Kershaw Cryo Re-Review
This is my first re-review. It came about after a firestorm of controversy prompted by comments on the original review
from Thomas W, the brand manager for Kershaw Knives. Seeing how the
comment panned out I decided to respond to it via a full blow post. You
can see that post here.
After consideration I decided that I would re-review the Cryo. My
goal, after all, is to get it right, not be a big mouth. To that end I
called Thomas W and spoke to him for more than a hour. We talked about
the knife business and he gave me a mountain of information that I am
still processing. Thomas is a really intense guy and has lots and lots
of experience in the business. His willingness to talk to me was,
frankly, incredible.
Over the course of the conversation and the comments and responses, Thomas's points were pretty straightforward. First, the Cryo is a massive commercial success. His numbers were pretty staggering. The Cryo vastly outsold the Skyline, one of my favorite Kershaw's in the same time period and it placed in the same sales range as the Onion knives, the perennial best sellers in the Kershaw line up. That success, he claims, has to count for something. Second, given the price and place of origin, the Cryo is actually a very good knife. It is an amazing value because it gives consumers Hinderer design features at bargain prices. Third, it was a critical success, with Blade giving it an award in the 2012 show. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Cryo is not a knife aimed at the enthusiast. Folks like us, folks that happily drop a pair Ben Franklins on a knife, are not the intended audience for the Cryo. Seen from the perspective of that audience the Cryo is a GREAT knife.
Those arguments were enough to prompt me to re-review the Cryo. Here is the re-review policy:
As I noted in my response to Thomas W.'s criticism of the Cryo review, found here, I have decided that I will re-review products. If you made something I reviewed and were dissatisfied with the review, you can contact me and ask for a re-review. This is distinct from two things. First, if I made technical errors, like getting the steel wrong, you can contact me immediately and I will make the correction to the review AND note my mistake. Second, periodically I go back and update the score of a product. I do this after a year and then after five years (should I be around that long). The purpose of the update is different from a re-review. One issue that comes up with products like knives and flashlights is that as technology improves, scores should reflect that change. The update does this. A knife with S30V steel is still a good knife, but that steel is no longer cutting edge (har, har). Over time this effect will be larger and larger until S30V steel, absent some great heat treat or grind, will merit a score lower than a 2. The Updates capture this.
A re-review, however, is a separate review with a new testing period for an item I already reviewed. Think of it like a brand new review. First, I will do re-reviews at my discretion. Second, I will do them no sooner than 6 months after the first review as this prevents a maker from coming back right away and rigging the review scoring system. Third, I will not do a third review. Once the review and re-review are done, that's it. The idea is to balance two competing concerns--getting something right against a lack of finality and too much influence from makers. This site, to the extent that it works, works because I have no financial stake in this. I don't care if one gear company is mad at me. I'd prefer if they weren't but my first loyalty, and since this is not for money, my ONLY loyalty is to my readers. Getting it right is important. Giving them a final judgment is also important. I hope this re-review policy does that. We'll see how it works with the Cryo and go from there.
In the end, Thomas's arguments made me take this knife seriously and the review deadly serious. First, once I decided to to the re-review I stopped reading the Cryo review, so that I would have as fresh a take as possible on the knife. Second, I tallied up the score and then did the comparison stuff AFTER the text of the re-review was written. Third, I documented a lot more of the cutting tests than I normally do (and that has rubbed off, I am going to do that in the future, when possible). All of this care though convinced me that I didn't miss the mark by much in the original review. In the end though, I don't think the knife is good, even in the context of a non-enthusiast knife. It is too heavy, too slick, too awkward, and too expensive for what you get. There are better knives from Kershaw and better knives from other companies out there. They may lack the Hinderer design heritage, but they offer a vastly better value proposition than the Cryo. It may be a best-selling award winner, but Twilight was too ($392 million take with two Grammy nominations). Those two things, taken alone, are not enough to convince me I am wrong, especially after two extensive review periods. This is a ho-hum knife on its very best day.
Here is my review sample with a good small flashlight, the Peak Eiger AAA Oveready Edition:
Design: 0
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I have more evidence to suggest the steel is subpar.
