What's new

I'm curious - how do you personally measure razor efficiency?

never-stop-learning

Demoted To Moderator
Staff member
This is as a result of the conversation @BradWorld, @Hannah's Dad and others (including me) began over on the Blackbird vs Dart thread.

Figured it would be easier to focus on this point here as opposed to derailing that conversation.

So.....I'm curious:
  • How do you personally define razor efficiency?
  • How do you personally measure razor efficiency?
  • Do you differentiate between efficiency and effectiveness?
Hope to have an interesting and informative conversation. :)
 
Efficiency, for me, is determined by the amount of beard removal per pass. So, doing one pass with no buffing and light pressure such that you have no skin damage should result in a socially acceptable shave.

An efficient razor/blade combination (the blade is part of the equation too), will do this easily. A second pass with the same criteria would be a DFS or BBS.

Less efficient razors/blades require more passes, buffing, touchups and general effort to reach the same result.
 
I am a new DE shaver (only since February 2022) so my opinion is worth only that much. "Efficient" to me means fewer passes (and correspondinly less likelihood of nicks, irritation, etc.) Effective means the razor cuts hair (might be more passes). So to me efficient is effective but not vice versa. (Others can feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong, because, as I said, my opinion is pretty new and probably not worth too much.)
 

Phoenixkh

I shaved a fortune
I've sort of had to absorb the term since I joined back on March 1st. I didn't know any shaving jargon before showing up here. Well, that might be 100% accurate since I did watch a few YouTube videos but without a frame of reference, the various terms didn't mean anything to me until B&B.

Brian Mulreany described the Claymore as "mild but efficient". All I knew was..... I got closer shaves from day one with it over the Fusion Power I was using, which I quite liked, I must admit. Add to that, it doesn't seem to matter if I have two days growth or 5. I found that a bit surprising.

So... I was doing two passes when I joined B&B and added a XTG pass after reading a bunch of threads here. For the last few weeks, I've gone back to two passes, cutting out the cross grain pass. I wasn't sure it was adding anything but after deleting it, I found, two passes with a bit of touchup in my chin area gets me as close to a BBS as I'll ever get. (one caveat in deference to the straight razor shavers here: they tell me... I don't know anything until I've gotten proficient with a Straight Razor. They might be right... but I'm going to settle. <eg>)


Blades: do they make a difference for me? In simple terms, yes!!! I've tried 6 AC blades and they don't perform equally for me. I know, technically, the guarded blades are made esp. for barber razors and shavettes. Regardless, the guarded blades... the full length ones, give me the closest, most comfortable shaves, confirmed after weeks of use. I will use up the other packages of blades I have, of course. They aren't horrible: there isn't a night and day difference... but they certainly differ in their performance for me.
 

never-stop-learning

Demoted To Moderator
Staff member
Do you believe that an individual's face, skin and beard impact the perception of efficiency?

Always. That is the very nature of ymmv. But given the same face, I believe that a razor with the same exact geometry will have the same "efficiency" regardless of the metal used to build it. But as you mention, a lighter razor, etc, may change the "effectiveness" overall. Same with a person's technique, prep, lathering skill... all will have impact on the effectiveness of the shave... just not the efficiency of the razor.

I don't disagree with you. It would be an interesting experiment. 🤔

It is all too easy to confuse increased effectiveness with only increased efficiency.

For my experience, and as per many conversations here on B&B, I rationalize "efficiency" as a measurement, which is not subjective, and not variable. "Efficiency" is a measure of gap versus exposure. It measures how much hair a razor can physically cut. It takes into account the gap between the blade and the baseplate, and how much blade sticks out of the razor past its cutting plane. It has nothing to do with how a razor feels on your face, aggressiveness, smoothness, effectiveness, or any other subjective variable. All of those other terminologies are subjective, and will be based on a variety of variable criteria, such as prep, skin sensitivity, beard map, etc. Those are my two cents. :biggrin1:
Copying some pertinent information from the Blackbird vs Dart thread over to this discussion. :)
 

BradWorld

Dances with Wolfs
  • How do you personally define razor efficiency?
  • How do you personally measure razor efficiency?
  • Do you differentiate between efficiency and effectiveness?
I will use what I posted to that other thread...

For my experience, and as per many conversations here on B&B, I rationalize "efficiency" as a measurement, which is not subjective, and not variable. "Efficiency" is a measure of gap versus exposure. It measures how much hair a razor can physically cut. It takes into account the gap between the blade and the baseplate, and how much blade sticks out of the razor past its cutting plane. It has nothing to do with how a razor feels on your face, aggressiveness, smoothness, effectiveness, or any other subjective variable. All of those other terminologies are subjective, and will be based on a variety of variable criteria, such as prep, skin sensitivity, beard map, etc.

Effectiveness is the sum of all the parts, and a subjective measurement of the shave results. How close was the shave? How long did it last? How smooth and comfortable was the shave? How enjoyable was the whole experience? All of those things combine as the effectiveness of the razor.
 
Interesting discussion. I like how @BradWorld made a distinction between efficiency and effective.

To reinforce his example. I have a Wolfman WR2 .95 SB and a a WR2 1.35 SB. Using the same handle, both are effective but there is clearly a significant difference in the efficiency of the two, obviously the 1.35 is more efficient.

Two of the exact same model razors, built to what I think we can all agree on, exact tolerances and the blade gap (and I think exposure but have never seen verified measurements) make a huge difference in the efficiency of the razors.

Both are incredibly smooth, but the difference in efficiency means that the 1.35 provides a closer shave with the exact same face/lather/direction of passes/order of passes/number of passes.

I’m not smart enough to compare two different razors and come to an easy explanation regarding efficiency vs effective because there are too many variables and I do not possess “effective” enough communication skills to clearly identify the design parameters and their effect on efficiency/effectiveness.

Following, because I’m sure to learn a lot.

Great topic. You guys are wicked smart!
 

Phoenixkh

I shaved a fortune
I will use what I posted to that other thread...

For my experience, and as per many conversations here on B&B, I rationalize "efficiency" as a measurement, which is not subjective, and not variable. "Efficiency" is a measure of gap versus exposure. It measures how much hair a razor can physically cut. It takes into account the gap between the blade and the baseplate, and how much blade sticks out of the razor past its cutting plane. It has nothing to do with how a razor feels on your face, aggressiveness, smoothness, effectiveness, or any other subjective variable. All of those other terminologies are subjective, and will be based on a variety of variable criteria, such as prep, skin sensitivity, beard map, etc.

Effectiveness is the sum of all the parts, and a subjective measurement of the shave results. How close was the shave? How long did it last? How smooth and comfortable was the shave? How enjoyable was the whole experience? All of those things combine as the effectiveness of the razor.
That makes sense... is that a bad thing? <eg>

Seriously, I think that was an excellent explanation of the two terms.

Here's a least part of my own confusion. The first time I used my Claymore Evo.... I did the normal with the grain downward stroke. I remember it like it was yesterday because of the circumstances surrounding that first use.

I've mentioned this before but our youngest son sent me a RR Lupo DE aluminum and some AP blades. I shaved with it once, using an ancient (for me) Vulfix super badger I purchased at a drug store in the early 1990s, I think. I used the Proraso white I got on Amazon. I disliked the shave immensely. I hadn't shaved for a while but clipped my beard down with my Andis hair clippers with their 00000 edging blades so the whiskers were around 1/16 to an eighth inch long....

So after looking around some, I ordered the Claymore and didn't shave until it showed up. I had 5 days growth at that point because I paid extra for DHL shipping from Scotland.

That is the background: 5 days growth... one downward stroke and I had to look... I didn't think it was shaving because it was that smooth (subjective, I agree). But to my amazement... It went through those old, grey whiskers like magic and didn't choke like a Fusion Power would have. No clogging. So is that efficient? If I'm understanding the concept, that would be a yes, correct?

