Your thoughts on S90V

[bh49]

... All this internet mumbo jumbo ...

Yes, science on Spyderco's forums it is just "mumbo jumbo"

In this case, why are you here?

[kbuzbee]

Lighten up Francis.

I LOVE Stripes!

I don't cut stuff with material data sheets.

They work pretty well. I've had several nasty paper cuts from them

Ken

[Donut]

... All this internet mumbo jumbo ...

Yes, science on Spyderco's forums it is just "mumbo jumbo", as the real way to knowledge is to ignore materials data and perform experiments with no scientific controls and use them to infer steel characteristics. It is a good thing the people who actually make the steel don't ascribe to the same beliefs.

Well, Cliff Stamp says that the inconsistency of the material you're cutting has a far bigger impact on edge retention than the steel itself.

[Cliff Stamp]

...but experience will always matter more to me than what the numbers say.

Yes, I know that you have stated it many times, it isn't that uncommon of a viewpoint. I just find it curious, it completely rejects science while praising a product which is only possible through it.

Lets say Bill comes on the forum and he remarks that in his experience Spyderco's S30V is absolute junk compared to QualityCutters. He bases this on the fact that he tried to use a Paramilitary from Spyderco and it went dull immediately but the knife he used from QualityCutters stayed sharp an entire month.

If asked for a little detail he noted further :

-the Paramilitary was used with the initial edge
-it had been left exposed to salt water for quite some time
-he cut fibreglass insulation on concrete with it

and the QualityCutters knife :

-had been sharpened many times
-used for mainly light work for that month
-never left wet

How long would you think it would take before forum members argued that Bill conclusion isn't valid, even though he experienced it, because the method he used would not in general produce sound conclusions? If forum members made those criticisms would you argue they should not because Bill's experience is what he should use to reach conclusions?

Do you really not see that you are being extremely hypocritical where when someone makes an assertion that you agree with then you accept one form of evidence, but when the assertion disagrees with your perspective that a different form of evidence is required.

[Blerv]

Right or or wrong personal perspective should always reign supreme. Namely because personal dollars are used to buy these mostly recreational tools (ie: very few infant lives are on the line). Whether placebo or not, the users satisfaction is paramount.

The science (hopefully) should be in the hands of the maker. Their reps are on the line. So either they honestly believe in products like S90v by internal contextual research or are risking good names on a sham of epic scale.

If Spyderco thought a product wasn't beneficial (or crap) they wouldn't make it. They have too much to lose. So every product has good and bad characteristics. I'm sure they could make a killing on strops and pull-thru sharpeners. I don't see any in the catalog.

[Evil D]

Cliff are you trying to say that my experience with this knife is based off my sharpening technique and/or what I cut with it? Or that I haven't done enough tests to know what I'm talking about? I've EDC'ed the knife for over 6 months and have cut literally everything needed from cardboard to sticks, plastic, rubber, food, you name it, and the results are still the same.

Here's the thing man, and we've gone back and forth with this a little but you still don't seem to get it. I don't reject the almighty indisputable science that you so adamantly remind us of every time you make a post. In fact I appreciate every bit of it because I do in fact learn from it from time to time and I like to learn things. In fact I'd go so far as to say I have a pretty high level of respect for you and what you know. **** I'm impressed most of the time and I can't make sense out of half the stuff you post. However, that does not....not one ounce....not 0.00000000000001%......not one bit Cliff....does it change the fact that this steel works for me. Not even a teeny bit. You can type out walls of text and give me bullet points until your fingers bleed on your keyboard and it won't change the fact that :

-This knife has not chipped the edge on anything I have cut, at least not that I can see through a 60x loupe
-This knife has not dulled significantly enough for me to consider it dull, even after 2k cuts through double wall corrugated
-This knife is not difficult for ME to sharpen even after the aforementioned 2k cuts


Think about this for a second;

I once gave a S90V fillet knife (Phil Wilson) to a bunch of fisherman who loved it because of how long it would stay at the ability to just cut cod without tearing (low sharpness on a slice). However I have given S90V blades to carpenters who are not impressed with the ability to hold a high sharpness on wood and were not at all pleased with sharpening it. I have given it to general tradespeople and had them not impressed at all due to lack of toughness and poor maintenance (hard to grind). But other tradespeople were very pleased as it does well doing things like cutting cardboard and fibreglass for a long time, again slicing at a low sharpness.

