Another thread for discussing a Chaparral XL - now that it came one step closer to becoming a reality

[TimButterfield]

How does G-10 take a dye? Similar to FRN? If it's ivory, I may want to darken it a bit. While it could be cleaned, the ivory/damas Urban I had marked up easily.

[Flash]

G-10 would be fantastic. FRN would be alright too, but mainly G-10.
I’m done paying through the nose for fancy scale materials now.

I’d like to talk about the steel now please. Mainly Magnacut, but could it not have CTS-XHP if that’s ok? It’s alright but been done to death on the Chaparral now and it takes on rust too easily.
I’m done with rusty stainless steel now I’ve tried the non-rusty stainless steel.

[PaloArt]

The rest of us were so excited that we were dancing in the streets, so we were too busy to comment!!

got it! I Should have joined you instead of writing silly comments

I am just too excited about this

[PaloArt]

I was thinking ivory G-10 like some of he other "test" models?

sal

I am in regardless of G-10 color, but I sure do like Forest Green a lot.

+1 on forest green as that one is not assigned to any specific steel if I am not mistaken… ivory g10 would be good too but forest green sounds dreamy

[Red Leader]

After getting my first taste of using this little guy, I am all on board for a 3.5” XL version w/same thickness, 100%.

Not gonna lie, I don’t think it would be hugely popular, but if we are talking absolute performance, then I cannot think of anything better and would support the project with my $$.

[Wartstein]

After getting my first taste of using this little guy, I am all on board for a 3.5” XL version w/same thickness, 100%.

Not gonna lie, I don’t think it would be hugely popular, but if we are talking absolute performance, then I cannot think of anything better and would support the project with my $$.

Right?

I almost can´t imagine that anyone who loves knives as actual high performance cutting tools and tries a Chap (especially in SE) would NOT want to see an elongated version of this model, especially the not too thick blade in an even more cutting efficient, longer format.

And it is still a joy, but actually no surprise how pretty much everyone (I can recall only one exception) who tried and posted about the Chap SE is really happy with its performance! Even more so, since among those folks are clearly some guys who do use their folders a lot and know what they are talking about.

[Wartstein]

We discussed making a run yesterday.

sal

Seems like I missed some important and great news while I took a little break from the forum till quite recently...

I´ve been dreaming about and advocating for a Chap XL for more than six years now, so this naturally sounds really good to my ears

.....And imo ivory G10 would be very nice!

Let´s hope that the project will actually come to life...

[elena86]

We discussed making a run yesterday.

sal

Seems like I missed some important and great news while I took a little break from the forum till quite recently...

I´ve been dreaming about and advocating for a Chap XL for more than six years now, so this naturally sounds really good to my ears

.....And imo ivory G10 would be very nice!

Let´s hope that the project will actually come to life...

I am mostly interested in a variant with teeth.I remember Sal mentioned something about this.

[horzuff]

To me, as long as the blade thickness stays the same, I'm up for any steel+handle combo. Would be really cool in cobalt blue g10+spy27 or some purplish color CF + magnamax, but any modern PM steel + any synthetic handle will be good enough

[Wartstein]

To me, as long as the blade thickness stays the same, I'm up for any steel+handle combo. Would be really cool in cobalt blue g10+spy27 or some purplish color CF + magnamax, but any modern PM steel + any synthetic handle will be good enough

Still the most important thing to me: 2mm stock on an ideally 3.5 " blade... and a not too fine tip, so make it roughly like the current Chap leaf shape tip.
Steel / handle material / color not that important to me. (Handle thinness but still the bombproof Chap-construction is something I´d very much like to see in an XL version though).

[Red Leader]

... and a not too fine tip, so make it roughly like the current Chap leaf shape tip.

Couple thoughts. One, I was thinking about this the other day with an elongated version. I think it would also have to be slightly taller, not just longer. Imagine how you resize an image, and just doing that to the blade - it gets slightly bigger in every dimension. I think you would have to do that, because if you just make the same shape longer, the tip gets more acute as only one dimension (length) would change, versus making it ever so slightly taller to maintain the same tip angle.

The other thought...and this starts getting a bit more into the weeds, is the topic of blade toughness when thickness is considered. I think Larrin discusses this at length in his book. When you start getting thinner, the stock has more elasticity...think of those thin kitchen knifes, which can bend all over the place without breaking. Versus a thick stock which does not seem to bend at all, but resists those bending forces via its strength derived from thickness.

I'm not opposed to a thin blade at all, at long as it is not at risk of breaking under normal EDC type tasks. If it has some elasticity in these task, that is okay with me too, and may be the tradeoff for using such a thin stock.

My question is...is there a 'sweet spot' for a 2mm thick stock, where the thinness gives it the advantage of being able to bend and not break? We sometimes see those 'torture tests' where someone clamps a knife or sword in a vise and bends it a certain amount of degrees and we come away impressed because not breaking = toughness, which = good! However, the thinner a knife gets, the easier this is to achieve. Try this test with a basic machete, and heck the thing could probably be bent nearly 180 degrees without snapping - of course, it would probably take a massive set, but it wouldn't break.

I'd like to see whatever new Chap gets released, have this same property (of course, to a degree) whereby which the thin stock, instead of creating a more delicate blade, actually takes advantage of the properties of a thin stock and instead is able to flex under load instead of snap. That would put a lot of confidence in the blade.

I'm sure this is a combination of parameters - blade shape, length, thickness, steel type, and heat treat being the primary ones. If the length (3.5") and the thickness (2.0mm) are set in stone, the the rest of the parameters to create a blade that is resistive to failure can be changed to find that best set of properties. I am okay with something completely different than XHP if it means enhancing these properties.

This could be the a really amazing knife. Something with the quality of the Taichung backlocks, but more friendly toward an EDC size. I could see why folks in this thread want to take exactly what the Chap is, and just increase the size. Out of all companies, I think Spyderco could be the one to do it.

[Wartstein]

... and a not too fine tip, so make it roughly like the current Chap leaf shape tip.

Couple thoughts. One, I was thinking about this the other day with an elongated version. I think it would also have to be slightly taller, not just longer. Imagine how you resize an image, and just doing that to the blade - it gets slightly bigger in every dimension. I think you would have to do that, because if you just make the same shape longer, the tip gets more acute as only one dimension (length) would change, versus making it ever so slightly taller to maintain the same tip angle.

The other thought...and this starts getting a bit more into the weeds, is the topic of blade toughness when thickness is considered. I think Larrin discusses this at length in his book. When you start getting thinner, the stock has more elasticity...think of those thin kitchen knifes, which can bend all over the place without breaking. Versus a thick stock which does not seem to bend at all, but resists those bending forces via its strength derived from thickness.

I'm not opposed to a thin blade at all, at long as it is not at risk of breaking under normal EDC type tasks. If it has some elasticity in these task, that is okay with me too, and may be the tradeoff for using such a thin stock.

My question is...is there a 'sweet spot' for a 2mm thick stock, where the thinness gives it the advantage of being able to bend and not break? We sometimes see those 'torture tests' where someone clamps a knife or sword in a vise and bends it a certain amount of degrees and we come away impressed because not breaking = toughness, which = good! However, the thinner a knife gets, the easier this is to achieve. Try this test with a basic machete, and heck the thing could probably be bent nearly 180 degrees without snapping - of course, it would probably take a massive set, but it wouldn't break.

I'd like to see whatever new Chap gets released, have this same property (of course, to a degree) whereby which the thin stock, instead of creating a more delicate blade, actually takes advantage of the properties of a thin stock and instead is able to flex under load instead of snap. That would put a lot of confidence in the blade.

I'm sure this is a combination of parameters - blade shape, length, thickness, steel type, and heat treat being the primary ones. If the length (3.5") and the thickness (2.0mm) are set in stone, the the rest of the parameters to create a blade that is resistive to failure can be changed to find that best set of properties. I am okay with something completely different than XHP if it means enhancing these properties.

This could be the a really amazing knife. Something with the quality of the Taichung backlocks, but more friendly toward an EDC size. I could see why folks in this thread want to take exactly what the Chap is, and just increase the size. Out of all companies, I think Spyderco could be the one to do it.

Good points!
My thoughts on those:

- Tip angle:
I totally get what you mean, exactly this is what happens from Native 5 to Chief, right? - Blade gets "only" elongated, but not taller, and thus the Chief has a pointier tip.
BUT: I think there is no law that forbids to just change the angle towards the tip of a longer Chap, resp. give it a bit more "drop" in the spine curve (and perhaps also the edge curve) in order to create a similar tip to the one the current small Chap has? (Of course there probably would still more tapering going on concerning blade thickness which could make the tip of a Chap XL more acute again).
It seems in the game "change as little as possible except length" one has to choose between a different "curve" or a taller blade...

