Poll for Folding MULE - UKPK

[Fred Sanford]

No. It totally defeats the purpose of the Mule. Simple, inexpensive (no scales or sheath), and sturdy. A folder would be none of those. For the purpose of testing steel there is nothing better than a fixed blade. What you want is a Sprint of a UKPK.

[steelcity16]

No. It totally defeats the purpose of the Mule. Simple, inexpensive (no scales or sheath), and sturdy. A folder would be none of those. For the purpose of testing steel there is nothing better than a fixed blade. What you want is a Sprint of a UKPK.

If Spyderco said the mule program was done and any new steels would be tested by them and released as sprints like the AEB-L Urban, Rex45 sprints, Massdrop Super Golds, Seki sprints of Hap40 and V-TOKU, etc, I wouldn't lose any sleep. But if they want to keep the Mule program alive, the fixed blades weren't selling well enough. A folder in a popular model would surely sell better (sell out every one easily more likely). It is a fun thing to be a a part of testing brand new never seen steels, and having a designated model like a Para 3 LW allows for apples to apples comparisons against the tons of already release Para 3 steels and soon to come 20+ Para 3 LW variations. If they could keep pumping out fixed mules and selling them out I would say more power to them and just wait for the folder in that steel. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so a mule folder would breath new life into the program.

[Fred Sanford]

No. It totally defeats the purpose of the Mule. Simple, inexpensive (no scales or sheath), and sturdy. A folder would be none of those. For the purpose of testing steel there is nothing better than a fixed blade. What you want is a Sprint of a UKPK.

If Spyderco said the mule program was done and any new steels would be tested by them and released as sprints like the AEB-L Urban, Rex45 sprints, Massdrop Super Golds, Seki sprints of Hap40 and V-TOKU, etc, I wouldn't lose any sleep. But if they want to keep the Mule program alive, the fixed blades weren't selling well enough. A folder in a popular model would surely sell better (sell out every one easily more likely). It is a fun thing to be a a part of testing brand new never seen steels, and having a designated model like a Para 3 LW allows for apples to apples comparisons against the tons of already release Para 3 steels and soon to come 20+ Para 3 LW variations. If they could keep pumping out fixed mules and selling them out I would say more power to them and just wait for the folder in that steel. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so a mule folder would breath new life into the program.

I can see that, but I thought the Mule project was kind of done for the knife nuts and not for profit. I can't imagine the Mules make Spyderco any profit. I feel like they are letting the knife nuts have some steel to play with that they haven't had yet.

[steelcity16]

No. It totally defeats the purpose of the Mule. Simple, inexpensive (no scales or sheath), and sturdy. A folder would be none of those. For the purpose of testing steel there is nothing better than a fixed blade. What you want is a Sprint of a UKPK.

If Spyderco said the mule program was done and any new steels would be tested by them and released as sprints like the AEB-L Urban, Rex45 sprints, Massdrop Super Golds, Seki sprints of Hap40 and V-TOKU, etc, I wouldn't lose any sleep. But if they want to keep the Mule program alive, the fixed blades weren't selling well enough. A folder in a popular model would surely sell better (sell out every one easily more likely). It is a fun thing to be a a part of testing brand new never seen steels, and having a designated model like a Para 3 LW allows for apples to apples comparisons against the tons of already release Para 3 steels and soon to come 20+ Para 3 LW variations. If they could keep pumping out fixed mules and selling them out I would say more power to them and just wait for the folder in that steel. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so a mule folder would breath new life into the program.

I can see that, but I thought the Mule project was kind of done for the knife nuts and not for profit. I can't imagine the Mules make Spyderco any profit. I feel like they are letting the knife nuts have some steel to play with that they haven't had yet.

I agree. But I think the existing fixed mule project is ending because sales are too slow. Still some in stock from months/years ago. So if they can sell enough Para 3 LWs/Native LW/UKPK mules to sell out each release in a day or two, they can keep the program going. Profit or not, sitting on a bunch of unsold inventory is not good and they aren't going to keep pumping out fixed mules that only sell a portion of the run. There are minimum quantities to purchase a lot of these steels, so they need to be able to sell all of the steel they buy to keep reinvesting in new steels.

[Tucson Tom]

I voted NO. I am OK with the folding mule concept (although I like the original mule concept best of all). The UKPK would be about the last folder I would want to see as a mule platform. I have pretty much zero excitement about any slip joint.

As far as I am concerned, the Para 3 is the defacto folding mule. Given the plethora of versions and steels we saw last year, it isn't just being talked about, it has already happened. Now I am no fan of the Para 3 (I like a bigger blade), and even less so of lightweight FRN versions -- but if the Para 3 LW becomes the platform for offering a variety of steels as a gift to the steel AFI community, far be it from me to rain on the parade, I'll buy 'em.

[steelcity16]

I voted NO. I am OK with the folding mule concept (although I like the original mule concept best of all). The UKPK would be about the last folder I would want to see as a mule platform. I have pretty much zero excitement about any slip joint.

As far as I am concerned, the Para 3 is the defacto folding mule. Given the plethora of versions and steels we saw last year, it isn't just being talked about, it has already happened. Now I am no fan of the Para 3 (I like a bigger blade), and even less so of lightweight FRN versions -- but if the Para 3 LW becomes the platform for offering a variety of steels as a gift to the steel AFI community, far be it from me to rain on the parade, I'll buy 'em.

I would buy either, but agree with everything you said about the Para 3 and prefer this model for a mule. I think we need a UKPK vs. Para 3 LW head to head mule poll!

[fixall]

I still can't believe there are any PD#1 Mule Teams left. Just blow my mind. With all the CRU-WEAR fans out there, these should be gone. I really, really think if this steel would have been offered in ANY Spyderco folder, it would be sold out already.

I did my part, lol (I've got something special planned for it too)!

[Wartstein]

So when you suggest a model for a folding Mule Team, are you thinking a new complete knife for each steel or a knife that you would change the blade?

sal

One possible disadvantage I can see with the idea of interchangeable blades:

When you have only one handle, but several blades for that handle (or at least less handles than blades), you could not really compare different Mules against each other directly at the same time.

I am, compared to most of you, not a steel-expert or "steelhead", but one way I'd like to compare different steels would probably be to just carry two Mules, and if there is spontanously something to cut, just do let's say 10 cuts with Mule 1, the next 10 cuts with Mule 2 and so on, and compare for example remaining sharpness at the end of the day or week...

But I would not carry one handle and two or more blades and constantly change blades in my day to day life.

[steelcity16]

I still can't believe there are any PD#1 Mule Teams left. Just blow my mind. With all the CRU-WEAR fans out there, these should be gone. I really, really think if this steel would have been offered in ANY Spyderco folder, it would be sold out already.

I did my part, lol (I've got something special planned for it too)!

Yep, did my part grabbed one tonight too! My first fixed mule. Only really ordered it because I figured this is the one to get as a founding member of the CRUWEAR NATION! :D I also have something special planned. Lol. Already ordered the "scale material". Will post pics upon completion. No more fixed mules for me though. One is enough. Bring on the folders! :)

[Doc Dan]

So when you suggest a model for a folding Mule Team, are you thinking a new complete knife for each steel or a knife that you would change the blade?

sal

I had not thought about a knife where I could simply change the blade. That would actually be a good idea. I would still want a pocket sized knife. I know some others, here, would go for that, as well.

I am good (obviously) with a complete knife, too. I do not need liners, nor do I need a lock (A back lock is good, though, but more expensive).

I want a knife I will actually carry day to day and use, not just cut rope with. I like the Urban in this role, but the UKPK is acceptable. Of course, if you are going to create a whole new model for this, I am on board with the idea.

[Doc Dan]

No. It totally defeats the purpose of the Mule. Simple, inexpensive (no scales or sheath), and sturdy. A folder would be none of those. For the purpose of testing steel there is nothing better than a fixed blade. What you want is a Sprint of a UKPK.

If Spyderco said the mule program was done and any new steels would be tested by them and released as sprints like the AEB-L Urban, Rex45 sprints, Massdrop Super Golds, Seki sprints of Hap40 and V-TOKU, etc, I wouldn't lose any sleep. But if they want to keep the Mule program alive, the fixed blades weren't selling well enough. A folder in a popular model would surely sell better (sell out every one easily more likely). It is a fun thing to be a a part of testing brand new never seen steels, and having a designated model like a Para 3 LW allows for apples to apples comparisons against the tons of already release Para 3 steels and soon to come 20+ Para 3 LW variations. If they could keep pumping out fixed mules and selling them out I would say more power to them and just wait for the folder in that steel. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so a mule folder would breath new life into the program.

The Para3 is a knife I would not buy. It is too big, does not fit my hand, and I do not prefer the lock. The blade is too thick for daily use. Something more the size of a Delica, UKPK, or even my beloved Urban LW is more like it.

[Doc Dan]

So when you suggest a model for a folding Mule Team, are you thinking a new complete knife for each steel or a knife that you would change the blade?

sal

One possible disadvantage I can see with the idea of interchangeable blades:

When you have only one handle, but several blades for that handle (or at least less handles than blades), you could not really compare different Mules against each other directly at the same time.

I am, compared to most of you, not a steel-expert or "steelhead", but one way I'd like to compare different steels would probably be to just carry two Mules, and if there is spontanously something to cut, just do let's say 10 cuts with Mule 1, the next 10 cuts with Mule 2 and so on, and compare for example remaining sharpness at the end of the day or week...

But I would not carry one handle and two or more blades and constantly change blades in my day to day life.

I think if you do as I do, the interchangeable blades might work. The way I "test" steels is that I like to carry the knife for a long time and use it on a day to day basis, not just cut rope and cardboard and call it a test. I want to know how the steel behaves in the real world, in my day to day life. I can then compare that to other steels I have used. Day to day carry and use have taught me a lot about how some steels will behave in real world chores. I see rope and cardboard tests and yawn (not that they are not valuable, but do not tell me much about how the steel and the blade design will perform in the real world).

[Wartstein]

So when you suggest a model for a folding Mule Team, are you thinking a new complete knife for each steel or a knife that you would change the blade?

sal

One possible disadvantage I can see with the idea of interchangeable blades:

When you have only one handle, but several blades for that handle (or at least less handles than blades), you could not really compare different Mules against each other directly at the same time.

I am, compared to most of you, not a steel-expert or "steelhead", but one way I'd like to compare different steels would probably be to just carry two Mules, and if there is spontanously something to cut, just do let's say 10 cuts with Mule 1, the next 10 cuts with Mule 2 and so on, and compare for example remaining sharpness at the end of the day or week...

But I would not carry one handle and two or more blades and constantly change blades in my day to day life.

I think if you do as I do, the interchangeable blades might work. The way I "test" steels is that I like to carry the knife for a long time and use it on a day to day basis, not just cut rope and cardboard and call it a test. I want to know how the steel behaves in the real world, in my day to day life. I can then compare that to other steels I have used. Day to day carry and use have taught me a lot about how some steels will behave in real world chores. I see rope and cardboard tests and yawn (not that they are not valuable, but do not tell me much about how the steel and the blade design will perform in the real world).

Yes, I am totally with you on that, and probably did not point out enough what I meant in my previous post: In principle exactly what you are saying!
I just would want to have TWO (or more) COMPLETE, but identical (other than the steel) knives, so that I could sometimes carry two of those in my day to day - real world life, and if I feel like it, maybe do half of whatever real life occuring cutting test with knife A, the other half with knife B, so I could DIRECTLY compare the two.

Additionally, that would make findings more empirical if I wanted them to be: I could for example dedicate one day or one week to really try to do exactly the same amount of cutting with each blade in my day to day life as much as possible, and compare for example remaining sharpness at the end of the day / week.

To cut a long story short: If my main goal is to experience and test different steels, I´d like to have the opportunity two (or more) complete knives can give me over just one handle and more blades, regardless if or how much use I make of these opportunities.

[ZrowsN1s]

I voted NO. I am OK with the folding mule concept (although I like the original mule concept best of all). The UKPK would be about the last folder I would want to see as a mule platform. I have pretty much zero excitement about any slip joint.

As far as I am concerned, the Para 3 is the defacto folding mule. Given the plethora of versions and steels we saw last year, it isn't just being talked about, it has already happened. Now I am no fan of the Para 3 (I like a bigger blade), and even less so of lightweight FRN versions -- but if the Para 3 LW becomes the platform for offering a variety of steels as a gift to the steel AFI community, far be it from me to rain on the parade, I'll buy 'em.

The Para 3 or Native were my first thought. But I realized that meant excluding a lot of my fellow Spydie brethren from being able to purchase and carry a folding Mule. Would you still insist on a Para 3 even though it means they are left out?

[steelcity16]

The Para 3 or Native were my first thought. But I realized that meant excluding a lot of my fellow Spydie brethren from being able to purchase and carry a folding Mule. Would you still insist on a Para 3 even though it means they are left out?

Unfortunately I think it has to come down to what Spyderco can sell full runs of. If they have to buy minimum quantities of these new steels, they have to use it all to make the run. I believe Sal said that they would have to make a larger number of folders to use up the whole run of steel because the blades are smaller than full length fixed blades. They don't want to sit on unsold inventory. So while a UKPK helps out people in restrictive jurisdictions, if there are a bunch of people who WON'T buy it because they refuse to buy non-locking knives, the program may not survive.

Basically, if the minimum quantity of steel for each run means they have to produce 1,200 mule folders per steel, and the demand is 2,000 people who want to buy Para 3 LWs, but only 1,000 people who want to buy UKPKs, then they really have no choice but to go with the Para 3 LW so they can sell out each run and reinvest the sales into new runs rather than sit on 200 unsold knives every run.

If there was a demand of 5,000 Para 3 LW and 2,000 UKPK, then sure, I would say go with the UKPK so people in restrictive jurisdictions can participate.

In the end it is going to be impossible to predict the actual demand for a given folder model, so they have to choose what they think they will be able to sell. Otherwise this new program will end quickly.

Since each batch of steel made 600 fixed blades, and I would assume each fixed blade could have been 2 folder blades, here is what I would say is the best solution to please everyone. Take each batch of steel and produce maybe only 200 fixed blades, and then those 400 would-be fixed blades can now be made into 800 folders, split according to projected demand (400 Para 3 LWs and 400 UKPKs, 600 Para 3 LWs and 200 UKPKs, etc.). Yes, this is more work for Spyderco, and yes the fixed blade would probably need to be made in Golden alongside the Para 3 LW and UKPK, but this would please pretty much EVERYONE, and ensure the success of the program well into the future with pretty much zero chance of unsold inventory.

[Tucson Tom]

I voted NO. I am OK with the folding mule concept (although I like the original mule concept best of all). The UKPK would be about the last folder I would want to see as a mule platform. I have pretty much zero excitement about any slip joint.

As far as I am concerned, the Para 3 is the defacto folding mule. Given the plethora of versions and steels we saw last year, it isn't just being talked about, it has already happened. Now I am no fan of the Para 3 (I like a bigger blade), and even less so of lightweight FRN versions -- but if the Para 3 LW becomes the platform for offering a variety of steels as a gift to the steel AFI community, far be it from me to rain on the parade, I'll buy 'em.

The Para 3 or Native were my first thought. But I realized that meant excluding a lot of my fellow Spydie brethren from being able to purchase and carry a folding Mule. Would you still insist on a Para 3 even though it means they are left out?

Well I certainly don't want to leave anyone out. I guess you have to balance the people who get left out because they live in totalitarian regimes versus the people who decide to be left out because they can't stomach a slip joint knife. I don't know how those numbers would balance.

I could just as easily pick the Native 5 as a platform for a folding mule. I just noticed the already existing tendency to use the Para 3 for all kinds of things anyway and now that the tooling for the LW model is in place, that seemed like a way to make it even less expensive. Personally I would prefer the Native 5 over the Para 3, but either is great. If I had my way entirely, I would advocate the PM2 as a platform. It already is a screw together design and I much prefer that size blade.

It is great fun playing armchair quarterback here. I keep remembering that Sal said the mule program was a gift to steel junkies.

[aesmith]

Were the current Mules all made in the US, or were they made in the country where that particular steel is most readily available?

[Mushroom]

So when you suggest a model for a folding Mule Team, are you thinking a new complete knife for each steel or a knife that you would change the blade?

sal

Personally, I was thinking a complete knife for each new steel, but all the same new model. (One folding Mule Team design) I could never suggest a new design for each steel.

Interchangeable blades is a good idea as well, it definitely sounds like it would reduce costs for the ELU’s, but I still think I’d prefer to buy a complete model.

Were the current Mules all made in the US, or were they made in the country where that particular steel is most readily available?

The country they’re made in changes depending on where the steel is from. US, Japan, China, etc.

:spyder:

[Pelagic]

If someone wanted a folding mule project, you'd probably want to suggest a popular and relatively affordable model. Maybe we'll see how the Endela does. The Endura would be perfect if it was made in both Seki City AND Golden. Spyderco can't be offering 20 different steels in the Subvert, for example. I think the longer blade of the endura also is better for witnessing the properties of the steel in use. Longer blades allow for draw cuts on bigger materials, need sharpening less, and give you more info when you inspect the edge for damage after extended use. Just my worthless 2 cents.

[Wartstein]

If someone wanted a folding mule project, you'd probably want to suggest a popular and relatively affordable model. Maybe we'll see how the Endela does. The Endura would be perfect if it was made in both Seki City AND Golden. Spyderco can't be offering 20 different steels in the Subvert, for example. I think the longer blade of the endura also is better for witnessing the properties of the steel in use. Longer blades allow for draw cuts on bigger materials, need sharpening less, and give you more info when you inspect the edge for damage after extended use. Just my worthless 2 cents.

I also think the Endela would be a perfect choice probably (even proposed that in this thread already, or maybe in another one). Personally and purely selfishly I' d also prefer the Endura, but more people could live with the Endela I figure and also more people could carry it legally.