With the recent release of the K390 Mule and the 110V Native, there have been a few people requesting Rockwell readings.
It got me wondering, why doesn't Spyderco publish the Rockwell range for each steel like other knife companies do?
Now I understand that even if they did publish a range, people would still want the actual reading from a particular model. Still I'm curious.
Why Doesn't Spyderco Publish Rockwell Hardness?
Sal will chime in from time to time on particular models and give his results on a test piece. Honestly though spyderco has one of the best heat treats out of any production company. I wish there were an option like PUMA does where they RC test every knife and it has that little dimple from the diamond. I think the main reason is because the heat treat varies a little from each batch and possibly each blade blank. Giving one reading for all would be inaccurate i'm sure they could give a ball park but it might change if one blade just so happened to test under or over a given RC.
They tend to produce blades on the harder side of the target spectrum (available on foundry pages). At least among production knives. If the Rc is off drastically I suspect they would be recalled.
They *prob* don't publish because:
1. Added micromanagement/cost
2. It just potentially opens a can of worms for knives that function great but are deemed "soft"
They *prob* don't publish because:
1. Added micromanagement/cost
2. It just potentially opens a can of worms for knives that function great but are deemed "soft"
-
yablanowitz
- Member
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Liberal, Kansas
The above question highlights my point. There's continually a sort of treasure hunt for a knife's RC. Especially on knives with more exotic steels, it's like buying a muscle car with a big engine and the manufacturer not telling you the horsepower. You know you aren't driving a Prius, but you aren't sure just how much you've got and you want to know...
Another example of the RC treasure hunt is the Mule thread that has compiled hardness figures for the various Mules. Some of the figures come from customers and some come from Sal. It seems like it shouldn't be this difficult.
I'm sure there's a reason and the above speculation may give us a clue.
Another example of the RC treasure hunt is the Mule thread that has compiled hardness figures for the various Mules. Some of the figures come from customers and some come from Sal. It seems like it shouldn't be this difficult.
I'm sure there's a reason and the above speculation may give us a clue.
-
The Deacon
- Member
- Posts: 25717
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Upstate SC, USA
- Contact:
But, as with Rockwell hardness, the best the manufacturer of your muscle car could do is give you a ballpark figure. If he says 500, some self styled expert will claim that anything below 520 is a waste of its potential, someone else will say "I'd buy it if it was putting out 510" and someone else will say they were cheated because they had theirs tested and it was "only" putting out 498. If you really want to know what your car is putting out, you need to put it on a chassis dynamometer.ABX2011 wrote:The above question highlights my point. There's continually a sort of treasure hunt for a knife's RC. Especially on knives with more exotic steels, it's like buying a muscle car with a big engine and the manufacturer not telling you the horsepower. You know you aren't driving a Prius, but you aren't sure just how much you've got and you want to know...
Another example of the RC treasure hunt is the Mule thread that has compiled hardness figures for the various Mules. Some of the figures come from customers and some come from Sal. It seems like it shouldn't be this difficult.
I'm sure there's a reason and the above speculation may give us a clue.
Paul
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
My Personal Website ---- Beginners Guide to Spyderco Collecting ---- Spydiewiki
Deplorable :p
WTC # 1458 - 1504 - 1508 - Never Forget, Never Forgive!
-
yablanowitz
- Member
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Liberal, Kansas
It's "lawsuit waiting to happen" information. If you just have to know the exact hardness of your knife, have it tested. If you want Spyderco to do it for you, expect to pay more per knife. Frankly, I don't want to pay more for every Spyderco I buy because a handful of people obsess over a number. I know Sal is a knife knut and a performance nut, and I trust him to get as much out of the steel as he can without risking bankruptcy from unskilled users doing things they shouldn't and returning their resulting broken knives.
I don't believe in safe queens, only in pre-need replacements.
What other production knife makers RC every product that they ship out? IMHO they do more guessing than anything using the target range provided by the foundries. Unless every knife has a chip in the blade from the testing I would assume it's BS.ABX2011 wrote:Spyderco knows the target RC range for the steels they use. The question is why they don't pass it along as other knife manufacturers do.
I agree that Spyderco has a well-deserved reputation for optimal heat treating.
I should have clarified my quesiton re: RC for zdp-189 Enrura 4, Native 5 in s110v, and MT 17.
I don't need to know the RC of MY knife, just what Spyderco was targeting. I found the answer above for zpd-189 of 65-67and 62-64 on the MT 17 to be quite acceptable. I'm simply asking the same question about the s110v in the Native 5, because I didn't catch that anywhere in the treads I read. My guess is 63 (Phil Wilson optimal -1).
One last point: There is nobody buying production knives that legimately wants to know the RC more than Spyderco customers. It is probably also a competitive advantage for Spyderco in that their size and frankly passion for the business allows them to maintain a higher level of Quality Control over the heat treat than any other manufactuer other than pure custom shops. Publishing target RC would be a selling point much more than a liability.
I don't need to know the RC of MY knife, just what Spyderco was targeting. I found the answer above for zpd-189 of 65-67and 62-64 on the MT 17 to be quite acceptable. I'm simply asking the same question about the s110v in the Native 5, because I didn't catch that anywhere in the treads I read. My guess is 63 (Phil Wilson optimal -1).
One last point: There is nobody buying production knives that legimately wants to know the RC more than Spyderco customers. It is probably also a competitive advantage for Spyderco in that their size and frankly passion for the business allows them to maintain a higher level of Quality Control over the heat treat than any other manufactuer other than pure custom shops. Publishing target RC would be a selling point much more than a liability.
-
Cliff Stamp
- Member
- Posts: 3852
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:23 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
In regards to the complexity / cost of measurement, the entire purpose of the Rockwell machine is actually to simplify and measurement and make it something that can be done almost instantly. You can HRC test a blade faster than it takes to actually fill out the card with the hardness on it that you would ship with the blade. There are companies that hardness test all the blades and there are heat treating production companies that certify the blades after hardening.
The question you would have to ask from Spyderco's perspective is :
-how much to we gain from people who would buy our knives that would not without the HRC rating
-how much to we lose from people who will not buy our knives because of the HRC rating
-how much does it cost both directly and indirectly to do the test
The indirect costs are much higher than the direct ones. Just imagine for example if only one out of 100 people called because they wanted to know why the number was different, how come they had one which was 1/2 softer than their friends, or 1/2 a point higher. Is their knife going to be brittle, or is it going to be too soft, can they return it for one which is 1/2 point higher or lower.
By the way if you want to get any knives HRC tested then all you have to do is go to the Engineering department of the local university, find just one guy there who would appreciate you sharpening his knives and he will HRC test anything you want. He could literally test dozens of knives in a few minutes. However you might not want to walk around campus with a bag full of knives so have a bit of sense about how you approach it.
Similar any testing facility will do the same, just stop in and talk to them, I am sure you could find one person there who would appreciate a sharp set of kitchen knives. And it doesn't cost them anything to do the test, it doesn't use up the equipment in any way.
The question you would have to ask from Spyderco's perspective is :
-how much to we gain from people who would buy our knives that would not without the HRC rating
-how much to we lose from people who will not buy our knives because of the HRC rating
-how much does it cost both directly and indirectly to do the test
The indirect costs are much higher than the direct ones. Just imagine for example if only one out of 100 people called because they wanted to know why the number was different, how come they had one which was 1/2 softer than their friends, or 1/2 a point higher. Is their knife going to be brittle, or is it going to be too soft, can they return it for one which is 1/2 point higher or lower.
By the way if you want to get any knives HRC tested then all you have to do is go to the Engineering department of the local university, find just one guy there who would appreciate you sharpening his knives and he will HRC test anything you want. He could literally test dozens of knives in a few minutes. However you might not want to walk around campus with a bag full of knives so have a bit of sense about how you approach it.
Similar any testing facility will do the same, just stop in and talk to them, I am sure you could find one person there who would appreciate a sharp set of kitchen knives. And it doesn't cost them anything to do the test, it doesn't use up the equipment in any way.
Cliff Stamp wrote:In regards to the complexity / cost of measurement, the entire purpose of the Rockwell machine is actually to simplify and measurement and make it something that can be done almost instantly. You can HRC test a blade faster than it takes to actually fill out the card with the hardness on it that you would ship with the blade. There are companies that hardness test all the blades and there are heat treating production companies that certify the blades after hardening.
The question you would have to ask from Spyderco's perspective is :
-how much to we gain from people who would buy our knives that would not without the HRC rating
-how much to we lose from people who will not buy our knives because of the HRC rating
-how much does it cost both directly and indirectly to do the test
The indirect costs are much higher than the direct ones. Just imagine for example if only one out of 100 people called because they wanted to know why the number was different, how come they had one which was 1/2 softer than their friends, or 1/2 a point higher. Is their knife going to be brittle, or is it going to be too soft, can they return it for one which is 1/2 point higher or lower.
By the way if you want to get any knives HRC tested then all you have to do is go to the Engineering department of the local university, find just one guy there who would appreciate you sharpening his knives and he will HRC test anything you want. He could literally test dozens of knives in a few minutes. However you might not want to walk around campus with a bag full of knives so have a bit of sense about how you approach it.
Similar any testing facility will do the same, just stop in and talk to them, I am sure you could find one person there who would appreciate a sharp set of kitchen knives. And it doesn't cost them anything to do the test, it doesn't use up the equipment in any way.
All of that and...
HRC testing is in a range anyway as the production companies usually go with a + or - 2 HRC or for example they would shoot for 59-61 HRC.
Then take into count that the average accuracy is + or - 1 HRC.
All that depends on the equipment and how it's calibrated and what standard it's calibrated too.
So it's a can of worms best left closed.
It's far more important to buy a knife from a reputable company known for quality and performance than to dig around for the HRC spread. Spyderco has a reputation for producing high performance production knives. They aren't known for underhardening the steels they use. Personally I don't really worry about what the HRC is because I know that Spyderco is going to pick a sensible hardness for their knives. If something goes wrong with a particular model, it's easy to find out on here or another forum.
Even $400 knives don't come with a card stating the HRC measurements at various points of the blade. It's really not necessary and all it would do is confuse the general public even more than they're confused about knives as it is, and it would make people complain.
Yes, knowing the spread can be useful, but if it's that big of an issue then buying a custom knife is probably in order, IMHO. Seeing a spread of 60-62 or 58-60 really isn't all that useful because who knows which one your knife is. It doesn't really provide much information, just a ballpark target figure.
Even $400 knives don't come with a card stating the HRC measurements at various points of the blade. It's really not necessary and all it would do is confuse the general public even more than they're confused about knives as it is, and it would make people complain.
Yes, knowing the spread can be useful, but if it's that big of an issue then buying a custom knife is probably in order, IMHO. Seeing a spread of 60-62 or 58-60 really isn't all that useful because who knows which one your knife is. It doesn't really provide much information, just a ballpark target figure.
Blerv Puma knives from germany used to to do the Rc testing on every blade and i believe they still do and the blade has a small dimple in it. I remember my father telling me he had one when he was younger with the dimple. I would post the link to the puma site but a quick search brings it up and it says they still do it. I don't wanna break any rules by posting another companies website.
Hi ABX,
It's something that we stopped doing a long time ago. There are many reasons, many of which were posted here.
I believe that to many, the Rc of a steel is some type of absolute that they can uses to make decisions with. More often than not, most do not understand Rc, how variations work, how different steels respond better to different hardnesses, or many think that the harder the steel the better.
Posting the Rc invites argument. "I think it should be xxx", "Why didn't you xxx?", "So and so says abc", etc. etc.
We generally stay within a point of the hardness that Eric and I select for a steel. Closer than most. This is based on info provided by the foundry and our in house testing.
Hope that helps.
sal
It's something that we stopped doing a long time ago. There are many reasons, many of which were posted here.
I believe that to many, the Rc of a steel is some type of absolute that they can uses to make decisions with. More often than not, most do not understand Rc, how variations work, how different steels respond better to different hardnesses, or many think that the harder the steel the better.
Posting the Rc invites argument. "I think it should be xxx", "Why didn't you xxx?", "So and so says abc", etc. etc.
We generally stay within a point of the hardness that Eric and I select for a steel. Closer than most. This is based on info provided by the foundry and our in house testing.
Hope that helps.
sal