Ranking the Steel Ranking Articles

Don W said:
Larrin Larrin Love the read. Those articles kill me. I hope some of the authors get to read your review. :)
Click to expand...
Matt Davidson of Knife Informer and Dan Jackson of Blade Reviews have commented on the article on the website. They have given positive responses to my constructive criticism. THE Pocket Knife Guy has not yet responded and I would assume he won't.
 
Great read Larrin!
I look forward to your "Ultimate end all be all knife steel ranking chart by numbers" article in the future!:p:thumbsup:
 
danbot said:
Great read Larrin!
I look forward to your "Ultimate end all be all knife steel ranking chart by numbers" article in the future!:p:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I was thinking "Ultimate, Comprehensive, All-Knowing, Never-Ending Steel Ranking Chart Table Rating for Knives"
 
I find it useful to think of knife reviews, or more specifically, knife steel reviews in the same way that we that we think of car reviews. Namely, there is a real limit to what we can know about a car or knife steel "objectively". Objective measures such as 1/4 mile times or skid pad tests are reproducible, but they don't really shed light on how a car handles or how well the vehicle fills its intended use. In the same way, many of the so-called "objective" metrics of knife steels are only vaguely related to how a steel performs in real use. A big part of this is that performance is also closely tied to user technique and specialized differences in intended uses. The 1/4 mile time is less important if you're looking to buy a pick up truck, for instance.

It seems obvious, but we get a good idea on who builds the best sports car by looking at who wins podium spots. In a similar way, if you want to know the best steel for, say, wood working or meat processing, look the blades that get chosen most commonly by pros in those lines of work. There's a reason why fine grained steels are commonly used for custom wood working knives and why Boye's Dendric Cobalt blades crush in rope cutting contests and these are things that aren't going to be fully explained by "objective" metrics.

Knife steel performance is about a whole more than just the steel. Objective metrics miss this.
 
pinnah said:
I find it useful to think of knife reviews, or more specifically, knife steel reviews in the same way that we that we think of car reviews. Namely, there is a real limit to what we can know about a car or knife steel "objectively". Objective measures such as 1/4 mile times or skid pad tests are reproducible, but they don't really shed light on how a car handles or how well the vehicle fills its intended use. In the same way, many of the so-called "objective" metrics of knife steels are only vaguely related to how a steel performs in real use. A big part of this is that performance is also closely tied to user technique and specialized differences in intended uses. The 1/4 mile time is less important if you're looking to buy a pick up truck, for instance.

It seems obvious, but we get a good idea on who builds the best sports car by looking at who wins podium spots. In a similar way, if you want to know the best steel for, say, wood working or meat processing, look the blades that get chosen most commonly by pros in those lines of work. There's a reason why fine grained steels are commonly used for custom wood working knives and why Boye's Dendric Cobalt blades crush in rope cutting contests and these are things that aren't going to be fully explained by "objective" metrics.

Knife steel performance is about a whole more than just the steel. Objective metrics miss this.
Click to expand...
Steel/material properties are different than knife properties. In many cases they correlate such as wear resistance with rope cutting. But even in that case the edge geometry can't be divorced from the steel. I wrote about that in the 154CM CATRA article: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/06/18/maximizing-edge-retention/

But that's just one measured property of slicing edge retention. There is no complete list of properties to measure to give a total view of knife performance. I'm slowly working on it.
 
Larrin said:
Steel/material properties are different than knife properties. In many cases they correlate such as wear resistance with rope cutting. But even in that case the edge geometry can't be divorced from the steel. I wrote about that in the 154CM CATRA article: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/06/18/maximizing-edge-retention/

But that's just one measured property of slicing edge retention. There is no complete list of properties to measure to give a total view of knife performance. I'm slowly working on it.
Click to expand...

The correlation between "wear resistance" and rope cutting isn't at all clear. Wear resistance isn't really a technical, metallurgical concept per se and often, we can only define the technical property by using a test. Rockwell testing and hardness are often conflated, just as performance in rope cutting tests is often conflated with wear resistance. That this is problematic is exemplified by Boye's Dendric Cobalt, which is often at or near the top in any rope cutting contest it is put in. But it's not what people think of in terms of wear resistance from otherwise "normal" steels.

One of the cardinal sins of bad systems engineering is to forget that the user is a part of the system. Technique and use case is a part of the performance criteria and they can't easily be reduced to objective properties. I'm warning against trying to nail down all the properties. I think you'll find that very few are really objective and that any collection of objective criteria will be incomplete in describing knife blade performance. Note... it's not sensible to talk about steel performance. You can't test the steel of a knife blade until it is first a knife blade and at that point, all sorts of design decisions have been made.

I'm not saying that objective measures are worthless. Just that they make a very tiny part of the story.
 
