"HRC as advertised." Who is accurately listing HRC?

[Ankerson]

Am I understanding correctly that you’re saying that:

Same composition
higher hrc
Same secondary edge angle

Consistently out performing

Same composition
Same secondary edge angle
Lower hrc

To a point where I can predict that it will happen again, and replicate it

Despite

Cardboard variability
Different user

That the ability to accurately predict the result has no value?

Exactly.

Too many variables.

You could put those same knives done the way you did it and put them on CATRA and get different results.

Can't make a prediction on something that is bad data to begin with.

The knives have to be exactly the same to start with to compare them.

Same sharpness level that can be and is measured as a starting point that doesn't change.

Same thickness behind the edge, measured thickness, within say .002".

Same edge finish, exactly the same done on the same stones.

Same edge angles that are measured, done on a guided system like the Edge Pro or Wicked Edge.

Have a stopping point that can be measured and doesn't change.

Have testing media that is consistent.

Have set data points that are measured and can be measured as the testing is going on that don't change.


There is a lot more to that just sitting there an cutting cardboard until a blade won't slice paper if you actually want valid results.

That is a massive variable in itself, why didn't the blade slice the paper, could be for number of reasons that don't have anything to do with the HRC hardness of the blade.

And with no set stopping point that can be measured or is measured..... Massive.....

[Banter 247]

I’m going to disagree, because our goal is to determine patterns that are predictable and repeatable, in the form of ranges, *despite* the variables.

If I can predict and replicate a range 100 or 1,000 times, then I’m willing to leverage that pattern to make a non-critical decision.

[Ankerson]

I’m going to disagree, because our goal is to determine patterns that are predictable and repeatable, in the form of ranges, *despite* the variables.

If I can predict and replicate a range 100 or 1,000 times, then I’m willing to leverage that pattern to make a non-critical decision.

What you are doing is not knife testing.

It's math, you are projecting the data to a predetermined result.

Sorry but what you are doing and the way you are doing isn't accurate enough for anything else.

You can disagree all you want, but in the end all you are doing is fooling yourself.

Others have used that method in the past, and they have been told the same thing.

Doing math is not knife testing.

I have seen blades with the lower HRC perform better than those with higher HRC, all else was equal.

And I have seen it on more than a few occasions.

There is no predetermined anything in knife testing.

[Pelagic]

All I can say is wow, lol

[The Meat man]

Um... So what's the take-away from all this?
:confused: :rolleyes:

[Ankerson]

All I can say is wow, lol

Well someone had to say it.

Just repeating what we said years ago, and it doesn't change.

[Ankerson]

Um... So what's the take-away from all this?
:confused: :rolleyes:

Well, the method is really flawed, the reason why it's not used in general as the only form of testing.

Cardboard is OK as one of many forms media used in conjunction with others, but not by itself for any sort of meaningful results.

So I would take it with a grain of salt at best.

Just throwing's more data at something doesn't make it more accurate or valid, in math yes, but in testing only cutting down the variables makes it more accurate.

That's why I said they are doing math, not testing.

For academics or math geeks throwing more data at something is a good thing in the classroom, but that's as far as it goes.

For people that are doing the work, the real testing and cutting down the variables like they should be are really actually testing.

[Pelagic]

Well I guess I can say more than wow.

Jim, I don't want to offend you, insult your intelligence, or seem ignorant to your INCREDIBLE contributions to the knife community.

But.

You're SERIOUSLY downplaying the importance of high hardness in the realm of performance.

Repeatable results are repeatable results. These tests are numerous and performed in one take with no edits. What if I said to you:

"Why are people talking about edge finish so much... There are so many variables that it basically renders it obsolete." and then listed over a dozen actually important variables.

I'd be a fool. Because listing a ton of variables doesn't make one variable obsolete. That is ludicrous.

You have a knife that is 64hrc and a knife that is 59hrc, all other variables the same. At the end of the day, the 59hrc blade is more similar to being made out of Play-doh than the knife at 64hrc.

I wasn't even going to say anything, but the tone of your posts were somewhat disrespectful to banter 247. You know, there are other people in this community that are dedicated and knowledgeable other than yourself.

This is just my opinion, and I've recently been informed that I'm a nobody. So take everything here at face value.

[Ankerson]

Well I guess I can say more than wow.

Jim, I don't want to offend you, insult your intelligence, or seem ignorant to your INCREDIBLE contributions to the knife community.

But.

You're SERIOUSLY downplaying the importance of high hardness in the realm of performance.

Repeatable results are repeatable results. These tests are numerous and performed in one take with no edits. What if I said to you:

"Why are people talking about edge finish so much... There are so many variables that it basically renders it obsolete." and then listed over a dozen actually important variables.

I'd be a fool. Because listing a ton of variables doesn't make one variable obsolete. That is ludicrous.

You have a knife that is 63hrc and a knife that is 59hrc, all other variables the same. At the end of the day, the 59hrc blade is more similar to being made out of Play-doh than the knife at 64hrc.

I wasn't even going to say anything, but the tone of your posts were somewhat disrespectful to banter 247. You know, there are other people in this community that are dedicated and knowledgeable other than yourself.

This is just my opinion, and I've recently been informed that I'm a nobody. So take everything here at face value.

HRC hardness is one variable.

It can be important, but not the most important or even the most relevant.

I have been saying it for YEARS.

Everything matters.

There are too many variables even with two blades that are the same HRC hardness to ignore all of the others in testing. The HT could be different, the geometry etc some things can make a rather large difference in the results.

Start talking about HRC differences along with all of the other variables combined and we could have thousands of percentage points in difference.

Just in the testing method itself.

The variables have to be cut down to the min so the smaller variations show up in the results.

Repeatable results at what scope?

Ignoring the variables generates bad data from the start.

This is not math class.

[Pelagic]

I totally get that point. But wouldn't it be a bizarre coincidence that significantly higher HRC virtually always leads to better cut tests results (tests attempt to minimize unwanted variables)?

Keep in mind, no test is perfect.

[Ankerson]

I totally get that point. But wouldn't it be a bizarre coincidence that significantly higher HRC virtually always leads to better cut tests results (tests attempt to minimize unwanted variables)?

Keep in mind, no test is perfect.

Yes, you are correct.

But not all time though, that's why we test to make sure the HT is right and the blades do what they should be doing.

Sometimes they don't, and if the testing isn't accurate in the 1st place it will get missed and that is NOT good.

There are no perfect tests, all we can do is make them as accurate as we can. :)

[Pelagic]

I don't want you to think everyone is going HRC crazy. Maybe someone out there would buy a s30v knife listed as 69HRC, but I wouldn't. All these concerns are assuming the HT retains the vast majority of the steel's integrity (strength and apex stability) from a cutting performance standpoint, with also considerable hard use ability (demonstrated by Big Brown Bear hammering through 16 PENNY nails with 67HRC 15V with so little edge damage that it isn't visible on camera).

[The Meat man]

Keep in mind, no test is perfect.

Yes. I think there is a lot of value in tests that do have a lot of variables.
Get rid of all the variables, and what you have is a CATRA test.

CATRA testing isn't real life though. Real life has lots of variables that you can't always quantify and define. I would think that testing a knife in those environments will more accurately, on average, reflect real life use than a CATRA machine.

The key words are "on average". The more tests, the more data points, the clearer our understanding of how something will perform.

[Ankerson]

I don't want you to think everyone is going HRC crazy. Maybe someone out there would buy a s30v knife listed as 69HRC, but I wouldn't. All these concerns are assuming the HT retains the vast majority of the steel's integrity (strength and apex stability) from a cutting performance standpoint, with also considerable hard use ability (demonstrated by Big Brown Bear hammering through 16 PENNY nails with 67HRC 15V with so little edge damage that it isn't visible on camera).

I know what you mean, I have done the same things with 10V, S30V, S110V over time with little edge damage, there will always be some at the apex, no way around that really visible or not.

Sounds to me like some have had some issues with M390 etc and it got blown way out of proportion like a lot of things seem to these days.

[Pelagic]

While I can agree to that, the PRICE for m390 and its sister steels are blown out of proportion. It's not like anyone's saying "I entered my VG-10 into a cutting contest at Blade Show 2019 and it didn't win!!!!" Lol. Plus, as far as the masses go, the true potential of m390 (at a high hardness that is still very strong) is only beginning to be recognized.

[sal]

In our search including building our own machines for testing, we have found the CATRA to be the method that tries to control the variables of motion, pressure and material. angle of cut is always 90 degrees. We cut all of our test mules to the same size, thickness grind, edge thickness and the robot sharpens them to the same angle. Hardness varies depending on the steel used. It's the best we've found, but we still like other testing and testers to help confirm the conclusions.

sal

[Skywalker]

While I can agree to that, the PRICE for m390 and its sister steels are blown out of proportion.

As far as price goes for Spydercos - prices for M390/204P/20CV generally seem to be a $20-30 premium over the base models. A couple of the recent Para2 sprints I think might've been less than that while BBS is maybe a bit more at $180 for the initial Para 2 runs and $190 for the most recent.

For knives that are anywhere from ~$80 (Delica) to ~$200 (Domino) to begin with, I personally find that $20-30 premium to be reasonable for the increased performance over VG10 or S30V or XHP that the M390/204P have provided.

What do other people feel it's worth? How does the M390 premium compare to the S110V premium, or Maxamet premium, or ZDP-189 premium (since I think those are the other most common "upgrade over base model" steels for Spyderco right now)?

[Ankerson]

EDIT...

[Ankerson]

While I can agree to that, the PRICE for m390 and its sister steels are blown out of proportion. It's not like anyone's saying "I entered my VG-10 into a cutting contest at Blade Show 2019 and it didn't win!!!!" Lol. Plus, as far as the masses go, the true potential of m390 (at a high hardness that is still very strong) is only beginning to be recognized.

I did some high hardness testing of M390 personally long ago and in a few different blades.

NONE of them were production blades.

[Ankerson]

While I can agree to that, the PRICE for m390 and its sister steels are blown out of proportion. It's not like anyone's saying "I entered my VG-10 into a cutting contest at Blade Show 2019 and it didn't win!!!!" Lol. Plus, as far as the masses go, the true potential of m390 (at a high hardness that is still very strong) is only beginning to be recognized.

The steels cost MORE as in the raw materials and some of them also cost more to work with. Some also have more premium handle materials.

So the knives cost more.

There is no way around that.