Bodacious Discussion

[fanglekai]

Great looking design. Need one in a lefty configuration please!

[Tristan_david2001]

I think this knife is the closest option currently to a larger sized lil’ temp 3.

Interesting idea. Love my Lil Temp 3 LW. Doubt many reviewers will make that connection, but I’d love to see how the handle widths compare.

I think functionally that’s what this model is most reminiscent of besides just a choil-less shaman which it is first and foremost. Even though the temp has a ramp. A choil-less fat&stout leaf shape blade and the comp lock are the most defining characteristics to me.

[Tristan_david2001]

I do appreciate the design the more I look at it. Definitely one of their best beefy, hard working folders, i think it’s just what the shaman should have originally been, for a stout hard use knife i don’t feel the fore finger choil is particularly suiting. A more neutral full grip with a single front guard fits the overall design and purpose of the knife imo. I do however wish they kept the contoured scales in brown micarta like on the z-wear shaman sprint…

[Wartstein]

I think functionally that’s what this model is most reminiscent of besides just a choil-less shaman which it is first and foremost. Even though the temp has a ramp. A choil-less fat&stout leaf shape blade and the comp lock are the most defining characteristics to me.

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

[Tristan_david2001]

I think functionally that’s what this model is most reminiscent of besides just a choil-less shaman which it is first and foremost. Even though the temp has a ramp. A choil-less fat&stout leaf shape blade and the comp lock are the most defining characteristics to me.

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow skipped over the part of the blade stock being 14% thinner than the shaman. how much that changes the cutting difference in real use, don’t exactly know personally. But you’re right, to my correction thickness isn’t so much comparable to the temp. But I still think it’s closely comparable in other ways when compared to the rest of the lineup.

[dj moonbat]

Should've named it the Orca. But it's bad AF. Reminds me a little of the old Lum model, too.

[barnaclesonaboat]

Excited about this one, and more than I expected I would be. I love choils, and Spyderco's dedication to making highly functional 50/50 choils makes them some of the safest knives for hard use. I only recently got my first Shaman, the all-black S30V, and I have been surprised how often I reach for such a robust folder. The nature of the Shaman build makes me feel like I have command over a knife stronger than most folders, closer to how I feel tearing through stuff with a Mule Team or a small ESEE. But when I'm not gripped on the Shaman choil doing real work, I do occasionally wish for more blade length... and here it is. I will for sure want to try one of these, although I may hold out for a different steel. Regardless, very impressed with the looks and stats of it - great looking design, Sal.

[Wartstein]

....

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow skipped over the part of the blade stock being 14% thinner than the shaman. how much that changes the cutting difference in real use, don’t exactly know personally. But you’re right, to my correction thickness isn’t so much comparable to the temp. But I still think it’s closely comparable in other ways when compared to the rest of the lineup.

Thanks for doing the math (honestly)!

(I most times use the path of calculating how much thicker a blade is compared to the thinner one, not how much thinner a blade is compared to the thicker one...the former approach makes for a higher percentage number... )

Don´t know how much of a difference this will make either, but I think in a blind test, both edges everything the same (edge angle, degree of sharpness, "coarseness"...) the steeper overall blade geometry of the Bodacious should be noticeable, since the blades pretty much have the exact same dimensions (as far as I can see) except thickness.

I guess the thinner blade also mostly makes for the weight difference - not a ton, but it´s there (Bodacious 4.8 oz / 136 grams, Shaman 5.2 oz / 147 gram).
Though, wait, the scales are differently shaped (contoured vs not) too. Could contribute to the weight difference either way.

[Tristan_david2001]

....

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow skipped over the part of the blade stock being 14% thinner than the shaman. how much that changes the cutting difference in real use, don’t exactly know personally. But you’re right, to my correction thickness isn’t so much comparable to the temp. But I still think it’s closely comparable in other ways when compared to the rest of the lineup.

Thanks for doing the math (honestly)!

(I most times use the path of calculating how much thicker a blade is compared to the thinner one, not how much thinner a blade is compared to the thicker one...the former approach makes for a higher percentage number... )

It’s not about which you compare first, the percent difference between 2 strict values will always be the same. When i initially read from 3.7 to 3.2 was a 20% difference I just thought there’s no way so I had to try it myself. Not that it really matters i just thought I’d accurately throw out the stock difference. I like the thickness of this blade better, still seems plenty tough for what you’d use the shaman for but probably slices a little bit nicer. no more than necessary no less than perfect.

[Wartstein]

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow skipped over the part of the blade stock being 14% thinner than the shaman. how much that changes the cutting difference in real use, don’t exactly know personally. But you’re right, to my correction thickness isn’t so much comparable to the temp. But I still think it’s closely comparable in other ways when compared to the rest of the lineup.

Thanks for doing the math (honestly)!

(I most times use the path of calculating how much thicker a blade is compared to the thinner one, not how much thinner a blade is compared to the thicker one...the former approach makes for a higher percentage number... )

It’s not about which you compare first, the percent difference between 2 strict values will always be the same. When i initially read from 3.7 to 3.2 was a 20% difference I just thought there’s no way so I had to try it myself. Not that it really matters i just thought I’d accurately throw out the stock difference. I like the thickness of this blade better, still seems plenty tough for what you’d use the shaman for but probably slices a little bit nicer. no more than necessary no less than perfect.

Hmmm... this is really off topic, so just shortly how I approached this (and to be clear: I actually AM pretty sure I was wrong anyway, so this is no "who is right, who is wrong - fight" - thing!! )

- Let´s say item A is 2 cm thick, item B 4 cm thick

- To get from item A to item B I have to add 100% of the thickness of item A, so Item B is 100% thicker ("double" as thick)
- To get from Item B to Item A I have to cut 50 % of the thickness of item B, so item A is 50 % thinner ("half" as thin)

EDIT: May I ask: If you care to reply (not important at all) please via pm... too off topic (Should have chosen pm myself)

[dj moonbat]

Actually what I like on paper in the Bodacious exactly is that it does NOT have such a fat blade as the Shaman... 3.2 (Chief thickness) vs 3.7 mm, so the Shaman has almost 20 % thicker stock (in appeareantly virtually the same blade (also in length) other than choil vs no choil).

What I also like though is that the tip of the Bodacious still should be a bit more robust due to the leaf shape than the typical PM2 shape tip.

Thanks for pointing that out, I somehow skipped over the part of the blade stock being 14% thinner than the shaman. how much that changes the cutting difference in real use, don’t exactly know personally. But you’re right, to my correction thickness isn’t so much comparable to the temp. But I still think it’s closely comparable in other ways when compared to the rest of the lineup.

Thanks for doing the math (honestly)!

(I most times use the path of calculating how much thicker a blade is compared to the thinner one, not how much thinner a blade is compared to the thicker one...the former approach makes for a higher percentage number... )

It’s not about which you compare first, the percent difference between 2 strict values will always be the same. When i initially read from 3.7 to 3.2 was a 20% difference I just thought there’s no way so I had to try it myself. Not that it really matters i just thought I’d accurately throw out the stock difference. I like the thickness of this blade better, still seems plenty tough for what you’d use the shaman for but probably slices a little bit nicer. no more than necessary no less than perfect.

I guess that depends on what one means by "difference."

Five (5) is 25% more than four (4); but four (4) is not 25% less than five (5).

[Tristan_david2001]

My Apologies for the confusion. I was calculating the percent difference between the 2 numbers, not the percent change.

[ZrowsN1s]

Should be a good alternative for the general public that the PM2 doesn't appeal to. No thumb ramp, more traditional blade shape, little stouter. I think it will do well.

[Cl1ff]

I’m sure I’ll end up with one, because I love the no-choil design, the choice of pocket clip, Golden manufacturing, etc.

I seem to like Golden made Compression Locks a lot.

Depending on the timing of things like releases and the contents of future reveals, I might wait for a different version (hopefully some Rex45 and/or Crucarta?).

Don’t have the pockets for every knife I want, unfortunately, even though I’m not actually too hardheaded about my preferences, so I almost have to be picky.

This is the kind of knife I could see buying multiples of and just making it into the main carry. The Bodacious could buck out all the other knives from somebody’s pocket.

[Bolster]

Thread Need More Photo.

[Manixguy@1994]

Should've named it the Orca. But it's bad AF. Reminds me a little of the old Lum model, too.

I got a little of the same impression with the Lum design influence, in the future a comparison shot of the two will be interesting. MG2

[riclaw]

Left or right-side tip-up carry only. Could that be a reflection of changing industry trends?

Can you tell if the Bodacious has a backspacer or standoffs? The weight makes me think backspacer but I can't see it in the pictures...

[kennethsime]

Is it too soon to ask for the Crucarta version?

I wish it still had the contoured scales, but otherwise looks fantastic.

[Wartstein]

Left or right-side tip-up carry only. Could that be a reflection of changing industry trends?

Can you tell if the Bodacious has a backspacer or standoffs? The weight makes me think backspacer but I can't see it in the pictures...

"Only tip up": Often people seem to want a tip down option especially on really long handles, which the Bodacious actually does not really have (despite the long cutting edge) - I am a tip up exclusively guy anyway, but tip down clip screw holes for those who want that would not bother me at all

"Backspacer or standoffs": Looking at the title pic of the Reveal, it somehow looks a bit more like standoffs to me... but I really can´t tell either.

[rangefinder]

Left or right-side tip-up carry only. Could that be a reflection of changing industry trends?

Can you tell if the Bodacious has a backspacer or standoffs? The weight makes me think backspacer but I can't see it in the pictures...

"Only tip up": Often people seem to want a tip down option especially on really long handles, which the Bodacious actually does not really have (despite the long cutting edge) - I am a tip up exclusively guy anyway, but tip down clip screw holes for those who want that would not bother me at all

"Backspacer or standoffs": Looking at the title pic of the Reveal, it somehow looks a bit more like standoffs to me... but I really can´t tell either.

I prefer tip-down carry regardless of knife size. So I was disappointed to see this only supports tip-up.

My assumption is that it is an "internal stop pin" design, which does not support tip-down carry. This is because the scale liner has a curved slot that goes around the pivot for the pin to ride in. And the slot is in the same area where the clip screw holes would need to be tapped. There are other knives that use this system, such as the Smock which is also tip-up only despite using a standard three-screw clip. (Now if my assumption is wrong, and the decision to do tip-up only is purely a design thing, that would be odd.)