Razor design and the importance of blade rigidity

[jmudrick]

While I've come around to accepting your deflection theory, the reason for skepticism, as I'm sure you understand, is clear. First it's not consistent with the experience of many shavers who do well with non-rigid designs, and second it strikes many as curious as to why engineers would adopt non rigid designs when the earlier (old type) designs to our view were pretty ok. I initially presumed there must be some improvement in shaving performance engineers thought would accrue from the non rigid design, my current thinking is that it was rather a combination of improved resistance to clogging and the economics of flat plate production that were important considerations in the move to the designs without bottom plate support.

I dont think its a misunderstanding, its all about stresses and vibrations. If something will bend in one direction, that will let the material vibrate and fluctuate. The closer that material is clamped to the edge and the more its supported from both sides, the less that piece can vibrate and fluctuate under the same amount of stress.

It all seems pretty simple to me, but apparently us "Rigidista's" think about things in a different way than others. I'm not one to label a group of people, but if the need is felt to single us out over our opinion, so be it.

 

[rabidus]

First it's not consistent with the experience of many shavers who do well with non-rigid designs

Ask the many shavers if they shave ATG or if they get problem free BBS results everytime! And how coarse their stubble is...

second it strikes many as curious as to why engineers would adopt non rigid designs when the earlier (old type) designs to our view were pretty ok.

Blades were thicker, razor design didn't matter. Gillette made thinner blades around when they went back to more rigid razor designs.

New razor makers copy any and every vintage razor just to make money!

 

[jmudrick]

Blades were only thicker than current spec in early single ring period. The Gillette Thin Blade was not that thin.

I don't trust anybody's assessment of their own stubble as they have no basis for comparison.

Ask the many shavers if they shave ATG or if they get problem free BBS results everytime! And how coarse their stubble is...



Blades were thicker, razor design didn't matter. Gillette made thinner blades around when they went back to more rigid razor designs.

New razor makers copy any and every vintage razor just to make money!

 

[Esox]

While I've come around to accepting your theory, the reason for skepticism, as I'm sure you understand, is clear. First it's not consistent with the experience of many shavers who do well with non-rigid designs, and second it strikes many as curious as to why engineers would adopt non rigid designs when the earlier (old type) designs to our view were pretty ok. I initially presumed there must be some improvement in shaving performance engineers thought would accrue from the non rigid design, my current thinking per the posts above is that it was rather a combination of improved resistance to clogging and the economics of flat plate production that were important considerations in the move to the designs without bottom plate support.

Theres nothing wrong with being skeptical and questioning anything. Thats how information is gained and education grows. Skepticism fosters insightful thinking.

'Why' any particular design change was implemented is an unknown to me and the reasons would most likely vary from designer to designer. That doesnt have any affect on the physics behind the idea however.

I've said many times that the only person who can and will know how rigid a design they need, is the one using the razor. I dont see it for me to dictate what one should use or why, but only to suggest, and its often a very good, logical and sound suggestion.

I've also said many times that a more rigid design gives a smoother more effective shave. You use your Shake Sharp, but you also shim it to increase its rigidity and effectiveness. Theres a reason you do. If that particular design had slightly more inherent rigidity than it does, you would have no need too shim it.

Nothing in this shaving business is consistent from one user to the next, but it is consistent for me. It may be for others, or it may not. Its a good thing I have the option or I'd still be struggling with electrics.

Possibly, it may be an economic factor. Less work thats less complex with less precision needed, less material used, among many other things I'm sure.

Why are there so few modern rigid designs, I have no idea, but being one that does need a rigid design, I'd like to know. If a lack of rigidity causes me issues that cannot be overcome by technique, its only logical to assume I cannot be the only one.

 

[rabidus]

Blades were only thicker than current spec in early single ring period. The Gillette Thin Blade was not that thin.

Gillette thin blades are .004" thick, before that blades were .006" thick! .002" does make a difference in the shave world.

 

[jmudrick]

I think it's been firmly established that there is a sizeable minority of posters who give similar weight to rigidity as you do. To beat this dead horse, I don't dispute the benefit of rigid design, I simply give weight to other factors in choosing which razor to shave with on any given day.

Per my post above I don't shim the Shake Sharp, I use two blades.

Theres nothing wrong with being skeptical and questioning anything. Thats how information is gained and education grows. Skepticism fosters insightful thinking.

'Why' any particular design change was implemented is an unknown to me and the reasons would most likely vary from designer to designer. That doesnt have any affect on the physics behind the idea however.

I've said many times that the only person who can and will know how rigid a design they need, is the one using the razor. I dont see it for me to dictate what one should use or why, but only to suggest, and its often a very good, logical and sound suggestion.

I've also said many times that a more rigid design gives a smoother more effective shave. You use your Shake Sharp, but you also shim it to increase its rigidity and effectiveness. Theres a reason you do. If that particular design had slightly more inherent rigidity than it does, you would have no need too shim it.

Nothing in this shaving business is consistent from one user to the next, but it is consistent for me. It may be for others, or it may not. Its a good thing I have the option or I'd still be struggling with electrics.

Possibly, it may be an economic factor. Less work thats less complex with less precision needed, less material used, among many other things I'm sure.

Why are there so few modern rigid designs, I have no idea, but being one that does need a rigid design, I'd like to know. If a lack of rigidity causes me issues that cannot be overcome by technique, its only logical to assume I cannot be the only one.

 

[Esox]

I think it's been firmly established that there is a sizeable minority of posters who give similar weight to rigidity as you do. To beat this dead horse, I don't dispute the benefit of rigid design, I simply give weight to other factors in choosing which razor to shave with on any given day.

Per my post above I don't shim the Shake Sharp, I use two blades.

