Why Doesn't Spyderco Publish Rockwell Hardness?

[ABX2011]

Sal,
Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it.

[Ankerson]

Hi ABX,

It's something that we stopped doing a long time ago. There are many reasons, many of which were posted here.

I believe that to many, the Rc of a steel is some type of absolute that they can uses to make decisions with. More often than not, most do not understand Rc, how variations work, how different steels respond better to different hardnesses, or many think that the harder the steel the better.

Posting the Rc invites argument. "I think it should be xxx", "Why didn't you xxx?", "So and so says abc", etc. etc.

We generally stay within a point of the hardness that Eric and I select for a steel. Closer than most. This is based on info provided by the foundry and our in house testing.

Hope that helps.

sal

Hi Sal,

And you have been dead on from the information that I have gathered on the RC hardness, target to actual. :cool: :)

Usually as close as you can get to optimal taking all of the considerations into count. :D

It's impressive really. :)

Jim

[Cliff Stamp]

...

Posting the Rc invites argument.

...

Sal, I can understand this perspective and the direct and indirect cost, however I would suggest that you could consider an alternative viewpoint. If there is an argument that means there is interest. If there is interest that means there is utility to leverage for sales.

Now this is not trivial at all, but if you had someone who had both the knowledge to educate and the time/means to do so you would have a powerful marketing stream which as of right now very few manufacturers are exploiting.

It is simple to find custom makers who will discuss this at length, and because they do that alone generates customers. For example Elliot of Ferrum Forge, the only reason that I have ordered a custom knife from him was dialogue on steels.

Now how much of a customer base would appreciate this, how many sales would be generated per the investment - these are not trivial questions. However I do think it is a point which is worth some considering.

[gbelleh]

A reputation for consistent quality will always mean more to me than a hyped up number. But, I'm not really a steel junkie like some.

[Senate]

on the other hand they just sold 2 batchs of 700-800 knives in 4 days without releasing the info. So, while it might interests some of us, it also means it's not the priority of the majority.

[Scottie3000]

on the other hand they just sold 2 batchs of 700-800 knives in 4 days without releasing the info. So, while it might interests some of us, it also means it's not the priority of the majority.

I'd like to know just because I like all the info I can get, but I have no problem buying a knife without knowing it's RC hardness because Spyderco has a great reputation for heat treatments and quality control.

[chuck_roxas45]

I actually trust Spyderco so that means when they sell a knife, I know that they do the best they can within the given parameters.

[Senate]

^^exactly and they don't hesitate to cancel/call back any defective product.

[sal]

Thanx Jim.

Hi Cliff,

I'll consider your suggestion.

Generally if someone really wants to know, I'll Rockwell my sample and post it here. To try to post Rc for every model and stay on top of it is harder than one might think. It does require the passion and interest. Even getting all of the elements accurate on our steel chart requires cosiderable research and proofing.

Cliff, Maybe you need to move to Golden?

sal

[Ankerson]

The RC hardness number really isn't the whole story by itself.

Take a steel say S30V for example.

I have seen S30V ranging from 55 to 61 RC over the years and the upper limit of S30V is 61 RC.

It's how the heat treater gets to the number as in the process involved, what tempering temps are used and if the blades are CYRO treated or not.

It's about consistency and doing the job correctly along with wanting the end products to achieve the best overall performance they can without undo problems and that is where Spyderco does it better than anyone else in the industry.

That comes from tireless R&D and testing to find the best balance that provides the highest performance of the models based on the general use the models are designed for so in the end they provide the customers with the best performing knives in the industry.

[Cliff Stamp]

To try to post Rc for every model and stay on top of it is harder than one might think.

Sal, indeed many modern processing techniques are actually dependent on the size/nature of the knives in how they move through the thermal processing. Thus even if they have basically the same general procedure, they might have slightly different times at temperature and thus the hardness (and other properties) will be slightly affected.

Even at a minimum you then fact contract liability of default if you say model X is Y HRC but then due to any number of changes from say how the FFG vs hollow ground models move through the processing (maybe they are clamped differently in the transfer sections for example) the HRC values (and other properties) could be slightly different.

Again, don't want to imply it is trivial, and it is certainly far harder than small shop / custom makers who are actually working on batches from 1-10 in size. But I do think there is an opportunity there which could be utilized.

Cliff, Maybe you need to move to Golden?

Ha, I have a decent knowledge of steels, but I might not be the best person to interact with customers.

I have seen S30V ranging from 55 to 61 RC over the years and the upper limit of S30V is 61 RC.

The upper limit of S30V is 64/65 HRC, in regards to what could be obtained.

But again, it is the micro-structure which is critical, the Rockwell hardness test was ever only intended for one thing which is a very quick QC check. It was intended to simply see if the HT protocol was followed and the steel is actually what it is claimed to be, as a given protocol on a given steel should produce a given HRC measurement.

