Temperance: Experimental Technology Platform.

[Carlos]

Here is a clip from a post that Sal made on the other Forum:



"The Lil'Temperance is kind of a "pet project tester" for me. Construction will be top quality, but production will be limited and the model is likely to change with each production run. The handle material is currently an ugly green G10. (The trainer will be red G10) The appearance is not so menacing as black would be. "Tactical is as Tactical does, not as tactical appears". This is a carry knife albeit a chunky handful. A 3" blade is legal almost anywhere. The lock is MBC rated. The blade material on the first run is CPM-440V (S60V). The blade material for the 2nd run will more than likely be BG42. Handle colors and materials will probably vary as well. Runs are 1200 pieces with 200 pieces per month being produced. First run will split the two blade shapes in number. Future runs will depend on the ELU's preference for blade shape. Early pieces will be plain edged, serrated versions are planned as well.



This model will more than likely not "hit the streets" as the volume scheduled is quite small.



sal"



So I'm thinking that this is an opportunity for ideas and discussion. Since the Temperance Jr. will change will every run (up to 2x per year) it will be a great vehicle for new and unconventional ideas, or just pushing the limit.



One idea: While I very much like the design and concept of Lil' Temperance, the knife seems awfully heavy for its size, maybe 25% overweight. Would a titanium compression lock and liner and CF scales achieve this degree of weight reduction? Of course there is the question as to whether the Ti lock would maintain the MBC strength rating...



One more that Sal has probably already had: An even heavier-duty version with steel bolsters/guard, and a beefed up compression lock.



On last notion: How about using magnesium for the non-lock liner to reduce wieght?

I take it you've already held and moved the prototype Temperance jr.? I personally thought it was lighter than it appeared. I'd be overjoyed if Spyderco could clip off even more weight, but I feel that beefing up the lock is more practical than weight reduction at this point. Using the Chinook as a reference point, the Temperance is feather light, and both offer about the same cutting edge length.
Changing out non-lock liner material to something lighter and the lock liner to something beefier sounds like a good move.

Ken

[Carlos]

Hi Ken,

My protest of the weight isn't about handling comfort, but about pocket carry comfort. Light or heavy is a non-issue for me in terms of handling, but I find it makes a big difference in terms of carry comfort, and thus whether or not I will carry a knife regularly or at all.

Speaking only for myself, a "pocket knife" means 4.0 ounces or less. Over that, it is a "belt knife" to be carried in a sheath. JMO and experience. I have been longing for a trailing point Temperance Jr. forever it seems, so I'll still get one despite it being a little overweight on my personal scale. If possible I'd like to collect one trailing point Temperance from each different run as long as they are made.

I too had planned on getting the trailing point, and depending on how I feel about it when I get it, I'll probably get every progressive evolution also. I was hoping to do so with the larger Sr. version moreso.

Sal had mentioned the red trainer in G-10, but for me paying approximately $200 for a trainer is kind of out of the question. I'd like to suggest that the trainer use an FRN material to keep the cost down. I'm sure that the weight difference could be worked out to be a similar heft in one area or another.

I'm curious to see the actual production version with the 3 dual sided indexing points(which I just read about).

Ken

[Carlos]

Hi Ken,

That is a good idea regarding the Trainers. To equalize the weight, all they would have to do is use a higher glass fill in the FRN -- say 60% (like Grivory GV6H). That should bring it to within 5% or 10% of the weight of the G10 versions. The only problem is whether it would be worth the cost of tooling for the injection molded FRN handle with a Trainer volume of just 50 units a month, or 300 per production run. Perhaps it would make sense in the long term: the live knives will constantly change from run to run, but the trainers would pretty much stay the same wouldn't they?

This might also be a good idea for the Gunting trainers, and for other trainers to come in the future -- assuming that they are successful in general.

I guess we'll have to cross our fingers and hope that Lil' Temperance is successful enough to merit the introduction of its larger sibling. Though I have to admit that this new breed of wide 3" blade knives (like the Lum Chinese) can outcut most 4-inchers of ordinary design.

Exactly, unless there is a radical change in shape/structure, I don't see why a FRN 'generic' trainer wouldn't suffice for all future evolutions of a particular model.

As far as tooling costs, I suppose that would have to be judged by the projected future lifespan of a particular model. As you pointed out this FRN solution(for non-FRN handles) will only be practical for Spyderco in the long run, so if a MBC model is not expected to last long, we'll just not expect a trainer. No problem because most of the people I've seen/met in MBC training have been getting by with 'very' rough equivalent trainers just fine. The Endura trainer I have could simulate at least 4 other Spydercos I carry.

Sorry to get off the orig. 'live blade' topic.

Ken

[sal]

Toolingis always an issue. If one spends $30,000 on a FRN mold and one sells 1000 pcs, then the tooling costs spread out over the 1000 pcs would be $30 per pc in tooling alone. Added to the cost of making the knife, there probably wouldn't be much of a savings.

sal

Would it be more practical to cut handles out of FRN sheets using the same machines/methods for making the G-10 scales?

Ken

[Carlos]

A few more ideas and questions:

I've had another strange notion regarding hybridization. Since it is more elegant to apply strength where strength is needed, and to cut weight and cost where feasable, would it make sense to use G10 for the non-lock side and CF for the lock side? I could imagine a fully hybrid construction with a Mg liner and G10 scale for the non-lock side, and a Ti liner and CF scale for the lock side.

I was also wondering again about my "holy grail" -- the monocoque laminate handle. The problem of course is getting the lock and liner into the monocoque. Could you imagine a design where a unified lock and liner "module," of steel or titanium, which slides or drops into a single-piece shell of fiberglass or CF? I think that sliding such a module in through the pivot end would also allow for the module to be nested. That way there would only be two screws -- the pivot bolt and the anvil pin (or stop pin for a linerlock), and that would hold the entire knife together. The lock-liner module could be a single piece of metal folded in half (with the bend at the top) with the compression lock top opening and lock arm cut into it, or alternately a linerlock.

[sal]

Hi Ken. FRN really doesn't come in sheets. the advantage of the material is that it can be injection molded. But even if it did, the cost of machining would be similar regardless of the material. Some materials would cost more because of they are harder to mill and use up bits faster, but basically time on a milling machine is expensive.

Hey Carlos. The one piece CF handle is not likely. The problems of getting the tool out of the mold are the same as getting the "Compression lock module" into the handle.

sal

[Carlos]

Hi Sal,

I guess we'll have to keep trying. We'll get it one day. <img src="smile.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle>

BTW, I had one more thought: How about a sort-of monocoque? Make the shell in two halves that mate together in a mortise and tenon design, and are bonded permanently with epoxy. Most, if not all of the benefits of a true monocoque, with easier manufacturing. It would also give you the option of placing the lock module inside the shell before bonding (probably less desireable due to servicing issues), or sliding the lock in afterwards through a port at the pivot end.

[sal]

Hi Carlos. That might work. Our first one planned is to form the scales separately and screw them together with screws through the posts.