Phylogeny of Spyderco Models

[SpeedHoles]

oh, don't get me wrong - I love the idea. I'm just pointing out that you can do it with time as an "evolutionary" factor or you could do it more the way that naturalists did it back in the 18th century, where it's purely based on observed physical traits rather than any knowledge of the developmental process, and both ways would be valid means of sorting since it's not really animal or plant species we're talking about.

I think the other cool thing that will happen here as opposed to a true evolutionary tree is that, unlike a forever-branching phylogenetic tree, here we could see some branches re-combine. for instance, the Mantra and Mantra 2 as "genetic" hybrids of the Sage 2, the Delica (and even the Southard in the instance of the Mantra 2). anyway, yeah, it's a cool idea, and would certainly be cool to build this with input from the Glessers on the history behind the design process for each knife, but it would certainly be a messy/convoluted chart (in a fun way) and would look quite unique from a typical phylogeny of species.

I agree!

Great idea for a thread and I'm anxious to see how I pans out.... but like I said; many ways to carry it out and opinions on how exactly to go about it.

Chronological.
Manufacturer.
Designer / Collaborator.
Blade Materials.
Handle Materials.
Blade shape.
Handle shape.
Intended use.
Lock.
Etc.
Etc.

What trumps what? Many overlap.

 

[50an6xy06r6n]

oh, don't get me wrong - I love the idea. I'm just pointing out that you can do it with time as an "evolutionary" factor or you could do it more the way that naturalists did it back in the 18th century, where it's purely based on observed physical traits rather than any knowledge of the developmental process, and both ways would be valid means of sorting since it's not really animal or plant species we're talking about.

I think the other cool thing that will happen here as opposed to a true evolutionary tree is that, unlike a forever-branching phylogenetic tree, here we could see some branches re-combine. for instance, the Mantra and Mantra 2 as "genetic" hybrids of the Sage 2, the Delica (and even the Southard in the instance of the Mantra 2). anyway, yeah, it's a cool idea, and would certainly be cool to build this with input from the Glessers on the history behind the design process for each knife, but it would certainly be a messy/convoluted chart (in a fun way) and would look quite unique from a typical phylogeny of species.

I'm not really a fan of the Linnaean model myself. I think the cladistics model is more useful here in that there is still something of a developmental process. When designing a new knife, I'm sure Spyderco looks at what made previous knives popular and uses that in the new design. That's what CQI is all about, right?

I think the best way to do this might be to make a "web" (i.e. a graph) instead of a tree, with the C01 Worker in the center and later models radiating out from there. You could have distance from the center signify age of design, and draw connections between different models based on various types of relationships between them.

I am pretty ANTI-choil and think that there are already too many knives with choils in the lineup, but that's my opinion. Yours is clearly that they are always needed because you state it there like it's an oversight or something to be incorporated after more thought.

There are some of us who think that taking away cutting edge (ESPECIALLY at the place you get the most leverage for the cut) makes a knife LESS "versatile."

I think of knives like those from the Far East or Finland and Scandinavia where people REALLY use them (as opposed to taking pics of them, posting them on the Internet with their EDC "loadout", etc.) and note you hardly ever see a "choil". I see choils costing a goodly chunk of primary cutting edge (on small knives it can be almost 20%; on some fixed blades I've seen these cutouts be over an inch) just so your finger can have an identity crisis.

Also note that from a legal standpoint the blade starts at the guard-not cutting edge-so for all these reasons why not have the maximum cutting edge?

Haha I didn't realize that would bother anybody! I do think however, that a choil can be added to the Delica/Endura without sacrificing any blade. If you compare the newest Police 3 to the older versions, you'll see that they've added a choil, while still only having ~0.35 inches of unsharpened blade. But I doubt that we'll see that happen. Was just wishful thinking on my part.

This ain't a choil or no choil thread. It's the Spyderco version of a Jerry Springer show, a la "Who's yo daddy?" No real need to start picking fights.

I'm a fan of this project. I'm almost wondering if it'd be better to start with the current lineup or those in recent production and work backwards. Trying to suss out the original progenitors of the entire Spyderco family tree may prove too overwhelming to actually go anywhere... At least with my ADD tendencies on a new project.

Maybe begin by taking the general correlations already stated in this thread and start grouping? I dunno. I'd like to see it happen one way or another!

Yeah, there are so many models to trace! That's why I started with the in-house midlock designs. Those are easier to trace, and there are a lot fewer of them. It is interesting to see how quickly we traced into long-discontinued models, though.

I agree!

Great idea for a thread and I'm anxious to see how I pans out.... but like I said; many ways to carry it out and opinions on how exactly to go about it.

Chronological.
Manufacturer.
Designer / Collaborator.
Blade Materials.
Handle Materials.
Blade shape.
Handle shape.
Intended use.
Lock.
Etc.
Etc.

What trumps what? Many overlap.

As mentioned above, I'm generally of the opinion that chronology is very important, as is the designer. The shape, lock, and intended use I think can be incorporated into the notion of design evolution, which allows us to trace certain aspects of design back to older models. At least looking at current production Spydies, blade and handle material seem to be relatively easy to switch around, which is why I would put them at the lowest priority. Feel free to come up with your own model though!

