New testing session.

nozh2002 said:
Let me make it clear - this is not about "blade geometry" or "blade shape", but only about edge angle.
Click to expand...
Crystal clear, For Vassilii, or in his test lab, all other properties magically disappear, leaving only edge angle :)

nozh2002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked you were cutting "a rope" which consists of multiple fibers, not a single one. Hence the edge thickness, blade grind, etc all play role, well, for the rest of the world that is, as I understand in your garage the reality differs...


nozh2002 said:
I am not sure why all those "experts" pushing idea that it is not steel but knife.
Click to expand...
Well, at least one self-proclaimed expert is pushing the idea that it's neither about the knife, nor geometry, not even steel, just his magic test result numbers, and because those are magic numbers, that expert himself has very hard time reproducing them.
 
Just finish testing of new Spyderco Manix-2 with CTS BD30P. So called "Carpenter version" of so called "Golden Standard" CPM S30V, which is on my opinion more like "Dirt Standard"...

Well, where Crucible failed miserably Carpenter did something which make sense. I am not sure, if really Carpenter was after CPM S30V as it is presented by Spyderco marketing paper, I doubt that Crucible is in position to lead Carpenter (or anybody) in high performing knife steel, and as well composition is quite different, but BD30P is way better then this so called "Golden Standard".

Here are results:

cuts BD30P (oz)
000 0.5
001 1.5
010 3.0
050 4.0
100 4.5
200 5.0

This puts it on 9th place right behind COS3 (Cobalt special), this is behind best American steel CTS XHP (so far 3rd place), but it is way ahead of "Gold Standard" S30V (24th place). Best Crucible - CPM M4 is on 14th place and it is non stainless, stainless CPM S90V is on 19th place.

So Carpenter did it's magic again and if Spyderco and knife industry are going to switch CPM S30V to CTS BD30P it would be huge step forward, however there is better American steel CTS XHP of course.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
Interesting how 2 steels that are pretty close in alloy content could be that far apart in the results, the biggest difference is 30P has .90% Cobalt.

Carpenter CTS-BD30P

CARBON 1.50
CHROMIUM 14.00
COBALT 0.90
MANGANESE 0.50
MOLYBDENUM 2.00
NICKEL 0.25
SILICON 0.40
TUNGSTEN 0.20
VANADIUM 4.00

Crucible CPM S30V

CARBON 1.45
CHROMIUM 14.00
MANGANESE 0.50
MOLYBDENUM 2.00
SILICON 0.50
VANADIUM 4.00
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the sprint is in the RC 60-61 range. It has a little "singing" to the blade when rubbing my finger over it just under the edge itself. Typically only higher RC, thinner bladed knives or forged do that.

I took it up in the 8,000 to 10, 000 grit range and it took a nice edge, no inclusions anywhere like the better steels Bohler, Hitachi, Latrobe(BG42) etc.

It's just as easy to sharpen as regular S30V as well, which isn't my favorite steel but I certainly don't consider it "dirt standard" or any such thing.

Joe
 
hardheart said:
not really, since the exact same knife placed that far apart when retested.
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration, but you should not do this, really. I did test same knife Sniper Blade LPC with 1095 differentially heat treated 3 times and results were same.

You talk a lot about doing your tests for last several years already and seems still have only option to refer to my results. Are you going to do something yourself or will continue to twist what I gave you in desperate attempt to make your point?

Idea that steel with similar composition will show same test results can come in mind to someone who only have experience with steel and knives reading Internet.

Very same steel heat treated by different manufacturers show different results - BM always do worse then Spyderco, this is well known fact aroung here not only exposed
by my tests. Latest example M390 - below average results for BM710 and top results for Spyderco Mule.

Now, having this in mind, "Looser Standard" - CPM S30V has way different composition then CTS BD30P:
CTS-BD30P:
C=1.50 Cr=14.00 Co=0.90 Mg=0.50 Mo=2.00 Ni=0.25 Si=0.40 W=0.20 V=4.00
CPM S30V:
C=1.45 Cr=14 Mo=2 V=4 Mg=0.5

Different Carbon content, Tungsten and Cobalt. Plus different steel maker - Carpenter and their metallurgist seems to know what they are doing, not Crucible who constantly fail to deliver anything reasonable from the time they stop doing CPM S60V - in particular for last 9 years already.

So to me all this talk about "similar" composition is just expose absolute disconnect with reality. This is very expected from "experts" who only have a lot of expertise talking to each other, kind of pumping each other with steel fantasies, living in some Virtual Steel World, which has nothing to do with real one.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Heh. Did you know that humans and chimps have only a 4% difference in DNA? :D
 
nozh2002 said:
I understand your frustration, but you should not do this, really. I did test same knife Sniper Blade LPC with 1095 differentially heat treated 3 times and results were same.

