Where Spydercos Fall Short

Your metric is irrelevant to me, but if it matters to you, and clearly it does, so be it. For me, it is all about ergonomics. A knife that feels right in my hand. I am often surprised. Numbers and even photos don't tell me much.
 
Spyderco as never fallen short for me in any aspect.
Sal has stated that their design of a knife starts with the blade. The cutting edge is where it begins and they work their way out.
So let use the manix2 as an example. Sal wants a blade length of 3.4 and a finger choil. Now if he put a handle to match that blade length to keep a close to equal ratio you end up with a small handle. Thats makes for a poor working knife.
 
I have to confess that not once have I grabbed knife to cut something and muttered "this would be so much easier if the edge to OAL ratio was better." Maybe I'm just not into whatever special cutting stuff implicates that consideration.
 
Indoril said:
What matters most is the distance from the start of the edge to the end at the tip as the crow flies, which is the cross sectional cutting area. A serrated or kris style blade technically has "more" cutting edge, but that's typically not what matters. Somewhat related, read up on the Coastline Paradox
Click to expand...

First, that is not the "cross sectional cutting area."
Second, that is not what matters...what matters is the length of the edge.
Third, the "Coastline Paradox" would apply to ALL blades, not just serrated or kris blades, and if you are going to invoke it, then your "edge length" numbers from above go out the window also. Read up on it.
 
well, Spyderco and Cold Steel are my favorite brands and I couldn't really care less for the numbers and ratios as long as they work as nice as they often do.
I mean today I'm carrying this one which would sure be poor in the edge/handle department but it's so nice ergonomically and allows me to put o much pressure and grips to use that recurve that it is an excellent working, EDC and "in hand" knife

QRxCtU8.jpg


I understand the metrics and numbers but I'm sure they're in no way representative of the quality, performance or "getting it right or wrong" of the folder in question
 
Indoril said:
I think you are right. But I think it's a shame that things like Edge/OAL and Edge/mass are unimportant to most users. Of course that's not all people should consider, but I think it would be good if they did pay some attention to things like that. It may lead to better and more elegant designs
Click to expand...

It IS a shame when others don't find the things I find important, as important as I do. But it doesn't mean the knives with the features I like are better or more elegant than theirs.
 
This made for a good chuckle. The fact of the matter is that for most cutting chores a utility blade is all they really need. Sure some things need a longer blade for slicing like summer sausage or a big old hunk of gruyere but most of what people use pocket knives for is opening packages. Why do you think you see so many EDC pics with a big ol fancy folder and a RUT?

A data set I'd love to see would involve OP marking the blade with dykem dye then charting the actual blade use over a set period of time for each model they use. My hypothesis is that they'd see that this current data set referenced a the beginning of this thread only reflects their perception of what a knife should be rather than what a knife actually needs to be to meet their needs.


All this aside I too think spydercos are god awful looking with that stupid hole that makes the blades and the knifes themselves unnecessarily thick in the folded position.
 
marcinek said:
First, that is not the "cross sectional cutting area."
Second, that is not what matters...what matters is the length of the edge.
Third, the "Coastline Paradox" would apply to ALL blades, not just serrated or kris blades, and if you are going to invoke it, then your "edge length" numbers from above go out the window also. Read up on it.
Click to expand...
I apologise if I'm using terminology wrong. I just used the term "cross sectional cutting area" because that's what makes sense to me. What would you call it?

I'm aware of the Coastline Paradox and I know you could apply it to all blades, the extreme case of going down to the molecular level and measuring all the ridges and microserrations formed by the carbides and whatnot... hence why I was cautioning against invoking the coastline paradox, claiming that what matters is the distance from the beginning of the edge to the end as the crow flies. Just so I can understand what you're saying, here's an example of a kris. Are you saying that the length of the blue line matters more? Because it seems to me that the length of the green line (delta) is what matters in most cases. Once you straighten out the blue measurement it might be 3.5 inches vs 3 inches for the green, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to slice through 3.5 inches of cake. I guess another way of saying it is that the blue line ("real" edge length?) doesn't reflect the actual reach of the edge. Am I understanding you right?
BSgPZRo.jpg
 
Indoril said:
I apologise if I'm using terminology wrong. I just used the term "cross sectional cutting area" because that's what makes sense to me. What would you call it?

I'm aware of the Coastline Paradox and I know you could apply it to all blades, the extreme case of going down to the molecular level and measuring all the ridges and microserrations formed by the carbides and whatnot... hence why I was cautioning against invoking the coastline paradox, claiming that what matters is the distance from the beginning of the edge to the end as the crow flies. Just so I can understand what you're saying, here's an example of a kris. Are you saying that the length of the blue line matters more? Because it seems to me that the length of the green line (delta) is what matters in most cases. Once you straighten out the blue measurement it might be 3.5 inches vs 3 inches for the green, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to slice through 3.5 inches of cake. I guess another way of saying it is that the blue line ("real" edge length?) doesn't reflect the actual reach of the edge. Am I understanding you right?
BSgPZRo.jpg
Click to expand...


if you flipped that on it's side you'd see that its three dimensional as well.. The kriss edge on that PABU goes not only in and out but up and down I believe.
 
