Toolmakers and their pointless "trade secrets"

[Patrick Chase]

I used those 3M lapping films from Workshopheaven for this test. But for more details I have to look up my notes tonight, it's been a while ago.

Those films are Al-Oxide bonded to a polyester base. 3M also make very similar diamond films (sold by LV among others), but WSH resells the Al-Oxide ones. Quality AlOx films like that perform roughly on the same level as a good synthetic waterstone.

PM-V11 is indeed harder to grind than O1. It has very high chromium carbide content, and those carbides provide significant abrasion resistance. PM reduces those carbides' size and makes them easier to abrade away particularly at the lower/coarser grits, but there's no free lunch.

"2X" seems rather high based on my own experience with both alloys though. Maybe for a very fine polishing grit, but not in general.

[Patrick Chase]

Now that is interesting. I had thought the attraction of the PMV was that it was as durable as A2, but as easy to sharpen as O1. I wonder where I got that idea? If it is harder than A2, are you still sharpening it on waterstones? My waterstones will sharpen A2, but it is definitely slower than some of my other tools.

Things like "durability" and "ease of sharpening" are very applicartion- and situation-dependent.

In my own use I'd say that it's more durable than A2 (in particular it's less "chippy", which is a frequent problem for A2 the way I use it) and somewhere in between O1 and A2 for ease of honing, probably closer to O1 in that regard. I could easily imagine situations under which it would perform as Kees describes, because it has a different "balance" of attributes (abrasion resistance, "fold" resistance, tendency to chip, etc) than either O1 or A2. The degree of benefit that a user will see therefore depends on which attributes are most important for their use/application. To a very rough first order, the more important abrasion is in your application, the better PM-V11 will look.

This brings me full-circle to my original rant: Knowledgeable users understand what attributes they need, not least because they know how their existing tools fail. It's therefore useful to know what alloys/coatings/etc we're dealing with, because then we can draw educated conclusions about how their properties map to our needs and preference. "Black box" trade secrets like PM-V11 prevent us from doing that.

[Frederick Skelly]

But Pat, I think Koepke's point still holds for most (51%) users - we dont need/want to become a metallurgist or engineer to figure out what tool to buy. I read the things said here and elsewhere and choose what works for the task at hand. I "get" that you're an informed user and want more and I respect that. But these companies play it the way they do for reasons they get to decide. And if they lose a couple experts' business playing it that way, it still works for their business model. I mean, I'm sorry man, but ......

Fred

[William Fretwell]

There are lots of new crucible steels. Some people have developed proprietary heat treat methods to gain exceptional results. It is geometry that cuts in a push tool. Many crucible steels have a 'rougher' edge due to carbide size but more durability. Never getting super sharp but keeping that almost sharp edge a long time is common and a source of frustration (eg:S30V).
They are always more difficult to sharpen. As crucible steels go I keep hoping.

[Chuck Nickerson]

Feel free to start a tool-making company and publish all your product and production related decisions.

[Jim Koepke]

But Pat, I think Koepke's point still holds for most (51%) users - we dont need/want to become a metallurgist or engineer to figure out what tool to buy.

Thanks Fred,

I have a little knowledge of metallurgy, very little.

My concern is if a tool fulfills my needs. After that why care if there is the secret of the 'red headed boy's urine' or other special treatment. My concern is if the tool does the job better than the other tools available.

For me the results and comparative cost is enough to decide. My recollection is the spoke shave was offered at a teaser price which was about half the cost it is today. A pretty good investment to try a new blade composition. If it worked for me, it was a good deal. If it didn't work for me, it could likely be sold for a profit. How could one lose on a deal like that?

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Feel free to start a tool-making company and publish all your product and production related decisions.

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

[Jim Koepke]

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

I am confused, who is to be the arbiter of what can or can not be a company's trade secret? (I like the secret ingredient in the "secret ingredient noodles" from Kung Fu Panda. "The secret ingredient is there is no secret ingredient.")

The two secrets in question must be protecting something. Is anyone else offering rasps with a useful life enhancing coating?

Is anyone else making a blade they claim to be of the same metal as Lee Valley? Maybe the secret is in the name. Anyone can make O1 or A1 blades, only the holder of the trade marked name can make a blade of the material under the name even if it is a common steel known by another name.

At this point the only result of your insistence on knowing what is in or on the metal before purchasing the product is your not having a very useful product. In the case of the spokeshave you also missed out on buying it at a low introductory price.



jtk

[Frank J Hall]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't have trade secrets as you seem to assume. As I clearly said above, I've created more than my share and recommended that plenty of other peoples' IP be treated as such.

My argument is that in this specific case the "secret" in question is really anything but, since any competitor with access to modern materials analysis can obtain it.

So to be clear: I accept and support trade secrets in general. I think that these specific examples don't truly protect anything, are therefore anti-customer rather than anti-competitor, and should be rejected by the market.

So it is only a secret to consumers. I agree with the point that most consumers don't care. I think of people who go to the store to buy Goo-gone or goo-off or whatever the name is. They don't care what it's ingredients are or what the name as long as the know the purpose and it serves the intended purpose.

[Ryan Mooney]

You built a nice-looking strawman there, but it's completely irrelevant to my point.

Not entirely I don't think. Keeping the materials proprietary can offer a first mover advantage, and I would tend to agree with Jim that for the majority of consumers it would seem to offer little advantage and indeed may just afford more confusion to their marketing strategy. It would imho be an interesting exercise if one did go that way, somewhat akin to the hybrid open/closed source products.

I might also argue that the material itself is only 1/2 of the equation and the process used in applying it is at least equally important and that is where the real trade secrets lay (not that that's not getting more commoditized as well but there is still room in here for some differentiation).

