s35vn compared to s30v?

[kbuzbee]

Yea my brother bought a CR Insingo in S35vn

I want to like CRK. I really do. But I have yet to find one that says "buy me" the way Spydies do . Not quite sure what it is about them.... Maybe one day.

But, back on topic, S35VN would never keep me from buying a knife after my experience with my Native 5.

Ken

[JNewell]

I was only making the points that:

a.) Crucible's info is for marketing, so should be viewed as such,

b.) Crucible doesn't provide "edge retention" information. :)

Also, Crucible's CATRA info on S35VN isn't from actual testing - it's based on "market feedback" whatever that is.

Actually, Crucible does provide "edge retention" information - it's right in the datasheets. :)

[CrimsonTideShooter]

Actually, Crucible does provide "edge retention" information - it's right in the datasheets. :)

Actually, they are testing wear resistance.

CATRA tests the wear resistance of steel. Wear resistance is just one small facet of "edge retention." CATRA doesn't reflect true edge retention, since the blade is immobile, and the cutting media is consistent and highly controlled. Alloy content and geometry plays a huge role in this type of test. Think of the old clad blades which were unmatched in CATRA but were almost unusable in real life..



Regardless, that info on S35VN is an estimation based "upon market feedback." So basically it is a guess.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I haven't yet completed my forum PhD in metallurgy.

[DunninLA]

, that info on S35VN is an estimation based "upon market feedback." So basically it is a guess.

Oh, so that's how it is supposed to be done? Somebody should tell Ankerson to stop actually cutting manila rope and just ask everyone on the forum for their wear reistance impressions. That's a lot less work.

[CrimsonTideShooter]

Oh, so that's how it is supposed to be done? Somebody should tell Ankerson to stop actually cutting manila rope and just ask everyone on the forum for their wear reistance impressions. That's a lot less work.

Hey, embellished anecdotal here-say is far sexier than real world empirical evidence, just ask Chris Reeve. I kid, I kid.

[Blerv]

CATRA tests the wear resistance of steel.

Which is formed into an edge.
Which cuts until a certain resistance or retention of sharpness is met.

My understanding is that "wear resistance" is mainly for manufacturers, ie: how cost effective sharpening a certain steel is on belts and grinding wheels.

I agree that edge retention is based on the end product which takes into account (as I understand) RC, carbide volume/type, edge angle and resistance to chipping, carbide tear-out, serrations or not, etc.

If CATRA didn't give them some (albeit not all) type of usable data for edge retention why bother doing it?

[Cliff Stamp]

There are CATRA results for S35VN : http://www.bucorp.com/files/CATRA_Test_Results.pdf . As expected, it would slightly less than S30V, 10% or so. As John noted, CATRA is very wear influenced as the cutting blade is immobile. It is easily possible for a knife to CATRA extremely highly but in use fair very different. One extreme example of this are the TiN single-side coated blades. They CATRA like TiN (extremely high) but in use they blunt just like the base steel. It also needs to be understood that blunting is nonlinear and the CATRA results take the blades to almost zero sharpness. In use you would expect to see less difference than CATRA unless you use blades to the point that they can not even slice a piece of photocopy paper at all.

[me2]

Regardless, that info on S35VN is an estimation based "upon market feedback.".

I hate to hear the answer, but what is that statement based upon and how is that even done?

[Cliff Stamp]

It actually states that in the Crucible data sheet. The standard way of doing it is to poll the market, select the responses you like and then post that as "user feedback". It isn't like marketing data in general is supposed to be unbiased.

[me2]

And they actually put a number on there based on that?

[Cliff Stamp]

No joke : http://www.crucible.com/PDFs%5CDataShee ... v12010.pdf .

Ok, it is a joke to do it, but it wasn't a joke that I said they did it.

[springnr]

Just wondering:
What/Who makes up their "market? Manufactures sure, but not me as a knife user I hope.

Factories using different steels often are performing repetitive task, as such they are able quantify differences between mediums.
The ability to track and improve processes is critical to profit.

[Ankerson]

Sal has said in their testing the edge retention is a bit lower than CPM-S30v which makes sense with a little less carbon and somewhat less vanadium.

Crucible lists CATRA numbers (which may be idealistic per their application) as the exact same (ie machine-tested edge retention) with an increase of 15-20% in toughness.

http://www.crucible.com/PDFs%5CDataShee ... v12010.pdf

I don't think it's exactly the answer to world peace but certainly isn't awful.

Yeah, and S35VN does have slightly less edge retention than S30V does at the same hardness range from my own testing.

However I doubt people would see much of a real difference between them in real use, other than S35VN being somewhat easier to sharpen.

But then that would depend on actual use, edge refinement and other variables.

[JNewell]

Actually, they are testing wear resistance.

CATRA tests the wear resistance of steel. Wear resistance is just one small facet of "edge retention." CATRA doesn't reflect true edge retention, since the blade is immobile, and the cutting media is consistent and highly controlled. Alloy content and geometry plays a huge role in this type of test. Think of the old clad blades which were unmatched in CATRA but were almost unusable in real life..



Regardless, that info on S35VN is an estimation based "upon market feedback." So basically it is a guess.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I haven't yet completed my forum PhD in metallurgy.

Here's the thing - the guys at Crucible you're dissing and dismissing so easily actually do have doctorates in this area - it's what they do for a living and they do it very well. Their data sheets are worth a whole lot more than random YouTube videos and forum posts that don't have any kind of consistent science behind them. Jim's long-running evaluation over at BF is one of very few, maybe the only, large scale attempts to compare blades on a consistent basis.

[Blerv]

Between variances in each example of the steel, the factory's processing, and the user's post-processing there are quite a few factors that impact the resulting edge retention. If the material being cut and style of use changes there is another ton of variables.

Would a 10% disadvantage between s30v and s35vn be seen without a number of lab-style runs? If so, would you be able to tell in normal use? What about the person who frequently touches up their edge with white stones to maintain higher sharpness?

Ultimately with the exception of the Mule project how many choices do we have with one model that interests us? 2-3 really if we are lucky and most are radically different (vg10, ZDP-189, Superblue, etc). So even if you LOVE the precursor, Chris Reeve or Sal won't whip you up a one-off knife of your desires.

Interesting discussion but IMO idealistic fundamentally, unless you can convince a maker to switch materials.

[me2]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to run a CATRA test or 2 than survey enough users and get enough information to actually put a number in that chart? The test is a little pricey, but come on.

[Cliff Stamp]

Would a 10% disadvantage between s30v and s35vn be seen without a number of lab-style runs?

Good luck, 10% is an extremely small difference, if you want to get that precise it would mean that all the influences in the results (speed of cut, force cut, angles, initial sharpness) have to be consistent to about 1 part in 100. In fact even CATRA when jig sharpening on their machines won't claim that their initial sharpness is anywhere near that precise.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to run a CATRA test or 2 than survey enough users and get enough information to actually put a number in that chart?

Not if your "survey" consists of asking the people in the office what they have heard. Market polls are extremely difficult to collect and produce an unbiased sample because of how groups react to information. If you want to see an extreme example, just do a market survey on 8Cr13MoV in Spydercos and then 1084 for edge retention in ABS blades. What you will get will completely defy science and just shows how strongly bias will influence results if you don't stop it.

The frank reality is that S35VN will have a lower CATRA score than S30V and Crucible obviously did not want to promote than in the marketing just like they did not CATRA S30V vs S60V.

[kbuzbee]

Interesting discussion but IMO idealistic fundamentally, unless you can convince a maker to switch materials.

I'm not sure I agree with that, Blake. IIRC S35VN got some bad reviews at one point those reviews may well stop someone from buying a knife in the future that they otherwise would have liked.

I bought a Native 5 kind of in spite of the steel, rather than because of it. But now I know I like it just fine.

For me, it's not so much about getting someone to switch to that steel as it is helping me to evaluate a knife (before purchase) that comes in that steel. Of course, steel is not the only criteria. Some of my favorite knives come in VG10. I'm not a huge VG10 fan, but the overall design of these knives keeps them in the rotation.

Of course, if Sal came out with a CF Balance in solid Super Blue, it would kick my VG10 right out of my pocket

Ken

[JNewell]

Between variances in each example of the steel, the factory's processing, and the user's post-processing there are quite a few factors that impact the resulting edge retention. If the material being cut and style of use changes there is another ton of variables.

Would a 10% disadvantage between s30v and s35vn be seen without a number of lab-style runs? If so, would you be able to tell in normal use? What about the person who frequently touches up their edge with white stones to maintain higher sharpness?

Ultimately with the exception of the Mule project how many choices do we have with one model that interests us? 2-3 really if we are lucky and most are radically different (vg10, ZDP-189, Superblue, etc). So even if you LOVE the precursor, Chris Reeve or Sal won't whip you up a one-off knife of your desires.

Interesting discussion but IMO idealistic fundamentally, unless you can convince a maker to switch materials.

That's part of the value of the Mule program. Testing different blades in different steels introduces a lot more variables due to the physical attributes of the blade, which is why Jim's tests are more a test of blades than steels, but his results include a lot of Mules and even where that isn't the case he's been careful about trying to keep tested knives within a zone of comparability.

[Blerv]

@Ken: I agree with that notion. As mentioned due to some of these threads about it being butter soft I've held off buying a Native5 until the forum edition. Compounded with the understanding (forums) that Chris Reeves has a softer heat treat my brother almost didn't buy the knife believing it would be completely inadequate as a tool.

@Cliff: Do you personally dislike s35vn or prefer to take the counterpoint in most cases? I remember HUGE threads when people were saying s90v had major edge retention advantages over s30v and you seemed to indicate depending on the melt there could virtually be no difference. Now S30v is clearly better and s35vn is a boon only to the manufacturer?

Also, I pulled "10%" out of the sky based on many saying "a bit less". What is a closer estimate? It has to be close as s30v from my understanding edges out vg10 on CATRA (which is crap compared to s35vn if you look only at the recipe).