Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

[tsiloics]

I resent the aura of infallibility that grows up around this sort of slamming that can impact the reputation of whichever company someone wants to go after.

It has no measurable effect on CRK's bottom line but it does deprive impressionable newbies of choices. That's not Bladeforum's policy. We get to fight it out here. Telling me to ignore what I personally don't like is telling me to abandon the battlefield to an incompetent enemy. Why don't you tell him to stop posting videos that people don't agree with?

Not sure I'm completely following the battlefield analogy. I do agree with you in terms of disliking auras, although in perhaps a more general way. My interest is mainly in the knives themselves, less in the cult worship.

You are probably right that the negative aspects of all this outweigh the positives... in fact you are definitely right about that.

I still think the videos contain significant, relevant, general indications of how certain knives perform under certain circumstances, though.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

You are probably right that the negative aspects of all this outweigh the positives... in fact you are definitely right about that.

I still think the videos contain significant, relevant, general indications of how certain knives perform under certain circumstances, though.

Fair enough. I do like how Noss4 backs out of here when the talk gets around to quantifiable results, though.

 

[coolhand68]

Les Stroud uses a $40 Buck 119, and Grylls used a Gerber for the longest time. Ray Mears uses a 1095 carbon steel knife. If those knives were good enough for survival purposes then you should have no worries with the CRK. What possible scenarios do you anticipate using this knife for that you think it won't hold up? If you're having serious doubts, get yourself a Fallkniven S1 and call it a day.

For what it's worth, I enjoy Noss' tests, while not scientific, they do give you an idea of overall toughness and edge/tip retention on the ones he tests. How many whacks does it take to get through a 2x4, can it hold your weight in a pinch if you needed to use it in a climbing situation, will the tip withstand heavy puncture strikes...while all of these are not your average scenarios for usage, if you think you'll ever be in a situation that calls for the use of a knife in place of a saw, axe, pry bar or battering ram, then these tests may help you choose a knife that will give you piece of mind.

 

[noss4]

Fair enough. I do like how Noss4 backs out of here when the talk gets around to quantifiable results, though.

Not backing out. Your arguing something that is irrelevant to my tests. They are not scientific tests. They have never been claimed to be scientific tests. Nor do I feel they need to be. If I claimed them to be then you would have a legitimate argument. Your just using it a scapegoat here.

Tell you what Esav you front me cash to buy or build very expensive testing machines and I'll do it. It's very easy to demand this type of testing but it takes a lot money that I don't have. So it's easier said then done.

 

[harkamus]

I think the flak comes from you saying that you have the math in your testing when in actuality, there is very little math. Actually, there's no math. If there's math, show it.

But I guess that's why some of us go into a science field, while others go into a liberal arts field. That's no attack to anyone. It's another way of saying different strokes for different folks.

One thing can be argued. People like numbers. 0 - 60 mph times for those crazy speed freaks. Torque numbers for those that like to haul stuff in their pick ups. MPG for those that like to get the most out of a tank of gas. Ghz for those that like a powerful computer. F# for those that like precision photography. The list goes on.

I will say this. Your vids are enjoyable to watch for me, but to me it's just a spectacle.

 

[noss4]

I think the flak comes from you saying that you have the math in your testing when in actuality, there is very little math. Actually, there's no math. If there's math, show it.

But I guess that's why some of us go into a science field, while others go into a liberal arts field. That's no attack to anyone. It's another way of saying different strokes for different folks.

One thing can be argued. People like numbers. 0 - 60 mph times for those crazy speed freaks. Torque numbers for those that like to haul stuff in their pick ups. MPG for those that like to get the most out of a tank of gas. Ghz for those that like a powerful computer. F# for those that like precision photography. The list goes on.

I will say this. Your vids are enjoyable to watch for me, but to me it's just a spectacle.

My math is not in the form of numbers and I never claimed to present math.
My math is based on perception of the tasks during testing. The knife is put through a series of hard tasks. The difficulty increases as the knife makes it's way through the series of tests. I use hard materials and the hammer to increase the stress. Example: Many would agree that hammering a knife through steel is difficult and the perception is the knife needs to be tough to be used like this. If a knife is able to successfully complete this and many have done so then I have a strong indicator that the knife is on the tough side. It's perception not numbers. If this isn't good enough for some then so be it.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

They are not scientific tests. They have never been claimed to be scientific tests. Nor do I feel they need to be.

{...}

It's very easy to demand this type of testing but it takes a lot money that I don't have. So it's easier said then done.

That's all I need to hear. But it won't stop your devotees from overinterpreting your "results".

I demand nothing. I only want it clear that your demonstrations are not scientific testing of anything.

