Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 226

Thread: Clarity on the C81CFPE2 Para Military 2 Carbon Fiber CPM 154/CPM S90V

  1. #201
    Spyderco Forum Registered User gbelleh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,661
    This was by far the toughest sprint to get so far. Pretty sure this one was my one and only chance to grab it for under MSRP. If I'd called a few seconds later, I'm sure I would've missed out.

    Good luck to those looking to get one.
    My New Gear Review YouTube Channel

    Latest Spydies: Lum Tanto FB Sprint, Green CTS-204P Para 2, K390 Mule, 2013 Forum Native 5, Domino, Blue G-10 Lava, Cruwear Military, Swick 3, Jot Singh Khalsa sprint, Hungarian Folder, CF S90V Manix 2 XL, Fluted Ti Military, Fluted Ti Native 5, Nilakka, Brown XHP Native, Equilibrium, Street Bowie, Lil Matriarch, Cat

  2. #202
    Spyderco Forum Registered User gbelleh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid Cobra View Post
    Gbelleh, any chance you might do a video on your new score? I believe it would be the first on YouTube if you did.
    I might be able to squeeze in a video shoot tomorrow morning. But it will just be a simple, straightforward look at it.
    My New Gear Review YouTube Channel

    Latest Spydies: Lum Tanto FB Sprint, Green CTS-204P Para 2, K390 Mule, 2013 Forum Native 5, Domino, Blue G-10 Lava, Cruwear Military, Swick 3, Jot Singh Khalsa sprint, Hungarian Folder, CF S90V Manix 2 XL, Fluted Ti Military, Fluted Ti Native 5, Nilakka, Brown XHP Native, Equilibrium, Street Bowie, Lil Matriarch, Cat

  3. #203
    Spyderco Forum Registered User Clip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Forest, VA
    Posts
    1,555
    Cliff, on the topic of using PM for cladding: I thought they were doing this by using a HIP process. This process is usually only used with powders and castings, correct?

    gbelleh, love the pictures. Looks like your core is a little more centered than some other pics I've seen.
    Last edited by Clip; 03-13-2014 at 06:10 PM.
    Click here to zoom: Under the Microscope

    Manix2, Elmax MT13, M4 Manix2, ZDP Caly3, ZDP Caly Jr, SB Caly3.5, M390 Para2, Cruwear MT12, Techno, XHP MT16, South Fork, SB Caly3, Manix2 Ltwt, Salt I, 20CP Para2, Military Left Hand, Perrin PPT, Forum Native5, Squeak, Manix 83mm, 440V Military, Gayle Bradley, Swick3, Lil' Temperance, Cruwear Military, VG10 Jester, Terzuola SlipIt, XHP Native Ltwt, Domino, CPM154/S90V Para2, SB Stretch, D2 Para, Dfly2 Salt, Tasman Salt

    Chris

  4. #204
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Donut View Post
    how high wear resistant of a core do you think we could get and still have the ease of grinding of 8Cr13MoV?
    If you mean how wear resistant could the core be if the clad was easy to grind so that the entire thing would grind similar to 8Cr13MoV, which is an interesting question. This is highly dependent on the type of abrasives used and when the grinding is done and how the grinding is done. As a rough order (again, first order) you just do volume ratios so the total grindability is :

    (%volume of core) * grindability of core + (%volume of clad) * grindability of clad

    If you look at this equation you will see why cores are generally kept very thin and clads are made with very high grindability. The problem is that if you try to make cores too thin you can end up with the edge going off center and into the clad which would be a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clip View Post
    I thought they were doing this by using a HIP process.
    Yes, it has a plate of S90V already made and then the clad steel still in powder form is HIP onto the existing S90V.

