New testing session.

[nozh2002]

I like you tests, and I think that eliminating the wooden board is an easy and effective way of clarifying some test data. But still looking at the numbers, they confuse me quite a bit. How can you rate one Steel over another, when there is a big difference in results within the same knife.

Take Yuna for example, after 200 cuts the difference between 1st run (80) and 2nd run (50) is 38%. Or ELMAX after 100 cuts doing on a 1st run (45) and on 2nd run (65). That's 31% difference. After how many cuts do you establish the winner?

Yes this is an possible issue, this is why I did test Sniper Blade LPC three times to see what variations would be. All were not same but pretty close. That made me confident that in normal condition results will be stable.

Yuna and Elmax are edge cases. Yuna was first and so after year or so I decided to retest it, first run of course always different and so I did it again. With Elmax I was not satisfied with first run - I did testing late night, right after I got knife I was rushing to test this new promising steel. I did not like results and so decide to retest it next day without any rush. I decide to keep both results on the page for Yuna and for Elmax - I do not thing that editing results even in this case would be correct.

There are also cases when blade is doing better after more cuts. That is weird. I'm sorry I haven't read the whole 500 post in those 3 threads you have links to, but I have read some opinions about some weird thing like carbides alignment and blade doing better after several sharpening... I think the problem is that you're doing the sharpness test in one spot on the blade. Why not to put 5 dots and do 4 cuts on each spot, instead of 21 cuts on one spot. The CATRA machine for example doesn't have such flaw, because it does the cut/test with couple of inches on the edge.

Well we do not really understand what is edge going through. What is some carbides fall out. But I noticed this little "improvement" many times. I guess it is possible variations. I do not worry about that.

Then on top of different results from the same knife, there is a big variance within the same steel from different manufacturers. The good thing is that you're listing the exact knife in your rating. But still, how can you rate one steel better than the other when there is so much weird stuff is going on? Even rating one knife technically might be incorrect, because the same knife on a 3rd run might show different result (but that will improve statistics). Also, is there a guarantee that if I buy the same model as you have tested, it will behave exactly the same way as yours?

There is no any guarantee, you should make your up you mind yourself. But this is better at least to me then any other information available on blade performance.

At least the numbers from CATRA machine come from the same manufacturer (if I understand this correctly)? They can easily test 10 knives with the same steel and come up with average number that they can compare to the average number of the other steel (I have no clue how they actually do it).
But also that data from manufacturer's CATRA will be valid only to that particular manufacturer and their heat treatment. As everybody knows (and very nicely shown by you) same steel can be heat treated by different manufacturer very differently. More than that, even if data shows that edge is more wear resistant, it doesn't mean that steel is "better", because there is no toughness in the equation. All that it would mean that Steel A @ X HRC is more wear resistant than Steel B @ Y HRC. Without toughness it is difficult to proclaim one "better overall", than another. Better for whom and for what purpose? ZDP @ 67 HRC holds edge very long, but isn't very durable (at least from one manufacturer). That actually might be why manufacturers don't want to disclose CATRA test results. They have to find a spot where wear resistance, toughness, ease of sharpening would appeal to the public. The CATRA data alone might not speak in their favor.
I wish Spyderco post CATRA numbers for their Mules. That would be pretty awesome.

Existance of CATRA tests useless until results is published. So far this is biggest secret of knife industry and nobody want to share this. So it may be thousands times better, but if nobody know about it - what the point?

Spyderco is not going to publish results - Sal made this pretty clear to my direct request.

I think your tests are generally good, but they are missing more statistics to be really accepted. I understand that you cannot test the same knife 10 times, or better yet 10 different knives of the same model, or 100 knives with the same steel from different 10 different manufacturers, but without it I just don't know how anybody can say that D2 (replace the name) is better than S30V (replace the name) or vice versa. In some way you might even say that very subjective opinion of 100 owners from some use and subjective comparison, might be a better indicator than a result of just one of your(or somebody else) tests. Another problem of course is that those 100 subjective users might not have the same reference point . I wish there be more people trying to do something like you, but I sure am way too lazy to do it and prefer to spend my time on something else . Sorry . I appreciate your efforts though.

Yes, I also would like more tests done to have better statistical representation. More way of testing etc... Initially I was thinking some enthusiasts will join this effort and we will have some kind of community project like in programmers world - this is why I was working on making this method simple and clear so any one can do. But knife world is different. And it is only me doing this tests and I did quite a lot already, I think.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[effer]

Yuna and Elmax are edge cases. Yuna was first and so after year or so I decided to retest it, first run of course always different and so I did it again. With Elmax I was not satisfied with first run - I did testing late night, right after I got knife I was rushing to test this new promising steel. I did not like results and so decide to retest it next day without any rush. I decide to keep both results on the page for Yuna and for Elmax - I do not thing that editing results even in this case would be correct.