Have you considered that maybe I'm one of those particular tradespeople? I'm certainly not a carpenter, so this "high sharpness on wood" thing is meaningless to me especially since my "low sharpness" S110V will still whittle a stick to roast marshmallows with just fine. In fact I'd say that the vast majority of what I cut is in fact cardboard, so perhaps the reason I don't see all these horrible attributes in this steel is because I'm not a carpenter and I don't have a bunch wood planes and chisels made from the steel. You have got to remember, not everyone gives a crap that their knife has dulled to the point that it no longer push cuts newsprint from 1 inch from the holding point. Not everyone considers a knife dull because it can't.

Either way...what I don't get about you is why you can't seem to accept that I'm not getting the results that you want me to get. I don't have to be an engineer or metallurgist to observe what my knife is doing when I use it. I don't have to do double blind tests to know if my edge is chipped or not. I don't need graphs, I don't even need to know what properties the steel has, I can't sit here and rattle them off not for this steel or any that I've ever used. It isn't a placebo, I'm not enamored by the properties of the steel when I can't even tell you what they are. What I know is, it works for the things I cut, and it stays sharp cutting the things I cut. It hasn't blown out the edge or deformed, but then I also don't sharpen my pocket knives down to 10 degrees inclusive like you do.

Lately, you've been part of more than a few big long ridiculous dead horse beating debates, and honestly I think you're taking this stuff way too seriously. You seem to want to force people to agree with you, but that's just not always going to happen. I try to stay out of those debates but dang man..it's getting a little old and honestly it's overshadowing the fact that you do have a lot of great info to offer if we can just get past all this scientific crucifixion you throw at people all the time.

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff are you trying to say that my experience with this knife is based off my sharpening technique and/or what I cut with it?

The performance of the knife, in regards to the way the edge regards will depend on how it was sharpened and what it was used to cut and how it was used to cut. I would think that is obvious unless you want to posit the supernatural.

I don't reject the almighty indisputable science ...

The definition of science includes the idea that it isn't indisputable, you are supposed to dispute it, if you are not then whatever you are doing isn't science.

What I know is, it works for the things I cut, and it stays sharp cutting the things I cut.

So again what is your response to the situation I described "If forum members made those criticisms would you argue they should not because Bill's experience is what he should use to reach conclusions? "

Are you actually unwilling to even answer that question?

... but then I also don't sharpen my pocket knives down to 10 degrees inclusive like you do.

Neither do I, transition bevels of 6-8 dps are common, edge bevels at 15 dps, micro-bevels only on light use knives (hemp, cardboard, woods, etc.) . But I always carry at least one knife with a more robust profile for more demanding work which would have a distinct edge bevel, not just a micro on the transition bevel.

[farnorthdan]

Very well said David and thank you :spyder: Oh yea, I absolutely love my YO2 S90V........that is all :cool:

[Cliff Stamp]

.....what I don't get about you is why you can't seem to accept that I'm not getting the results that you want me to get.

It isn't about the claims, it is about the justification.

I'll give you an example. I don't know a lot about tea compared to a friend of mine who is seriously into tea. I was talking to him recently (with a cup of tea) and I remarked it was really smooth compared to what I normally drink and asked him what type it was. He asked me how I made tea, and in response he then made a vulgar remark which implied that he thought what I said was similar to having suggested eating the mice he caught that morning. He then further noted that it was likely what I was seeing was due to the temperature of the water and length of brewing time. Now my observation was actually correct, both subjective to me and in general, but the reasoning used was invalid as I was correlating two variables mistakenly, and hence conclusions drawn from it (that all I would need to do was just buy that tea) would be invalid.