Blade Shape: 2
Over the course of the conversation and the comments and responses, Thomas's points were pretty straightforward. First, the Cryo is a massive commercial success. His numbers were pretty staggering. The Cryo vastly outsold the Skyline, one of my favorite Kershaw's in the same time period and it placed in the same sales range as the Onion knives, the perennial best sellers in the Kershaw line up. That success, he claims, has to count for something. Second, given the price and place of origin, the Cryo is actually a very good knife. It is an amazing value because it gives consumers Hinderer design features at bargain prices. Third, it was a critical success, with Blade giving it an award in the 2012 show. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Cryo is not a knife aimed at the enthusiast. Folks like us, folks that happily drop a pair Ben Franklins on a knife, are not the intended audience for the Cryo. Seen from the perspective of that audience the Cryo is a GREAT knife.
Those arguments were enough to prompt me to re-review the Cryo. Here is the re-review policy:
As I noted in my response to Thomas W.'s criticism of the Cryo review, found here, I have decided that I will re-review products. If you made something I reviewed and were dissatisfied with the review, you can contact me and ask for a re-review. This is distinct from two things. First, if I made technical errors, like getting the steel wrong, you can contact me immediately and I will make the correction to the review AND note my mistake. Second, periodically I go back and update the score of a product. I do this after a year and then after five years (should I be around that long). The purpose of the update is different from a re-review. One issue that comes up with products like knives and flashlights is that as technology improves, scores should reflect that change. The update does this. A knife with S30V steel is still a good knife, but that steel is no longer cutting edge (har, har). Over time this effect will be larger and larger until S30V steel, absent some great heat treat or grind, will merit a score lower than a 2. The Updates capture this.
A re-review, however, is a separate review with a new testing period for an item I already reviewed. Think of it like a brand new review. First, I will do re-reviews at my discretion. Second, I will do them no sooner than 6 months after the first review as this prevents a maker from coming back right away and rigging the review scoring system. Third, I will not do a third review. Once the review and re-review are done, that's it. The idea is to balance two competing concerns--getting something right against a lack of finality and too much influence from makers. This site, to the extent that it works, works because I have no financial stake in this. I don't care if one gear company is mad at me. I'd prefer if they weren't but my first loyalty, and since this is not for money, my ONLY loyalty is to my readers. Getting it right is important. Giving them a final judgment is also important. I hope this re-review policy does that. We'll see how it works with the Cryo and go from there.
In the end, Thomas's arguments made me take this knife seriously and the review deadly serious. First, once I decided to to the re-review I stopped reading the Cryo review, so that I would have as fresh a take as possible on the knife. Second, I tallied up the score and then did the comparison stuff AFTER the text of the re-review was written. Third, I documented a lot more of the cutting tests than I normally do (and that has rubbed off, I am going to do that in the future, when possible). All of this care though convinced me that I didn't miss the mark by much in the original review. In the end though, I don't think the knife is good, even in the context of a non-enthusiast knife. It is too heavy, too slick, too awkward, and too expensive for what you get. There are better knives from Kershaw and better knives from other companies out there. They may lack the Hinderer design heritage, but they offer a vastly better value proposition than the Cryo. It may be a best-selling award winner, but Twilight was too ($392 million take with two Grammy nominations). Those two things, taken alone, are not enough to convince me I am wrong, especially after two extensive review periods. This is a ho-hum knife on its very best day.
Here is my review sample with a good small flashlight, the Peak Eiger AAA Oveready Edition:
Twitter Review Summary: Appearance over performance leads to a poor value, even for a bargain knife
Design: 0
The
knife is compact, especially thin, though significantly wider than most
blades this size. The width v. thinness tradeoff is one I am very
willing to make (I am, after all, smitten with quite a few Spyderco
knives, including the extra wide Manix2 LW.
The overall design is overbuilt and chunky, tactical, if you will.
But there in lies the problem. This knife's design is more about
appearance than performance. Everything, when it comes to performance,
is subpar. This is a knife that goes for a certain look and achieves
that look, but at the cost of everything else.
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
Nothing. Still too fat.
Fit and Finish: 1
The
knife's weight is simply incredible. At 4.2 ounces this knife is just
too heavy. I have talked about this at length on the blog and the
podcast, but there is absolutely no reason, none at all, for this knife
to weigh as much as it does. The ratios range from slightly below par
to downright bad (.73 blade:handle, not bad; but a .65 blade:weight is
craptacular for a small blade). It is a sign of the major design flaw
present in the Cryo--appearance over performance.
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
Nothing. Still too fat.
Fit and Finish: 1
The
original review sample actually had a blade that rubbed against the
handle, making it more of a pair of scissors than a folding knife. Here
the new review sample is better, but still not great. Blade centering
is well, take a look:
That shot exaggerates the problem, but it is indicative of an issue. Here is the blade head on:
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
Blade centering is a little better. There is going to be variation in all knives, production or otherwise. Given the two review samples I think it is safe to say this is not one of the better budget knives in terms of fit and finish. The Drifters I had were better. The Ka Bar Mini Dozier had better fit and finish. This is not the Cryo's forte, but this model was better than the original.
