Rock Jumper comparison thread + general info

[Wartstein]

*edit: ladybug - i'm trying to eliminate choices dang it! but you think a leaf would have advantages? I admit i love the look of that knife, but figured a knife specifically designed for cutting rope would be pretty ideal for cutting other kinds of fiber, is the leafjumper the same in that way?

Just my 2c, but coming from a lot experience I think:

- Blades with a completely straight edge section or, even better, being completely straight all the way (= wharnie) work better than the curved edge of a leaf blade for pruning, cutting through wood and many cutting tasks in general -. cause they optimize the transfer of power over the whole cut (see Michael Janichs great vid about wharncliff blades for example https://youtu.be/hnPhVIF ... Y2xpZmY%3D)

- I don´t think the RockJumoer "was specifically designed for cutting rope" only - it is "just" a wharnie with all the wharnie advantages (and potential disadvantages) in a great, neutral handle.

I don´t think you could go wrong with a RockJumper SE - I had one for a while, great knife!!! Only sold it again because I was hoping for more actual cutting edge (the blade would offer space for that. Just one comparison: A Tenacious has a 2% shorter handle, but offers 16% more cutting edge than a RockJumper. When it comes to cutting edge it´s pretty much Endura vs Manix... in a handle that has a about the same length).

[Cl1ff]

A straight, recurved, serrated, or some combination of those three blade types is best for cutting branches and ropes/lines while pull cutting.

It may have more handle, and be a little wide in pocket (like a Manix), but the handle is tall and stable in hand, better for more grips, and has no significant choils or exposed ricassos.

In my opinion, there’s no wasted space in the design, maybe in the exact specs you can squeeze and rearrange for optimal ratios, but the overall design is really efficient.

For example, the shape of the handle is so that the grip area extends to the tip of each end. You can use all of it.
I find that having the freedom of its handle, afforded by the accommodating and secure design, really streamlines the actual use of its blade. This can be said of some other Spyderco’s too, but of the Rockjumper especially, according to my other specific preferences.

I could say an awful lot about the many ways this knife ticks my boxes. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it practically is.

[elena86]

*edit: ladybug - i'm trying to eliminate choices dang it! but you think a leaf would have advantages? I admit i love the look of that knife, but figured a knife specifically designed for cutting rope would be pretty ideal for cutting other kinds of fiber, is the leafjumper the same in that way?

Just my 2c, but coming from a lot experience I think:

- Blades with a completely straight edge section or, even better, being completely straight all the way (= wharnie) work better than the curved edge of a leaf blade for pruning, cutting through wood and many cutting tasks in general -. cause they optimize the transfer of power over the whole cut (see Michael Janichs great vid about wharncliff blades for example https://youtu.be/hnPhVIF ... Y2xpZmY%3D)

- I don´t think the RockJumoer "was specifically designed for cutting rope" only - it is "just" a wharnie with all the wharnie advantages (and potential disadvantages) in a great, neutral handle.

I don´t think you could go wrong with a RockJumper SE - I had one for a while, great knife!!! Only sold it again because I was hoping for more actual cutting edge (the blade would offer space for that. Just one comparison: A Tenacious has a 2% shorter handle, but offers 16% more cutting edge than a RockJumper. When it comes to cutting edge it´s pretty much Endura vs Manix... in a handle that has a about the same length).

Me too but Sal rained on our parade and said it won’t hapen. It broke my heart because the RJ with a slightly longer cutting edge could have been a helluva folder. I never understood why they insist in not optimizing the inside handle/edge lenght ratio. Your guess is as good as mine. I still hope they are going to find a way to squeeze more edge in there. The Rockjumper deserves to be upgraded. I know this means re-tooling but …

[Cl1ff]

Maybe with the bigger designs ratios can be optimized for maximum cutting edge. I do appreciate that, but if I’m going to ask for more edge, I want a lot more.

A lot more cutting edge makes a lot more difference than a little bit, so I’m way more interested in a ~4 inch “Cliffjumper” (+1 inch) than however much edge we’ll get out of min-maxing the Rockjumper.

[Evil D]

A straight, recurved, serrated, or some combination of those three blade types is best for cutting branches and ropes/lines while pull cutting.

It may have more handle, and be a little wide in pocket (like a Manix), but the handle is tall and stable in hand, better for more grips, and has no significant choils or exposed ricassos.

In my opinion, there’s no wasted space in the design, maybe in the exact specs you can squeeze and rearrange for optimal ratios, but the overall design is really efficient.

For example, the shape of the handle is so that the grip area extends to the tip of each end. You can use all of it.
I find that having the freedom of its handle, afforded by the accommodating and secure design, really streamlines the actual use of its blade. This can be said of some other Spyderco’s too, but of the Rockjumper especially, according to my other specific preferences.

I could say an awful lot about the many ways this knife ticks my boxes. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it practically is.

This is a post I've made in several threads because I think this concept behind this handgun fits a lot of knife use, and I think what you're saying about the RJ grip is right in line with this way of thinking.

There was once an early tactical handgun concept that advocated a smooth grip, the idea being that in a tense situation you would not accidentally lock your grip into a bad grip because it didn't have any grooves that you could misalign with. You can't grip it wrong when there's no predefined way to grip it as you get with finger grooves.

https://youtu.be/4trmOFxuJw0


The "slide into place and stay into place" part makes sense to me on a handle design that has solid ergonomics without needing jimping or finger grooves.

[Wartstein]

....

In my opinion, there’s no wasted space in the design, maybe in the exact specs you can squeeze and rearrange for optimal ratios, but the overall design is really efficient.

....
I could say an awful lot about the many ways this knife ticks my boxes. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it practically is.

Yes, the RJ is very close to perfection!

But not when it comes to efficiency if one happens to look for a good cutting edge to handle ratio.

As said: Tenacious handle: 2 % shorter than the RJ handle, Tenacious edge 16 & longer though.

Backlocks?
Stretch 1 handle and RJ handle: Same length (113 mm) ; but Stretch 1 81mm (3.2") cutting edge, RJ 72 mm (2.85") - and the Stretch 1 even has a choil which shortens the available edge.

[ladybug93]

Maybe with the bigger designs ratios can be optimized for maximum cutting edge. I do appreciate that, but if I’m going to ask for more edge, I want a lot more.

A lot more cutting edge makes a lot more difference than a little bit, so I’m way more interested in a ~4 inch “Cliffjumper” (+1 inch) than however much edge we’ll get out of min-maxing the Rockjumper.

yes this.

the rockjumper is actually slightly too long. i thought about getting one for my new job that requires a blade 3" or less, but it's just over. i went with a delica wharncliffe instead because i don't have to modify to make it safely within accepted guidance.

i don't understand the constant crying over an extra 1/8-1/2" of cutting edge in some of these designs. if i need something bigger, i'll get a knife that's 3.5" or 4" instead of asking for a 3" knife to be 3.25". if you need more cutting edge, why not just push for the larger version of the knife instead of continually complaining about the edge to handle ratio? (not directed at you cl1ff, but at the repeated complaints over blade to handle ratio.) realistically, what is that little bit of extra blade going to offer over the current design besides making the knife less legal for more people?

[Evil D]

yes this.

the rockjumper is actually slightly too long. i thought about getting one for my new job that requires a blade 3" or less, but it's just over. i went with a delica wharncliffe instead because i don't have to modify to make it safely within accepted guidance.

i don't understand the constant crying over an extra 1/8-1/2" of cutting edge in some of these designs. if i need something bigger, i'll get a knife that's 3.5" or 4" instead of asking for a 3" knife to be 3.25". if you need more cutting edge, why not just push for the larger version of the knife instead of continually complaining about the edge to handle ratio? (not directed at you cl1ff, but at the repeated complaints over blade to handle ratio.) realistically, what is that little bit of extra blade going to offer over the current design besides making the knife less legal for more people?

Well, it's not crying, it's a preference. It's kind of insulting to say that voicing a preference is crying.

I don't choose to step up to a 4 inch blade because maybe it's too big for my needs. Maybe I choose handle size first and not blade size, and then I want as much blade as I can get inside that handle size.

What if people told you to stop crying about needing to meet a 3 inch length law?

[Wartstein]

Maybe with the bigger designs ratios can be optimized for maximum cutting edge. I do appreciate that, but if I’m going to ask for more edge, I want a lot more.

