New testing session.

Wilson/Goddard are pretty much why I said anything more precise than a pound isn't repeated, because they measure force on rope cutting in pounds. I don't think there is a machine that replicates CATRA, so even if we had results from different users, they're all just pushing buttons on the same machine. We could find variation from changes in blade design, but not see what any inherent faults with the machine are. There isn't a medium close to and consistent as the impregnated cardstock it uses, so it's tough to say a freehand cut on rope correlates to a machine precise cut on silica bearing cardstock, particularly if we don't know if the steel matches up between tests.

I don't think anyone has to perform tests to be able to comment, but I think there should at least be productive comments. Every now and then there's a comment to the effect "I disagree with your results, despite having generated none of my own and working off hearsay in a field I do not study professionally, so your tests suck." If actual problems, other than not having a favored steel come out on top, can be pointed out things would improve. These problems also need to be acknowledged and addressed.

I think to determine if different edge and primary grind angles affect edge life in rope cutting, then blades of the same steel & HT with different angles need to be tested in the same way against the same rope. I think that if freehand cutting side loads the edge, either you have to fix the blade in a jig, or accept that knives are hand tools and the effect of human imprecision must be accepted and accounted for and testing needs to be extended. Ideally, do both with the same blade and see what the difference in the results is. I think more work needs to be done to see what quantified difference edge finish has, and how different steels are affected by it. I think the condition of sharpening equipment needs to be monitored and held constant so your stones aren't glazing, getting rougher from lapping, or your diamonds aren't fracturing and changing your edge finish while you expect it to be the same. I think all tests should have micrographs of the edge, and the included angle should be checked with a goniometer as well. I think material cut should be consistent, I think the force measuring devices need to be calibrated, and I think types of cuts made should be well defined and accurately repeated.

I also think this is far too much to ask of any of us hobbyists, and even most professionals who make money selling knives, not testing them. Really, in the end, we as a whole barely test the limits of the designs and don't have to sharpen or cut enough to make it economically feasible for anyone without a grant and research facility to look at all this for an industry were 420J2 outsells most other steels by sinful margins.
 
I think major factor in possible difference in results may be rope - it may be more or less dry and this may affect results. I think I isolated pretty much everything else. However I believe this rope influence is not really too much critical.

I am running third test for Sniper Blade Worps Mini LPC and now have fresh new rope. It feels dryer then my old one and May be harder to cut - I am not really sure it is just feels like this. Change happened after 10th cut.

000 - 05 05 05
001 - 20 25 15
010 - 35 35 30
050 - 50 40 45
100 - 45 40 50
200 - 40 45 50
400 - 40 40

I may assume that bit higher marks are result of this change. Looking at numbers - again, this influence does not look much critical, but will see final 400 cut result.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
Just finish testing after 400 cuts:

000 - 05 05 05
001 - 20 25 15
010 - 35 35 30
050 - 50 40 45
100 - 45 40 50
200 - 40 45 50
400 - 40 40 50

So difference is not too big and it is not too far from natural variation. Before I also have some variation at 50 mark for first test and for 200 mark at second test. However last run shows consistent 5.0 oz from 100 up too 400 cuts.

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. Even with small influence it will be nice to keep media same for all testing - any idea what can be done to achieve cutting media stability?
 
Last edited:
Results seem consistent this time around. It seems to stabilize after 50 cuts. Thanks for the tests. I'm greatly surprised by how well the low-alloy carbon steels are doing in your test.

I'd like to see results for YXR7, Super Blue, and 1084. Also like to see higher hardness versions of some already tested steels (13C26@62, M2@64, S110V@64). Maybe I'll try to get you some such knives. Are you accepting blades for testing?
 
Last edited:
Just finished second knife testing - Scaut by Cheburkov. It is Russian steel X12MF, almost D2 by composition with little less V and Mo, but they may have some hi-tech Russian tricks done with it - like Electro Slug Remelting or Vacuum Ark Remelting...

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

I have dual feeling about this one - from one hand I like it to win because it is Russian, from other hand I do not want every new test be better and better then previous, as hardheart commented out.

So I am fine with results even it is behind Jody's 1095 (ABS 1095) a bit. Especially after 400 cuts. I will do another two runs of course.

It is interesting that I was able to cut 400 time in half day, may be I am getting strong... but blade geometry of that Russian knife is major contributor - it has concave grind from spine and quite thin edge (which stand dirt with roots and stones as good as Yuna and ZT302 - no chips etc). In result it is pleasure to cut with it and even LPC is sharper at the end of 400 cuts Scaut cuts trough 1/2" manila rope much easier, due to thiner edge and concave grind.

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. Actually this Russian steel take 5th place so far among 29 tested and surpass a bit CPM M4 on Spyderco Mule - at least it is same.
 
Last edited:
Vassili, can you test any knives made out of Rosta-Frei Steel? It is stainless and very tough, with high edge holding.
 
Vassili, using your method for testing sharpness, at how many grams of force do you find that shaving arm/leg hair becomes difficult?
 
Just finished testing Great Eastern Cutlery sunfish with 1095 blade.

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

While it did not make my wish came true - I was hoping their 1095 to perform same or close to what Jody Muller did with my previous knife also with 1095 steel (Sniper Blade Works LPC). No miracle. But however it take 15th place among 30 steel tested, which is pretty good result.

However it is another demonstration on how important is Heat Treatment and that steel itself 1095 in this case does not mean same performance.

Well, Jody is member of ABS and pay personal attention to blade he made for me. Of course this cost way more then you pay for production knife, but performance is quite different, so I feel like I got what I payed for.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
Good work. I appreciate your efforts and time you take. This is info you cant find anywhere else. :thumbup:

Cheers from the North
 
nozh2002 said:
Spyderco Manix2 Carpenter CTS-XHP results:

000 - 0.5
001 - 1.0
010 - 2.5
050 - 3.0
100 - 3.5
200 - 5.0

This put CTS-XHP on second place (after Dozier's D2) and makes it best production steel used for knives (among 32 steel I tested with manila rope tests).

Congratulation to Spyderco!

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

Interesting result. Are you ever going to retest the old knives using your current technique?
 
Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ridiculous? I can't even correlate the numbers anymore. Why did you go from 10, 20, 50... so on to 1.0, 2.0 5.0? Also, yes, your technique and hand strength should be improving over time. That's why athletes train - to get better at what they do. I would go back and use a control knife to see if the results come from different steels, blade geometry, cutting technique, and so on. An article in a recent knife magazine made the assumption that steels improved over time, but completely disregarded the possibility that cutting technique may have improved over time. You lost me. Sorry.
 
Spyderco Endura ZDP-189 show excellent result and got 3rd place after Dozier D2 and CTS-XHP. In terms of price performance this is best knife from what I tested so far

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Wow, just logged in to read up on my new knife and spent an hour reading this thread. Great info here! most of it is searched by google.com and lot's of hunting blog information on hunting knives.:thumbup: most information can be found here at JHO

So you asked for them so I thought I'd post my own hunting pictures gallery
I found theses on google.com
Links:
Hunting Women
Monster Bucks
Deer Hunting
Waterfowl Hunting
Turkey Hunting
Varmint Hunting
Small Game Hunting
Bear Hunting
Big Game Hunting
Elk Hunting
Upland Birds
Hog Hunting
Wing Shooting
Hunting Equipment
Reloading
Gunsmithing
Taxidermy
Hunting firearms
Rifle Scopes
Hunting Africa
Hunting Alaska
Hunting South America
Hunting Dogs
Bowhunting
Handgun Hunting
Traditional Archery
Muzzleloaders
Airgun Hunting
Hunting Rifles
Hunting Handguns
Rimfire Rifles
Shotguns
Varmint Rifles
 
Last edited:
Results for Spyderco Bushcraft O1 (made in Taiwan) ready. They are almost identical to CPM S90V and CPM 10V - right in between (in oz):

Cut S90 O1 10V
000 0.5 1.0 2.0
001 1.5 2.0 2.0
010 3.0 3.5 3.5
050 4.5 4.0 4.5
100 5.0 5.5 5.5
200 6.0 6.0 6.5

So I put it on 14th place between CPM S90V and CPM 10V but it is same performance.

I think this should be considered as a pretty good results.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I like you tests, and I think that eliminating the wooden board is an easy and effective way of clarifying some test data. But still looking at the numbers, they confuse me quite a bit. How can you rate one Steel over another, when there is a big difference in results within the same knife.

Take Yuna for example, after 200 cuts the difference between 1st run (80) and 2nd run (50) is 38%. Or ELMAX after 100 cuts doing on a 1st run (45) and on 2nd run (65). That's 31% difference. After how many cuts do you establish the winner?

There are also cases when blade is doing better after more cuts. That is weird. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole 500 post in those 3 threads you have links to, but I have read some opinions about some weird thing like carbides alignment and blade doing better after several sharpening... I think the problem is that you're doing the sharpness test in one spot on the blade. Why not to put 5 dots and do 4 cuts on each spot, instead of 21 cuts on one spot. The CATRA machine for example doesn't have such flaw, because it does the cut/test with couple of inches on the edge.

Then on top of different results from the same knife, there is a big variance within the same steel from different manufacturers. The good thing is that you're listing the exact knife in your rating. But still, how can you rate one steel better than the other when there is so much weird stuff is going on? Even rating one knife technically might be incorrect, because the same knife on a 3rd run might show different result (but that will improve statistics). Also, is there a guarantee that if I buy the same model as you have tested, it will behave exactly the same way as yours?

