Spyderco/Farid K2

[Cliff Stamp]

I have a really hard time seeing any trend at all after the 150m point in that graph.

Yes, that is the issue, it basically looks flat. It is changing but the changes are tiny compared to the scale due to the non-linear relationship. What happens is a little complicated but not overly so, there ends up being competing factors between what is blunting the edge and what is sharpening it, and as you get very dull the latter can actually start to be larger than the former. If this makes no sense, and it might not initially, then just think about the following.

When the edge blunts it is basically just getting thicker. It starts off at about 0.5 micron and because it is so narrow it generates very high contact pressures and it cuts with very low force - i.e., it is sharp. As the apex thickens due to loss of material, fracture, and deformation then it starts requiring more force to generate the rupture pressure (what is needed to cut the material) and thus it is dulling (more force needed to cut).

But the edge is not going to wear smooth, it also gets "rougher" as it dulls as pieces are tore out of it for various reasons. If you look at the edge under magnification (say 50X linear) you can see a piece of apex go smooth and then get rough. This roughness generates a very low kind of sharpness. It is no where near optimal sharpness, but it will keep a knife cutting at a low level of sharpness.

If you know a little about the mechanics you can even abuse this during the cutting, or maybe manipulate it would be the better term. For example there are generally two types of cardboard.

-soft and abrasive
-hard and not-abrasive

The first type doesn't tend to make edges chip much, the second does (because it requires higher rupture pressures). Thus you can often "sharpen" a knife by cutting through a piece of the hard cardboard in the middle of the run. If you cut through a lot of the second type you can cut for a very long time and nothing tends to happen at all because the abrasion is low (so the edge isn't thickening) and the fractures are high (so the edge is chipping).

I did some very low sharpness edge retention runs early on and did ~2000 slices on ropes for example with D2 blades and similar and concluded that if I was going to cut clean material with knives then then volumes to make a knife not cut paper are tremendous because of that non-linear effect. Chris (who posts here on occasion), has tried even with very simple steels and again can produce large volumes. If you want to see really huge piles look at what Boye used to do. Boye's steels had huge aggregated carbide networks as they were cast steels and if you sharpened to low levels they would basically self-sharpen at some point faster than the apex would thicken by wear. The issue I had with them was simply outside of stock work, what are the odds you actually make 1000 cuts through clean rope and never hit an inclusion and it only takes one hard contact to remove the sharpness completely. Still though, he made some fine cutting blades in his original drop point hunters.

[Ankerson]

I have a really hard time seeing any trend at all after the 150m point in that graph.

Yes, that is the issue, it basically looks flat. It is changing but the changes are tiny compared to the scale due to the non-linear relationship. What happens is a little complicated but not overly so, there ends up being competing factors between what is blunting the edge and what is sharpening it, and as you get very dull the latter can actually start to be larger than the former. If this makes no sense, and it might not initially, then just think about the following.

When the edge blunts it is basically just getting thicker. It starts off at about 0.5 micron and because it is so narrow it generates very high contact pressures and it cuts with very low force - i.e., it is sharp. As the apex thickens due to loss of material, fracture, and deformation then it starts requiring more force to generate the rupture pressure (what is needed to cut the material) and thus it is dulling (more force needed to cut).

But the edge is not going to wear smooth, it also gets "rougher" as it dulls as pieces are tore out of it for various reasons. If you look at the edge under magnification (say 50X linear) you can see a piece of apex go smooth and then get rough. This roughness generates a very low kind of sharpness. It is no where near optimal sharpness, but it will keep a knife cutting at a low level of sharpness.

If you know a little about the mechanics you can even abuse this during the cutting, or maybe manipulate it would be the better term. For example there are generally two types of cardboard.

-soft and abrasive
-hard and not-abrasive

The first type doesn't tend to make edges chip much, the second does (because it requires higher rupture pressures). Thus you can often "sharpen" a knife by cutting through a piece of the hard cardboard in the middle of the run. If you cut through a lot of the second type you can cut for a very long time and nothing tends to happen at all because the abrasion is low (so the edge isn't thickening) and the fractures are high (so the edge is chipping).

I did some very low sharpness edge retention runs early on and did ~2000 slices on ropes for example with D2 blades and similar and concluded that if I was going to cut clean material with knives then then volumes to make a knife not cut paper are tremendous because of that non-linear effect. Chris (who posts here on occasion), has tried even with very simple steels and again can produce large volumes. If you want to see really huge piles look at what Boye used to do. Boye's steels had huge aggregated carbide networks as they were cast steels and if you sharpened to low levels they would basically self-sharpen at some point faster than the apex would thicken by wear. The issue I had with them was simply outside of stock work, what are the odds you actually make 1000 cuts through clean rope and never hit an inclusion and it only takes one hard contact to remove the sharpness completely. Still though, he made some fine cutting blades in his original drop point hunters.

That's why I stop at 20 lbs of pressure on rope.....

Some of the knives would continue to cut almost forever so there has to be a stopping point.

[Cliff Stamp]

...

Some of the knives would continue to cut almost forever so there has to be a stopping point.

Yes, the point is that small changes in the stopping point (as in 0.1%) produce large changes in the amount of material cut (as in multiples) because the relationship is not linear.

[Ankerson]

The amount of material you need to cut to keep reducing the sharpness keeps increasing again in a very dramatic and non-linear way. Because the relationship is nonlinear then it is easy to cut a km of material with a simple Opinel and if you do a run and the Opinel is taken to something like 3.5% of optimal while say an Elmax blade is only taken to 5% of optimal then the Opinel will cut more material than the Elmax blade.

If you get the end points fairly close, both are taken to the same sharpness, then the Elmax blade will cut more than the Opinel. But because it is a nonlinear relationship, you have to have very precise end points or that is what you will see more so than the steel. Hence one of the reasons you ideally need blinded runs.

I don't think so.....

Having tested the Opinals on cardboard and at 250 and 300 yards, carbon and stainless respectively they were pretty wiped out at that point to the point of almost starting to tear the cardboard.... You could say blunt......

I don't see them getting even close to the 1000 yard mark or even close... A Mile or a KM isn't going to happen without sharpening a few times in the process.

[Ankerson]

...

Some of the knives would continue to cut almost forever so there has to be a stopping point.

Yes, the point is that small changes in the stopping point (as in 0.1%) produce large changes in the amount of material cut (as in multiples) because the relationship is not linear.

Yeah, I know that.

Once the edge gets to that stable point it will continue to go almost forever, more so on the higher carbide steels than the simple steels though from my own testing over the years.

[Cliff Stamp]

[...]

I don't see them getting even close to the 1000 yard mark or even close.

Again, the behavior is nonlinear, small changes in the end point of final sharpness produce very large changes in the stopping point of amount of material cut. By the time you have cut ~250 m of cardboard the rate of dulling is so low that extreme amounts of material have to be cut to make any difference. I have modelled CATRA data from Buck comparing 420HC and BG-42 for example and that shows the same behavior.

The difference in 420HC and BG-42 is so small once they start to dull that again if you allow the 420HC to be just a little duller (as in ~1%) it will cut more card stock than the BG-42. Tiny changes in the end points will reverse which one cuts more material. Verhoeven also noted this when he did edge retention comparisons on steels, even in the simplest steels, the late stage behavior is so slow to change it makes very high precision required to rank even large changes in steels.

Now if you want to actually see this then you have to do comparisons in a way which produce bias-free data, if you don't - well you are not going to see it and all you are going to see is whatever bias dominates the work.

Yeah, I know that.

Once the edge gets to that stable point

There isn't a stable point.

The edge retention follows the same equation from the first cut to the last and is controlled by simply two parameters and one of them can be well approximated by 0.5. The 0.5 comes from the physical laws controlling the wear, deformation, chipping etc. which note that the change in them is inversely proportional to the extent. This produces a term which behaves like sqrt(x) - hence the 1/2 as that is x^ (1/2) .

All steels have the same response. In fact the behavior doesn't even just match edge retention trials on cardboard (or whatever), the same equation models the blunting of dentist scrapers. Again it has to because of the underlying physics. I modeled that on performance a lark years ago, same equation, same graph produced.

The ideal that there is a sharp initial decrease and then point of stabilization was argued by Wilson in the late nineties. That was when I first heard it, or in fact anyone talk about the fact that there was a change in rate of blunting in that way. The first work I did also looked like that so I even said it for awhile. However when I looked at it more carefully and realized it wasn't a plateau and early rise, it was a continuous smooth response. I then figured out the exact physical equation with the differential math and modeled a bunch of data and it happens in all steels (and not even steels, the same physical laws will control all material due to some basic physics).

[Ankerson]

[...]

I don't see them getting even close to the 1000 yard mark or even close.

Again, the behavior is nonlinear, small changes in the end point of final sharpness produce very large changes in the stopping point of amount of material cut. By the time you have cut ~250 m of cardboard the rate of dulling is so low that extreme amounts of material have to be cut to make any difference. I have modelled CATRA data from Buck comparing 420HC and BG-42 for example and that shows the same behavior.

The difference in 420HC and BG-42 is so small once they start to dull that again if you allow the 420HC to be just a little duller (as in ~1%) it will cut more card stock than the BG-42. Tiny changes in the end points will reverse which one cuts more material. Verhoeven also noted this when he did edge retention comparisons on steels, even in the simplest steels, the late stage behavior is so slow to change it makes very high precision required to rank even large changes in steels.

Now if you want to actually see this then you have to do comparisons in a way which produce bias-free data, if you don't - well you are not going to see it and all you are going to see is whatever bias dominates the work.

Yeah, I know that.

Once the edge gets to that stable point

There isn't a stable point.

The edge retention follows the same equation from the first cut to the last and is controlled by simply two parameters and one of them can be well approximated by 0.5. The 0.5 comes from the physical laws controlling the wear, deformation, chipping etc. which note that the change in them is inversely proportional to the extent. This produces a term which behaves like sqrt(x) - hence the 1/2 as that is x^ (1/2) .

All steels have the same response. In fact the behavior doesn't even just match edge retention trials on cardboard (or whatever), the same equation models the blunting of dentist scrapers. Again it has to because of the underlying physics. I modeled that on performance a lark years ago, same equation, same graph produced.

The ideal that there is a sharp initial decrease and then point of stabilization was argued by Wilson in the late nineties. That was when I first heard it, or in fact anyone talk about the fact that there was a change in rate of blunting in that way. The first work I did also looked like that so I even said it for awhile. However when I looked at it more carefully and realized it wasn't a plateau and early rise, it was a continuous smooth response. I then figured out the exact physical equation with the differential math and modeled a bunch of data and it happens in all steels (and not even steels, the same physical laws will control all material due to some basic physics).

I have seen the tests before...

What I mean by stable is that there is a point that the edge will continue to cut without noticeable increase in dullness for an extended amount of time before a noticeable increase in dullness is noticed again and then at the end totally blunt...

Start to factor in things like wear resistant carbides and abrasive materials.....

That's when the difference in the low and high carbide steels really start to show.

[faridknives]

[...]

I don't see them getting even close to the 1000 yard mark or even close.

Again, the behavior is nonlinear, small changes in the end point of final sharpness produce very large changes in the stopping point of amount of material cut. By the time you have cut ~250 m of cardboard the rate of dulling is so low that extreme amounts of material have to be cut to make any difference. I have modelled CATRA data from Buck comparing 420HC and BG-42 for example and that shows the same behavior.

The difference in 420HC and BG-42 is so small once they start to dull that again if you allow the 420HC to be just a little duller (as in ~1%) it will cut more card stock than the BG-42. Tiny changes in the end points will reverse which one cuts more material. Verhoeven also noted this when he did edge retention comparisons on steels, even in the simplest steels, the late stage behavior is so slow to change it makes very high precision required to rank even large changes in steels.

Now if you want to actually see this then you have to do comparisons in a way which produce bias-free data, if you don't - well you are not going to see it and all you are going to see is whatever bias dominates the work.

Yeah, I know that.

Once the edge gets to that stable point

There isn't a stable point.

The edge retention follows the same equation from the first cut to the last and is controlled by simply two parameters and one of them can be well approximated by 0.5. The 0.5 comes from the physical laws controlling the wear, deformation, chipping etc. which note that the change in them is inversely proportional to the extent. This produces a term which behaves like sqrt(x) - hence the 1/2 as that is x^ (1/2) .

All steels have the same response. In fact the behavior doesn't even just match edge retention trials on cardboard (or whatever), the same equation models the blunting of dentist scrapers. Again it has to because of the underlying physics. I modeled that on performance a lark years ago, same equation, same graph produced.

The ideal that there is a sharp initial decrease and then point of stabilization was argued by Wilson in the late nineties. That was when I first heard it, or in fact anyone talk about the fact that there was a change in rate of blunting in that way. The first work I did also looked like that so I even said it for awhile. However when I looked at it more carefully and realized it wasn't a plateau and early rise, it was a continuous smooth response. I then figured out the exact physical equation with the differential math and modeled a bunch of data and it happens in all steels (and not even steels, the same physical laws will control all material due to some basic physics).

I have seen the tests before...

What I mean by stable is that there is a point that the edge will continue to cut without noticeable increase in dullness for an extended amount of time before a noticeable increase in dullness is noticed again and then at the end totally blunt...

Start to factor in things like wear resistant carbides and abrasive materials.....

That's when the difference in the low and high carbide steels really start to show.

Jim, unfortunately here you are trying to teach someone who have 'Never made a knife' , 'someone who have never heat-treated', someone who is NOT a knife maker'.
Again I appreciate you testing the K2, lets talk later.

[ManixFan]

I don't get the sense that anyone is "teaching" anyone in the last exchange.....all very good information and to some extent it even appears that Jim and Cliff are describing the same cause-effect but using the terms that they are most comfortable with to describe the same phenomena. You say, "to"-"may"-"toe", I say, "to"-"mah"-"tah".....same vegetable isn't it .....or is it?


From Online Oxford Dictionaries - Language Matters
"The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.

As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.

So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking".



So would you rather be described as a fruit or a vegetable? The tomato in question won't object to either description......there isn't any form of inherent consciousness there......or is there? ......... :cool:

Some fruits and vegetables might hold differing opinions on this issue.

Farid......except for the wavy cut-outs - I love the overall look of your design and am looking forward to getting one for myself.

But being a great knife designer doesn't always inherently grant a great understanding of human psychology. From the sense of Sal's prior postings, who everyone on this forum respects immensely, I got the sense that he was hoping that fences could be mended and personal animosity towards each other be set aside and kept out of the picture in reviewing the K2 which has generated quite a bit of excitement among Spyderco fans.

I also fall under the description applied of having; "'Never made a knife' , 'someone who have never heat-treated', someone who is NOT a knife maker'". I have also never had the formal training in physics or metallurgy that Cliff has or the great amount of experience with knives and testing that Jim has. But I enjoy the exchanges that do take place with different people using the terms they are most comfortable with to describe their knowledge and experience with respect to knives.

But I have had enough "training" in life to recognize disrespect towards others when I see it.....or read it. I also believe that you can always expect to get the fight you want when you pick it for yourself. Unless you try to pick it with someone who abides by the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.....and even then people can run out of cheeks to turn.

OK - now to get off my soapbox and back to the topic.

I love the K2 that you've designed Farid......a very raw and strong looking knife that has quite a bit of beauty in its inherent simplicity. "Refining" it further would take away from the initial visceral appeal of the knife. I see it and the photons striking my retina and transmitted to my brain just strikes the right synapses that translates to the thought "I liiikeeee verrry much! .......now come to Daddy, beautiful"......the same sort of visceral reaction when you first see an incredibly hot woman that just does it for you. (You can consider my opinion on the wavy cutouts to be slightly thick ankles in this analogy :D )

Maybe too much information? :eek: :cool: :D

BTW.....there were no hidden insults within this post to anyone involved .......just my unsolicited observations.

[Chum]

Jim, unfortunately here you are trying to teach someone who have 'Never made a knife' , 'someone who have never heat-treated', someone who is NOT a knife maker'.
Again I appreciate you testing the K2, lets talk later.

Is Jim a knife maker? Regardless, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'd be willing to bet Cliff has used knives more than... nearly anyone who doesn't have a job using a knife all day.

You run an experiment, you get results. Understanding what those results mean, being able to duplicate the experiment... these are things that are important. Everything else is just a bunch of guys jerking each other over which knife looks the most badass, or tacticool, or whatever. There is nothing wrong with that, but is should be called what it is. Actual performance should be recognized by the experimentation and not a commercial, or a sound bite, or a forum orgy.

[Ankerson]

I don't get the sense that anyone is "teaching" anyone in the last exchange.....all very good information and to some extent it even appears that Jim and Cliff are describing the same cause-effect but using the terms that they are most comfortable with to describe the same phenomena. You say, "to"-"may"-"toe", I say, "to"-"mah"-"tah".....same vegetable isn't it .....or is it?


From Online Oxford Dictionaries - Language Matters
"The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.

As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes or bean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.

So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking".



So would you rather be described as a fruit or a vegetable? The tomato in question won't object to either description......there isn't any form of inherent consciousness there......or is there? ......... :cool:

Some fruits and vegetables might hold differing opinions on this issue.

Farid......except for the wavy cut-outs - I love the overall look of your design and am looking forward to getting one for myself.

But being a great knife designer doesn't always inherently grant a great understanding of human psychology. From the sense of Sal's prior postings, who everyone on this forum respects immensely, I got the sense that he was hoping that fences could be mended and personal animosity towards each other be set aside and kept out of the picture in reviewing the K2 which has generated quite a bit of excitement among Spyderco fans.

I also fall under the description applied of having; "'Never made a knife' , 'someone who have never heat-treated', someone who is NOT a knife maker'". I have also never had the formal training in physics or metallurgy that Cliff has or the great amount of experience with knives and testing that Jim has. But I enjoy the exchanges that do take place with different people using the terms they are most comfortable with to describe their knowledge and experience with respect to knives.

But I have had enough "training" in life to recognize disrespect towards others when I see it.....or read it. I also believe that you can always expect to get the fight you want when you pick it for yourself. Unless you try to pick it with someone who abides by the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.....and even then people can run out of cheeks to turn.

OK - now to get off my soapbox and back to the topic.

I love the K2 that you've designed Farid......a very raw and strong looking knife that has quite a bit of beauty in its inherent simplicity. "Refining" it further would take away from the initial visceral appeal of the knife. I see it and the photons striking my retina and transmitted to my brain just strikes the right synapses that translates to the thought "I liiikeeee verrry much! .......now come to Daddy, beautiful"......the same sort of visceral reaction when you first see an incredibly hot woman that just does it for you. (You can consider my opinion on the wavy cutouts to be slightly thick ankles in this analogy :D )

Maybe too much information? :eek: :cool: :D

BTW.....there was no hidden insults within this post to anyone involved .......just my unsolicited observations.

Interesting post. :)

I believe the knife is going to be a hit, it's very high quality with excellent F&F and it's the 1st CPM 10V production knife ever to hit the market.

It's also designed well as in it puts function and performance over pretty while still being easy on the hand, it's not over engineered....

Being very easy to clean it would make a great field blade and CPM 10V will hold an edge for a VERY long time so sharpening shouldn't be an issue out in the field at all. Touch ups would be trivial if needed although highly unlikely using a simple ceramic rod or a SIC loaded strop etc.... Maybe a few seconds, two or three quick passes will bring it right back to screaming sharp if one does enough cutting to actually dull it to the point of needing to be touched up.

[Fancier]

That raises a couple of good points. Can I assume that 5% of optimal sharpness actually means that the knife would seem dull to the user? Can I also assume that if the user is a knife enthusiast the bulk of the use of the knife is probably done in the "still pretty damned sharp" portion of the wear curve?

[Blerv]

Besides a few response from Jim and Sal this thread is a disaster.

Cliff had some questions for Farid which he failed to respond to in a calm demeanor. On page 17 the game still continues.

I haven't lost any respect for Spyderco or Jim. Cliff of course is Cliff . I'm going to find it difficult to pick up a knife with a designer who is so candid with his insults. A real shame too because the president of a great company spoke highly and a respected tester adores it. :o

[LC Kid]

Hi Folks!

Besides a few response from Jim and Sal this thread is a disaster :o

You nailed it Bro. :cool:

It's weird that the threads of two of the very best new Collaboration Models, Slysz Bowie and Farid K2, both of them really look like some kind of Cat Fight. :mad:

Lost interest many pages ago.

