ATTENTION SAL GLESSER tuff in for warranty, won't catra?

[chuck_roxas45]

Hhhmmmm me and my suspicious nature...I smell the odor of agenda....

[araneae]

Sharing your results with your peers and discussing them is part of the scientific process. You posted this on the forum, so you should expect some interaction with the group- trying to avoid discussion does create suspicion of you having some agenda.

[The Mastiff]

He has a number of videos on YT where he has done trials of various level of rigor.

Rigor as in the Bohler Uddeholm version of A2 steel or intellectual rigour. I believe you are referring to the latter.

[The Mastiff]

i would prefer to remain anonymous on this matter as well as my testing as i've dealt with forums before and do not welcome people to come and criticize my every statement and my findings. this is one reason why i don't frequent forums. if any further interactions are required, please feel free to contact me by private messaging. it is very possible that the knife i had before was a fluke as far as edge retention is concerned as i have spoken with several people and their conclusion seems to differ from my findings but, there is also the likeliness that their opinion is just parroted from someone they'd heard it from and some dogpile effect may have occurred at some point. thank you for your understanding and please believe i am not trying to embarass spydeco or any of the employees, i feel bad to have had to send the knife in in the first place.

Yeah, I can see how you could be dogpiled on.

What is going to act as control for 3V in CATRA ? Will Spyderco need to convex a blade or two and compare them to the results of your knife? Just running a CATRA test on your knife alone tells them what? If there is a difference in the CATRA tests do you get a replacement? What difference is large enough to where you would consider it defective? Are the results of the test swayed by the convex grind you did? Just curious.

Perhaps you could offer to pay for the time and materials if your blade is whithin spec. It's likely a substantial number. To be sure that would be the least I would want to do if I was in your shoes and it turned out I was wrong about it being a defective blade. :)

[Blerv]

What is going to act as control for 3V in CATRA ? Will Spyderco need to convex a blade or two and compare them to the results of your knife? Just running a CATRA test on your knife alone tells them what? If there is a difference in the CATRA tests do you get a replacement? What difference is large enough to where you would consider it defective? Are the results of the test swayed by the convex grind you did? Just curious.

Not to mention that the previous satisfactory variant was disposed of by Spyderco prior to having it's properties confirmed or denied.

Call it dog-piling or community interaction, the best way to avoid it is an email to Sal, any of his staff or a phone call to Spyderco. You could even PM through the message board to someone like Kristi or Mike J and in sure they could forward it.

Again...not my deal. Spyderco is taking care of the client and that's all that matters.

[Cliff Stamp]

Call it dog-piling or community interaction, the best way to avoid it is an email to Sal, any of his staff or a phone call to Spyderco. You could even PM through the message board to someone like Kristi or Mike J and in sure they could forward it.

He did, numerous times and the end result was he was told it was HRC tested and deemed fine and that a CATRA test would not be done. I recommended that he post here and I also warned him about the consequences as it is fairly easy to predict what will happen unfortunately because the promotional bias on this board is now extremely strong which is a disservice to Spyderco. Spyderco actually makes quality products and it can actually compete without that promotional bias, it doesn't need it and when you (general you) employ it what you are saying is that Spyderco can't actually compete in a fair and unbiased market, it has to be supported by biased commentary. I certainly don't believe that is the case and Spyderco's products and support are so inferior.

That's the reason I say some more information might prove useful. In no way am I asking for justification because he claim the knife isn't on par with the other he had, but to know more about his experimentations. I can tell which one of my SB and ZDP hold and edge the longest without a doubt simply from daily usage. Someone trying to keep the same configuration like he says he's doing must be able to say if the knife doesn't perform as the other he had and I'm not going against what he says.

To clarify, in general asking for justification isn't a bad thing, if you can't justify what you are saying then all you are doing is spreading misinformation. My only point in such cases as these is if the only time such demands are going to be made is when a negative comment is made then you have a shill forum and that shows a clear and deliberate bias.

I usually consider the real edge holding of my knife as of how long it keeps an edge at the lowest angle it can sustain without breaking/deforming during my daily use.

The problem is in blending edge holding and cutting ability together. Here is an example which hopefully makes it obvious why there is an issue :

-10" bowie, 0.035" edge, 15 dps - 3V
-10" chef's knife, 0.005" edge, 7.5 dps - 3Cr13

If these knives are used to cut 3/8" hemp on a scale and the number of cuts until 15 lbs (or whatever) is used to rank edge retention then the second knife dominates, it isn't even in the same magnitude of the first one. But this isn't because it is actually staying sharp longer, it is because the cutting ability is so much greater than it still cuts better even when it is blunter. Is it meaningful to say it has better edge retention ?

On a basic level what happens is this :

work applied by user = frictional losses + work done at the apex (rupture the material) + binding forces

Edge retention is a measure of the change in the middle part of the RHS, if you don't separate out the factors then you can have "edge retention" increasing for all kinds of issues. For example if you take a standard Mora and put a flat grind on it so it has a 0.005"/10 dps edge is will cut woods far easier because the first and third part of the RHS are much less. But would you now say that because it is cutting deeper under a given force that this means it is sharper? That is the problem a melding of sharpness and cutting ability and the mangled mess that makes in regards to comments on edge retention.

The first person that I saw actually clearly talk about this was Mike Swaim in the late nineties. He noted that there was edge retention and cutting ability and that a knife which cut very well could continue to do so even if it was not as sharp as enough knife which simply didn't cut very well. He thus talked about cutting lifetime and how if you reground a knife so that it cut better then the cutting lifetime would increase even if the edge retention stayed the same. Unfortunately this never really caught on and the issue is still one of a lot of confusion and because of that the actual interesting issues rarely get explored.

For example take a look at this video :

https://youtu.be/p9mbTcCOgQo

Now the actual rate of change, the loss of sharpness is higher with the more polished edge (it decreased more) but the final sharpness is still higher - so which one had the better edge retention? The actually cutting ability in terms of ease/force of cutting was higher throughout with the polished edge because of the other two factors (friction and binding work). Most people would say the polished edge had better edge retention because it had a higher final sharpness - but it actually had a higher rate of loss. Which one is more meaningful as a measure of edge retention, the rate of loss or final sharpness. That is an interesting question but you can only get to ask these if you actually first separate cutting ability and sharpness.

[dmiddleton]

i worked with each sample for a year apiece doing the same monotonous work as i do every day cutting the same boxes up, they are rated for the same weight and produced by the same factory and i have to cut up the same amount of them everyday and fill the same garbage cans with them every day. if you want some overly complicated scientific analysis about how i sharpened it on a guide at the same angle everytime and counted the passes and how i measured all my cuts and counted them and how i cut with sawing motions to distribute the wear evenly on top a scale to measure the force i use to cut, it's not going to happen. i use it in real world applications every day for the same work and i can tell there is a drastic difference and it has nothing to do with how wide the bevel is because it stops shaving after a very trivial amount of work in comparison to the previous example and it's not about the geometry of the blade or binding. i can easily tell the difference in performance between the two regardless of what any amount of testing may prove, whether the specimen i sent in is indicated as on par or not, there is a huge difference in the edge retention between the two. had i known of some alternate way of contacting mr glesser i would have taken that route as i had intended on this being a private affair.

[Clip]

Subscribed for results, interested to see any findings.

[Laethageal]

In my opinion, the kind of work your doing with your knife is more then sufficient to estimate the edge holding and the difference between the two. I feel ok estimating the edge retention from way more random use.
Can't wait to see what Sal finds out.

[bh49]

i've dealt with forums before and do not welcome people to come and criticize my every statement and my findings. this is one reason why i don't frequent forums.

Considering this I am really surprised that you posted instead of e-mailing to Mr. Glesser directly. BTW, it is very nice of him to conduct testing per your request.

[The Deacon]

I recommended that he post here and I also warned him about the consequences as it is fairly easy to predict what will happen unfortunately because the promotional bias on this board is now extremely strong which is a disservice to Spyderco.

Cliff, your blanket characterization of any rebuttal to negative comments as the work of shills, is almost as ludicrous your saying that I had "rejected all of modern science and beyond that a fundamental theory of knowledge" :rolleyes: simply because I disagreed with your opinion on a technical issue.

Yes, there needs to be frank and open discussion, but that means folks familiar with a company and its products have both the right and the responsibility to question the legitimacy of negative allegations and even the motives of the person making them. That is especially true when the person posting those allegations is a brand new member. Not all commentary about any product, whether on forums or on websites that allow user reviews, is honest. So, while there are folks paid to sing the praises of a company, there are also folks who are paid by one company bad mouth the competitors. None of this is to say the OP's initial post falls into that last category, just that being open minded is a two way street.

[Fancier]

These posts are fascinating to the extent that they cover new ground and are about knives.

[-calc-]

Cliff, your blanket characterization of any rebuttal to negative comments as the work of shills

To be fair, shilling is not the same as promotional bias. This being Spyderco's forum, the latter is almost an inevitability, but it still has to be accounted for. That was my interpretation, at least.

In any case, I'm surprised Sal's running more tests on it. Rockwell testing only tells part of the story, yes, but this is pretty extensive for a single customer complaint. Color me impressed.

[Cliff Stamp]

To be fair, shilling is not the same as promotional bias.

To shill is to be intentionally biased in a promotional sense but pretend otherwise. If you work for Spyderco and you only demand justification for negative claims then you are not being a shill. The bias is open and obvious hence why in general you don't ask salespeople for commentary and expect neutral commentary - their job is to sell the product.

Here is the frank truth, Spyderco does not need people to be biased. Spyderco makes a quality product and has strong customer service. Spyderco can actually stand and compete on the actual reality of the basis of the product it offers. When people start to make biased demands they are actually stating they believe the opposite, that Spyderco needs that in order to compete.

It doesn't.

