What's new

DE razor geometry. A system for measuring aggressive razors.

FTFY :)

My Fatip is a work of art. My R41 on the other hand...

The comb is bowed outwards. Look at the bottoms of the center 4 teeth.

View attachment 1282606

Neither side of the base is square.

View attachment 1282607

The top of the comb is the same as the base of the comb. The razor will rock across the 4 center teeth.

View attachment 1282608

View attachment 1282605

Someone once blamed me for buying an R41 clone base and thats why its poorly cast. That however, wasnt the case. It came directly from Muhle.

View attachment 1282609

Sure it has great plating but even the plating thickness could be measured in thousands of an inch, not microns. Plating that thick can hide a lot.

Thats a problem with cast parts, not only razors but any cast parts. The pieces coming out of the molds are only as good as the molds themselves and, molds wear.
Wow where is the quality control. Also makes you wonder how often this happens.
 
FTFY :)

My Fatip is a work of art. My R41 on the other hand...

The comb is bowed outwards. Look at the bottoms of the center 4 teeth.

View attachment 1282606

Neither side of the base is square.

View attachment 1282607

The top of the comb is the same as the base of the comb. The razor will rock across the 4 center teeth.

View attachment 1282608

View attachment 1282605

Someone once blamed me for buying an R41 clone base and thats why its poorly cast. That however, wasnt the case. It came directly from Muhle.

View attachment 1282609

Sure it has great plating but even the plating thickness could be measured in thousands of an inch, not microns. Plating that thick can hide a lot.

Thats a problem with cast parts, not only razors but any cast parts. The pieces coming out of the molds are only as good as the molds themselves and, molds wear.
The R41 stainless design is in my opinium improved. As you can see from the photo, the cast version supports the blate further in, making the R41 GS smoother. The blade is more in control. GS on the right:)
Good razor, but they should improve on the box it is shipped in.
20210616_211437.jpg
 
I have an old dial indicator stand that I've used in the past for machine setup that should be perfect for this (new one's can be had at Harbor Freight for $13). Now I just need to mount it to the Plugable Microscope. I'm thinking this another job for InstaMorph. It's a low temp thermoplastic that's moldable at 150F, and hardens at room temp. Super Handy stuff. Let's see if it works. :)

proxy.php


proxy.php
 

Esox

I didnt know
The zamac R41 is unworthy of paperweight duty

Zamac is too light lol.


Wow where is the quality control. Also makes you wonder how often this happens.

I have no idea how often they change their molds out but its not often enough...


The R41 stainless design is in my opinium improved.

You can tell just with a quick look at your picture that the mating surfaces between cap and base are much tighter. If the cap clamps the blade to the tops of the teeth, evenly and equally across the width of the blade, I'm sure it would be a great razor. The design and geometry is sound, the cast manufacturing of the Zamac version, isnt.
 
The R41 stainless design is in my opinium improved. As you can see from the photo, the cast version supports the blate further in, making the R41 GS smoother. The blade is more in control. GS on the right:)
Good razor, but they should improve on the box it is shipped in.
View attachment 1282630

I've read that you can buy a Chinese made 316L stainless or titanium version of the R41 for $30 shipped, but with .002" tolerances. The reviews I read were positive. I'm tempted to buy one. I'm not sure how long Muhle will be able to sell paperweights for $40.

This one comes with 316l stainless head and a lovely titanium handle for $42 shipped:

proxy.php
 
Last edited:
Figuring out the lighting for this thing is going to be challenging. It's the light hungriest beast I've ever seen. There are lights on the microscope itself that can be adjusted, and with them 90% dimmed, but the room lights turned on, the camera interprets this as the "Utter Blackness: the complete absence of visible light".
If you can find a window with indirect light, it is your best chance to get the lighting right. You will still likely need to diffuse it still. There are tutorials online how to balance light for product photography. You need to reflect natural light from at least two directions for fill and probably still use the microscope light as a key light. Figuring out the total quantity of light that the sensor needs is going to be tricky, I wonder what is in the meta data of the image? Once you figure out the total and have foam boards to bounce the light, you can adjust their aim to remove glair or dark spots. You should start a thread for the bug images you get with your kids, I bet that thing will work fine for that outdoors.
 
