Ranking of Steels in Categories based on Edge Retention cutting 5/8" rope

[Ankerson]

The impact of edge-angle is directly related to material thickness = structural support vs displacement of the cutting medium. In terms of structural support, remember that thickness is cubically related to stiffness, i.e. resistance to deformation that can result in a roll/dent/chip. THAT takes priority. Increasing/reducing edge-angle has a fairly linear impact thickness.

What Ankerson does is control for edge-angle by using that which is most recommended for general utility. 15-dps or 30-inclusive to the apex is the lowest angle recommended for everything from sushi-knives to chainsaw and chipper-blades, it proves an ~2:1 ration of apex height to thickness. Going below this angle more often results in edge-failure, so much so that many knife makers recommend adding a micro-bevel at 20-dps except for very specialized tools. But you will notice that Jim has begun listing the "edge thickness" of various knives to show the power of thin geometry.

Yeah, have to keep things the same or what's the purpose of the testing?

15 DPS, 400 grit edge finish and 20 LBS of down force stopping point and using the same 5/8" Manila rope from the same rope suppler that's ordered online.

 

[jdm61]

Did anyone else see the Blade article about Joe Szilaksi's test of Aldo's 80CrV2/L2? He used 3/8 rope as opposed to 5/8, but he said that he quit cutting after 2000 cuts and the tip area of the edge that he had been using still sliced paper. Interesting considering that this is a fairly cheap low alloy tool steel and apparently heat treated suing fairly conventional bladesmtih methods..

 

[Ankerson]

Did anyone else see the Blade article about Joe Szilaksi's test of Aldo's 80CrV2/L2? He used 3/8 rope as opposed to 5/8, but he said that he quit cutting after 2000 cuts and the tip area of the edge that he had been using still sliced paper. Interesting considering that this is a fairly cheap low alloy tool steel and apparently heat treated suing fairly conventional bladesmtih methods..

I saw the article.

All I will say is take any similar steel and try and do the same thing on a draw cut for yourself and see what happens, I mean really try and do it honestly and see what happens.

That's 2000 cuts on 3/8" manila rope on a draw without sharpening it at all during the process.

I cut 5/8" rope and stop at 20 pounds of down force period, and you will find out why the hard way if you try it and why he had to use all that tape to make the knife handle so big.

 

[calc]

All I will say is take any similar steel and try and do the same thing on a draw cut for yourself and see what happens, I mean really try and do it honestly and see what happens.

This might be a dumb question, but then why wouldn't you just use push cuts if they yield better results for those steels? Is it just that they're harder on the hands?

 

[Ankerson]

This might be a dumb question, but then why wouldn't you just use push cuts if they yield better results for those steels? Is it just that they're harder on the hands?

It's not a dumb question.

The testing method is using draw cuts, to make a change would mean that all of the knives would have to tested over again or it wouldn't be relevant.

That's just not going to happen unless someone would cut me a check for about $40,000 and that might get me started on it, then more as I would need it.

Have to keep the method the same for all knives across the board or the data would be corrupted and useless.

 

[calc]

It's not a dumb question.

The testing method is using draw cuts, to make a change would mean that all of the knives would have to tested over again or it wouldn't be relevant.

That's just not going to happen unless someone would cut me a check for about $40,000 and that might get me started on it, then more as I would need it.

Have to keep the method the same for all knives across the board or the data would be corrupted and useless.

I gotcha. I don't mean to switch over to push cuts in your particular tests - I understand why you want consistency- but rather just in general use. It stands to reason that low alloy steels can benefit from push cutting rather than draw cutting, I just feel that it's sometimes overlooked - you can achieve rather impressive results by adjusting accordingly.

I'd be very curious to see a test in which the only objective is to make more cuts, regardless of edge angle, polish, and cutting technique. Throw a higher carbide steel against a lower carbide steel and just compare their peak performances when allowing them to play to their strengths.

If I can snag an ESEE 3 as well as their stainless version for a decent price, I might have to look into doing this. 440C might not be a top of the line stainless, but I think it'd be sufficient enough to demonstrate the concept.

 

[Ankerson]

I gotcha. I don't mean to switch over to push cuts in your particular tests - I understand why you want consistency- but rather just in general use. It stands to reason that low alloy steels can benefit from push cutting rather than draw cutting, I just feel that it's sometimes overlooked - you can achieve rather impressive results by adjusting accordingly.

I'd be very curious to see a test in which the only objective is to make more cuts, regardless of edge angle, polish, and cutting technique. Throw a higher carbide steel against a lower carbide steel and just compare their peak performances when allowing them to play to their strengths.

If I can snag an ESEE 3 as well as their stainless version for a decent price, I might have to look into doing this. 440C might not be a top of the line stainless, but I think it'd be sufficient enough to demonstrate the concept.

I have actually done the tests before, push cutting vs draw cuts using the same knives, there is a very, very large difference, well over 100% typically.

But it's not consistent at all as it's shearing instead of cutting.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

I gotcha. I don't mean to switch over to push cuts in your particular tests - I understand why you want consistency- but rather just in general use. It stands to reason that low alloy steels can benefit from push cutting rather than draw cutting, I just feel that it's sometimes overlooked - you can achieve rather impressive results by adjusting accordingly.

I'd be very curious to see a test in which the only objective is to make more cuts, regardless of edge angle, polish, and cutting technique. Throw a higher carbide steel against a lower carbide steel and just compare their peak performances when allowing them to play to their strengths.

If I can snag an ESEE 3 as well as their stainless version for a decent price, I might have to look into doing this. 440C might not be a top of the line stainless, but I think it'd be sufficient enough to demonstrate the concept.

Wouldn't every steel be "better" in push cutting and not just low grade steels?
Even if the blade gets dull with push cutting you can just muscle it through.
Comparing things would be much much harder unless you put a weight limit on the push and then high grade steels should still come out on top.
However I'm just thinking about the test itself. Of course there could be some physics on the steel level which make low grade steel better depending on the direction of the force, I just can't think of any?

 

[Ankerson]

Added Tim Johnson Custom in AEB-L at 60 RC and .006" behind the edge.

 

[calc]

Wouldn't every steel be "better" in push cutting and not just low grade steels?

That's what I'm particularly curious about, but I wouldn't say that low alloy necessarily means low grade. I've found that my low allow knives have had pretty decent edge stability, so that might come into play. I don't know, but I'd like to find out.

Comparing things would be much much harder unless you put a weight limit on the push and then high grade steels should still come out on top.

They might. I'll take Ankerson's word that they do, since he's done the test. I'd just be curious to see the actual results for myself so I could quantify things.

Of course there could be some physics on the steel level which make low grade steel better depending on the direction of the force, I just can't think of any?

I'm able to drop low alloy steels down to lower angles than high carbide steels - at one point I had a BK14 and a BK24 to compare to each other, the BK24 didn't fare to well when dropped down below ~30 degrees inclusive, whereas the BK14 typically did fine until somewhere between 25 and 20 degrees inclusive.

So it'd be a balancing act - high carbide steels have better edge retention on paper, but since low alloy steels can sometimes be dropped to lower angles and remain stable, and low angles will cut longer (as long as there's no material failure), it might make up some of the gap.

How much it'd actually do so is what I'd want to find out.

Hm. I'll have to think about this.

 

[calc]

Added Tim Johnson Custom in AEB-L at 60 RC and .006" behind the edge.

I've been very curious about this steel. I wouldn't have expected it to do well in your tests anyway, but have you gotten a chance to try it out for other tasks? I've always heard it makes a nice kitchen knife, but I'd be curious to see how it'd fare as a smaller bushcrafter or something along those lines.

 

[Ankerson]

I've been very curious about this steel. I wouldn't have expected it to do well in your tests anyway, but have you gotten a chance to try it out for other tasks? I've always heard it makes a nice kitchen knife, but I'd be curious to see how it'd fare as a smaller bushcrafter or something along those lines.

Blade geometry helped a lot, it's VERY thin behind the edge at .006" and at 60 RC.

Compare that apples to apples against the Custom Cru-Wear at .005" behind the edge and reality comes into play.

AEB-L at 340 vs Cru-Wear at 700.

Brings things back into perspective.

That said, not my blade, going back to the maker.

 

[timos-]

Cool thread! Id like to know how AEB-L at 62 Rc would do. Also wondering if some steels would outperform others at higher grit edges. Very cool info, thanks for putting this together Ankerson.

 

[waterstoneblades]

The AEB-L did pretty well in that geometry Jim! Do you have your hands on some V10 yet?

 

[deskil]

You left out the part about the Custom Cru-wear being at 63 RC. Not exactly apples to apples and it might explain at least part of the difference in the numbers of cuts between the two knives. Just saying...

 

[Ankerson]

Cool thread! Id like to know how AEB-L at 62 Rc would do. Also wondering if some steels would outperform others at higher grit edges. Very cool info, thanks for putting this together Ankerson.

Hi Tim,

Never even seen an AEB-L blade higher than 60 RC so i couldn't really say, I would say it should do a little better assuming the same geometry.

Coarser edges do better in this type of testing in general from looking at my own database, polished edges die very quickly in comparison.

Jim

 

[Ankerson]

You left out the part about the Custom Cru-wear being at 63 RC. Not exactly apples to apples and it might explain at least part of the difference in the numbers of cuts between the two knives. Just saying...

Won't make that much of a difference percentage wise in comparison as the edge was stable at 60 RC, that's in comparison to the AEB-L knife already tested.

At least not in this type of testing anyway and with a VERY low carbide content in AEB-L nothing more to really pull into the matrix, part of getting the blades into the higher RC ranges is to pull more alloy into developing wear resistant carbides, AEB-L just doesn't have the alloy content.

Wouldn't expect any miracles even at 63, the alloy content just isn't there, AEB-L seems to be pretty optimal in the 60 range, very little edge wear.

And this blade had optimal blade geometry at .006" behind the edge to boot so i wouldn't expect to see much of a real difference, would be some sure with the higher compression strength, but not that much, not with a low alloy steel as described here.

And that would be assuming that AEB-L would be stable in the 62-63 range with that thin geometry performing the same testing method.

 

[Ankerson]

The AEB-L did pretty well in that geometry Jim! Do you have your hands on some V10 yet?

Yes, shows what good geometry and HT can do, it did well. :thumbup:

Nope, nothing on the V10 yet.

 

[waterstoneblades]

I've been playing with some. Not one of of mine though. IMO it's a nice steel!

 

[Ankerson]

I've been playing with some. Not one of of mine though. IMO it's a nice steel!

Nothing wrong with it, good for kitchen knives and maybe typical EDC use, easy to sharpen, doesn't hold an edge like some of the other higher alloy steels though as would be expected so if edge retention was what the need was then there are other options.