Stainless Steel Chart Comparison EDC Knife Blades v5.5

[knarfeng]

My best recommendation for anyone new to cutlery is to go with a mainline manufacturer and let them choose a steel which is appropriate for the knife. No chart will ever replace the man-years of experience that an established manufacturer brings to the table.

 

[ono724]

My bet is it'll go over your head if he did; just like his statement you chose to ignore.

knarfeng is not just any engineer. He contributed to the development of the SR-71 Blackbird(the plane pictured in his avatar). He does know a thing or two about metals.

No, a single chart will not cover every characteristic of one kind of steel, much less multiple steels. I figured that was obvious. But if you only select a few characteristics that are of interest, you can create a chart that's usable.

If you had paid attention to my post, while slightly facetious, I did allude to his expertise. And you might be right, it might go over my head, but I doubt it.

 

[KennethW]

very cool though i think your lacking a lot of common place steels that are used in the industry these days

Just added a few more steels, more to come in future.

 

[Gator97]

I think in chart explanation section you should clarify where do those numbers come from. If they are assigned purely based on your opinion or have other reference data.

 

[KennethW]

I think in chart explanation section you should clarify where do those numbers come from. If they are assigned purely based on your opinion or have other reference data.

Will update shortly, thanks.

 

[KennethW]

No, a single chart will not cover every characteristic of one kind of steel, much less multiple steels. I figured that was obvious. But if you only select a few characteristics that are of interest, you can create a chart that's usable.

You are absolutely correct, there are too many attributes to steel to put into a single chart. However, I will add more of them like wear resistance, toughness, etc... in future. Thank you for your feedback.

 

[marcinek]

You are absolutely correct, there are too many attributes to steel to put into a single chart. However, I will add more of them like wear resistance, toughness, etc... in future. Thank you for your feedback.

Throwing more stuff at that graph isn't going to help. You have to address the fundamental questions everyone has been posing. Without doing that your graph will remain nonsense.

What is the source of your data?
What do the numbers in your graph mean? (For example, "Is there a scale of measurement of rust resistance with a "1" on it?)

Unless you do that all you are doing is adding colors. (Kinda like making the text in your posts orange....it's pretty but it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the content.)

 

[The Mastiff]

You are absolutely correct, there are too many attributes to steel to put into a single chart

The three attributes we look at in steel would be (1)wear resistance ( adhesive and abrasive). Typically tested in labs by a CATRA machine. Not perfect, but it tries to at least keep apples to apples. Good luck getting more than tidbits released here and there. Even then it rarely matches up and it's about the most consistent test so far. There are reasons for that which will make sense after you learn a lot more about steel testing. The second attribute is (2) toughness, and lastly (3) corrosion resistance. Hardness is not applicable nor does it tell anything meaningful if you are just quoting a maximum hardness achievable.

There are other attributes such as "edge stability" but they don't mean a lot to most users who often get them confused. "edge wear" is an example. Some use it with a definition the same as wear resistance. To others it means something different.

Costs. They don't mean a lot as far as a chart. The price varies by who you buy it from. The amount you buy. Some times tarrifs or taxes. At times the exchange rate. Are you including the extra belts and time as well as Laser or water jet cutting the high alloy, high wear steels need. It's a substantial part of the cost and it varies with steel. How will you keep apples to apples?

Also, I'm one that doesn't think the type graph is that readable. I like ones like this: http://www.simplytoolsteel.com/knife-steel-comparison-chart.html

This: http://www.diehlsteel.com/t_comparechart.aspx

Or this:http://www.nsm-ny.com/?page_id=43

another:http://www.latrobesteel.com/assets/documents/datasheets/Knife_Steels.pdf
and:http://www.latrobesteel.com/assets/documents/datasheets/Blade_Steels.pdf

A different type graph. Not very accurate IME:http://www.cartech.com/whatsnew.aspx?id=3684


Joe

 

[marcinek]

Kenneth....I went back and had a look at your heavily updated first post.

1) You really should have noted somewhere that what we were commenting on earlier in this was an entirely different post by you. Doing what you did is entirely unfair to all the people who had asked you to cite your sources. Anyone new to the thread may not understand that you originally had no sources cited in your post. Now that you do, the people who asked you to cite sources look like fools.

2) That said, you certainly have made your graph even more pretty and have documented a great deal of information available on the internet. But you really still haven't made the graph make much sense. What does "...chart is based purely on my opinion and analysis of different resources referenced in this post. Steels are ranked based on their perceived rating by site resources, and indexed by a point system, then aggregated to form an overall rating..." even mean? What does it mean that your graph says that ZDP189 has a average hardness of 3? And a corrosion resistance of 1.8?

If you had said "From my experience, and based on what I like in a knife steel, I think ZDP189 (or whatever) is the best." I'm sure everybody would have been fine with that statement. No doubt you are an experienced and knowlegable knife user and have found what you like though practice.

But, in my opinion, wrapping that statement up in handwaving and pretty pictures and mystery numbers just isn't needed. I'm interested in what you think, and what you think seems to be getting pushed out of the picture by that chart of yours.

 

[Gator97]

What does it mean that your graph says that ZDP189 has a average hardness of 3? And a corrosion resistance of 1.8?

I was pondering on those numbers too. As I understand it, 3 is the max index for any category and actual values are mapped to that. Although, in that case, max working hardness for ZDP-189 knves is 67-68HRC, if 68HCR maps to 3, then CPM REX 121 which can go to 70HRC maps to ~3.13? And D2 hardness index of 2.7 is also unclear. if 68 maps to 3, then 2.7 means D2 average hardness is 60HRC, but it can go all the way to 64HRC, even for production knives 60HRC D2 is questionable as an average.
Dunno, may be I didn't get it right..

 

[marcinek]

.....
Dunno, may be I didn't get it right..

I think you did. Those numbers are hinky, especially without an explanation of what they mean.

Like I said earlier, if somebody says "To me, AUS-8 is the best because, based on my experience, I have found it to be inexpensive, easy to sharpen, and have good edge holding, and those three properties are important to me." then I am perfectly happy with that statement. I might not agree with it, but I can't disagree with it.

The second people start quantifying metal properties under anything other than incredibly controlled conditions/limits, it usually becomes a mess. It's a far tougher thing to do well than people think.

 

[KennethW]

Kenneth....I went back and had a look at your heavily updated first post.

1) You really should have noted somewhere that what we were commenting on earlier in this was an entirely different post by you. Doing what you did is entirely unfair to all the people who had asked you to cite your sources. Anyone new to the thread may not understand that you originally had no sources cited in your post. Now that you do, the people who asked you to cite sources look like fools.

2) That said, you certainly have made your graph even more pretty and have documented a great deal of information available on the internet. But you really still haven't made the graph make much sense. What does "...chart is based purely on my opinion and analysis of different resources referenced in this post. Steels are ranked based on their perceived rating by site resources, and indexed by a point system, then aggregated to form an overall rating..." even mean? What does it mean that your graph says that ZDP189 has a average hardness of 3? And a corrosion resistance of 1.8?

If you had said "From my experience, and based on what I like in a knife steel, I think ZDP189 (or whatever) is the best." I'm sure everybody would have been fine with that statement. No doubt you are an experienced and knowlegable knife user and have found what you like though practice.

But, in my opinion, wrapping that statement up in handwaving and pretty pictures and mystery numbers just isn't needed. I'm interested in what you think, and what you think seems to be getting pushed out of the picture by that chart of yours.

Apologies, I did mention I was going to update the post earlier. It was not my intention to make anyone look like a fool. If I did, I am very sorry. This post is a work in progress.

Thanks for you feedback. I will add a much more in-depth description of the methodology and how the numbers have been generated soon. Numbers will change as the chart updates with more steels as points are given based on rank, and not a scientific measure of each attribute. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but as mentioned, this chart is only for people who want an idea of the steels, and how they compare, and not a full comprehensive breakdown.

I use a orange text because my default view is with black background scheme, and its just to allow me to quickly find my posts.

Please feel free to leave feedback, as I will continue to work on my post until everyone is satisfied. Thank you for your patience.