- "Flex": I am pretty sure that a 3.5 ffg blade in 2mm stock would actually not really be "flexy" in the Chap leaf shape.
The small current Chaps 2.8 blade feels pretty rigid, and I think this would not change by very much in a 3.5 version - actually many oldtimer knives or also Opinels have thin (or even thinner) stock in similar length and work well for any reasonable knife task.
... The "flex instead of break" property is an interesting input though indeed! We´ll see, hopefully...

[Red Leader]

... and a not too fine tip, so make it roughly like the current Chap leaf shape tip.

Couple thoughts. One, I was thinking about this the other day with an elongated version. I think it would also have to be slightly taller, not just longer. Imagine how you resize an image, and just doing that to the blade - it gets slightly bigger in every dimension. I think you would have to do that, because if you just make the same shape longer, the tip gets more acute as only one dimension (length) would change, versus making it ever so slightly taller to maintain the same tip angle.

The other thought...and this starts getting a bit more into the weeds, is the topic of blade toughness when thickness is considered. I think Larrin discusses this at length in his book. When you start getting thinner, the stock has more elasticity...think of those thin kitchen knifes, which can bend all over the place without breaking. Versus a thick stock which does not seem to bend at all, but resists those bending forces via its strength derived from thickness.

I'm not opposed to a thin blade at all, at long as it is not at risk of breaking under normal EDC type tasks. If it has some elasticity in these task, that is okay with me too, and may be the tradeoff for using such a thin stock.

My question is...is there a 'sweet spot' for a 2mm thick stock, where the thinness gives it the advantage of being able to bend and not break? We sometimes see those 'torture tests' where someone clamps a knife or sword in a vise and bends it a certain amount of degrees and we come away impressed because not breaking = toughness, which = good! However, the thinner a knife gets, the easier this is to achieve. Try this test with a basic machete, and heck the thing could probably be bent nearly 180 degrees without snapping - of course, it would probably take a massive set, but it wouldn't break.

I'd like to see whatever new Chap gets released, have this same property (of course, to a degree) whereby which the thin stock, instead of creating a more delicate blade, actually takes advantage of the properties of a thin stock and instead is able to flex under load instead of snap. That would put a lot of confidence in the blade.

I'm sure this is a combination of parameters - blade shape, length, thickness, steel type, and heat treat being the primary ones. If the length (3.5") and the thickness (2.0mm) are set in stone, the the rest of the parameters to create a blade that is resistive to failure can be changed to find that best set of properties. I am okay with something completely different than XHP if it means enhancing these properties.

This could be the a really amazing knife. Something with the quality of the Taichung backlocks, but more friendly toward an EDC size. I could see why folks in this thread want to take exactly what the Chap is, and just increase the size. Out of all companies, I think Spyderco could be the one to do it.

Good points!
My thoughts on those:

- Tip angle:
I totally get what you mean, exactly this is what happens from Native 5 to Chief, right? - Blade gets "only" elongated, but not taller, and thus the Chief has a pointier tip.
BUT: I think there is no law that forbids to just change the angle towards the tip of a longer Chap, resp. give it a bit more "drop" in the spine curve (and perhaps also the edge curve) in order to create a similar tip to the one the current small Chap has? (Of course there probably would still more tapering going on concerning blade thickness which could make the tip of a Chap XL more acute again).
It seems in the game "change as little as possible except length" one has to choose between a different "curve" or a taller blade...

- "Flex": I am pretty sure that a 3.5 ffg blade in 2mm stock would actually not really be "flexy" in the Chap leaf shape.
The small current Chaps 2.8 blade feels pretty rigid, and I think this would not change by very much in a 3.5 version - actually many oldtimer knives or also Opinels have thin (or even thinner) stock in similar length and work well for any reasonable knife task.
... The "flex instead of break" property is an interesting input though indeed! We´ll see, hopefully...

The main thought is that with that thin of blade stock, I would rather have just a little flex then have it be so rigid that at that thinness, it just snaps. Perhaps that is a formula that Spyderco would have to play around w/ via different steels? I imagine that the heat treats on what they are doing is pretty baked in, so it would maybe have more to do w/ some minor design stuff, but mainly what type of steel.

The stakes are higher with a thinner, longer blade. I think probably moreso than other designs, picking the right steel for the design becomes paramount. For example, Maxamet would probably be the wrong choice lol. Zero flex before cracking on a 2mm 3.5" blade would probably not be a good match!

I don't know enough about the properties of XHP to make the suggestions. However, with 3V having some impressive toughness, I know that Synov did some interesting calculations on what would happen if you thinned out the stock quite a bit. Maybe this would be a good platform for a special heat treat recipe of a 3V equivalent?

[Wartstein]

...
The main thought is that with that thin of blade stock, I would rather have just a little flex then have it be so rigid that at that thinness, it just snaps. Perhaps that is a formula that Spyderco would have to play around w/ via different steels? I imagine that the heat treats on what they are doing is pretty baked in, so it would maybe have more to do w/ some minor design stuff, but mainly what type of steel.

The stakes are higher with a thinner, longer blade. I think probably moreso than other designs, picking the right steel for the design becomes paramount. For example, Maxamet would probably be the wrong choice lol. Zero flex before cracking on a 2mm 3.5" blade would probably not be a good match!

I don't know enough about the properties of XHP to make the suggestions. However, with 3V having some impressive toughness, I know that Synov did some interesting calculations on what would happen if you thinned out the stock quite a bit. Maybe this would be a good platform for a special heat treat recipe of a 3V equivalent?

Just tested the flex in my two Chaps, there is some if I force it, but nothing I think I could feel in any normal cutting task... really curious how the situation will/would be in a 3.5" version, but generally I am certain just fine or as you hope actually just the right amount of a bit flex to not be annoying, but also rather flex a bit instead of snapping.

2 mm on a 3.5" leaf shape blade generally is not really that thin imo, but could probably be rather optimal for the tasks a vast majority of folks actually do with their EDC folders... actually one main thing I´d hope a Chap XL can prove...

Just going by Larrins charts XHP is not that bad when it comes to toughness, right where S35VN sits (https://knifesteelnerds.com/2021/10/19/ ... esistance/),,,

A 3V Chap XL would be cool though indeed... I actually have 3V only in a small fixed blade of another brand and that blade can really take crazy abuse... (though honestly I test that deliberately, nothing I´d practically speaking ever do with a folder).

[Red Leader]

...
The main thought is that with that thin of blade stock, I would rather have just a little flex then have it be so rigid that at that thinness, it just snaps. Perhaps that is a formula that Spyderco would have to play around w/ via different steels? I imagine that the heat treats on what they are doing is pretty baked in, so it would maybe have more to do w/ some minor design stuff, but mainly what type of steel.

The stakes are higher with a thinner, longer blade. I think probably moreso than other designs, picking the right steel for the design becomes paramount. For example, Maxamet would probably be the wrong choice lol. Zero flex before cracking on a 2mm 3.5" blade would probably not be a good match!

I don't know enough about the properties of XHP to make the suggestions. However, with 3V having some impressive toughness, I know that Synov did some interesting calculations on what would happen if you thinned out the stock quite a bit. Maybe this would be a good platform for a special heat treat recipe of a 3V equivalent?

Just tested the flex in my two Chaps, there is some if I force it, but nothing I think I could feel in any normal cutting task... really curious how the situation will/would be in a 3.5" version, but generally I am certain just fine or as you hope actually just the right amount of a bit flex to not be annoying, but also rather flex a bit instead of snapping.

2 mm on a 3.5" leaf shape blade generally is not really that thin imo, but could probably be rather optimal for the tasks a vast majority of folks actually do with their EDC folders... actually one main thing I´d hope a Chap XL can prove...

Just going by Larrins charts XHP is not that bad when it comes to toughness, right where S35VN sits (https://knifesteelnerds.com/2021/10/19/ ... esistance/),,,

A 3V Chap XL would be cool though indeed... I actually have 3V only in a small fixed blade of another brand and that blade can really take crazy abuse... (though honestly I test that deliberately, nothing I´d practically speaking ever do with a folder).

You are a brave man to be flex testing your Chaps! I'd be a bit scared to! But yes, I most certainly would prefer a bit of flex, especially on that thin of blade stock, than to see it snap. Of course, the tougher the steel, the thinner you can likely go and still have some headroom with regard to toughness or resistance to breakage. I think that point was recently made that I read somewhere that is largely overlooked with those 'tough' steels - a lot of folks seek those out in making really beefy fixed blades, but where they should truly shine is in making super thin, slicey knife blades that still hold on to a good bit of toughness/ductility, which can then justify the extra thin-ness.