I understand.

Well we do not really understand what is edge going through. What is some carbides fall out. But I noticed this little "improvement" many times. I guess it is possible variations. I do not worry about that.

Well, I don't know why not to worry about it, because if you compare test progress of two knives, one with "little improvement" might be far ahead in test dynamic.
For example.
100 cuts: ZDP (1st run) - 55, M2 - 95
200 cuts: ZDP - 80, M2 - 80.

So it looks like in 100 cuts there is a 40 points difference between the two steels, even though they ended up on the same 80 points mark.
I understand that 1st run of ZDP might've been not a good representation.


After how many cuts do you establish the "winner"?

Yes, I also would like more tests done to have better statistical representation. More way of testing etc... Initially I was thinking some enthusiasts will join this effort and we will have some kind of community project like in programmers world - this is why I was working on making this method simple and clear so any one can do. But knife world is different. And it is only me doing this tests and I did quite a lot already, I think.

Test is a bit complicated, very time consuming. People are lazy and not as committed as you are (or anybody who cares to cut rope hundreds of times and post results). Thank you.
Wish I could help... but I don't really want to .... At least I'm honest about it Happy to see the results though.

 

[nozh2002]

I understand.

Well, I don't know why not to worry about it, because if you compare test progress of two knives, one with "little improvement" might be far ahead in test dynamic.
For example.
100 cuts: ZDP (1st run) - 55, M2 - 95
200 cuts: ZDP - 80, M2 - 80.

So it looks like in 100 cuts there is a 40 points difference between the two steels, even though they ended up on the same 80 points mark.
I understand that 1st run of ZDP might've been not a good representation.

After how many cuts do you establish the "winner"?

Test is a bit complicated, very time consuming. People are lazy and not as committed as you are (or anybody who cares to cut rope hundreds of times and post results). Thank you.
Wish I could help... but I don't really want to .... At least I'm honest about it Happy to see the results though.

Well, I may retest BM710 M2.

I always do same amount of cuts, list rating is not quite formal and I guess 5 position difference may indicate statistically overall same performance same. But not too many understand raw numbers, list is just much more readable then "your math gibberish".

Of course this tests does not provide 100% solid final conclusion, but it is better then "steel A so much sexy then steel B".

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[nozh2002]

Just finished testing those two steels. Both steel performs at ZDP-189/CTS-XHP/D2 Dozier level. Both are super performers. Aogami I put on 4th place and COS-3 on 6th.

http://playground.sun.com/~vasya/Manila-Rope-Results.html

Results:
Cuts AOG COS-3 (in oz.)
000 - 0.5 0.5
001 - 1.0 1.5
010 - 3.0 2.5
050 - 3.5 4.0
100 - 4.0 4.5
200 - 4.5 5.0

Thanks, Vassili.

P.S. more details - http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=831821

 

[Sal Glesser]

Hi Vassili,

I am assuming that your test pieces were our Mule Teams.

Thanx for your time and effort and thanx for posting results. We like to see these odd steels put to tests.

sal

 

[nozh2002]

Just finished testing M390 Mule.

It takes 4th place which means his is same as ZDP189, CTS-XHP performance.

http://playground.sun.com/~vasya/Man...e-Results.html

Results:
Cuts M390 (in oz.)
000 - 1.0
001 - 1.5
010 - 2.0
050 - 3.5
100 - 4.0
200 - 4.5

before I tested M360 on BM710 special edition and that take 24th place, which is now solid pattern BM exhibits for most steel from them I tested.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Ankerson]

Just finished testing M390 Mule.

It takes 4th place which means his is same as ZDP189, CTS-XHP performance.

http://playground.sun.com/~vasya/Man...e-Results.html

Results:
Cuts M390 (in oz.)
000 - 1.0
001 - 1.5
010 - 2.0
050 - 3.5
100 - 4.0
200 - 4.5

before I tested M360 on BM710 special edition and that take 24th place, which is now solid pattern BM exhibits for most steel from them I tested.

Thanks, Vassili.

I like those scales. :thumbup:

 

[hardheart]

Just finished testing M390 Mule.

