for one of my employees at the same time. both same brand, same lenght, same model, same steel, same everything. mine i thinned to paper thickness freehand then applied a microbevel via edgepro (like his, 15° 3k tape) the other stock thickness.

we did swap knives several times to see if it wasn't about lighter hand and technique or whatever, the thinned knives ALWAYS last 1,5x to 2x before needing sharpening.

why don't ask me i'm a chef, not a knifemaker but that's the way it worked for us in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top