Could you imagine some serrated 3V blade stock at .060 @ 63-64HRC? I'd love to see some of this tested out.

[Wartstein]

....
You are a brave man to be flex testing your Chaps! I'd be a bit scared to! But yes, I most certainly would prefer a bit of flex, especially on that thin of blade stock, than to see it snap. Of course, the tougher the steel, the thinner you can likely go and still have some headroom with regard to toughness or resistance to breakage. I think that point was recently made that I read somewhere that is largely overlooked with those 'tough' steels - a lot of folks seek those out in making really beefy fixed blades, but where they should truly shine is in making super thin, slicey knife blades that still hold on to a good bit of toughness/ductility, which can then justify the extra thin-ness.

Could you imagine some serrated 3V blade stock at .060 @ 63-64HRC? I'd love to see some of this tested out.

Sorry, late reply...

I do think that going for thin, slicey blades that can still take pretty much everything people do with their EDC folders kind of truly reflects the " art of knife making". First and foremost because imo such blades perform better in a vast majority of cutting tasks than thicker ones (Purely from a performance point of view (!) for example I´ll never really get the thick blade stock of let´s say a Lil Native when one can have a Chap...)
And a good point to start definitely could be "tougher" steels like 3V. (And I have to add again: Leaving the actual tip not TOO fine with thin stock, cause this imo is the area where there is the highest risk that a blade might snap and so compromise what one could actually do with thin stock).

/ I only have one, rather thick bladed little 3V fixed blade, so I can´t really talk about that steel, but serrations in 0,60 (that would be about 1,5 mm) stock sounds good anyway...

/ Anyway I am convinced: If we´ll actually see a 3,5" Chap with still the 2,5 mm stock I am convinced that this will be strong enough for almost everything folks on this forum realistically do with their PM2s, Manixes, Endelas... it´ll just slice better

[horzuff]

As an example, I have the Drop Exclusive WE Praxis that's well over 3,5", 2,5mm thick S35VN blade with really slicy geometry and I never had any doubts it can take any knife task I want it to, not even mentioning any actual damage (there was none)

[Wartstein]

As an example, I have the Drop Exclusive WE Praxis that's well over 3,5", 2,5mm thick S35VN blade with really slicy geometry and I never had any doubts it can take any knife task I want it to, not even mentioning any actual damage (there was none)

Thanks for sharing this example, I think there are many more, not only, but especially when it comes to "oldtimer" / "traditional" knives.

I am quite certain:
If we see a "Chap XL" with a 3,5",

2,5 mm

[EDIT: of course 2.00 mm, not 2,5!!] stock blade and folks on this forum just use it for everything they actually already use their EDC folders right now, 99% will not have any issues and purely from a standpoint of slicing performance will see the benefits of such an a bit thinner blade (sure there are still other capacities where having a thicker blade can be nice)

[Flash]

I’d much prefer it to retain the 2mm stock.
2.5mm would still allow for a geometry similar to that of the UKPK or Delica but on a 3.5” blade, however its exceptional cutting ability the Chaparral is renowned for would be diminished - Still good but not definitively good.

Anything above 2.5mm is a non-starter for me as it’ll be too similar to the majority of The other Spyderco line up and would no longer offer anything unique - Just another back lock Spyderco.

It begs the question; has anyone actually damaged the edge of a Chaparral through normal use? - I know I havnt.

[Wartstein]

I’d much prefer it to retain the 2mm stock.
2.5mm would still allow for a geometry similar to that of the UKPK or Delica but on a 3.5” blade, however its exceptional cutting ability the Chaparral is renowned for would be diminished - Still good but not definitively good.

Anything above 2.5mm is a non-starter for me as it’ll be too similar to the majority of The other Spyderco line up and would no longer offer anything unique - Just another back lock Spyderco.

It begs the question; has anyone actually damaged the edge of a Chaparral through normal use? - I know I havnt.

Of course 2.00 mm!!

2.50 in my previous post was a typo, and it is almost comical that of all people it exactly happened to me...
... When I started advocating for a "Chap XL" sticking with the 2.00 mm ffg stock actually was the main point (and, yes, that this is rather unique in Spydercos line up)

/ I haven´t damaged blade or edge of my Chap... to me it actually is a pretty "hard use" folder.