It takes 4th place which means his is same as ZDP189, CTS-XHP performance.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-holding?p=9511069&highlight=m390#post9511069

Do not bother about CPM S90V, CPM S110V, CPM M4, Elmax and M390 - they only have good hype around them but just a little bit better then average performance.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/817681-Cts-xhp?p=9375262&highlight=m390#post9375262

I am not very happy with Elmax ans with M390 and with CPM S35VN and CTS-BD1 and many other steel pushed to us by knife industry marketing as super steels, simple because tests show very average performance.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/817681-Cts-xhp?p=9243034&highlight=m390#post9243034

All this steels are good only in papers produced by marketing drons and promotional posts. They are pretty average performers and far behind CTS-XHP -

S30V, CPM154, ELMAX, M390

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-vs-M390?p=8784577&highlight=m390#post8784577

So it is not matter of my personal opinion, but formal test results. And unfortunately everybody may disagree and say that M390 better, but no one have test results which may support this. I may be wrong, but there is no solid evidence of that.

 

[nozh2002]

Well, if you try to shame me - you fail.

Well there is no other test results than what I have. Ankerson test are informal by his own words and IMHO to extent it compromises results. I raise question about his method and have no answers from him - who am I after all?

I am doing testing for a while - several years, not just few times - I tested 41 different blades, developed statistical sharpness measurement etc, etc, etc.

So it is not matter of my personal opinion, but formal test results. And unfortunately everybody may disagree and say that M390 better, but no one have test results which may support this. I may be wrong, but there is no solid evidence of that.

Thanks, Vassili.

This is still stands as it was stated.

There was no solid evidence of M390 being good until Spyderco release Mule M390 doing proper heat treatment and, I should point, me doing my tests right away - I think I am pretty honest here.

BM did bad job with heat treatment and this is how BM doing it for a while - you may see it in other results for other steel. Fact that Spyderco know how to heat treat M390 does not make BM710 with M390 any better.

I am impressed with you having some kind of folder on me keeping all this quotas. But did you done any testing on your own or it is all about hear things here, hear things there again? I for example once notice M390 released by Spyderco got it right away and tested - what about you?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[hardheart]

I don't need a folder, just a keyword search. And there was plenty of evidence just as solid as yours to back up M390. I do believe you are honest, you honestly think absolutely no one else has the right to evaluate steel. You think the knife manufacturers and the steel mills are selling on hype without performance. Oh wait, now there is performance. You say Spyderco knows how to HT M390, but just a few months ago they were holding back the industry because they didn't switch to XHP, even though they again were the ones who knew how to HT it and produced one of the better performers in your test. BM did a 'bad' job, and you did an absolutely horrible one by evaluating a steel based on one knife from BM. Same story with D2. It is just another example of how a judgment of steel cannot be made when it is the knife being tested, not the alloy.

and the testing isn't done, the blades are heat treated and out for hollow grinding.

 

[nozh2002]

I don't need a folder, just a keyword search. And there was plenty of evidence just as solid as yours to back up M390. I do believe you are honest, you honestly think absolutely no one else has the right to evaluate steel. You think the knife manufacturers and the steel mills are selling on hype without performance. Oh wait, now there is performance. You say Spyderco knows how to HT M390, but just a few months ago they were holding back the industry because they didn't switch to XHP, even though they again were the ones who knew how to HT it and produced one of the better performers in your test. BM did a 'bad' job, and you did an absolutely horrible one by evaluating a steel based on one knife from BM. Same story with D2. It is just another example of how a judgment of steel cannot be made when it is the knife being tested, not the alloy.

and the testing isn't done, the blades are heat treated and out for hollow grinding.

A lot of angry words, however if I do not right about absence of solid evidence - where they are? Show me if I am wrong.
There is Ankerson test show, but I already explain why I do not consider it as a credible tests - and I honestly explained that.
Anything else? May be you did some? No. Then what are you talking about? A lot of talking for several years already.

I honestly review all available testing (not much really of them around) and honestly raise concerns. All were ignored. So yes
I am honest, there is no test so far I can trust. I did not question however CATRA results provided in Tactical Knives last year,
but I would not accept whoever claiming they did tests if it is clearly random even if they are poplar here.

Let say - Edge got hit randomly wooden base and when I test blade with and without this - I see that when edge hit wood
in addition to cutting rope, results get random. Now you saying I do not accept those tests because they are not mine.
Actually I did those tests myself and did not accepted them about few years ago, then when I see same mistake - I did not
accept it again, why should I? But instead of resolving this you ignore all my concerns and demand me to accept it? I know
for sure this is not right, as well as I tested BM710 M390 myself and found it performance below average. Why should not I
believe myself but someone else doing pretty informal testing with questionable procedure? Just because my results different
then what you expected?

Sorry, this will not happen.

Unlike for CATRA testing, which I have no problem with. But in case of CATRA - results got hidden, only some were leaked, but
other keept secret.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[hardheart]

So you will continue to test one knife of unknown hardness and heat treat protocol, then insult the ENTIRE INDUSTRY for going with cheap crap, ignoring performance and selling on hype, holding back the end user by not choosing optimal steel, call every other tester a liar with terrible testing procedures, and ultimately sweep it all under the rug when your own tests provide a complete 180 and invalidate your own words.

You did not say the M390 710 was a mediocre knife. You did not say there was a problem with a single model, or even a single manufacturer. You said knifemakers the world over are fooling us by selling mediocre steels as the flavor of the month. You told people not to buy M390 in anything even though you only tested a single knife.

You have said for years that ZDP189 and CTS XHP are top performers. You have said over and over that M390 is average and a scam. Now you say M390 places the same as ZDP189 and CTS XHP. The single largest problem in your testing is not the tools or the methods, but the conclusions. You make emotional, insulting, and judgmental posts that are backed by very little. It happens, people make statements on steel just as strong based on far less. But outside of the "carbon steel will always be better than stainless" crowd, they tend not to cut down nearly everyone in the process.

 

[nozh2002]

So you will continue to test one knife of unknown hardness and heat treat protocol, then insult the ENTIRE INDUSTRY for going with cheap crap, ignoring performance and selling on hype, holding back the end user by not choosing optimal steel, call every other tester a liar with terrible testing procedures, and ultimately sweep it all under the rug when your own tests provide a complete 180 and invalidate your own words.

You did not say the M390 710 was a mediocre knife. You did not say there was a problem with a single model, or even a single manufacturer. You said knifemakers the world over are fooling us by selling mediocre steels as the flavor of the month. You told people not to buy M390 in anything even though you only tested a single knife.

You have said for years that ZDP189 and CTS XHP are top performers. You have said over and over that M390 is average and a scam. Now you say M390 places the same as ZDP189 and CTS XHP. The single largest problem in your testing is not the tools or the methods, but the conclusions. You make emotional, insulting, and judgmental posts that are backed by very little. It happens, people make statements on steel just as strong based on far less. But outside of the "carbon steel will always be better than stainless" crowd, they tend not to cut down nearly everyone in the process.

Well, I sad this before and I will sad this again and again - there is not credible information about steel performance out there. CATRA results done by manufacturers is secret, for some reason I as consumer find this strange at least. I am doing my own test because of that. I create my opinion based on this testing.

Now you build you opinion on my testing as well and on some other talks here and there, talks which are not based on real testing.

I did my tests with only one knife cutting rope only 200 times and cutting thread 21 times for each of 6 sharpness measurements. You are telling me that this is not enough... Why don't you go and do that additional testing yourself! You are talking about that for years and did nothing. Until then do not tell me to shut up because I did not done enough - I have more then you. I do not hide what I did and how many times. Only this is available, so far plus small number of CATRA tests leaked last year. If you will have anything more then that I will have a look and may be consider it to make my juggement. But for years you have done nothing, but telling me that I did not done enough for you. I will not wait for you tests done to speak about my results - M390 heat treated by BM is average which was tested (by me BTW not you) October last year, M390 heat treated by Spyderco show excellent results which was recently discovered during testing (done by me not by you) two days ago. Once new test results became availabe for new manufacturer starting using this steel - I account this information and share it with everybody. M390 heat treated by BM had bad reputation because bad heat treatment. If you have any test results which show me that this is not the case and M390 by BM is better then average - let me know, so far I see nothing. More then that - all BM tested show this pattern pretty consistent.

 

[Ankerson]

Bohler released some CATRA data at BLADE along with other test data...

I think they are going to start posting it on their Site also in the future.

 

[nozh2002]

Bohler released some CATRA data at BLADE along with other test data...

I think they are going to start posting it on their Site also in the future.

Where is this released data?

 

[Ankerson]

Where is this released data?

They handed it out to everyone who stopped by their booth.

 

[Ankerson]

Here is a Copy of it.

 

[nozh2002]

And this is CATRA results from Oct 2010 "Knife Illustrated"

10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468

This is really nice. And I hope other steel manufacturers provides their CATRA results as well.

 

[nozh2002]

Double post.

 

[Ankerson]

And this is CATRA results from Oct 2010 "Knife Illustrated"

10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468

Different machines using different media and at different times.

To be valid they have to be tested at the same time in the same session using the same machine and media, so the data can't be compared directly from the 2 sessions.

The numbers don't line up from the 2 sessions so the media and the HRC ranges had to be different, and on different machines.