A reflection on efficiency

[Tirvine]

On a thread regarding smooth and efficient razors there was a little back and forth that got me to thinking about efficiency. While it is certainly possible that I do not fully comprehend the matter, it seems to me that at its core efficiency is the ability to place the blade in a position of optimal contact with the base of the whisker(s). It seems a lot of us perceive more aggressive razors as more efficient, presumably because it is easier to ensure good contact with greater exposure. I have had a small and non-probative experiment that leads me to think muscle memory is key to efficiency. I have a razor with two plates, mild and regular. I usually use the mild one. I recently tried the regular plate for a blade (about a month) and then shifted back to the mild. It dawned on me today that I was getting a closer and more efficient shave. I can only conclude it is my deeply engrained muscle memory using that plate versus more attentiveness with the regular plate. Here I sit, baby's butt smooth, with no need for buffing after three passes on autopilot with a mild plate and a second day on a Gillette Silver Blue!

 

[thombrogan]

Similar observations by @engblom led @engblom to form a club exalting perfection of technique through avoiding gear polygamy:

SSSR: Simple Standardized Shaving Routine

Welcome to the comradeship of Simple Standardized Shaving Routine (SSSR). The requirements for joining are as following: You use the same hardware and software almost every shave. You are allowed to use a separate traveling set and you are allowed to sometimes try other stuff out of curiosity...

www.badgerandblade.com

 

[jmd]

Similar observations by @engblom led @engblom to form a club exalting perfection of technique through avoiding gear polygamy: [...]

I refuse to join any club that would accept me as a member.

Difficult in the case of the geezer club given the opportunity of a community of people who like me initially reacted to the TV remote control thinking, "That's the stupidest idea I've ever seen."

 

[tm3]

On a thread regarding smooth and efficient razors there was a little back and forth that got me to thinking about efficiency. While it is certainly possible that I do not fully comprehend the matter, it seems to me that at its core efficiency is the ability to place the blade in a position of optimal contact with the base of the whisker(s). It seems a lot of us perceive more aggressive razors as more efficient, presumably because it is easier to ensure good contact with greater exposure. I have had a small and non-probative experiment that leads me to think muscle memory is key to efficiency. I have a razor with two plates, mild and regular. I usually use the mild one. I recently tried the regular plate for a blade (about a month) and then shifted back to the mild. It dawned on me today that I was getting a closer and more efficient shave. I can only conclude it is my deeply engrained muscle memory using that plate versus more attentiveness with the regular plate. Here I sit, baby's butt smooth, with no need for buffing after three passes on autopilot with a mild plate and a second day on a Gillette Silver Blue!

The more I think about this, the more I think that what you are saying has to be correct, especially when looking at it from a position of converse logic, i.e. if an aggressive razor is not more efficient because it is easier to ensure good contact with greater exposure, then what IS the explanation? Since it can't be hysteresis with only one blade, closeness has to be a function of how close to the skin surface the whisker is cut and how parallel to the skin surface the cut is. All razors, mild and aggressive, deliver the blade along the surface of the skin (they can't go below the surface of the skin) so the uniform closeness of the cut has to be due to optimum angle, it would seem.

This would explain why razors such as the Henson and Winning, as well as injector razors, that have a design that "forces" the optimum angle at contact result in a more uniformly "efficient" shave while also being "milder." It would also explain why pivoting head razors also often lead to a more efficient shave result.

Interesting concept.

 

[BigJ]

Interesting thread!

For me, the answer is a razor in the ‘mild-moderate’ range that holds the blade rigidly. YMMV for sure!

 

[Tirvine]

The more I think about this, the more I think that what you are saying has to be correct, especially when looking at it from a position of converse logic, i.e. if an aggressive razor is not more efficient because it is easier to ensure good contact with greater exposure, then what IS the explanation? Since it can't be hysteresis with only one blade, closeness has to be a function of how close to the skin surface the whisker is cut and how parallel to the skin surface the cut is. All razors, mild and aggressive, deliver the blade along the surface of the skin (they can't go below the surface of the skin) so the uniform closeness of the cut has to be due to optimum angle, it would seem.

This would explain why razors such as the Henson and Winning, as well as injector razors, that have a design that "forces" the optimum angle at contact result in a more uniformly "efficient" shave while also being "milder." It would also explain why pivoting head razors also often lead to a more efficient shave result.

Interesting concept.

It seems the more aggressive a razor is, the wider the range of angles that will still place the blade's edge in position to cut whiskers. The Feather AS-D2 has a notoriously narrow window of such angles. What one shaver might call a lack of efficiency another might call a failure to hit that window consistently.

 

[tm3]

It seems the more aggressive a razor is, the wider the range of angles that will still place the blade's edge in position to cut whiskers. The Feather AS-D2 has a notoriously narrow window of such angles. What one shaver might call a lack of efficiency another might call a failure to hit that window consistently.

Exactly, and using my ASD2 has greatly influenced my opinion. When I "nail it" on a section of my face the ASD2 result is as smooth and long lasting as it is with any other razor, but, with other razors it is easier to get those smooth and long lasting results more consistently. Being "more forgiving of the angle" seems to be the explanation, and my guess is that more blade exposure tends to result in a razor that is more forgiving of the angle.

 

[Happy Jack]

All razors, mild and aggressive, deliver the blade along the surface of the skin (they can't go below the surface of the skin)

Really? Have you ever tried a Merkur Futur on its highest setting? I can assure you that it can remove layers of skin.

 

[Chandu]

To me efficiency is how close the razor leaves me after one pass. That may be one smooth pass, one rougher than a cob pass. The comfort of the pass doesn't matter in ranking the razor in efficiency, only the length of the stubble (in my world).

Now if you can find efficient and smooth, you've got a real winner. On the other hand some like to really feel the blade and some don't.

 

[Tirvine]

To me efficiency is how close the razor leaves me after one pass. That may be one smooth pass, one rougher than a cob pass. The comfort of the pass doesn't matter in ranking the razor in efficiency, only the length of the stubble (in my world).

Now if you can find efficient and smooth, you've got a real winner. On the other hand some like to really feel the blade and some don't.

I agree.

 

[SCh5]

Efficiency is simply the amount of stubble left after one pass.
There are more than few parameters and variables that
define the efficiency of a given
razor.
But every razor has an upper limit of efficiency and can't perform any better than that.