It is also just a first level quick check, it is possible to alter the steel and/or HT and end up with the same number with a different micro-structure which is why physical properties should also periodically be checked and most makers/manufacturers will do short sample runs as well.

That just costs much more and is far more time intensive so as with all QA you just layer it with reduced samples for the more extensive testing.

[jumbo]

Ha, I have a decent knowledge of steels, but I might not be the best person to interact with customers.

I don't know, Cliff, using the principle of "argument = sales opportunity" ...

[Cliff Stamp]

.... using the principle of "argument = sales opportunity" ...

Ok, that was pretty funny.

It isn't that I can't sell, I just don't like doing it. Selling at a fundamental basis is based on manipulation and leverage of bias. I am not ignorant of those things, I simply don't enjoy doing that as much as just exchanging information without any concern as if it makes a sale happen or not.

As just one example, in the late nineties there was interest in the US and on-line forums on single bevel knives, this very quickly turned into an opportunity for makers/manufacturers to exploit and in a short period of time you could find those knives everywhere.

Now the reality is that a single bevel is inferior to a dual bevel profile in every respect aside from ease of manufacturing, however the bias existed in the marketplace, no different than loud=good for vacuums, and as a manufacturer it isn't overly sensible to ignore that.

It is no different than hardness, carbide volume and other aspects. Some makers/manufacturers will openly admit they are doing this but not everyone does and even when it is admitted it is usually to a small and isolated group and that itself is a form of marketing as it creates a VIP core base.

As an example Medford admitted that he uses liquid nitrogen in his HT even though it isn't functional (from his perspective) however he knows that people want to see that line (cryo) so he does it because it sells blades even though again (again from his perspective) it is just spending money with no functional purpose. But this is only revealed in one video on his channel so you have to be a fairly avid follower to be aware of it.

[CarbonFiberNut]

As just one example, in the late nineties there was interest in the US and on-line forums on single bevel knives, this very quickly turned into an opportunity for makers/manufacturers to exploit and in a short period of time you could find those knives everywhere.

Oh man, I remember the chisel ground fad, and it's hilarious that there are still a handful of custom makers who push it, HARD as THE thing to do for hard-use knives. What a giant load of baloney. I'm glad that fad has been mostly relegated to the mall ninjas these days.

[sal]

Ha, I have a decent knowledge of steels, but I might not be the best person to interact with customers.

It's the knowledge that you bring to the table. It's easy to see that we all could learn to interact better. :p

BTW, I still have a Stamp project on my list? Just a bit of a nag. :D

sal

[Blerv]

BTW, I still have a Stamp project on my list? Just a bit of a nag. :D

sal

Collaboration: Spyderco Curmudgeon

Just kidding Cliff, you're awesome :D .

[quinoa]

Ya. Thanks Sal. You da man.

[DunninLA]

I realize it is not possible to know the RC of one's own particular knife without having it tested, but it would be great to know the target that Sal, ERic, and the production facility worked to attain. My Forum Native S110v I thought would be run at 62 (I only guessed that in mass production it would be hard to hit Phil Wilson's 63-64 RC), and Ankerson's example tested out at 61. So I still might have been right, give a 2 RC range of attainment. Another company made a limited run of a laminated blade in s110v, and ran it at 58. That's all good information.

This is doubly, triply important on Mules... you don't know what the design/production team intended for you to have if you don't know the RC. I'd still love to know what they intended the K390 Mule's RC to be, and would be interesting to know the reasons behind that choice. I mean, Sal could say they wanted to run it at target of 63, but it would eat up too many belts, so they ended up for practical reasons at a target of 61. I find stuff like that fascinating.

An analogy would be another collecting hobby... fine wine. Bordeax wine in particular. The Chateau could simply say "taste it. If you like it, buy it!" However, they don't do that. They publish harvest reports that include the dates of harvest, sugar, acidity and concentration. Then they discuss whether/how unripe grapes were removed on the triage tables, how long the juice macerated (and whether this included stems) and at what temperature, whether wild or cultured yeist. Now on to barreling: what type of oak barrels, the % of new vs. used, how intensely the barrels were charred on the inside, and how long the wine aged in barrel. Finally, whether the wine was fined, or filtered just prior to bottling.

You could say all that is irrelevant, just taste the wine, and if you like it, drink it. But where would the hobby be in that?

[Philo Beddoe]

Isn't it possible to give the average range of RC hardness of a knife run like the Forum Native..select say 10(or whatever number you deem appropriate)random samples and test them then get the highest and lowest average numbers..out of a run of 700 knives a few might be a little bit above or below the averages but most would probably test within the averages.

BM does this for about a lot of their knives it seems. When they put out the specs of the blade steel they include include the hardness in this format:

Blade Rockwell: 58-61HRC

Seems to work..

I'm curious to know what the hardness of the Domino blade is..

[Ankerson]

and Ankerson's example tested out at 61.

I didn't have mine tested.... :confused: