A True Test of a Strider Knife - Need Your Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's totally fair. Which is stronger? Type of lock is not important.
 
HKSIG45 said:
How about comparing like locks.

Your test is flawed at the start.
How about comparing different ones to show which type is stronger or more secure. Your logic is flawed. If one company makes the weakest and most insecure type of lock in existance then it can only be compared to other weak and insecure locks? Yes that is really sensible. So I can make knives out of 420J2 and never worry about any review showing my knives to be inferior as it would be a "flawed" test to compare the knife to better steels.

-Cliff
 
It seems that the test is to compare the craftmanship between Strider and Spyderco, so to have an accurate assesment of quality, the same types of locks must be tested. Therefore it would be sensible to test something like a Military. If the conditions which a knife is to be tested remain the same throughout the expiriment, than the type of lock must also remain the same. Liner Locks and Lockbacks both have their pros and cons, and to keep error to a minimum, like locks must be tested.
 
OK, lets just talk about fundraising here, and discuss if it's a valid test somewhere else, like the other thread.
 
I think some of you guys don't get it.

The liner lock of the GB disengaged at 80 Bar (81.6 kg/cm2) under the hydraulic press. The extreme pressure left no damage to the lock.

When it is stronger then the Extrema Ratio Fulcrum II then of course it is stronger than the Spyderco lock back!

Buy it. Test it. See it.
 
BlackShark said:
I think some of you guys don't get it.

The liner lock of the GB disengaged at 80 Bar (81.6 kg/cm2) under the hydraulic press. The extreme pressure left no damage to the lock.

When it is stronger then the Extrema Ratio Fulcrum II then of course it is stronger than the Spyderco lock back!

Buy it. Test it. See it.

Really? Where is this test data from?
 
Test between GB and ER:

Picture 1: pull – cut

Cutting test on an 8mm polypropylene rope.
GB is much sharper.

Picture 2: push – cut

Cutting motion while applying force on the spine, same rope.
GB is much sharper, better edge geometry.

Picture 3: edge holding ability

Pulling the edge several times with light pressure over a peace of steel (St-37 construction steel) and testing the cutting ability on the rope between the steel strokes.
GB has better edge holding.

Picture 4: grip

The handles of the knives where completely oiled with Ballistol.
GB has better handles and better grip.

Picture 5: tip strength

Ok, it gets nasty now. Knives where forced through a 2mm St-37 construction steel plate. The GB bent to the side, but got back to its true position and had no damage to handle, liner or pivot. At a pressure of 85 Bar (86.7 kg/cm2) under the hydraulic press the tip broke of exactly in the moment the blade went through the steel plate.
The ER folder failed the test, at 65 Bar (66.3 kg/cm2) the lock bent and failed (secondary lock not activated otherwise the handle would crack/explode).

Picture 6: lock strength

Both passed the obligatory spine whack test with flying colors. Under the hydraulic press the ER failed at 70 Bar (71.4 kg/cm2) again without the secondary lock engaged, otherwise the handle would crack.
The liner lock of the GB disengaged at 80 Bar (81.6 kg/cm2). The extreme pressure left no damage to the lock. Knives still worked flawless.

Picture 7: blade bending

The S 30 V powder steel blade of the GB was surprisingly flexible. At 30 degrees and a pressure of 83 Bar (84.66 kg/cm2) the blade broke.
The thicker blade of the ER (6mm) made out of Austrian Böhler N690 steel passed the test and did not brake even at the maximum pressure of 85 Bar (86.7 kg/cm2). The blade was only 2 degrees off center after.

Picture 8: pivot strength

The whole GB (liners and scales) bent, but got back to its original position after the test!!! The pivot and lock was fully functional after the test. At a pressure of 80 Bar (81.6 kg/cm2) the outer ring of the male pivot screw broke off, but the pivot still worked after that.
The ER also passed 80 Bar (81.6 kg/cm2), but the aluminium handles and steel lock bar stayed in the bent position and the knife could not be used anymore.
 
So, you're looking to essentially conduct Destructive Testing on (trying to break) 2 perfectly good knives to settle a Batman VS. Spiderman thing. The winner-takes-all in a King-Of-The-World deathmatch...
Please leave me out.
There's enough dick-measuring going on in the knife world without dragging Sal & Spyderco (or any other manufacturer/maker) into it. I doubt seriously he'd be willing to play along. Let Sal & The Strider Guys focus on making knives.
 
I can't contribute any money, but I can contribute an idea. How about for every (say) $5 or $10 someone contributes, they not only get to have a warm feeling in their hearts, but they also get a chance to win the broken Strider? OF COURSE with the understanding that it is NOT to be sent in for warranty repair.
 
Please remove cross post inks to USN fourm, this is a violation of USN rules, which by being a member you have agreed to follow.

All this does is start a forum war, and there is no need for that. There are great people at both forums. We can agree to have differnces of opinions, and still all be friends.

On a side note, why do you expect Strider to subsidize your tests, after you break their knife on purpose you expect them to give you a new one?

If you crash your car into a brick wall until it explodes on purpose, would you expect Toyota to give you a new one?

This is absurd in the extreme.
 
I would be stunned if Sal goes for this. I believe yoda is correct, Spyderco policy is that they will break and report for anyone, but the deal is that the results are not for publication. I think Sal specifically said something to the effect of, "We're not accredited and we don't want the job."

Oh and the locks don't have to be the same, that's silly. ;)
 
I received word from spyderco that they will not be able to do a test for us. Reasons where that they weren't an acredited testing facility and that as policy they won't publish results from other companies products.

I'll close this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top