 

[jdm61]

I wonder why it is I almost always seem to find myself falling somewhere in the middle when these kinds of dust-ups break out on the forums.

On the one hand, there's the fact that one of the reasons for choosing A2 instead of other common tool steels is its toughness. Plus I don't have any problem with Noss or anyone else doing whatever they want to with their own knives or knives given to them for the purpose, even when it isn't something I would personally do.

So IMO there is something interesting to be learned here, even though I'm not exactly sure what it might be, or what I'll ever do with the information.

On the other hand, a knife is a knife after all, and to me that means its main function is cutting materials that are softer and not as tough as steel. Some are tougher than others, to be sure, and many are marketed as being tough, although that relative term is often left undefined. And maybe that's where the real problem lies.

A2 is "tougher" than other common tool steels like S7, M4, L6 or W2? Thats a new one to me.

 

[noss4]

That's all I need to hear. But it won't stop your devotees from overinterpreting your "results".

I demand nothing. I only want it clear that your demonstrations are not scientific testing of anything.

Where have you been ? I have stated this from the very beginning. Many knife tests in the knife world are far from scientific. Just do some Google searches and you will turn up plenty but they are out there for people to make a determination about the knife they want.

 

[Bad Dog]

I had to think about this awhile. I have a Project One and over the years it's seen some hard use. I have never attemted to use it as a giant nail however.
I did take it into my garage and insert it into a horizontal gap in some heavy duty shelves built into the wall. I'm a 240lb guy and I could grip the handle and pull myself up repeatedly without the knife failing.

You tested one knife. What year was that knife crafted?

Is there any difference in the way CRK has heat treated over the years? Could it have been from a bad batch of steel they recieved?

I'd think testing several knives would show it's the knife and not a fluke. Maybe thats just me.

 

[nozh2002]

Vassili, I think we will have to disagree here. I do agree that testing to destruction is absolutely necessary for any survival-rated knife. I don't think that what Noss4 does qualifies.

I can take a slege hammer to a car sitting in a parking lot and total it. That tells me nothing about how well it would have protected its passengers in a highway crash.

This is good analogy to make you point, but it is not what Noss4 is doing. I found his tests very informative and useful, even if I will not planning to do anything like this myself, but to know that I can cut through steel pipe with Busse is somehow usefull information for me.

Now only way to dismiss this tests is to represent another alternative. In knife World there is no too much testing done, this lead to creating legends and hypes, lead to "commonly accepted knowledges" which in many cases have no basis at all - I can easy provide few. It is always painful to see that whatever legend you believed (and payed for) has nothing to do with reality, but you can not dismiss facts with believes! You have to show facts.

If you believe that CR is tough - show it. Talk are cheap, anyone with some intellect can came up with one or other excuses, arguments and conter arguments. But in my eyes facts costs way more then talks. And this is what Noss4 have here.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[tsiloics]

I think the flak comes from you saying that you have the math in your testing when in actuality, there is very little math. Actually, there's no math. If there's math, show it.

But I guess that's why some of us go into a science field, while others go into a liberal arts field. That's no attack to anyone. It's another way of saying different strokes for different folks.

And all of us live in a field that combines the two. Some of us are even crazy enough to work there.

The truth is that both highly objective, quantified phenomena and also much more subjective, anecdotal phenomena can be informative. Both kinds of information also have their limitations.

One thing can be argued. People like numbers. 0 - 60 mph times for those crazy speed freaks. Torque numbers for those that like to haul stuff in their pick ups. MPG for those that like to get the most out of a tank of gas. Ghz for those that like a powerful computer. F# for those that like precision photography. The list goes on.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of bench racing on B/F. As with a 0-60 times, much of it is of very limited practical use.

Which car is faster, one with a 3.2sec 0-60 and a 13.0sec 1/4, or one with 4.0sec 0-60 and a 12.5sec 1/4? In my world, neither one of them is fast if it can't turn well, and turning well is something you get from meticulous, subjective suspension testing - not just a skidpad. It's a combination of numbers and gut. The car has to feel good to be fast.

I will say this. Your vids are enjoyable to watch for me, but to me it's just a spectacle.

If you were hiring a bouncer to work at your club, would you want the guy who could bench #27 more, or the guy who prevailed in more street fights? Are street fights won by spring scales and lasers, or circumstance?

If a bunch of us got together to drink a few beers and bust up a few knives, would you really be incapable of taking anything useful away from the experience?

Sure, the hockey mask is goofy. But so is the idea that a given knife has Mr. Secret Squirrel's signature on it, so hey, it must work well.

The knives in question here are not scalpels or kitchen tools. They are heavy-duty, rough-use implements, (presumably) designed to function over a broad range of less than perfect circumstances. Striking the spine of the subject knife with a relatively massive object is not an unreasonable idea in that context.