You talk a lot about doing your tests for last several years already and seems still have only option to refer to my results. Are you going to do something yourself or will continue to twist what I gave you in desperate attempt to make your point?

Idea that steel with similar composition will show same test results can come in mind to someone who only have experience with steel and knives reading Internet.

Very same steel heat treated by different manufacturers show different results - BM always do worse then Spyderco, this is well known fact aroung here not only exposed
by my tests. Latest example M390 - below average results for BM710 and top results for Spyderco Mule.

Now, having this in mind, "Looser Standard" - CPM S30V has way different composition then CTS BD30P:
CTS-BD30P:
C=1.50 Cr=14.00 Co=0.90 Mg=0.50 Mo=2.00 Ni=0.25 Si=0.40 W=0.20 V=4.00
CPM S30V:
C=1.45 Cr=14 Mo=2 V=4 Mg=0.5

Different Carbon content, Tungsten and Cobalt. Plus different steel maker - Carpenter and their metallurgist seems to know what they are doing, not Crucible who constantly fail to deliver anything reasonable from the time they stop doing CPM S60V - in particular for last 9 years already.

So to me all this talk about "similar" composition is just expose absolute disconnect with reality. This is very expected from "experts" who only have a lot of expertise talking to each other, kind of pumping each other with steel fantasies, living in some Virtual Steel World, which has nothing to do with real one.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...


There isn't enough Tungsten in there at .20 to make any difference other than grain refinement, nothing to do with edge retention or wear resistance.

The Cobalt can help some, but not that much.....

The .05 carbon difference could help in getting a higher HRC or easier to reach a higher hardness, but not by much, not enough to make a huge difference.

In other words it should be VERY close to S30V at the same hardness, will wait for the CATRA tests to see.
 
ssblood said:
Heh. Did you know that humans and chimps have only a 4% difference in DNA? :D
Click to expand...

Sure, but they do not really care - they have their prefect Fantasy World where they rule...

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
O I'm not siding with you. I don't think CTS-XHP holds a candle to some of the other steels.

I've dynoed engines before and something as simple as humidity can completely change the outcome.

Unless all the steels have the exact same angle, the exact same blade design, the exact same rope from the same batch, etc these tests are just a rough estimate.
 
On a side note. I think that is what everyone has been trying to convey to you.
 
Well this was cleared out many times, not once not twice - just check this very thread.

This is not about one test method better then other. This is real testing versus fantasy World, real work versus a lot of talking.

Whatever you are saying are good bets, they may look like true, but as well it very well may be not true at all. Until it is proven not by
lot of talks from lot of "experts", but by real testing - this remain just pure theory. To do testing - some work need to be done and this
is were major difference between me and my opponents is.

I have exact same angle on edge and sad this around hundred times already. There is no much difference in rope and I keep it inside
in closed box so outside humidity does not affects it. Etc... etc... etc... All was sad many times already.

And of course I perfectly agree with you that this is more or less estimates, however they are really well correlates with field results and
with CATRA results as well. I am talking about unexpected results like poor CPM S30V performance which was hidden from us and my test
showed this and then CATRA test results when they were leaked also show same. I have quite a bit of such correlations to make me confident
in my testing. If testing just support always what is expected - then most likely procedure is too sloppy and allows tested to stretch results into
direction he want (this is what I keep saying to Ankerson about his test shows). I experienced this myself about 8 years ago when just learn
different testing approaches and finally come up with pretty strict procedure for my testing, which works quite well from 2008.

Problem with this small numbers of usual opponents is that my tests expose that their fantasies have nothing to do with reality and they
continue to say same thing over and over again like a mantra just to spell out my results... Well, I payed attention to that first researched
it - like did same knife testing three times, found that this is not a problem, even initially it sounds like that and move on. They stuck with
that mantras and do not listen - why should I care?

I do not care if it appear that I was wrong in my conclusions - like when I tested M390 made by Spyderco and found out that results are very good
versus same steel on BM710 which was pretty average. I jump on M390 Mule tested it right away and published it here so everybody know that M390
is actually good stuff, unlike I sad before, based on BM710 M390 performance. I was wrong in my conclusion about M390, but as I sad there were no
any other tests, until Spyderco made M390 Mule.

I would love to be wrong about other cases as well, but again it is not one of this circle of "experts" tested something which show different results.
They perfectly comfortable to talk to each other pretends that they know what they talking about, but never do any real testing. And this is OK, but
to keep their Steel Fantasy World safe they pretty desperate to deny any real testing as an idea.

Now - even I believe that only edge angle affects results and always set it to 30 degree, I still have sets of same knives with different steel tested.
If you check my page I have of course several Mules, several BM710 and several Buck 110 there.