Yes, that blue line is not going to get you any closer to the bottom of the peanut butter jar.

And if I'm heading for the bottom of the peanut butter jar, I want peanut butter on more of the blade than the handle.

Hence, Blade to Handle ratio is very important to me. In the PBJ sense. ;)

On a Kind Of/Not Really related note, I like a certain amount of cutting edge... 3-ish inches. Also, I like my folders to take up as little room in my pocket as they can. So I suppose, indirectly, that my criteria favors a better handle to cutting edge ratio.

But I still want the peanut butter on the blade, and not the handle or my knuckles thank you.
 
newdebate said:
We shouldn't laugh at subjective science!
Click to expand...
I agree with you in that what makes a good knife is much more subjective art than science, but I argue that there are some objective metrics that do matter, and they shouldn't be totally disregarded. I guess how much they matter is the debate here... they seem to matter very little to most folks which puts me in the minority :oops:
 
Velitrius said:
Yes, that blue line is not going to get you any closer to the bottom of the peanut butter jar.

And if I'm heading for the bottom of the peanut butter jar, I want peanut butter on more of the blade than the handle.

Hence, Blade to Handle ratio is very important to me. In the PBJ sense. ;)

On a Kind Of/Not Really related note, I like a certain amount of cutting edge... 3-ish inches. Also, I like my folders to take up as little room in my pocket as they can. So I suppose, indirectly, that my criteria favors a better handle to cutting edge ratio.

But I still want the peanut butter on the blade, and not the handle or my knuckles thank you.
Click to expand...
Well put! I'm going to remember that peanut butter scenario :D
 
Indoril said:
I apologise if I'm using terminology wrong. I just used the term "cross sectional cutting area" because that's what makes sense to me. What would you call it?

I'm aware of the Coastline Paradox and I know you could apply it to all blades, the extreme case of going down to the molecular level and measuring all the ridges and microserrations formed by the carbides and whatnot... hence why I was cautioning against invoking the coastline paradox, claiming that what matters is the distance from the beginning of the edge to the end as the crow flies. Just so I can understand what you're saying, here's an example of a kris. Are you saying that the length of the blue line matters more? Because it seems to me that the length of the green line (delta) is what matters in most cases. Once you straighten out the blue measurement it might be 3.5 inches vs 3 inches for the green, but it doesn't mean you'll be able to slice through 3.5 inches of cake. I guess another way of saying it is that the blue line ("real" edge length?) doesn't reflect the actual reach of the edge. Am I understanding you right?
BSgPZRo.jpg
Click to expand...

You ARE invoking the Coastline Paradox.

You are playing fast and loose with "edge length" (blue) and "blade length" (yellow green). And you are ignoring and misunderstanding blade shape.

You can skin a moose with a 3 inch blade with plenty of belly (and EDGE LENGTH). In fact, that will skin that moose better than a 3 inch blade with no belly (less edge length but the same blade length).

Parts of the kris blade only will cut things that fit inside into convex regions of it....but that doesn't mean there is no edge in those concave regions.

I understand that you have preferences, but maybe you need to state them using clearer terminology.
 
Another way to look at this is not just how much cutting length you have, but how much room is being taken up to carry that cutting edge. Here are two images to illustrate this idea. One the left is the CH3504, the middle the PM2, and the right a CH3001. In the open position the cutting edges are lined up where the cutting edges start near the handle. You can see that the CH3001 has a longer cutting edge. The CH3504 has a much longer cutting edge. You can also see that the CH3001 is much smaller overall and the CH3504 is basically the same.

In the closed position, the CH3504 is bascially the same as the PM2 to carry and the CH3001 just disappears in the pocket. The CH3504, IMHO, is more comfortable or at least as comfortable to carry and use as the PM2. The CH3001 is still pretty comfortable in the hand but is soooo much better in the pocket. I should also point out that the grip length of the CH3001 is the same of the normal grip position length of the PM2

If getting your finger right up to the cutting edge is important to you, then all of this is moot. For me personally I have never understood the purpose of a finger choil.

I am not saying that Spydercos are bad knives, not at all. I have a Delica 4, an Endura 4, a Byrd CaraCara 2, and a PM2. I like them, just I like other knives better.

PM2vs_open.jpg
PM2vs_closed.jpg
 
SpySmasher said:
Well, no. In the peanut butter scenario blade length is all that matters, not ratio. My Military will get more peanut butter than my Liong Mah GSD, regardless of ratio.
Click to expand...

And my 8 inch offset spatula will get even more, and go though a bigger cake, and it has no edge at all.

Ultimately, a 2 inch leaf shaped blade is going to have a longer edge than a 2 inch sheepsfoot blade. It packs more workable edge into the same blade length.

But maybe we have "lost" the OP's original objection. I'll have top go reread it.
 
to be honest, I've had a ton of Spyderco's. My favorite that I keep going back to is the Endura. it's light, tough, and sharpens like a razor. I get the combo edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top