Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

[dante]

I don't find those arguments reasonable or compelling. Rationalizations are not justifications.



No, you smell reality.

Ok, then still is the issue: What would you suggest?

 

[Culpeper]

The burden of providing such definitions is not on me; it is on those who seek to redefine expectations of knife service to include gross abuse.

You're a good writer. Why are you wasting time on this subject? It's subjective. You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and it will never work. You're a good writer.

 

[dante]

The burden of providing such definitions is not on me; it is on those who seek to redefine expectations of knife service to include gross abuse.

So let me get this, you don't or can't provide a testing methodology (not even a good idea) but take the time to discourage other people to do so?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Abusing a knife isn't a "testing methodology." That's what I've been saying from the start.

 

[theonew]

Folks before you go crazy responding to Sharp Phil's posts, keep this in mind, he is a professional troll, and I don't mean this in a bad way. Check out Bullshido.net, where he won some award for being the "Stephen Colbert" of martial arts websites. He appears to me to now be poking fun at the dogma which denies that backyard reviews of heavy duty knives are of any value. I mean come on that whole oil in transmission analogy is a hoot

 

[Culpeper]

Abusing a knife isn't a "testing methodology." That's what I've been saying from the start.

Using a knife is out of the question.

 

[tomcrx]

Abusing a knife isn't a "testing methodology." That's what I've been saying from the start.

I'll say it again

Phil it seems your issue is with testing to failure and using accelerating methods to accomplish them. Should all failure testing be eliminated by third parties if it involves "abuse" as per manufacturer's warranty?

 

[Will York]

No, I'm advocating a realistic standard. I'm objecting to those who are attempting to redefine that standard using gross abuse as the benchmark. There's a difference.

..."gross abuse"...? So it's being mean to the knife to hit it with a hammer? Do you worry about the poor, defenseless molecules in the steel being heated up to red hot and then chilled down unmercifully to make them form a highly regimented crystalline structure, just to suit the intent of the maker? Or the fact that a knife's blade may be confined to the darkness of a sheath for months on end before it sees the light of day?

You can damage a knife blade. You cannot injure one. Once the owner has paid his money for a blade, "abuse" is a rather pointless descriptor regardless of what he decides to do to it, don't you think?

I'm beginning to agree with you, though: This really IS silly.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I'll say it again

Phil it seems your issue is with testing to failure and using accelerating methods to accomplish them. Should all failure testing be eliminated by third parties if it involves "abuse" as per manufacturer's warranty?

Just who would do this "eliminating?"

..."gross abuse"...? So it's being mean to the knife to hit it with a hammer? Do you worry about the poor, defenseless molecules in the steel being heated up to red hot and then chilled down unmercifully to make them form a highly regimented crystalline structure, just to suit the intent of the maker? Or the fact that a knife's blade may be confined to the darkness of a sheath for months on end before it sees the light of day?

You can damage a knife blade. You cannot injure one. Once the owner has paid his money for a blade, "abuse" is a rather pointless descriptor regardless of what he decides to do to it, don't you think?

I'm beginning to agree with you, though: This really IS silly.

What's silly is projecting emotions onto something that is really quite simple. When you use a tool for something it is not intended to do, to the point that you manage to break that tool, you are abusing that tool. When you hammer a knife through a cinder block, you are grossly abusing that tool. When it breaks, you should not be surprised. Establishing abuse as the benchmark for "testing" a knife removes that knife from all functional context and does the industry and its customers a disservice in the unrealistic expectations it attempts to promulgate.

 

[Culpeper]

Folks before you go crazy responding to Sharp Phil's posts, keep this in mind, he is a professional troll, and I don't mean this in a bad way. Check out Bullshido.net, where he won some award for being the "Stephen Colbert" of martial arts websites. He appears to me to now be poking fun at the dogma which denies that backyard reviews of heavy duty knives are of no value. I mean come on that whole oil in transmission analogy is a hoot

I'm surprised he hasn't attacked Volvo for all those crash tests. But if one of us was to get a new Volvo and film it being crashed?

He needs to join a nice club like the Sons of Silence or The Warlocks. I would pay to see that tragedy unfold. He's not designed to wash bikes and guard the property of Grub.

 

[busselover]

Just who would do this "eliminating?"



What's silly is projecting emotions onto something that is really quite simple. When you use a tool for something it is not intended to do, to the point that you manage to break that tool, you are abusing that tool. When you hammer a knife through a cinder block, you are grossly abusing that tool. When it breaks, you should not be surprised. Establishing abuse as the benchmark for "testing" a knife removes that knife from all functional context and does the industry and its customers a disservice in the unrealistic expectations it attempts to promulgate.

