New testing session.

[effer]

Different machines using different media and at different times.

To be valid they have to be tested at the same time in the same session using the same machine and media, so the data can't be compared directly from the 2 sessions.

The numbers don't line up from the 2 sessions so the media and the HRC ranges had to be different, and on different machines.

Yes, but even if those two sessions cannot be compared directly, they still can be used for some way of organizing data.
For example one can say that S30V performed 13% better than 154CM (both at 60-61HRC).
Also Elmax(62HRC) gets 22% edge retention increase over Elmax(60HRC) in this test. Elmax(62HRC) is merely 3% worse than M390(61HRC).
One M390(61HRC) blade can cut almost as many cards as two 440C(59HRC) blades.
and so on...

One thing I can get from this is that in usual daily tasks I probably will not feel much difference between S30V and 154CM (at the same hardness), maybe will feel a slight difference between Elmax @60 and @62. Probably will use M390 blade twice longer before sharpening compared to 440C blade. I can see how steels can be rated based on the performance in these tests, but in reality I can see that in some cases the difference is not all that big.

 

[Ankerson]

Yes, but even if those two sessions cannot be compared directly, they still can be used for some way of organizing data.
For example one can say that S30V performed 13% better than 154CM (both at 60-61HRC).
Also Elmax(62HRC) gets 22% edge retention increase over Elmax(60HRC) in this test. Elmax(62HRC) is merely 3% worse than M390(61HRC).
One M390(61HRC) blade can cut almost as many cards as two 440C(59HRC) blades.
and so on...

One thing I can get from this is that in usual daily tasks I probably will not feel much difference between S30V and 154CM (at the same hardness), maybe will feel a slight difference between Elmax @60 and @62. Probably will use M390 blade twice longer before sharpening compared to 440C blade. I can see how steels can be rated based on the performance in these tests, but in reality I can see that in some cases the difference is not all that big.

It's all good data.

I was just pointing out that the 2 sessions can't be directly compared, the numbers combined because of the differences.

 

[Ankerson]

And this is CATRA results from Oct 2010 "Knife Illustrated"

10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468

This is really nice. And I hope other steel manufacturers provides their CATRA results as well.

It was independent testing done by CATRA, so yes it would be nice if others would have the same things done and publish them, but the data wouldn't be directly comparable due to the differences in the blades tested and other variables.

The numbers couldn't be directly referenced between the sessions, but for each session they could be grouped into categories and then cross referenced that way if enough data was compiled overall.

 

[The Mastiff]

Both Catra tests
Both S30V ( one calls it 14-2-4 CrMoV but it's S30V just like 14-4 CrMo is 154cm)

S30V (14-2-4 CrMoV) at RC 61= 798
S30V 10/2010 Knives Illus. Catra = 541

154cm = 468 ( KI article 10/2010 )
14-4 CrMo 546.9 @ RC 61+

Yep, another big difference in CATRA testing.

That's a large difference in CATRA results. Vassili, do you see why we have been telling you for years that you were testing knives not steels?

 

[Ankerson]

That's why I told him that the sessions are and can't be compared like he was attempting to do I think in an attempt to validate his results.

Different machines using different media, different blades at different hardness ranges done almost 2 years apart can't be referenced or compared directly with a straight face....

The only comparable results are from blades tested in the same session comparing those blades tested and how they related to each other.

Both sessions are valid, but data is only comparable in relationship to the other blades tested in the same sessions.

Now if all the blades were tested in the same session on the same machine then they would be comparable and could be referenced.

That's why we don't see much CATRA data posted or available from a lot of sources, it won't be the same due to the variables.

The data from Spydercos machine will be different from Bucks machine and both of them would be different from CATRAS machine they use.

It all would be good data, but not directly comparable as in the numbers from different sessions on different machines can't be combined.

 

[Buffalohump]

The difference is you will have to sharpen 154CM more often. Some people dont like to have to constantly sharpen a knife and therefore seek out steels that offer better edge retention. Others want steels that are tough and take a beating. There is a difference in the steels that is quickly evident when you use them. These tests are simply an attempt to quantify those differences but as you can see its extremely difficult to do so.

