Thank you. I really like the knife. It has a lot going for it. The lock-up is rock solid and hasn't budged in several years of ownership. The edge is thicker than i would prefer which limits its slicing ability. However, the thick blade makes it very tough.
The test should not be called "rope cutting test", it should be called "hitting the edge into a piece of wood XXX times". Folding knives are not bushcrafting knives... A true rope cutting test should be by holding the rope in hands and cut. This knife should go trough miles of rope without a problem.
It is a pretty common test that a lot of people accept as a good way to test a knife. If you would like, you may call it "cutting rope on a piece of wood test". You can call it "useless" too if you want. My tests are all done in a similar way so it is a good way to see how one knife compares with another. The steel alone does not determine the results. Heat treatment and geometry play a major role. But i do not consider the zt inferior because of its results. It has a more obtuse edge than the other knives i tested so that makes it more suited for "harder" use. Having the obtuse edge means it won't take the fine edge of a thinner knife and it will not slice as well as a thinner knife. Different tools for different jobs.
Jon R the ZT 0909, I did my own testing with a mirror polished v-edge from my KME and got 410 cuts before it started cutting the paper kind of crap-like. So I got a winner! Used the same rope also, 3/8" sisal.
The problem with Cedric's test is his edge geometry. He put a very very steep edge on it. He doesn't seem to understand edge geometry very well and it's affecting his tests.
I literally hate this knife. I sent this knife in for resharpening and they sent it back with a horrible bevel. I tried to sharpen it to hair popping sharp and I couldn't get it sharp at all. I suspect the heat treat is iffy or something. I've heard of other people say this also.
It seemed like during several sharpness tests you used the area that contacted the board. The rope would be cut somewhere between half way down the blade and where the blade touches the board. Looked like you cut near the tip a lot. Also, the rope bent as you cut it. You were not cutting the shortest path through the rope, that being perpendicular. Your cuts were more angled and that means you actually cut a significantly larger amount of rope. The fastest way through a tree with a chainsaw is straight across. You were making the equivalent of diagonal cuts. Diagonal cuts are longer, thus remove more material and dull more. THIS IS NOT CRITICISM!!! You made a great video. I just wanted to point out some observations that may or may not be true for the sake of discussion.
Good job on your first video. Thanks for the info, just picked up a 0450cf. Hope mine holds as good as yours did.
Thank you. I really like the knife. It has a lot going for it. The lock-up is rock solid and hasn't budged in several years of ownership. The edge is thicker than i would prefer which limits its slicing ability. However, the thick blade makes it very tough.
I got a 0450cf a month ago and love mine
The test should not be called "rope cutting test", it should be called "hitting the edge into a piece of wood XXX times". Folding knives are not bushcrafting knives... A true rope cutting test should be by holding the rope in hands and cut. This knife should go trough miles of rope without a problem.
It is a pretty common test that a lot of people accept as a good way to test a knife. If you would like, you may call it "cutting rope on a piece of wood test". You can call it "useless" too if you want. My tests are all done in a similar way so it is a good way to see how one knife compares with another. The steel alone does not determine the results. Heat treatment and geometry play a major role. But i do not consider the zt inferior because of its results. It has a more obtuse edge than the other knives i tested so that makes it more suited for "harder" use. Having the obtuse edge means it won't take the fine edge of a thinner knife and it will not slice as well as a thinner knife. Different tools for different jobs.
Even with the wood it performed better than similar tests, so how would using the wood be a negative?
Wow surprising. Gives me hope that I can get a good zt!
The 0450 is a great all purpose knife, but slicing is not its strength. If you want a zt that is a superior slicer, look to the 0770.
Jon R the ZT 0909, I did my own testing with a mirror polished v-edge from my KME and got 410 cuts before it started cutting the paper kind of crap-like. So I got a winner! Used the same rope also, 3/8" sisal.
Thank God. I ordered my 0909 and then saw Cedric's video after (my first Z T knife, and first knife with s35vn) I was really bummed out
The problem with Cedric's test is his edge geometry. He put a very very steep edge on it. He doesn't seem to understand edge geometry very well and it's affecting his tests.
I literally hate this knife. I sent this knife in for resharpening and they sent it back with a horrible bevel. I tried to sharpen it to hair popping sharp and I couldn't get it sharp at all. I suspect the heat treat is iffy or something. I've heard of other people say this also.
Keep it up dude, nice cuts :)
My ZT s35vn knives has not impressed me by their wear resistance in practise, nor do they in cedrics numerous tests
It seemed like during several sharpness tests you used the area that contacted the board. The rope would be cut somewhere between half way down the blade and where the blade touches the board. Looked like you cut near the tip a lot.
Also, the rope bent as you cut it. You were not cutting the shortest path through the rope, that being perpendicular. Your cuts were more angled and that means you actually cut a significantly larger amount of rope. The fastest way through a tree with a chainsaw is straight across. You were making the equivalent of diagonal cuts. Diagonal cuts are longer, thus remove more material and dull more. THIS IS NOT CRITICISM!!! You made a great video. I just wanted to point out some observations that may or may not be true for the sake of discussion.