More CPM 3v coming?

[Stuart Ackerman]

They always want feedback, real worLd use is as important as controlled testing.

There...I fixed it for you.. :)

[Ankerson]

They always want feedback, real worLd use is as important as controlled testing.

There...I fixed it for you.. :)

Typo... :o

I know i hit the L.

Thanks for catching it.

[Cliff Stamp]

There...I fixed it for you.

There are a few things which show the sad state that people don't understand science and that quote reflects almost all of them. The entire purpose of science is to understand the real world, if you are not examining features of the real world then it isn't science.

Science doesn't imply or require precision. It doesn't imply or require equipment. It doesn't imply or even actually require measurement. It only implies two things :

-observation of a physical event
-rational discourse concerning said event

Now of course to observe some events requires careful measurement, and observing some events requires very intricate machines - try to observe a neutrino for example. However if you are trying to reach conclusions about the properties of how sharpened wedges behave then it doesn't take much of either. All you have to do is :

-take steps to minimize bias
-repeat the trials to see if the results are consistent
-confirm that you are not making the correlation fallacy

There are lots of examples of people doing this, who understand and employ science to reach justified conclusions. If you ignore science and reach conclusions anyway then you are not doing "real world testing" they are just conclusions without justification.


https://youtu.be/HmZQ-gy8c-g

That is Kevin actually doing science in the real world. Making observations, talking about them, discussing them on the forums, interacting with other people, sharing his conclusions, verifying them, trying to see if he is right/wrong, etc. . That is how you do it if you want to know, it is no more complicated than that.

[Blerv]

Just remember that if Spyderco uses a steel it's guaranteed they have a reason to use a steel. If you feel their decision making is flawed the solution is simple: Don't buy their knives, don't buy a particular model they make, or make your own.

No the decision isn't that simple because Sal isn't Jim Jones and he doesn't run a cult.

Sal has never encouraged that people worship at the alter of Glesser. He has in fact sought out people who have been critical of the designs and steels and had a dialogue with them as that is how you learn from rational discourse. He, as the owner of the company, as the person who literally is Spyderco knives for most people, has never asked for, demanded or even implied that people should have blind faith in Spyderco and not question their choices. That kind of viewpoint undermines what he does and the approach he has taken.

As I have always said, if you look at products with a critical eye, if you engage in fair and open criticism, if you look at performance and function, if you are unbiased - then Spyderco products in general do very well and often dominate in multiple categories. If you don't do this, if you start making decisions based on faith then you throw away all the value of the R&D that Spyderco has done because blind faith doesn't benefit from justification.

This is a company who bought a CATRA machine because they wanted to know, who has q-fog testing done before any one else, who did break testing on folders before Cold Steel had heard of Demco. This is science not religion and you don't show respect to people doing scientific work by adopting a religious view. If you want to respect them, if you want to show their work has value then you approach it just as critically as they do - because that will show the value of what they did.

If you feel their decision making is flawed and you actually have justification for your position then state it. If it is a really critical point then make a video about it, discuss it on forums, email it to Sal. He actually does want to make a better product and he realizes that he doesn't know everything there is to know about knives and actually wants to hear what other people have to say. Respect the man and his commitment to his product. There is no need to create an alter of Spyderco, instead make your own lab of Spyderco and share the results.

Hey Cliff,

I don't see how the first part can be argued (bold font). Clearly if I made a product with a material I would have a reason to use it. Their reason may not line up with yours but they clearly made a decision based on internal criteria.

The second part (underlined) is a rational solution to the first part if deemed a problem. You either avoid shopping, selectively shop, or create a product that fits your own needs. It's not a comprehensive list but it certainly gives a number of valid options.

As for the cult joke, I don't appreciate it. We are told to abstain from religious topics here on the board. Let alone when it involves historic mass-suicide.

My post was intended to be sincere and mature in reaction to pages of blathering and bickering about inanimate objects. Maybe it's anti-science to ask for people to get along but at least when the fire department arrives on the scene I don't smell like gasoline and charcoal.

[Cliff Stamp]

The second part (underlined) is a rational solution to the first part if deemed a problem.

And as I said, that is never the approach that Sal has taken. He has never asked people who had problems with Spyderco products to not discuss them, he has openly encouraged the opposite because he wants to learn and he understands the benefit of dialogue.

As for the cult joke ...

