Where are the Chaparral steels?

[sal]

Peter can draw one up and Roque can make one.

sal

[Wartstein]

You are correct saying that the Sage is a larger Chaparral, as that was exactly Sal's intention. The Chaparral was designed to be a smaller Sage.

There are, at least, two ways to define what makes a larger version of a Spyderco knife though - for example Delica to Endura versus Native 5 to Native Chief. The Chaparral is a smaller Sage in the same way the Delica is a smaller Endura. What I interpret Wartsteins desire to be, is a larger Chaparral in the same way the Native Chief is a larger Native 5.

The Native Chief maintains the same "cockpit" and design specs as the Native 5 but the blade and handle are extended respectively. The difference between the two models is exclusively length.

The Endura shares much of the same design language as the Delica but numerous other specs change with the overall size difference. Handle height, blade thickness, blade shape, etc. The differences are subtle but they're noticeably more than just a length difference. This is how the Chaparral can be viewed in relation to the Sage.

So in this case, I believe Warstein is asking for a Chaparral with the only difference in specs from the current iteration to be overall length.

Since I still think this explains it perfectly and have talked about exactly that "two approaches" of making Spydies larger/smaller myself in the past:
- One being "just" shortening/elongating, but leaving pretty much every other dimension as it is (PM2 -> Para 3 or Native 5 -> Chief
- The other making a knife bigger/smaller in several dimensions (Endura-> Delica, which btw. imo worked out great. I would not want a Delica with 3 mm blade and thicker, taller carry)

Now, again, while with for example the Chief in some ways we got something "we already had" just concerning basic dimensions: In a way one could say the Endura is just this: Roughly same length, roughly same stock and handle thickness, "just" a very different shape, no choil and so on.

With a Chap XL though we´d see something we never had before. Thin stock, thin carry, superstrong built in a let´s say Endela/Manix sized model.... I believe that would work great for probably most things people realistically do with their EDC folders (which includes that most just don´t use these for endless cutting sessions, so the thin handle would really not matter that much, but make for a great, convenient and light carry).

[Wartstein]

Peter can draw one up and Roque can make one.

sal

Sal, that you´d go so far in the "discussion" not only makes my day, but probably makes my... month? Or even year?

You mean "Roque" can make a prototype (for you) to test it, right?

[Doc Dan]

I have a question: If a blade is wide and thin, if the length increases, doesn't that mean a more flexible or frangible blade? Conversely, if one lengthens a blade and either reduces the width or increases the thickness the blade remains more stable?

I may be way out there on this, but it seems to be so in my pea brain.

[Wartstein]

For all who might be interested generally, but also specifically what a great, convenient and also light carry a Chap XL could be (cause this IS exactly one of the great things in the Chap: It is extremely solidly built, but still pretty light due to its overall thinness), I may quote myself from an older Chap XL thread (viewtopic.php?p=1765271#p1765271)

[If a Chap XL had about Endela size]:

- The closed length of the Chap FRN is 91 mm /3.60" and it weights 60 grams /2.1 oz.
- The closed length of an Endela is 119 mm / 4.69", so almost 1/4 of length added.
- If we say everyhing on the Chap FRN stays the same, it just gets stretched to about 12mm, this should [could] mean a weight of about just 75 grams / 2.65 oz - so LIGHTER than even an Endela!

[Wartstein]

I have a question: If a blade is wide and thin, if the length increases, doesn't that mean a more flexible or frangible blade? Conversely, if one lengthens a blade and either reduces the width or increases the thickness the blade remains more stable?

I may be way out there on this, but it seems to be so in my pea brain.

This is exactly what I touched on in my reply to Sal in this very thread (viewtopic.php?p=1814229#p1814229)

- Just going by how really strong the thin, but broad blade with its not too pointy tip is in the current, small Chap I figure (a total guess of course!) that a 3.5 " blade with the same thickness and shape still could work just fine?

- It also depends a lot of course on tapering, grind and what kind of steel gets used

- A Chap XL might indeed be a great EDC knife for a vast majority of typical tasks, but NOT a super-hard-use folder anymore!

. And, Doc: Look at many old timers folders or also Opinels :Thinner blades got used a lot in the older days even when a bit longer - ?!

[sal]

Hi Doc,

That's the question. One of my mentors, Dick Newick, said "you had to exceed the limit to find the limit". The theory / argument, is that the thinner steel will take more than "we" think it will. If a little more care is necessary to not break it, that's like keeping a tool steel from rusting. Just more care. Hardened steel doesn't flex much,

I think it's worth the learning. We've done a lot of things that seemed odd at the time, starting with a hole in the blade.

If it's not going to work out in use, I'll let you know. For just the blade, we can put a thinner blade in an Endela, but the "package" wouldn't work the same.

sal

[Wartstein]

.....not break it, that's like keeping a tool steel from rusting. Just more care. Hardened steel doesn't flex much,

I think it's worth the learning. We've done a lot of things that seemed odd at the time, starting with a hole in the blade.

If it's not going to work out in use, I'll let you know. For just the blade, we can put a thinner blade in an Endela, but the "package" wouldn't work the same.

sal

Sal, you willing to really try this out and let us know is so cool and shows again why I like Spyderco so much!
Thanks a lot!

And yes, you put it perfectly: A Chap XL might be an a bit more specialized tool for folks who usually use their knives, well "as knives" like in cutting tool.. but then it should work perfectly or better than many other models for almost all typical EDC knife tasks... ?

You´ĺl find out and tell us, I hope!

[Wartstein]

I absolutely agree with all of the above. My one additional request would be for a full SE version from the start.

A Chap XL with still 2mm blade stock and the exact type of serrations the "small" Chap offers should be an unreal cutter... and OF COURSE I´d want that right from the start too...

