Why all the Opinel rave?

[Rhinoknives1]

'Course that might be the "old fart/grandpa knife vs whippersnapper/mall ninja knife" thing.

To speak from the old fart perspective I'll just say "Hey young'ns, I'm not into those kind of knives anymore but I'll certainly defend your right to carry. Just please behave around the rubes!".

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I agree that the "old OD" vs "younger man" thing is sure in play here for our responses. I fall in the OD category. I don't care for an Opinal for a edc because it is uncomfortable to carry in a jeans front pocket. But that bulge may do something for those whom want/need to compensate?

 

[davek14]

You're awesomesauce buddy. You are another asset to this board. Your comprehensive stuff on Opinels is something I've always admired.

I also want to see the mid range steels added to this listing. I'm thinking we've made that rather clear. The coarse list is the only one still active so that's what we've got. I suspected as well that the harder large carbide steels would have an advantage.

Now, if USA Schrade 1095 gets trashed in a thread, we'll have another discussion on our hands.

Dave,

I agree with you.

If I'm reading a review in Car & Driver on the current crop of AWD station wagons, I would expect to see a list of stats. One of them would be the 1/4 mile time. It would be one of the factors, but not *THE* factor. And in the context of evaluating different AWD station wagons, it would be relevant and informative.

If the reviews were for value EDC knives under $50, the rope cutting test would become relevant and informative. But in that price range, the steels would mostly be mid-grade steels and the comparisons would be more apples to apples.

I wouldn't bother reading a Car & Driver article that pitted the Audi Allroad and Volvo Cross-Country against the Dodge Challenger in the 1/4 mile. Well, maybe I would for grins, but it's not like there would be any surprise in the results.

To continue with the car analogy... a stock Opinel is like a stock old-school muscle car. Stock, fresh off the show room floor, it's OK but not stellar. If you want a chance to win in the local Friday night races, you are expected to roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty and tweak, tune and modify to get great performance out of it. Modern $50 flippers are like, I dunno... like a Nissan Altima with a bigger motor in it. Goes real good off the show room floor and when you open the hood, you're faced with a wall of covers and sealed systems. You're expected to drive it more or less as is which is fine, because it goes real good.

A stock Opinel won't impress anybody who cares about the driving experience really. They're awfully crude out of the box. Their appeal is to people like you and me who actually enjoy the tuning and tweaking and modifying as a part of the experience.

I do hope Ankerson turns his attention to under $50 dollar knives as a group. The tests would be more interesting. But just like we would expect rear-wheel drive cars to dominate the 1/4 mile in any given price range, we would expect that value knives using large carbide steels like D2 or 440C (and its cheaper Chinese equivalents) will dominate. The 1/4 mile is interesting, but not a full blown car review.

Opinels also appeal to people who want reasonably rugged, lightweight, EDC single blade folders. That's a mouth full and roughly equivalent to saying "interested in a small sized 4WD pick up", or "AWD sport wagon". If you want to compare the Opinel to other knives of its kind, the review really needs to be expanded to consider all aspects of the knife, just like you need to consider all aspects of the cars, not just the 1/4 mile time. Owners of expensive Audis hate Subarus and dismiss them as "cheap". Shrug. This soon gets into the emotional landscape of purchasing.

 

[davek14]

I agree that the "old OD" vs "younger man" thing is sure in play here for our responses. I fall in the OD category. I don't care for an Opinal for a edc because it is uncomfortable to carry in a jeans front pocket. But that bulge may do something for those whom want/need to compensate?

I need a #13.

 

[Ankerson]

Now, if USA Schrade 1095 gets trashed in a thread, we'll have another discussion on our hands.

1095 is 1095, no amount of so called magic will make any difference as the alloy content will still be the same, the alloy just isn't there to make much of a difference.

That's assuming a good HT of the steel just like any other steel...

Most of the perceived difference seen in the supposed magic 1095 has more to do with the specific knives, geometry etc than much else when talking about production knives.

1095 is usually in the 55-58 range in production knives and that's normal for that steel.

The difference is seen in customs when the hardness is pushed into the 64+ range to get the compression strength up high enough to make the edge stable enough that it doesn't blunt as easy. That's the only thing that will actually increase the performance of 1095 because the alloy just isn't there to develop the carbides for increased wear resistance.

That's the main reason why I start laughing when any thread is started on 1095 because there is so much BS surrounding the supposed different manufacturers and their 1095 that it's just down right funny. The steel is what it is, that's NOT going to change .

 

[Rhinoknives1]

I need a #13.

Well here is the No4 I have for front pocket carry! That's a Quarter in the picture for size comparison. LOL

Stainless Inox steel of course.

Johnny Holmes never had it so good!

 

[davek14]

Well now, that IS my button if you wanna know. Kinda tickled a little when you pressed it.

Now you're gonna have to do USA Schrade 1095 as well.

1095 is 1095, no amount of so called magic will make any difference as the alloy content will still be the same, the alloy just isn't there to make much of a difference.

That's assuming a good HT of the steel just like any other steel...

Most of the perceived difference seen in the supposed magic 1095 has more to do with the specific knives, geometry etc than much else when talking about production knives.

1095 is usually in the 55-58 range in production knives and that's normal for that steel.

The difference is seen in customs when the hardness is pushed into the 64+ range to get the compression strength up high enough to make the edge stable enough that it doesn't blunt as easy. That's the only thing that will actually increase the performance of 1095 because the alloy just isn't there to develop the carbides for increased wear resistance.

That's the main reason why I start laughing when any thread is started on 1095 because there is so much BS surrounding the supposed different manufacturers and their 1095 that it's just down right funny. The steel is what it is, that's NOT going to change .

 

[Ankerson]

Well now, that IS my button if you wanna know. Kinda tickled a little when you pressed it.

Now you're gonna have to do USA Schrade 1095 as well.

It won't make any difference what 1095 it is in that test as they all will be very close in performance, too close to really tell the difference once the variables are taken into account.......

1095 isn't optimal for that type of use, that or any of the other low alloy steels so they all will be pretty (VERY) close to each other percentage wise.

I have used and tested enough 1095 over the past 3 decades to see there really isn't any real difference.

It's more the knives themselves than the steel.

The alloy content of 1095 is what it is and that's not going to change...

 

[davek14]

1095 is 1095, no amount of so called magic will make any difference as the alloy content will still be the same, the alloy just isn't there to make much of a difference.

That's assuming a good HT of the steel just like any other steel...

Most of the perceived difference seen in the supposed magic 1095 has more to do with the specific knives, geometry etc than much else when talking about production knives.

1095 is usually in the 55-58 range in production knives and that's normal for that steel.

The difference is seen in customs when the hardness is pushed into the 64+ range to get the compression strength up high enough to make the edge stable enough that it doesn't blunt as easy. That's the only thing that will actually increase the performance of 1095 because the alloy just isn't there to develop the carbides for increased wear resistance.

That's the main reason why I start laughing when any thread is started on 1095 because there is so much BS surrounding the supposed different manufacturers and their 1095 that it's just down right funny. The steel is what it is, that's NOT going to change .

It won't make any difference what 1095 it is in that test as they all will be very close in performance, too close to really tell the difference once the variables are taken into account.......

1095 isn't optimal for that type of use, that or any of the other low alloy steels so they all will be pretty (VERY) close to each other percentage wise.

I have used and tested enough 1095 over the past 3 decades to see there really isn't any real difference.

It's more the knives themselves than the steel.

The alloy content of 1095 is what it is and that's not going to change...

I unnerstand.

But ain't the AUS8 and the Buck 420 also low alloy steels? I found it interesting that the AUS8 was (what?) 150 strokes and the Opie Inox 120. I wondered whose AUS8 it was. I'll have to go back and see if it was specified. Some AUS8 has a much better rep than others. I mean, I even want to know who makes the best AUS8.

Some of us folks want to get the best for our pennies and the difference in 55 and 58 rockwell might make a difference to us.

And, as you said, there are other variables.

I'm glad we are in agreement that this test is not the best for these type steels. Still, I would like to see some mid-range steels added.

 

[Ankerson]

I unnerstand.

But ain't the AUS8 and the Buck 420 also low alloy steels? I found it interesting that the AUS8 was (what?) 150 strokes and the Opie Inox 120. I wondered whose AUS8 it was. I'll have to go back and see if it was specified. Some AUS8 has a much better rep than others. I mean, I even want to know who makes the best AUS8.

