Oct 2010 Knives Illustrated CATRA results for six Crucible steels

hardheart

hardheart

Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
8,968
These were hollow-ground 0.125" test blades heat treated by Bob Dozier to Rc 60-61. There's a five page article about sharpening and cardboard cutting after the CATRA test, but here are the objectively measured results. The test is cutting against stacks of 5% silica cards with a 50 newton force applied throughout a 40mm cutting stroke at 50mm/sec. Here is the CATRA page with a video example at the bottom http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468
 
Interesting. I'm a little surprised CPM D2 wasn't in there, being conducted by Bob Dozier and all. Also pretty impressed with the 3V (a steel I've like for quite some time).
 
I also find interesting the results for S30V vs S60V - with no real difference between S60V and S90V. So much for linearity in naming conventions. Or maybe there's a plateau?
 
S30V has 1.45% carbon and 4% vanadium, S60V has 2.15 & 5.5, and S90V has 2.3 & 9. Plus S60V also has an extra 3% chromium over the other two, so the carbide volume of S60V is going to be closer to S90V than S30V.
 
hardheart said:
These were hollow-ground 0.125" test blades heat treated by Bob Dozier to Rc 60-61. There's a five page article about sharpening and cardboard cutting after the CATRA test, but here are the objectively measured results. The test is cutting against stacks of 5% silica cards with a 50 newton force applied throughout a 40mm cutting stroke at 50mm/sec. Here is the CATRA page with a video example at the bottom http://www.catra.org/pages/products/kniveslevel1/slt.htm

Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468
Click to expand...

This is what I sad all the time - it was significant downgrade when CPM S60V was replaces with CPM S30V. Finally even CATRA test show this clear!

So what about all this cry we heart about miraculous CPM S30V and that was replaced just to make better for us - knife customers? I remember all this posts, article etc back then.

It is also clear now why knife manufacturer make CATRA test results so secret! It is twice less performance for same price as all CPM S60V knives before.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Last edited:
That's great stuff. One maker makes test blades all exactly the same shape and heat treats each to the same hardness.

Thanks for posting this. I'll definitely try to get a copy of the article.
 
nozh2002 said:
This is what I sad all the time - it was significant downgrade when CPM S60V was replaces with CPM S30V. Finally even CATRA test show this clear!

So what about all this cry we heart about miraculous CPM S30V and that was replaced just to make better for us - knife customers? I remember all this posts, article etc back then.

It is also clear now why knife manufacturer make CATRA test results so secret! It is twice less performance for same price as all CPM S60V knives before.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you fail to grasp two issues with the steel:
1) Ease of sharpening/machining.
2) Toughness.

It's been said that Spyderco cut down the hardness of S60V to Rc 55-56 because of the toughness issue. And nobody seems to like machining S60V, S90V, S110V, and S125V because of the wear on machining tools. As such, S90V is still a rare animal that I haven't been able to get ahold of.
 
Noctis3880 said:
Yes, but you fail to grasp two issues with the steel:
1) Ease of sharpening/machining.
2) Toughness.

It's been said that Spyderco cut down the hardness of S60V to Rc 55-56 because of the toughness issue. And nobody seems to like machining S60V, S90V, S110V, and S125V because of the wear on machining tools. As such, S90V is still a rare animal that I haven't been able to get ahold of.
Click to expand...

I do agree on ease of machining I think in times more ease - however it did not affected price and all models where CPM ss0V were used, never get cheaper.

Ease of sharpening - common! Do not talk about this here - everybody know that this is not a true. If you know how to sharpen - and this is not rocket science - all steel ease to sharpen.

Toughness - yes. Was there huge amount of broken CPM S60V - CPM 440V reported which make them replace it with CPM S30V?

I do not remember any case like this and CPM S30V did not done much better then CPM S60V.

You are right it was about machining which brings coast down, fact that CATRA test shows almost twice lost of performance nobody mention. And nobody ever lower price. I fact it was cry all around about CPM S30V miracle.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Not that I have a wealth of information about the subject or am challenging the results, but...

Doesn't CPM reccomend that S30V be ran at 58-60 HRC? Could it have effected its performance negatively by running it harder?

All that being said, I'm not impressed with the performance improvement over 154 given how much more S30V knives seem to cost.

Also, are there any CARTA results like this available on a wider array of steels? As a consumer I've never even seen 3V, S90V, S60V or V10 being offered in a knife, so I kind of wonder how S30V and 154 would have done against some of the more common non-Crucible steels and CPM-D2.

Still, that's pretty cool, I've been wanting to see some CARTA results ever since I saw it on "World's Sharpest". Maybe BF members should pool our money together to buy one and do our own testing. :P
 
S90V was the replacement for S60V. S30V wasn't.Time has shown that to be a sound decision. As noted the problem with S60V wasn't wear resistance, but hardening issues and edge stability and strength problems due in part to the low hardness of the S60V knives.