[gk4ever2]

OK. For the sake of discussion, What blade size would you want this Chappy XL to be?

sal

I think a 3.5" blade would be good (I'm fine with 3.48" - 4"). Magnacut provides better toughness and corrosion resistance than XHP with almost identical edge holding (according to Larrin's testing), so perhaps the added strength of Magnacut would offset any weakness in the longer blade? This sounds pretty cool, thanks Sal!

[TimButterfield]

@Wartstein Would you want a Chap XL to get super pointy like the Native Chief is compared with the Native 5 or would you prefer to maintain the blade height further out towards the tip?

Edit: As a counter example (from looking at the spyderco.com images), the Manix 2 XL vs Manix 2. Compared with the Native change, the Manix change seems to carry more blade height further towards the tip and doesn't appear to taper as rapidly.

[KeepCalm&Carrion]

Hi Doc,

That's the question. One of my mentors, Dick Newick, said "you had to exceed the limit to find the limit". The theory / argument, is that the thinner steel will take more than "we" think it will. If a little more care is necessary to not break it, that's like keeping a tool steel from rusting. Just more care. Hardened steel doesn't flex much,

I think it's worth the learning. We've done a lot of things that seemed odd at the time, starting with a hole in the blade.

If it's not going to work out in use, I'll let you know. For just the blade, we can put a thinner blade in an Endela, but the "package" wouldn't work the same.

sal

Sal,

Granted that we're talking about hypotheticals here, would you anticipate a Chap XL requiring something tougher than XHP (perhaps LC200N)? Using the Chaparral on a somewhat-daily basis, my guess is that XHP would do just fine in an XL format, but what do I know.

[Wartstein]

@Wartstein Would you want a Chap XL to get super pointy like the Native Chief is compared with the Native 5 or would you prefer to maintain the blade height further out towards the tip?
...

Definitely NOT superpointy!!

Let me explain:
- In my experience if blades snap at all, this almost always happens at the very tip (often just a tiny fraction of it).
- One of the main reason why the current Chap (at least the PE) can honestly be a little hard use folder for me exactly IS its rather obtusely shaped (if you look at it from the flat of the blade) leaf blade tip.

- Now with a 3.5" blade Chap in 2mm stock the question would be anyway,if in that longer size the blade still would be strong enough.
- So, since as said, in my experience blades usually snap at the very tip a Chap XL DEFINITELY should remain the stronger tip shape of the "small" Chap!!

Thin stock, but a bit stronger tip is what I generally prefer - one of the reasons why knives like the Para 3 (thick stock for the small size, but rather fine tip) are not really for me

[Wartstein]

sal

Sal,

Granted that we're talking about hypotheticals here, would you anticipate a Chap XL requiring something tougher than XHP (perhaps LC200N)? Using the Chaparral on a somewhat-daily basis, my guess is that XHP would do just fine in an XL format, but what do I know.

Garrett

Yes, good point... I really like the XHP in my "small" Chaps a lot, but if we see that Chap XL thing as an experiment if a 2mm ffg 3.5" blade in a Spydie is strong enough for general use, it might be a good idea to go with a steel best suited for that "strength" requirements (perhaps not the right term, no English native speaker here...)

[KeepCalm&Carrion]

Yes, good point... I really like the XHP in my "small" Chaps a lot, but if we see that Chap XL thing as an experiment if a 2mm ffg 3.5" blade in a Spydie is strong enough for general use, it might be a good idea to go with a steel best suited for that "strength" requirements (perhaps not the right term, no English native speaker here...)

Yeah, if Spyderco made an XL, and if they decided XHP was still up to the task, then I'd be fine with that. But in reality I want that serrated LC200N so badly.

P.S. Your English is excellent -- in fact, it's kind of a dead give-away that your'e not native. All respect to my fellow English-speaking Americans, of course!

[TimButterfield]

@Wartstein Would you want a Chap XL to get super pointy like the Native Chief is compared with the Native 5 or would you prefer to maintain the blade height further out towards the tip?
...

Definitely NOT superpointy!!
...

Thanks for verifying this. For this application, I think more Manix 2 XL than Native Chief would be better also. So, with a 0.7" section of blade inserted near the ricasso (to keep a similar tip), but perhaps with a very slight curve instead of parallel top/bottom edges. Am I imagining this shape correctly?

[Flash]

Definitely not super-pointy like a Native.
A profile like the original Chap or slightly more like that of the Sage which has more material towards the tip would be ok too, but a tip like that of a Native would be horrible I reckon.

I’ve noticed the profile of the Slipjoint version appears (to me at least) pointier than the original backlock - I personally wouldn’t want a profile any more pointier than that of the original Chap.

[Doc Dan]

@sal Thanks for the reply. It is true that one can't really know until one tries. It will be interesting to read what you find out. Does this require a tougher steel? How much tougher would it need to be?

[Doc Dan]

@Wartstein Yeah, I appreciate that. As for the Opinel, they use one of the toughest steels out there, so it is no surprise that they hold up.

[Wartstein]

Definitely NOT superpointy!

Thanks for verifying this. For this application, I think more Manix 2 XL than Native Chief would be better also. So, with a 0.7" section of blade inserted near the ricasso (to keep a similar tip), but perhaps with a very slight curve instead of parallel top/bottom edges. Am I imagining this shape correctly?

Pretty much this I guess!
Main thing to me is exactly that the robust tip shape is maintained also (or actually even more so!) in a XL Chap (with ffg 2mm blade stock).

@sal perhaps you could consider the very good point Tim raised here?
And give a Chap XL test piece a NOT too pointy tip, but rather the "rounder" one of the smaller original?
So that it would be not "just" a too fine tip that sets the limits for this "experiment"?