I had to learn a lot during those first shaves.... 5 blades made it almost impossible to nick the little bumps I have on my face so I had to learn how to glide over them instead of slice them off. ;) All sorts of things like that before I could say I was getting comfortable shaves. But there was never any doubt.... that razor was more efficient than a Fusion Power could ever hope to be.

The rest of you have extensive experience over many months and years, with a plethora of razors and a whole host of blade choices. I'll never catch up to most of you and that's ok with me. I enjoy reading about everything and glean what applies to me and store the rest under "general knowledge" in my head... though, my brain is more of a sieve these days.
 

never-stop-learning

Demoted To Moderator
Staff member
I will use what I posted to that other thread...

For my experience, and as per many conversations here on B&B, I rationalize "efficiency" as a measurement, which is not subjective, and not variable. "Efficiency" is a measure of gap versus exposure. It measures how much hair a razor can physically cut. It takes into account the gap between the blade and the baseplate, and how much blade sticks out of the razor past its cutting plane. It has nothing to do with how a razor feels on your face, aggressiveness, smoothness, effectiveness, or any other subjective variable. All of those other terminologies are subjective, and will be based on a variety of variable criteria, such as prep, skin sensitivity, beard map, etc.

Effectiveness is the sum of all the parts, and a subjective measurement of the shave results. How close was the shave? How long did it last? How smooth and comfortable was the shave? How enjoyable was the whole experience? All of those things combine as the effectiveness of the razor.
I think we are in alignment with this and it fits my effective = efficient + smooth + nimble + maneuverable equation.

Playing a bit of devil's advocate here: Is the definition of "efficiency = gap vs exposure" used by the industry? It would make things easier for folks. How would it be represented by a numerical rating (1 - 10, a percentage, etc)?
 
I think the posts above have said it all well. IMHO, efficiency is the ability of the razor to produce results that require fewer subsequent passes. I'd measure it by how results are after a pass and how many passes/touchups are subsequently required. Effectiveness is simply the ability of the razor to shave the whiskers. A razor can be effective but not efficient, but not the inverse.
 
Is the definition of "efficiency = gap vs exposure" used by the industry?

I would argue the counter: aggressiveness = blade exposure. This is considered a standard, as many manufacturers hew to a common set, eg., .68, .72 and so on.

A better way to think about efficiency, in my view, is with straights. Given a sharp edge (and that can vary), a straight is maximally aggressive in terms of blade exposure, yet efficiency varies according to technique and beard. I might only get a socially acceptable shave on my cheeks, but a more experienced shaver would get a one pass DFS for their entire face with the same blade.
 
My Pearl Flexi will take off most all a 3 day growth and leave me raw and slightly bloody. My Overlander does little after one pass yet after 3 brainless and quick passes, I’m BBS. Not sure I cut cut myself if I tried with that one. Which is more efficient if you add the time it takes for stitches and dressing changes?🥺
 

never-stop-learning

Demoted To Moderator
Staff member
I would argue the counter: aggressiveness = blade exposure. This is considered a standard, as many manufacturers hew to a common set, eg., .68, .72 and so on.

Aren't those gap specs?

So you are saying that blade exposure and blade gap are the same thing?

Also, I like efficient razors, but do not like aggressive razors. Aggressive razors, to me, are unpredictable and prone to biting.

Take the Karve Brass SB-G:
20210511_202135~3.jpg

And the Scheermes Roedter 1909 Titan for example:
1645949~2.jpg

Both have lots of blade exposure, yet they shave completely differently. The Karve SB-G is highly efficient + quite smooth + fairly nimble and maneuverable = a highly effective razor. It is not at all aggressive.

The Scheermes Roedter 1909 Titan, by contrast, is highly efficient + lower in smoothness + not very nimble and maneuverable = a much less effective razor that I do find to be aggressive.

This is how I personally evaluate razors. YMMV. :)
 
Top Bottom