Discussion Thread - What Determines Aggressiveness?

I was reading the Wiki, and rediscovered this part about Razor Aggressiveness:

http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Double-Edged_Safety_Razors_Ranked_by_Aggressiveness

I agree with almost everything, except with this list of 5 factors that determine aggressiveness:

The aggressiveness of a razor largely relies on 5 different factors.

Blade gap
Blade angle in the razor
Razor weight
Distribution of the weight. (Heavy head/light handle vs. all heavy.)
Blade angle applied by the user

Click to expand...

IMHO, we're neglecting the most important factor, which is Blade Exposure.

It's true that some razors, like the adjustable razors, use the increase of blade gap to consequently increase blade exposure, making the razor more aggressive, as seen here:




But what about non adjustable designs? Here is where I disagree the most, because if the adjustables use the larger blade gap to increase blade exposure thus making the razor more aggressive, the same can't be said about non adjustable heads.

Take the example of the Old Type, which is probably the Gillette razor with the smallest blade gap, yet most people agree it's the most aggressive shaver made by Gillette. All others have a bigger blade gap, but are milder, because of their reduced blade exposure in comparison to the Old Type. Techs, NEWs, Super Speeds, etc ...
Few examples:





Even a Schick Krona has a bigger blade gap when compared to the Old Type (crappy pictures I know)




My point is, IMHO blade exposure is the most important factor determining aggressiveness, and can't be left out of the list.
You can have a huge blade gap, but if the edge of the blade is hiding behind a safety bar/combs lacking blade exposure, the razor won't be aggressive. There's several examples of razors with small blade gap (R41 comes to mind as well) but are aggressive due to blade exposure, but honestly I can't think of one that has reduced blade exposure, large blade gap and still feels equally aggressive.

And this is my personal opinion, now I'd like to know what's yours! Thanks in advance!

You win. I think a well-honed straight is the most aggressive blade I can slide down my face; I also think a straight has more "blade exposure" than any DE I can think of right now. If I sit here too long, though, I will begin to think about that straight's blade angle (applied by me) as a factor of its aggressiveness, but if I do that, then I will have to think about the DE's cutting angle of the blade within the geometry of its head. But then wait, the weight, and the distribution of the weight, might weigh my decision. But to go back to your original concept - yes, I think "blade exposure" was left out. You win.

I agree, the ATT razors are more aggressive than their blade gap would suggest, as is the Old Type. Conversely the Pils and Tradere SB have a huge gap but are considered fairly mild. Ultimately it's down to blade exposure and the gap is only one way of increasing this.

TADIII said:

You win. I think a well-honed straight is the most aggressive blade I can slide down my face; I also think a straight has more "blade exposure" than any DE I can think of right now. If I sit here too long, though, I will begin to think about that straight's blade angle (applied by me) as a factor of its aggressiveness, but if I do that, then I will have to think about the DE's cutting angle of the blade within the geometry of its head. But then wait, the weight, and the distribution of the weight, might weigh my decision. But to go back to your original concept - yes, I think "blade exposure" was left out. You win.

Click to expand...

chris.hale said:

I agree, the ATT razors are more aggressive than their blade gap would suggest, as is the Old Type. Conversely the Pils and Tradere SB have a huge gap but are considered fairly mild. Ultimately it's down to blade exposure and the gap is only one way of increasing this.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input guys.

Please don't forget to vote. This is not meant to prove anything btw, I just want to know what the rest of you thinks about this.

High testosterone levels was not an option.

I'm with you Edgar. Blade exposure is at the top of the list for me.

Rockminer said:

Blade exposure is at the top of the list for me.

Click to expand...

+1

Rockminer said:

I'm with you Edgar. Blade exposure is at the top of the list for me.

Click to expand...

+2; With all the other factors, this alone affects aggressiveness more.

mjclark said:

If there were only objective spectra, there would be absolutely nothing to discuss - we could place razors in the spectra and would all agree on their position.

But I am sure that the YMMV aspect is due to the interaction of blade gap, blade exposure, razor weight, guard design and cap curvature with the individual's technique, skin type, body chemistry and beard composition. Throw in blade choice on top of that, and there's a whole lot to discuss!

Click to expand...

I voted for blade exposure, but I very much concur with the above quote from another thread.

Cheers, George

Definitely exposure.

Thanks for the creating this thread! I love these theoretical discussions


It might be an over simplification or a distortion ... but I like to think of the variables at the (realistic-ish) extremes:

• Sufficiently negative exposure wouldn't cut at all.
• More blade exposure cuts closer.
• Huge blade exposure becomes a shavette.
• Zero blade gap would still cut if if the exposure was large enough.
• Any angle (0 degree to 90 degrees) can still cut/scrape. (note: at 90 degrees, hopefully the blade is cutting above your skin! )
• Steeper angles and more exposure together become more efficient, skipping over less stubble in one pass.
• I think smaller blade gaps provide a greater buffer against applied pressure.

Also, as a definition for aggressiveness, I think a razor is usually considered more "aggressive" if it is one (or more) of the following:

• (Primary factor) Less protective from the blade, increasing the likelihood of cuts or irritation for novice users
• More efficient, shaving more stubble in fewer passes
• Closer shaving, cutting closer to the skin
• More versatile in cutting angles, allowing cutting from a wider range of blade angles

Cheers,
Shawn

Thanks for the votes/opinions ... keep them coming, gents!

mjclark said:

If there were only objective spectra, there would be absolutely nothing to discuss - we could place razors in the spectra and would all agree on their position.

But I am sure that the YMMV aspect is due to the interaction of blade gap, blade exposure, razor weight, guard design and cap curvature with the individual's technique, skin type, body chemistry and beard composition. Throw in blade choice on top of that, and there's a whole lot to discuss!

Click to expand...

GBinOZ said:

I voted for blade exposure, but I very much concur with the above quote from another thread.

Cheers, George

Click to expand...

I'm joining this crowd. Blade exposure may be the single most important factor, but it is not the only factor. There are X factors that are beyond my abilities to measure objectively. Some razors with similar blade exposure do not behave similarly. Why?

^ +1 Blade exposure. I enjoy this more than big gap, too easy to get my ever loosening skin pushed into the gap - then one wrong move - ouch!

DrAwkward said:

I'm joining this crowd. Blade exposure may be the single most important factor, but it is not the only factor. There are X factors that are beyond my abilities to measure objectively. Some razors with similar blade exposure do not behave similarly. Why?

Click to expand...

Doc ... nobody said otherwise.

It started because I was honestly surprised when I didn't see blade exposure listed as one of the factors that determine aggressiveness.

Obviously I agree that it is not the only one, however, it is at least one of the most important (IMO it is the most important), and it should be mentioned. Doesn't make sense leaving it out of the list, IMO.

Also, here we're only talking about what makes a razor aggressive, I'm not even trying to discuss what makes one razor smoother than the other, etc ... But since you asked, my opinion is that those differences are probably caused by slight changes in the cutting angle, and more importantly ... the YMMV thingy.

nuclearblast said:

Doc ... nobody said otherwise.

It started because I was honestly surprised when I didn't see blade exposure listed as one of the factors that determine aggressiveness.

Obviously I agree that it is not the only one, however, it is at least one of the most important (IMO it is the most important), and it should be mentioned. Doesn't make sense leaving it out of the list, IMO.

Also, here we're only talking about what makes a razor aggressive, I'm not even trying to discuss what makes one razor smoother than the other, etc ... But since you asked, my opinion is that those differences are probably caused by slight changes in the cutting angle, and more importantly ... the YMMV thingy.

Click to expand...

This, of course, begs the question of what aggressiveness means. This coming from a person who uses the word constantly but never offers a definition. Hmmm.

Anyway, I nominate Edgar to modify the Wiki, which clearly needs some editing on this subject.

DrAwkward said:

This, of course, begs the question of what aggressiveness means. This coming from a person who uses the word constantly but never offers a definition. Hmmm.

Anyway, I nominate Edgar to modify the Wiki, which clearly needs some editing on this subject.

Click to expand...

Nah ... I'm not editing the Wiki. Luc suggested that, but I won't ... mostly due to laziness, but also because the last time I edited the Wiki I screwed up something and it took me while to fix it.

Anyway, I think I agree with Shawn (and I believe George mentioned this in another thread as well), that an aggressive razor basically offers less protection from the blade (bigger blade exposure - amount of blade past the tangent line between the cap/doors and the safety bar/combs).

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, I don't know. This is just my personal opinion anyway.

shawnsel said:

Also, as a definition for aggressiveness, I think a razor is usually considered more "aggressive" if it is one (or more) of the following:

• (Primary factor) Less protective from the blade, increasing the likelihood of cuts or irritation for novice users
• More efficient, shaving more stubble in fewer passes
• Closer shaving, cutting closer to the skin
• More versatile in cutting angles, allowing cutting from a wider range of blade angles

Click to expand...

In my opinion there's not much of a poll here. Blade exposure is the obvious choice. Blade gap is one of the contributing factor to blade exposure, and cutting angle (or rather cutting angle range) is one of the resultant of blade exposure.

Razor balance, weight etc. do contribute, but the contribution is negligible imo compared to blade exposure.

alexface said:

Aggressive should be defined as a desirable feature with side-effects, rather than a negative with benefits. Thus, I'd keep Shawn's criteria, but reverse the primary and secondaries.

Click to expand...

I think the general term for this, is efficiency. It plays into the overall experience of aggressiveness, but is one aspect of it.

Efficiency is also not a spectrum of varying preferences, but pretty much a universal goal in shaving. Pretty much everyone wants the perfect 10 efficiency and 10 in comfort. Aggressiveness is interesting though in that those new to DEs generally prefer a less aggressive razor. Experienced DE shavers then fall into a spectrum of preferences where they as individuals get their most efficient and comfortable shave.

Just an opinion. But from my readings from other shavers, I think these are the most widely held meanings?

IMO, aggressiveness and efficiency are two different things, and they shouldn't be associated.

This is still a somewhat muddy subject and our personal preferences/experience and our skill level/technique play a big role, but mild razors can also be efficient razors, at least in my experience they are.

Aggressiveness is a much more objective term, as Porter said in another thread, a NEW Deluxe is more aggressive than a Tech, and I don't think anyone could possibly have an argument against that.

Efficiency OTOH seems to be harder to quantify, I'm not sure if that's even possible, objectively at least. In my book, Techs are efficient razors, but the technique to make them work is considerably different from the technique used with the R41 for example. One is not better than the other, they're just different.

Mis dos centavos.