[Evil D]

So again what is your response to the situation I described "If forum members made those criticisms would you argue they should not because Bill's experience is what he should use to reach conclusions? "

Are you actually unwilling to even answer that question?

I would say Bill based his opinion off of experience that was influenced by a poor situation. My knife hasn't been left in the ocean and it has been sharpened many times. How does Bill's experience relate to mine exactly?

As for the tea thing, that sounds like a way of saying you're wrong but still right. Just because in other situations and under different uses these steels perform the way you say, doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say they don't perform that way for me. I've never said this steel does not and will not chip or be difficult to sharpen. If you read again, I've made quite an emphasis on it works for me. That doesn't mean I'm questioning the absolute possible behavior of this steel, I'm not making a blanket statement like Bill is, I'm not saying this steel is the best ever and that everyone should use it. It works for me and if we all take your word for it then a lot of people will be put off by it, that's why I said originally to try it for himself.

[Cliff Stamp]

I would say Bill based his opinion off of experience that was influenced by a poor situation.

That doesn't answer the question, it is a simple question - would you argue that forum members should not make those criticisms because Bill's experience is what he should use to reach conclusions?

Just because in other situations and under different uses these steels perform the way you say, doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say they don't perform that way for me.

It has to perform as you have observed it to perform unless you are delusional and you don't appear to be. You seem to be trying to argue against things that I never said.

My point was that rejecting discussion of materials data, and claiming that knowledge can only come from personal experience, with no actual empirical controls, isn't valid.

At a fundamental level the properties of steel are obviously based on its material properties, hence such discussions are not only useful, but critical. Similar personal experience without necessary empirical controls is highly prone to false conclusions.

Can you know things about the way knives behave from personal experience - yes if you take steps to do so in a way which is conductive to knowing (i.e. science).

[Cliff Stamp]

Right or or wrong personal perspective should always reign supreme.

Why would you say the makers of knives should respect science but users should not? Why would you possibly advocate someone should not only hold but advocate for example statements about Spyderco's products which are completely invalid and are only held because of unjustified claims?

As an aside, why do you even advocate that as you don't actually act that way?

[Donut]

I think that even if all the science and testing in the world backs that one steel should be better than another for fish filleting... You'll always have that 1 guy out of 1,000 that prefers the other steel for whatever reason. And the reason could be that he prefers the steel to corrode or that he prefers to sharpen it twice during his work.

[Donut]

The science (hopefully) should be in the hands of the maker. Their reps are on the line. So either they honestly believe in products like S90v by internal contextual research or are risking good names on a sham of epic scale.

If Spyderco thought a product wasn't beneficial (or crap) they wouldn't make it. They have too much to lose. So every product has good and bad characteristics. I'm sure they could make a killing on strops and pull-thru sharpeners. I don't see any in the catalog.

You know, in my opinion I don't know that the makers need to have a scientific reason to it. They just need to have justification to why they do what they do. It could be something like:

"Well, I like CPM 154 because it costs $10 less per blade and it performs as well as I need it to."

or

"The people who buy my knives prefer it to the steel I was using before it."

or it could just have to do with how it works for them while they are making their products. The steel polishes better than other steels. It allows them to spend less money on belts while making their blades. It makes a nicer looking product.

[Blerv]

Forget it. Off topic and won't do much good.

I'm a drone. High carbide steels suck. The Wizard of OZ runs the knife steel industry. There :)

Back on topic between two very high carbide and poplar steels!

[wrdwrght]

Is it me, or has the oxygen been sucked out of the room, yet again?

[Cliff Stamp]

.... It allows them to spend less money on belts while making their blades. It makes a nicer looking product.

From a business perspective they can simply make the argument that it sells and it is common to see in the industry when something becomes popular then makers/manufacturers will rush to get out clones before the fad is lost, even when what they are doing directly contradicts how they promoted past products.