Some of us folks want to get the best for our pennies and the difference in 55 and 58 rockwell might make a difference to us.

And, as you said, there are other variables.

I'm glad we are in agreement that this test is not the best for these type steels. Still, I would like to see some mid-range steels added.

I seriously doubt it....

Other that the higher RC is in folders generally and the lower is used in choppers and machetes..

As far as real use goes in cutting you will never see the difference or than perception, but that's not real..... Now 58-65 yeah..... and that's what it would really take in that steel.... To be noticeable... And the makers know that already....

There are a lot of urban legends and myths floating around and hyped up to sell knives....

 

[Ankerson]

I unnerstand.

But ain't the AUS8 and the Buck 420 also low alloy steels? I found it interesting that the AUS8 was (what?) 150 strokes and the Opie Inox 120. I wondered whose AUS8 it was. I'll have to go back and see if it was specified. Some AUS8 has a much better rep than others. I mean, I even want to know who makes the best AUS8.

.

There are a few factors at work here The Opinels are .012" behind the edge vs the Recon 1 in AUS-8A that is .025" behind the edge, same as the Buck 110 and that does make a difference so they really aren't as close as you think...

Then AUS-8A and 420HC can be heat treated and tempered to bring more Chromium into the matrix for carbide development that aids in wear resistance, that's something can't happen with the low alloy carbon steels because the alloy isn't there..


So the INOX (12c27) is .012" behind the edge while the AUS 8A is twice as thick at .025" behind the edge and we still get 120 vs 160 when the INOX Opinel has a large advantage in geometry by 100%.....

Those are the things that I look at when testing and evaluating steels.

That's why when you posted the INOX was close to AUS 8A I posted the above.... And will say again.... NOT REALLY..

 

[Ankerson]

Then start looking at the Carbon vs AUS-8A... That's 80 vs 160 for a 100% difference and the Carbon Opinel had a 100% advantage in geometry over the Recon 1....

And the AUS-8A Recon 1 still beat it by 100%....

So sometimes things aren't as clear as they seem so one has to look at all the factors involved to get a clear picture.

 

[Grampa]

Opinels are the folding equivalent of a Mora.

 

[davek14]

There are a few factors at work here The Opinels are .012" behind the edge vs the Recon 1 in AUS-8A that is .025" behind the edge, same as the Buck 110 and that does make a difference so they really aren't as close as you think...

Then AUS-8A and 420HC can be heat treated and tempered to bring more Chromium into the matrix for carbide development that aids in wear resistance, that's something can't happen with the low alloy carbon steels because the alloy isn't there..


So the INOX (12c27) is .012" behind the edge while the AUS 8A is twice as thick at .025" behind the edge and we still get 120 vs 160 when the INOX Opinel has a large advantage in geometry by 100%.....

Those are the things that I look at when testing and evaluating steels.

That's why when you posted the INOX was close to AUS 8A I posted the above.... And will say again.... NOT REALLY..

I'm confused, for wear resistance wouldn't a thinner edge with a coarse grind put a fine grained low carbide forming steel at a disadvantage by compromising edge stability. Thus an Opinels convex grind.

 

[Ankerson]

I'm confused, for wear resistance wouldn't a thinner edge with a coarse grind put a fine grained low carbide forming steel at a disadvantage by compromising edge stability. Thus an Opinels convex grind.

Nope....

Opinels aren't convex either, the ones I have aren't at all.....

 

[pinnah]

It won't make any difference what 1095 it is in that test as they all will be very close in performance, too close to really tell the difference once the variables are taken into account.......

1095 isn't optimal for that type of use, that or any of the other low alloy steels so they all will be pretty (VERY) close to each other percentage wise.

I have used and tested enough 1095 over the past 3 decades to see there really isn't any real difference.

It's more the knives themselves than the steel.

The alloy content of 1095 is what it is and that's not going to change...

Sigh...

What you mean to say is that all will be close in terms of rope cutting.

Rope cutting doesn't tell the whole story of performance. Abrasion resistance is interesting, but only one factor.

If you can't tell the difference between Opinel's 56Rc Carbone and Schrade USA's 58-59 Rc 1095, then as they say, you're doing it wrong. Or rather, doing it only focused on abrasion resistance.

 

[pinnah]

I'm confused, for wear resistance wouldn't a thinner edge with a coarse grind put a fine grained low carbide forming steel at a disadvantage by compromising edge stability. Thus an Opinels convex grind.

Dave,

Remember his test concludes each stroke with a 20lb pressure into wood. My guess he's folding the edge on the Inox. And on the Carbone for that matter.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Sigh...

What you mean to say is that all will be close in terms of rope cutting.

Rope cutting doesn't tell the whole story of performance. Abrasion resistance is interesting, but only one factor.

If you can't tell the difference between Opinel's 56Rc Carbone and Schrade USA's 58-59 Rc 1095, then as they say, you're doing it wrong. Or rather, doing it only focused on abrasion resistance.

Could you do some of your complete performance tests for us and kindly post the results?

 

[pinnah]

Could you do some of your complete performance tests for us and kindly post the results?

Because I have to deal with this in my work all the time and understand that "performance testing" that generate "results" have to be done in a larger context to be meaningful.

Testing supports product (or design) evaluation.
Product evaluations support documented use cases or scenarios.

If we can settle on a use case or scenario, we can decide on a set of evaluation criteria for that use case. Some of these criteria will be quantitative in nature. Others will be qualitative. Some of quantitatively criteria can be handled with tests that generate quantitative "results" which may or may not be directly related to the performance criteria (e.g. rope cutting vs abrasion resistance). The importance or relevance of any given test to another use case and supporting set of performance criteria is unpredictable.

The Opinel is a pocket knife made for farming (with significant overlap with backpacking/camping, where it has good success). This is the use case that the knife should be evaluated against. You will notice I didn't say EDC. This is because there is no good agreement on what EDC means and because what people carry daily starts to get us into the realm of personal self-definition through consumer product choices, a purely marketing concern (i.e. what does my knife say about me?).

I'm a work and don't have the time to provide a more detailed list of evaluation criteria for a farming/backpacking knife. This basic outline would need to be taken another level deeper or more I've not thought much about this as it's my lunch hour:

CUTTING
+ Wood cutting performance
+ Cordage and cardboard performance
+ Vegetable cutting
+ Meat and game

DURABILITY
+ Withstand repeated strong cutting forces
+ Withstand repeated strong lateral forces
+ Withstand repeated strong torsional forces
+ Durability of handle materials (crushing, being dropped, tool box damage)
+ Functionality of joint/lock when fouled with dirt, sand, etc.
+ Ability to resist edge chipping
+ Ability to retain a sharp edge

USABILITY
+ Ability to washed
+ Grip when wet
+ Torsional grip
+ Handle comfort during repeated heavy cutting
+ Pocket carry (weight, size, clip or no clip)
+ Ability to be sharpened in the field

There are many ways to consider different designs or products against a set of performance criteria. A common one is the "balanced score card". A good example of a balanced score card is the Consumer Reports used cars report. A list of criteria all presented on a visual 5 point scale. Another approach is a structured report or evaluation rubric.

This thread has been hijacked. The original question was about the loyal following of the Opinel. In my experience, to understand the appeal of the Opinel one has to consider it against other knives suitability for the farming/backpacking use case and consider the alternatives against set of criteria something like or derived from what I wrote above. If you do, then the Opinel fares well, despite it's low cost. Instead, we are now talking about the efficacy of rope cutting to determine edge retention. It's one tiny aspect of the larger picture.


A word about market requirements, as opposed to functional requirements. It is the world of market requirements where we get into why people buy what they buy and the marketing reality that people buy consumer products mostly to satisfy emotional "needs". Three of the deepest held emotional, pre-rational and almost religious beliefs in the US regarding consumer products of all sorts are a) BEST can determined through object performance criteria (e.g. faster, lighter, stronger, harder), b) PRICE correlates to function, and c) NEW is always better than old. The first leads to the deeply held belief in metrics, quantification and statistics. The second leads to the game that can be played with pricing strategies like the premium pricing strategy. The third leads to an incorrect dismissal of solid engineering done by our elders.

