FRN Take Over...

[nerdlock]

Spyderhawk on the left, Native 5 on the right.







:confused:



Could I do that with sandpaper on the Native 5? Probably. Should I have to? Absolutely not.

Precisely why I'm not a big fan of the Native LW design...aside from the no PB washers, the edge is uncomfortable for me to use for an extended period of time.

[PaloArt]

Very good topic @Spyderman91

Frankly I really like FRN handles and I found myself reaching for LW Spydies more often than my CF or G10 handled ones. I like the different textures and how FRN behaves - pretty strong, lightweight, easy to clean and many options for colours and textures...

I would be even super happy if there was something like Ultra Lightweight Delica in the style of older linerless models. You know no liners, super light, pointy, VG10 in FFR or ultra high hollow grind and little bit lower price point - getting back to basics and origins of the design. Of course this will not happen and some might say we have Salt series in LC200N but one can dream... right @Sal? :rolleyes:

[kobold]

As a point of clarity, the bolded portion is incorrect per material data from Matweb for Nylon 6/6 30% and a material cut sheet for G-10 epoxy fiberglass composite from Laminated Plastics.

Nylon 6/6 30% is a common FRN, and on the very top end of a wide range, has significantly less tensile strength (29 ksi) than G-10 (38ksi crosswise, 45ksi lengthwise). Of course design matters as well as material strength, but having both types of designs, I don't see any real strength advantage for the FRN designs.

I think FRN is mostly a manufacturing cost reduction technique, as is liner deletion. Honestly my G-10 knives with or without liners, and FRN knives with liners tend to be smoother and easier to adjust to a good balance of minimal blade play and smooth action than my linerless FRN knives. I see the utility of linerless Salt knives, but for non-salt versions, liner deletion is a cost cutting measure IMO, that needs to be accompanied by a significant price cut for me to be interested.
[/quote]

Well said!!!

I think FRN on manix 2 size knives and larger is a bad choice.
[/quote]


Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10.

[Wartstein]

...
Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10.

Tbh, I don't understand the comment... :confused:

This whole thread shows that Spydercos FRN is superior over Spydercos G10 in almost every aspect, also in strength... (see especially Michael Janichs comments)

[Gtscotty]

...
Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10.

Tbh, I don't understand the comment... :confused:

This whole thread shows that Spydercos FRN is superior over Spydercos G10 in almost every aspect, also in strength... (see especially Michael Janichs comments)

Where is that shown? G-10 is still stronger than FRN in and out of plane from a basic material perspective. I missed the earlier page about discussion on small feature chipping in G-10 due to its anisotropic nature. I've never had that issue on any of my knives, but I can see how it would be a consideration when designing scales for a certain material.

I disagree that FRN is superior in almost every aspect. It's certainly cheaper to get shaped scales in FRN than G-10, but I prefer the stiffness and feel of shaped G-10. I have also noticed that the action on structural FRN knives I own is not as smooth or as easy to tune for easy operation and minimum blade play as my G-10, Ti, FRN+liner knives.

[Evil D]

I think you guys are debating a moot point. Both materials will likely see the scale screws rip out or break or break the blade or pivot screws before the material itself fails. I would expect FRN to deform first though and G10 to crack.

[Notsurewhy]

I like both materials and people are obviously allowed to prefer whichever for whatever reason. But for all of you who are worried about the strength of Spyderco frn vs g10, please share any stories or pictures of your failed/broken frn handles. I've heard of injection moulded handles from other manufacturers failing, but never Spyderco. I'm genuinely curious to see if people have broken them (I'm sure someone had found a way).

[Matus]

I would say that it takes some serious, repeated abuse to get a well designed knife (and that is what I consider Spyderco knives to be) with either FRN or G10 handle to fail. In direct comparison the relevant difference is the stiffness (from my limited experience I have the impression that FRN flexes more easily) and the feel in hand - plus the different techniques to create handles from these two materials. There is a reason why we don's see many (any?) really 3D shaped G10 handles on Spyderco knives and that is most likely the production cost as these need to be worked on by CNC milling machines. On the other hand the molds for FRN are not cheap, but then the running costs are apparently less then with G10.

I personally prefer the Feel of the G10 to FRN, but would pick well shaped handle over a flat-ish one.

[Gtscotty]

Hi james Y,

MAny moons ago, we realized that Zytel was a Trademarked name bu Dupont. We were using a different brand with way more glass in it. So we coined "Fiberglass reinforced Nylon - FRN" to be proper.

sal

I didn't realize there are as many Zytel versions as there seem to be, but from some of DuPont's cut sheets it looks like Ztyel is offered in up to at least 50% glass fill. Does Spyderco use a higher fill than that, and is Spyderco's FRN the same between Seki, Golden, China, etc?

I've been assuming common Nylon 6/6 30% is probably what Spyderco FRN is, maybe that's off base?

Edit: Wow, over a hundred varieties of Zytel, it looks like glass reinforced Zytel goes from 13% up to 50% fill, although there are unreinforced and Kevlar reinforced versions as well. I think the common 30% fill is probably still a good guess, that would qualify as way more glass fill than the lower end 13% - 20% Zytels.

[sal]

Some confusion? Our FRN has more glass that Dupont Zytel, not our G-10.

sal

[Evil D]

Some confusion? Our FRN has more glass that Dupont Zytel, not our G-10.

sal

I'm sure you can't share but we would all love to know where knives fail, for example if you take the Chief that's both linerless in FRN and G10 models, which one failed first in stress tests and specifically how did they fail?

You'd be opening Pandora's box and people would run with that info and proclaim one material superior than the other for the rest of time lol.

[Wartstein]

Where is that shown? G-10 is still stronger than FRN in and out of plane from a basic material perspective. I missed the earlier page about discussion on small feature chipping in G-10 due to its anisotropic nature. I've never had that issue on any of my knives, but I can see how it would be a consideration when designing scales for a certain material.

I disagree that FRN is superior in almost every aspect. It's certainly cheaper to get shaped scales in FRN than G-10, but I prefer the stiffness and feel of shaped G-10. I have also noticed that the action on structural FRN knives I own is not as smooth or as easy to tune for easy operation and minimum blade play as my G-10, Ti, FRN+liner knives.

First and foremost: David is right, practically speaking FRN and G10 are both more than strong enough, and the "strength" -debate is purely theoretical.

But I was replying to your post (quote) [EDIT: Aplogies, it was not YOUR post Gtscotty!] : "Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10."

- As far as I see it, Sal actually said that their FRN features more glass (fibres) than Zytel or other "FRN" and so their FRN most likely is stronger than "other FRN"

- As soon as one wants an actual handle with shaped parts, FRN obviously is superior over G10, referring to Michael Janichs posts in this thread (and what counts in knives is the material in handle form, not in raw form. Otherwise I could for example also say "glass is harder than VG10" but shaped and used as a blade glass still can´t take what VG10 can...)
Let me quote him:
- "Even if G-10 was machined to replicate the detail of an injection-molded part, it's layered construction wouldn't handle the stresses in the same way".
- "G-10 is basically a fiberglass/epoxy laminate--many layers of fiberglass soaked in epoxy and then cured under high pressure. When you machine it--especially with fine details, right-angle pockets, etc.--you create weak points where the G-10 can delaminate. FRN molded into the same shape as a homogenous piece does not have this same challenge. It's not just the overall strength of the material, but the shape of the part that counts."

Now for the other aspects where I think this thread shows FRN is superior:

- Quoting Mr Janich again: "One often overlooked advantage of FRN is that it also offers better grip texture than peel-ply G-10 and that texture can be fine-tuned to be directional, which reduces both drag during the draw and wear and tear on pockets."
- FRN is lighter than G10
- As soon as molds are made, FRN is much easier and cheaper shaped into contoured forms than G10 in the production process
- The above is also true for features like the smooth spot on the handle where the clip lands, which further reduces pocket wear
- And still FRN knives are even cheaper than their G10 versions...

So I personally don´t see much that speaks for G10, as soon as a folder is produced in higher numbers so that the molds pay for themselves - except of course subjective reasons, like that someone just prefers looks and feel in hand of G10.

[Gtscotty]

I would say that it takes some serious, repeated abuse to get a well designed knife (and that is what I consider Spyderco knives to be) with either FRN or G10 handle to fail. In direct comparison the relevant difference is the stiffness (from my limited experience I have the impression that FRN flexes more easily) and the feel in hand - plus the different techniques to create handles from these two materials. There is a reason why we don's see many (any?) really 3D shaped G10 handles on Spyderco knives and that is most likely the production cost as these need to be worked on by CNC milling machines. On the other hand the molds for FRN are not cheap, but then the running costs are apparently less then with G10.

I personally prefer the Feel of the G10 to FRN, but would pick well shaped handle over a flat-ish one.

I would agree all around, I do prefer the feel of milled G-10 or even better Ti to FRN of any shape. I'm sure the marginal cost of producing another scale is MUCH cheaper for FRN than milled G-10 or Ti even though initial investment in dies is large. Subjectively to me the knives below feel much nicer in hand than my FRN knives. The top two are US made and I didn't pay more than $120 for either new, so I'm guessing the cost of CNC milling scales, while higher than squirting Nylon, isn't prohibitive.



Looking at a cross section of my Spydercos below, it seems to me that G-10 or FRN, they are all pretty slab-ish. Most of the contouring on the FRN is to break edges and add texturing, which is value added, but it's not like there is a huge difference in the shape of most Spyderco FRN scales and G-10 scales. In my opinion the contouring on the Seki models is the best, but maybe more will be done across the board in the future (hopefully the FRN Shaman isn't slabby).

[Gtscotty]

Where is that shown? G-10 is still stronger than FRN in and out of plane from a basic material perspective. I missed the earlier page about discussion on small feature chipping in G-10 due to its anisotropic nature. I've never had that issue on any of my knives, but I can see how it would be a consideration when designing scales for a certain material.

I disagree that FRN is superior in almost every aspect. It's certainly cheaper to get shaped scales in FRN than G-10, but I prefer the stiffness and feel of shaped G-10. I have also noticed that the action on structural FRN knives I own is not as smooth or as easy to tune for easy operation and minimum blade play as my G-10, Ti, FRN+liner knives.

First and foremost: David is right, practically speaking FRN and G10 are both more than strong enough, and the "strength" -debate is purely theoretical.

But I was replying to your post (quote) [EDIT: Aplogies, it was not YOUR post Gtscotty!] : "Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10."

- As far as I see it, Sal actually said that their FRN features more glass (fibres) than Zytel or other "FRN" and so their FRN most likely is stronger than "other FRN"

- As soon as one wants an actual handle with shaped parts, FRN obviously is superior over G10, referring to Michael Janichs posts in this thread (and what counts in knives is the material in handle form, not in raw form. Otherwise I could for example also say "glass is harder than VG10" but shaped and used as a blade glass still can´t take what VG10 can...)
Let me quote him:
- "Even if G-10 was machined to replicate the detail of an injection-molded part, it's layered construction wouldn't handle the stresses in the same way".
- "G-10 is basically a fiberglass/epoxy laminate--many layers of fiberglass soaked in epoxy and then cured under high pressure. When you machine it--especially with fine details, right-angle pockets, etc.--you create weak points where the G-10 can delaminate. FRN molded into the same shape as a homogenous piece does not have this same challenge. It's not just the overall strength of the material, but the shape of the part that counts."

Now for the other aspects where I think this thread shows FRN is superior:

- Quoting Mr Janich again: "One often overlooked advantage of FRN is that it also offers better grip texture than peel-ply G-10 and that texture can be fine-tuned to be directional, which reduces both drag during the draw and wear and tear on pockets."
- FRN is lighter than G10
- As soon as molds are made, FRN is much easier and cheaper shaped into contoured forms than G10 in the production process
- The above is also true for features like the smooth spot on the handle where the clip lands, which further reduces pocket wear
- And still FRN knives are even cheaper than their G10 versions...

So I personally don´t see much that speaks for G10, as soon as a folder is produced in higher numbers so that the molds pay for themselves - except of course subjective reasons, like that someone just prefers looks and feel in hand of G10.

I don't disagree that both are strong enough given appropriate design, what bothers me is opinion stated as fact which is what this is:

This whole thread shows that Spydercos FRN is superior over Spydercos G10 in almost every aspect, also in strength... (see especially Michael Janichs comments)

Michael's statements were that basically that the anisotropic characteristics of G-10 must be taken into account when designing features, and isotropic FRN has some design advantages in this regard. This is objectively true, but I didn't see him jump to generalities similar to the above statement, and there's probably a reason for that.

If it was really as simple as "Spyderco's FRN is superior over Spyderco's G-10 in almost every aspect" ask yourself: Why does a company like Spyderco offer G-10 at all? Why are none of their highest end knives FRN?

It seems to me that your list of aspects that you believe make FRN superior to G-10 are all variances of either "it's lighter" or "it's cheaper", both of which are objectively true on the surface. Nylon 6/6 30% is about 30% lighter than G-10 for volume, although specific strength for G-10 out of plane is about the same and in plane is higher, so depending on design and anticipated loads, a same strength G-10 section could conceivably be lighter. Incorrectly or cheaply done G-10 can be a pocket shredder, just like incorrectly or cheaply done textured FRN scales.

So I agree that FRN is cheaper and possibly lighter. As I said earlier in the thread, I think cost is the main benefit of FRN (assuming appropriate design), and that's not a bad thing if some of the savings are passed to the customer.

[Wartstein]

I don't disagree that both are strong enough given appropriate design, what bothers me is opinion stated as fact which is what this is:

This whole thread shows that Spydercos FRN is superior over Spydercos G10 in almost every aspect, also in strength... (see especially Michael Janichs comments)

Michael's statements were that basically that the anisotropic characteristics of G-10 must be taken into account when designing features, and isotropic FRN has some design advantages in this regard. This is objectively true, but I didn't see him jump to generalities similar to the above statement, and there's probably a reason for that.

If it was really as simple as "Spyderco's FRN is superior over Spyderco's G-10 in almost every aspect" ask yourself: Why does a company like Spyderco offer G-10 at all? Why are none of their highest end knives FRN?

It seems to me that your list of aspects that you believe make FRN superior to G-10 are all variances of either "it's lighter" or "it's cheaper", both of which are objectively true on the surface. Nylon 6/6 30% is about 30% lighter than G-10 for volume, although specific strength for G-10 out of plane is about the same and in plane is higher, so depending on design and anticipated loads, a same strength G-10 section could conceivably be lighter. Incorrectly or cheaply done G-10 can be a pocket shredder, just like incorrectly or cheaply done textured FRN scales.

So I agree that FRN is cheaper and possibly lighter. As I said earlier in the thread, I think cost is the main benefit of FRN (assuming appropriate design), and that's not a bad thing if some of the savings are passed to the customer.

Good points, thanks for pointing out that I did generalize too much indeed (and I can see that you know a lot more about material science than I do)

My original response was triggered by Kobolds comment (quote): "Additionally, Sal wrote that the G10 Spyderco is using is better than regular G10 because it contains 30% (IIRC) more fiber. So this places FRN even further below Spyderco G10."(viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89908&start=100#p1532387)

This was surprising to me, since the thread actually took pretty much the direction of listing advantages of FRN - including "strength", "durability" "impact resistance" whatever one might call it (I am not a Native speaker and don´t know the exact term).

"In almost all aspects": I still think the thread shows that FRN IS superior indeed, when we are talking about models that are produced in high numbers and seen from the standpoint of the manufacturer - easier and a lot less labour intensive (as soon as the molds exist!) to give the handle a certain, contoured shape, the rounded, shaped, injection molded areas probably a bit more impact resistance than "shaped" G10, and all in lighter weight and for a lower price / lower costs.

To your question "Why does a company like Spyderco offer G-10 at all? Why are none of their highest end knives FRN?":

I don´t think that possible higher strength of G10 is the reason here.
I am pretty sure this is because customers don´t connect "hightest end" with "FRN" - I think "highest end" FRN knives would not sell as good as "highest end" G10 (or wood, or Micarta, or...) knives.
Another factor: Perhaps the highest end - and by that very expensive - models do not sell in high enough numbers to make FRN molds an option in the first place?! Just a guess.

Actually, the Chaparral is a "higher end" (not "highEST end) Spydie for me. I think in (build) quality the FRN version of it is every bit as good as the wood, G10, raffir noble... versions, but the FRN Chap is cheaper and probably PERCEIVED as "cheaper" and "less high end" by many.
So I think this is to a large part also a "psychological issue": Knife companies just can´t place an FRN knife as "highest end", even if it actually is in quality, cause customers would not perceive it like that?!

[skeeg11]

Both good handle materials and everyone has a good reason for their personal choice. I'm fine with either, but when it comes to linerless designs, that's a different story. Lock rock slop may have little effect on actual functionality when slicing things, but it is annoying to us OCD types. It seems that Seki City linerless FRN Salts are much more prone to lock rock slop than linerless G10 which is why I lobbied for a fully serrated LC200N Siren. There a gazillion linerless FRN fans out there for good reason so no offense intended, but for this reason alone I favor linerless G10 over linerless FRN.

[skeeg11]

P. S.

I have no intention of giving up my linerless serrated LC200N Pac Salt 2.

[notfixingit]

Dear notfixingit:

Welcome to the Spyderco Forum.

The properties of G-10 and FRN are very different. For knives that have full stainless steel liners, it's not an issue. For knives that are purpose-designed around lightweight handles--like the Para 3 Lightweight--it's much more complicated than simply offering G-10 replacement scales for the FRN handles. Even if G-10 was machined to replicate the detail of an injection-molded part, it's layered construction wouldn't handle the stresses in the same way.

Stay safe,

Mike

Thank you Mike, makes sense now that you explain it and after watching someone clean a Para 3 LW. Even know I'm just not a fan of the FRN, I"ll probably still keep using/buying them, assuming they can be taken apart and cleaned at least.. Any chance there will be a future version of the manix 2 lw that won't use rivets?

[Ngati Pom]

This has been quite an interesting thread and it has made me wonder…
With the many textures available, think UKPK, Salt, Chaparral and Native lw’s, and colours for FRN. Why can’t FRN be used as a scale material in a similar way to G10? To provide choices otherwise unavailable on their more popular models.
Lightweights and Salts aside, this would allow Spyderco to use their existing hardware for say the Para3 and offer a moulded G10 textured rounder contoured scale on the existing platform utilising FRN or provide grippier bi-directional/coloured scales on an existing linered model.
This, if used on the better selling models, could offer the best of both worlds and ultimately may reduce costs.

[mark greenman]

Looking at a cross section of my Spydercos below, it seems to me that G-10 or FRN, they are all pretty slab-ish. Most of the contouring on the FRN is to break edges and add texturing, which is value added, but it's not like there is a huge difference in the shape of most Spyderco FRN scales and G-10 scales. In my opinion the contouring on the Seki models is the best, but maybe more will be done across the board in the future (hopefully the FRN Shaman isn't slabby).

For some models, 'slabish' / flat is the way to go, to keep the knife as unobtrusive in the pocket as possible. The Delica and Endura come to mind here.

But I agree, for other models, it would be good to see Spyderco experiment more with '3D' grip designs that incorporate some sculpting / palm swells etc into the traditional flat side the handle.

The Spyderco Native III, for example, incorporated 3D sculpting into the FRN design. Native III is the Blue one:





I think going more heavily into 3D ergonomics is one way to make FRN seem more premium / less of a step down then G10.

A great and successful 3D ergonomics design is the Walther PPQ. Whereas the Glock is basically a 2D slab handle design, the PPQ incorporates a lot of curvature and palm swell in the side of the handle, rather then just the front and backstap of the grip. If you go to a gun shop and hold the two side by side, the PPQ's ergos are night and day superior, despite both pistols being polymer framed striker fired 9x19's.