  5. #205
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Here's a neat image of the transition after optimal heat treatment. Name:  CPM154-CPMS90V_Small.jpg
Views: 491
Size:  73.9 KB

  6. #206
    Spyderco Forum Registered User Clip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Forest, VA
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks for the images Eric. Do you have any information on these or is it all proprietary from Crucible?
    Click here to zoom: Under the Microscope

    Manix2, Elmax MT13, M4 Manix2, ZDP Caly3, ZDP Caly Jr, SB Caly3.5, M390 Para2, Cruwear MT12, Techno, XHP MT16, South Fork, SB Caly3, Manix2 Ltwt, Salt I, 20CP Para2, Military Left Hand, Perrin PPT, Forum Native5, Squeak, Manix 83mm, 440V Military, Gayle Bradley, Swick3, Lil' Temperance, Cruwear Military, VG10 Jester, Terzuola SlipIt, XHP Native Ltwt, Domino, CPM154/S90V Para2, SB Stretch, D2 Para, Dfly2 Salt, Tasman Salt

    Chris

  7. #207
    Spyderco Forum Registered User JNewell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Land of the Bean and the Cod
    Posts
    4,782
    Thank you, Eric. Steel is amazing stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Glesser View Post
    Here's a neat image of the transition after optimal heat treatment. Name:  CPM154-CPMS90V_Small.jpg
Views: 491
Size:  73.9 KB

  8. #208
    Spyderco Forum Registered User Liquid Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    British Columbia, CANADA
    Posts
    1,467
    Double post.
    Top 3 's: Lum Tanto Folder, Yojimbo 2, Para-Military 2
    Coming Soon Wish List: Yojimbo 2 CF S90V PREORDERED!!!, Kiwi 4, K2, Roadie, Dog Tag Folder, Lum Tanto Fixed
    On The Fence: Rubicon, Roc, PITS, Native 5 (G10), Caly 3.5 CF
    Most recently acquired: Lava, Para-Military 2 CPM-S35VN, Domino CTS-204P, Bob Lum Tanto Folder Black on Black, Manix 2 Cruwear, Kahr Delica, G10 UKPK's, Black Southard,Para-Military 2 Elmax, Para-Military 2 CTS 204P
    Grail: A.T.R.


  9. #209
    Spyderco Forum Registered User Liquid Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    British Columbia, CANADA
    Posts
    1,467
    I'm very happy to say that I managed to score one of these bad boys. In case you are wondering, yes it will be a user. I'm carrying it right now. Just took it on a 4 hour road trip up north

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    Top 3 's: Lum Tanto Folder, Yojimbo 2, Para-Military 2
    Coming Soon Wish List: Yojimbo 2 CF S90V PREORDERED!!!, Kiwi 4, K2, Roadie, Dog Tag Folder, Lum Tanto Fixed
    On The Fence: Rubicon, Roc, PITS, Native 5 (G10), Caly 3.5 CF
    Most recently acquired: Lava, Para-Military 2 CPM-S35VN, Domino CTS-204P, Bob Lum Tanto Folder Black on Black, Manix 2 Cruwear, Kahr Delica, G10 UKPK's, Black Southard,Para-Military 2 Elmax, Para-Military 2 CTS 204P
    Grail: A.T.R.


  10. #210
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ephrata, Washington USA
    Posts
    730
    When inspecting Crucible data you will find that the toughness of S90V about the same as 440C and 154 cm. When you go to CPM 154 cm the Charpy numbers about double so there is a synergy in the combination of S 90 V clad with CPM 154 cm. Given that the CPM 154 cm is at RC 56-57 it's Charpy numbers should go up at the lower hardness.

    Being that this material has a harder clad it avoids the scratches that happen to 420 J2.

    The grind ability of the CPM version is rated near double that of regular 154cm, making this material easier to grind than homogenous S 90 V.

    This material was designed for folding knives, so toughness might be a moot question.

    This is a beginning with laminates. There is a lot of possibilities for steel choice, there needs to be some research done as to the ratio of core to clad. I'm excited about this new laminate and especially those to come...Take Care...Ed

  11. #211
    Spyderco Forum Registered User salmonkiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    106
    Some pretty cutting edge information here.I would like to try this new laminate at some point.Evolution of production folder steel is happening before our eyes.We will probably look back and remember this snapshot of time at some point..........

  12. #212
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    AL USA
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Schempp View Post
    When inspecting Crucible data you will find that the toughness of S90V about the same as 440C and 154 cm. When you go to CPM 154 cm the Charpy numbers about double so there is a synergy in the combination of S 90 V clad with CPM 154 cm. Given that the CPM 154 cm is at RC 56-57 it's Charpy numbers should go up at the lower hardness.

    Being that this material has a harder clad it avoids the scratches that happen to 420 J2.

    The grind ability of the CPM version is rated near double that of regular 154cm, making this material easier to grind than homogenous S 90 V.

    This material was designed for folding knives, so toughness might be a moot question.

    This is a beginning with laminates. There is a lot of possibilities for steel choice, there needs to be some research done as to the ratio of core to clad. I'm excited about this new laminate and especially those to come...Take Care...Ed
    Thanks for the extra information and clarification, Mr. Schempp.
    MY SPYDIE LIST (on profile page)
    Want List: New Stretch prototype Coyote G-10 slab/ZDP test sprint!

  13. #213
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Schempp View Post
    When inspecting Crucible data you will find that the toughness of S90V about the same as 440C and 154 cm. When you go to CPM 154 cm the Charpy numbers about double so there is a synergy in the combination of S 90 V clad with CPM 154 cm. Given that the CPM 154 cm is at RC 56-57 it's Charpy numbers should go up at the lower hardness.
    Ed, while I appreciate the commentary, there are a few issues with what you write.

    First, the charpy values of PM steels only goes up in the transverse testing and this is known to be misinformative to promote as toughness because that isn't how knives are loaded in use. When knives are cut they are cut so the grain runs from tip to choil and thus when they are loaded in impacts which are on the edge or spine they are loaded longitudinally and the longitudinal toughness of S30V for example is the same as 440C (wrought) even though the transverse is ~4X as much. However even worse than that, the comparison is usually even more lopsided because you can simply get the wrought steels cross rolled to reduce the axial dependence of the toughness testing. But even if all of this was not true it is still a moot point because who is snapping off the solid S90V folder blades which would actually make the toughness of a clad a practical advantage? I have not even seen one such failure and thus there can be no argument that there is a functional advantage being given.

    Being that this material has a harder clad it avoids the scratches that happen to 420 J2.
    Of course, however it surely doesn't need to be PM in order to do that nor does it need the high carbide content of 154CM, it simply needs a higher hardness than 420J2 and there are lots of steels in between 420J2 and 154CM in hardness.

    However, even if this was the case this actually completely reverses one of the fundamental points of clads which is ease of regrinding the primary. One of the critical reasons clads were (and still are used) is because the ease at which the very high grindability allows the full bevels to be thinned to maintain the cutting edge thickness, this is not going to be well achieved at all with 154CM.

    The grind ability of the CPM version is rated near double that of regular 154cm, making this material easier to grind than homogenous S 90 V.
    Yes, the grindability of 154CM is going to be higher than S90V - however is it going to be high enough so that it offsets the cost of the laminate, if not then that claim isn't practical either. The reason you use clads to get higher grindability on the OEM side is because it lowers production costs. Even then though, I would make the same point about 420J2 and scratches, yes 154CM has a higher grindability than S90V, but if the core was S110V would you then use that argument to say a S90V clad made sense. It should be obvious that it simply can't be less in an absolute sense it has to be enough less to make a functional difference which should be clearly seen in the final production cost.

    Again, I ask a simple question, if you forget the "cool" factor, would it be sensible to advocate making knives with the following clads :

    -M4 core, M2 clad
    -SuperBlue Core, White #1 clad

    I can use all the same arguments, however if you did suggest to make those kinds of steels you would immediately (or hopefully told) that a more sensible choice would be similar to :

    -M4 core, H13 clad
    -SuperBlue Core, White #3 clad

    and even these are not ideal, especially the second one but the first two clads are really kind of silly.

  14. #214
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ephrata, Washington USA
    Posts
    730
    When working with industrial tool steel companies, are you saying the Charpy numbers are irrelavent? Maybe these numbers are not the end all be all of toughness but they do give information.

    The roll reductions probably affect the numbers in a positive way, not necessarily negatively. Heating, working and cooling have a great effect on transverse strength.

    When working with a steel company are you going to make choices outside their production?

    One of the biggest complains from customer collectors is scratching of the clad.

    Heat treatments have to be compatible. High temperature modulus of elasticityies have to be compatible.

    This material is designed for folding knives.

    I have worked with this material and it is very grindable and workable. CPM 154 cm has one of the best finishes with the least amount of time.

    This material may not be the end all be all but it is like the first knife a guy makes, without the first there will never be a second.

