paying for simplicity?

[hardheart]

This one has stumped me for years. In listing the pros versus price of some of the pricier production/mid-tech knives (and this goes for several brands), simplicity/few parts comes up a lot. I don't get that. The use of fewer parts, which requires less machining, on fewer types of materials, held together with fewer fasteners, which means fewer holes/threads, less fitting, and less hand assembly... shouldn't that be a reason to make the knives cheaper?

If the mechanisms or designs for simplicity were covered under patent, then I could at least see the exclusivity adding to the price, but that isn't the case either. Framelocks are generally the most lauded for their simplicity, and you can't swing a dead cat in a knife shop without impaling it on 30 different brands of frame locks. How's that for an image.

Note, I am not talking about tolerances. Increased tolerances necessarily increase the labor, manufacturing tool quality, and subsequently the final price. But at any level of F&F, does anyone think that reducing the number of parts equates to an increased dollar value? I might be missing something there.

I get the idea that since someone likes the idea of fewer parts more, they might be willing to pay more just on that subjective preference. But I also can't get around the idea that if you use fewer parts to build to the same level of quality, there isn't a reason to price it higher to begin with. Just seems like a win-win for the manufacturer. They make more knives in less time with fewer materials, tools, and people, while also making more money relative to more complicated designs which also manage to be produced in higher numbers.

Like, I generally expect to pay more for a folder than a fixed blade (outside of sheath price) of comparable size, materials, and production volume. I don't really expect to pay more for a simpler folder over a more complicated one where they have parity in those other measures.

 

[HwangJino]

Good point!

I guess I would pay higher price if it more simple but the materials were not so common?

I have not taken apart my new sebenza small, but I can already tell it's less parts than crkt m-16...

 

[bpeezer]

Fewer parts doesn't necessarily equate to ease in manufacturing, and simplicity sometimes requires better tolerances to work properly. However, I do agree with you that it gets somewhat ridiculous after a certain point. After all, if you really really wanted the simplest knife possible, you should just buy a fixed blade.

 

[justsomedude]

I think you are kind of invalidating the point by saying you are not talking about tolerances because paying more for a "simpler" product inherently means paying more for tighter tolerances.

Fewer parts means fewer parts to machine, but not less machining. In fact the fewer parts there are the better each part needs to be to provide the same level of robustness that could be achieved by many parts.

Look at the CRK Umnumzaan, it has a single standoff and the pivot holding the whole knife together, and it's solid as a rock. This is because the pivot and the standoff or manufactured with extremely tight tolerances. They might be working on a smaller number of parts, but they have to do a lot more work to make those parts good enough to hold up on their own.

Now, if you want to discuss the hypothetical comparison of two knives with equal levels of tolerance, one having more parts and the other having fewer: aesthetics and ease of maintenance would be the reasons I can think of that one might choose a knife with fewer parts. However I can make no argument as to why the knife with fewer parts should cost more in this scenario.

But like I said, in the real world when one pays more for a knife with fewer parts, they are paying more for the tighter tolerances.

 

[hardheart]

I think you are kind of invalidating the point by saying you are not talking about tolerances because paying more for a "simpler" product inherently means paying more for tighter tolerances.

Nah, the Mercator, Douk Douk, SRM 710, or HK Ally don't need/have greater tolerances. I think this is the disconnect, that people automatically think fewer parts means better made. Fewer parts just means fewer parts. CRK charges more for Sebenza with inlays than without, so I think more parts and more fitting increases the cost at every price level.

 

[Ken44]

I guess I don't see what see you're talking about.
Do you have examples ?


From what I can tell price goes up with materials, and tolerance levels. I don't really notice simplicity being a factor for higher cost in the knife world.
A simple knife from a maker will cost less given they use the same materials. Thats why you see a makers fixed blades costing less than their folders.

 

[hardheart]

It is in replies when questions about high end folders and value come up. Simplicity is given as a direct response to a question of why people spend more for the knives. If simplicity was a direct equal to F&F, then sure, I could go with it. But I think there is a false equivalence going on, where the use of high end materials and tight tolerances is automatically associated with simple design. A Lochsa is a simple one piece handle, but so is the HK Ally I mentioned.

 

[justsomedude]

Your initial argument - as I understand it - is that charging more solely for the fact that fewer parts were used does not make sense. I agree with this idea, but I think that usually when one sees a knife (or any item) with a high price tag and a low part-count, the high price tag comes from the high tolerances, and the high tolerances allow for the use of fewer parts.
Maybe I just don't have enough experience, but I've never seen a knife where a high price tag is directly correlated with the low part count. I feel that a low part-count is usually an aesthetic/ease-of-maintenance decision that is allowed by having the tolerances to reduce the part count.
Obviously one can make a knife with fewer parts without having high tolerances, but then you lose robustness and other desirable qualities such as the ability to disassemble for maintenance.

I'm really enjoying this dialectic!

 

[justsomedude]

It is in replies when questions about high end folders and value come up. Simplicity is given as a direct response to a question of why people spend more for the knives. If simplicity was a direct equal to F&F, then sure, I could go with it. But I think there is a false equivalence going on, where the use of high end materials and tight tolerances is automatically associated with simple design. A Lochsa is a simple one piece handle, but so is the HK Ally I mentioned.

I think we are really on the same page. In any specific case if a "simplicity" factor is not directly associated with an "F&F" factor, then there is no reason to PAY more for it, there are reasons to desire the simplicity but not to pay more for it.

In the Lochsa case, I think (but do not claim to know) that milling the handle as a single piece is a more expensive process than making two pieces and screwing them together.

 

[tiguy7]

The Cook Lochsa has fewer parts but costs more to make because of the one piece frame. The integral straight knives of Ted Dowell cost more for the same reason. The handle tang, blade, bolster, and butt cap were all one piece.
Modern frame locks are more expensive than liner locks if the lock side handle has to be made out Titanium. The liner lock knife can utilize Aluminum or plastic materials combined with a stamped leaf spring.
Some of the less expensive knives are loaded with stamped parts which lowers the price while increasing the number of parts. Some of the newer adjustable wrenches are made out of stacked plates rather than a one piece forging. I would guess that this is a cost saving construction.

 

[The_Iron_Joe]

A lot of times, you'll pay a premium for the brand-name as well.

 

[A. G. Russell]

I cannot think of a knife designer using more parts than he thinks necessary to make the best knife.

In 1992 I designed a knife with a one piece handle, very successful. As I learn more about the cost of making a knife I would now design that knife with 2 handle pieces plus the necessary 2 extra screw sets to hold the 2 parts together. That would save me, perhaps $0.50 per knife, maybe 3 times that resulting in a lower price and thus greater sales.

Buying knives I find that fixed blade knives generally cost 50% to 100% more than folders. Of course I do not make such an effort to be simple with fixed blades. I like guards and butts.

 

[hardheart]

You guys are spot on in saying things about extra machining or large pieces of Ti affecting costs. But then there is the fact that production Ti framelocks cost less than mid-techs, yet the simplicity of design is still mentioned as a reason to pay more when the mid-techs are mentioned. It is just my belief that people continue to say simplicity when they just mean quality and tolerances. One piece of folded steel is cheaper than one piece of milled Ti, but they are both dead simple for handles.

 

[matt1987]

“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Some people may appreciate the minimalist design but I don't recall anyone saying it's the sole reason to pay more. Tolerances are another story. It's relatively cheap and easy to get a knife to 95%(common production knives) but it's way more expensive to get that knife from 95% to 99% like a CRK for example. It's the same in the audiophile world and I'm sure in many other interests.

 

[MRaymond]

“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Some people may appreciate the minimalist design but I don't recall anyone saying it's the sole reason to pay more. Tolerances are another story. It's relatively cheap and easy to get a knife to 95%(common production knives) but it's way more expensive to get that knife from 95% to 99% like a CRK for example. It's the same in the audiophile world and I'm sure in many other interests.

I think this is a good point. I don't think people are saying that simplicity is the only reason for paying more. Simplicity or "minimalism" is a positive to many but not the driver for higher costs.

 

[hardheart]

No, I wouldn't say it is ever the only reason, I just don't see how it counts as any reason when explaining the reason for paying a premium. Simplicity itself doesn't seem to actually count, it is the precision of build and the materials used. If CRK made something in the style of the axis lock, with two springs, a lockbar, milled liners, and scales covering them, I am quite certain it would not be cheaper than the Sebenza dues to it's increased complexity compared to the frame lock - which is something potentially suggested by implying that simplicity is a reason to pay more, so complexity would decrease demand and only garner a lower price on the market.

 

[matt1987]

No, I wouldn't say it is ever the only reason, I just don't see how it counts as any reason when explaining the reason for paying a premium. Simplicity itself doesn't seem to actually count, it is the precision of build and the materials used. If CRK made something in the style of the axis lock, with two springs, a lockbar, milled liners, and scales covering them, I am quite certain it would not be cheaper than the Sebenza dues to it's increased complexity compared to the frame lock - which is something potentially suggested by implying that simplicity is a reason to pay more, so complexity would decrease demand and only garner a lower price on the market.

True. The only thing I can think of that might account for it would be the engineering to make a solid knife with less parts. I think people get the idea of less parts = higher reliability. Like the example of the axis lock, you have the omega springs that could wear out or snap. While a simple frame lock could possibly go on much longer, a fixed blade even longer etc.

 

[T. Erdelyi]

Ya really can't separate the two, simplicity is the result of the tighter tolerance but a big portion of the costs comes from quality control it takes money and experience to be able to maintain the high standards.

Equipment wears out, some body needs to spot that before it affects the next 100 pieces, anybody can set up a machine show someone how to feed in the raw materials and let it run till it won't work no more.

It don't get more simple than that, pick up a Mercator, hold the lock open with the blade open and shake, try that with a Sebenza.

Simplicity in and of itself can't be the only yardstick here, 'cause of that were the case, we'd all be happy using a sharpened piece of rock, ya can't just take everything else outta the equation, somebody had to set everything up and make all the mistakes before the end product tools out the door it could take years to recoup those costs.

In the mean time if they were able to ship the product even though it's was a simple design without the QC needed to insure those tolerances, how happy would everyone be?

As a fabricator/millwright and maintenance mechanic I know the amount of knowledge, experience and money needed to make production a quotas while maintaining a quality product and I can assure you even the simplest design costs more money to maintain the quality/tolerances of that design.

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, I apologize than 'cause I don't understand what your trying to say.

 

[daizee]

It sounds to me as if someone is trying to justify a higher price with an argument that just doesn't wash.
Of course if 'fewer parts' means more milling to produce an integral folder frame rather than assembling from multiple flat pieces, that's another story. But in the given context it sounds like an excuse to me.

 

[hardheart]

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, I apologize than 'cause I don't understand what your trying to say.

Oh no, it makes sense. It just seems strange to have a question asked on a knife forum "Why is XYZ frame lock worth $400-600?" and a few people post "I appreciate the simple design with few moving parts" and then maybe on a watch forum someone could ask "Why is XYZ automatic watch worth $4000-6000?" and a few people post "I appreciate the extremely complex and intricate assembly of hundreds of parts in the complications."