Grip: 1
Only the jimping on the blade is actually effective. The rest of the jimping is aesthetic only, like many of the features on the Cryo. Add to this, the super slick stainless steel handle and there is not much to hold on to here. Even the pocket clip, sometimes an aid in holding on to a knife, like on the Spyderco Delica, for example, is not much of a help as it is very small and close to the handle scale (a good thing overall, but a weakness when it comes to grip).
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
Nothing.
Carry: 0
That shot exaggerates the problem, but it is indicative of an issue. Here is the blade head on:
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
Blade centering is a little better. There is going to be variation in all knives, production or otherwise. Given the two review samples I think it is safe to say this is not one of the better budget knives in terms of fit and finish. The Drifters I had were better. The Ka Bar Mini Dozier had better fit and finish. This is not the Cryo's forte, but this model was better than the original.
Grip: 1
Only the jimping on the blade is actually effective. The rest of the jimping is aesthetic only, like many of the features on the Cryo. Add to this, the super slick stainless steel handle and there is not much to hold on to here. Even the pocket clip, sometimes an aid in holding on to a knife, like on the Spyderco Delica, for example, is not much of a help as it is very small and close to the handle scale (a good thing overall, but a weakness when it comes to grip).
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
Nothing.
Carry: 0
You
know this thing is stupidly heavy, but what you can't know unless you
carry the knife a lot is that it is actually a snag magnet. The thumb
studs, which do literally nothing, protrude from the body quite a bit
snagging on a pocket's lip quite readily. The whole pivot area is
actually a bit snaggy--the thumb studs, the slightly overly large
flipper, and the clip all make extraction surprisingly difficult.
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
I hate the way this knife carries now more than before. Extra 0?
Steel: 1
Original Score: 0
What Changed:
I hate the way this knife carries now more than before. Extra 0?
Steel: 1
Here are the results from some cutting tests I did with the Cryo and some other blades (taken from the SOG Bluto's review):
- Victorinox 1.4116: Paper: 8; Cardboard: 2; Wood: 3
- Kershaw 8CR13MoV: Paper: 9; Cardboard: 4; Wood: 14
- SOG VG-10: Paper: 30; Cardboard: 5; Wood: 15
- S35VN: Paper: 56+; Cardboard: 11+; Wood: 74+
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I have more evidence to suggest the steel is subpar.
Blade Shape: 2
I love the simple shape. Always have, always will.
Original Score: 2
What Changed:
Still great and a reason why this knife should be overhauled and a special, limited edition should be made with improvements to materials and fit and finish.
Grind: 1
Original Score: 2
What Changed:
Still great and a reason why this knife should be overhauled and a special, limited edition should be made with improvements to materials and fit and finish.
Grind: 1
The
stock is thick, as this is supposed to look like a tactical, overbuilt
knife, so the grind needs to be very clean and deep to make this thing a
cutter. It is neither. The grind is quite sloppy:
Original Score: 2
What Changed:
Sloppier grind is one thing, but cutting tests proved that this grind was not great for slicing and in a blade this small, really what are the chances you will be doing chopping? Not great, but certainly less than the chance you will be performing slicing cuts.
Deployment Method: 1
The flipper is a pull style flipper, and it is a little too bit for what it is, but I like it enough. If that were the only problem, the Cryo would get a 2 here. Its not. The thumb studs do nothing at all. It is all but impossible to deploy the knife with the thumb studs. Instead, they simply snag on about 1/3 of the things they encounter. Good flipper - terrible thumbstuds = score of 1. Kershaw, GET RID OF THE THUMB STUDS.
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
Hated the thumb studs then and now. TERRIBLE.
Retention Method: 2
Furthermore, as the cutting tests indicate, it is not very deep. The stock retains a huge amount of the it's thickness. Blah.
Original Score: 2
What Changed:
Sloppier grind is one thing, but cutting tests proved that this grind was not great for slicing and in a blade this small, really what are the chances you will be doing chopping? Not great, but certainly less than the chance you will be performing slicing cuts.
Deployment Method: 1
The flipper is a pull style flipper, and it is a little too bit for what it is, but I like it enough. If that were the only problem, the Cryo would get a 2 here. Its not. The thumb studs do nothing at all. It is all but impossible to deploy the knife with the thumb studs. Instead, they simply snag on about 1/3 of the things they encounter. Good flipper - terrible thumbstuds = score of 1. Kershaw, GET RID OF THE THUMB STUDS.
