Thread: First hone - Spyderco Ultrafine?

Originally Posted by Sticky

The Spyderco F and UF are distinctly different. Both before and after lapping. Tap both hones and hear the difference in density.

My results after 70+ hours of lapping and testing them (including the medium hone).

Okay Steven, I'll buy the density is different and I misspoke saying they were identical. They use the same size grit in different binders:

http://spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31188

Specifically read posts 6 & 27 (where Sal says he turned his F into a UF by lapping it). He did not say the carriers were the same, but the efficacy was.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ken

Well I just jumped in (today) and ordered the medium, fine and ultra-fine Spyderco stones. I had been flip-flopping for some time on this but finally got SWMBO to agree!

These will be my primary tools for razors and I opted to get the medium as well to use for setting/refining a bevel. I am guessing I will need something more agressive than the meduim to initially set a rough bevel on a really bad resto piece but we'll see. I would think a piece of wet/dry sandpaper on a glass plate would work if the bevel is really that bad.

I'm hoping they arrive before the weekend. If they do, I have razors in various states of "sharp" and will report back. My intent is to try them right out of the box w/o lapping to see how they are except for the meduim.


v/r

Allen

Congrats, I think you'll like 'em.

Did you order the 302UF or the new 306UF?? I have a 302 but the size of the 306 is IMO better for razors.... I'm guessing I'll get a 306 one of these days.

Ken

I went with the 302UF. Less expensive and will do the same thing AFAIK just a little smaller.

My only concern is how flat they will be. I've heard mixed as for the need to lap out of the box. I'll try them 1st and go from there.

As a note; ordered them from cheaperthandirt.com. Had all 3 in stock and we'll see how quick they ship.


v/r

Allen

Originally Posted by kbuzbee

Okay Steven, I'll buy the density is different and I misspoke saying they were identical. They use the same size grit in different binders:

http://spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31188

Specifically read posts 6 & 27 (where Sal says he turned his F into a UF by lapping it). He did not say the carriers were the same, but the efficacy was.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ken

If a Fine could be turned into an Ultra-fine by simply lapping it, then you may be certain that Spyderco would not use a different manufacturing process for them. Especially since they already lap the UF in manufacture.

My previous link is to my previous post about how you will get a different finish and cutting rate from those hones when lapped on an identical diamond plate. Tested and repeatable results. Test it yourself.

A different density and a different binder and a different firing process does indeed result in a different cutting ability, regardless of surface finish. You could cut 1/8" grooves 1/8" deep across a Fine or an Ultra-fine hone to give them a massive change in surface finish. They would both continue to give a finish identical to one without such a change.

Originally Posted by Sticky

If a Fine could be turned into an Ultra-fine by simply lapping it, then you may be certain that Spyderco would not use a different manufacturing process for them. Especially since they already lap the UF in manufacture.

No doubt, but I do wonder what the comparative results would be... For example (and yes, I do understand Spyderco does not use grit size but just for discussion):

Let's say a Medium - unlapped would yield an edge we could compare to one done on a 600 grit hone, a Fine one that would compare to a 2000 grit and a UF to one on 10000 grit

But once lapped the numbers change upward to Med - 800 grit, Fine - 8000 grit and UF - 12000. Now the effective grit of the Fine stone is becoming comparable to the stock UF..... This is all purely conjecture, trying to correlate your findings with the various things Sal has said about these ceramics. I do tend to trust Sal when he speaks of such things (and they are WAY beyond my ability to prove or disprove)

Originally Posted by Sticky

My previous link is to my previous post about how you will get a different finish and cutting rate from those hones when lapped on an identical diamond plate. Tested and repeatable results. Test it yourself.

I read your results. Very interesting. While I am able to lap the Fine stone, I really have no analytical way to evaluate either the surface of the stone nor the edge produced on it. Perhaps this is something Mr. Zowada would want to undertake (in his spare time )??? I would be very interested to see a series of edges on an unlapped Fine compared to those produced on a lapped Fine as, per Sal, I seriously doubt they would be the same. But perhaps they would? Is that your position?