Yes, but even if those two sessions cannot be compared directly, they still can be used for some way of organizing data.
For example one can say that S30V performed 13% better than 154CM (both at 60-61HRC).
Also Elmax(62HRC) gets 22% edge retention increase over Elmax(60HRC) in this test. Elmax(62HRC) is merely 3% worse than M390(61HRC).
One M390(61HRC) blade can cut almost as many cards as two 440C(59HRC) blades.
and so on...

One thing I can get from this is that in usual daily tasks I probably will not feel much difference between S30V and 154CM (at the same hardness), maybe will feel a slight difference between Elmax @60 and @62. Probably will use M390 blade twice longer before sharpening compared to 440C blade. I can see how steels can be rated based on the performance in these tests, but in reality I can see that in some cases the difference is not all that big.

 

[nozh2002]

Lets not mislead new members to conclusion that there is no value in tests.

I am not saying for everybody, but for myself I see great value. Of course everything in this life you need to take with little doubts (I learned this for good living in collapsing USSR), but it does not mean nothing can be accounted - but not trusted of course. Even my own test I always doubt - this is why I tested M390, right away, when it was released by Spyderco and it was useful.

Now performance is not simple about sharpening one steel more often then other if you are really using them. Certain jobs can not be finished with steels performing on average level. Cutting root in the ground around sprinkles pipes with Yuna ZDP189 can be done without switching knife to the very end. Same with Badger Attack turns into disaster, because it became dull right away and I was forced to apply more force to do same job - you can not cleanly cut root, but forced to chop and you do not have too much control over depth of cut this way - so in result I cut pipe and had to patch it later. It was my last try to use those knives and now it is used only as prybar, which is not needed very often.

Other example - working with tooling leather. CM154 will stop working in the middle of the cut - when cutting out long strap for lanyard.

So it is important to test knives and know what they are capable of. Especially with all this hype and smoke around produced by knife manufacturer marketing drons. And proven cases when we were mislead by knife industry - like in CPM S30V case, which turns out to be far from having edge retention as CPM S60V and toughness of A2...

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[effer]

Both Catra tests
Both S30V ( one calls it 14-2-4 CrMoV but it's S30V just like 14-4 CrMo is 154cm)

S30V (14-2-4 CrMoV) at RC 61= 798
S30V 10/2010 Knives Illus. Catra = 541

154cm = 468 ( KI article 10/2010 )
14-4 CrMo 546.9 @ RC 61+

Yep, another big difference in CATRA testing.

Thanks a lot, I wasn't aware that 14-2-4 CrMoV is S30V and 14-4 CrMo is 154cm.
Results can be compared in proportions. Here is what surprised me:
S30V results were 32% different from each other, and 154Cm only 14% different. That means that either S30V or 154Cm (or both) blades were quite different in those two sessions.

Vassili, do you see why we have been telling you for years that you were testing knives not steels?

From what I see here, both Vassilli and Jim are testing knives. Good thing is that Vassili lists exact knife in the testing. From the looks of it CATRA machine is also testing "knives", otherwise proportional difference between those two CATRA sessions would've been the same.

 

[nozh2002]

I am sorry but saying that 14-2-4 is S30V and so on is just ridiculous and question testing based on this is ridiculous twice.

Telling me that I am testing knives not steel is one of nonsenses when they fantasy about something imaginary I sad and that keep correcting me - I always state that I tested knives - it is all listed everywhere. It is always Maker, Model and Steel. Now, because edge geometry, thikness etc does not matter - I made my procedure the way it does not affect results, and I always has same edge angle - it is steel from given manufacturer. But they may have different HT for different models etc...

Mastiff is in my ignore list - he is also calling me Vagisil etc... I do not heave any credit for him. His all practical use limited to removing once old carpet and based on that he build his fantasies about steels. I do not want to see his posts. Please, do not quote him.

 

[brownshoe]

Can you provide an original source reference for this statement:

"Different machines using different media, different blades at different hardness ranges done almost 2 years apart can't be referenced or compared directly with a straight face....The only comparable results are from blades tested in the same session comparing those blades tested and how they related to each other."

If true, it would seem the CATRA is not a very viable test for the "industry."

 

[The Mastiff]

I am sorry but saying that 14-2-4 is S30V and so on is just ridiculous and question testing based on this is ridiculous twice.

Telling me that I am testing knives not steel is one of nonsenses when they fantasy about something imaginary I sad and that keep correcting me - I always state that I tested knives - it is all listed everywhere. It is always Maker, Model and Steel. Now, because edge geometry, thikness etc does not matter - I made my procedure the way it does not affect results, and I always has same edge angle - it is steel from given manufacturer. But they may have different HT for different models etc...

Mastiff is in my ignore list - he is also calling me Vagisil etc... I do not heave any credit for him. His all practical use limited to removing once old carpet and based on that he build his fantasies about steels. I do not want to see his posts. Please, do not quote him.

You may not accept that those are the steel analog names used but they in fact are. Do your own research.

I always laugh when you insist my only experience in over 40 years of using and collecting and making knives is "removing once old carpet". The big lie is easier to sell than the little ones right? You should know who said that if you were truly brought up in the soviet union.

You seem to find ways to disqualify everybody and everything except yourself and a few items you cling to that you believe support your theories.

So it is important to test knives and know what they are capable of. Especially with all this hype and smoke around produced by knife manufacturer marketing drons. And proven cases when we were mislead by knife industry - like in CPM S30V case, which turns out to be far from having edge retention as CPM S60V and toughness of A2...

Yep, it's important to test knives. all else is paranoid ramblings. Thank goodness we have you to save us from the misleading knife industry and their marketing "drons"

 

[nozh2002]

Can you provide an original source reference for this statement:

"Different machines using different media, different blades at different hardness ranges done almost 2 years apart can't be referenced or compared directly with a straight face....The only comparable results are from blades tested in the same session comparing those blades tested and how they related to each other."

If true, it would seem the CATRA is not a very viable test for the "industry."

Point of this is that you can not trust tests but you should trust "experts".

There is some around here who "know" ultimate truth which they "learned"... from each other.
They discussed this a lot among themselfs and came up with mutual conclusion, which has
nothing to do with real tests to which you can not trust.

They will tell you which steel is good and which is not.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Ankerson]

Point of this is that you can not trust tests but you should trust "experts".

There is some around here who "know" ultimate truth which they "learned"... from each other.
They discussed this a lot among themselfs and came up with mutual conclusion, which has
nothing to do with real tests to which you can not trust.

They will tell you which steel is good and which is not.

Thanks, Vassili.

Some of use know enough that we can tell just by the results of the sessions looking at the steels tested in both, That's S30V, 154CM and 3v that there were HUGE differences in what was used and the blades tested and different machines so the data can't be combined.

Too many variables between them or the numbers would have been closer.

There is no way around that no matter how you look at it or try and explain it away...

CATRA is accurate to around 3% variation ave, those numbers between the sessions are a lot bigger than that.

 

[knarfeng]

As I understand the CATRA technique, two different sessions can be compared if all the blades in both sessions are the same shape and the edge angles are all the same. Buck Knives clearly demonstrated that the CATRA results are dependent on the blade shape as well as the edge angle.

Now the truth of the matter is that the knives in different sessions are usually from two different makers and are, therefore, unlikely to be shaped the same. So in most cases, you cannot make comparisons between data from two sessions. But it is a limitation of the blades being tested, not of the technique itself.

Thanks for posting the Bohler results, Jim.

 

[Ankerson]

As I understand the CATRA technique, two different sessions can be compared if all the blades in both sessions are the same shape and the edge angles are all the same. Buck Knives clearly demonstrated that the CATRA results are dependent on the blade shape as well as the edge angle.

Now the truth of the matter is that the knives in different sessions are usually from two different makers and are, therefore, unlikely to be shaped the same. So in most cases, you cannot make comparisons between data from two sessions. But it is a limitation of the blades being tested, not of the technique itself.

Thanks for posting the Bohler results, Jim.