It wasn't a joke, I used Jones as I just read read a u-grad thesis on cult behavior and the over lap between experimental bias. It was an interesting read. Jones was one of the examples of cult behavior. They all have the same underlying basis which is to produce the state where people accept something because of who says it and not why it is justified. This is why no one who actually wants to learn every encourages that behavior.

The argument that "Well if they use it they must have had a reason ..." is a logical fallacy, and yes it is anti-science, it is also anti-rational as it is an appeal to authority. Yes that had a reason, everyone has a reason that is pointless. The question is - was the reason valid. Spyderco has never asked for you to just accept every position they have asserted. They have in fact argued for the exact opposite - why would you ask people to behave opposite to the way Sal has both behaves and encouraged other people to behave.

Why do you think that someone who has a valid criticism of Spyderco should not post it, but instead just say silent. How do you think that possibly helps Spyderco make a better product?

[bdblue]

Yes, how much toughness does one really need in a 4" or under folder that one would be cutting stuff with?

I don't know. The only way to know would be to push one until it breaks, then back up a little bit. My only Military is in Cruwear and I take some comfort in knowing that the knife with a long thin point that I worry about is made from a steel that is tougher than average.

[VashHash]

I'm still rallying for a CPM-3V forrester with White Micarta scales.

[3rdGenRigger]

Yes, how much toughness does one really need in a 4" or under folder that one would be cutting stuff with?

I don't know. The only way to know would be to push one until it breaks, then back up a little bit. My only Military is in Cruwear and I take some comfort in knowing that the knife with a long thin point that I worry about is made from a steel that is tougher than average.

I've hit staples, metal coaxial cable connectors, rocks, concrete, and other bad things with my CruWear Millie. I've also hit similar bad things with my S30V PM2 and it has similar geometry and bevel size to my Millie and the CruWear definitely holds up better. My 204P PM2 has also hit some less than ideal materials and it has held up better than S30V too as far as I can tell. My Schempp Tuff is also very good and seems to be quite similar to CruWear from my perspective as far as sharpening and wear, though it's harder to compare because the blade geometry is so different from the PM2/Millie.

[Ankerson]

Yes, how much toughness does one really need in a 4" or under folder that one would be cutting stuff with?

I don't know. The only way to know would be to push one until it breaks, then back up a little bit. My only Military is in Cruwear and I take some comfort in knowing that the knife with a long thin point that I worry about is made from a steel that is tougher than average.

I've hit staples, metal coaxial cable connectors, rocks, concrete, and other bad things with my CruWear Millie. I've also hit similar bad things with my S30V PM2 and it has similar geometry and bevel size to my Millie and the CruWear definitely holds up better. My 204P PM2 has also hit some less than ideal materials and it has held up better than S30V too as far as I can tell. My Schempp Tuff is also very good and seems to be quite similar to CruWear from my perspective as far as sharpening and wear, though it's harder to compare because the blade geometry is so different from the PM2/Millie.

The bad stuff my edges came in contact with accidentally with my folders has for the most part been steel over the years.

[paladin]

That is Kevin actually doing science in the real world. Making observations, talking about them, discussing them on the forums, interacting with other people, sharing his conclusions, verifying them, trying to see if he is right/wrong, etc. . That is how you do it if you want to know, it is no more complicated than that.

I don't know Kevin personally but I enjoyed his video. :)

As for Kevin "doing science," the video itself sound like mostly opinion to me, ie "this (blade) definitely feels like it is about 60 (Rockwell)"...

By what means did he test that? His fingernails? Or is it an opinion?

If I had a dollar for every generalization and personal opinion he proffers, I could easily buy a couple of PM2 Sprints...

I watched the entire video ( enjoyed it...REALLY, no joke :) ) and kept waiting for the "science" to kick in... charts, graphs, walls of technical text, you know, real science :rolleyes:

No offense to Kevin or his video review of the Ruckus, as stated previously, I enjoyed it...but are you seriously offering that particular video as an example of someone "actually doing science?"

[3rdGenRigger]

The bad stuff my edges came in contact with accidentally with my folders has for the most part been steel over the years.

That's primarily the case for me, but the odd rocks and concrete aren't out of the picture entirely. I also end up cutting through some hard plastic, and dirty landscaping cloth, dirty ropes, scraping off metal labels adhesively stuck to other metal pieces, etc. all of which can definitely deteriorate an edge. A fixed blade would definitely be better for some tasks that I do, but a folder is FAR easier to carry at all times and I have yet to be disappointed by my Spydies...at work my Schempp Tuff (Back on topic to 3V discussion), and CruWear Millie (Close to 3V though not the same) are my two favourite work knives...mainly because they wear well, are easy to sharpen, and don't take a lot of damage when encountering damaging media compared to other steels I've used, and they're both awesome to use both gloved and un-gloved. I'm not trying to say something like S30V or VG-10 is bad...I like both a great deal and they both perform very well, but for more abusive tasks than clean cardboard I prefer CruWear and 3V, and hope to see more of both in future offerings from Spyderco.

[Johnnie1801]

at work my Schempp Tuff (Back on topic to 3V discussion), and CruWear Millie (Close to 3V though not the same) are my two favourite work knives...mainly because they wear well, are easy to sharpen, and don't take a lot of damage when encountering damaging media compared to other steels I've used, and they're both awesome to use both gloved and un-gloved. I'm not trying to say something like S30V or VG-10 is bad...I like both a great deal and they both perform very well, but for more abusive tasks than clean cardboard I prefer CruWear and 3V, and hope to see more of both in future offerings from Spyderco.

Thanks Branden, the 3v Tuff always seems to get a pretty good reviews and that's basically why I started this thread. Spyderco obviously did a great job working with this steel and I guess most people were surprised when they discontinued the Tuff. It's always sad to lose a steel from the line-up but since 3v was well received in that knife it would be great to bring it back in another format (As far as I know they haven't even made a Mule yet) either in a fixed blade or another folder.

[Cliff Stamp]

...but are you seriously offering that particular video as an example of someone "actually doing science?"

Yes, science existed long before we had machines, it existed long before we had instruments to even measure time. Science is the process of providing justification for a claim based on observation and rational discussion. The justification you need depends on the strength of the claim made. He made very weak claims, hence he needs very weak justifications. The critical part is that he is willing to engage in rational discussion, he noted he was going to do actual research and look at the data to learn about the steel.

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about ..."

This was from a man who for many was science in how he acted and thought, and to say he wasn't a scientist of didn't "do science" is beyond extreme. At a basic core, how did he teach the difference between science and non-science? It is very simple :

-is what you believe justified by what you observe
-could what you believe be wrong and you could still have the same observations

These questions are what makes an activity scientific, they are why we have methods such as double blinds. There is no, none, requirement for precision, there is no requirement even for any maths or measurement in science. Science can, and often starts, with a simple question such as "If you were in an elevator, could you tell the difference between the elevator accelerating or it being in gravitational field?" .

What Kevin will do, if you engage him, is explain why he holds his positions, talk about how certain he is about them, make it clear that at best the evidence is weak for a lot of them and he needs more experience and data to make the conclusions certain. He will also update/change his positions based on new evidence. All of that is science.

[Cliff Stamp]

The only way to know would be to push one until it breaks, then back up a little bit.

That isn't toughness, that isn't the property that 3V was designed/promoted for, you are talking about the strength. 3V is actually weaker than M4 for example, it is tougher but not stronger. The reason that you use steels like 3V, or any high toughness steel is because they resist impacts which would cause another steel to fracture. This is both direct as in immediate fracture, or long term as in a slow build up of fatigue and then fracture. If you are talking about a slow build up then the processing of the steel is of critical importance. Calmax for example is tougher than Caldie in one shot dramatic failure, but Caldie is tougher than Calmax in long term build up because it is an ESP steel and it is much cleaner, hence it has better fatigue properties.

With folders both impact and strength are usually moot points because few folders have locks and pivots which can withstand even close to the loads that would either shatter or bend the steel. This is why really thick heavy blades on folders tend to make little sense as it is like having a big steel chain which has a random tin link. It doesn't matter of the strength of the tempered steel, it just breaks at the UTS point of the tin link. Unless you have a pivot, blade body and lock which can take random and dynamic loads then making the blade very strong/tough and claiming it has a functional benefit in that regard is simply invalid.

Here is the obvious question - where are all the people complaining that S110V is brittle and is chipping and that the blades are snapping in use? How could anyone ask for a steel which is far tougher when the same people argue they never see failure in S110V which is extremely brittle compared to 3V? Unless you are actually seeing failure in the high carbide and high hardness folder blades then what is the point of wondering how a steel like 3V does. It would be obviously and directly inferior because it doesn't address the failure points. The only reason you look at a steel like 3V is if the folder steels you are using are having significant issues with brittle failure.

[paladin]

Yes, science existed long before we had machines, it existed long before we had instruments to even measure time. Science is the process of providing justification for a claim based on observation and rational discussion. The justification you need depends on the strength of the claim made. He made very weak claims, hence he needs very weak justifications. The critical part is that he is willing to engage in rational discussion, he noted he was going to do actual research and look at the data to learn about the steel.

All of that is science.

Two questions:

1. By what metrics are you judging his observations as "weak?"

Oh, now I see what you're doing there...you are likewise making weak claims that require equally weak justifications, good illustration & well played! I understand now. :rolleyes:
Seriously though, stating that a blade that I'm currently holding in my hand '"feels like 60 Rockwell" doesn't seem "weak" to me...



And 2... WTF is "actual research?" ( your term ) That's an unnecessary redundancy unless you're accustomed to trading in "counterfeit research" and feel the need to differentiate so as to avoid confusion amid your target audience.

[Cliff Stamp]

1. By what metrics are you judging his observations as "weak?"

I didn't note the observations were weak, observations are just observations, conclusions can be strong or weak which refers to the extent it is reasonable to assert they are be true.

Note when I asked for clarification in the comments about his position on ease of sharpening he stated readily that his conclusions were tentative because he is aware that the way he is comparing them is fairly low precision.

A weak conclusion isn't a pejorative, it simply means that the assertion isn't well supported and more evidence would need to be gathered before it would be reasonable to assert it is true.

And 2... WTF is "actual research?" ( your term )

It is only used in discussions where otherwise is often used as such. In this case it means looking at the literature and/or talking to people who have positions which are likewise supported.

[bearfacedkiller]

This forum would be better without so much bickering.

download (4).jpg (10.62 KiB) Viewed 2332 times

[Cliff Stamp]

In regards to 3V and more specifically 4V, you might be interested in Vanadis 4 Extra :

https://youtu.be/92zQ4CfeHqE

Uddeholm : http://www.uddeholm.com/files/PB_Uddeho ... nglish.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dan is able to run this thinner than 3V / M4 so it might make an interesting folder blade from that point of view.

[bdblue]

The only reason you look at a steel like 3V is if the folder steels you are using are having significant issues with brittle failure.

I think that's a good point for the average person, but knife enthusiasts have to have something to talk about. I only recall ever breaking one blade, and it was a very thin utility knife made out of carbon steel. The steel composition and heat treat was totally unknown and it broke while doing straight slicing of a cardboard box. I have an old traditional folder handed down by my father, with carbon steel blade and tip broken off. It was a reasonable quality knife, maybe a Case, made about 50 years ago. No doubt he broke off the tip while prying on something while working as a mechanic. I ground the tip of the blade square and carried it to use as a folding screwdriver.

I recall reading multiple stories of people breaking off blade tips from knives like the Tenacious and PM2, and someone posted pics of their Manix 2 S110V blade broken right through the pivot hole. Obviously 3 very different steels involved in these stories. I have not done this and I don't know how close to this most of us would be in our normal use. That's why I posted my original response- the only to know how strong the blade is is to break one.

I studied fracture and fatigue in school and my contention is that the ability of a blade to resist breaking under near-static loading is a combination of its material strength and its toughness. I realize that Charpy toughness is measured with impact tests but we still use those results to predict behavior of structures under near-static loading. I've seen where the configuration of a piece of steel can affect its tendency to break as much as its material, so depending on the blade shape a steel like 3V might be more beneficial to resist breaking than a higher strength steel. If it is just a straight piece of steel with no grinds or holes or notches then toughness really wouldn't matter, only strength.

[paladin]

I didn't note the observations were weak, observations are just observations, conclusions can be strong or weak which refers to the extent it is reasonable to assert they are be true.

Note when I asked for clarification in the comments about his position on ease of sharpening he stated readily that his conclusions were tentative because he is aware that the way he is comparing them is fairly low precision.

A weak conclusion isn't a pejorative, it simply means that the assertion isn't well supported and more evidence would need to be gathered before it would be reasonable to assert it is true.

And 2... WTF is "actual research?" ( your term )

It is only used in discussions where otherwise is often used as such. In this case it means looking at the literature and/or talking to people who have positions which are likewise supported.

1. By what metrics are you judging his observations as "weak?"

I didn't note the observations were weak...

True, my mistake...you said his CLAIMS were "very weak."

Why reference "pejorative?" Did I type something that implied that I thought you were disparaging his claims? I merely asked by what metrics you had assessed his claims as "weak." That's as clinical as I get.

And thanks for replying to my questions...but I still don' t understand your usage of "actual research."