I mention the problems of market requirements to wrap back to your request for me to develop my test. Your desire for objective testing is a part of a larger cultural bias for objective testing as a way to justify and understand purchasing decisions. This is true regardless of and often in spite of performance criteria that actually matter. Here's an example from the cycling world. Obviously, lighter is better for bikes, right? Enter the world of the "weight weenies". They even have their own web site. http://weightweenies.starbike.com/

Question: Why do weight weenies ride lighter bikes than the Tour de France winner? Or better, why is that the bike that won the TdF isn't the lightest bike made?

Answer: For exactly the same reason why the Boye Boat knife isn't the best farming/backpacking knife despite the fact that it would have a good shot at being at the very top of Ankerson's rope cutting test.

This is the fallacy of relying on repeatable tests that generate numeric "results". They're a lazy excuse for actual product evaluation and play into our cultural belief in objective, numerical truth.

 

[Rhinoknives1]

Because I have to deal with this in my work all the time and understand that "performance testing" that generate "results" have to be done in a larger context to be meaningful.

Testing supports product (or design) evaluation.
Product evaluations support documented use cases or scenarios.

If we can settle on a use case or scenario, we can decide on a set of evaluation criteria for that use case. Some of these criteria will be quantitative in nature. Others will be qualitative. Some of quantitatively criteria can be handled with tests that generate quantitative "results" which may or may not be directly related to the performance criteria (e.g. rope cutting vs abrasion resistance). The importance or relevance of any given test to another use case and supporting set of performance criteria is unpredictable.

The Opinel is a pocket knife made for farming (with significant overlap with backpacking/camping, where it has good success). This is the use case that the knife should be evaluated against. You will notice I didn't say EDC. This is because there is no good agreement on what EDC means and because what people carry daily starts to get us into the realm of personal self-definition through consumer product choices, a purely marketing concern (i.e. what does my knife say about me?).

I'm a work and don't have the time to provide a more detailed list of evaluation criteria for a farming/backpacking knife. This basic outline would need to be taken another level deeper or more I've not thought much about this as it's my lunch hour:

CUTTING
+ Wood cutting performance
+ Cordage and cardboard performance
+ Vegetable cutting
+ Meat and game

DURABILITY
+ Withstand repeated strong cutting forces
+ Withstand repeated strong lateral forces
+ Withstand repeated strong torsional forces
+ Durability of handle materials (crushing, being dropped, tool box damage)
+ Functionality of joint/lock when fouled with dirt, sand, etc.
+ Ability to resist edge chipping
+ Ability to retain a sharp edge

USABILITY
+ Ability to washed
+ Grip when wet
+ Torsional grip
+ Handle comfort during repeated heavy cutting
+ Pocket carry (weight, size, clip or no clip)
+ Ability to be sharpened in the field

There are many ways to consider different designs or products against a set of performance criteria. A common one is the "balanced score card". A good example of a balanced score card is the Consumer Reports used cars report. A list of criteria all presented on a visual 5 point scale. Another approach is a structured report or evaluation rubric.

This thread has been hijacked. The original question was about the loyal following of the Opinel. In my experience, to understand the appeal of the Opinel one has to consider it against other knives suitability for the farming/backpacking use case and consider the alternatives against set of criteria something like or derived from what I wrote above. If you do, then the Opinel fares well, despite it's low cost. Instead, we are now talking about the efficacy of rope cutting to determine edge retention. It's one tiny aspect of the larger picture.


A word about market requirements, as opposed to functional requirements. It is the world of market requirements where we get into why people buy what they buy and the marketing reality that people buy consumer products mostly to satisfy emotional "needs". Three of the deepest held emotional, pre-rational and almost religious beliefs in the US regarding consumer products of all sorts are a) BEST can determined through object performance criteria (e.g. faster, lighter, stronger, harder), b) PRICE correlates to function, and c) NEW is always better than old. The first leads to the deeply held belief in metrics, quantification and statistics. The second leads to the game that can be played with pricing strategies like the premium pricing strategy. The third leads to an incorrect dismissal of solid engineering done by our elders.