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

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
If there was a test that had all the same knives, not just the same angle. Say Spyderco Mules at 30 degrees. To the same level of polish and test in the same humidity, etc on a CATRA machine then, and only then could a test be relied on as fact.
 
nozh2002 said:
Well this was cleared out many times, not once not twice - just check this very thread.

This is not about one test method better then other. This is real testing versus fantasy World, real work versus a lot of talking.

Whatever you are saying are good bets, they may look like true, but as well it very well may be not true at all. Until it is proven not by
lot of talks from lot of "experts", but by real testing - this remain just pure theory. To do testing - some work need to be done and this
is were major difference between me and my opponents is.

I have exact same angle on edge and sad this around hundred times already. There is no much difference in rope and I keep it inside
in closed box so outside humidity does not affects it. Etc... etc... etc... All was sad many times already.

And of course I perfectly agree with you that this is more or less estimates, however they are really well correlates with field results and
with CATRA results as well. I am talking about unexpected results like poor CPM S30V performance which was hidden from us and my test
showed this and then CATRA test results when they were leaked also show same. I have quite a bit of such correlations to make me confident
in my testing. If testing just support always what is expected - then most likely procedure is too sloppy and allows tested to stretch results into
direction he want (this is what I keep saying to Ankerson about his test shows). I experienced this myself about 8 years ago when just learn
different testing approaches and finally come up with pretty strict procedure for my testing, which works quite well from 2008.

Problem with this small numbers of usual opponents is that my tests expose that their fantasies have nothing to do with reality and they
continue to say same thing over and over again like a mantra just to spell out my results... Well, I payed attention to that first researched
it - like did same knife testing three times, found that this is not a problem, even initially it sounds like that and move on. They stuck with
that mantras and do not listen - why should I care?

I do not care if it appear that I was wrong in my conclusions - like when I tested M390 made by Spyderco and found out that results are very good
versus same steel on BM710 which was pretty average. I jump on M390 Mule tested it right away and published it here so everybody know that M390
is actually good stuff, unlike I sad before, based on BM710 M390 performance. I was wrong in my conclusion about M390, but as I sad there were no
any other tests, until Spyderco made M390 Mule.

I would love to be wrong about other cases as well, but again it is not one of this circle of "experts" tested something which show different results.
They perfectly comfortable to talk to each other pretends that they know what they talking about, but never do any real testing. And this is OK, but
to keep their Steel Fantasy World safe they pretty desperate to deny any real testing as an idea.

Now - even I believe that only edge angle affects results and always set it to 30 degree, I still have sets of same knives with different steel tested.
If you check my page I have of course several Mules, several BM710 and several Buck 110.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

Your overall order of performance isn't even on the same planet with CATRA from the results I have seen over time, it's WAY off......
 
ssblood said:
If there was a test that had all the same knives, not just the same angle. Say Spyderco Mules at 30 degrees. To the same level of polish and test in the same humidity, etc on a CATRA machine then, and only then could a test be relied on as fact.
Click to expand...

If you read my previous post:

nozh2002 said:
Now - even I believe that only edge angle affects results and always set it to 30 degree, I still have sets of same knives with different steel tested.
If you check my page I have of course several Mules, several BM710 and several Buck 110 there.

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

I do have several Mules, BM710 and Buck110 - so you may check that.

But saying that you accept it only if a lot of things will be exact same - means you are trying to rool out any testing - same humidity, same temperature, same phase of Moon and blond tester girl... Good luck with that! I doubt you will ever have anything to rely on as a fact and so would be welcomed in Steel Fantasy World...

This is ridiculous - "I will believe in some fantasies and not real testing because this testing not enough real..."

Thanks, Vassili.
 
No. More accurate testing. As in removal of all variables except the steel.
 
ssblood said:
No. More accurate testing. As in removal of all variables except the steel.
Click to expand...

Well, my testing proven to be accurate many times - see this thread. Do you have other more accurate testing? Or you do not have any testing at all?

If you do not have any testing at all - what is your point?

Are you suggesting to reject testing which is only available because they are not ideal on your opinion?

Or may be you just do not like results and desperately trying to reject it any possible way.

If you do not like results, only you can do on my opinion - run your own testing and provide your own results proving that I am wrong.

Otherwise it would be same shaman dancing all those "experts" here performing, because they for years
were not able to do any real work, rather then a lot of angry typing...

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Vassili, when not one person here agrees with what you say, ever. I have to wonder why you're still here.
 
I agree with a lot of what he said.

I just read the whole thread and I saw quite a few others who appreciated his efforts.

This thread read like a lynch mob taking after an innocent man.

Disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top