Page 5 of 5

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
by Wartstein
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm
are we not just describing the sage? it's the exact same profile in a "regular sized" package.

Sorry, but not at all (for me at least): The Sage has very similar lines to the chap, correct.

BUT: It does NOT offer what makes the Chap so special, even in Spydercos lineup: The thin, 2mm bladestock (The Sage has the rather usual 3 mm, though at least not the "fat" 3.7).
This thin blade is what makes the Chap such a superior performer for me, and - differently to what I would have expected - 2mm is strong enough for even harder tasks (believe me, I DID test this ; )

Now: In my opinion thin, slicey blades are even better suited for longer knives, and so I´d really wish for a PM2 sized (so larger than even a Sage!) Chap

Btw: Opinel knives have even thinner blades and at least the ones I had held up just fine.

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:33 pm
by Abyss_Fish
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm
are we not just describing the sage? it's the exact same profile in a "regular sized" package.

Sorry, but not at all (for me at least): The Sage has very similar lines to the chap, correct.

BUT: It does NOT offer what makes the Chap so special, even in Spydercos lineup: The thin, 2mm bladestock (The Sage has the rather usual 3 mm, though at least not the "fat" 3.7).
This thin blade is what makes the Chap such a superior performer for me, and - differently to what I would have expected - 2mm is strong enough for even harder tasks (believe me, I DID test this ; )

Now: In my opinion thin, slicey blades are even better suited for longer knives, and so I´d really wish for a PM2 sized (so larger than even a Sage!) Chap

Btw: Opinel knives have even thinner blades and at least the ones I had held up just fine.
I totally understand it. The Watu is the shining star of my collection so I absolutely agree there. I actually had assumed the sage was thinner, didn't realize it was closer to para 3 thickness. I still want a sage 2 m390 tho.

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:51 pm
by Wartstein
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:33 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm

Sorry, but not at all (for me at least): The Sage has very similar lines to the chap, correct.

BUT: It does NOT offer what makes the Chap so special, even in Spydercos lineup: The thin, 2mm bladestock (The Sage has the rather usual 3 mm, though at least not the "fat" 3.7).
This thin blade is what makes the Chap such a superior performer for me, and - differently to what I would have expected - 2mm is strong enough for even harder tasks (believe me, I DID test this ; )

Now: In my opinion thin, slicey blades are even better suited for longer knives, and so I´d really wish for a PM2 sized (so larger than even a Sage!) Chap

Btw: Opinel knives have even thinner blades and at least the ones I had held up just fine.
I totally understand it. The Watu is the shining star of my collection so I absolutely agree there. I actually had assumed the sage was thinner, didn't realize it was closer to para 3 thickness. I still want a sage 2 m390 tho.
:) The Watu indeed is a very intriguing knife - generally and especially due to its reasonably thin bladestock.

And if you like that slicey thin blade: Just think of it, the Chap has a 2mm stock, the Watu 2.5 (like a Delica) - that´s a "jump" in thickness of 25% (from Chap to Watu)
Now I know of course that thinness of the blade is not the only factor at all that determines how "slicey" a knife is (but grind angle, tapering, thickness behind the edge, tallness of the blade, ffg/hollow/sabre... and so on come into play too) - but a thin blade certainly gives a solid foundation for great cutting performance.

I am aware of only one other Spyderco with a thin, 2mm blade: The Centofante, but this one has a sabre hollow grind (so is not ffg).
I don´t know all Spyderco models, so I am sure there might be more

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm
by Wartstein
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:33 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm
I totally understand it. The Watu is the shining star of my collection so I absolutely agree there. I actually had assumed the sage was thinner, didn't realize it was closer to para 3 thickness. I still want a sage 2 m390 tho.

Added to my post above: You might also want to look into this thread (Chaparral with an "upgraded" steel):
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87580 that foofie started

While I personally am not a real "steel junkie" and perfectly fine with the XHP of the current Chap (actually I really like that steel), my point (made in the thread) for a Chaparral in more steel selections is that folks who are really into steels could try, test and compare those in an unique, just 2mm thin blade. I think this would form an interesting platform.

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:20 pm
by Abyss_Fish
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:33 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:01 pm
I totally understand it. The Watu is the shining star of my collection so I absolutely agree there. I actually had assumed the sage was thinner, didn't realize it was closer to para 3 thickness. I still want a sage 2 m390 tho.

Added to my post above: You might also want to look into this thread (Chaparral with an "upgraded" steel):
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87580 that foofie started

While I personally am not a real "steel junkie" and perfectly fine with the XHP of the current Chap (actually I really like that steel), my point (made in the thread) for a Chaparral in more steel selections is that folks who are really into steels could try, test and compare those in an unique, just 2mm thin blade. I think this would form an interesting platform.
I actually like xhp a lot as well. My favorite "mid range easy maintenance" steel. It's got the sharpening characteristics of s35 but the retention of elmax. I actually am not a huge fan of elmax for that reason, since 20cv and xhp both do it's job better.

In any case, I'm not too concerned about steel. As long as it's not s30v. And as long as more thin designs keep coming. I mean have you used the Rhino? Man that lil' guy cuts well. I really aughta get another one of those in my collection...

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:27 pm
by Wartstein
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:20 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:57 pm
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:33 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:24 pm
I totally understand it. The Watu is the shining star of my collection so I absolutely agree there. I actually had assumed the sage was thinner, didn't realize it was closer to para 3 thickness. I still want a sage 2 m390 tho.

Added to my post above: You might also want to look into this thread (Chaparral with an "upgraded" steel):
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87580 that foofie started

While I personally am not a real "steel junkie" and perfectly fine with the XHP of the current Chap (actually I really like that steel), my point (made in the thread) for a Chaparral in more steel selections is that folks who are really into steels could try, test and compare those in an unique, just 2mm thin blade. I think this would form an interesting platform.
I actually like xhp a lot as well. My favorite "mid range easy maintenance" steel. It's got the sharpening characteristics of s35 but the retention of elmax. I actually am not a huge fan of elmax for that reason, since 20cv and xhp both do it's job better.

In any case, I'm not too concerned about steel. As long as it's not s30v. And as long as more thin designs keep coming. I mean have you used the Rhino? Man that lil' guy cuts well. I really aughta get another one of those in my collection...

I am pretty sure you know a lot more about steels than I do, but when it comes to XHP I actually have quite a bit of experience (though "just" in my Chap, not in any other knife): And I am totally with you, great steel, sharpens quick and easy and holds an edge very well

No, I never had or used a Rhino... Actually like the design, but I am much more into midsized / larger folders (the Chap is "the" exception, cause it is so perfectly designed and executed and cuts so amazingly well) and so I actually did try very few smaller ones.

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:41 pm
by Abyss_Fish
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:27 pm
No, I never had or used a Rhino... Actually like the design, but I am much more into midsized / larger folders (the Chap is "the" exception, cause it is so perfectly designed and executed and cuts so amazingly well) and so I actually did try very few smaller ones.
It's the defacto small knife imo. If you ever need something smaller but still high performance it's the way to go. The lil' native is a bit more comfortable and the action is better but's not much of a slicer, plus it's significantly less funky :)

also, and don't tell anyone I told you this. But the benchmade mini deep carry clip fits perfectly on the rhino, like it was made for it. I think It's a necessary addition.



Also this is way off base from the original discussion. Soooooo. Why yes Mr. Wartstein I am interested in a slightly more full sized chaparral, in fact I'm interested in any more hyper-slicers in production!

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:12 pm
by xceptnl
I voted yes. I will say that thin can still be strong enough. See my examples:
#1
Image
#2
Image

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:41 pm
by steelcity16
I was trying to find the thread from last year where Sal was talking about doing a super thin ground afi model Delica and gauging interest and asking about steels. Does anyone else remember this and can you find the link? I wonder if this is still in the works. This thread reminded me of that discussion.

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:57 pm
by xceptnl
steelcity16 wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:41 pm
I was trying to find the thread from last year where Sal was talking about doing a super thin ground afi model Delica and gauging interest and asking about steels. Does anyone else remember this and can you find the link? I wonder if this is still in the works. This thread reminded me of that discussion.
AFI Performance Flash Batch
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79799

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:17 pm
by Wartstein
Abyss_Fish wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:41 pm
Wartstein wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:27 pm
No, I never had or used a Rhino... Actually like the design, but I am much more into midsized / larger folders (the Chap is "the" exception, cause it is so perfectly designed and executed and cuts so amazingly well) and so I actually did try very few smaller ones.
It's the defacto small knife imo. If you ever need something smaller but still high performance it's the way to go. The lil' native is a bit more comfortable and the action is better but's not much of a slicer, plus it's significantly less funky :)

also, and don't tell anyone I told you this. But the benchmade mini deep carry clip fits perfectly on the rhino, like it was made for it. I think It's a necessary addition.

Also this is way off base from the original discussion. Soooooo. Why yes Mr. Wartstein I am interested in a slightly more full sized chaparral, in fact I'm interested in any more hyper-slicers in production!
Sorry for the late reply and thanks for the suggestions! :) - Though I have to be honest: Can´t imagine that any model could replace the Chap as "being the defacto small knife" for me personally! ;) - but then: I never tried the Rhino, but I read that is has a 50 % thicker stock than the Chap? (3mm vs 2mm)

/ Glad you´re advocating for a "slightly more full sized Chaparral" too! (Again, for me "more fullsized" means JUST longer (about PM2 size), but NOT thicker - overall, but especially in blade stock - keeping the 2mm in a Chap XL actually is the whole point here.

Not totally fixated on a fictional Chap XL though - an Endela or Stretch "thin edition" (so with the overall and blade- thinness of the Chap) would be equally fine (actually started a thread about this once viewtopic.php?t=85342)
Or even a totally new designed, at least PM2 sized "thin" performance Spydie... :rolleyes:

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:41 pm
by Wartstein
Just tallying up the votes so far:

116 forum members (77% of the voters) would like to see a longer than the Chap model with its thin 2mm blade stock.
That´s not too few, I´d say... :rolleyes:

Re: Poll: Interested in a longer version of the Chaparral while KEEPING it´s thin bladestock??

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:42 am
by Wartstein
Just for perspective: Below you can see how thin the blade of an Opinel is (I think around 1,65mm /0.65" stock), even compared to the 2mm of the Chap.
The Opinel blade is noticeably flexy, but I guess mostly because it is a lot less tall and also longer than the Chaps blade (which is not flexy at all).

Anyway, though 2mm is VERY thin for most brands, still thin even for Spyderco, imho and based on my extended experience with the Chap in also harder use:
- Especially in a blade that is a bit taller 2mm could very well be the perfect choice performancewise for folders up to PM2 size or perhaps even larger.

Image


Image