    There exists a synergy that while benefits might be moot under usual conditions, never under estimate the probability that someone might under duress or stupidity to damage the piece.

    Personally I would rather that you folks help design a new an better laminate rather than complaining about this first effort.

    When I plant my crop, I seed to deep then too shallow, when those depths are determined I know what is right, that I can take to that to the bank, if I screw up I am personally responsible financially. I liken this to edge stability. When you know where failure begins then you grind appropriately. All steel is good all steels have their limits.

    I feel at some point tool steel companies will respond with may be even a new formulation for clads. Powder metallurgy is a cost viable methodology for producing this material. Smelting is the only viable method for incorporating certain alloys into this mix, but it may happen.

    I believe with current resources that a better engineered material can and will be made, I'm excited that Crucible would take the risk and start the first chapter in USA laminates....Take Care...Ed

  15. #215
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Schempp View Post
    When working with industrial tool steel companies, are you saying the Charpy numbers are irrelavent?
    In general yes but that wasn't the point I was making, but yes, no one uses them seriously for material comparisons you need the direct fracture toughness for serious comparisons. However my point in the above was Crucible presented the transverse impact toughness as if that should be used to represent toughness and that is obviously off because knives are not cut with the grain orientation so that is loaded in use.


    When working with a steel company are you going to make choices outside their production?
    Ed this entire method is out of their normal production so your point there is even self defeating.

    But the argument presupposes that the company is more important than the product. Now if this is the reasoning then fine, I have in fact done that personally on occasion, purchased a less than ideal product because I wanted to work with / support a particular company, but I will say that openly - that the company is more important than the product. If that is your consideration, that you have already decided to work with this company regardless of the product then no issues.

    One of the biggest complains from customer collectors is scratching of the clad.

    Yes, and is 154CM necessary for that?

    Heat treatments have to be compatible. High temperature modulus of elasticityies have to be compatible.

    Yes, and is 154CM necessary for that?

    CPM 154 cm has one of the best finishes with the least amount of time.
    Yes, and is this enough to offset the production cost, does it cause the price of the knife to be lower - if not this argument just defeated itself.

    And you can really finish 154CM faster than AEB-L grade steels - how exactly are the higher carbide volumes in 154CM making it easier to grind and finish?


    Personally I would rather that you folks help design a new an better laminate rather than complaining about this first effort.
    As I have said :

    -don't use PM clad, it makes no sense functionally
    -don't use a high carbide clad, it makes no sense functionally
    -use a low carbide clad which has the minimum alloy content to achieve the required hardness and volume stability with the core

    i.e. do whatever everyone does when they are making functional clads.

    But - if you want a gimmick glad :

    -use steels with strong branding names
    -use the most recent, most expensive technology
    -use any kind of contrast you can find to show the clads

    i.e. do what KAI did with with the brazed clads.

    As for the entire argument "stop complaining", the minute, the very minute you even hint that criticism should even be restricted you have abandoned science and that means you have abandoned metallurgy which ironically is the very thing trying to be promoted.

    If that is the way that Spyderco wants to deal with their products, to act to suppress criticism then it is a slap in the face to everyone who has praised them for their innovation and advancement because you don't get that through fawning adoration, you get it from tearing things apart and making it better, not complaining that people have issues and are giving your their feedback (that you are getting for free when people actually pay for it as a service).

    Every maker/manufacturer I have worked with who was interested in a quality product, every single one, always said the same thing "what didn't you like, what was wrong", "how do I make the product better". That being said, if you want fawning praise - lots of people will give you it, no issues.

    The very first interaction I had with Sal was on a Military I had with a defective lock, when it was repaired and sent back he sent me a message to let me know of any problems that were not resolved. He didn't want to know the things I liked, he never asked for praise, he never even hinted that I should not have voiced a criticism - had he done it, that would have been the last Spyderco I purchased.