At least the numbers from CATRA machine come from the same manufacturer (if I understand this correctly)? They can easily test 10 knives with the same steel and come up with average number that they can compare to the average number of the other steel (I have no clue how they actually do it).
But also that data from manufacturer's CATRA will be valid only to that particular manufacturer and their heat treatment. As everybody knows (and very nicely shown by you) same steel can be heat treated by different manufacturer very differently. More than that, even if data shows that edge is more wear resistant, it doesn't mean that steel is "better", because there is no toughness in the equation. All that it would mean that Steel A @ X HRC is more wear resistant than Steel B @ Y HRC. Without toughness it is difficult to proclaim one "better overall", than another. Better for whom and for what purpose? ZDP @ 67 HRC holds edge very long, but isn't very durable (at least from one manufacturer). That actually might be why manufacturers don't want to disclose CATRA test results. They have to find a spot where wear resistance, toughness, ease of sharpening would appeal to the public. The CATRA data alone might not speak in their favor.
I wish Spyderco post CATRA numbers for their Mules. That would be pretty awesome.

I think your tests are generally good, but they are missing more statistics to be really accepted. I understand that you cannot test the same knife 10 times, or better yet 10 different knives of the same model, or 100 knives with the same steel from different 10 different manufacturers, but without it I just don't know how anybody can say that D2 (replace the name) is better than S30V (replace the name) or vice versa. In some way you might even say that very subjective opinion of 100 owners from some use and subjective comparison, might be a better indicator than a result of just one of your(or somebody else) tests. Another problem of course is that those 100 subjective users might not have the same reference point . I wish there be more people trying to do something like you, but I sure am way too lazy to do it and prefer to spend my time on something else :). Sorry :(. I appreciate your efforts though.
 
Last edited:
effer said:
I like you tests, and I think that eliminating the wooden board is an easy and effective way of clarifying some test data. But still looking at the numbers, they confuse me quite a bit. How can you rate one Steel over another, when there is a big difference in results within the same knife.

Take Yuna for example, after 200 cuts the difference between 1st run (80) and 2nd run (50) is 38%. Or ELMAX after 100 cuts doing on a 1st run (45) and on 2nd run (65). That's 31% difference. After how many cuts do you establish the winner?

There are also cases when blade is doing better after more cuts. That is weird. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole 500 post in those 3 threads you have links to, but I have read some opinions about some weird thing like carbides alignment and blade doing better after several sharpening... I think the problem is that you're doing the sharpness test in one spot on the blade. Why not to put 5 dots and do 4 cuts on each spot, instead of 21 cuts on one spot. The CATRA machine for example doesn't have such flaw, because it does the cut/test with couple of inches on the edge.

Then on top of different results from the same knife, there is a big variance within the same steel from different manufacturers. The good thing is that you're listing the exact knife in your rating. But still, how can you rate one steel better than the other when there is so much weird stuff is going on? Even rating one knife technically might be incorrect, because the same knife on a 3rd run might show different result (but that will improve statistics). Also, is there a guarantee that if I buy the same model as you have tested, it will behave exactly the same way as yours?

At least the numbers from CATRA machine come from the same manufacturer (if I understand this correctly)? They can easily test 10 knives with the same steel and come up with average number that they can compare to the average number of the other steel (I have no clue how they actually do it).
But also that data from manufacturer's CATRA will be valid only to that particular manufacturer and their heat treatment. As everybody knows (and very nicely shown by you) same steel can be heat treated by different manufacturer very differently. More than that, even if data shows that edge is more wear resistant, it doesn't mean that steel is "better", because there is no toughness in the equation. All that it would mean that Steel A @ X HRC is more wear resistant than Steel B @ Y HRC. Without toughness it is difficult to proclaim one "better overall", than another. Better for whom and for what purpose? ZDP @ 67 HRC holds edge very long, but isn't very durable (at least from one manufacturer). That actually might be why manufacturers don't want to disclose CATRA test results. They have to find a spot where wear resistance, toughness, ease of sharpening would appeal to the public. The CATRA data alone might not speak in their favor.
I wish Spyderco post CATRA numbers for their Mules. That would be pretty awesome.

I think your tests are generally good, but they are missing more statistics to be really accepted. I understand that you cannot test the same knife 10 times, or better yet 10 different knives of the same model, or 100 knives with the same steel from different 10 different manufacturers, but without it I just don't know how anybody can say that D2 (replace the name) is better than S30V (replace the name) or vice versa. In some way you might even say that very subjective opinion of 100 owners from some use and subjective comparison, might be a better indicator than a result of just one of your(or somebody else) tests. Another problem of course is that those 100 subjective users might not have the same reference point . I wish there be more people trying to do something like you, but I sure am way too lazy to do it and prefer to spend my time on something else :). Sorry :(. I appreciate your efforts though.
Click to expand...

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