 

[noss4]

I had to think about this awhile. I have a Project One and over the years it's seen some hard use. I have never attemted to use it as a giant nail however.
I did take it into my garage and insert it into a horizontal gap in some heavy duty shelves built into the wall. I'm a 240lb guy and I could grip the handle and pull myself up repeatedly without the knife failing.

You tested one knife. What year was that knife crafted?

Is there any difference in the way CRK has heat treated over the years? Could it have been from a bad batch of steel they recieved?

I'd think testing several knives would show it's the knife and not a fluke. Maybe thats just me.

It's always when the knife fails quick does everyone ask for a retest. When a popular brand knife does well no one ever asks for a retest. If the CRK did well
we would not be having this conversation.

If you did your body weight test then please present it. Instead of you just saying you did. Mine is on video for everyone to see. So do the same. I never got to the body weight test I do with the knives because no CRK blade makes it this far. They never get past the hammer into wood test. Body weight test and and hammer impacts are different tests. So I don't know for myself how one would hold up under this my 225 pounds.

The CRK Chris Reeve Green beret was sent back to them to look at. CRK came back and said everything was in order. Heat treat and such. Their statement is here on blade forums about it.

The project and the green beret were only a few months old form the card that came with them. If they have changed their heat treat over the years ? I can't answer this. Only they can.

 

[chasden]

I appreciate Noss's test for what they are, and take them with grain of salt. No it's not the scientific method in action, but it is a pretty serious test drive that I think has value in an edge case kind of way. Noss's test are good enough for me, and generally are a hoot to watch. And no, I wouldn't buy a CRK after seeing the way these performed.

What is annoying to see are the personal attacks on Noss. If you don't care for the way he runs his tests, don't watch them.

 

[harkamus]

I think we should all meet somewhere for a bladeforums get together and have a few beers and bbq (without the knives...people may get hurt ).

Discourse is healthy.

 

[Joshua J.]

I think there is a reasonable progression to the tests, and I greatly appreciate being able to see how different knvies fail. Most just snap in half. Then the few that do make it further along in testing start to exhibit different behaviors. Notice how S-7 on the ScrapYard knife started to tear rather than chip or dent. You get to see which ones are too soft and simply mush around rather than breaking.
You can learn a lot from the testing Noss does, and it's not a matter of "I'm giong to go and do all the stuff I see on the internet", it's the "what if" factor. What if my knife falls tip first onto a cement floor from ten feet up? well, that would be a test of tip strength, and Noss does that very well. There are all sorts of possible situations where I would like to have some sort of idea how well any given knife is going to perform. Noss answeres a lot of those questions.
It would be great if knifemakers would post their destruction tests online, but they don't. For the time being we have Noss.

 

[paua]

Childless like many of the top hard use makers test their blades ?
Busse, Scrap yard, Swamp rat. What I do is also very good for company's reputation if their knife performs very well in the tests. If a maker makes a quality product then they have no fear in my tests.

Noss4's test is the last straw that finally broke my confidence in other knives and sent me to Busse camp. Thank you very much Noss4. I no longer have struggle or doubt after seeing your test. And probably Busse Combat Knife and all those private Busse knife sellers should thank you too as I already spent more than $2000 on Busse knives in October alone. On a second thought, I still have struggle as there is always not enough money to buy all the Busse knives I want.

 

[Culpeper]

If I'm not mistaken Chris Reeve's was very interested in that knife Noss tested.

http://www.knifetests.com/chrisreevetestresponse.html

 

[lsstaipei]

Les Stroud uses a $40 Buck 119, and Grylls used a Gerber for the longest time. Ray Mears uses a 1095 carbon steel knife. If those knives were good enough for survival purposes then you should have no worries with the CRK.

I guess 420HC and 1095 are more resistant to fracture than A2 and S30V.
A2 at HRC55~57 holds edge not longer than SAK steels for whittling and preparing food.Some people prefer A2 for this usage,but I prefer 5160,SAK steels,12C27/12C27M.

 

[just10minreader]

Not backing out. Your arguing something that is irrelevant to my tests. They are not scientific tests. They have never been claimed to be scientific tests. Nor do I feel they need to be. If I claimed them to be then you would have a legitimate argument. Your just using it a scapegoat here.

Tell you what Esav you front me cash to buy or build very expensive testing machines and I'll do it. It's very easy to demand this type of testing but it takes a lot money that I don't have. So it's easier said then done.

You don't need fancy machines for repeatability,
you have everything you need already in your shop.
Instead of hiding behind the "money",
just admit you wouldn't enjoy it as much to have a machine pound that wood