A lot more cutting edge makes a lot more difference than a little bit, so I’m way more interested in a ~4 inch “Cliffjumper” (+1 inch) than however much edge we’ll get out of min-maxing the Rockjumper.

yes this.

the rockjumper is actually slightly too long. i thought about getting one for my new job that requires a blade 3" or less, but it's just over. i went with a delica wharncliffe instead because i don't have to modify to make it safely within accepted guidance.

i don't understand the constant crying over an extra 1/8-1/2" of cutting edge in some of these designs. if i need something bigger, i'll get a knife that's 3.5" or 4" instead of asking for a 3" knife to be 3.25". if you need more cutting edge, why not just push for the larger version of the knife instead of continually complaining about the edge to handle ratio? (not directed at you cl1ff, but at the repeated complaints over blade to handle ratio.) realistically, what is that little bit of extra blade going to offer over the current design besides making the knife less legal for more people?

Perhaps I misunderstand your post - ?

I rarely hear people actually complain about a less than ideal edge to handle ratio - ?
I do hear though quite often people appreciating Spydies that do offer a good amount of edge in a compact size (Caly 3.5, Caribbean... )

Of course not every folder has to offer that, but it is nice to have choices for compact carry with a lot of edge.

.035" more edge (like in Stretch 1 vs RJ) can make a difference and for potential pro of course - on the level we are looking at knives here.
Otherwise we could also say: "What difference does it make if FRN or G10"? "Cruwear or S30V"? "Comp.lock or Linerlock"?

In case of the RJ this wish is even more understandable :

- As you say, the blade IS over the 3" limit anyway already (3.08"), the handle would offer space for more blade/edge, but more blade would still not exceed the next 3.5" level

- And, the RJ was explicitly advertized with the words "One of the primary design goals of the RockJumper was to pack as much cutting edge as possible into its pocket-friendly size..." (see byte Sept 2020 https://mailchi.mp/spyderco/spyderco-by ... ember-2020) so, yes, people who among other things like to have choices with a good edge to size ratio were hoping for just this,

[Wartstein]

...

Well, it's not crying, it's a preference. It's kind of insulting to say that voicing a preference is crying.

I don't choose to step up to a 4 inch blade because maybe it's too big for my needs. Maybe I choose handle size first and not blade size, and then I want as much blade as I can get inside that handle size.

What if people told you to stop crying about needing to meet a 3 inch length law?

As said: The Rockjumper blade DOES exceed the 3" limit anyway already.... so legally it would make no difference to add some mm...

[ladybug93]

yeah... that was unnecessary. i'm just tired of seeing half page complaints every time the subject comes up about something that's been addressed by the designer himself. i apologize for being insulting. my intent was not to insult, but in hopes of pointing out how unnecessary it is to continuously bring it up as a flaw when it's not.

i understand blade to handle ratio being a thing and i get why some people care about it. i don't understand the back and forth over such a tiny amount of blade that it would make virtually no perceivable difference in use.


tte 3" rule is not my preference. it's something imposes upon me. i'm not asking for it for myself as something i want, but suggesting spyderco consider these types of rules when deciding to make a blade 3.08" instead of 3". if it was 3.25" or 3.5", that makes sense that it's just not designed to be available for anyone subject to those laws, but .08" doesn't make sense when it prohibits more than it could possibly benefit.

[Wartstein]

yeah... that was unnecessary. i'm just tired of seeing half page complaints every time the subject comes up about something that's been addressed by the designer himself. i apologize for being insulting. my intent was not to insult, but in hopes of pointing out how unnecessary it is to continuously bring it up as a flaw when it's not.

i understand blade to handle ratio being a thing and i get why some people care about it. i don't understand the back and forth over such a tiny amount of blade that it would make virtually no perceivable difference in use.
...

You certainly have a point here!

Actually in my own contribution concerning this, I was praising and recommending the RJ to forum member "bleasure", but then right because of this felt the need to explain briefly why I still sold it nevertheless... perhaps unnecessary too.

Sal addressed this indeed, finally by even saying that coming iterations of the RJ or the Leafumper (can´t recall exactly anymore) WOULD get a longer blade indeed! But then in discussions with Eric they dismissed this again.

Admittedly I am one of those who likes to have choices with a good amount of edge for the size.
One reason why for example I prefer a Stretch 1 over a Manix 2.
And so like many / several naturally was excited when the RJ was literally advertized as offering just that

More edge can also be felt in many tasks imo and make it more efficient to perform those.
I honestly do perceive and value a few mm more edge in some tasks.,
Just like others do perceive or value the difference between S30V and lets say XHP (I don´t) or FRN vs G10.
And in a world where perfect blade centering is a thing, I think cutting edge length can be anyway...

[Mushroom]

yeah... that was unnecessary. i'm just tired of seeing half page complaints every time the subject comes up about something that's been addressed by the designer himself. i apologize for being insulting. my intent was not to insult, but in hopes of pointing out how unnecessary it is to continuously bring it up as a flaw when it's not.

i understand blade to handle ratio being a thing and i get why some people care about it. i don't understand the back and forth over such a tiny amount of blade that it would make virtually no perceivable difference in use.


tte 3" rule is not my preference. it's something imposes upon me. i'm not asking for it for myself as something i want, but suggesting spyderco consider these types of rules when deciding to make a blade 3.08" instead of 3". if it was 3.25" or 3.5", that makes sense that it's just not designed to be available for anyone subject to those laws, but .08" doesn't make sense when it prohibits more than it could possibly benefit.

I’ve been in your shoes during this same conversation in the past. My only advice is don't bother.

You're correct though, 1 or 2 mm of blade length will pretty much never be perceivable in use.

[Evil D]

You're correct though, 1 or 2 mm of blade length will pretty much never be perceivable in use.

Go and break 1/4 inch off all your knives, do your best job at reprofiling the spine down so it's as factory as possible, and see if you don't notice. If you don't, good for you. I can assure you that I do.

[Wartstein]

.....

I’ve been in your shoes during this same conversation in the past. My only advice is don't bother.

You're correct though, 1 or 2 mm of blade length will pretty much never be perceivable in use.

Go and break 1/4 inch off all your knives, do your best job at reprofiling the spine down so it's as factory as possible, and see if you don't notice. If you don't, good for you. I can assure you that I do.

It is actually almost funny when people on this high level knife discussion forum certainly care about the very details when it comes to the features they look at -. might be sort of steel, might be sharpening angle, might be handle material, might be corrosion resistance, might be slight differences in ergos...
...but then fail to accept that others are exactly the same, just on different features concerning knives...

Folks, this is actually almost an appeal:

- If "YOUR" details matter to you, just respect that OTHER details may matter in exactly the same way to other people.

- At the least: Perhaps don´t almost hunt for comments about features that are not important to you personally anyway to then pick up on those (remember, NOT relevant for you, right ? I don´t discuss S90V vs S110V too, cause the difference does not matter to me personally)

I don´t notice the difference between S30V and S35VN for example, but I DO notice a difference of 2 or 3 mm cutting edge in my use of folders.
Not always, but often enough that it can matter.

[Mushroom]

You're correct though, 1 or 2 mm of blade length will pretty much never be perceivable in use.

Go and break 1/4 inch off all your knives, do your best job at reprofiling the spine down so it's as factory as possible, and see if you don't notice. If you don't, good for you. I can assure you that I do.

I would notice 1/4” too but on pocket knives, 1 or 2 mm feels like such a small length of blade to make a difference for what the typical types of use might be. On blades like scalpels or X-acto knives where ultra precision is a concern, I can understand why 1 or 2 mm could make a big difference.

I just have difficulty understanding what noticeable difference it would make with, for example, a Rockjumper. Is 2 mm more blade length really going to make it more capable than it already is?

.....

I’ve been in your shoes during this same conversation in the past. My only advice is don't bother.

You're correct though, 1 or 2 mm of blade length will pretty much never be perceivable in use.

Go and break 1/4 inch off all your knives, do your best job at reprofiling the spine down so it's as factory as possible, and see if you don't notice. If you don't, good for you. I can assure you that I do.

It is actually almost funny when people on this high level knife discussion forum certainly care about the very details when it comes to the features they look at -. might be sort of steel, might be sharpening angle, might be handle material, might be corrosion resistance, might be slight differences in ergos...
...but then fail to accept that others are exactly the same, just on different features concerning knives...

Folks, this is actually almost an appeal:

- If "YOUR" details matter to you, just respect that OTHER details may matter in exactly the same way to other people.

- At the least: Perhaps don´t almost hunt for comments about features that are not important to you personally anyway to then pick up on those (remember, NOT relevant for you, right ? I don´t discuss S90V vs S110V too, cause the difference does not matter to me personally)

I don´t notice the difference between S30V and S35VN for example, but I DO notice a difference of 2 or 3 mm cutting edge in my use of folders.
Not always, but often enough that it can matter.