The only products that need that kind of bias are the ones which are inferior and have poor customer service. If someone is going to make that kind of argument that Spyderco is a company which makes inferior products and has poor customer service, well then I would argue, and will argue, they are wrong.

Spyderco can and should deal with negative complaints the same way it deals with positive commentary. They can do this because one strongly outweighs the other. There is no need to try to hide or censor them because again they make a solid product and have excellent customer service. There is no need for them to hide or pretent problems don't on occasion exist.

[The Deacon]

To be fair, shilling is not the same as promotional bias.

To shill is to be intentionally biased in a promotional sense but pretend otherwise. If you work for Spyderco and you only demand justification for negative claims then you are not being a shill. The bias is open and obvious hence why in general you don't ask salespeople for commentary and expect neutral commentary - their job is to sell the product.

Here is the frank truth, Spyderco does not need people to be biased. Spyderco makes a quality product and has strong customer service. Spyderco can actually stand and compete on the actual reality of the basis of the product it offers. When people start to make biased demands they are actually stating they believe the opposite, that Spyderco needs that in order to compete.

It doesn't.

The only products that need that kind of bias are the ones which are inferior and have poor customer service. If someone is going to make that kind of argument that Spyderco is a company which makes inferior products and has poor customer service, well then I would argue, and will argue, they are wrong.

Spyderco can and should deal with negative complaints the same way it deals with positive commentary. They can do this because one strongly outweighs the other. There is no need to try to hide or censor them because again they make a solid product and have excellent customer service. There is no need for them to hide or pretent problems don't on occasion exist.

And you, I take it, consider yourself to be the sole and perfect judge of who is displaying "promotional bias" and who is simply questioning the validity of a statement that runs contrary to their personal experience or the reasonableness of an expectation. :rolleyes:

[Blerv]

You can't remove bias from a massive crowd of people who mainly share a common love for a brand. Especially when the only requirement to become a member is having a specific type of email and requesting membership. This isn't the Elks, Rotary, or some type of mysterious Illuminati-type group. If you require that people tether their emotions and train their delivery like a Harvard debate team there won't be much discussion happening, I certainly wouldn't be eligible . If you remove the forum (with it's quirks) you remove a very supportive community that generally is kind-hearted and welcoming.

I don't believe this forum is an awkward school dance filled with shills and trolls. It's just a group of normal people from varied places and perspectives. Occasionally a new member doesn't tread as lightly as they could. I strongly doubt this is marring the brand's reputation as all groups respond in a similar way on similar forums. Depending on the initial post and the follow-up responses I've seen the worst of topics discussed with earnest concern and comradery.

Assuming the warranty is still in-place, Spyderco has the legal obligation to honor it. That means service, replace with within spec item, or refund the client. They don't have an obligation to somehow cross the gap between what is customary and what is expected by the client. Unlike most companies, Spyderco often does this anyways at their own expense. Their president even formally and promptly responded to the concern saying he would take a personal interest in fixing the problem. How many shills would it take to overshadow the actual positive actions and words from Sal?

[Cliff Stamp]

You can't remove bias from a massive crowd of people who mainly share a common love for a brand.

You can, it isn't even difficult - however the issue isn't that there is a bias, the issue is the consequence of the bias censoring information. That is the problem and that doesn't have to happen. In fact it is completely trivial to stop it, all you have to do is declare it is unwanted if you are the maker/manufacturer. It is also just as trivial if you are a user, all you have to do is argue against it.

[Blerv]

You can't remove bias from a massive crowd of people who mainly share a common love for a brand.

You can, it isn't even difficult - however the issue isn't that there is a bias, the issue is the consequence of the bias censoring information. That is the problem and that doesn't have to happen. In fact it is completely trivial to stop it, all you have to do is declare it is unwanted if you are the maker/manufacturer. It is also just as trivial if you are a user, all you have to do is argue against it.

Sal and Co have said on multiple occasions that people should feel free to speak on problems as it's how the company can improve.

The problem as I see it is the grey part of what is deemed "kickback". When disagreeing with someone's logic becomes shilling one side has a natural immunity from even reasoned critique. The slippery slope of "not attacking" becomes to patronize the person.

If this is your read on the company's stance (to solely handle any/all negative feedback) I can surely cooperate. I'll just be more positive and fill up my ignore filter a bit faster. :)

[Cliff Stamp]

The slippery slope of "not attacking" becomes to patronize the person.

There is no slope.

Again the issue is that positive claims and negative claims are not treated the same and specifically that negative claims often get large demands for justification which shows a clear bias. This bias is so well known it even has a name - confirmation bias. The solutions to it is very simple, again if you are going to demand justification you have to do it across the board, you can't just demand people who make a negative comment have to meet some standard of rigor but just accept positive comments without hesitation. If you do then you are biased. If you pretend you are not - well then that is shilling.

[chuck_roxas45]

So now we've gone from discussing the "tests" performed to discussing the supposed shills...nice sidestep. :rolleyes: