An Attempt to Properly Define the Infamous 'Laser'

[TheDispossessed]

A recent post by chefcomesback had me thinking that maybe we as a community could talk about what the hell this 'laser' term really means, and maybe ditch it once and for all or redefine it. After all, it is a term we essentially created. Mert wrote something to the effect of it being a supremely bastardized term in reference to knives, and I couldn't agree more.
Acknowledging that this community has a ton of new comers every day, and even the old hands are still learning, I thought it might be beneficial to try and bring some clarity to this issue.
Generally speaking, I've always gotten the impression the term 'laser' has been applied to knives that are both quite thin behind the edge, and also all the way up through the spine. The perception was, and again I sense this has changed a bit over time, that these extremely thin knives would cut food like a laser.
But how does a laser cut?
Well, I'm pretty ignorant about stuff like that so suffice to say I think the idea is that a laser is super precise and being that it cuts with light, we think of less friction or force being involved in the cutting. Now forgive me, this is probably too stupid a way to say it, but there it is.
So when you're shopping for a knife, and someone calls it a laser, what does that mean really? Are there any actual guidelines for what qualifies and what doesn't? How much does it actually effect performance and what are the trade offs? If you spend enough time here, which I do, you can find all these answers and more in many other threads, and probably already did.
I guess what I'm after is in a way trying to kill this term.
When Katos came on the scene it kind of blew all these peoples minds like, 'holy crap, this is so thick but it cuts with ease what's happening?' So the answer seems to be, food separation, something a 'laser' essentially can't do. Food release aside, food separation may have an extremely positive affect on cutting, literally pulling the ingredient apart in perfect concert with the actual cutting at the edge.
My personal bias, these days is to thicker knives in general. I've had a 'laser' that was thinned to the extreme but would wedge like an SOB from time to time, due to my poor geometry management. I also don't like the cheap feeling of a super light knife that flexes like the dickens either. I don't suspect I'll ever go back. One very, very rare application for a laser I saw that did seem pretty brilliant was using a small ultra thin (i'm talking like the extra thin sakai yusuke) gyuto for cutting maki rolls.
All this aside, I ended up kind of rambling as usual but I'd like to open this up to more knowledgable members of the forum to try to either define this term once and for all or lay it to rest. It bugs me time and again to see people cast a wary eye at a really well made knife because it's not an anorexic piece of steel.
Cheers
Matteo

 

[JDA_NC]

I feel like a lot of the laser 'hype', if anything, has died down a bit and people are more drawn to thicker knives these days.

But there was a thread not too long ago asking which knife/knives were the biggest bang for the buck and the most eye opening as far as cutting performance goes.

And my answer would unquestionably be any of the lasers - Ginga, Kono, SIH, Takamura etc.

I think those knives move through product in a way that is completely different than the knives that most of us are familiar with (before getting deep down the rabbit hole of knife nerdery). The gap, performance wise, between using a Victorinox, Chicago Cutlery, Cutco etc house knife and using, say, a Shun, MAC, or Global is one thing. And it's pretty noticeable. But I think that jump to the laser category is the largest and most startling in a lot of ways. I know it was for me. And I've seen countless cooks use a lasers for the first time and just have a huge grin on their face, as well as asking where they could get one for their selves. If you've used those thicker, lower price point knives for a long time, doing something like cutting an onion with a laser is a complete game changer. Its weight, ability to glide through product, and the acute angle they can take for sharpening is completely different than what you're used to.

That's not to say that they're the best. But I think there are a lot of thicker, 'workhorse', mid-price point knives out there where a lot of the times, it's kind of a crap-shot with what you're getting. Especially with the clad, hammered knives. I know I own a Masakage Yuki 240 gyuto that was a TERRIBLE cutter out of the box. Absolutely horrible. And yet, you'll see on certain sites that people are warned about owning one because they are "extremely thin behind the edge" and need to be babied.

I guess I'm rambling a little bit, but I think that trying to drive prospective users away from lasers is a big mistake. For me, my knife usage chart would be: terrible house knives that were abused in professional kitchens --> owning a MAC and treating it well --> buying a Masakage Yuki and Hiromoto AS --> using/owning lasers for the first time --> amazing, more expensive, thicker knives that still cut exceptionally well (Gesshin Hide and Markos in my case)

And the largest jump in cutting performance was when I used lasers for the first time. I don't know many knives at the, say, Ginga price point that are guaranteed to cut in the same way. They're not perfect and they definitely don't fit everyone's style - but for me, they still remain the best pure cutters dollar for dollar and I would never talk any cook out of owning one.

 

[Keith Sinclair]

To say that one knife is the best for cutting all things is not the case. Putting out banquets close to 40 years spent hours a day cutting. Had vegetable & bone cleavers. Yanagiba's for sashimi & sushi topping. And you said it thin carbon gyuto's for maki rolls, inside out sushi, Panko crusted fish, breaded proteins. Never babied my thin knives just kept them sharp. Have enjoyed more beefy gyuto's too.

I started out with Forschners in the 1970's a 10" rosewood handle cost 9.00. Early 1980's working as a butcher helper got turned on to Japanese carbons never looked back. Blade heavy knives with thicker spines as long as thin behind the edge can be great cutters too.

 

[karloevaristo]

Takedas, fujiwara nashijis are pretty thin... I don't know of you would call them lasers... It might also has something to do with the profile/shape... Like how a masamoto ks looks...

 

[XooMG]

"Laser" connotes sharing characteristics with popular thin/light knives...particularly those from Sakai like Konosuke, Suisin, Yusuke, Ashi, etc. Thin spine, thinnish tip, thinnish edge; and a nimble or insubstantial feeling in the hand.

Descriptions of cutting will always be loaded with contradiction, presumption, and hyperbole. Regardless of how well a word like "laser" is defined, the underlying knowledge about cutting performance and geometry will be unreliable and frequently misleading.

 

[daddy yo yo]

i am unsure if there really is smth like a common agreement on what the term "laser" really stands for. i guess it is the same with the term "workhorse". different people expect different things from a laser or workhorse... :scratchhead:

 

[Lefty]

I've always considered it a knife that cuts really well, has pretty simple (but very thin) geometry, and is 2.2mm or less at the spine.

 

[Chuckles]

A laser to me implies uniform dimensions. For a knife this means minimal convexity or complexity of geometry. A workhorse, like an actual horse, is big at the top and small at the bottom. Neither term gives any information about durability or toughness. A laser is good for someone who is not an experienced sharpener and cannot maintain geometry over time. A workhorse demands more maitenance and typically has the potential to offer more nuanced performance characteristics.

 

[rick alen]

For a 240 - <2mm thick around the heel; <1.5deg/side lead in to the edge; <.17mm behind the edge.