Bolster wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:37 pm
weeping minora wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 6:58 pm
Uh, since when is an enhancement, not a form of improvement?
You reference the Delica that has had four iterations since its existence. The Caly Jr has had one iteration, over the span of 27 years. This is not a direct comparison to prove your point, and discredit all other discussion.
Lastly, you don't think ELU input is valuable, and much less-so to the point that input has
never lead to "enhancements" for any ELU, much less yourself; so sal, nor Spyderco as a company should listen to any such BS input from the forum(ites) here, because we aren't all knife designers, nor do we all run production knife companies ourselves?
Interesting.
Geez.
(1) Uh, what? By enhancement I mean improvement. They are synonyms. Not sure what point you're making here. You seem to have missed the point that I'm on the CQI side of the argument, if you'd read back in this thread. That said, I'd rather the designer do what he does best, than listen to my particular desires for improvement.
(2) I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm submitting evidence of the positive evolution in Spyderco designs. Do you think one iteration means no improvement, but four iterations means improvement? I get your emotion, but not your logic.
(3) "Discredit all other discussion?" Exaggerate much? I put in my preference for jimping on the handle under the thumb, and would like screw construction too, but am perfectly content if Spyderco makes a different call. I'm comfortable with an actual world-renowned knife designer deciding which improvements, if any, he'd like to add.
(4) Your last point actually hits home. I think "design by forum shout-down" is a lousy way to design a knife, just as the audience telling Beethoven how to compose is a lousy way to produce symphony. But since you asked about my perspective: I think a broad average of ELU opinions (not single strident opinions repeated over and over) are useful in giving a designer marketable background info, but taken too far that becomes design-by-committee. I think it's better for an informed and experienced designer to, at some point, ignore the cacophony of contradictory afi opinion and just "do his thing."
(1): I read your first sentence as, "...I would call those evolutions,
not improvements". I was wrong, and for that I do apologize. I suppose after reading your last paragraph, it skewed your opening statement when I re-read and responded as such.
(2): The Caly Jr has pretty much been "extinct" since 2007; having one Sprint Run in 2018, aside from this proposed upcoming Sprint, possibly adding an additional year or two, bridging yet another 7-8 years for one additional variant. Many of those models in the 2000s had been merely Sprint Runs, as they were. My point was, the Delica has most likely
remained in the standard production lineup for all these years,
due to those evolutions/enhancements within each new iteration. I didn't really want to make such a long-winded post, and I thought the history of these two models would tell their own respective stories. Of course, this is only my hunch, as history has already written itself, but; one model has zero CQI, or otherwise changes, and has become "effectively extinct", and the other has had four revisions and remains in production to this day. Name another Spyderco that has lasted over 3 decades with
zero changes, that still remains relevant within their catalog. The Military (1) is the longest running at nearly 28 years, but even it, too, underwent many CQI enhancements. If the Caly Jr
at least went through a form or two of CQI, it
may still be relevant. With sal explaining that the UKPK, and ultimately Caly 3 being successors of the Caly Jr "cockpit", I'd venture to say that there would at minimum be a Caly Jr 3 (since the Caly 3 itself is no more), to even be considered as a current production model. Expressing the evolution of the Delica, amidst proposed CQI for the Caly Jr, is not a valid argument to eschew the potential for change within the Caly Jr. Again, perhaps the contradiction within your last paragraph has altered my understanding of this point to your post?
(3)+(4): sal asked what
we would want out of this Sprint Run. A couple suggestions in regards to improving the model get mentioned in discussion and all-of-a-sudden it's "design-by-committee"? We're proposing a few minute changes on a model that has remained unchanged for the past 27 years (aside materials). Obviously sal has found worth in these types of discussions and inputs from the ELU, via this forum (amongst others). If you feel this is all a way to "design by forum shout-down" (which we
are not designing here, anyway), that's ultimately your opinion, but we very much agree to disagree over that statement. Just because 2, or 3 people express sharing the same opinion of "improvement", does not elicit your sentiment of disregard. Spyderco ultimately either A) designs in-house, or B) collaborates, and
we, as the ELUs/AFIs, get to help enhance, or otherwise improve, some of those knives via our feedback and input. To make statements such as your last is at minimum, dismissive of a large amount of what this forum is about, regardless of overall agreeability with such opinions, or statements. Whether you meant it as-such, or not, I felt like that was a low-blow to this discussion, and was overall intended to dismiss
our collective input and discussion.