Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsiloics said:
Damn good question.

Let's carry that all the way through, and imagine that the car in question was designed partly around the idea of being robust enough to function in situations where tranny oil wasn't available, so motor oil would have to suffice for both applications.

It's almost as though you think it is not cool to favor something that works more broadly over something that works less broadly.

That whole line of reasoning is completely asinine.
Click to expand...

In addition let say this is not family but military vehicle...

One can imagine why car may need six wheels or even 8? Stupid idea, isn't it? But this is why Russian BTR so much better then Hummers - when it hip land mine it able to drive to safety on remaining wheels.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
What's "not cool" is to define the proper function of any tool by whether it breaks when you deliberately abuse it.
 
Sharp Phil said:
What's "not cool" is to define the proper function of any tool by whether it breaks when you deliberately abuse it.
Click to expand...

This is no deliberate abuse but real life test.

Once again for you (is it 6th time?):

He introduced knive - as A2 thick heavy duty one piece...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0H8EFC26vw

1. Peel apple, (I tests on potato) - shows basic ability to use knife for "fine" thing like food prparation, reasonable test and Project one doing all right.
2. Slice an apple - reaonable test to me - show that blade is bit too thick for fine slicing.
3. Cut 10000 pounf ribbon cutting
4. Control Cutting of 10 000 pound ribbon
5. Cut same with serration
6. Chopping 2x4 - not a good chopper according to Noss4. get some energy to do. not heavy enough...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2fT6pL4xQ

7. Cut 10000 ribbon after chopping - cut well no difference on the edge.
8. Batooning firewood hitting with wood - done.
9. Cutting Ribbon after batooning. - less sharp.
10. Tip break test on 2x4 "dig through" - perfect shape after testing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VmWJOAJB5I

11. Tip test on metal - snaped off very tip few mm but no any serious non fixable, compare holes with holes from other knife. Reasonable test for survival knife.
12. Batooning through 2x4 with 3 pound steel hummer

I would say he hit it very gently, defenetely without intention to destroy it with blade about 60 degree to wood) until at 8 minutes it breaks very easy without actually any hard hit and at the different point from where he did hit it with hummer, but near handle. Also it was clearly surprise for Noss4 he did not really expected this.

So is it deliberate abuse?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
WILL YORK said:
Why would you buy a knife that breaks when you hammer on it when you could buy a knife of about the same size and weight, comparably priced or less, with equal or better edge holding, that doesn't break when you hammer on it?

And why wouldn't you want to know which is which?

I appreciate Noss's efforts very much and his durability under gratuitous assault equally so.
Click to expand...

Sharp Phil said:
Why would you buy a car that stops running when you pour motor oil in the transmission fluid, when you could buy a car that doesn't?

This is just silly.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your metaphor. Are you actually trying to argue that it is better NOT to know which knife WILL fail when hammered on the spine blade-first into wood and which will NOT fail, given that someone else has gone to the trouble and expense of putting the video evidence on the web for your benefit for free?

And if you actually prefer NOT to know which is which for some unexplained reason, why wouldn't you just opt not to watch and not waste your own time?

Could your last comment in the quote above be a realization about the nature of your first?
 
I'm arguing that deliberately breaking a knife is NOT a realistic assessment of its proper function as a knife. These knife abuse stunts create an unrealistic set of expectations that have nothing to do with using a knife as it is designed to be used.
 
komondor said:
Nice knives, Cobalt.

I still think knives of that thickness were the exception and not the norm.
.
Click to expand...


yah, I won't disagree there. I am sure they were quite a bit more than thinner knives. I really don't think there was much of a difference from today. These days you have fans of both and you probably had that back then as well
 
Sharp Phil said:
I'm arguing that deliberately breaking a knife is NOT a realistic assessment of its proper function as a knife. These knife abuse stunts create an unrealistic set of expectations that have nothing to do with using a knife as it is designed to be used.
Click to expand...

Sometime you may have to use a knife for something it's not designed for.
A lot of people like tough knives, you can buy a busse and never worry about it or watch noss's videos, if you are happy with what you do with your knives and have no reason to watch them, why bother watching and commenting?
 