Ranking the ranking ...............I like it !
It is impossible to rank steel according to their properties .Nobody makes railroad tracks from HSS steel , nobody makes ball bearing from 1040 steel , nobody make spring for auto suspension from CPM 15V steel ,nobody make hammer from CPM 125V or circular saw for wood ............BUT all ball bearing manufacturers on this planet use 52100 steel , there must be some reason for that ? Each steel which exists on this world shines in its intended use . Otherwise it would be stupid because we make that steel . Even the abrasion resistance is not comparable .... CPM 125V have excellent abrasion resistance ........then WHY nobody make machete from CPM 125V steel ? Get the knife that best suits your needs ......... that best suits your needs , since the ideal knife/steel ONE for all does not exist ...Anyway ...... I like to read discussion like this ........ this one hold edge forever but it is pain to sharpen :D
 
Last edited:
pinnah said:
The correlation between "wear resistance" and rope cutting isn't at all clear.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. Hopefully one of my future articles will make it more clear to you.
Wear resistance isn't really a technical, metallurgical concept per se and often, we can only define the technical property by using a test.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I know what you mean.
Rockwell testing and hardness are often conflated,
Click to expand...
That’s because Rockwell is a test of hardness.
just as performance in rope cutting tests is often conflated with wear resistance. That this is problematic is exemplified by Boye's Dendric Cobalt, which is often at or near the top in any rope cutting contest it is put in. But it's not what people think of in terms of wear resistance from otherwise "normal" steels.
Click to expand...
The “dendritic cobalt” is high in wear resistance.
One of the cardinal sins of bad systems engineering is to forget that the user is a part of the system. Technique and use case is a part of the performance criteria and they can't easily be reduced to objective properties. I'm warning against trying to nail down all the properties. I think you'll find that very few are really objective and that any collection of objective criteria will be incomplete in describing knife blade performance.
Click to expand...
None of that means we can’t quantify performance. Ignorance of individual types of tests does not somehow lead to a better understaning of “total performance.”
Note... it's not sensible to talk about steel performance.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why not. I do it for a living.
You can't test the steel of a knife blade until it is first a knife blade and at that point, all sorts of design decisions have been made.
I'm not saying that objective measures are worthless. Just that they make a very tiny part of the story.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that the “complete story” can’t be told.
 
Darkera said:
I agree that many people run with unsubstantiated claims or "facts" and these eventually become part of the collective knowledge base. For example, the "double carbide bonds" bit is featured in Wikipedia (unsourced) and consequently found verbatim on 100+ websites. It's good to let people know where misinformation lies so why not provide an alternative (i.e. facts)? Interesting article but my first question was, "well, why don't you do something better?". Then I saw your 6 points on why you haven't done a better comparison, which was a good response to the invariable question that came to my mind, but not too convincing. It is easy to critique the work of others and this might serve as a prodromus to your future work, but without providing a better alternative and being a bit snarky it seems a bit empty. For example, Elmax is produced by Bohler-Uddenholm, an Austrian company, albeit the steel is produced in Sweden.

It is good that you held some of these lists and their makers to task but I'm sure (or hope) that the average reader knows they aren't reading a peer-reviewed publication written by an authority when they see such lists on hobby websites. Lets face it, knife reviews even by the good guys are basically about aesthetics, finish, and possibly the ability to cut paper, cardboard, and rope. Maybe I'm one of the few, but I don't really take much of this kind of stuff to heart, but I do find it entertaining and it does open my eyes a little.

Knives are ultimately a hobby for most people and while they want the facts, most people aren't willing to sift through peer-reviewed publications or white papers. Hence, an ordinal ranking is more desirable and digestible for the average person. I agree it is not ideal but you have to know who the audience and users are. If you inundate hobbyists with minutiae most will likely turn away; it doesn't mean they are uneducated or unwilling, but they'd probably just rather spend that time sharpening their knives than reading metallurgical theory.
Click to expand...

While I like and respect anyone who geeks out on a specific subject I fall into the group that just doesn't much care. If an article or post about blade steels gets over a paragraph or so my eyes just glaze over and I skip past it.
 
Last edited:
I seriously appreciate the individuals putting forth the tremendous amount of effort required to compile these lists/graphs. I appreciate you, OP, for posting this. I for one utilize this information readily and routinely.
 
GermanyChris said:
While I like and respect anyone who geeks out on a specific subject I fall into the group that just doesn't much care. If an article or post about blade steels gets over a paragraph or so my eyes just glaze over and I skip past it.
Click to expand...

Knives, Knife Shapes, Knife Handles, Knife Sharpening, Knife Metallurgy, Knife Ranking.... I want to hear all about it. The good, bad, and the ugly.

I'm pretty well educated but I admit, I'm no engineer or scientist, so when the reading gets impossibly difficult I just do the best that I can. I also bookmark and return to reread the very best information available.

Keep at it Larrin!
 
M390 FTW!!! ......or 20cv or 204p.....for a all around general purpose folder that is, but for some reason people go crazy for M390
 
One of the things that always irritates me is when people describe alloying elements as doing one thing. It makes it sound like you can just add more of it and have it increase whatever that stated effect is. People need to realize that all of the elements interact with one another as a system and that the degree to which a given element is present or absent from a mix can have a drastic effect on the overall performance characteristics and just what role(s) that element is playing within that system.
 
Great article Larrin!! That is hopeful that you have had positive responses out of at least 2 of the writers
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
One of the things that always irritates me is when people describe alloying elements as doing one thing. It makes it sound like you can just add more of it and have it increase whatever that stated effect is. People need to realize that all of the elements interact with one another as a system and that the degree to which a given element is present or absent from a mix can have a drastic effect on the overall performance characteristics and just what role(s) that element is playing within that system.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you just add 20% Cr for corrosion resistance, 20% nickel for toughness, 20% Molybdenum for toughness and hot hardness, 20% vanadium for grain refinement and hardness, 20% cobalt for hardness, and 20% carbon for hardness and "edge retention."

 
Last edited:
I think all the charts and graphs should be logarithmic or else they mislead the viewer as to the actual degree of differences (the ratios) being graphed. Maybe this is too geeky for most knife folks but one of the easiest ways to distort the measurement differences in chart or graph form is to not use a logarithmic chart or graph. It is an easy con used by many in sales advertising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top