Why all the Opinel rave?

[digitalurbancamo]

Not really, it goes more to the original post and question.

So we are really more back on topic now I think.

This way the OP can have some answers based on testing.

And they seem to be fine so far, nothing really odd going on or unexpected.

Out of the last 31 posts to this thread you posted 15 of them. Yea you didn't hijack it.....

 

[reijerse]

Why reprofile both knives instead of sharpening the convex blade?
These knives may not be shaving sharp out of the box but it takes little effort to make them really sharp. I guess that's what most people will do and how most people will judge these knives.

 

[numbersman]

I agree, with the carbon steel, it is a very easy knife to sharpen. Not sure about the stainless varieties, but I guess they aren't too different. Can anyone else comment on the stainless varieties?

 

[davek14]

I just checked that thread quickly, gotta get to work. Is there a place where all the steels are ranked, it's 96 pages.

In my quick perusal I couldn't find Buck 420 or Case Tru-Sharp. Could you steer me to where I can find the Opies tested against comparably priced steel?

 

[sodak]

I just checked that thread quickly, gotta get to work. Is there a place where all the steels are ranked, it's 96 pages.

In my quick perusal I couldn't find Buck 420 or Case Tru-Sharp. Could you steer me to where I can find the Opies tested against comparably priced steel?

The first page has all the results.

 

[pinnah]

How about testing them using my current method that I have been using for awhile....

Personally I couldn't care less how they do..... That's not the purpose of testing, well keeping it non biased anyway...

I give everything I test an equal shot using my methods of testing, then record the data and move on....

The rope cutting is done and posted in my thread, the cardboard and wood are next, then I will write it all up for the full review.

Why didn't you test the Inox with a polished edge?

 

[Ankerson]

Why didn't you test the Inox with a polished edge?

I stopped the polished edge testing awhile back.

 

[davek14]

So this?

What I have done is rank the steels in Categories based on edge retention cutting 5/8" manila rope. We are looking for big differences here, not ranking the steels in order such as 1,2,3,4,5. The categories or groups mean that one can expect those steels in that category to have close to the same performance as the other steels in the same category. The categories are ranked in order by edge retention, category 1 will have better performance than category 2 etc.

The Custom Phil Wilson knives in M390 (62) and ELMAX (62) are not added to the data, they wouldn't fit into any of the Categories due to the Optimal HT and cutting ability, the difference is off the scale percentage wise so it wasn't added.

The Testing Process is as follows:

Cutting 5/8" Manila rope on a Scale with wood to cut on. The scale was calibrated for the weight of the wood. Making 3 to 4 slicing cuts from back to tip using the least amount of down force needed to get the starting down force. Once that was established 20 cuts were made then down force was tested again and that continued until 20 LBS was reached.

All the knives started at 14 ~ 15 LBS of down force except for M390 because it cuts so aggressively.

Accuracy is to + or - 10 Cuts and + or - 1 LB of down force or 6%. This was verified doing a blind test of blades of unknown hardness until they were tested after. 2 blades of the same hardness and steel, sharpened the same and same model of knife.

RC hardness is + or - 1 RC on the steels that were tested as the standard of RC testing.

All edges were at 30 degrees inclusive and polished to 6000 grit on the Edge Pro, sharpness was tested by slicing TP clean.

The following data is the results that I got based on the above method, while not conclusive or the end all beat all data it is very accurate.

More steels will be added as they are tested.

Category 1

CPM-S90V (Military and Para 2) (60)
CTS-20CP (Para 2) (60)
M390 (Mule) (60.5)
CTS - 204P (Para 2)

Category 2

M390 (60)
CPM M4 (62.5)
CPM-S90V (59) (Manix 2 with 30 Degree Micro Bevel)
CPM-S60V
VANAX 75 (Kershaw Tilt)

Category 3

Vanax 35 (59.5)


Category 4

ZDP-189 (65)
CPM-154 (62)
ELMAX (60)
CTS-XHP (Military) (60+)
Super Blue (61.5)
CPM 3V (Big Chris)


Category 5

S30V (60)
VG-1
CPM - D2 (62)
N690
ATS-34 (59)
CPM-S35VN (59)
N680
ELMAX (58.5) Mule
D2 - Dozier K2

Category 6

INFI
154CM (61)
14C28N
CTS-B75P (Mule)

Category 7

VG-10
S30V (58.5)
AUS-8A
SG-2
5160 (55)
13C26N
X-15
440C (Big Chris)

Category 8

H-1
420 HC (Buck 110)

Category 9

CTS-BD1


Same method as above, but with a coarse edge, 400 grit congress Silicone carbide, more optimal edge finish for max edge retention to highlight the differences in the steels.

S110V - 1120 - Manix 2 - 62 RC - Regrind to .005" behind the edge.
Z-A11 - 880 - Darrion Sanders Custom - 62.5 RC - .020" behind the edge/.070" spine thickness.
K390 - 820 - Mule - 62-64 RC
S110V - 720 - Manix 2 - 62 RC
Cru-Wear - 700 - Phil Wilson Custom Bow River - 63 RC - .005" behind the edge.
S110V - 600 - Mule - 60 RC - .015" -.018" behind the edge.
S90V - 600 - Benchmade 940-1 - 59-61 RC - .018" Behind the edge.
S90V - 460 - Military - 60 RC
S90V/CPM 154 - Para 2 - 460 - ? RC
CTS 204P - 420 - Para 2
ZDP -189 - 420 - Endura 4 - 65 RC
M390 - 400 - Benchmade 810-1401 Contego 60-62 RC
M390 - 380 - Military - 61 RC
ELMAX - 340 - ZT 0770CF - ? RC
ELMAX - 340 - Para 2 - ? RC
S30V - 300 - Military - 60 RC
Cru-Wear - 260 - Military - ? RC
CTS-XHP - 240 - Military - 60.5 RC
CTS-B75P - 240 - Mule
Sleipner - 240 - LionSteel PM2
Dozier D2 - 220 - Dozier K2
ELMAX - 220 - Mule - 58.5 RC
VG-10 - 160 - Stretch
AUS-8A - 160 - Recon 1
12c27 MOD - 120 - Opinel #8 - .012" behind the edge
XC90 - 80 - Opinel #8 - .012" behind the edge

 

[Ankerson]

So this?

Yeah that's it...

 

[pinnah]

Is this really true?

Same method as above, but with a coarse edge, 400 grit congress Silicone carbide, more optimal edge finish for max edge retention to highlight the differences in the steels.

Obviously, what the test is testing the ability to repeatedly cut manilla rope. This may or not say anything about edge retention in other mediums that cause edge damage through other means. FWIW, would be interesting to see how a dendritic cobalt blade like a Boye would do. I would expect to win, but that's only because the blade material is more or less chosen almost entirely for it's rope cutting performance. Nice test for testing rope cutting, I guess.

The method also assumes that all steels and all blade geometries will cut the test medium (in this case, rope) the best using the same apex geometry and edge structure. It's this assumption that IMO rings untrue.

In terms of the bake-off he's selecting mostly high end steels. I don't see any other common mid-grade steels other than Aus-8. I don't see 1095, 420HC, 440A, Aus 6 and other versions of Aus-8. Sandvik 12C27 is sort of the Toyota Corolla of mid grade stainless. Nobody is going to argue that its a Ferrari steel. Only that is among the best of the mid grades suitable for user level knives.

And lastly, none of this gets to larger and much more egregious assertion that Opinel is a cheap junk knife. The test is getting at one aspect of knife performance and not doing a particularly good job at that even.

 

[Ankerson]

Is this really true?



Obviously, what the test is testing the ability to repeatedly cut manilla rope. This may or not say anything about edge retention in other mediums that cause edge damage through other means. FWIW, would be interesting to see how a dendritic cobalt blade like a Boye would do. I would expect to win, but that's only because the blade material is more or less chosen almost entirely for it's rope cutting performance. Nice test for testing rope cutting, I guess.

The method also assumes that all steels and all blade geometries will cut the test medium (in this case, rope) the best using the same apex geometry and edge structure. It's this assumption that IMO rings untrue.

In terms of the bake-off he's selecting mostly high end steels. I don't see any other common mid-grade steels other than Aus-8. I don't see 1095, 420HC, 440A, Aus 6 and other versions of Aus-8. Sandvik 12C27 is sort of the Toyota Corolla of mid grade stainless. Nobody is going to argue that its a Ferrari steel. Only that is among the best of the mid grades suitable for user level knives.

And lastly, none of this gets to larger and much more egregious assertion that Opinel is a cheap junk knife. The test is getting at one aspect of knife performance and not doing a particularly good job at that even.

Manila rope is for the most part the standard for testing wear resistance/edge retention by hand and still considered the best media, other than that it would be CATRA machine testing...

Steels are added as they come in for testing...... I can't test them if I don't have them to test and in knives suitable for testing geometry wise.

I have knives in 420 HC, 1095, BD-1, SG2, CPM M4 and O1 that are inline for cutting so it's only a matter of time.....

Yes I have always used coarse edge for doing the full reviews so I had the data comparing the coarse edge vs the polished edges directly and yes there is a large difference between the edge finishes.

So in retrospect I stopped the polished edge testing as I was cutting with both edge finishes so I went ahead and stopped the polished edge testing so I could combine the actual test results with the full reviews that I do.

 

[sodak]

And anyone is free to perform their own testing and posting results for us as well.

 

[Ankerson]

And anyone is free to perform their own testing and posting results for us as well.

And there is always that also....

But it takes time and a lot of effort, expense etc to test enough knives/steels while removing all of the variables possible doing it by hand to develop a database for comparison using a proven method that is repeatable so that data is valid...

 

[pinnah]

And there is always that also....

