Sal thanks yeah it has held up very well at that low of and angle. It's an older, first run Calypso Jr. in VG-10. I've carried and used it this thin for over a year. I haven't run any tests on it just used it for daily stuff without a problem. thanks for your insight on the carbide pull out myth. I haven't seen it even with my D2 edges at around 10 degrees, maybe I need to go thinner than that to see it.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
My new Manix, review and observations
- Thread starter gunmike1
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
The only guys who ever 'win' arguments with their wives (and, yes, I'm using finger quotes) are divorcees and that Bobbit guy.
Gunmike1,
When's your new DB8XX due to arrive? It's the only diamond-coated hone that's both Thom-hyped and db-approved*. Once your poor digits heal, you'll have no problem creating large amounts of steeldust.
db,
The edge failures seen by sodak, yuzuha, and me might not be due to carbide tear-out, but since they were usually microchips across the whole edge, it's a fair theory. With my CalyJ at I can't remember how thin, the whole edge shattered and bent. It was grotesque. Still cut well, though...
*= I hype other diamond coated hones as well, but they lack db's approval.
Sodak that is per side, under 20 total. I free hand it and the Caly Jr is easy to keep under 10 degrees for me. My D2 blades I sharpen around that angle are Queen slipjoints., and they could be a little higher like 10 to 12 per side. I'm not really fussy about perfect angles as long as they are fairly thin and cut the way I want.
I seem to remember the RC hardness was reported higher in the early first run Calypsos than the later ones. Is that really true and they were harder? If so that could be why I see a difference from yours Thom, yuzuha, and Sodak and mine. In any case I'm very happy with how it has preformed at this low angle for the last year or so.
And yeah the D8xx is db approved, to the point of hype.
And yeah the D8xx is db approved, to the point of hype.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
I don't think yuzuha had a VG-10 Calypso. Her experience with possible carbide tear-out was with a Queen knife with D2 blades.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,402
Considering the high incidence of reported problems with S30V at even terribly obtuse angles (crumbling upon cutting soft materials or while sharpening) and my initial chipping with that knife I was happy, but your point is very valid. A knife should definately be able to hold better geometries than axes, though it doesn't seem to be a common concept in the cutlery industry it seems.
Of course not. Women don't see the hypocrisy of having a whole closet full of "nothing to wear", while us guys have to beg and plead just to get a new knife. Just because they have 50 outfits doesn't stop them from spending rediculous money on something they will wear to a party once, but when we want to spend $75 on a tool we should get a lifetime of service from we are wasting money in their minds. But us men think with the wrong head a lot, so we put up with it.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,402
I should get the stone early next week, and I won't let minor things like fingers split down the middle stop me from creating large piles of steel dust. Since you hype it and db approves of it I know I will love it, and since I'll be one handed sharpening the extra grinding ability will be much appreciated compared to my DMT X coarse.
I seem to remember the RC hardness was reported higher in the early first run Calypsos than the later ones. Is that really true and they were harder? If so that could be why I see a difference from yours Thom, yuzuha, and Sodak and mine. In any case I'm very happy with how it has preformed at this low angle for the last year or so.
And yeah the D8xx is db approved, to the point of hype.
I think you put your finger on it. Without both knives in one pair of hands, it's impossible to tell. They would have to be run through the same tests, and ideally, hardness tested also. Otherwise, we're just speculating.
I fully agree with you on the low angle - thin is the way to go, I'm quite willing to accept the possibility of collateral damage in exchange for the promise of performance.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,402
My VG-10 (all Spyderco) knives haven't had any issues with chipping at 10/15 per side on non metals. Just based on variation of technique, even using the Sharpmaker my 15 could be 14 or 16 or 17 degrees, but either way I never had any issues with chipping. This is with an Endura wave, the Endura 3 I mentioned earlier that I had factory resharpened (you can still see my 10 degree backbevel), or my R2, which is actually around 12 per side, with a fresh 15 degree microbevel that I threw on quickly for Sodak.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Carbides in VG-10 should be similar in size to ATS-34, though slightly smaller as there is less moly, so < 25 microns at maximum would be what you would expect for an individual tear out. By eye, you can only see about 0.1 mm, so these carbide chips, even at largest would be invisible by eye. Even if you look at them under 10X magnification you would still just barely see them as then would only be 0.1-0.2 mm when magnified. When stainless steels chips has more to do with gross properties such as lack of strength followed by ductility. Which is again a huge misconception because people think if the edges were softer they would chip less but in fact the reverse is true for cutting.
There are large differences in production knives, 54-59 HRC isn't an uncommon spread for even the high end cutlery and you would expect to see a large difference in reported behavior. Thus it doesn't surprise me when you and Sodak report different behavior than what I have seen, since I could be using a 59 HRC knife and you 55 HRC with blown grain. Then you also have to consider that not everyone means the same thing when they say "light cutting" and similar.
That will come once the carbide blinders are removed. Unfortunately. Crucible has a large influence on the north american market and carbide volume = good is a huge part of their promotion, which it has to be because without this P/M = useless.
-Cliff
I have to wonder. How thin and low of an angle does an edge have to be to be effected by the carbide tear-out myth? If the carbides do tear out how much force does it take? How strong are the carbides bonded to the matrix, and or each other? I guess I am haveing a hard time believeing the carbide tear out theory is effecting very many peoples edges even at the lower angles of 10 degrees or so. Sal says it's a problem with 440c at .1 mm and I believe him but? how muchof a problem? I have to believe there can be many different reasons for an edge failing. I had a 1084 blade from a master smith one time that just wouldn't take a thinner edge no matter what it would crumble at 15 degrees or under. I never did find out why.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,677
Hi Db,
In reality, I do not believe that 99.99% would be affected.
We ran into the problem with one model (Challif) that was being reground to a very thin edge by the customer. He complained about a problem so we went to a metallurgist using magna flux and microscopes to find the problem. That was on MRS-30 (1.15 C). A very unusual circumstance.
The 440C information was on a seminar study with a metallurgist expert on 440C. We have not encountered the problem in the "real world" with 440C.
I think it is more of an academic study among steel junky's than a real world problem with blades.
sal
In reality, I do not believe that 99.99% would be affected.
We ran into the problem with one model (Challif) that was being reground to a very thin edge by the customer. He complained about a problem so we went to a metallurgist using magna flux and microscopes to find the problem. That was on MRS-30 (1.15 C). A very unusual circumstance.
The 440C information was on a seminar study with a metallurgist expert on 440C. We have not encountered the problem in the "real world" with 440C.
I think it is more of an academic study among steel junky's than a real world problem with blades.
sal
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,670
What a terrific thread, guys ... this is the kind of discussion I really enjoy.
Very informative article, Cliff. Quoting:
"[Landes] classifed steels into three groups, type I, type II, and type III mainly based on carbide volume, 0.5-5%, 5-15%, and greater than 15% respectively. These groups needed different angles to both take and hold a high polished sharpness, 8-12, 12-20, and 20-30 degrees per side respectively. The greater the size and volume of carbide, the greater the angle required to keep the edge stable. This was the exact same conclusion reached by Johnston in his less formal, but still as equally accurate, field trials. Switching to a P/M version of the same steel will also slightly enhance edge stability but according to Landes is a small influence compared to hardness and carbide volume."
Which leads directly to the following:
IMO this makes a really strong case for what you've been arguing for quite a while. Not that I don't think there's a place for high carbide "tactical" stainless steels, just that the buyer needs to understand that the benefits are largely limited to specific uses, and certain things that many may want or need from a knife will be lacking.
Cliff Stamp said:
Very informative article, Cliff. Quoting:
"[Landes] classifed steels into three groups, type I, type II, and type III mainly based on carbide volume, 0.5-5%, 5-15%, and greater than 15% respectively. These groups needed different angles to both take and hold a high polished sharpness, 8-12, 12-20, and 20-30 degrees per side respectively. The greater the size and volume of carbide, the greater the angle required to keep the edge stable. This was the exact same conclusion reached by Johnston in his less formal, but still as equally accurate, field trials. Switching to a P/M version of the same steel will also slightly enhance edge stability but according to Landes is a small influence compared to hardness and carbide volume."
Which leads directly to the following:
IMO this makes a really strong case for what you've been arguing for quite a while. Not that I don't think there's a place for high carbide "tactical" stainless steels, just that the buyer needs to understand that the benefits are largely limited to specific uses, and certain things that many may want or need from a knife will be lacking.
Sal Glesser
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 27, 1998
- Messages
- 11,677
I think that much of the influence is based on sharpening. We began our business in the knife industry by making sharpeners. We learned that without the ability to resharpen a knife, or initially sharpen a factory edge that is not sharp enough, the entire function of the knife is lost. A phenomenon that most of us have expeienced some time in our lives.
If you could not add fuel to your vehicle and had to stop using it when the tank was empty, it would be considered a big waaste. the same is true of a knife when it goes dull.
Most did not have the ability to resharpen which made sharpeners a needed tool.
When we introduced serrations in ther early 80's, knives used often didn't stay sharp long enough for consumers. Serrations stayed sharper longer (for a variety of reasons). This was desired. As steels got much better in edge retention over the past 20 years, serrations became more focused on the types of materials (rope, etc) where they excell.
It's always a trade off in edge retention between using thinner edges, using more abrasive resistant steels, strength requirements, etc. That compromise is different for different people.
Trying to create these products in production offers unique challenges.
In the end, the market drives creation. The "Science" market, ie: those that have desire to learn and know (afi's and junky's), and the "big" market, where the money comes from. The "big" market doesn't want to sharpen or doesn't know how, so better edge retention or disposable blades are sought.
Right now, the "science" market is driving new technology steels (Particle megtalurgy, nitrogen based steels), and a re-look at historical steels from 01 to wootz and damascus.
sal
If you could not add fuel to your vehicle and had to stop using it when the tank was empty, it would be considered a big waaste. the same is true of a knife when it goes dull.
Most did not have the ability to resharpen which made sharpeners a needed tool.
When we introduced serrations in ther early 80's, knives used often didn't stay sharp long enough for consumers. Serrations stayed sharper longer (for a variety of reasons). This was desired. As steels got much better in edge retention over the past 20 years, serrations became more focused on the types of materials (rope, etc) where they excell.
It's always a trade off in edge retention between using thinner edges, using more abrasive resistant steels, strength requirements, etc. That compromise is different for different people.
Trying to create these products in production offers unique challenges.
In the end, the market drives creation. The "Science" market, ie: those that have desire to learn and know (afi's and junky's), and the "big" market, where the money comes from. The "big" market doesn't want to sharpen or doesn't know how, so better edge retention or disposable blades are sought.
Right now, the "science" market is driving new technology steels (Particle megtalurgy, nitrogen based steels), and a re-look at historical steels from 01 to wootz and damascus.
sal
"
"[Landes] classifed steels into three groups, type I, type II, and type III mainly based on carbide volume, 0.5-5%, 5-15%, and greater than 15% respectively.
These groups needed different angles to both take and hold a high polished sharpness, 8-12, 12-20, and 20-30 degrees per side respectively. The greater
the size and volume of carbide, the greater the angle required to keep the edge stable.
"
I'd say those seem like pretty high angles for type III and even type II steels. What are some of the type II and III steels that are commonly used for knives?
"[Landes] classifed steels into three groups, type I, type II, and type III mainly based on carbide volume, 0.5-5%, 5-15%, and greater than 15% respectively.
These groups needed different angles to both take and hold a high polished sharpness, 8-12, 12-20, and 20-30 degrees per side respectively. The greater
the size and volume of carbide, the greater the angle required to keep the edge stable.
"
I'd say those seem like pretty high angles for type III and even type II steels. What are some of the type II and III steels that are commonly used for knives?
This is exactly right. We're about 5 standard deviations out. I'm very glad that you aren't taking any offence to any of this, certainly, none is intended. It is just fun walking up to and peering over the edge...
Topic drift - By the way, thank you again for the new Caly 3 in VG10! That's one of the best folders that I've had the pleasure of using - I just love it!
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Thanks, I intended the article to have two major purposes, to first introduce the topic and show what has been done and second to show just how much quality work has been performed by the lay population. This information is often just outright dismissed by the makers/manufactures who progate the misinformation on steels and who often quote "scientific" studies which have no relevance and are complete nonsense.
