Blade steels - what's wrong with improvement?

[Bo T]

Cashmore - your graph is comparing the same steel and profile across cuts. It is true that, to do a statistical analysis we would need to compare the bell curves for different groups of knives and steels to determine the mathematical significance for the differences. However, for an individual to do this would be expensive so I regard the data and conclusions that Ankerson arrives at as being operational hypotheses. And, I believe they are valid for that purpose. However, I concur that a small 10% -20% difference in steels will probably end up being non significant when compared in a more rigorous methodology.

 

[Ankerson]

Cashmore - your graph is comparing the same steel and profile across cuts. It is true that, to do a statistical analysis we would need to compare the bell curves for different groups of knives and steels to determine the mathematical significance for the differences. However, for an individual to do this would be expensive so I regard the data and conclusions that Ankerson arrives at as being operational hypotheses. And, I believe they are valid for that purpose. However, I concur that a small 10% -20% difference in steels will probably end up being non significant when compared in a more rigorous methodology.

My results:

More like a general guide and not set in stone 100% answers like I have always said.

Just wanted to make sure I repeated that for this thread.

 

[Ankerson]

Likewise, with all the talk of biased used of science, what separates your own data collection from the same sort of bias, especially when you so often praise Phil Wilson and own lots of his products. I'm not saying the bias has to exist or that you are biased, but I feel the reasoning you are using to claim it in others data seems a bit sketchy based on your own circumstances and promotion. This is on top of knowing that some of the people who promote high edge stability steels as being superior at lower edge angles (again not at higher edge angles in abrasive media) can produce corroborating published research while I have yet to see you ever reference such material.

Is it BIAS to weaken the edges on knives on the high carbide steels to the point that they will fail in the purpose to promote the lower carbide steels?

Knowing ahead of time that it will happen.

Kinda like making a chopper out of S90V, thinning the blade down to 0 behind the edge and smacking a rock with it then going see what happened........ It chipped out and or cracked.... I mean DUH... Really?

Or why not just even the plane across the board and use something like 10 Degrees per side, or 15 Degrees per side, more in line with actual edge geometry that most people would actually use if there isn't any BIAS.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a point that any edge will fail when it's thinned out too much, steel doesn't matter.

Been there, done that....

Nobody is debating Scientific facts here.

Now before anyone gets upset.

In my way of thinking an unbiased test and or research project the field has to be leveled so none of the subjects being tested have an unfair or unrealistic advantage and or disadvantage. So the parameters of the testing would be neutral or in the case of edge holding one would use the normal edge geometry that most would actually see. That would be 15 DPS or 20 DPS as an average as most factory knives in that range give or take.

Take the highest produced production knife in the world, the SAK, they have a 20 DPS edge geometry on ave.

Now yes if one wants to narrow the scope of the research down to make a specific point or address a certain narrow set of variables then that's fine too. Document that fact clearly that it was narrowed down that far and why and say what point it was ment to show.

That way it can't be taken out of context beyond that narrow scope of what the research was ment to address in the 1st place.

I am NOT A PHD so I don't need to publish any research papers on things that I actually see from my own testing...... And couldn't be anyway because I am NOT a PHD so they wouldn't listen to me or even consider the data anyway.

Like blades that are .005" behind the edge with a 10 DPS edge geometry in a high Carbide steel at high hardness NOT falling apart when cutting wood, cardboard and rope like has been assumed that they will.

Or more blades that are .010" behind the edge and 10 DPS edge geometry in high carbide steels at high hardness NOT falling apart when cutting wood, cardboard and rope either.

Although I do have the data to back it up..... And there are threads here on BF of those tests with photos......

But then I am not a PHD so it can't be true right?

 

[james terrio]

Two of the higher prices steels I'm planning on using are 3v (per James Terrio and Chuck @ Alpha) and CPM154 (per Bob Terzoula only uses this steel, so it has to be good). Also I really want to try W2 and Hitachi Super Blue.

Go for it. I agree with the others, CPM-154 is still an excellent steel for a wide range of purposes, although it's no longer "new and exciting" :thumbup:

You already know how I feel about CPM-3V

 

[Camber]

Is it BIAS to weaken the edges on knives on the high carbide steels to the point that they will fail in the purpose to promote the lower carbide steels?

Provided you're also honest about where high carbide steels excel (higher angles, abrasive mediums, still thin cross sections), then NO. It is simply discussing metallurgy and let someone, the end user, decide what they need.