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
Hated the thumb studs then and now. TERRIBLE.
Retention Method: 2
This
is one awesome pocket clip. I love the design and the clean lines. It
works well, even if it doesn't help with grip and makes extraction
difficult. Both of those flaws are because of the knife's design, not
the pocket clip itself.
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I realized that the problems with the clip aren't the clip's fault. This is a great clip, among the best available for production knives under $100.
Lock: 2
Frame lock. Fine. I got used to the narrow lock disengagement point. It is a good iteration of a budget frame lock with good lock stability and easy engagement and disengagement.
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I don't like the lock disengagement part of the lock bar, but it is not that big a deal. The rest of the lock is quite good, especially for a budget frame lock.
Overall Score: 11 out of 20
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I realized that the problems with the clip aren't the clip's fault. This is a great clip, among the best available for production knives under $100.
Lock: 2
Frame lock. Fine. I got used to the narrow lock disengagement point. It is a good iteration of a budget frame lock with good lock stability and easy engagement and disengagement.
Original Score: 1
What Changed:
I don't like the lock disengagement part of the lock bar, but it is not that big a deal. The rest of the lock is quite good, especially for a budget frame lock.
Overall Score: 11 out of 20
Two points. I was wrong,
I'll admit it. But I wasn't that far off. This is not the knife people
think it is. The most important feature of the Cryo is seen in that
last photo, that little label letting you know it is a "Hinderer
Design." That is its most important feature.
There are better knives regardless of your point of comparison. For the money and materials the Zing SS is just better--lighter with a bigger blade and same handle size. As a budget knife, the Drifter, which is about 1/2 as much, is significantly a better value. For the size there are a dozen knives better (the 2.75 inch to 3 inch market is PRETTY crowded). For the weight, you get a Manix2 LW and 1.4 ounces to use on a flashlight AND more than a half inch of blade length. If you want a budget Hinderer, this is it...oh wait, that is not even true. There is a budget Hinderer from Gerber, the Hinderer CLS, and a few from Kershaw as well. There is literally no comparison you can make where the Cryo comes out on top.
And there in lies the problem with virtually all of the arguments Thomas made. This is not an enthusiast's knife. This is not a budget knife (it retails for around $40). This is not a Hinderer knife. This is not a hard use knife. This is not a big knife. This is not a lightweight knife. This is just not a good knife. Period. It looks good, yes it does, but it does not perform well. No amount of argument or reviewing will change those facts, hence basically the same opinion.
Having just reviewed the Pilot Vanishing Point where every single detail is in service to the writing performance, it is discouraging to go back and look at this knife where virtually nothing promotes the cutting experience. This is a knife built around a look and not an edge, instead of the other way around.
There are better knives regardless of your point of comparison. For the money and materials the Zing SS is just better--lighter with a bigger blade and same handle size. As a budget knife, the Drifter, which is about 1/2 as much, is significantly a better value. For the size there are a dozen knives better (the 2.75 inch to 3 inch market is PRETTY crowded). For the weight, you get a Manix2 LW and 1.4 ounces to use on a flashlight AND more than a half inch of blade length. If you want a budget Hinderer, this is it...oh wait, that is not even true. There is a budget Hinderer from Gerber, the Hinderer CLS, and a few from Kershaw as well. There is literally no comparison you can make where the Cryo comes out on top.
And there in lies the problem with virtually all of the arguments Thomas made. This is not an enthusiast's knife. This is not a budget knife (it retails for around $40). This is not a Hinderer knife. This is not a hard use knife. This is not a big knife. This is not a lightweight knife. This is just not a good knife. Period. It looks good, yes it does, but it does not perform well. No amount of argument or reviewing will change those facts, hence basically the same opinion.
Having just reviewed the Pilot Vanishing Point where every single detail is in service to the writing performance, it is discouraging to go back and look at this knife where virtually nothing promotes the cutting experience. This is a knife built around a look and not an edge, instead of the other way around.
Thomas,
I am sorry if this is not what you would have wanted, but I just can't
shake the notion that this knife is not all it could be. A G10 version
(heck make it a liner lock) would cut weight and make this knife better.
A USA Made G10 version with Sandvik 14C28N and no thumb stud that
weighed around 3 ounces would be a friggin' stud. I'd pay $60 for that
knife easily. I am fairly certain a lot of other people would too.
The current version of the Cryo just isn't that good.
The current version of the Cryo just isn't that good.