New testing session.

[Ankerson]

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.

The testing process isn't limited, it's the variables that can be introduced that cause the variations.

It's like a computer, garbage in, garbage out.... The data is only as good as the imput materals are.

CATRA really is the best there is right now, and the most accurate.

 

[hardheart]

The machines themselves should produce nearly the same results as long as they are properly maintained within spec. The media itself should not vary greatly as produced, but environmental conditions (temp, humidity) will affect the silica impregnated paper and alter results accordingly. The massive difference in results comes from where they would be expected - different geometry, different heat treat, different alloying. As well, the speed and length of stroke can be changed, so we can't assume every set of results uses the same standard parameters.

Specifications
Test Stroke - 0 to 128 mm, Standard test 40mm
Test Cutting Speed - 0 to 150 mm/second, Standard test 50mm/s
Test Load - 25N and 50N( standard test)
Optional - 0 to 25N counter-balance weights for delicate blades

 

[Ankerson]

The machines themselves should produce nearly the same results as long as they are properly maintained within spec. The media itself should not vary greatly as produced, but environmental conditions (temp, humidity) will affect the silica impregnated paper and alter results accordingly. The massive difference in results comes from where they would be expected - different geometry, different heat treat, different alloying. As well, the speed and length of stroke can be changed, so we can't assume every set of results uses the same standard parameters.

Specifications
Test Stroke - 0 to 128 mm, Standard test 40mm
Test Cutting Speed - 0 to 150 mm/second, Standard test 50mm/s
Test Load - 25N and 50N( standard test)
Optional - 0 to 25N counter-balance weights for delicate blades

Some also have specially formulated test media made that is different from the standard media so that would be another variation.

But yeah it's all true and relevant for sure.

Even in cutting rope the humidity can make a big difference so with something like CATRA and that media I would think it would really show up in the results.

 

[nozh2002]

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.

It will be nice to see any reference. Are you official representative of companies who uses CATRA?
They can tell you anything in private conversation, but I doubt it will be stated officially.

This is another dirty trick - bringing up conspiracy theory.

At first - it is clear conflict of interest here never tell you that their product inferior. At second - check leaked CATRA results
of CPM S60v and CPM S30v performance and compare them to what was sad to us 2003-2004. CPMS30v clearly inferior to CPM S60v'
and if those test were published 2002 - nobody got CPM S30V seriously. But you may check old posts where it was cry that it has same
performance as CPM S60v and toughness of A2.

Manufacturers pushing this crappy steel because it is much easy to produce.

 

[Ankerson]

It will be nice to see any reference. Are you official representative of companies who uses CATRA?
They can tell you anything in private conversation, but I doubt it will be stated officially.

This is another dirty trick - bringing up conspiracy theory.

At first - it is clear conflict of interest here never tell you that their product inferior. At second - check leaked CATRA results
of CPM S60v and CPM S30v performance and compare them to what was sad to us 2003-2004. CPMS30v clearly inferior to CPM S60v'
and if those test were published 2002 - nobody got CPM S30V seriously. But you may check old posts where it was cry that it has same
performance as CPM S60v and toughness of A2.

Manufacturers pushing this crappy steel because it is much easy to produce.

Here we go again....

Beating the same drum over and over......

If the testing is done by CATRA or by a certified CATRA testing Station it is an independent test.

 

[Noctis3880]

It will be nice to see any reference. Are you official representative of companies who uses CATRA?

Why don't you ask the people who made CATRA themselves?

They can tell you anything in private conversation, but I doubt it will be stated officially.

This is another dirty trick - bringing up conspiracy theory.

Manufacturers pushing this crappy steel because it is much easy to produce.

You brought it up yourself. Last I checked, using someone's own words against them isn't a dirty trick, but rather a clever strategy.

And why shouldn't manufacturers use a "crappy" steel(relative to another, from one perspective) because it's easier to produce? That really seems like the whole selling point of modern steels. I wish every knife manufacturer would use S125V in all their knives, but I completely understand why they wouldn't, as nobody would be able to sharpen it.

At first - it is clear conflict of interest here never tell you that their product inferior. At second - check leaked CATRA results
of CPM S60v and CPM S30v performance and compare them to what was sad to us 2003-2004. CPMS30v clearly inferior to CPM S60v'
and if those test were published 2002 - nobody got CPM S30V seriously. But you may check old posts where it was cry that it has same
performance as CPM S60v and toughness of A2.

Manufacturers pushing this crappy steel because it is much easy to produce.

I don't think anyone ever said S30V had better edge retention than S60V, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

And I'd love to see someone pry with an S60V blade at the same hardness as S30V(typically 58-60).

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

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.

Just wanted you to save your posts Joe.

 

[Ankerson]

Personally I would love to see someone put out CATRA data for a majority of the steels in use today, I would welcome it.

It would blow Vassili's testing results right out of the water by a huge margin since it would prove how far off it all really is and a lot of it is WAY off..

Maybe then he would take a step back and listen....

 

[The Mastiff]

Maybe then he would take a step back and listen....

Nope. He would just claim it was a conspiracy to cover up the old conspiracy. It's easier for him than learning something and admitting he was wrong. Has anybody ever heard Vassili admit to being wrong without an excuse tacked on?

Just wanted you to save your posts Joe.

Thanks!

IT's true though. Vassili has determined that one small part of performance that falls under the umbrella of the whole wear resistance concept makes steel superior and inferior. He then uses an incorrect method of measuring that superiority while ignoring the other aspects of wear resistance. He then loudly berates everyone else who aren't making claims of superiority or inferiority as "self proclaimed experts" and procedes to attack their "expertise", which they aren't claiming to begin with.

It could be the plot of a "broken lizard" movie.

 

[Ankerson]

Nope. He would just claim it was a conspiracy to cover up the old conspiracy. It's easier for him than learning something and admitting he was wrong. Has anybody ever heard Vassili admit to being wrong without an excuse tacked on?



Thanks!

IT's true though. Vassili has determined that one small part of performance that falls under the umbrella of the whole wear resistance concept makes steel superior and inferior. He then uses an incorrect method of measuring that superiority while ignoring the other aspects of wear resistance. He then loudly berates everyone else who aren't making claims of superiority or inferiority as "self proclaimed experts" and procedes to attack their "expertise", which they aren't claiming to begin with.

It could be the plot of a "broken lizard" movie.

Still would be interesting to see though, would get the Popcorn Out on that one.

 

[nozh2002]

Well, you guys continue your show, I'll focus on testing.

 

[knarfeng]

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.

My own understanding is partly based on a thread that Buck Knives posted in their Forum here some years ago. When I found the thread, the charts were there to read.

The thread is here, though the data charts are no longer up:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/127499-CATRA-Edge-Testing-Results

In the late 90's Buck Knives embarked on a program to come up with a better blade shape. They made a series of blades with different edge angles and blade outlines. The result was what the called at the time "Edge 2000". It was a refinement of the hollowground shape they had used previously.

One of the tests they posted showed the CATRA results of a 420HC blade with the optimized shape vs. a BG42 blade with the old geometry. The optimized shape of the 420HC blade caused it to out-perform the BG42 blade for quite a significant number of passes.

The geometry of edge has a substantial impact on the initial sharpness as well as the longevity of the edge. Optimum edge geometry on good cutlery steel will outperform a common edge geometry on premium steel.

So this is how I know that the CATRA results are dependent on blade shape. But this is not peculiar to CATRA testing. We all know that edge geometry is more important than alloy, even in everyday cutting. I have a knife in 440C that, based on cutting effort, will outperform knives in much fancier alloys. Not a special heat treat, just better geometry.

 

[knarfeng]

Well farkel me before breakfast and bless old Cliff Stamp. Found the graphs that the Buck folks posted.

Cliff must have copied the graphs, then posted those same graphs his own thread. The appear to be in the same sequence.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sh...ity-and-edge-retention-as-effected-by-profile

 

[nozh2002]

Let me make it clear - this is not about "blade geometry" or "blade shape", but only about edge angle. Blade Geometry or Blade Shape are bit bigger terms - here we have test dependency on edge angle only, which is pretty obvious. This however does not compromise CATRA test results in any way.

Edge angle is what I only care for my testing and it is always 30 degree. To me it is pretty cleat that length of the blade as well as spine thickness etc does not matter when knife cut thin test paper or rope fiber.

 

[Noctis3880]

Let me make it clear - this is not about "blade geometry" or "blade shape", but only about edge angle. Blade Geometry or Blade Shape are bit bigger terms - here we have test dependency on edge angle only, which is pretty obvious. This however does not compromise CATRA test results in any way.

Edge angle is what I only care for my testing and it is always 30 degree. To me it is pretty cleat that length of the blade as well as spine thickness etc does not matter when knife cut thin test paper or rope fiber.

Then perhaps you should try an XM-18 in CTS-XHP against a Tojiro Flash 4" paring knife in VG-10:thumbup:.

 

[Ankerson]

Let me make it clear - this is not about "blade geometry" or "blade shape", but only about edge angle. Blade Geometry or Blade Shape are bit bigger terms - here we have test dependency on edge angle only, which is pretty obvious. This however does not compromise CATRA test results in any way.

Edge angle is what I only care for my testing and it is always 30 degree. To me it is pretty cleat that length of the blade as well as spine thickness etc does not matter when knife cut thin test paper or rope fiber.

And that is why your results are so far off...

 

[brownshoe]

Thanks for the additional information. As I thought, the CATRA does have a standardized media and method for comparison between testing sessions. The fact that edge geometry changes performance is basically Knife101. However, this means that the CATRA is not a steel testing machine, but a knife testing machine...which is more useful to a knife company.

 

[Ankerson]

Thanks for the additional information. As I thought, the CATRA does have a standardized media and method for comparison between testing sessions. The fact that edge geometry changes performance is basically Knife101. However, this means that the CATRA is not a steel testing machine, but a knife testing machine...which is more useful to a knife company.

That's what it was designed for, the knife / Steel industry.

It's the best we have right now testing wise I think.

 

[nozh2002]

Thanks for the additional information. As I thought, the CATRA does have a standardized media and method for comparison between testing sessions. The fact that edge geometry changes performance is basically Knife101. However, this means that the CATRA is not a steel testing machine, but a knife testing machine...which is more useful to a knife company.

I am not sure why all those "experts" pushing idea that it is not steel but knife. To me it is pretty obvious that one company or maker can make best out of steel like in case of M390 Spyderco do best and for D2 - Dozier, and other company just waste good steel - like BM with D2 and with M390.

This does not really mean that another knife from same maker or company will be different - it will show same results if it has same heat treatment and same edge angle and length of the blade does not really matter. It will be same results on CATRA and same on mine tests. Also tests shows that some companies always do better then other and some always at the bottom, like Spyderco and BM.

"Experts" agenda is clear - do not bother with details - ask us we will tell you where you should spend your money. It may work for most people, but not for me. I like to see numbers and make my own decision, not follow someone who turns out has no idea what he is talking about and came to mutual agreement discussing baseless theories with other experts like him. So I like to see numbers and if somebody hide those numbers and those data - this is red flag for me, so I need to check what is going on myself.

I should say that as I suspected we are being mislead in many cases and my testing found that certain steels are not as good as it was told. CPM S30V is best example and there are much - just look at results it is all in there.

http://playground.sun.com/~vasya/Manila-Rope-Results.html

I found that CPM S30V has average performance - that was at that time surprising and then later same results came from CATRA. So it is absolutely clear. It also proves that my testing in deed provide good idea on cutting performance.

 

[ssblood]

.....

 

[The Mastiff]

"Experts" agenda is clear - do not bother with details - ask us we will tell you where you should spend your money. It may work for most people, but not for me. I like to see numbers and make my own decision, not follow someone who turns out has no idea what he is talking about and came to mutual agreement discussing baseless theories with other experts like him. So I like to see numbers and if somebody hide those numbers and those data - this is red flag for me, so I need to check what is going on myself.

This is funny. You seem to be describing yourself to the letter. You even give out incorrect testing methodology so some can get the same incorrect results as you. In case you wonder why no one else seems to be using your methods is that with a glance it becomes obvious your test results aren't worth the electrons that carry them around the web.

In addition to that trying to pick the best steel based solely on (incorrect) testing of wear resistance only seems silly. Do you honestly believe everybody only values wear resistance over and above all else when choosing a steel or a knife?

Flawed testing will give incorrect results, obviously.