Why the trend toward thicker blades?

R

rishma

Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,898
Just curious. Share your thoughts.

I am not sure I understand the trend toward thicker blades in folders. CRK Inkosi being the latest example, but thicker blades pop up in nearly every modern folder line. I am attracted to the strong folder design, I am just not sure why I want the extra thickness and weight of a more stout blade.

I EDC a mnandi, so obviously a smaller knife suits my daily needs. I have never wished I had a thicker blade for the cutting tasks I perform. I use SAK cap lifter for prying needs.

What sort of tasks are aided by having thicker blade stock?

Cheers.
 
rishma said:
Just curious. Share your thoughts.

I am not sure I understand the trend toward thicker blades in folders. CRK Inkosi being the latest example, but thicker blades pop up in nearly every modern folder line. I am attracted to the strong folder design, I am just not sure why I want the extra thickness and weight of a more stout blade.

I EDC a mnandi, so obviously a smaller knife suits my daily needs. I have never wished I had a thicker blade for the cutting tasks I perform. I use SAK cap lifter for prying needs.

What sort of tasks are aided by having thicker blade stock?

Cheers.
Click to expand...

It's a trend that I don't get myself. In my mind the 21 has the perfect balance. I've never felt it was on the verge of cracking or bending. I'd be all over a 25 or large inkosi "lightweight" version with the same blade stock as a 21. In fact I would love to see a 21 "lightweight" with the same blade stock as a Mnandi, and maybe flat ground.

Anyways......I'm with you on this.
 
I hate it personally. I prefer thin blades, grinds, and tips. I think people like artsy, badass looking, special, small pocket knives that they possibly wouldn't be afraid to use on a task that abuses the tip like digging out some old stacked leather on a hatchet handle that you're refurbishing. Most lovers of such knives are collectors who might not even use such a knife to cut an apple. I like very inexpensive knives for such things and a knife like a hair popping spyderco military for cutting anything from food, plastic, to rope.
 
I am sooooooo with you on that Kid. I think the Inkosi blade should be around .090" to .100" thick. What a great slicer it would be. I wouldn't be roughing up this knife.

Actually, a small 21 with it's .120 thick blade could be thinner and be great.

Fat chance of this happening.:D
 
It's all about marketing. People like to feel like their knives are indestructible and companies play on this desire. Personally, I think the Sebenza 21 blade thickness of .125 with the Sebenza 25's "large hallow grind" is all the blade I need. Would love to see that in the future p.
 
I EDC a TSF Gorgon and a Sebenza 25 and I love the thicker stock especially considering both offer an edge angle that works well. In fact I've been using my Gorgon for all of my EDC takes lately and have yet to come across a situation where it was too thick or thin to handle the job. I'm even whittling out a few things to compare against the ones I did with smaller/thinner knives. So far so good.
I don't really have any issues with thinner stock blades such as the 21 and the Insingo but they're not my first choice either. I believe it has more to do with the grind and tip thickness than overall blade thickness to be honest. I'm just not a huge fan of hollow grinds. Change up to the shallow hollow grind, especially on the Insingo and I'd be all over that. In spite of that, I do plan to pick up a 21 eventually just to have one in the collection. I'll probably grab an Inkosi eventually for more public friendly use/carry as well.
Fact is, I've broken more than a few knife tips and such(thinner blade stock, most hollow ground) over the years both here and down range by using them hard and admittedly abusing them at times. Given a choice I do prefer the thicker stock, not because I feel they're indestructible but because I know they'll work hard and I won't have to baby them as much.
 
It's a problem of manufacturers creating knives that sell well rather than work well. Face it, Knife people are a minority in the real world, what percentage of the population even knows how to properly sharpen a knife? Thick blades look stronger and more robust. If you use a knife as a screwdriver, they are. If you actually only use a knife to cut things, thicker is worse. (Cut an apple, potato, or carrot with both blade types and you'll see what I mean.) non-knife people often don't even know what its like to use a properly sharpened knife. The buying public seems to be buying the "overbuilt knife designs" in droves...is there a single ZT knife that doesn't follow this trend?

You can't blame manufacturers for making what sells well, even though I am a fan of thinner blades that slice better. That said, I fell in love with the looks of the Spyderco Techno with a thick (4.5 MM .175 inch) Blade. Full Flat grind on a wide blade profile helps, and I've been using it as my EDC over a year without complaint. On the other hand I have decided to replace it with a Spyderco Chaparral, one of the thinner blade offerings around. (1.9MM .077 inch)

So to summarize why the trend exist:

Sales
rugged looks
Sales
Large percentage of knife buyers that are more collectors than users and or un-educated.
Sales

The advantages are:
rugged looks
Having a blade just like everyone else
less worry about breakage when behaving like an imbecile that shouldn't be allowed to carry sharp instruments.

Grizz
 
That's funny because I carry the Chaparral right now and the next one I want is a Techno. I want it because I wanted something a little beefier in-hand without massive size. The grind really helps on that one.
 
gdwtvb said:
The buying public seems to be buying the "overbuilt knife designs" in droves...is there a single ZT knife that doesn't follow this trend?

