Definitely not cost cutting ks. There is no hidden agenda here.
With bringing on and developing a proprietary steel, an incredible commitment in terms of volume and cost is involved. Cost reduction was not the goal here. Development of a project of this magnitude negates any chance of reducing ones overall steel costs. If we were looking to cut costs, we would lateral down to 12C27.
With this "all in" mentality, we're undoubtedly not going to sacrifice when it comes to the steels overall abilities as well. Now that would defeat the goal. 14C28N will have very similar characteristics to 13C26, and its performance will be on par or better (I'm leaning better).
We're not the kind of company to step backwards ks, and this changeover is no exception. We've been very satisfied with 13C26, and our relationship with Sandvik has flourished over the years. Again, 14C28N is improved over 13C26 on multiple fronts IMO, and I really feel the customer base will be left satisfied with the change.
I'm speaking in broad generalities here today, as I mentioned earlier, we are currently still conducting internal testing with regards to 14C28N. More specifics will be available in the future, once we have had a chance to really play and get to know the steel.
Hope this is of assistance, and puts any of your doubts to rest.