Kinda like making a chopper out of S90V, thinning the blade down to 0 behind the edge and smacking a rock with it then going see what happened........ It chipped out and or cracked.... I mean DUH... Really?

Again, I have no problem with this, even if you compare it to a chopper made out of S7 or 1055, provided that you at the same time state this is what one would expect to see based on the metallurgy. However, it should be noted that based on that same metallurgy S90V would make an excellent slicing blade.

Similarly, testing a bunch of steels (both high edge stability and HCV) against each other at low edge angles (talking under 10 dps) is fine. It simply shows the adequacy of some for those angles of use. It does not negate the efficacy of HCV steels at higher edge angles on slicing abrasive medium. If someone were to state that, then there would be bias. Otherwise though it is simply testing of proposed metallurgy.

Some people show those comparisons at higher edge angles on abrasive medium (yourself included) and that's great. It does not however negate the fact that some steels excel at lower angles at high polishes for push cutting.

Or why not just even the plane across the board and use something like 10 Degrees per side, or 15 Degrees per side, more in line with actual edge geometry that most people would actually use if there isn't any BIAS.

Why not just drive mid size sedans at that's what most people drive? Some people have different needs. Some people are simply interested in the experiements.
If we want to base things on "common use" though, why not make everything the edge angle of shaving razors or utility blades, as I imagine those are some of the most used blades.

In my way of thinking an unbiased test and or research project the field has to be leveled so none of the subjects being tested have an unfair or unrealistic advantage and or disadvantage. So the parameters of the testing would be neutral or in the case of edge holding one would use the normal edge geometry that most would actually see. That would be 15 DPS or 20 DPS as an average as most factory knives in that range give or take.

How is your testing fair to chopper blade steels? By extension then, how can your testing necessarily be fair to high edge stability steels meant to excel at lower edge angles.
By the metallurgy (and if you look at the data sheets for the other intended use of the knife steels in question...and it is important to note with the exception of AEB-L none of these steels were made specifically for knife use) using 15dps or 20dps is giving the HCV steels an advantage.

Beyond that the fact that most knives come with those DPS does not mean they are ideal. Again, the ideal car choice was based on America cars, everyone in the world should drive larger sized cars. In Europe though that is hardly the standard. And in Japan such high edge angles are not the standard either, but then again they tend to use much higher edge stability steels so you would expect lower edge angles.

However, I can say your testing is useful for people who are going to maintain those initial and common 15dps and 20dps edges. If that is going to be the case, then people are going to see a lot of mileage from the HCV steels. That does not mean though that it is fair to other steels.

In reality, it is impossible using these steels on an even playing field. Saying that is like saying all rope was intended for climbing...so the way to evaluate rope is to see what can be climbed most easily. Paracord as a result is awful. These steels were not developed for knife use, but by looking at their intended uses we can see how they would perform for certain types of knives. Comparisons between them is to 1. reinforce their adequacy for certain tasks 2. and to see if are understanding is limited somewhere.

Now yes if one wants to narrow the scope of the research down to make a specific point or address a certain narrow set of variables then that's fine too. Document that fact clearly that it was narrowed down that far and why and say what point it was ment to show.

Like the efficacy of certain steels for cutting rope and cardboard? Knives are used for much more tasks with very different modes of blunting...cutting wood, chopping wood, splitting wood, cutting meats, vegetables, etc.


En fin, again, what bothers me are the blanket statements and the insinuations that other people have an agenda when people here are making those same blanket type of statements. Such blanket statements are detrimental in general and discredit the wide variety of useful steels and the areas in which they excel.

My last comment on this will be the following, as I don't want this to turn personal.

AEB-L, a high edge stability steel was specifically designed for razor blade steels....quite some time ago. Do people really think metallurgists just failed to realize the usefulness of throwing in a bunch of carbides into that steel? And that we knife users discovered their mistake? Or perhaps, it does better without them at low edge angles, high polish and push cutting...
And considering the amount of money spent on razor blades too, and their high costs, I don't think we can simply say it's a cost issue and that's why they don't use "super steels"

 

[james terrio]

And considering the amount of money spent on razor blades too, and their high costs, I don't think we can simply say it's a cost issue and that's why they don't use "super steels"

I am enjoying your posts, they make me re-think what I think I know - and that's a good thing.