Grizz
Click to expand...


This makes sense. So much of a knife purchase is about aesthetics (for most people). I am no different. I guess my priorities are just different than the buying public at large. I value light weight far above crow-bar prying strength in a knife.
 
Thicker stock with the proper grind can still cut quite well. :)

Thicker stock with the wrong grind , not so much.
My Buck CSAR-T has 0.175" thick stock, but the real problem is that the grind is WAY too short, and remains rather thick.
Compare that to a knife with thick stock and a full height flat grind like the Spyderco Military though, and it becomes immediately obvious that the stock is not the main factor in how a knife cuts.
 
I think because it sells.
Majority of knife buyers don't know jack about knives, and assume thicker blades are better.
I'm guessing chris reeve realizes this and trying to fit in the market.
US bladeforum members who have used knives much longer than the rookies, usually prefer thin blades, as I've said before, the 21 is a perfect knife for me. Why I bought the 25? Probably impulse, i carried it 1 week and the 21 is back in my pocket.
 
I sometimes wonder if it's not an issue that the ceramic ball interface needs the thicker stock to seat and be safe. Maybe that's why the 25 has the same stock as the umnum. We'll see with the Large Inkosi when that drops.
 
That's why I think I love the Insingo so much.... the blade seems much thinner than my Regs, or 21's.... Cuts cleaner as a rule...
 
I used to have a Reglus made by Dalibor. The blade was .202 and the scales were .190. The knife was like a fixed blade with a very strong lock.

The handle was 5.25 and the blade cutting edge was 3.5. It weighed about 9.5 ozs.

I sold it about 18 months after I got and made a $140 profit, Dalibor posted on my fs thread that my knife was the first Regulus he made.

He told me spent several hours hand sharpening it. The steel was 3V. Dalibor had a 2 year waiting list when I sold my Regulus.

He sent me a pic of a 4" log he chopped in half with his own Regulus when he was making my knife.

The finish on the scales was orange peel, looks like the peel of an orange, OP is by far the most durable finish on a ti scale....doesn't

show any marks or scratches.

I'd much rather have a .125 blade on a Sebenza, it's much more practical and useable.
 
kidcongo said:
I sometimes wonder if it's not an issue that the ceramic ball interface needs the thicker stock to seat and be safe. Maybe that's why the 25 has the same stock as the umnum. We'll see with the Large Inkosi when that drops.
Click to expand...

Very interesting thought.
 
Interesting thought Cody, and there might be some truth to that! However, I think it mostly is marketing and trend following. I almost always carry traditional knife along with one of my "modern" folders (which is usually a Sebenza), and one reason is the thin blade stock makes for a better slicing knife.
I will still buy a Inkosi though:)
 
So thicker blades are more popular because of what people imagine they will do with the knife. The only task a thin blade will not do well is prying (which no blade should be used for). To avoid prying with a blade I often also carry a SAK. Admittedly I don't always like carrying a second folder.

My dream knife is a thin blade modern folder with a SAK style cap lifter on the opposite end for prying. This would allow me to carry only 1 folder and prevent me from being a dumbass.

Guess I could pry things with an Inkosi :rolleyes:
 
HwangJino said:
I think because it sells.
Majority of knife buyers don't know jack about knives, and assume thicker blades are better.
I'm guessing chris reeve realizes this and trying to fit in the market.
US bladeforum members who have used knives much longer than the rookies, usually prefer thin blades, as I've said before, the 21 is a perfect knife for me. Why I bought the 25? Probably impulse, i carried it 1 week and the 21 is back in my pocket.
Click to expand...

Usually but definitely not always. Not all blade buyers are rookies and not all buyers of thicker stock blades are basing their purchases on imaginary tasks. That's a pretty broad statement claiming that the majority of knife buyers don't know jack about knives. What do you base this assumption on? Assuming thicker blades are better is not always the wrong thing. Perhaps they're basing this assumption on some personal experience. Liking a thicker stock doesn't make you a n00b any more than spending a few years posting on a forum makes you an expert.

Just how long must one use and handle knives before their decision has any merit? I've been using knives for over 40 years, 21 of those years spent on Active Duty. While I see a use and a place for thinner blades I still find I prefer a bit more meat on my knives. Like Stabman said 'with the proper grind'.
 
In regards to the Inkosi, wasn't it explained by Anne that the thicker stock was a requirement of them using the large contact wheel hollow grind like on the bigger knives? Unless I misunderstood that's the only driving force for the thicker stock.
 
MattWRog said:
In regards to the Inkosi, wasn't it explained by Anne that the thicker stock was a requirement of them using the large contact wheel hollow grind like on the bigger knives? Unless I misunderstood that's the only driving force for the thicker stock.
Click to expand...

Do you know where you heard this? I hadn't caught that bit of info. Just imagining the large hollow grind geometry, it isn't obvious to me why the blade stock would need to be thicker. Actually, in my mind you could use even thinner stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top