Why do so many knives not have a scandi grind?

S

seacucumber

Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
93
For cutting wood and vegetables, other grinds make no sense to me. The exceptions are san mai laminated steel and convex grinds that are similar to a scandi shape (not very flat).

Comparing a full flat grind (FFG) to a scandi
1. To be as strong as a scandi, an FFG blade needs a thicker spine.
2. Scandis look easier to sharpen in the long term. Grind the edges so the knives are less than half their original widths. Now you have well worn knives. You have to remove more material to sharpen the FFG.
 
Last edited:
FFG and HHG is more slicy, which is what is usually needed for food prep and many other tasks. There is a reason chefs knives are what they are. When used properly there is no need for strength - have a look at the blade thickness of a Spyderco Z-cut for example.
 
From my knowledge and experiences:

1, Even for cutting wood, many people prefer convex grinds over Scandi.

2, If you've never used Asian chef knives (wide knives w/ thin spine and FFG) for slicing vegetables, you'll be surprised how well they perform. The really wide Chinese ones are effectively 10 DPS.

3, For different cuisines and different cultures, chef knives can differ greatly. For example you may look at Deba knives (thick knives with one-side "Scandi"), which in Japan are the go-to for fishes.
 
Convex can vary. It can be nearly scandi or FFG. A nearly scandi convex would be better than scandi, but hard to make.
 
The way I was taught (IN SCANDINAVIA) in relation to wood working, is that Northern European woods like birch and pine are not as hard as many American woods, like hickory and purple heart etc, which meant that scandinavian knives have a single bevel with a relatively low degree angle, while American knives more often have a secondary bevel with a slightly higher degree angle to get a stronger edge.

When it comes to sharpening, it's more complicated than that scandi grinds are just easier to sharpen. Sure, it's convenient to have a big single bevel to just lie flat against the stone while sharpening free hand, but if you have a guided fixed angle sharpening system, that advantage is irrelevant. Then it becomes harder to keep the edge consistent, since you need to remove so much more material compared to a secondary bevel, especially if it's a big long blade.

From my experience, scandi grinds are also more likely to develop a recurve while sharpening in the long run, since it's basically impossible to put a sharpening choil on a scandi ground knife.
 
seacucumber said:
For cutting wood and vegetables, other grinds make no sense to me.

Comparing a full flat grind (FFG) to a scandi
1. To be as strong as a scandi, an FFG blade needs a thicker spine.
2. Scandis look easier to sharpen in the long term. Grind the edges so the knives are less than half their original widths. Now you have well worn knives. You have to remove more material to sharpen the FFG.
Click to expand...
Could you explain how a scandi grind is the best grind for slicing vegetables?
 
There could be some manufacturing history artifacts in the mix. Not only from a production perspective ("this is what we have, and we're not re-tooling!"), but from a marketing perspective, too. Hollow grinds, and full-flat grinds to a lesser extent, are "the standard", and the marketing department says that's what people want. Of course, people haven't had much of a chance to try out other grind profiles, because nearly everything is hollow ground, so how would they know? It becomes a closed circle at some point, with people thinking hollow grind is perfectly acceptable because that's what they always had, so that's what they expect out of new products, so the marketing department tells R&D that people want hollow grinds.
 
Scandi grinds are just "another tool in the toolbox". They only work best: when the job best suits them.
I've got one knife with a Scandi grind; my experience is limited. It does everything that I need; as long as my needs are reasonable!
 
I think it's also easy for us knife knuts to lose perspective: we're the exception. For most people, a folding knife is just another tool, and even if they know how to take care of it and respect it's limits, they're not that interested in optimizing. Show them something that does the things better, and they'll likely smile and nod, and go about their day because they've already got a knife, and it's good enough for them.

It would be nice if people could find tools that offer the best performance in all aspects of their lives, but that would require extensive education. Attention is a resource, and each person only has so much to give. I'm not a flashlight guy, so discussions about CRI don't interest me. My interaction with the world of flashlight enthusiasts begins when I perceive a need for a light to fill a certain role, and ends when I find that light. My interest in pens and watches is strictly utilitarian, and the highly detailed discussions on those forums don't hold my interest, at all. So too, most people with knives.

The good news is, you're in safe company, here. We'll prattle on about the relative merits of bevels, all day. Just, don't expect much in the way of consensus....
 
Last edited:
To answer your question in simple terms, probably less than one percent and maybe a fraction of that of the knife user population live primitive in the woods chopping and processing wood stuff, or in a survival type lifestyle so there’s that. I would guess that most knife companies design and build knives that appeal to and fit the needs of the general consumers that buy the knives.

I have mostly hollow ground knives and about a dozen or so of full flat ground blades and using them for camping, hunting and fishing and they perform very well. I have two scandi ground blades that very rarely get used because they just don’t perform as well in the tasks that I use knives for. I have not had any problems or issues with the hollow or flat ground blades that I use at all including cutting vegetables.
 
Dr Heelhook said:
The way I was taught (IN SCANDINAVIA) in relation to wood working, is that Northern European woods like birch and pine are not as hard as many American woods, like hickory and purple heart etc, which meant that scandinavian knives have a single bevel with a relatively low degree angle, while American knives more often have a secondary bevel with a slightly higher degree angle to get a stronger edge.

When it comes to sharpening, it's more complicated than that scandi grinds are just easier to sharpen. Sure, it's convenient to have a big single bevel to just lie flat against the stone while sharpening free hand, but if you have a guided fixed angle sharpening system, that advantage is irrelevant. Then it becomes harder to keep the edge consistent, since you need to remove so much more material compared to a secondary bevel, especially if it's a big long blade.

From my experience, scandi grinds are also more likely to develop a recurve while sharpening in the long run, since it's basically impossible to put a sharpening choil on a scandi ground knife.
Click to expand...

Good context, Doctor. Thank you.

Bob Denman said:
. . . as long as my needs are reasonable!
Click to expand...

That's asking a lot, don't you think, Bob?
 
seacucumber said:
For cutting wood and vegetables, other grinds make no sense to me.

Comparing a full flat grind (FFG) to a scandi
1. To be as strong as a scandi, an FFG blade needs a thicker spine.
2. Scandis look easier to sharpen in the long term. Grind the edges so the knives are less than half their original widths. Now you have well worn knives. You have to remove more material to sharpen the FFG.
Click to expand...

For cutting vegetables; a thin FFG knife is the most efficient.

For cutting wood; a scandi is very good, but if the thicker the blade stock gets, the angle of attack gets larger.

Scandinavian ground edges are actually fragile.

They are certainly easy to sharpen, but you are actually removing more material from the entire bevel surface.
 
3D Anvil said:
You actually have to remove a LOT more material to sharpen a scandi, as you have to remove material along that whole fat bevel.
Click to expand...

MolokaiRider said:
They are certainly easy to sharpen, but you are actually removing more material from the entire bevel surface.
Click to expand...

You don't have to sharpen it this way. In fact I think it is more common for scandi knife users to lift the blade a little when doing touch ups so that you hit the apex and create a little microbevel. This method was also descriped(and pictured) in the small booklets that came with my Helle knives when I bought them years ago. I don't know if they still do though.

A lot of scandi grinded blades comes from factory with a miocrobevel already on there.

Maintaining the scandi grind, sharpening the whole bevel, is just something you need to do once in a while to maintain the grind, if ever.

Off course some guys swear to maintain the true scandi and go over the full bevel every time, but IMO this is just not necessary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top