Yep, exactly correct.

CATRA is so accurate that even small variations will show up as huge differences percentage wise.

 

[nozh2002]

Yep, exactly correct.

CATRA is so accurate that even small variations will show up as huge differences percentage wise.

This all will be interesting to hear if it would be based on a lot of CATRA test results.
For now we 12 different results from Bohler-Uddeholm and 5 from Knife Illustrated.

Build any conclusion and doubts about CATRA accuracy based on this - just another
walk through Steel Fantasy World. Another searching for truth among each other rather
then in Real World.

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. Saying that steel from different manufacturers just same because some published
composition looks alike and can be compared -ridiculous!

 

[The Mastiff]

P.S. Saying that steel from different manufacturers just same because some published
composition looks alike and can be compared -ridiculous!

That's how they do it. I'd guess for legal reasons. If you look at the company page for 20CV they compare it to S30V, 154cm, and 440C steel but don't use trademarked names when talking about CATRA results.

Edge Retention (CATRA Test Relative to 440C)
GRADE %
CPM 20CV 180
14-2-4 CrMoV 145
14-4 CrMo 120
440C 100
The CATRA (Cutlery & Allied Trade Research Association) test
machine measures the total number of silica impregnated cards cut
in a sequence of passes along a blade. It is considered a relative
measure of edge retention and wear resistance.

http://www.latrobesteel.com/assets/documents/datasheets/CPM_20CV.pdf

Note * 440C isn't a protected name anymore. They won't get a lawsuit for using it here.

Point of this is that you can not trust tests but you should trust "experts".

There is some around here who "know" ultimate truth which they "learned"... from each other.
They discussed this a lot among themselfs and came up with mutual conclusion, which has
nothing to do with real tests to which you can not trust.

They will tell you which steel is good and which is not.

Vassili, if you are referring to me I still, and have always stated that I don't believe in "better", or "best" steels. Just steels designed for a job. They can be best for my use, but that doesn't make them the best steel any more than your test, which rates best by edge retention. That's only one of the attributes that people use when deciding what steel to use. In your test it makes them the best. I see no one else calling anything best around here. Just you.

The last time I explained this to you was when you came up with the never did anything but cut a little carpet once statement, which you seem to be sticking to.

Another statement that's false, and you have no evidence for.

I just as easily state that you faked all your tests and the results. You have no proof otherwise, right? Just a few minutes of cutting on you tube. That doesn't prove a thing.

I don't say that though as it's almost as stupid as your claiming I've only cut a carpet once, nothing else.

By the way, you are not even doing a comprehensive testing of wear resistance. Several aspects are left out and not included anywhere in your tests.

Joe

 

[Ankerson]

This all will be interesting to hear if it would be based on a lot of CATRA test results.
For now we 12 different results from Bohler-Uddeholm and 5 from Knife Illustrated.

Build any conclusion and doubts about CATRA accuracy based on this - just another
walk through Steel Fantasy World. Another searching for truth among each other rather
then in Real World.

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. Saying that steel from different manufacturers just same because some published
composition looks alike and can be compared -ridiculous!

They don't publish CATRA data because of the reasons that I have stated in this thread, most of it is for internal testing purposes and use inside the Companies.

It wouldn't mater if they all published all the data, it would all be different due to the variables in the media used and the blades tested.

I doubt we will ever see a large amount of CATRA data for those reasons.

Maybe one day you will finally understand why things are done the way they are, it's not a conspiracy and never was.

 

[hardheart]

P.S. Saying that steel from different manufacturers just same because some published
composition looks alike and can be compared -ridiculous!

well then who manufactured the steel for the four D2 (not friction forged or CPM), two 1095, 52100, M2, and T1 blades you tested? It would be ridiculous to judge a steel without knowing which mill it came from, since identical composition apparently doesn't matter.

 

[brownshoe]

Again, can anyone supply a reference, journal article, manual for the CATRA machine, ASTM test procedure, etc. for the statements about the limitations of the CATRA test? I do not ask to insult anyone's integrity, I just want to be able to read the original source material concerning the test's limitations.