Carpenter CTS-XHP Steel

[LorenzoL]

Vassili, time and again users and makers have disagreed with your so-called "scientific" test results because they do not match real-life observations.
I do not want to seem rude, but on BladeForums you are on more ignore lists than anybody else. Nobody cares how many manila ropes you cut, in EDC use that ranking of yours is absolutely insignificant. How many manila ropes do we actually cut? Why not use a mix of materials like paper, cardboard, plastic, even drywall for the heavy-duty guys out there?
Sticking to the steels I have used, M4 is better than CPM-D2 which is better than regular D2. I had a Dozier skinner once, it was D2, and it did not strike me as the best knife I ever owned. It was not actually much better than any other D2 knife I own.
My method may not be scientific, but on the other hand I do not claim to have achieved an absolute ranking of all the steels available. ****, I am not even sure such a ranking is possible, there are too many variables involved, like what materials you cut, in what sequence etc.

[nozh2002]

Vassili, time and again users and makers have disagreed with your so-called "scientific" test results because they do not match real-life observations.
I do not want to seem rude, but on BladeForums you are on more ignore lists than anybody else. Nobody cares how many manila ropes you cut, in EDC use that ranking of yours is absolutely insignificant. How many manila ropes do we actually cut? Why not use a mix of materials like paper, cardboard, plastic, even drywall for the heavy-duty guys out there?
Sticking to the steels I have used, M4 is better than CPM-D2 which is better than regular D2. I had a Dozier skinner once, it was D2, and it did not strike me as the best knife I ever owned. It was not actually much better than any other D2 knife I own.
My method may not be scientific, but on the other hand I do not claim to have achieved an absolute ranking of all the steels available. ****, I am not even sure such a ranking is possible, there are too many variables involved, like what materials you cut, in what sequence etc.

In short - you do not have any formal test results to back up you statement.

Thanks, Vassili.

[Nederspyder]

PB&J, anyone?

[Bolster]

... but on the other hand I do not claim to have achieved an absolute ranking of all the steels available.

But the ranking is of certain knives in certain grinds in certain steels, not an absolute ranking of steels as such. As the statisticians would say, these are tests of interactions, not tests of main effects.

Don't get me wrong, interactions are still interesting. But a test of an interaction (ie, this steel, with this heat treat, with this blade shape, with this edge geometry, used on this type of rope...) is not the same as the test of a main effect (ie, just the steel). In order to test main effects (ie, just the steel) you'd need to hold all other variables constant. Sort of the point of the Mule Team.

As long as we don't overgeneralize, it's very interesting information. And there is some standardization in method, which is a step up from mere conjecture and subjective impressions.

[unit]

Vassili,
I did not see the M4 Spyderco Gayle Bradley in your ranking. Have you tested it? Rumors have circulated that the hardness for this blade are pretty high (at least in the early production pieces). I would expect higher hardness to fair better in your testing (if I understand your procedure correctly).

If I may pick your brain a bit. How does your testing account for variability in production? Do you test a representative sample of the population for each steel/blade?

Thanks for sharing!

[RazorSharp86]

Gee, so much nut-cracking just coz a guy said he loves this steel, and that he has foundations to do so. (his test)
I think that unless any of you have tested the new Carpenters steel, and have any information that will add to the knowledge we already have of the steel, you should just READ the thread, not post anything discouraging instead...
Test the steel, post the results, then if they are very different than Nozh's, than we can compare and make educated evaluations.
Seen?!

[The Mastiff]

Gee, so much nut-cracking just coz a guy said he loves this steel, and that he has foundations to do so. (his test)

Saying you like, or are fond of a steel is quite different from stating that a certain steel is the best, and you have the tests to prove it.

But then you don't have tests proving anything of the sort.

No one busts anybodies chops around here for their steel preference.

I think that unless any of you have tested the new Carpenters steel, and have any information that will add to the knowledge we already have of the steel, you should just READ the thread, not post anything discouraging instead..

Where are your tests? Why are you posting here?

See how that works? :)

[JNewell]

Actually, in this case, it was more than a circulating rumor - we had that information (on the GB hardness) from both Mr. Bradley and Sal.

Vassili,
I did not see the M4 Spyderco Gayle Bradley in your ranking. Have you tested it? Rumors have circulated that the hardness for this blade are pretty high (at least in the early production pieces). I would expect higher hardness to fair better in your testing (if I understand your procedure correctly).

If I may pick your brain a bit. How does your testing account for variability in production? Do you test a representative sample of the population for each steel/blade?

Thanks for sharing!

[nozh2002]

Vassili,
I did not see the M4 Spyderco Gayle Bradley in your ranking. Have you tested it? Rumors have circulated that the hardness for this blade are pretty high (at least in the early production pieces). I would expect higher hardness to fair better in your testing (if I understand your procedure correctly).

No I do not tested it. I tried Mule.

If I may pick your brain a bit. How does your testing account for variability in production? Do you test a representative sample of the population for each steel/blade?

Thanks for sharing!

No - I buy knife and test it. When I start all this testing thing I had in mind to make procedure very simple, so anyone can do this tests, so it may became community effort and better representation. Same like GNU project but for knives. This tests are simple to do (not complicated) - still some effort.

So far after few years it is me and one other Russian in Moscow spend some time working on it (he however tested custom Russian Bulat - Wootz). I guess we Russian are known for being lazy...

In short - do you want to do testing? I have all procedure disclosed, have some video on YouTube on how to do this. Or you want me to have all the "fun"?

Thanks, Vassili.

[Firebat]

Cripes, so much drama, overreact much? Is it really that big of a deal?

So Vassili(sp?) likes the CTS-XHP and is impressed by it. Nothing different than what a lot of knife makers that have been working with it and testing it are saying.

As with any new high-performance steel, the superlatives abound. So what? How does that in any way, shape or form impact your personal opinion about your favorite steel? Where's the personal investment? How have you been wronged?

It's always something. Steel snobs are masters of damning with faint praise. With M4 it was "not enough corrosion resistance!" With CTS-XHP it will be "it's just a stainless D2!" And so on and so forth ad nausea.

And calling out that someone is on "more people's ignore lists than anyone else" on another forum smacks of immaturity if not outright ridiculousness.

Grow up. Sal has set a better example than this, and this board deserves better.

[defenestrate]

Vassili,
Those results are exciting! I can't wait to get my hands on the CTS-XHP Manix2!

Also, due to the design (paticularly the thinness of the primary bevel) of the Gayle Bradley, it should be in principle a notably better slicer than a Mule with the same M4 steel. I would be very curious to hear how the different edge geometry affected test results. Gayle, after all, designed his knife after the one he made and won the BladeSports cutting competition with.

[JNewell]

There is no "best" - only "best in my experience" and "best for my uses." I like hearing from Yab about how well blades hold up scraping concrete, but it's nothing I ever expect to do. I don't cut ropes, but I'm glad to read Vasili's results. More is better. Take the wheat and the chaff together and sift according to your needs.

[RazorSharp86]

When nozh stated it's the best steel, it only means best for him, or from his personal experience. Stating it, even if it's not a well known fact, should not be followed by the load of doubting posts, and people claiming they want a full report regarding the tests which were executed...
I personally know that I've had to resharpen my other knives after short time of using it out of the box; while with the new CTS-XHP steel, I've used the knife for over a week now, and steel haven't even touched it up :eek:
Not much of a scientific test, but it's enough for me.
Sides, maybe I'm naive, or maybe I'm just russian, so I'll just take Nozh's word as it is. :D

[unit]

In short - do you want to do testing? I have all procedure disclosed, have some video on YouTube on how to do this. Or you want me to have all the "fun"?

Thanks, Vassili.

Thank you very much for the response.

I am working on some testing of my own that is structured toward my individual use patterns. (I assure everyone that my results will create far less debate). With that said (and my recent injury), I am in no condition to perform any additional testing, but I am flattered that you assume I am qualified.

I intended no offense with my questioning, I just wanted to understand your procedures a bit better (since I do not translate Russian). Thanks again.

[unit]

When nozh stated it's the best steel, it only means best for him, or from his personal experience. Stating it, even if it's not a well known fact, should not be followed by the load of doubting posts, and people claiming they want a full report regarding the tests which were executed...

I take offense to this notion. As a scientist of sorts, I understand that anytime I share conclusions, others will demand explanation. I also understand that my procedures will be called to question. I fully understand that if I have done a poor job of defining my hypothesis and the limitations of the tests I use to address that hypothesis, I will be unable to defend my conclusions effectively. This is basically the way science works.

If you have conclusions that no one doubts or otherwise questions...you probably have not accomplished anything meaningful.

The reason I questioned Vassili was not to offend. Rather, I questioned him because he has demonstrated to me (previously) that he maintains careful records and would easily be able to answer my questions so that I may understand the depth of his studies. I sure hope he (and others) understand that I come here to learn and share, not to tear others down.

[JNewell]

Concur, questions are good. I learned a while back that cardboard is actually a very tough test for an edge - I would not have guessed that.

Did you know there's a big difference between felling a tree with a cut 6" above ground level compared to 18-24"? There are lots of facts and factors that are relevant and material to what we discuss - discussion is good. (insert thumbs-up icon here)

I take offense to this notion. As a scientist of sorts, I understand that anytime I share conclusions, others will demand explanation. I also understand that my procedures will be called to question. I fully understand that if I have done a poor job of defining my hypothesis and the limitations of the tests I use to address that hypothesis, I will be unable to defend my conclusions effectively. This is basically the way science works.

If you have conclusions that no one doubts or otherwise questions...you probably have not accomplished anything meaningful.

The reason I questioned Vassili was not to offend. Rather, I questioned him because he has demonstrated to me (previously) that he maintains careful records and would easily be able to answer my questions so that I may understand the depth of his studies. I sure hope he (and others) understand that I come here to learn and share, not to tear others down.

[nozh2002]

Thank you very much for the response.

I am working on some testing of my own that is structured toward my individual use patterns. (I assure everyone that my results will create far less debate). With that said (and my recent injury), I am in no condition to perform any additional testing, but I am flattered that you assume I am qualified.

I intended no offense with my questioning, I just wanted to understand your procedures a bit better (since I do not translate Russian). Thanks again.

Sorry if I offend you with my reply.

Of course those tests need more volume, but I already damage my wrist years ago doing most of them then one after another. I have only so much time and health one person has and did my best already.

When I am starting testing again - like it happen recently. I always wondering if this time pain in my wrist return or not. Three tests I just did (CTS-XHP, CPM S90V and CPM D2) seems to be OK, but I will not do more now for a month or few. Sorry.

And again it was meant to be community effort.

There is brief explanation in English in that page - second paragraph, somehow people missing it. As well there are two links to bladeforum where I explained it many times for many people, I just do not want do this again and again as well I do not what to open can of worms here discussing different aspects of this testing.

Thanks, Vassili.

[Bolster]

Stating it, even if it's not a well known fact, should not be followed by the load of doubting posts, and people claiming they want a full report regarding the tests which were executed...

Respectfully, no. Scientific results of all sorts are often vigorously challenged. The amount of challenging doesn't necessarily correlate to the accuracy of the results. If you think so, you are substituting "social proof" for "empirical proof," which is a considerable misunderstanding. Look at how vigorously "the world is round" was challenged.

Some of those challenges are mounted by people who don't like the results. Some are brought forward by people who are curious, generally seeking to know the parameters of the study, potential confounds, and how much weight to place on the study. Count me in the latter group...I'm thrilled that V. is conducting tests, and applaud him for it. I also have several questions about how the tests are conducted, which I posted earlier.

I realize that makes me neither an enthusiastic fanboy, nor a mud-throwing critic; and apparently a stance that's to neither extreme, is confusing to many people.

[unit]

Sorry if I offend you with my reply.

Of course those tests need more volume, but I already damage my wrist years ago doing most of them then one after another. I have only so much time and health one person has and did my best already.

When I am starting testing again - like it happen recently. I always wondering if this time pain in my wrist return or not. Three tests I just did (CTS-XHP, CPM S90V and CPM D2) seems to be OK, but I will not do more now for a month or few. Sorry.

And again it was meant to be community effort.

There is brief explanation in English in that page - second paragraph, somehow people missing it. As well there are two links to bladeforum where I explained it many times for many people, I just do not want do this again and again as well I do not what to open can of worms here discussing different aspects of this testing.

Thanks, Vassili.

I certainly took no offense from anything you said. I wanted to ensure that you took no offensive tone from me. I simply wanted more information on your interesting work.

If you are interested in my opinion, I would share concerns that if you allow others to contribute to your data it could introduce another variable (specifically: the edge geometry and polish that you start with).

[nozh2002]

I certainly took no offense from anything you said. I wanted to ensure that you took no offensive tone from me. I simply wanted more information on your interesting work.

If you are interested in my opinion, I would share concerns that if you allow others to contribute to your data it could introduce another variable (specifically: the edge geometry and polish that you start with).

I do not want merge data from different testers. Any data will be very valuable. It does not really matter was it tested exactly same way or not. It does not really matter if results will be same or not. If it is not same - then there is chance to improve testing (mine or other). But what I usually hear - how dare are you question my favorite steel! - in one or other form.

Problem is that there is not data on edge holding at all! Except feelings, which I was very well mistaken with myself. Before this testing I thought (based on feelings, which were result of reading knife forums mostly) that best of the best should be CPM 10V as well as it's stainless modification CPM S90V - turns out abrasive resistance is not edge holding and test results show this (BTW both steel show almost same results). And I did not even tested 1095 until I see this video, because this is cheap simple carbon steel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSrlvqrZQKY

It was huge surprise for me. It holds edge better way then all those super modern high vanadium abrasive resistant steels.

In result we have all those theories that toughness is good for edge holding, hardness is good for edge holding, abrasive resistance is good for edge holding and being made by company X is good for edge holding etc...

But honestly Knife Science is not yet written. In terms of scientific method first stage - observation or data collecting is not yet even started - no basis so far for any theories because there is nothing to analyze.

Thanks, Vassili.