Thread: spyderco hone

Originally Posted by Pete_S

This is prolly a bit late to help out the OP, but this guy reports that it only took him about an hour to lap his spyderco

Flat lapping a Spyderco ceramic bench stone - Sawmill Creek

I'm ordering a spyderco and I'm gonna try the method he outlines. I'm not really interested in spending hours upon hours getting a hone lapped.

I read that post as I was furiously lapping away at mine with a D8XX, btw, it still takes forever.

First, he is lapping a fine, so not the untra hard UF. Second, different stones have different straightnesses from the factory. All are guaranteed to be within .002", but thats a lot variation when it takes forever to lap these suckers. Third, if you read carefully, he only laps about 3/4 of the stone, he leaves the ends a little submerged than the middle. Finally, I think he only lapped one side. Thus...I think his method does not calculate the true costs in lapping those tough sons of .

HOWEVER, once they are lapped, they work wonderfully. In fact, I would say that once lapped, the value increases to maybe 2x the retail. Except the 4k grit one, that one took maybe an hour, probably less. That one was really easy. In comparison.

Originally Posted by Leighton

I read that post as I was furiously lapping away at mine with a D8XX, btw, it still takes forever.

First, he is lapping a fine, so not the untra hard UF. Second, different stones have different straightnesses from the factory. All are guaranteed to be within .002", but thats a lot variation when it takes forever to lap these suckers. Third, if you read carefully, he only laps about 3/4 of the stone, he leaves the ends a little submerged than the middle. Finally, I think he only lapped one side. Thus...I think his method does not calculate the true costs in lapping those tough sons of .

HOWEVER, once they are lapped, they work wonderfully. In fact, I would say that once lapped, the value increases to maybe 2x the retail. Except the 4k grit one, that one took maybe an hour, probably less. That one was really easy. In comparison.

Yeah, the possible difference in the material occurred to me. I guess I'll find out if it's as effective on a UF.

Actually, he says that he only left 1/8 of an inch at an end unlapped, not 1/4 of the stone.

I'm hoping that using a 80 grit abrasive will help expedite the process. The commonly used plates may be diamond, but they're 325 grit, I think.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Yeah, the possible difference in the material occurred to me. I guess I'll find out if it's as effective on a UF.

Actually, he says that he only left 1/8 of an inch at an end unlapped, not 1/4 of the stone.

I'm hoping that using a 80 grit abrasive will help expedite the process. The commonly used plates may be diamond, but they're 325 grit, I think.

D8XX is 120 grit or so. Btw, my UF took less than an hour to lap one side completely smooth, while the fine took more than 4for one side. Needless to say, the UF was a lot straighter, so YM is going to vary. They're great hones, but a to lap. I wanted to pay a machine shop halfway through or pay some college kid to do it for me. Oh my god it was aweful.

Actually, now that I think about it, sandpaper might be best. No chance of damaging a $70 diamond hone. May be slower, but...safer. Definitely safer.

Originally Posted by Leighton

D8XX is 120 grit or so. Btw, my UF took less than an hour to lap one side completely smooth, while the fine took more than 4for one side. Needless to say, the UF was a lot straighter, so YM is going to vary. They're great hones, but a to lap. I wanted to pay a machine shop halfway through or pay some college kid to do it for me. Oh my god it was aweful.

Actually, now that I think about it, sandpaper might be best. No chance of damaging a $70 diamond hone. May be slower, but...safer. Definitely safer.

Ahh, you've got the super duper lapping hone. Yeah, if I had one of those I'd prolly not even bother with loose grit stuff, either. Can't afford another hone right now, unfortunately.

Something you wrote I was going to ask about, but forgot in the previous post. You said lapped both the fine and the ultra fine spydercos, and it seems that you're saying that the UF was considerably harder than the F. Is this correct? I'm asking cause of the whole "the Ultra fine is just a fine with a different surface" debate. Personally, I don't think they are the same hone, but I'm interested to hear what people have to say about it.

I thought that was debunked a long time ago? Its not true, a finer surface on the same material will not create a finer edge. The grit is due to the fineness of the cutting particles, now if resurfacing somehow affects the fineness of the particles that cut the steel, then I retract my contention. That said, the UF is also not the same as a fine resurfaced.