 

[singularity35]

Apologies, I did mention I was going to update the post earlier. It was not my intention to make anyone look like a fool. If I did, I am very sorry. This post is a work in progress.

Thanks for you feedback. I will add a much more in-depth description of the methodology and how the numbers have been generated soon. Numbers will change as the chart updates with more steels as points are given based on rank, and not a scientific measure of each attribute. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but as mentioned, this chart is only for people who want an idea of the steels, and how they compare, and not a full comprehensive breakdown.

I use a orange text because my default view is with black background scheme, and its just to allow me to quickly find my posts.

Please feel free to leave feedback, as I will continue to work on my post until everyone is satisfied. Thank you for your patience.

Your still not addressing the question of where your data comes from.

 

[Gator97]

...I will add a much more in-depth description of the methodology and how the numbers have been generated soon. Numbers will change as the chart updates with more steels as points are given based on rank, and not a scientific measure of each attribute. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but as mentioned, this chart is only for people who want an idea of the steels, and how they compare, and not a full comprehensive breakdown...

Hardness is easily quantifiable, although average hardness is arguable, but stainlessness or corrosion resistance index... At some point I've tried to calculate amount of free chromium based on steel composition, which would translate into corrosion resistance, and after reading couple books on metallurgy I simply gave up, too many variables to do something accurate. If you have anything other than personal opinion based index, I'd be really interested to hear.

 

[KennethW]

Your still not addressing the question of where your data comes from.

You replied within in 8 minutes of that post. I did mention I was going to update the methodology soon. Patience is a virtue my friend. But I admire your enthusiasm.

I've updated the methodology, hope it helps with some clarification. Thanks.

 

[KennethW]

Hardness is easily quantifiable, although average hardness is arguable, but stainlessness or corrosion resistance index... At some point I've tried to calculate amount of free chromium based on steel composition, which would translate into corrosion resistance, and after reading couple books on metallurgy I simply gave up, too many variables to do something accurate. If you have anything other than personal opinion based index, I'd be really interested to hear.

You are absolutely right. The things one has to take into account is far too complex for my feeble mind to comprehend, perhaps if there are engineers in this forum that have some simulation tool that would provide me with the necessary info, I will love to get that data and incorporate it into the chart.

But as for now, the index is based on a general consensus of users and resources. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[singularity35]

You replied within in 8 minutes of that post. I did mention I was going to update the methodology soon. Patience is a virtue my friend. But I admire your enthusiasm.

I've updated the methodology, hope it helps with some clarification. Thanks.

You are absolutely right. The things one has to take into account is far too complex for my feeble mind to comprehend, perhaps if there are engineers in this forum that have some simulation tool that would provide me with the necessary info, I will love to get that data and incorporate it into the chart.

As mentioned before, lots of hand waving meaning nothing.

But as for now, the index is based on a general consensus of users and resources. Thanks for your feedback.

Which also means nothing as much as far as quantifying something.

 

[Popsickle]

You stated that s30v has edge holding comparable to s90v andis a bitch to sharpen.... wrong on both counts sir

 

[KennethW]

You stated that s30v has edge holding comparable to s90v andis a bitch to sharpen.... wrong on both counts sir

Thanks for your feedback.

As illustrated in the chart, I do believe s90v holds an edge better than s30v, and from the resources I've seen, this is the consensus. If you have a resource that states otherwise, please let me know and I'll gladly update my post.

As for "sharpenability", that was flavorful text. But as compared to previous steels described in order, s30v 'is' a bitch to sharpen. Granted not as bad as harder steels like ZDP-189, but still hard to sharpen. Be it my sharpening skills may not be as good as yours, but s30v is about as high as I go in terms of time to sharpen. For any steel which is harder to sharpen than s30v, IMO it would be feel like a chore instead of an activity I enjoy.

 

[Gator97]

But as for now, the index is based on a general consensus of users and resources. Thanks for your feedback.

You are welcome, but general consensus(in relation to corrosion resistance at least) and what I see on the web, is more like good/bad type of assessments. How do you go form that to the number with decimal point precision? I'm not trying to put down your work or flame, but giving numbers with such precision implies rather solid data behind them, otherwise it's quite misleading.