There is a huge problem with accuracy and precision being interchanged and they are very different. The work that Johnston performed for example was not very precise but it was very accurate. You can always improve precision with greater sampling, which is what he did, repeat the work for years. However if accuracy is low then it doesn't matter how many times you do the work or the quality of the measurements because you are determing useless information.
Yes exactly, I have seen lots of people use knives which are very blunt, often to the stage there is no actual edge bevel. For these knives you want a very high carbide steel, D series or high A (A11) series. They don't sharpen their knives and have no interest in a high cutting ability or sharpness. They are just looking at a moderate/low level of functionality for a very long time. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest maxamet or similar for a lot of knives of that type.
The big problem is that there is a huge promotion of that kind of steel as being directly superior as you noted with no mention of the drawbacks. But curiously it mainly tends to be for stainless with nonsense like S30V has the best balance for a stainless alloy. S30V is a severely unbalanced steel which is highly optomized for wear resistance, similar to D2 as a tool steel.
That is most likely accurate but not due to functinality. Johnston gathered his information from regular working class people. They were not some kind of elite knife users, carpenters, butchers, and tradesmen of various types. Once exposed to knives optomized such as noted in the above they immediately appreciated the functionality. Spyderco has quite an opportunity here to basically create a class of knives by developing the knives around the steel. Unfortunately you would have to fight the massive amount of misinformation about low carbide steels which still continues to be propogated and reinforced by horrible misuse in the industry such as Kershaws used of relatively soft 13C26 in thick and obtuse edged knives.
-Cliff
There is a huge problem with accuracy and precision being interchanged and they are very different. The work that Johnston performed for example was not very precise but it was very accurate. You can always improve precision with greater sampling, which is what he did, repeat the work for years. However if accuracy is low then it doesn't matter how many times you do the work or the quality of the measurements because you are determing useless information.
Yes exactly, I have seen lots of people use knives which are very blunt, often to the stage there is no actual edge bevel. For these knives you want a very high carbide steel, D series or high A (A11) series. They don't sharpen their knives and have no interest in a high cutting ability or sharpness. They are just looking at a moderate/low level of functionality for a very long time. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest maxamet or similar for a lot of knives of that type.
The big problem is that there is a huge promotion of that kind of steel as being directly superior as you noted with no mention of the drawbacks. But curiously it mainly tends to be for stainless with nonsense like S30V has the best balance for a stainless alloy. S30V is a severely unbalanced steel which is highly optomized for wear resistance, similar to D2 as a tool steel.
That is most likely accurate but not due to functinality. Johnston gathered his information from regular working class people. They were not some kind of elite knife users, carpenters, butchers, and tradesmen of various types. Once exposed to knives optomized such as noted in the above they immediately appreciated the functionality. Spyderco has quite an opportunity here to basically create a class of knives by developing the knives around the steel. Unfortunately you would have to fight the massive amount of misinformation about low carbide steels which still continues to be propogated and reinforced by horrible misuse in the industry such as Kershaws used of relatively soft 13C26 in thick and obtuse edged knives.
-Cliff
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,670
I'm probably not the guy to be replying, db, and don't really have any specifics to offer, but this whetted my curiosity as well. Anyway as I understand it the further to the right a steel is from the carbon saturation line on the phase diagram, generally the higher carbide volume. Ref:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=425161&highlight=saturation
http://www.calphad.com/phase_diagrams.html
From what I've read I believe this gets pretty complicated in very short order as you start to compare different stainless alloys, especially the higher alloys. Then if I'm not mistaken, when you factor in different hardness and heat treatments it gets even more complex .... I could be mistaken here (i.e. SWAG) but seems the difference in behavior between ZDP-189 and S30V at low edge angles might be an appropriate example.
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Yes and carbide size, P/M will reduce the size but not the volume so basically just even out the effect and don't change the mean behavior. You also have to consider the hardness so while 13C26 is a type I steel, 12C27M is type II. 12C27M has a very fine carbide distribution as well, but doesn't have the hardness necessary to achieve maximum edge stability. The worst material would be talonite as it is both very soft with large aggregate carbides. Landes main point in the book wasn't as much as to completely define these classes in a rigid sense but to make people aware of them and what was the underlying effect (hardness and carbide size). He is currently writing another book which is far more quantitative.
-Cliff