Yes, and most of the time you do not. Establishing abuse as the benchmark is both unrealistic and, in the case of drawing conclusions about an entire knife line based on breaking a single example of same, patently absurd.
 
In a survival situation a knife may have to be pushed to its limits.

And as for using a single example, I would bet the farm if noss tested 10 of each knife
the results would be pretty similar, but hey, maybe not.

But what is your agenda anyway? It is a matter of preference, do you want noss to stop what he's doing? Will you be happy if you have converted all the "nossholes" over to your way of thinking?
I really do not see the point of your continuous criticisms, we know how you feel about the issue.
 
Sharp Phil said:
I'm arguing that deliberately breaking a knife is NOT a realistic assessment of its proper function as a knife. These knife abuse stunts create an unrealistic set of expectations that have nothing to do with using a knife as it is designed to be used.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what is not happening here. What is Noss doing is testing it under realistic expectation for tough outdoor knife, as it was mentioned before and with what everybody except you agreed.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Sharp Phil said:
I'm arguing that deliberately breaking a knife is NOT a realistic assessment of its proper function as a knife. These knife abuse stunts create an unrealistic set of expectations that have nothing to do with using a knife as it is designed to be used.
Click to expand...

Whose definition of "proper function" matters, other than that of the user of the knife?

A knife is the most basic of tools, available to its owner to perform whatever function the owner chooses or needs to perform, whether or not that function was foreseen by the owner when he purchased the knife or when he carried the knife afield. Whether a given function is within the scope of use warranted or recommended by the manufacturer, or whether it SHOULD be warranted or recommended by the manufacturer, is another question altogether, and not one Noss tries to address.

Noss never suggests what a knife's "proper function" might be. He simply applies a battery of stresses to blades until they fail, video's the process, puts the result online for all to see, and says "Here is some information I find interesting. If you find it useful, do with it what you will."

The same might be said of the expectations raised by Noss's videos. If you feel the expectations of others, based on Noss's work, may be unrealistic, then you are making a judgement for others based on what you assume their abilities are to judge for themselves as well as making a judgement about the validity of Noss's work without attempting to disprove the validity of that work with tests of your own or to replicate that work and thereby confirm whether it is valid or not.

So of what value is your criticism of his work? Again, if you don't find it useful, why would you watch it? And why would you assume that your condemnation of his work would matter to anyone other than those who already agree with you?
 
Sharp Phil said:
I'm arguing that deliberately breaking a knife is NOT a realistic assessment of its proper function as a knife. These knife abuse stunts create an unrealistic set of expectations that have nothing to do with using a knife as it is designed to be used.
Click to expand...

A flashlight is not designed to be used as an impact weapon. Do you buy your flashlights soley based on light output?
 
WILL YORK said:
Whose definition of "proper function" matters, other than that of the user of the knife?
Click to expand...

The user cannot decide to redefine the knife's function unrealistically and then expect others to adopt that standard -- not logically anyway. Words have meanings.

kiahs said:
A flashlight is not designed to be used as an impact weapon. Do you buy your flashlights soley based on light output?
Click to expand...

Spurious logic. I don't go around telling you that Brand X flashlight "fails" the crack-open-a-cinderblock-test and therefore you should not buy it,.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The user cannot decide to redefine the knife's function unrealistically and then expect others to adopt that standard -- not logically anyway. Words have meanings.
Click to expand...
Noss has never asked anyone to adopt any particular standard. He has a series of tests he does to satisfy his own curiosity about the absolute toughness of a particular knife and then shares it with others to do with what they will (as Will York stated). He never states anywhere that anyone has to agree with his tests, his definition of toughness, or anything else.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Spurious logic. I don't go around telling you that Brand X flashlight "fails" the crack-open-a-cinderblock-test and therefore you should not buy it,.
Click to expand...

But Phil, a flashlight is not designed to be used as an impact device. Yet, you promote that idea. Go back and read your own statements. As an aside, do you actually know what "spurious" means? As your use of it is confusing.

The user cannot decide to redefine the knife's function unrealistically and then expect others to adopt that standard -- not logically anyway.
Click to expand...

But you can decide to redefine a flashlight's function and expect others to adopt it?
 
Police use Maglights precisely for the ability to use them as a bludgeon and are taught how to hold one in order to employ it as such when using it for its primary function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top