I mention the problems of market requirements to wrap back to your request for me to develop my test. Your desire for objective testing is a part of a larger cultural bias for objective testing as a way to justify and understand purchasing decisions. This is true regardless of and often in spite of performance criteria that actually matter. Here's an example from the cycling world. Obviously, lighter is better for bikes, right? Enter the world of the "weight weenies". They even have their own web site. http://weightweenies.starbike.com/

Question: Why do weight weenies ride lighter bikes than the Tour de France winner? Or better, why is that the bike that won the TdF isn't the lightest bike made?

Answer: For exactly the same reason why the Boye Boat knife isn't the best farming/backpacking knife despite the fact that it would have a good shot at being at the very top of Ankerson's rope cutting test.

This is the fallacy of relying on repeatable tests that generate numeric "results". They're a lazy excuse for actual product evaluation and play into our cultural belief in objective, numerical truth.

I think I can safely say that myself and most others that have posted in the thread are aware of the parameters of a quantitative test. Also I previously mentioned that we/I know that all testing is skewed by the means of the test itself and the testers.

Jim, didn't hijacked this thread. He stated that these were his findings for his given medium and he wasn't planning on addressing a symposium of metallurgists, engineers or other pointy headed intellectuals with his findings.

You have gone to great lengths to dispel and find flaws with his method, medium etc. Calling it "entertaining but not informative" were your words I believe? You keep giving examples of cars, cycles, consumer reports, etc..

We deal with knives here in this forum and my request has nothing to do with a "Cultural Bias".
It has to do with a request for you to kindly share a "better" test than Jim's rope & cardboard cutting evaluation or to leave it alone since you seem to be on the war path to prove another member wrong, but really haven't provided anything better that pertains to the knives that he tested after several lengthy posts telling us that he is all wrong.

So! What say you?

 

[pinnah]

You have gone to great lengths to dispel and find flaws with his method, medium etc. Calling it "entertaining but not informative" were your words I believe? You keep giving examples of cars, cycles, consumer reports, etc..

We deal with knives here in this forum and my request has nothing to do with a "Cultural Bias".
It has to do with a request for you to kindly share a "better" test than Jim's rope & cardboard cutting evaluation or to leave it alone since you seem to be on the war path to prove another member wrong, but really haven't provided anything better that pertains to the knives that he tested after several lengthy posts telling us that he is all wrong.

So! What say you?

Laurence,

Based in my engineering experience, I have offered something better. I may have not explained it well, you may not understand what I'm trying to convey or you may simply disagree. But I have offered what I believe to be a better alternative. Condensed to 2 sentences...

1) When evaluating the value/performance of different knives (not blades), scenario based evaluations that consider a wide range of performance criteria are preferable to focusing on a single test.
2) Any given test may be more or less useful in an evaluation, depending on the scenario being considered.

My contention is that for the farming/backpacking scenario (described quickly, crudely and incompletely above) is that there is a greater need for blades that a) can take a very fine edge for wood working, b) will resist chipping from strong lateral forces imparted from wood working, c) are easily sharpened in the field. In this way, the blade considerations for this scenario are somewhat similar to those for survival knives, bushcraft knives and dedicated wood working/whittling knives. In these categories, fine grained mid grade steels dominate, with the primary discriminator being heat treatment & hardness (and not the presence of carbides).

There are scenarios where Jim's tests are more illuminating. I'll name two (but won't give full work ups):

CONSTRUCTION/TRADES - In this scenario, it is likely the user will be cutting abrasive materials such as cardboard, cordage, dry wall and strapping all day long. Blade performance favors aggressive carbides instead of a keen edge. In terms of sharpening, the user strongly prefers to avoid sharpening during the day and will touch up the knife at home as needed. In this scenario, the new powdered carbide forming steels give a real and noticeable performance advantage and Jim's testing becomes very relevant.

COLLECTING: ULTIMATE - In many consumer markets there are collectors. Among collectors, there is typically a sub-group of collectors who enjoy the pride of owning "the best", even if they don't push the object to its performance limits. <analogy> This is common among car, bike, watch, pen and guitar enthusiasts, for example. </analogy> For buyers of this kind, Jim's tests become very, very relevant.

I'm not trying to "prove Jim wrong". I'm saying that his results don't really shed light on the value proposition of the Opinel (any more than they would on the Case Sodbuster or Victorinox Soldier). Right test applied to the wrong scenario.