S30V has it's strengths and weaknesses like any other steel but it continues to be a popular, high performing steel that changes IMO when run at higher RC's into a much higher performing steel. Compare a RC 58.5 factory knife in S30V, to a custom knife in S30V run at RC 61.

The difference is very noticeable.
 
I know Spyderco has one and does extensive testing, Sal told me this personally.

I would love to see a chart of the results. :)
 
KennyB said:
Also, are there any CARTA results like this available on a wider array of steels? As a consumer I've never even seen 3V, S90V, S60V or V10 being offered in a knife, so I kind of wonder how S30V and 154 would have done against some of the more common non-Crucible steels and CPM-D2.
Click to expand...

No! This is biggest secret of knife industry and even if they give that to some chosen people, they must not disclose this!

Spyderco, Buck and Case have CATRA machines, but never publish results.

Consumers only see some foggy statements and promotional materials.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
No! This is biggest secret of knife industry and even if they give that to some chosen people, they must not disclose this!

Spyderco, Buck and Case have CATRA machines, but never publish results.

Consumers only see some foggy statements and promotional materials.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...


I think there must be reason they don't want us to know. ;)


A chart would be a great help to customers and an real education to all of us.
 
Last edited:
The performance of the 3V is imho outstanding as it doesn't really fit in the category of the other steels in this test (no carbide monster). I really need one or two knives with this steel.
 
Ankerson said:
The truth is that they don't want the ave customer to know for various reasons. ;)

They want the customers to buy whatever steel or steels they are using at that time, marketing etc.

A chart would be a great help to customers and an real education to all of us.
Click to expand...

1. Spyderco does have a CATRA and we do extensive testing on all steels. We also test steels for foundries, Like Crucible and Carpenter. We tell others that since we are not an "accredited testing agency", it would not be proper for us to be used as an information source.

2. Any results that are published can be challenged by anyone for any reason. eg: their particular steel did not represent as they wanted.

3. We generally test at the optimal using hardness. We believe that CPM-S60V is not effective at RC61. I dropped an RC62 CPM-S60V blade on concrete and it literally cracked in half.

4. We had different results than those posted. Now what? I think you can see why Spyderco, Buck, Case, Leatherrman, etc. do not publish their results. (I believe there are fewer than 30 CATRA machines in use. They are quite expensive)

5. We learned after 10 years of testing that CATRA results are not the end all and be all of testing. "Real world" testing will sometimes yield different results than the CATRA for unforseen reasons.

6. We've always shared our findings with our customers as to our results. We just don't quote numbers.

sal
 
Last edited:
Sal Glesser said:
That statement is somewhat insulting, Mr. Ankerrson.

1. Spyderco does have a CATRA and we do extensive testing on all steels. We also test steels for foundries, Like Crucible and Carpenter. We tell others that since we are not an "accredited testing agency", it would not be proper for us to be used as an information source.

2. Any results that are published can be challenged by anyone for any reason. eg: their particular steel did not represent as they wanted.

3. We generally test at the optimal using hardness. We believe that CPM-S60V is not effective at RC61. I dropped an RC62 CPM-S60V blade on concrete and it literally cracked in half.

4. We had different results than those posted. Now what? I think you can see why Spyderco, Buck, Case, Leatherrman, etc. do not publish their results. (I believe there are fewer than 30 CATRA machines in use. They are quite expensive)

5. We learned after 10 years of testing that CATRA results are not the end all and be all of testing. "Real world" testing will sometimes yield different results than the CATRA for unforseen reasons.

sal
Click to expand...

Sal,

I didn't mean it to be that way, sorry about that, I was talking in general terms and not directed at you personally. Maybe I could have worded it better also :)

I edited the post also. :)

However it would be nice to see some results published even if they might differ from one Company to the next. It would still give people some kind of baseline to go on knowing that none of them would be exactly the same.

In short people would get a general idea of how the different steels would rank in order give or take some variation.

I understand the results could be challenged, but a simple list would be nice to see even though it wouldn't be set in stone or the only final list. :)

I also understand your position as not being a certified testing agency and why you wouldn't what to post the results because of it.

They could be educational to most people as there are so many steels out there now that are being used today.


Jim
 
Last edited:
I do not remember any info 5 years ago about CPM S30V perform in edge retention almost twice less then CPM S60V and not too far from 154CM.

I consider this information important for consumer to know especially for the same price.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
I do not remember any info 5 years ago about CPM S30V perform in edge retention almost twice less then CPM S60V and not too far from 154CM.

I consider this information important for consumer to know especially for the same price.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

I think if they had BG-42 in there it would have been even more interesting along with CPM 154 and 20CV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top