Originally Posted by Sticky

A different density and a different binder and a different firing process does indeed result in a different cutting ability, regardless of surface finish. You could cut 1/8" grooves 1/8" deep across a Fine or an Ultra-fine hone to give them a massive change in surface finish. They would both continue to give a finish identical to one without such a change.

I'm not sure I concur with that but I really can't dispute it either. It seems that such grooves would not impact the surface at all (save to reduce it). I'd consider a surface finish change to be less severe and more pervasive.

Ken

I have read a number if reports from folks (including Sal from Spyderco) about lapping a fine to make it a UF. I noticed his (Sal's) post reguarding this stated he did this BEFORE the UF was developed and released.

Originally Posted by Sticky

If a Fine could be turned into an Ultra-fine by simply lapping it, then you may be certain that Spyderco would not use a different manufacturing process for them. Especially since they already lap the UF in manufacture....

That is my point; why would a company offer a more expensive version of the same thing (the UF) knowing full well folks could purchase the cheaper (the fine) and get the same results. Spyderco produces nice items from my experience and they are not stupid.

Based on the various information I have read when researching these, I would expect each of these stones to be slightly finer ("grit" wise for reference) after lapping, but I would think it is a function of a smoother, more uniform surface. Again, this guess has no factual basis but makes sense from all that I have found and read.

Again, I hope these do not require lapping. If they do, I will be begging someone here to borrow a DMT to lap them since I would guess sand paper would be useless!

v/r

Allen

Originally Posted by kbuzbee

No doubt, but I do wonder what the comparative results would be... For example (and yes, I do understand Spyderco does not use grit size but just for discussion):

Let's say a Medium - unlapped would yield an edge we could compare to one done on a 600 grit hone, a Fine one that would compare to a 2000 grit and a UF to one on 10000 grit

But once lapped the numbers change upward to Med - 800 grit, Fine - 8000 grit and UF - 12000. Now the effective grit of the Fine stone is becoming comparable to the stock UF..... This is all purely conjecture, trying to correlate your findings with the various things Sal has said about these ceramics. I do tend to trust Sal when he speaks of such things (and they are WAY beyond my ability to prove or disprove)

It is well w/in your ability to test. Do as I did:

• Lap both
• shave from the Fine, no stropping
• sharpen on the Ultrafine and shave again, no stropping

I read your results. Very interesting. While I am able to lap the Fine stone, I really have no analytical way to evaluate either the surface of the stone nor the edge produced on it. Perhaps this is something Mr. Zowada would want to undertake (in his spare time )??? I would be very interested to see a series of edges on an unlapped Fine compared to those produced on a lapped Fine as, per Sal, I seriously doubt they would be the same. But perhaps they would? Is that your position?

Yes, you have an analytical way to test the edge produced on either hone. Try these tools:

• the TNT (this one takes a fine feel to detect a F vs. UF difference)
• the HHT
• the "mow hair" test
• the TPT
• the shave test

My position is as clearly stated previously. The two stones are distinctly different, lapped or un-lapped. You get a usable progression either way. The only major change is in flatness, on my specimens.

I'm not sure I concur with that but I really can't dispute it either. It seems that such grooves would not impact the surface at all (save to reduce it). I'd consider a surface finish change to be less severe and more pervasive.

Exactly my point, 1/8" grooves are a major change in surface finish. Much more so than a simple lapping will ever be. Based on your last paragraph, we seem to be in agreement that surface finish "would not impact the surface at all".

In the final analysis, don't trust Sal or me. Test it yourself. We all look forward to your test results

Originally Posted by RMC_SS_LDO

...
Again, I hope these do not require lapping. If they do, I will be begging someone here to borrow a DMT to lap them since I would guess sand paper would be useless!
...

JoshEarl does lap barber hones for a fee and he has a XX DMT that he might be willing to use on a Spyderco (might be a one-time thing maybe)...

Originally Posted by Sticky

In the final analysis, don't trust Sal or me. Test it yourself. We all look forward to your test results

I take your point. The next time I'm in the lapping mood I'll take a crack at the Fine and let you know what I see.

Thanks for the input!

Ken