What a shame. :rolleyes:

[Laethageal]

Besides a few response from Jim and Sal this thread is a disaster.

Cliff had some questions for Farid which he failed to respond to in a calm demeanor. On page 17 the game still continues.

I haven't lost any respect for Spyderco or Jim. Cliff of course is Cliff . I'm going to find it difficult to pick up a knife with a designer who is so candid with his insults. A real shame too because the president of a great company spoke highly and a respected tester adores it. :o

The same thinking is getting me to slightly regret the speed at which I pulled the trigger once the knife became available. I couldn't find the right words so I restrained myself of saying it not to get igor out in the thread again, but I think you pinpointed it the right way.

[Ankerson]

As far as the last few posts go I wouldn't let the conflict between Farid and Cliff effect ones decision on an excellent product. :)

It's really between them and I will not get in the middle of it.....

That's my thoughts on the matter. :spyder:

[Ankerson]

That raises a couple of good points. Can I assume that 5% of optimal sharpness actually means that the knife would seem dull to the user? Can I also assume that if the user is a knife enthusiast the bulk of the use of the knife is probably done in the "still pretty damned sharp" portion of the wear curve?

I doubt anyone would take a knife to that point of dullness that is a knife person.

With CPM 10V it would take a lot of cutting before one even got to 50% let alone 5%..... That's from looking at my own data of various knives in A11....

Most knives that people use would be bone butter knife dull before CPM 10V would be at 50% cutting the same media.....

As a simple example comparing this knife to those Opinals they were DONE before the K2 even got started....... That's cutting rope and Cardboard...

80 to 120 cuts on rope compared to 1100 cuts and 200 and 300 yards on cardboard compared to 5500 yards..... And that's not even getting into the Huge Geometry advantage that the Opinals had...

Just an example of the 2 extremes and how far apart they really can be... Nothing bad here, just trying to bring some reality into the discussion. :)

That's just an example for those who use Opinals to think about how much cutting they would have to do with the K2 to actually dull it....

[ManixFan]

As far as the last few posts go I wouldn't let the conflict between Farid and Cliff effect ones decision on an excellent product. :)

It's really between them and I will not get in the middle of it.....

That's my thoughts on the matter. :spyder:

I agree.....sticking with my prior analogy......who would turn down an intimate evening with a beautiful babe just because you disagree with her father's behaviour? Actually in that analogy......things might even get more heated.

Also, I'm in no position to judge who is "in the right".....if anyone is in this conflict. But I would hope that two people who Sal respects as much as he evidently does can keep it together out of respect for him..... and if fences can't be mended then at least keep their conflict private.

Nobody comes out looking good in a public spat........to some extent it is like watching a car crash. It is hard to look away.......but you still don't enjoy seeing the aftermath.

[Ankerson]

As far as the last few posts go I wouldn't let the conflict between Farid and Cliff effect ones decision on an excellent product. :)

It's really between them and I will not get in the middle of it.....

That's my thoughts on the matter. :spyder:

I agree.....sticking with my prior analogy......who would turn down an intimate evening with a beautiful babe just because you disagree with her father's behaviour? Actually in that analogy......things might even get more heated.

Also, I'm in no position to judge who is "in the right".....if anyone is in this conflict. But I would hope that two people who Sal respects as much as he evidently does can keep it together out of respect for him..... and if fences can't be mended then at least keep their conflict private.

Nobody comes out looking good in a public spat........to some extent it is like watching a car crash. It is hard to look away.......but you still don't enjoy seeing the aftermath.

The K2 is a landmark knife, 1st production knife in CPM 10V, 1st Spyderco/Farid collaboration.

I would recommend looking at the knives merits and they are all positives from were I am sitting. :spyder:

[Popsickle]

I like to see Ankersons tests...... the back and forth has been ridiculous with Cliff Stamp. Sorry Cliff but I get the feeling there are lots of people that just aren't your biggest fans.

if you don't like the knife, maker, or whatever...... don't buy it. It is in fact a landmark knife. I simply won't be buying it because its far too large. Some people will really enjoy this blade.