What size are the 8" x 2" Spyderco Ceramic stones supposed to be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lapedog said:
I think as customers it is our right to buy whatever we like. If that discrepancy in size bothers you enough then you are not weird or whining for not liking it.

That said I am only trying to say it is not a big deal not to mock you but rather to potentially help you to feel happy with what you received.

I do not see what difference a slightly smaller stone will make in you putting it in a kit with the other stones.

Obviously what is or isn’t sub-par is up to you but in cases like this where it has zero effect on the functionality of the product I personally would just live with it.
Click to expand...

First off, it's like the next post after yours says: there's definitely some part of this which is down to OCD. But, there's also some frustration with the conversation I had with the vendor wherein they tried to convince me that that it simply isn't possible to have an 8" x 2" stone because of the manufacturing process, and then tried to dismiss my annoyance by calling the divergence from the stated size as just "a couple thousandths".

That said, a properly sized 8" x 2" stone would actually be objectively better than the one I have: an objectively longer stroke would be possible; it would be possible to change stones between other 8" stones without adjusting my stone holder; it would also be possible to have a single indentation carved out of the wood case I was planning for the stones which would hold any of the stones with minimal movement.

I'm willing to admit that being 3/16th short is no huge problem. What I'm not quite so willing to grant is that it's no problem at all, and just as good.
 
thebestbladeplans said:
First off, it's like the next post after yours says: there's definitely some part of this which is down to OCD. But, there's also some frustration with the conversation I had with the vendor wherein they tried to convince me that that it simply isn't possible to have an 8" x 2" stone because of the manufacturing process, and then tried to dismiss my annoyance by calling the divergence from the stated size as just "a couple thousandths".

That said, a properly sized 8" x 2" stone would actually be objectively better than the one I have: an objectively longer stroke would be possible; it would be possible to change stones between other 8" stones without adjusting my stone holder; it would also be possible to have a single indentation carved out of the wood case I was planning for the stones which would hold any of the stones with minimal movement.

I'm willing to admit that being 3/16th short is no huge problem. What I'm not quite so willing to grant is that it's no problem at all, and just as good.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is something you want to do but you could glue a 1/16th and 3/16th inch little strip of rubber on the ends.

Obviously it isn’t ideal but it might solve any functionality issues.
 
bucketstove said:
Hi
buddy
common law, items sold should be as-advertised
spyderco doesn't advertise 8in x 2in nominal,
or warn size may vary by 1/16inch,
so it should be minimum 8in x 2in

my
Norton Economy Tool & Knife Benchstone
is a little longer than 6inch
and little wider than 2inch (by like 1/16)
its advertised as 6in x 2in

my
dollar tree tool bench hardware sharpening stone
is 6inch x 2inch exactly
its as advertised years ago


Its not like we're talking "sloppy flatness" which isn't actually advertised
spyderco-fine-benchstone-out-of-spec-my-paper-thickness-test.1412415/
Click to expand...

Hi buddy. Ever try measuring a 2x4 or weighing an axe head against its stated weight? :)

This is common practice for MANY products, and for a variety of reasons. Many manufacturers use a nominal measurement specifically because there are variables in the manufacturing process that create small inconsistencies piece to piece in the final product, but the target that the manufacturer is shooting for is the measurement stated. Regardless of the product, there is always some degree of variation in the actual measurements of the final product, which is why there are typically internal controls for taking random samples from a given production run to make sure that things aren't too far off target to the point where function is meaningfully impeded. It's up to the company management and engineers to decide what those internal standards are to be. In high-precision products, a tolerance range is usually stated to specifically note the accuracy of the dimensions, because for that product such a thing actually matters. But for most things, it doesn't. Just hitting the target is good enough, and hitting the bulls-eye is just a bonus if you manage to get lucky and everything goes just right.

Sintering is a difficult process, and is essentially the manufacture of synthetic sedimentary stone. Grain size in sintered ceramics is often a particular blend of different sizes that aid the sintering process, and the grains have to be of a suitable grade in order to sinter at all. Unpreventable variability in the specific blend of a particular production run can impact the dimensional stability of the final product, and as I stated earlier, the only way to get high, repeatable precision in the final product is to start with an oversized stone and to machine it down to spec, which is crazy-expensive. The medium and fine stones are sold in the as-pressed/fired state, without any additional machining work. The ultra-fine is machined smooth post-firing but is an identical composition to the fine. The difference in price is because of just how time-consuming (and therefore costly) it is to grind material that hard after sintering.

Many natural stones, water stones, and some synthetic Western type vitrified stones are made by cutting the stones from a larger piece of material, which results in a fairly accurate final dimension. Others, particularly coarse stones, barely shrink in firing. Generally the finer the material is, the more shrinkage is going to occur in firing and the less consistent the final result will be, dimensionally. The manufacturing process and requirements matter a TON with stuff like this. And most people just don't have a clue about the challenges that manufacturers face when creating their product. Even fewer actually care. So that's why we don't get 11-page specification and tolerance reports with every product we buy. It just doesn't matter enough to warrant it.

If a particular product has a degree of variance to it that makes it unsuitable for your purposes there are really only two good solutions. One is to find something more suitable for your needs. The other is to just deal with what you've got, especially if that thing IS the most suitable, available thing for your needs. But either way, you're not gonna' get a perfect 8" x 2" measurement off an as-fired sintered stone every time, even when designing your dies with the typical degree of shrinkage for a particular formulation fully accounted for. The only way to attain that is machining post-firing. And that's not what this product is. :)
 
i wouldn't buy the M.
the M does get consumed. and even faster than you'd think. it depends on the blade and angle. if you "cut" into the stone, you'll notice "black" shavings on the table. they're from the M, not the knife.

sooner or later you'll have to flatten the M.

anyway the size lottery on the M is crazee imho
 
Last edited:
FortyTwoBlades said:
Hi buddy. Ever try measuring a 2x4 or weighing an axe head against its stated weight? :)...
Click to expand...
Hi,
Actually I have measured lumber for length width thickness and weight
but guess what,
the lumber advertising explained what to expect,
Its real simple,
its boilerplate,
you can find it even on $1 ebay items
size may vary by 1-3mm...


If flatness tolerance is 508microns, is length/width tolerance 4mm?
Did the manufacturer deliver what @Sal Glesser wanted?

Thanks
 
im left wondering if there is some sort of ANSI standard (or other organization) that could be referenced here?
 
T thebestbladeplans , I can see what he is saying. He merely wants his stone or tool to match the companies statement. That's all.
FortyTwoBlades FortyTwoBlades , yes it does bother me when I purchase an axe and the stated weight is 6 lbs. but the ax is closer to 5 1/2 lbs..
Then to find, it's in the mfg. process and these tolerances are hard to hit. Well, then put that in the product statement and I would
likely not say much. But to knowingly continue to advertise your product at a size and know you probably cannot hit that mark. That to me casts a shadow on their manufacturing. Still, I fall back and realize we live in an imperfect world and have to live with merely 'close' on some stuff. DM
 
Now we know why knife companies don't / can't promise a certain rockwell hardness for their blades on a particular model with a particular steel. A "range" is what you'll get if you get any specific info in that regard.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm generally a "good enough" sort of guy in most things and try not to obsess overly much. (Though I definitely carry the OCD gene in some things.) On the other hand, "good enough" wasn't a high enough standard while conducting an investigation or testifying in court where people's lives hung in the balance.

I'll continue to try to pick the battles worth fighting.
 
It's the way things have always been, and the way they're likely to continue being. Manufacturing of most products only demands so great a degree of accuracy. In general it's best to consider all product measures nominal. If your task really requires high precision, either purchase precision products, or ask a seller or manufacturer to confirm the degree of accuracy of those measurements. I do think it would be best if there were a symbol that could be used to denote nominal vs. actual measurements, but it doesn't exist currently. The closest we have is the "approximately equal to" (~ or ≈) which isn't quite the same thing. Sometimes nominal values indicate something like, for instance, the weight or dimensions of the unfinished piece in its raw state and the end result may be pretty consistent, but that's not what it's referred to by. Perhaps "Ñ"? Some other proposed alternatives: Ƞ (U+0220) or Ɲ (U+019D). Ƞ seems especially appropriate since it's used to denote a "naw" sound like the first syllable of "nominal".
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
It's the way things have always been, and the way they're likely to continue being. Manufacturing of most products only demands so great a degree of accuracy. In general it's best to consider all product measures nominal. If your task really requires high precision, either purchase precision products, or ask a seller or manufacturer to confirm the degree of accuracy of those measurements. I do think it would be best if there were a symbol that could be used to denote nominal vs. actual measurements, but it doesn't exist currently. The closest we have is the "approximately equal to" (~ or ≈) which isn't quite the same thing. Sometimes nominal values indicate something like, for instance, the weight or dimensions of the unfinished piece in its raw state and the end result may be pretty consistent, but that's not what it's referred to by. Perhaps "Ñ"? Some other proposed alternatives: Ƞ (U+0220) or Ɲ (U+019D). Ƞ seems especially appropriate since it's used to denote a "naw" sound like the first syllable of "nominal".
Click to expand...

More apologia. Particularly considering that I actually did ask Spyderco customer support to explicitly tell me what measurement a stone would have to hit to make it too small to be considered acceptable.

Besides, why precisely would you necessarily need some symbol to denote nominal vs. actual measurements -- wouldn't it be eminently quicker and easier to use the word "nominal" and go from there? It certainly would have sufficed to nip this particular conversation in the bud

And you're once again making it sound like I'm asking for a high degree of both precision and accuracy in the dimensional tolerances -- and then countering that such tight tolerances would make the production excessively expensive -- when I'm actually only asking that the stone not be smaller than the stated dimensions. It can still be made to loose, relatively inexpensive tolerances; just increase the average size and cull the pieces which don't meet spec.
.
 
Last edited:
Consider this, a free, easy, simple solution; no new expensive equipment required; no costly additional surface-grinding steps; no inventing new symbols:

Whatever Spyderco currently has determined is their cut-off for stones not meeting dimensional spec, use that measurement to describe the stones -- i.e. if what Spyderco wouldn't actually deem acceptable to package and ship would be a stone 1/2 inch under nominal, fine -- call them 7.5" x 1.5" inch stones. Call the measurements nominal and mention that stones' size isn't guaranteed.

There you go. Cull the stones under 7.5" x 1.5", sell those as factory seconds; take 2 minutes to edit some text in product descriptions on their website, replace 8x2 with 7.5x1.5; ship out stones identical to the ones going out today -- and I could consider myself lucky to have gotten a 7"13/16th x 1"15/16th stone.

Easy as that.
 
Last edited:
thebestbladeplans said:
More apologia. Particularly considering that I actually did ask Spyderco customer support to explicitly tell me what measurement a stone would have to hit to make it too small to be considered acceptable.

Besides, why precisely would you necessarily need some symbol to denote nominal vs. actual measurements -- wouldn't it be eminently quicker and easier to use the word "nominal" and go from there? It certainly would have sufficed to nip this particular conversation in the bud

And you're once again making it sound like I'm asking for a high degree of both precision and accuracy in the dimensional tolerances -- and then countering that such tight tolerances would make the production excessively expensive -- when I'm actually only asking that the stone not be smaller than the stated dimensions. It can still be made to loose, relatively inexpensive tolerances; just increase the average size and cull the pieces which don't meet spec.
.
Click to expand...
You really don't seem to understand how these things work at all, despite my efforts to explain why your demands on the manufacturer are above and beyond what would be reasonable given the nature of the material. I'll be bowing out now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top