Supersteels. Practicality or Novelty?

for most people it won't really matter. i cook a lot (i'm in culinary school) and am in the process of saving up to have a custom knife made for kitchen use. i'd definitely be able to tell the difference between lower and higher end steels
 
Actually, longer sharpening times is a misconception. If the knife is designed to take advantage of a "super" steel's properties, the opposite is often true. Some of my customs are much thinner than production knives because the steels used are hard enough (strong enough) to handle less supporting material. Then you have a knife that cuts better, stays sharp longer, and sharpens quicker. Good stuff!
 
sodak said:
Actually, longer sharpening times is a misconception. If the knife is designed to take advantage of a "super" steel's properties, the opposite is often true. Some of my customs are much thinner than production knives because the steels used are hard enough (strong enough) to handle less supporting material. Then you have a knife that cuts better, stays sharp longer, and sharpens quicker. Good stuff!
Click to expand...

But isn't this kind of a design thing more than a matter of material? A lot of makers just release the same blade geometry they use on other simpler steels for their "super steel" so they don't really give any of this benefit you're talking about. A lot of the time it's required of the user to put a more acute edge grind on the blade to achieve this, but then at that point aren't you just running into the problem of needing to remove more steel to make the acute angle?

I never really felt like S30V took that much longer to get sharp but that's the only thing near a "super steel" I've used. I think it depends more on the media type, and with most modern types of abrasive any steels abrade pretty much the same rate. With things like Arkansas or other natural stones though, it really does seem that steel like S30V takes a lot longer.

I think it's been pointed out that it comes down to the individual user and what their tasks/intentions are, but I think when it comes to the talk of the price being worth it and everything the point occurs to me that most of the time I see a knife that's available in a super-steel, there's numerous other factors about it that I don't like. There's some exceptions, like the Gayle Bradely, I think it would be fantastic and things I've heard about CPM-M4 sound great and I do think it would be worth the money. Ask me the same thing about numerous models of other Spydercos I have seen, and it just won't be worth it to be based on the design alone. It's kind of a matter of accessbility really, because the only people who tend to make high-end steels available or high-end knife makers and manufacturers. So for example, say you find a design that you can just tell would suit you perfectly, out of some couple hundred available models, well if it's only available in a simpler steel are you not going to get it?

Pretty much all of my favorite knives and my EDC are in simple steels. 14C28N and 1095 are my favorite, and yeah they go dull rather quickly on very abrasive material but they still actually cut--they keep a smooth wedge like characteristic and instead of "tearing" whatever you're cutting, it just requires more pressure to make the cut. It still works for as long as your're comfortable, and then you can sharpen back up quickly. It's not that I wouldn't like a super steel version of some of my knives--like having my Izula in D2 instead of 1095 would be pretty neat. I just think that all the talk of supersteels seems to suggest that the simple steels like 1095 are somehow incapable of cutting bread without going dull.

Just the other day I cut up some of that plastic styrofoam-like packaging mater they pack big TVs with, and the box it came in ( double-thick cardboard ) and the knife was still able to cut paper and such. Definitely dulled out a bit, but could still get a job done all right. Then it was just a matter of sharpening it back up for about 5 minutes today and it's back to screaming sharp. Pesonally I don't really like my knives to go very dull before sharpening them again anyway, so having extra edge-retaining steel just doesn't make sense for me. The only time I could see it being a requirement would be for cutting extremely abrasive stuff--roofing shingles, carpet, really fibrous materials like denim--basically stuff that you won't even cut through entirely before the blade dulls out and you're just muscling through. You know, when you're using the performanace advantage to actually perform.
 
KennyB said:
But isn't this kind of a design thing more than a matter of material? A lot of makers just release the same blade geometry they use on other simpler steels for their "super steel" so they don't really give any of this benefit you're talking about. A lot of the time it's required of the user to put a more acute edge grind on the blade to achieve this, but then at that point aren't you just running into the problem of needing to remove more steel to make the acute angle?
Click to expand...
No! (or YES! depending on how you are reading this...) That's the point! If a maker simply releases the same geometry without taking advantage of the steel, then there's no reason to buy the more expensive steel, assuming the cheaper steel worked well. Find a maker who understands steels and specializes in the "super" steels, and you won't have to thin anything out, it will come to you that way.

Ok, for example: Strength is a function of hardness. If you can harden a steel to 64 - 66 HRC, it will be stronger then if it is hardened to 55 HRC. You can then leverage that strength by **greatly** thinning out the primary bevel. While it might not be strong enough to support the edge at 55, now it is at 64. You can then optimize the blade by thinning it out greatly. There are makers who understand this and deliver their knives that way. It does come at a cost of lateral strength (not talking prying here), but the benefits are:

1. Edge lasting longer - you can use MUCH less force in a cut.
2. Sharpening faster - MUCH less steel to remove.
3. More precise cutting - much less force means easier cutting and greater precision.

Some steels can harden up to 66, some can't. Take advantage of those that can! I'm talking about edges in the range of 0.005 inches. Do that with a soft steel, and the edge just rolls/chips at the first cut. Do it with a steel that can handle the hardness, and it will cut a VERY long time, and sharpening is a 2 minute operation. If you're slow. :D 2 minutes, twice a year. :D

I'm editing this to death. So, find steels that are hardened to a minimum of 60HRC. That's a good starting point. S110v, CPM M4, K390, M390, CPM 10V, and many others. Here's a little known fact - 1095 and M2 HSS at 65 - 66 HRC absolutely rock. If you're used to 1095 at 57, the SAME steel at 65 will give you a heart attack. And it's not even a super steel...
 
Last edited:
Preach on. I wonder if that 60 Hrc value is just experience from various places or if someone did actual calculations based on an optimized cross section for some material? It comes up in Verhoevens and other work as a minimum hardness. His sharpening paper showed issues with fine edge formation with low (40's) hardness.
 
















"Question, why buy a knife with a supersteel? And I'm speaking in terms of a knife that will be put to use and carried. Is sharpening such a hated chore that you'd be willing to spend double the money to only need to do it half as often? "

I think it is because knife owners are just plain basically by nature a lazy bunch, and don't like to sharpen their knives as often as they would with a lesser steel. They are also probably buying a better overall knife than one with cheap steel that may not hold up. They are willing to pay double for their laziness. I know I am.

http://zknives.com/knives/articles/knifesteelfaq.shtml
 
Last edited:
cbxer55 said:
Personally, if S30V is not a super steel, I'm fine with it anyhow. I think a knife made of that will outlast you easily, even if you sharpen it daily.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even if you're a heavy user, you can still hone/strop an S30V edge back for a long, long time before you need a proper sharpening.

That's one thing I like about "supersteels"- a little bit of edge maintenance goes a long, long way.
 
Super steels are quite practical for their intended purpose. If they were not, they would not be around. Now whether they are "practical" for a pocketknife, that is really up to the buyer, isn't it?
 
I don't even agree with the term 'super steel'..if it was actually a super steel, then why isn't every hard use steel item made from it? Perhaps I'm taking the term 'super' a bit too literal here, but count this as another vote for novelty. This is a bit silly, but if they was called by anything else such as 'high end steels' or something, then my opinion would be different: both.
 
Last edited:
me2 said:
Preach on. I wonder if that 60 Hrc value is just experience from various places or if someone did actual calculations based on an optimized cross section for some material? It comes up in Verhoevens and other work as a minimum hardness. His sharpening paper showed issues with fine edge formation with low (40's) hardness.
Click to expand...
I read that in Verhoeven's work as well, but for me, it's a result of a lot of testing. I've had several steels in the mid-upper 50s that just can't take being too thin. The harder ones do very well though.

Even so, a lot of steels can be thinned out much more than they usually are with great results. Look at Buck's Edge 2000 knives with 420HC. They upped the ante with that, and good for them for doing it. I still have a couple of 110's with that edge, love it!
 
Not novelty IMO. However, the blade steel should be considered only AFTER all of the other factors have been. If the design sucks, I don't care if it's made with M390 at it's best possible heat treat or 440A - I won't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top