Poor Phil does not understand what a destructive test is.....

Nor can he grasp that the point isn't that something broke, but that some things break sooner than others.

And that for products that are offered up as hard use, just how much use and/or abuse the product can take before failure is indeed of interest to many consumers, despite any disservice it might do to any industry or its customers....

 

[nozh2002]

Folks before you go crazy responding to Sharp Phil's posts, keep this in mind, he is a professional troll, and I don't mean this in a bad way. Check out Bullshido.net, where he won some award for being the "Stephen Colbert" of martial arts websites. He appears to me to now be poking fun at the dogma which denies that backyard reviews of heavy duty knives are of any value. I mean come on that whole oil in transmission analogy is a hoot

This is explain it all. He just saying same thing again and again ignoring facts and having fun when people taking him seriously trying to reason.

Do you have link to this award he got?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[markksr]

This is explain it all. He just saying same thing again and again ignoring facts and having fun when people taking him seriously trying to reason.

Do you have link to this award he got?

Thanks, Vassili.

A familiar pattern to you, huh?

 

[dante]

I know about Phill story with bullshido.net and that he has a website with general impression (reviews) of several knives and related equipment. But I was giving him the benefit of a doubt since he seem so adamant about the incorrectness or uselessness of such tests. When he writes that it's not his burden to make tests, after criticizing a knife aficionado, then his criticism, at least for me, lost all meaning. I though he had something better to offer, I guess not.

BTW in a "Destruction Test" the only thing that is expected is that the item is going to be destroyed, the information that we are looking for is how much does it takes to accomplish this. So there are no false or unrealistic expectation there.

 

[Phil Elmore]

"Bullshido" is the most notorious troll-site in the online martial arts community. Being disliked by the types of people who post there there is a badge of honor. My award sits on my desk, and I am well proud of it.

 

[dante]

Phill I agreed with you in the Spyderco ZDP-189 Endura thread, the person posted complaining the he broke a folding knife by batoning some wood, that is abuse and more abusive is to ask for a refund. It is not the same thing as saying "I'm going to put a folder in a vise and yank it to see how much of my hand strength (maybe hang from it) does it require to break it knowing that is is probably going to break and no warranty is going to cover it but I want to know anyway and maybe post a video so other people can also see".

 

[Phil Elmore]

When he writes that it's not his burden to make tests, after criticizing a knife aficionado, then his criticism, at least for me, lost all meaning. I though he had something better to offer, I guess not.

It is not my responsibility to come up with some new standard when it is those who support these absurd destruction tests who are attempting to redefine that standard. Testing a knife realistically means using it realistically, period. It doesn't mean using abuse of the tool as the standard of success or failure.

 

[tomcrx]

Folks before you go crazy responding to Sharp Phil's posts, keep this in mind, he is a professional troll, and I don't mean this in a bad way. Check out Bullshido.net, where he won some award for being the "Stephen Colbert" of martial arts websites. He appears to me to now be poking fun at the dogma which denies that backyard reviews of heavy duty knives are of any value. I mean come on that whole oil in transmission analogy is a hoot

So his job is just getting in pointless debates where he is just being an ass Now his reviews make more sense.

 

[dante]

It is not my responsibility to come up with some new standard when it is those who support these absurd destruction tests who are attempting to redefine that standard. Testing a knife realistically means using it realistically, period. It doesn't mean using abuse of the tool as the standard of success or failure.

To break a heavy duty tool takes ABUSE, usually they are extremely strong, it is the amount of ABUSE required to break it the piece of information we are looking for. You cannot test the ultimate strength of a knife by cutting cardboard.

 

[Phil Elmore]

So his job is just getting in pointless debates where he is just being an ass Now his reviews make more sense.

My "job" is advocating logic and reason in all things. I draw the line at pointless abuse of a tool for the sake of destroying it. This proves nothing. The fact that people are using these stunts to draw conclusions about the work of the manufacturers and makers involved does everyone a disservice.

To break a heavy duty tool takes ABUSE, usually they are extremely strong, it is the amount of ABUSE required to break it the piece of information we are looking for. You cannot test the ultimate strength of a knife by cutting cardboard.

Because these knife-breaking stunts are unscientific and generally not reproducible with any degree of accuracy, and because the sample sizes used are far too small (usually a single knife) to represent anything like a random sampling, no true conclusions can be drawn from them. This renders them largely useless, if somewhat entertaining to some.