[Patrick Chase]

I am confused, who is to be the arbiter of what can or can not be a company's trade secret? (I like the secret ingredient in the "secret ingredient noodles" from Kung Fu Panda. "The secret ingredient is there is no secret ingredient.")

As I've said several times already in this thread, the market is the arbiter. If we allow people to not tell us what we're buying, then they have no incentive to change their behavior and that's the end of it.

Other markets have different norms. I mentioned higher-end cutting tools, and somebody else brought up the knife market. In both of those the expectation is of a higher level of disclosure. I've noticed that the woodworking community is unusually susceptible to "semi-technical mystical mumbo-jumbo", and perhaps that gives the toolmakers some license to be vague.

The two secrets in question must be protecting something. Is anyone else offering rasps with a useful life enhancing coating?

I already addressed this in previous posts. They are clearly not protecting the composition, since that's analytically detectable in both cases, period.

Whether or not somebody else is using such a coating is irrelevant, because there are plenty of reasons other than not knowing its composition why they might not do so. For example Liogier might have a unique *process* (which would likely be undetectable via analysis) that others haven't mastered. If so then that would be a perfect example of something that they absolutely should hold as a trade secret.

Is anyone else making a blade they claim to be of the same metal as Lee Valley? Maybe the secret is in the name.

I already addressed this in post #4. "PM-V11" is a trade mark. Nobody else can use that name in the market without LV's permission. Note that this is true regardless of whether they keep the composition/identity secret.

Anyone can make O1 or A1 blades, only the holder of the trade marked name can make a blade of the material under the name even if it is a common steel known by another name.

Yes, that's rudimentary trademark. It's also irrelevant to this thread, because trademarks don't have to be associated with trade secrets. You can have a secret that isn't a trade mark, and vice versa. I have no concerns about trademarks here.

At this point the only result of your insistence on knowing what is in or on the metal before purchasing the product is your not having a very useful product. In the case of the spokeshave you also missed out on buying it at a low introductory price.

Without knowing what it is it's rather hard to determine whether it's "very useful". That's sort of the root of the problem.

In any case you're right that an individual can only accomplish so much. Collectively consumers (a.k.a. the market) can drive change, though.

What spokeshave and "introductory price" are you referring to?

[Patrick Chase]

So that was a example how knowing the compostion of the steel could have been helpfull. I have no problem telling the rest of the world what it really is. With the results of an analysis of a steel sample I just looked up the various catalogues from the steel makers. This was made easy because the steel contains very little vanadium which is kind of unusual in the powder metal business. The Carpenter steel 440XH, also known as CTS-XHP, matches the sample exactly. A knife steel that is used a lot in high end knifes.

Yep, since it's out of the bag I'll say that I also found that to be the best match for the analytical results. For that matter I think you may have been the person who first steered me in that direction, though that was before I'd gone to the trouble of measuring the composition. I don't know the % Carbon, but IMO that isn't necessary to ID a high-alloy steel like this one.

Carpenter's patent for that alloy expired the same year that PM-V11 hit the market, so it's conceivable that Carpenter isn't actually processing it in this instance. I doubt that, though, because powdered metallurgy is a nontrivial undertaking with lots of IP on the process side.

I also agree completely with your points about how knowing the composition can save us a lot of trouble. The fact that the carbide structure is quite tight means that it isn't as painful to grind/work as, say, conventionally processed D2 or 440C (which have broadly similar compositions but coarse structure), but even so knowing the composition can save a knowledgeable customer a LOT of wasted time and money. That was really my entire point to begin with.

Interestingly your post also illustrates why subjective testimonials are no substitute for real data. Kees and I both agree on the composition, identity, and attributes of PM-V11. Our subjective opinions of it are however very different: I love it and find it not very hard to work, while he appears to not find it to be worth the sharpening/grinding hassle. I suspect that's because we use different sharpening systems (I mostly grind on CBN and sharpen/hone on diamond, so I find it to work easily), have different technique, and work different woods. Having the "ground truth" of PM-V11's ID helps me to put Kees' opinion in proper context.

EDIT: Updated to reflect actual patent status of CTS-XHP.

[Jim Koepke]

What spokeshave and "introductory price" are you referring to?

I'm sorry, I thought it was mentioned in this or the thread that is running concurrent to this thread on the same subject. It was mentioned in another thread regarding planes and PM-V11.

This is the spokeshave referred to in my post:

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/pag...t=1,50230&ap=1

My recollection at the time is of Rob Lee saying it was being offered at a ridiculously low price to introduce the world to the new PM-V11 blade material. My memory seems to recall it was at a time of "free shipping" and something had to be added to bring it up to the minimum. That could be just my fuzzy memory.

Derek and I both related our experience with the shaves. Mine needed a little fettling but is now a great performer and gets out to the bench anytime spokeshaves are needed.

Now that the price has increased I wish I had bought a dozen.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

If a steel containing 16% of chromium is even CLOSE to beinmg as easily sharpened as 01 or A2,I'd say that is a considerable accomplishment in itself!I have used D23,at about 12% chrome,and can only get it sharpened on diamond and ceramic stones! Then,it does not hold QUITE a razor edge!

Indeed. Modern powdered metals are amazing in that regard IMO. Your comparison to D2 is apt by the way: Carpenter themselves say that CTS-XHP "can be considered... a corrosion-resistant D2 tool steel".

[Patrick Chase]

Carpenter's patent for that alloy expired the same year that PM-V11 hit the market, so it's conceivable that Carpenter isn't actually processing it in this instance. I doubt that, though, because powdered metallurgy is a nontrivial undertaking with lots of IP on the process side.

It just occurred to me that if PM-V11 is being manufactured out-of-patent by somebody other than Carpenter, then Carpenter's trademarks would prevent LV from branding it as CTS-XHP or 440XH. They could still reveal the composition if they so chose, though.