I got my microscope! I just took my first shots. First Impressions:
  • The stand is awful. Changing the focus requires physically turning a dial on the camera. Turning the dial moves the camera. When you let go of the camera, it moves again and changes the focus. That aftermarket stand is looking better and better.
  • The stand is awful part 2: Ideally you want a completely stable camera moving exclusively in the z axis (up/down). With the supplied stand, it moves on all 3 axis at once, making setting up the shot a nightmare. Touching it to refocus it causes you to have to start all over again.
  • I have no idea how @Rosseforp took the images that he did. There may or may have been magic involved.
  • Figuring out the lighting for this thing is going to be challenging. It's the light hungriest beast I've ever seen. There are lights on the microscope itself that can be adjusted, and with them 90% dimmed, but the room lights turned on, the camera interprets this as the "Utter Blackness: the complete absence of visible light".
  • Image stacking is going to be tough without a decent stand. The camera moves too much when focus is being adjusted.
  • Using Picolay to stack images is even easier than I'd hoped. It literally takes 20 seconds.
  • The microscope has a 1.5cm long transparent plastic cowl that prevents you from getting too close to the subject. The photos below are as close as it's possible to get without removing that cowl with a saw. It appears to be permanently affixed.
  • On balance, I've very pleased with it. I just have to figure out the lighting and figure out a more stable stand.
Here are my first pictures. The first two are the pictures I took, and the third is the focus stacked image. At any rate, the photos are trash, and the lighting is terrible, but it's a very close picture, and the focus stacking really worked! Focus stacking was a brilliant idea @Esox; I had never even heard of it until you suggested it. I think the clarity of the stacked picture will be dramatically improved when the camera is stable between shots. When the subject is moving during the stack, I think it makes it very hard for the software to do it's job. We shall see.

proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php
When i scale the photo and measure in Autocad i get a positive exposure of 0.31 mm and a gap of 0.42.
The Karve razor with a G plate is 0.25 exposure and a gap of 1.36. Still the most aggressive karve setup feels smoother than the R41. So the effect of the blade exposure on the efficiency needs to be ranked high. The gap is a far less contributing factor.
What measurements do you get when you measure the photos?
The ideal shaving angle also seems to be 36 deg plus. I.e riding the cap. Or at least engaging the blade from the cap.
Starting to rotate to engage the blade from the guard seems to me like you would be scraping of the hair. This might be part of the reason there is so mixed results with this razor.

1623920570328.png
 
Last edited:
When i scale the photo and measure in Autocad i get a positive exposure of 0.31 mm and a gap of 0.42.
The Karve razor with a G plate is 0.25 exposure and a gap of 1.36. Still the most aggressive karve setup feels smoother than the R41. So the effect of the blade exposure on the efficiency needs to be ranked high. The gap is a far less contributing factor.
What measurements do you get when you measure the photos?
The ideal shaving angle also seems to be 36 deg plus. I.e riding the cap. Or at least engaging the blade from the cap.
Starting to rotate to engage the blade from the guard seems to me like you would be scraping of the hair. This might be part of the reason there is so mixed results with this razor.

View attachment 1282846
How do you figure out the scale of this photo?
 
I got my microscope! I just took my first shots. First Impressions:
  • The stand is awful. Changing the focus requires physically turning a dial on the camera. Turning the dial moves the camera. When you let go of the camera, it moves again and changes the focus. That aftermarket stand is looking better and better.
  • The stand is awful part 2: Ideally you want a completely stable camera moving exclusively in the z axis (up/down). With the supplied stand, it moves on all 3 axis at once, making setting up the shot a nightmare. Touching it to refocus it causes you to have to start all over again.
  • I have no idea how @Rosseforp took the images that he did. There may or may have been magic involved.
  • Figuring out the lighting for this thing is going to be challenging. It's the light hungriest beast I've ever seen. There are lights on the microscope itself that can be adjusted, and with them 90% dimmed, but the room lights turned on, the camera interprets this as the "Utter Blackness: the complete absence of visible light".
  • Image stacking is going to be tough without a decent stand. The camera moves too much when focus is being adjusted.
  • Using Picolay to stack images is even easier than I'd hoped. It literally takes 20 seconds.
  • The microscope has a 1.5cm long transparent plastic cowl that prevents you from getting too close to the subject. The photos below are as close as it's possible to get without removing that cowl with a saw. It appears to be permanently affixed.
  • On balance, I've very pleased with it. I just have to figure out the lighting and figure out a more stable stand.
Here are my first pictures. The first two are the pictures I took, and the third is the focus stacked image. At any rate, the photos are trash, and the lighting is terrible, but it's a very close picture, and the focus stacking really worked! Focus stacking was a brilliant idea @Esox; I had never even heard of it until you suggested it. I think the clarity of the stacked picture will be dramatically improved when the camera is stable between shots. When the subject is moving during the stack, I think it makes it very hard for the software to do it's job. We shall see.

proxy.php


proxy.php


proxy.php
I'm just staggered by how poorly the blade is supported despite a design which suggests it should be otherwise. No wonder I don't get along with it.

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
 
How do you figure out the scale of this photo?
You just measure the blade thickness in the photo and calculate the scale factor from there. It is not 100% accurate, but close enough for what we are discussing:) i know the blade thickness varies for different blades. I assumed the thickness was 0.09 mm.
 
You just measure the blade thickness in the photo and calculate the scale factor from there. It is not 100% accurate, but close enough for what we are discussing:) i know the blade thickness varies for different blades. I assumed the thickness was 0.09 mm.
I was thinking that is what I would have done.
 
Its a wonder we can shave at all without constant weepers and nicks. I was reading the epidermis section of the skin is only 0.05 millimeters thick. (It does vary but I am sure the face doesn't have the thicker epidermis like our hands do). A blade in the R41 has a play of .10 millimeter. That is twice as thick as our epidermis.
 
Its a wonder we can shave at all without constant weepers and nicks. I was reading the epidermis section of the skin is only 0.05 millimeters thick. (It does vary but I am sure the face doesn't have the thicker epidermis like our hands do). A blade in the R41 has a play of .10 millimeter. That is twice as thick as our epidermis.
That is some interesting facts, it must point to the fact the brain and skin senses with experience all combined relay information to the hand to allow the right amount of pressure or something like ........... that not to cut yourself!:detective:
 
When i scale the photo and measure in Autocad i get a positive exposure of 0.31 mm and a gap of 0.42.
The Karve razor with a G plate is 0.25 exposure and a gap of 1.36. Still the most aggressive karve setup feels smoother than the R41. So the effect of the blade exposure on the efficiency needs to be ranked high. The gap is a far less contributing factor.
What measurements do you get when you measure the photos?
The ideal shaving angle also seems to be 36 deg plus. I.e riding the cap. Or at least engaging the blade from the cap.
Starting to rotate to engage the blade from the guard seems to me like you would be scraping of the hair. This might be part of the reason there is so mixed results with this razor.

View attachment 1282846

I got a gap of 0.39mm and an exposure of 0.15mm if recollection serves. Remember that the exposure is measured as a line perpendicular to the shave plane drawn from the shave plane to the apex of the blade. Gap seems like it should be straight forward but it's actually a bit confusing. I think it's a line perpendicular to the blade plane measured from the apex to the guard. The illustration is unclear, but perpendicular to the blade plane makes sense (I think).

proxy.php
 
When i scale the photo and measure in Autocad i get a positive exposure of 0.31 mm and a gap of 0.42.
The Karve razor with a G plate is 0.25 exposure and a gap of 1.36. Still the most aggressive karve setup feels smoother than the R41. So the effect of the blade exposure on the efficiency needs to be ranked high. The gap is a far less contributing factor.
What measurements do you get when you measure the photos?
The ideal shaving angle also seems to be 36 deg plus. I.e riding the cap. Or at least engaging the blade from the cap.
Starting to rotate to engage the blade from the guard seems to me like you would be scraping of the hair. This might be part of the reason there is so mixed results with this razor.

View attachment 1282846
Looks like your not clamped down enough because the blade is not touching the base plate, I could be seeing this wrong!
Some nice close up pictures @Dovo1695 .
 
Here's mine. Blade does appear to float, with much greater clamp distance than first appears. I use Night Sight in my Pixel camera to get decent focus.

proxy.php


Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
 
Looks like your not clamped down enough because the blade is not touching the base plate, I could be seeing this wrong!
Some nice close up pictures @Dovo1695 .

Thanks. :)

The picture that you're referring to is my own personal R41. It's a terrible casting and that's as far as it can be clamped down. There's a pretty funny discussion on the previous page on how terrible the R41 casting precision is. Mine isn't even the worst one!
 
Here's mine. Blade does appear to float, with much greater clamp distance than first appears. I use Night Sight in my Pixel camera to get decent focus.

proxy.php


Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

That looks a lot like mine. Try pushing the blade against the combs at a few points along the blade. Now try the other side. Is there a gap between the blade and the combs on one side but not the other? If so, yours is just like mine.
 
Top Bottom