You'll always have that 1 guy out of 1,000 that prefers the other steel for whatever reason.

Well yes, but there is a difference between saying that you like Justin Bieber more than Freddy Mercury as a singer than making the claim that Justin Bieber has more powerful vocals over a wider range than Mercury and that further this is true because you were at a Bieber concert once and all the "mumbo jumbo" about vocal power and range (which can be measured) doesn't mean anything.

If someone asked "I need a knife for salt water fishing, I don't want rust!!! There are two blades I like, one is 440C and another is 1095, which one is more stainless?" - would anyone in the above say something like "Well the science/data is all just paper-testing it doesn't mean anything in the real world, you need to buy both and see." Of course not. Why would anyone do materials research if it can't actually be used to make decisions.

This is where you can also go too far the other way and as Cashen and Landes have argued that you can't learn anything by using a knife or even trying to do some kind of cutting comparison and that only materials data contains knowledge. I would make the argument it is possible as long as you use basic controls and that further when people actually want to know things they have those discussions. Chris and DK are discussing right now on the T0.1M forum why they have opposite experiences with two different steels. What is the difference in what they are doing which is generating the different conclusions - that is an interesting question.

DK has some pretty interesting results because on one hand he gets very strong performance from 420HC, which is above steels like ATS-34, but steels like Sleipner and 3V are often better than 420HC. He does both controlled comparisons on cardboard and just regular work as a tradesmen and they appear to be strongly correlated. It isn't obvious what material properties are actually being measured and so a number of people are trying to figure it out, including DK himself, based on what he is doing, how he is sharpening, etc. .

[Cliff Stamp]

In this case, why are you here?

Do you really only participate in discussions with people who have the exact same views as you do and you can't see any value in doing otherwise?

[christopher]

Just a thought from the uninformed (I'm truly enjoying this discussion.)

If one steel was superior to all others and one shape superior and one size superior, why does Spyderco et al make so many combinations of blades, steels, etc?

I'm not even going to address the thought of various heat treating of the various steels. Much too long an argument.

[Cliff Stamp]

If one steel was superior to all others and one shape superior and one size superior, why does Spyderco et al make so many combinations of blades, steels, etc?

And further why do the people who Spyderco buy the steels from.

The main problem often is that people try to gain an understanding of steel from reading marketing material which is like trying to learn about science by watching the Sci-Fi channel. It is possible in some sense to learn but the material is so highly convoluted and distorted that it would be very difficult and there is a high chance you would end up with a very biased viewpoint.

If for example you learn about wear resistance from data sheets you would quickly start to think something like wear resistance is caused by carbides, some elements make harder carbides, small changes in hardness can have huge influence on wear resistance, etc. .

But if you look at the literature you would learn things like :

-wear resistance is a combination of hardness, carbide size/volume and toughness/ductility and how these effect wear resistance depends on the size of the abrasive and the loads

Thus the way you look at knives will be very different. In the data sheet viewpoint you end up thinking something like "more carbides = more edge retention", but from the actual materials data you end up thinking something like "given a type of work, with a specific edge angle and finish, there is an optimal level and type of carbide and going more/less than that will decrease edge retention and cause the way the knife blunts to change".



This is a heavily worn apex on a very tough, low carbide stainless steel.



This is a much harder, higher carbide tool steel (10V/K2), note the big piece knocked out of the apex.

They both have the same edge angle, same apex angle and were used for the same work. The second steel had a much lower wear resistance because the work was hard enough to fracture the steel. It could not fracture the 12C27 and thus it blunted by slow wear and lost less material from the edge.

Now if the material is cut is different, if it is much softer but still abrasive, ideally if the abrasive particles were 2-4 microns then the abrasives would be larger than the carbides in 12C27 but smaller than the carbides in 10V then the 10V blade would likely have better wear resistance.

Could you just increase the edge angle on the 10V so it would stop fracture under the first type of work - sure. However as the angle increases then the cutting ability decreases and the edge retention on a slice rapidly decreases.