  16. #216
    Spyderco Forum Registered User jabba359's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Hollywood, CA U.S.A. Earth
    Posts
    3,485
    Ed, having read through this entire thread, the only complaining I see is from two groups:

    1) The people who appreciate trying something different and are complaining that they weren't able to get one due to the low volume of this run (somehow I doubt you were referring to them), and

    2) Cliff, for the reasons he has stated quite thoroughly ad nauseam

    I, and it seems just about everyone else, are happy that you guys are playing around with this stuff and making it available, even if it doesn't have a great cost to benefit ratio at the moment. Most of us are able to realize that this isn't the end product, but is merely laying the groundwork for developing the process that will hopefully yield products that are both superior in cost as well as performance. Somehow I doubt that playing around with this side project will suddenly cause Spyderco to abandon performance for "gimmicks". Using Damascus didn't do that. Using Nishijin glass fiber handles didn't do that. And I see no reason for users to go all Henny Penny because Spyderco is once again exploring something different.
    -Kyle


    On the Fence: Tuff, Techno
    Latest arrivals: MT19 PSF27 Mule, Des Horn, Dialex Junior

  17. #217
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ephrata, Washington USA
    Posts
    730
    The material is what it is, it has advantages over homogenous steel. Over ten years ago I started bugging tool steel companies to make cladded material, Dick Barber and I exchanged many emails. My criteria was basically the same as you have laid out, alloyed variations of 425m, 420, and modified 416, we're discussed.

    Would it be my choice to make the material with the HIP process, as it is preferred but not being my nickel, it is more reliable. I would have TIGed sheets together, forged welded and then rolled. I don't have a HIP machine.

    There is nothing in the choice of material that is substandard. There might be some overkill with high Carbide material, but when wanting it to be scratch resistance it might be the beginning of a superior alloy with considerable carbide content.

    I've produced a product and made a living doing so for 50 years, I live in an economic world. I don't have the luxury of funding for my projects. If this steel doesn't sell, it will go away.

    Science is wonderful and responsible for most empirical data. I use science to make a living. Business operates under different criteria. Metallurgy has a goal of delivering a reliable affordable material. As a knife maker I try and use this information to help me achieve a goal, to make the best steel, and best knives that I can. I will spend a lot for small margins so improvement.

    Am I shilling for a company? I think that most company representatives will testify that I am an equal pain in the backside,
    Mainly because I encourage them to use more expensive techniques and processes to give us a better product. I'm a cheer leader for those companies that work to serve our industry. I particularly support companies that support the truth.

    In any evaluation of a material their are two sides; positive and negative. Both science and industry evaluate their products. Science will list benefits as well as downsides, there is a place for both. Science has a criteria to evaluate data. Businesses have to show economic benefit.

    I don't think that Cliff and I are arguing facts; just the importance perception of the facts.

    Universities often share information, companies call those trade secrets. Spyderco is one of the most transparent companies but they have their trade secrets. I'm glad I get to work with Spyderco. Spyderco is not going to buy their blades from Kershaw. You are going to have a hard time getting competitive companies to cooperate for a limited amount funds. It would not be unusual for a company to build material out of their inventory, this is an economic not academic environment. Experiments are done if the elements exist. Coming from a commercial point of view if you have a HIP and access to previously prepared material, generally stuff that has through movement your existing system. Then the experiment will get done. Next the size of the project. If the experiment goes sideways it is best to lose little than an 18000 billet. The initial expense will be much more per pound than a company committed product. But it is a start.

    I'm very encouraged that this project, it gives us a new and better product. If it survives it will be a market choice.

    I think this thread is like whipping a dead horse and suggest that it be closed...Take Care...Ed

  18. #218
    Spyderco Forum Registered User JNewell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Land of the Bean and the Cod
    Posts
    4,782
    Before anyone closes the thread I'd like to throw out a couple of questions that hopefully won't trigger any acrimony - this is pure curiosity.

    1. How much cheaper would the blades be if a less expensive PM alloy were used? Or, put differently, how much did using CPM154 increase the price of the project?

    2. How much of the cost of this project, in very general, approximate terms, was due to the fact that this was essentially a first time project?

    The reason I ask is that I'd guess (but it is a pure guess) that the choice to use CPM154, even if it was somewhat extravagant, didn't add a lot to the cost of the project, and that much of the cost was attributable to the project being essentially an industrial experiment.

    Again, just curiosity and guessing, not trying to stir up controversy.

  19. #219
    Spyderco Forum Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Schempp View Post
    Science is wonderful and responsible for most empirical data. I use science to make a living. Business operates under different criteria.
    Ed, to be very clear, I noted that once you act to suppress criticism you have rejected science so you can not then in the same argument use science to make an argument.

    Yes you can make an argument for that clad based on marketing, and in fact I have noted that exact argument, but you can NOT make an argument citing materials data and then reject science because you just rejected the foundation for the data you use.

    Quote Originally Posted by JNewell View Post
    The reason I ask is that I'd guess (but it is a pure guess) that the choice to use CPM154, even if it was somewhat extravagant, didn't add a lot to the cost of the project, and that much of the cost was attributable to the project being essentially an industrial experiment.
    It depends on your goal.

    If your goal is to make a functional clad then the first thing you do is :

    -determine the end properties of the clad
    -pick the steel which optimizes those properties

    This process was not done (no one has even disputed this, and in fact Ed has noted clearly it wasn't) and again that is what produces marketing clads. Now if you want to do that, no issues, KAI is selling out lots of marketing clads, there is no argument that such a thing can not generate revenue - no one is opposing the claim you can make money by leveraging ignorance.

    When the internet was a smaller place companies were more open about marketing choices, Benchmade for example noted in public that M2 would be a superior choice for many blades which were using ATS-34 however the cost of educating customers would be more than the gain in sales they would make so they used an interior steel and leveraged the ignorance of the customers. This is a very standard practice in the industry, it is how many businesses work.

    My point has always been the same, the things that attract me to Spyderco are not :

    -suppressing criticism
    -leveraging the ignorance of consumers
    -taking advantage of market fads

    It is in fact the exact opposite because Glesser himself will :

    -encourage criticism of his product
    -actively educate the consumer base
    -make trends by innovating

    As for the argument that regardless of performance it is "innovation" or similar.

    Consider this, if they had proposed a clad which was S110V as the clad and 420J2 (PM of course) as the core would everyone clamor for that and praise the innovation? I would surely hope not.

    Because here is the thing, if you would criticize that clad for being insensible (and quite frankly just silly) then you allow for criticism of the clad functionality to be justified and blind praise for "innovation" simply because it is new isn't a valid argument because it has to be new and functional.
    Last edited by Cliff Stamp; 03-21-2014 at 08:47 AM.

  20. #220
    Spyderco Forum Registered User nccole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff Stamp View Post
    Ed, to be very clear, I noted that once you act to suppress criticism you have rejected science so you can not then in the same argument use science to make an argument.

    Yes you can make an argument for that clad based on marketing, and in fact I have noted that exact argument, but you can NOT make an argument citing materials data and then reject science because you just rejected the foundation for the data you use.



    It depends on your goal.

    If your goal is to make a functional clad then the first thing you do is :

    -determine the end properties of the clad
    -pick the steel which optimizes the clad

    This process was not done (no one has even disputed this, and in fact Ed has noted clearly it wasn't) and again that is what produces marketing clads. Now if you want to do that, no issues, KAI is selling out lots of marketing clads, there is no argument that such a thing can not generate revenue - no one is opposing the claim you can make money by leveraging ignorance.

    When the internet was a smaller place companies were more open about marketing choices, Benchmade for example noted in public that M2 would be a superior choice for many blades which were using ATS-34 however the cost of educating customers would be more than the gain in sales they would make so they used an interior steel and leveraged the ignorance of the customers. This is a very standard practice in the industry, it is how many businesses work.

    My point has always been the same, the things that attract me to Spyderco are not :

    -suppressing criticism
    -leveraging the ignorance of consumers
    -taking advantage of market fads

    It is in fact the exact opposite because Glesser himself will :

    -encourage criticism of his product
    -actively educate the consumer base
    -make trends by innovating
    Nobody is trying to discourage form critiquing and thinking through their products as Spyderco says they wish people to do. We all like that. You are obviously very knowledgeable in what you speak. You make good points, but at some point you have to realize that you made your point and move on. You are not being silenced even though you have said the same thing about ten times in this one thread. Just accept that they are doing things from a science and business perspective, and none of us see the whole picture. I would ask myself in your situation, what are you trying to get out of this further by continuing to beat a dead horse. There was a thread on the steel in general, this thread was to clarify this particular knife.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •