Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharp Phil said:
Actually, if I do something stupid and pointless in a YouTube video, the appropraite response is NOT another video of someone else doing something equally stupid and pointless, or even a video fo someone refusing to do something stupid and pointless.

The appropriate response to stupid, pointless YouTube videos is just what has been received -- messages that point out the stupid pointlessness of the aforementioned YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

Sure of course if you do something stupid and pointless - no response necessary but we are talking about solid and valuable destruction test which CR fail and other knives did not.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
darthsoaker said:
Well, when it's all wrapped up it comes down to these points.

1. A knife is cutting tool, and should be used as such.

2. Some manufactures make and promote so-called "tough" knives that have been considerably overbuilt for use as a simple cutting tool.

3. The only purpose for these knives to be overbuilt is for hard use, and even abuse.

4. To say these knives are designed as simple cutting tools would be foolish.

5. If all is needed is a cutting tool, pick up a SAK and a Mora, and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Excellent! :thumbup: You have the right idea there, and I agree.
 
Dog of War said:
Maybe so ... but then what becomes of our hobby?
Click to expand...

Something reasonable, perhaps? :D I mean, if you just want cutting performance, there are many other knives to try than SAKs and Moras - indeed, many knives do far better than these two relatively very cheap knife brands. It's just that .25" thick tactical knives aren't going to be included.

And that is not to say those thick knives do not have a place. I have a lot of them, and like many of them a whole lot. Because I'm using them for more than just cutting, as the manufacturers themselves suggest! :D I mean, ask Jerry Busse what he thinks you should be able to do with his knives. He will answer something that equals: "Beat the living crap out of it."
 
Sharp Phil said:
A destruction "test" is, by definition, stupid and pointless.
Click to expand...

Really? How come car manufacturers so stupid to crash cars to check safety features. Why it is stupid to know limitation of survival knives which by definition suppose to help in survival situation where survival knife can be used for ding emergency tasks where other knives may fail.

Define then what is stupid? To me this is must to know.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
If you find a knife equipped with an airbag designed to deploy on impact wtih a cinder block, let me know.
 
Elen said:
Something reasonable, perhaps? :D I mean, if you just want cutting performance, there are many other knives to try than SAKs and Moras - indeed, many knives do far better than these two relatively very cheap knife brands....
Click to expand...

Sounds like you and I think alike, Elen ... I'm very much into testing knives and steels for overall performance at high levels of sharpness with fairly acute edges. For example:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=594351

Again, for me it's the enjoyment of the hobby. And who am I to say how someone else should, or shouldn't, enjoy the hobby themselves? :)
 
Sharp Phil said:
If you find a knife equipped with an airbag designed to deploy on impact wtih a cinder block, let me know.
Click to expand...

That will be stupid and pointless.

I am really confused with you point of view on what is stupid and pointless. Can you provide some definitons? Some charts or something - it hard to understand. Why do you think knife need to have airbag?

Anyway whatever words are used - fact is simple CR knives did not pass test which other knives did. And no one provide solid evidence proving alternative, but a lot of angry words, personal attacks, noncenses etc. Seems to me like this is only what CR defenders may offer?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Dog of War said:
Sounds like you and I think alike, Elen ... I'm very much into testing knives and steels for overall performance at high levels of sharpness with fairly acute edges. For example:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=594351

Again, for me it's the enjoyment of the hobby. And who am I to say how someone else should, or shouldn't, enjoy the hobby themselves? :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, we seem to agree. :thumbup: Even in simple cutting tasks a lot of things affect the efficiency. There's everything from edge retention to handle ergonomics. Lot of things to test, and lot of different knives that do a good job.

I agree that each and every one of us knife nuts have to and should decide for ourselves what we enjoy in our knife hobby and go with that instead of what others think. Enjoyment and logic are different things, though. It's perfectly allright to love thick, heavy knives with obtuse edges even if one is only using them for basic cutting tasks and nothing else. That would be the enjoyment part. But, it is not okay to claim as fact that such knives are only intended for cutting and nothing more, because that just flies against logic, reason, and often the statements of the very people who make and sell the knife. That's partly what this whole big long thread of debate is about. Some people can't seem to grasp the concept that not all knives are made just to be simple cutting tools and naught more. Of course, I don't know of any knives that are purposefully designed to chop concrete, either, but that doesn't mean that durability and toughness should not be tested even in brutal ways.


Sharp Phil said:
A destruction "test" is, by definition, stupid and pointless.
Click to expand...

Depending on what "test" means, your statement is either spot on or a total joke. If "test" means something like "bringing an industrial laser or a blow torch on a knife at the start of the test and breaking it pretty much right there", then you're spot on. If "test" means what the word test normally means, then your statement is a total joke. Maybe you ought to tell the folks who actually make knives that destruction testing is by definition stupid and pointless, because they do it, to find out how their blades hold out and what could be improved upon.
 
nozh2002 said:
That will be stupid and pointless.

I am really confused with you point of view on what is stupid and pointless. Can you provide some definitons? Some charts or something - it hard to understand. Why do you think knife need to have airbag?

Anyway whatever words are used - fact is simple CR knives did not pass test which other knives did. And no one provide solid evidence proving alternative, but a lot of angry words, personal attacks, noncenses etc. Seems to me like this is only what CR defenders may offer?

