I am sorry, I don't have the report available yet (it's been hectic lately, a lot to catch up), so in the meantime I will give you some glimpses.
Starting from the positive side, I must say that I am very happy with the overall outcome. In general, you rated these razors very well, despite them being 3D printed, hence bulky, too light, and not providing good tolerances at all.
In total, there were 15 testers involved (12 from the forum plus 3 of my friends, who followed the methodology exactly as you).
Scoring was given on a scale of 1 to 5:
- Whenever the score is <1;3), I consider it negative
- <3;4) is neutral
- <4;5> is positive
Please, feel free to comment on that approach if you think it's incorrect or should be adjusted.
I also asked you which of the three heads were the best for you out of all of the samples you tested:
- Two testers chose t8
- Seven testers chose t9
- Six testers chose t10
Following these assumptions, and considering the best out of three you chose, 11 out of 15 testers rated the razors positively, which corresponds to a satiation rate of 73%. Three of you rated them neutrally (20%), while only one of you negatively (7%).
Average score for the best out of three is 4.3.
At first, it may seem that the t8 head is not a good option. While perhaps not chosen by the majority of you as the best of the three, many of you appreciated its characteristics of being careless, but still quite efficient.
On the negative side, there were three testers who had great difficulties with the razors:
@bartje-p,
@p.b, and
@spacemonkey42.
- For @bartje-p, the experience got dramatically improved once he came back to them after a short break, increasing the overall score of razors by two points (from 2 to 4). However, since I shared some information with him in the meantime, I include his original scoring as the final evaluation.
- @p.b experienced great improvements after switching to a heavier handle, claiming that the t10 is just spot-on for him, and even got interested in t11 with bigger blade exposure (such doesn't exist though). Once again, the original evaluation provided by Paul is considered the final.
- @spacemonkey42 experienced huge issues with the blade feel, which he doesn't enjoy. Since he was not the only one who complained about it (but was definitely the most impacted by it), we worked together a lot to get it sorted.
There was a lot of happening behind the scenes during the testing. I focused a lot on solving issues detected by you, which resulted in quite a few improvements. Both
@slapo and
@bartje-p pointed out that clogging and shaving under the nose is not great, so I made changes which improved these aspects a lot.
@slapo already tested new lather channels and confirmed that improvement, which apparently improves smoothness too!
Huge thanks to
@spacemonkey42 for his input and willingness to test more to improve the razors. As an attempt to fight with too much blade feel, he received from me additional samples:
- t11: blade exposure 0.02 mm, and blade gap 1.50 mm
- t12: blade exposure 0.05 mm, and blade gap 1.50 mm
- t13: blade exposure 0.08 mm, and blade gap 1.50 mm
- t14: blade exposure 0.10 mm, and blade gap 1.20 mm
I was amazed to read
@spacemonkey42 's reports on the tested samples. He is able to detect and perfectly describe even the tiniest changes in blade exposures (as previously, he didn't know the specification of the new samples received). To me, that is just unbelievable.
While t11, t12, and t13 didn't bring much improvement, the t14 did change quite a lot. Note that the only difference between the t9 and t14 is reduced blade gap by 0.3 mm. That was enough to drastically bring down the blade feel.
I tested the t14 too, and must admit that this might be one of the biggest improvements to these razors. Even though I do enjoy blade feel, the smoothness in the reduced blade gap razor has increased a lot.
As I wrote to
@spacemonkey42, the blade gap was the very first parameter I settled on while designing these razors. After testing blade gaps up to 2.00 mm, I chose 1.50 mm and never looked back to retest them, what definitely was a mistake on my end. Now, after all other parameters have been established, polishing the blade gap brought further improvements.
To summarize the changes:
- Geometry of the cap has been slightly modified to improve accessibility under the nose (it did not influence any shaving parameters)
- Lather channels have been enlarged (it did not influence any shaving parameters)
- The blade gap has been reduced from 1.50 mm down to 1.20 mm
- Some other, very minor changes to improve durability of heads and manufacturability in steel (shall not influence shaving experience at all)
Improved geometry of the cap (top left vs top right)
Enlarged lather channels