 

[Sal Glesser]

My mind keeps imagining some type of tree, but to be honest, it does boggle my little brain. I agree that there are many designes often based on others, or even combinations of others.

sal

 

[JD Spydo]

Great stuff! This is why I found "The Spyderco Story: The New Shape of Sharp" such a fascinating read. I hope Spyderco gives us an updated edition someday.

Hey I agree with you there 1000% "DocPyres" I've got the original hardcover, Palladin Press version of "The Spyderco Story" and if that book doesn't inspire you then I don't think much of anything would.

I get mine out quite a few times in a year just to check out the history of many of the older models and how some of these newer models got to the place where they are today. Yeah a sequel for the SPYDERCO STORY is long overdue in my humble opinion. It would sure bring about a rekindled interest in many of the older models.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Ken Delavigne is getting long in the tooth (He's older than I am ) and isn't interested. Perhaps one or a group of you could write a sequel?

sal

 

[50an6xy06r6n]

Man I really need to get a copy of that. As for rekindling interest in older models, that seems like it would just be downright cruel without a few sprint runs to accompany it *nudge nudge*

 

[sparky2016]

I am pretty ANTI-choil and think that there are already too many knives with choils in the lineup, but that's my opinion. Yours is clearly that they are always needed because you state it there like it's an oversight or something to be incorporated after more thought.

There are some of us who think that taking away cutting edge (ESPECIALLY at the place you get the most leverage for the cut) makes a knife LESS "versatile."

I think of knives like those from the Far East or Finland and Scandinavia where people REALLY use them (as opposed to taking pics of them, posting them on the Internet with their EDC "loadout", etc.) and note you hardly ever see a "choil". I see choils costing a goodly chunk of primary cutting edge (on small knives it can be almost 20%; on some fixed blades I've seen these cutouts be over an inch) just so your finger can have an identity crisis.

Also note that from a legal standpoint the blade starts at the guard-not cutting edge-so for all these reasons why not have the maximum cutting edge?

Your post essentially illustrates the answer to the question I had for a long time - why so many very similar knives in the Spyderco line? The fact that there are those who strongly prefer having a choil or not having one by itself means there essentially needs to be a choil or non-choil version of each. So twice as many knives. Then add handle, lock and blade material alternatives; a couple premium versions; and budget version in the byrd line ... and there starts to be lots of knives.

BTW David I don't think you crossed the line at all there. There's a big difference between having a strong opinion based on one's own needs and experience, and dismissing other's needs and experience (which there is way too much of on the internet).

Just my opinion - but on smaller knives I'd rather have a good grip, and a choice of grips, than more cutting edge - for the limited tasks I use most knives for. The knives you refer to are generally longer knives, where you can have both - plenty of grip, and plenty of cutting edge. And where people are willing to carry the weight because of the way they use it. So I don't think it's definitive. I'd venture to say that most people don't have that use scenario for the folding knives we spend most of our time talking about here.

I would say that the choil does seem to be more recent evolution, if not in terms of when it was invented, then the increasing popularity. Driven I assume by the preferences for smaller knives for most people's needs.

 

[The Deacon]

I am pretty ANTI-choil and think that there are already too many knives with choils in the lineup, but that's my opinion. Yours is clearly that they are always needed because you state it there like it's an oversight or something to be incorporated after more thought.

There are some of us who think that taking away cutting edge (ESPECIALLY at the place you get the most leverage for the cut) makes a knife LESS "versatile."

I think of knives like those from the Far East or Finland and Scandinavia where people REALLY use them (as opposed to taking pics of them, posting them on the Internet with their EDC "loadout", etc.) and note you hardly ever see a "choil". I see choils costing a goodly chunk of primary cutting edge (on small knives it can be almost 20%; on some fixed blades I've seen these cutouts be over an inch) just so your finger can have an identity crisis.

Also note that from a legal standpoint the blade starts at the guard-not cutting edge-so for all these reasons why not have the maximum cutting edge?

That logic may work for slip joints and some locks but it falls apart for midlocks where the desirability of having the blade's kick contact the lockbar behind its pivot when the knife is closed has to be taken into account. That, in turn, places the kick forward of the handle when the knife is open. The choice then becomes whether the exposed portion of the tang behind the kick is a useless waste of blade real estate, as on the Delica, or a functional addition to the knife that compensates for the inevitable loss of cutting edge, as on the Stretch.

 

[bearfacedkiller]

That logic may work for slip joints and some locks but it falls apart for midlocks where the desirability of having the blade's kick contact the lockbar behind its pivot when the knife is closed has to be taken into account. That, in turn, places the kick forward of the handle when the knife is open. The choice then becomes whether the exposed portion of the tang behind the kick is a useless waste of blade real estate, as on the Delica, or a functional addition to the knife that compensates for the inevitable loss of cutting edge, as on the Stretch.

I actually don't buy into the lost cutting edge argument as I have never needed that little extra edge in real life uses. The Delica is one of my favorite knives so obviously it doesn't bother me. However, I don't understand your point Deacon. Why can't the kick be right at the handle like on the Centofante3/4? It is a backlock with no wasted real estate. Am I missing something?

Edit: I guess the Centofante doesn't actually have a kick. Hmmm... I am gonna go play with mine.