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

Calling it a "test" implies some scientific method. It was an attempt to break things, and nothing more. A "test" implies a conceptual model through which we may draw conclusions about future results in context. As destructive "testing" does not in any way represent the practical use of a knife, is is of no actual value in drawing conclusions or making predictions about the present or future behavior of a knife in practical use.

I am not a "CR defender." I do not own any Chris Reeve knives. I do, however, see pointless stupidity for what it is. Destructive testing is just that -- pointless, stupid, and of no real value in evaluating the performance of a knife when used as intended.
 
The vids are what they are. They're entertaining, and a little silly, but there's nothing wrong with them. I'm still going to buy Reeve knives, because the vids are not relevant to the knives' use in my opinion, but Noss4 has a right to do what he does, and others have the right to draw their own conclusions on either side of the aisle. To say that a vid is stupid or pointless is cool, but it's pretty presumptuous to dictate to others what an 'appropriate' response should be. To each his own...
 
...because the vids are not relevant to the knives' use in my opinion...
Click to expand...

Exactly. This "Noss" can certainly pollute YouTube with whatever he wishes; there are no shortage of silly videos on the site, and many of them are quite entertaining. Those who take issue with his activities do so primarily when his "tests" are invoked as evidence of anything relevant to the practical, realistic function of the knives in question.
 
Thomas W said:
"Many" is a pretty general term, and you seemly want to be the spokesperson for this charge. And from someone that has never experienced a CRK first hand no less. I'll trust CRK's integrity and handshake are not in question here.
Click to expand...

Well again I defer to some tangible results i.e. the poll in the other thread which has 75% of board members stating that they find these tests informative and telling.

Supporting this are the several lengthy threads about these specific knives in which many expressed their surprise at how these two knives performed.



Look I understand, it's easy to have your mind made up for you from an individual youtube destruction vid that you can actually visualize vs. reading ad copy and hearing the accolades others speak.

After all, how can we really believe in the things we hope for, and be certain of those things we can't see?
Click to expand...

Thats part of it. However for me personally its the fact that two very differnt knives with different steels failed at vitrually the same point. There are too mnay factors here to simply be coincidence. And then of course there is the issue that much cheaper knives had no problem with this.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Calling it a "test" implies some scientific method. It was an attempt to break things, and nothing more. A "test" implies a conceptual model through which we may draw conclusions about future results in context. As destructive "testing" does not in any way represent the practical use of a knife, is is of no actual value in drawing conclusions or making predictions about the present or future behavior of a knife in practical use.

I am not a "CR defender." I do not own any Chris Reeve knives. I do, however, see pointless stupidity for what it is. Destructive testing is just that -- pointless, stupid, and of no real value in evaluating the performance of a knife when used as intended.
Click to expand...

We can not limit our scope to one single particular knife we are testing - it will be stupid and pointless. Of course with such type of testing (well actually almose any testing except in some QA) we are looking in common behavior for particular model line, with natural assumption that other knives from same line will behave similar way. So testing one exemplar of particular type allows us to understand what we may expect from other knives (or cars) as you sad making predictions about the present or future behavior of a knife in practical use.

Test Noss4 conducting emulates practical use - at least the one which CR fail. So this is pretty valuable information nessesary to making predictions about the present or future behavior of a knife in practical use. Other wise how else you may make those prediction?

Wat is you basis to call left and right this and that stupidity? Just wondering why are so many of this in your posts?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Exactly. This "Noss" can certainly pollute YouTube with whatever he wishes; there are no shortage of silly videos on the site, and many of them are quite entertaining. Those who take issue with his activities do so primarily when his "tests" are invoked as evidence of anything relevant to the practical, realistic function of the knives in question.
Click to expand...

His test put knife in practical situation like for many other knives and CR knives fail unlike many other knives.

You may pollute this thread with all this "stupid and pointless" but it will not make CR knives better. Only video which show how it performs in same situation may prove something. All this words mean nothing until they have some solid evidence behind.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Perhaps the language barrier is giving us difficulty. I will reiterate: I find this "Noss" person's destructive "testing" stupid and pointless because it does NOT accurately represent the practical uses of the knives involved. While people may find these "tests" entertaining (and I'm sure they are), some of those people also consider these "tests" informative (but I don't believe they truly are), and thus I consider these videos stupid and pointless. Plenty of things that are both can also be entertaining. If the subject is whether we should be entertained by them, I offer no argument. If the question is whether we should consider them informative, I'm saying quite plainly that I do not.

You may insist that these videos constitute "evidence" of something. They do not.

I didn't find it particularly informative when Cliff Stamp engaged in the same abuse of knives.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Calling it a "test" implies some scientific method. It was an attempt to break things, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

So looking at how it peels an apple, or cuts cardboard, cuts webbing, cuts cable, batons through 2x4's, etc is "attempting to break things" in your mind?

I keep hearing people say that beating on a knife is stupid. Well that may be correct, however thats not what is going on here. Its almost approaching dishonesty the way some people are painting what he does. If I hadn't seen the videos myself, from reading this thread I'd assume all he does is throw the knife on the ground and start in with a jack hammer. Thats not what happens.

And let me remind you folks, both of these knives broke cutting into wood. Sure stabbing sheet metal or chopping a cinderblock might not be within the design capacity of a knife, but thats not what happened here. Both CRk's folded being hammered into wood.

So lets stop with the hyperbole about massive amounts of abuse or using a knife outside of its function. The CRK broke way too early to even get there.
 
Are you so threatened by a dissenting opinion that you have to make foolish and personal assumptions about those who dare to offer them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top