Certainly, what works for you, works for you. The same is applied to everyone else. Inherent rigidity offered by any design is a less critical factor for you, and I'm sure it also is for the vast majority. I wish I was among that group.

Two blades. One above and one below to stop the "fluttery" blade action that can occur. I could do similar with the R41 and quite likely improve its smoothness and efficiency a great deal. My bottom line is, if I have to fuss with shims to make it work, I dont want too lol.

Call me lazy, but I dont personally like band aid solutions and would rather just use a razor I dont have that issue with.

 

[jmudrick]

Looking back at a couple old threads I guess you're right. Do we know at what point the .006 blades were disappeared?

Gillette thin blades are .004" thick, before that blades were .006" thick! .002" does make a difference in the shave world.

 

[jmudrick]

Again your presuming the improvement in Shake Sharp is due to rigidity, I'm contending that's only part of the story, the other part being twin cutting edges. Fact is the Shake Sharp was among my favorite razors before I started using two blades, which discovery was completely by accident, I never thought the razor "needed" a shim to be effective. I use the model 1.5 and 2.0 with single blades and get great shaves.

Certainly, what works for you, works for you. The same is applied to everyone else. Inherent rigidity offered by any design is a less critical factor for you, and I'm sure it also is for the vast majority. I wish I was among that group.

Two blades. One above and one below to stop the "fluttery" blade action that can occur. I could do similar with the R41 and quite likely improve its smoothness and efficiency a great deal. My bottom line is, if I have to fuss with shims to make it work, I dont want too lol.

Call me lazy, but I dont personally like band aid solutions and would rather just use a razor I dont have that issue with.

 

[Esox]

Again your presuming the improvement in Shake Sharp is due to rigidity, I'm contending that's only part of the story, the other part being twin cutting edges.

Yes I am. Shims increase rigidity. Whether or not that was your motivation for using them I cant say.

I tried using a twin blade setup in my Grande. As you're aware, that didnt work well. The curved nature of the blades I think was a detriment to it working as well as it may have if they were less curved.

 

[rabidus]

Looking back at a couple old threads I guess you're right. Do we know at what point the .006 blades were disappeared?

mr-razor has a page with all the vintage blades and their date codes. I believe the thin blades were introduced when the OC TTO's were made. I don't have time to look at the moment.

 

[Twelvefret]

“What works for you, works for you.” Classic.

 

[jmudrick]

Full head and beard shave with the Wardonia this morning. As close as the MMOC. More blade feel, yes, but still comfortable and supremely efficient. More strokes ATG? If so not enough to matter. All else being equal more rigidity is better, premise accepted, makes perfect sense. All else is not equal in my experience. Those other factors matter more to me than to Rabidus/Esox, understood also.

The Gillette Thin Blade makes it appearance in '38, four years after introduction of the Aristocrat. Other manufacturers made introduction of thin blades in '37 or perhaps slightly earlier.

The Shake Sharp is a unique design and I wouldn't expect a twin blade setup to work in a traditional DE.

 

[rabidus]

As close as the MMOC.

Define close shave? For me, it's either BBS or not BBS... There are razors that physically can't BBS my head. A Feather Pro AC blade with all its stiffness is not sharp enough to BBS my head, but a Schick Proline in the same razor will BBS my head no problem.

The MMOC with a GEM SS PTFE will BBS my head if I do my part.

Do you go for cue ball smooth or just close?

 

[jmudrick]

I go for cue ball smooth but will settle for close enough depending on how much time I want to spend on touch ups. All razors, MMOC included, require either three full passes or two passes plus touch up on the crown stubble. I usually do the two pass plus. I experimented with one ATG pass plus with the MMOC but it meant too many touch ups so I'm back to two.

This morning I'm BBS except for one small spot I missed. I may pick up an SE1 to give AC format another shot. As you may know I use trimmed AC blades in my DeHaven and Mark Cross with excellent results but I wouldn't say they blow away either the MMOC or Shake Sharp.

Define close shave? For me, it's either BBS or not BBS... There are razors that physically can't BBS my head. A Feather Pro AC blade with all its stiffness is not sharp enough to BBS my head.

The MMOC with a GEM SS PTFE will BBS my head if I do my part.

Do you go for cue ball smooth or just close?

 

[Twelvefret]

Another classic. “Cue ball smooth”

 

[rabidus]

I wouldn't say they blow away either the MMOC

I don't know any razor that blows away the MMOC! My SE1 with a Proline is extremely close to the MMOC, just as smooth and right on its heels for efficiency. The SE2 on the other hand is more efficient but leaves the realm of safety, takes more focus. All will provide a BBS dome, but the SE2's results will last longer, but it's not worth the risk.

 

[smurfups77]

Well I am in the group that has to have a ridge razor. I have not used a bunch of razors about 15 or 20 but I know that if it is more ridged I will get less bumps on my neck. I think I need to try a se razor soon.
Happy shaves
SMURF

 

[Twelvefret]

I don't know any razor that blows away the MMOC! My SE1 with a Proline is extremely close to the MMOC, just as smooth and right on its heels for efficiency. The SE2 on the other hand is more efficient but leaves the realm of safety, takes more focus. All will provide a BBS dome, but the SE2's results will last longer, but it's not worth the risk.

I wouldn’t describe the Schick E2 as unsafe on any level. I’m frankly aghast. Makes me curious if there is much variation between like razors.

 

[Twelvefret]

Well I am in the group that has to have a ridge razor. I have not used a bunch of razors about 15 or 20 but I know that if it is more ridged I will get less bumps on my neck. I think I need to try a se razor soon.
Happy shaves
SMURF

You should find a nice GEM and join us weekly on Micromatic Monday. Seems the GEM is enjoying a revival.