If that were true, then the UF would be nearly perfectly flat due to the resurfacing method. Clearly not the case. If the two were made of the same materials, they would feel the same down the unsurfaced sides, ie the small 1/4" areas. Also, not the case. That or Spyderco is wasting money by resurfacing those areas, and Spyderco isn't stupid... The cost of surfacing the fine would be much greater than the difference in price between the two stones. The wear and tear of whatever they use to lap the stone would cost a significant amount of money. Plus the time and labor. Finally, whacking the two stones produces different tones, different tones normally means different densities. Now that I mention it, I'm going to weight the stones. I'll get back to you on that one, but I suspect the UF is heavier.

As you can see, the evidence suggests the two are made of different materials. Just thinking about it, it defies reason to believe the same material simply resurfaced will produce a grit difference of 6,000.

The proof is in the finished edge. Here's a link to comparative edges by Tim Zowada. Note the fineness of the UF edge,
Zowada Custom Knives - Razor Edges

I get exceptionally smooth shave from UF finished edges.

I've been using my spydy uf for about two weeks now, and I have to say that it has took my razors to a whole new level of performance. The funny thing about this stone is that while sharpening my razors, neither one really felt as though they were shave ready when they came off the stones. The edges looked really good under 30x magnification, but you actually had to coax them to pop arm hairs. So, I thought, let me strop one up, and give it a test shave. WOW. It shaved so well and smooth, I couldn't believe it.So I stropped the other one and tried it. Same thing. Neither razor ever shaved as smooth as they do now. One is an old sheffield Joseph Allen square point that I bought off a internet auction, for next to nothing, and the other is a Dovo, with a carbon steel blade.
Also, I wanted to say, that I haven't had this hone very long, and I don't know if i'm just lucky, or if Spyderco has upped their quality control, but my stone is almost perfectly flat.After reading all the different posts on these stones, saying how they all needed to be lapped, and how hard they are, I figured I was going to have a days work ahead of me getting this stone ready. Thankfully, I didn't have to touch it.Anybody else bought one lately, that was perfect?

One side only took an hour of lapping to get perfectly flat. The other side took significantly longer.

Spyderco warranties the stones to be within .002" along the entire length so you could get lucky and receive a perfectly straight one. One stone out of a million that is perfectly straight does not destroy the average. That said, just wondering, but what are you using to measure the straightness?

Originally Posted by Leighton

I thought that was debunked a long time ago? Its not true, a finer surface on the same material will not create a finer edge. The grit is due to the fineness of the cutting particles, now if resurfacing somehow affects the fineness of the particles that cut the steel, then I retract my contention. That said, the UF is also not the same as a fine resurfaced.

If that were true, then the UF would be nearly perfectly flat due to the resurfacing method. Clearly not the case. If the two were made of the same materials, they would feel the same down the unsurfaced sides, ie the small 1/4" areas. Also, not the case. That or Spyderco is wasting money by resurfacing those areas, and Spyderco isn't stupid... The cost of surfacing the fine would be much greater than the difference in price between the two stones. The wear and tear of whatever they use to lap the stone would cost a significant amount of money. Plus the time and labor. Finally, whacking the two stones produces different tones, different tones normally means different densities. Now that I mention it, I'm going to weight the stones. I'll get back to you on that one, but I suspect the UF is heavier.

As you can see, the evidence suggests the two are made of different materials. Just thinking about it, it defies reason to believe the same material simply resurfaced will produce a grit difference of 6,000.

Yeah, it still seems to be around. I imagine that that rumor will be popping up on razor, knife, woodworking and tool forums for years to come. Unless I'm mistaken, it was started by a vague forum post by one of the bigwigs at spyderco, so that will make it pretty hard to kill.

I didn't think there was much chance that it was true, it really didn't make any sense and there was lots of evidence against it, as you pointed out. The only way I could see for it to be true would be if there was some sort of surface treatment on the hones, which seemed unlikely. I was just curious about the hardness issue. Its "another nail in the coffin", so to speak.

Originally Posted by Leighton

One side only took an hour of lapping to get perfectly flat. The other side took significantly longer.

Spyderco warranties the stones to be within .002" along the entire length so you could get lucky and receive a perfectly straight one. One stone out of a million that is perfectly straight does not destroy the average. That said, just wondering, but what are you using to measure the straightness?

Leighton,
I used my Starrett straight edge, layed lengthwise, as well as crossways on the stone, and then see if any light comes under it. This works pretty good, especially if you do it in low light, with an artificial light behind it. I also used my micrometer to mike the thickness of the stone at several positions. I'm telling you, it was perfect.I thought that perhaps if enough people complained to them about not being flat, that may have spurred them to fix the problem. Then again, I was probably just lucky.Either way, I am completely satisfied with this hone.