Ok, I’d like to ask, when do you notice a difference of 2mm cutting edge in your folder use?

[Evil D]

I would notice 1/4” too but on pocket knives, 1 or 2 mm feels like such a small length of blade to make a difference for what the typical types of use might be. On blades like scalpels or X-acto knives where ultra precision is a concern, I can understand why 1 or 2 mm could make a big difference.

I just have difficulty understanding what noticeable difference it would make with, for example, a Rockjumper. Is 2 mm more blade length really going to make it more capable than it already is?

I don't have the RJ in my hands but I seem to remember you could probably squeeze 1/4 inch into the handle.

I think really a big reason I want this is for longevity, especially with a wharnie because I do sharpen the tips via grinding down the spine, and over time (and I don't mean years) I do lose blade length. I just want to start out with as much as possible.

And when it matters, honestly It's as much psychological as anything else. I have a Yojimbo that got chipped no more than what we're talking about and I can see and feel it just holding it in my hand. It may not turn it into an unusable knife but it bothers me and that matters.



And the weird thing to me about this whole debate is that at the same time people are saying it shouldn't matter, they want it shorter for length laws, so if it doesn't matter then grind it down yourself. At least that's an option to get what you want, I can't really make a blade longer.

[ladybug93]

i don't want it shorter. i was only saying that adding .08" cuts out your profits for a model because it limits users. i'm not saying i want it shorter, i'm saying it would make more sense to make it very slightly shorter than to make it negligibly longer.

[Evil D]

i don't want it shorter. i was only saying that adding .08" cuts out your profits for a model because it limits users. i'm not saying i want it shorter, i'm saying it would make more sense to make it very slightly shorter than to make it negligibly longer.

I guess they're not focusing really hard on length laws unless it's a knife that's specifically designed for it, like the Chicago or Cat. It's a two way street, one one hand it's close enough that they could make it 2.9 for legality, or on the other hand if it's going to be over 3 then make it as much past 3 as possible.

Sal says handles are for holding and blades are for cutting. I don't think Sal is as OCD as I am lol.

[Cl1ff]

....

In my opinion, there’s no wasted space in the design, maybe in the exact specs you can squeeze and rearrange for optimal ratios, but the overall design is really efficient.

....
I could say an awful lot about the many ways this knife ticks my boxes. It’s not absolutely perfect, but it practically is.

Yes, the RJ is very close to perfection!

But not when it comes to efficiency if one happens to look for a good cutting edge to handle ratio.

As said: Tenacious handle: 2 % shorter than the RJ handle, Tenacious edge 16 & longer though.

Backlocks?
Stretch 1 handle and RJ handle: Same length (113 mm) ; but Stretch 1 81mm (3.2") cutting edge, RJ 72 mm (2.85") - and the Stretch 1 even has a choil which shortens the available edge.

Yeah, we all definitely have our specific priorities and needs. I would appreciate the extra edge but don’t practically need it. Some do need it for choosing the knife to make sense.
Some can’t have it at all due to restrictions.

To me, it’s overarching choilless characteristic means the Rockjumper is better than anything of similar size with one.

Since the Rockjumper/Leafjumper blades don’t seem likely to get that extra edge or be shortened to fit legal restrictions and that’s just the way things played out, I think it would be nice to see this request considered on future handle-forward designs.

There is the potential for new blade shapes, new sizes, Salts, or a Golden Backlock Polestar/Alcyone, and that is just what has been considered on the forum to this point.
All of those can probably become the handle-forward backlock someone is looking for. I also want to try all of that.

A pet idea of mine is a Handle-Forward Byrd.


I don’t have the means to make proper prototypes, but I am getting better at designing things. Maybe I’ve come up with a couple that are based on this handle-forward backlock concept. I also consider the feedback from discussions like this with some of my designs, and more importantly, we know Sal does too (I’m just an ape that’s learning how to put a sharp thing on handle by watching others do it masterfully).

Not trying to imply anything with that other than I genuinely believe in the idea and know there is a lot of potential which could be explored, should the people allow it.
I like to entertain myself by designing some of the potential I see. It’s mostly curiosity.

Wartstein wouldn’t have bought one to try at all if they didn’t want to support the concept. I bought mine to support the concept because I would prefer other variations like a Salt or K390. It seems like we’ll get K390 at least!