But I do not understand what you're getting at with that statement about razor blade steels. Of course there's been a ton of money spent on razor blade research over the last century or so, but those costs are very quickly offset by the fact that even a 5-blade Mach-whatever razor has somewhere in the neighborhood of .000-something cubic inches of steel in it, and they produce millions of them. Not to mention the fact that "super steels" simply aren't required for such blades... which are specifically designed to be easy to machine, fine-grained and inexpensive... and therefore disposable.

Anyone who's interested in serious shaving might want to look up a cat called Lloyd "Butch" Harner, who's been playing with "super steels" for several years now, and rightfully enjoys a very good reputation for his high-end straight razors. Ask him or his clients if carbide-rich powder steels can attain and maintain a truly fine crisp edge.

 

[Ankerson]

Provided you're also honest about where high carbide steels excel (higher angles, abrasive mediums, still thin cross sections), then NO. It is simply discussing metallurgy and let someone, the end user, decide what they need.

Exactly, I agree 100% with that....

But that's not what we see a lot of the time and that's when I have a problem...... And start beating my head against the wall......

Again, I have no problem with this, even if you compare it to a chopper made out of S7 or 1055, provided that you at the same time state this is what one would expect to see based on the metallurgy. However, it should be noted that based on that same metallurgy S90V would make an excellent slicing blade.

Again I agree.

Similarly, testing a bunch of steels (both high edge stability and HCV) against each other at low edge angles (talking under 10 dps) is fine. It simply shows the adequacy of some for those angles of use. It does not negate the efficacy of HCV steels at higher edge angles on slicing abrasive medium. If someone were to state that, then there would be bias. Otherwise though it is simply testing of proposed metallurgy.

I agree with you, but again that's not what we see a lot of the time..... And start beating my head against the wall.....

Some people show those comparisons at higher edge angles on abrasive medium (yourself included) and that's great. It does not however negate the fact that some steels excel at lower angles at high polishes for push cutting.

Nobody is saying that, again I agree.

Why not just drive mid size sedans at that's what most people drive? Some people have different needs. Some people are simply interested in the experiements.
If we want to base things on "common use" though, why not make everything the edge angle of shaving razors or utility blades, as I imagine those are some of the most used blades.

Understandable.

How is your testing fair to chopper blade steels? By extension then, how can your testing necessarily be fair to high edge stability steels meant to excel at lower edge angles.
By the metallurgy (and if you look at the data sheets for the other intended use of the knife steels in question...and it is important to note with the exception of AEB-L none of these steels were made specifically for knife use) using 15dps or 20dps is giving the HCV steels an advantage.

I am well aware of the history and development of the steels and that MOST of them were adapted to knife use and not the other way around, I have been telling people this for years.

Beyond that the fact that most knives come with those DPS does not mean they are ideal. Again, the ideal car choice was based on America cars, everyone in the world should drive larger sized cars. In Europe though that is hardly the standard. And in Japan such high edge angles are not the standard either, but then again they tend to use much higher edge stability steels so you would expect lower edge angles.

Never said they are ideal.

However, I can say your testing is useful for people who are going to maintain those initial and common 15dps and 20dps edges. If that is going to be the case, then people are going to see a lot of mileage from the HCV steels. That does not mean though that it is fair to other steels.

And that was the point of the platform in the 1st place, using the angles that most people would use and easily replicate.

In reality, it is impossible using these steels on an even playing field. Saying that is like saying all rope was intended for climbing...so the way to evaluate rope is to see what can be climbed most easily. Paracord as a result is awful. These steels were not developed for knife use, but by looking at their intended uses we can see how they would perform for certain types of knives. Comparisons between them is to 1. reinforce their adequacy for certain tasks 2. and to see if are understanding is limited somewhere.

Exactly, same thing I have been saying all along......

Like the efficacy of certain steels for cutting rope and cardboard? Knives are used for much more tasks with very different modes of blunting...cutting wood, chopping wood, splitting wood, cutting meats, vegetables, etc.

Yes, I believe we are all aware of that.

En fin, again, what bothers me are the blanket statements and the insinuations that other people have an agenda when people here are making those same blanket type of statements. Such blanket statements are detrimental in general and discredit the wide variety of useful steels and the areas in which they excel.

That's my point......

My last comment on this will be the following, as I don't want this to turn personal.

AEB-L, a high edge stability steel was specifically designed for razor blade steels....quite some time ago. Do people really think metallurgists just failed to realize the usefulness of throwing in a bunch of carbides into that steel? And that we knife users discovered their mistake? Or perhaps, it does better without them at low edge angles, high polish and push cutting...
And considering the amount of money spent on razor blades too, and their high costs, I don't think we can simply say it's a cost issue and that's why they don't use "super steels"

I am well aware of the history.

 

[sodak]

Thread is feeling more and more - to me - that folks who don't care much for modern steels are trying create some sort of dichotomy here. Either you have to be in one camp or the other. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I use and enjoy all kinds of steels, including 1095, M2, etc. I appreciate the modern steels for what they bring to the table, but am not going to let myself be forced into some sort of either/or choice.

It's fine to like (and use) both. Having options is a good thing.

 

[singularity35]

So while scientifically correct and backed up by research the key element is often left out that will bring it all back to reality.

And anyone who mentions it will be covered in walls of text etc......

Once again...

 

[Ankerson]

Thread is feeling more and more - to me - that folks who don't care much for modern steels are trying create some sort of dichotomy here. Either you have to be in one camp or the other. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I use and enjoy all kinds of steels, including 1095, M2, etc. I appreciate the modern steels for what they bring to the table, but am not going to let myself be forced into some sort of either/or choice.

It's fine to like (and use) both. Having options is a good thing.

That's why I for one am so freaking glad that Cashmore posted in this thread....

Thank freaking GOD.....

Maybe we can keep the reality going now.

And have a reasonable discussion.

 

[singularity35]

Thread is feeling more and more - to me - that folks who don't care much for modern steels are trying create some sort of dichotomy here. Either you have to be in one camp or the other. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I use and enjoy all kinds of steels, including 1095, M2, etc. I appreciate the modern steels for what they bring to the table, but am not going to let myself be forced into some sort of either/or choice.

It's fine to like (and use) both. Having options is a good thing.

Oh yes, 52100 is one of my favorites. So is 5160 for larger knives and choppers. Doesn't mean I don't like my 20CP para and M390 Military.

 

[Camber]

I am enjoying your posts, they make me re-think what I think I know - and that's a good thing.

But I do not understand what you're getting at with that statement about razor blade steels. Of course there's been a ton of money spent on razor blade research over the last century or so, but those costs are very quickly offset by the fact that even a 5-blade Mach-whatever razor has somewhere in the neighborhood of .000-something cubic inches of steel in it, and they produce millions of them. Not to mention the fact that "super steels" simply aren't required for such blades... which are specifically designed to be easy to machine, fine-grained and inexpensive... and therefore disposable.

Anyone who's interested in serious shaving might want to look up a cat called Lloyd "Butch" Harner, who's been playing with "super steels" for several years now, and rightfully enjoys a very good reputation for his high-end straight razors. Ask him or his clients if carbide-rich powder steels can attain and maintain a truly fine crisp edge.

Thank you. I'm glad I've made myself useful...that's a change of pace for me.

With regards to your question or commentary, I feel what you said is exactly what I was trying to get at. The costs, of even super steels, would be quickly offset by the high price of razors and the minimal amount of steel needed...and especially since people are more or less at their mercy to pay for them. If you consider how much razor blades have gone up in price since the introduction of the Mach 3 and how people continue to pay for minuscule changes, I don't think changing the steel would hurt them, even if it raised the price, especially if it gave longer edge holding.

Consider that a 12 pack of Mach 3 razors cost $36 dollars. I can get a piece of S90V, 5/32s x 1.5 x 12 from usaknifemaker for less than that. How many razor blades would that make me? Even if you consider tooling costs, I can't imagine it would be the deciding factor, again considering what people are willing to pay for and the sheer necessity of disposable razors in today's age. But again, these are just thoughts on my part. I don't have industry feedback to prove them, so I don't want them to come off as facts.

Beyond that, I don't know hardly anything about Butch's work. I do know edge stability doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with edge thickness. Rather it is a question of the final edge angle needed to stabilize the carbides, so in many cases you can zero grind a HCV steel and if you put the 15dps plus edge on it, it will be stabilized from my understanding. And honestly, a thinner cross section is probably going to be much more noticed by people in cutting than a lowered edge angle.

I didn't really understand the difference until recently (and I'm still not totally clear), but I was confusing edge stability with toughness. However, edge stability seems to refer more to the ability to handle loading at the micro level at the apex, and so it more effected by edge angle than cross section.

Also with CTS XHP, I do believe most of it's carbides are from Chromium, and chromium carbides are significantly softer than vanadium, to the point they are cut by common abrasives. I don't think there's been a lot of discussion on it (well not in the knife world...probably is in steel production circles...I don't know), but I do believe there is some idea that perhaps you can actually shape the chromium carbides and as a result which might allow for lower edge angles.

 

[Ankerson]

Thank you. I'm glad I've made myself useful...that's a change of pace for me.

With regards to your question or commentary, I feel what you said is exactly what I was trying to get at. The costs, of even super steels, would be quickly offset by the high price of razors and the minimal amount of steel needed...and especially since people are more or less at their mercy to pay for them. If you consider how much razor blades have gone up in price since the introduction of the Mach 3 and how people continue to pay for minuscule changes, I don't think changing the steel would hurt them, even if it raised the price, especially if it gave longer edge holding.

Consider that a 12 pack of Mach 3 razors cost $36 dollars. I can get a piece of S90V, 5/32s x 1.5 x 12 from usaknifemaker for less than that. How many razor blades would that make me? Even if you consider tooling costs, I can't imagine it would be the deciding factor, again considering what people are willing to pay for and the sheer necessity of disposable razors in today's age. But again, these are just thoughts on my part. I don't have industry feedback to prove them, so I don't want them to come off as facts.

Beyond that, I don't know hardly anything about Butch's work. I do know edge stability doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with edge thickness. Rather it is a question of the final edge angle needed to stabilize the carbides, so in many cases you can zero grind a HCV steel and if you put the 15dps plus edge on it, it will be stabilized from my understanding. And honestly, a thinner cross section is probably going to be much more noticed by people in cutting than a lowered edge angle.

I didn't really understand the difference until recently (and I'm still not totally clear), but I was confusing edge stability with toughness. However, edge stability seems to refer more to the ability to handle loading at the micro level at the apex, and so it more effected by edge angle than cross section.

Also with CTS XHP, I do believe most of it's carbides are from Chromium, and chromium carbides are significantly softer than vanadium, to the point they are cut by common abrasives. I don't think there's been a lot of discussion on it (well not in the knife world...probably is in steel production circles...I don't know), but I do believe there is some idea that perhaps you can actually shape the chromium carbides and as a result which might allow for lower edge angles.

The MACH3's last for a long time from my own experience.

The real question is if they did change the steel how much longer if any would they last over the current ones, and or would those blades cut as well as the older ones, shaving comfort etc?

This comes from a discussion I had with someone who had a S90V straight razor made, it was an interesting conversation.

Something I wouldn't want to entertain after having it.

I think I would stick with AEB-L for a straight razor.

 

[Gator97]

It does not negate the efficacy of HCV steels at higher edge angles on slicing abrasive medium. If someone were to state that, then there would be bias. Otherwise though it is simply testing of proposed metallurgy.

I don't think Ankersom implied that. Depends what are we walking about. I'm no machinist but I've seen various industrial tool made out of those high speed, high carbide etc alloys, which is what those alloys were designed for and cutting edge angles on those tools are 45 to 90 inclusive angles and even more. Different application, mechanics, forces etc. Doesn't fit well into human use which is very different from machines. And human factor brings a lot of new problems compared to machines as well.

Some people show those comparisons at higher edge angles on abrasive medium (yourself included) and that's great. It does not however negate the fact that some steels excel at lower angles at high polishes for push cutting.

That's not universal either. Some steels excell with polished edges, others with coarse. It took me qutie a few experiments with CPM 10V before I figured things out for myself, if I had Ankerson's test results back then that would've helped.

Why not just drive mid size sedans at that's what most people drive? Some people have different needs. Some people are simply interested in the experiements.
If we want to base things on "common use" though, why not make everything the edge angle of shaving razors or utility blades, as I imagine those are some of the most used blades.

I think you're looking at the issue from different perspective. To me it's more like buying the latest and greatest sedan and always driving it in 1st gear, then complaining about fuel efficiency, noise, no benefits over the old 20 yer old sedan you had, etc... Slicer is a slicer, and I really see very little practical use in having 40 inclusive edge on it, not with 10V or S110V at 65HRC. If older steel needs edge that sick to perform the tast, doens't mean new ones should have the same.

Beyond that the fact that most knives come with those DPS does not mean they are ideal. Again, the ideal car choice was based on America cars, everyone in the world should drive larger sized cars. In Europe though that is hardly the standard. And in Japan such high edge angles are not the standard either, but then again they tend to use much higher edge stability steels so you would expect lower edge angles.

Argument is that using high edge stability steel at high DPS is less efficient for cutting, obviously that's the choice of the user what DPS he wants, provided he can sharpen the knife correctly, but in no way that can be used as proof that modern alloys offer no advantage over old ones, and they're all marketing ploy.

AEB-L, a high edge stability steel was specifically designed for razor blade steels....quite some time ago. Do people really think metallurgists just failed to realize the usefulness of throwing in a bunch of carbides into that steel? And that we knife users discovered their mistake? Or perhaps, it does better without them at low edge angles, high polish and push cutting...
And considering the amount of money spent on razor blades too, and their high costs, I don't think we can simply say it's a cost issue and that's why they don't use "super steels"

And do you not think there are modern alloys which outperform AEB-L at high hardness and if the cost allowed they'd be better razors? Aogami and Shirogami series? Can't comment on razors specifically, but in the I have qute q few of kitchen knives form those alloys, all in 64-66HRC range, and they perform admirably with high polish edges in the kitchen. I strongly suspect they'd perform just as well for razors.

 

[Camber]

Gator, I'm honestly confused by your comments.

10V is a high carbide steel, which would fit into the coarse edge catergory I was referencing.

I am not the one talking about or advocating 15dps or 20dps edges. Jim made reference to them as they are "standard". I was implying that I don't think that makes going lower unfair or wrong. And honestly I believe older, lower carbide steels can handle lower edge angles than the newer steels. Along those same lines I find it arbitrary to say 20dps is too high but 10dps is too low. There is no reason to say that unless the steel in question won't perform how you want at those edge angles. Otherwise you're talking personal preference, which has little to do with testing of steel performance.

Argument is that using high edge stability steel at high DPS is less efficient for cutting, obviously that's the choice of the user what DPS he wants, provided he can sharpen the knife correctly, but in no way that can be used as proof that modern alloys offer no advantage over old ones, and they're all marketing ploy.

I don't really understand this statement. Higher DPS is less efficient for cutting, by physical mechanics, unless the edge won't remain stable or hold up at the lower angles. And moreover, I'm not advocating higher edge angles (if anything I'm advocating lower edge angles, although I haven't stated that explicitly). Again, Jim mentioned higher edge angles as a more fair testing grounds, in reference to the HCV steels. While I'm saying using terms such as "super steels" is as arbitrary as calling nylon rope "super rope" because it is more modern, I think it's especially arbitrary if indeed the HCV have limits in where they excel.

And it's quite possible Aogami and Shirogami series outperform AEB-L, but thoes are high edge stability steels from my understanding. So I don't see what they have to do with any of my statements. I also do not see them commonly cited as "super steels" which unofficially seems to make reference to Particle Metallurgy steels, especially those with high carbide volume.

 

[Lone Fortress]

I believe many people simply forgets the importance of maintaining balance, not taking the tradeoffs into consideration. Often- newer steels are both more expensive and more difficult (well-more time consuming anyway) to sharpen, especially in the field considering how small some diamond coated abrasives are.

What it comes down to is that there is a reason that the "inferior" steels are still around and there's a reason that they're still used in industry.

The old steels are still some of the best around due to how balanced they are in desirable properties-including serviceability. Take the now underrated 440c for example-excellent corrosion resistance (especially when mirror finished being equal or better then other choices-which is another factory to consider..as not all steels are capable of the same finishes), good wear resistance, easy to sharpen, even has a decent amount of toughness if properly Ht considering that swords have been successfully made from it by some makers. I believe one of them even demonstrated the flexibility of the 440c blade-although I forgot his name.

 

[Will Batayte]

Personally I like new technology, steel or otherwise. But I wish that some of the companies weren't too quick to adopt them over some existing steels. take s30v and s35vn. I vastly prefer s30v. I don't find my s35vn knives to hold their edge as well at all. I mean it's a significant loss of time between touch ups. especially the initial hair popping edge disappears very quickly. S30v is not hard for me to sharpen. So the edge holding is just a loss for me. I guess if you had issues sharpening s30v then the edge holding loss would be worth it for you. Now D2 is another one I really don't see any advantage to. I know a lot of people like it but for me personally it's like just losing a little corrosion resistance for no reason. I Just haven't seen anything better than s30v yet. when I do then i'll want to switch. So for me I think I learned that maybe it's best to give a new "flavor of the month" steel a little time to see how it actually performs in the real world before I run out and buy a knife made of it. That being said I am not throwing away my s35vn or d2 knives and if I like another knife in one of those steels I'll still buy it if there is no better choice. Why? because it does the job. But I'd definitely prefer what although it's relatively new has become the old stand by s30v.

 

[pvicenzi]

Let's say steel A holds an edge twice as long as steel B. All that means is you sharpen steel A every 2 weeks instead of every week. That is not really a significant difference to me, as I don't find sharpening to be a chore.

 

[Gator97]

Gator, I'm honestly confused by your comments.

Alright, my bad, may be I misunderstood your statements. Thread topic is regarding the benefits of improvements and new alloys appearing in knives, which is what I am rooting for.

I am not the one talking about or advocating 15dps or 20dps edges. Jim made reference to them as they are "standard".

I am a very big fan of thin edges. And that's regardless of high carbide volume or not. Thin edges cut better, and they chop better too, if they can withstand the loads. Simple physics...

I was implying that I don't think that makes going lower unfair or wrong. And honestly I believe older, lower carbide steels can handle lower edge angles than the newer steels.

If those older steels can handle high RC then yes, but that'd be very thin edges, 5-7DPS. I did see ZDP-189 around 66RC having micro-fracturing problems below 12DPS. But at 12-15DPS range edge stability and edge holding in general very super for kitchen use, and I have no complaints about utility use either. 10xx at similar wouldn't last that long.
But again, it'd all depend on a specific alloy and technology, etc. However, lower carbide steels won't last nearly as long with 10DPS or so on most of the utility cutting we knives knives for.

Anyway, what is unfair or invalid comparison: using modern alloys at the same thick angles provided for older alloys and concluding it's all BS and there is no benefit to them(new stuff), or vice versa, using them in unusable configuration.

I don't really understand this statement.

I was referring to other statements where thick edge(20DPS+) on the old steels and new steel was as an argument that new ones don't offer any advantage. Like you said, what edge you have on your knife is a matter of preference, but if the new ally can hold the edge even same as old one, but with thinner edge, that is already an advantage, at least as far as knives are concerned. Just because one doesn't want to utilize it doesn't mean it's not there.

And it's quite possible Aogami and Shirogami series outperform AEB-L, but thoes are high edge stability steels from my understanding. So I don't see what they have to do with any of my statements. I also do not see them commonly cited as "super steels" which unofficially seems to make reference to Particle Metallurgy steels, especially those with high carbide volume.

As I understood your statement, aside from carbides, AEB-L was used as an example of good old steel not needing any improvement, or at least as one that has no rivals today, despite of advances in metallurgy.
Aogami and Shirogami series are both examples of better steel for razors. By the way, Shirogami 1 is quite close to 1095 composition wise, just cleaner, which is thanks to modern tech. Like I said, regardless of the carbide volume, improvements can and should be made to existing alloys. No real reason to cling to 100 year old alloys and deny new metals offer any advantages.

P.S. Razors in your example, unless we're talking straight razors, high end or customs are actually quite bad example. it is highly unlikely disposable razor blade industry has any real motivation to use better alloys. Their profit is in selling more replacement razors which is why razors or their handles are practically free. I'm not even sure AEB-L is used in many of them. Why would they want their disposable blade to last 5 times longer, that's 5x less profit right there.

 

[Camber]

Alright, my bad, may be I misunderstood your statements. Thread topic is regarding the benefits of improvements and new alloys appearing in knives, which is what I am rooting for.

No worries. I probably misunderstood some of yours.
I have no problem with improvements...but I do think "super steels" are over recommended without qualification. In that sense I think even that name is extremely misleading. The new alloys have shown advantages for high angle (above 10dps), coarse edges, used to low sharpness, on soft and abrasive mediums. They have not shown great improvement for choppers (yes I'm aware of 3V and I like it but I don't think it's way better than S7 on paper at least) or low angle high polish (greater than 10 micron) edges

I am a very big fan of thin edges. And that's regardless of high carbide volume or not. Thin edges cut better, and they chop better too, if they can withstand the loads. Simple physics...

Agreed. I stated this in the post you quoted. The issue is that high carbide volume steels cannot withstand very low edge angles the same way high edge stability steels can. However even this needs qualification. If a person is content with a knife cutting copy paper, they are not likely going to be upset by the micro chipping on HCV steels. But again, we're adding more qualifications, and so again I really find the HCV recommendations, without context, way over done

If those older steels can handle high RC then yes, but that'd be very thin edges, 5-7DPS. I did see ZDP-189 around 66RC having micro-fracturing problems below 12DPS.

This would be an example of what I'm talking about above, although other things could have of course contributed to that micro-fracturing.
You bring up a good point though about the necessity of high hardness to get the edge stability, probably at least high 50 at a minimum I would think

But at 12-15DPS range edge stability and edge holding in general very super for kitchen use, and I have no complaints about utility use either. 10xx at similar wouldn't last that long.

Try the 10XX at less than 10DPS and the HCV...that's the point that's missing. At 15DPS I would not expect a lot of issues with the HCV.

But again, it'd all depend on a specific alloy and technology, etc. However, lower carbide steels won't last nearly as long with 10DPS or so on most of the utility cutting we knives knives for.

This is completely dependent on what type of "utility cutting" you are doing and to what level of sharpness you take things.

Anyway, what is unfair or invalid comparison: using modern alloys at the same thick angles provided for older alloys and concluding it's all BS and there is no benefit to them(new stuff), or vice versa, using them in unusable configuration.

One of the makers here on Bladeforums, Joe Calton, makes 1095 paring knives at near full hardness with primary grinds of 2-3 dps down to .002 and they perform great. Keep in mind .002 is half again as thin as Phil Wilson's thinnest customs. It may not seem like much but I believe blade stability is cubic in nature with respect to the cross section, so that's a massive difference.
I am saying that "older" alloys are more suitable for the lower edge angles. Many felling axes back in the day were done at 15dps from my understanding.
Just because production companies today put insanely thick edges on them does not mean that's where they need to be if properly hardened and used for their intended purposes.
And to be clear, Jim was talking about new Spyderco's (most of which are in HCV steels) being in the 15dps to 20 dps.

As I understood your statement, aside from carbides, AEB-L was used as an example of good old steel not needing any improvement, or at least as one that has no rivals today, despite of advances in metallurgy.

I was unclear then, and I apologize for that. My statement was that adding more alloy doesn't necessarily make a "better" steel. And I was being tongue in cheek saying that I doubt the designers of AEB-L simply forgot or didn't know to add vanadium and a bunch of other alloy to make it better. Rather, they made it the way they did because it would function better that way.

Aogami and Shirogami series are both examples of better steel for razors. By the way, Shirogami 1 is quite close to 1095 composition wise, just cleaner, which is thanks to modern tech. Like I said, regardless of the carbide volume, improvements can and should be made to existing alloys. No real reason to cling to 100 year old alloys and deny new metals offer any advantages.

Here we have to disagree. Making a steel cleaner is not improving the alloy itself or creating a new "better" steel type. It is simply producing a higher quality product (like a wood cabinet without flaws...it's still a wood cabinet). And I am definitely for that, but by producing it cleaner, if the composition is indeed mostly the same in the performance elements, you haven't produced new better alloy, just a cleaner alloy that will come out good more consistently. Again though, I am definitely for improvements in processing the steels.

P.S. Razors in your example, unless we're talking straight razors, high end or customs are actually quite bad example. it is highly unlikely disposable razor blade industry has any real motivation to use better alloys. Their profit is in selling more replacement razors which is why razors or their handles are practically free. I'm not even sure AEB-L is used in many of them. Why would they want their disposable blade to last 5 times longer, that's 5x less profit right there.

I can't get completely on board with this logic either. Why make it last 5 times longer? To charge 5 times as much...isn't that why we pay custom knife prices in the first place...to get better performance? I would think people might do that for a razor then since those are fairly important to many people.
Along those same lines, why give people more blades then? More blades, less stress on each blade, longer and more shaves. They did it though, and they also upped the prices significantly as I am saying.




I think my point can best be summed up this way. If all the modern new (as in new composition) alloys are really that much better, can't we just say ABS master smiths would make better blades by going to them? Is anyone really comfortable telling Kevin Cashen that he's using inferior steel and that he could make a better performing product by using the newer steels? I'm not saying that case is impossible. But the way people talk about HCV steels you would assume it's a given, and I'm not there yet. And I dn't think that many people should be.