But it takes time and a lot of effort, expense etc to test enough knives/steels while removing all of the variables possible doing it by hand to develop a database for comparison using a proven method that is repeatable so that data is valid...

This would be tossed out of most engineering reviews.

You're attempting to optimize an inherently multi-variate phenomenon by reducing it to a single variable.

As the adage goes, for every difficult and complex problem there is simple and elegant solution that is entirely wrong.

Astute cyclists who follow rolling resistance testing among bike tires have seen this problem in standardized tire testing.

Whatever, it tells us *something* and that's entertaining in the least.

 

[Ankerson]

This would be tossed out of most engineering reviews.

You're attempting to optimize an inherently multi-variate phenomenon by reducing it to a single variable.

As the adage goes, for every difficult and complex problem there is simple and elegant solution that is entirely wrong.

Astute cyclists who follow rolling resistance testing among bike tires have seen this problem in standardized tire testing.

Whatever, it tells us *something* and that's entertaining in the least.

I am not doing it for a PHD research paper....

Never said it was perfect, and it's not, but it is repeatable using a proven method by hand none the less.

Haven't seen anyone lining up to fund research buying equipment needed as in CATRA machines etc so we have to work with what we have.

 

[davek14]

I think this is a nice test albeit far from a perfect one. Stuff like this is really neat and I do learn a lot from folks like Ankerson, Knarfeng, and others who do various testing.

I do think the test is a bit weak on the mid range steels.

I was thinking of being sarcastic and asking what "gas station knife" was used head to head with an Opie and what was the mystery steel used in such knives. (I've often wondered)

Instead, I'll say that I look forward to the inclusion of some of the other Toyota Corolla steels. Like I said, this test ain't perfect but seeing how things rate in a few different tests like this can help guide purchases. I really want to see Schrade 1095 in there and see it compared to Opie stainless.

A question/comment or two.

The Opinel steel is not in the category ranking. The Buck 420 is not in the straight down listing.

kidding

Is the steel in the category listing ranked better to worse within each category?

How much better was the AUS8 than the Opinel stainless in the straight down listing?

And anyone is free to perform their own testing and posting results for us as well.

Point taken. Any data, taken with a grain of morphine (errr, salt) is good data. Not the only data, but good data. And I appreciate it. I mean this.

I do wonder if we may be stuck in the "steel snob" vs "thrift snob" debate.

The answer to that one is still "it's all good....it's all good....it's all good".

I don't get the best of the best for personal carry anything. I might lose it and I like feeling a bit minimal and "battle ready" or sumpin'. I do try to buy really solid performers for things like appliances and electronics. They are right there at home secure and I want a great performer which lasts. So you see, it's personal preference and it might even vary as to item much less as to person.

 

[stabman]

One thing this thread did was convince me that I need an Opinel #13.
It's definitely going on the list.

 

[Ankerson]

Is the steel in the category listing ranked better to worse within each category?

No, they all ranked the same for each category.

How much better was the AUS8 than the Opinel stainless in the straight down listing?

The # of cuts are listed in the coarse edge testing..

Steel - # of Cuts - Knife Model - RC hardness - Other info...

 

[Ankerson]

One thing this thread did was convince me that I need an Opinel #13.
It's definitely going on the list.

They actually did pretty good in testing overall..... Nothing odd or bad etc to report...

Review will be up in a few days....

 

[Rhinoknives1]

This would be tossed out of most engineering reviews.

You're attempting to optimize an inherently multi-variate phenomenon by reducing it to a single variable.

As the adage goes, for every difficult and complex problem there is simple and elegant solution that is entirely wrong.

Astute cyclists who follow rolling resistance testing among bike tires have seen this problem in standardized tire testing.

Whatever, it tells us *something* and that's entertaining in the least.

When I started reading about and making custom knives in 1996, back when most still relied on books & magazines out of paper for information and meeting and talking with other more experienced knife makers I found that Rope, Pine 2' x 4's and cardboard were the items used most often to test a knife design's steels and one of the ways to get an idea of an achieved hardness from a home brew heat treating..

These tests were developed by makers that may have been on a limited budget, without a RC hardness Tester or have an engineering degree or access to a Lab at a University and really didn't give a rats hiney about computer graphs, bar charts and the like.

What really mattered for the common man then and now is how does the edge hold up on a given task on a certain knife design with a given steel etc.

Not every hunting knife maker is able to bag two or three deer and see if they could process all of them without sharpening etc.
Cutting Manilla rope I was told by a gent at a hammer in was "Sorta Close" to Hide, Hair & Sinew so it gave a constant that you could use along with cardboard which is free and has clay in it so there was an abrasive to test.

There is always room for improvement of ALL testing methods no matter how papered the testing may be and results can be skewed for many reasons.
Ankerson does has a protocol that he follows and while of course not perfect, I have done similar testing on my knives and they will produce a result that is much more informative than it is entertaining.