Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

[noss4]

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

Actually I love machines. It would be more fun to do it with hydraulics and pneumatics. I build complicated machines in that shop. They are not for knives. I have a huge hydraulic system and pneumatic system all computer controlled. Money is always a issue if you think this stuff is cheap then think again. I wish I had money to hide behind if I did I would take my testing to a whole new level.

 

[Dog of War]

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

Well, I didn't say all common tool steels. A2 is tougher than 1095, O2 or M2, for example. Guess I should have been more specific.

 

[me2]

These destruction tests will continue to be relevant and informative until knife companies stop selling their knives on the basis of toughness. If the companies promoted their knives solely on the basis of cutting ability, which indeed some do, we'd all be cutting cardboard on a scale to see which ones cut the easiest. However, the knives Noss tests are promoted on the basis of their toughness. His tests are not scientific, but they do show relative ability to handle abuse, which he has never denied his tests are. Perhaps the knife companies should also be reminded that knives are for cutting.

Which brings me to another point of contention. If all knives are for cutting, what explains all the broken tips, handles, bent guards, chipped edges, etc. There are obviously a lot of knife users that use their knives as general tools, not just for cutting. They pry open paint cans, scrap caulk off glass, remove screws, split wood, drill holes, score sheet aluminum, and basically try whatever else they need to with their knives. Keep in mind some of Noss' most severe tests are cutting applications. They just happen to involve cutting metal. Also remember that the tests that failed the CRK knives were cutting tests. They were cutting wood using impact to drive the blade, something $5 chisels and $10 Old Hickory knives do without catastrophic failure.

 

[Chambers]

Just to add my two cents here. The destruction "tests" presented by Noss have absolutely 0 value to anyone capable of putting a round peg in a round hole.

As has been argued many times, knives aren't axes, anchors, hammers, pitons, prybars, ladder rungs, or screwdrivers. Fit the right tool to the right job and you won't have a problem.

Essav nailed it perfectly on the first page and it should have stopped there:

There is a difference between testing to destruction and simply destroying. What you are doing is simply destroying.

And therefore has, once again, ZERO value. Since day one, that very first Strider, it's only ever been about "how long can I beat on this knife until it breaks?"
There is no argument here for real world applications, Noss has said it himself:

My tests are hard stress tests not user tests

So for those of us who will actually use a knife like a knife (square peg into square hole) and not stand around like a monkey flinging poop to see what happens, once again ZERO value.

As Noss states, "these are destruction tests I want to see how much it will take to destroy a knife, these are crash tests!" Ok right. When I buy a car I have an innate understanding that if I drive that car into a brick wall at 40+ MPH it will be destroyed. I don't need Noss to tell me that because I'm not an idiot. Once again ZERO value.

They are not scientific tests

We know, and that's the point.

Congratulations Noss, you've carved out a niche for yourself as Lynn Thompsons illegitimate love-child. Cheer up though, I'm sure you'll be on the PROOF video next year buddy. :thumbup:

 

[watchcollector1968]

I do have a question that hopefully can be answered. When the CR breaks during testing, he is smacking through the 2x4 with a steel sledgehammer.

I have a few fixed blades I have done some chopping with, and when going through larger pieces of wood, I tend to find a good piece of wood and use that as the hammer on the spine and have never had any problems.

If you are out in a survival situation and chopping up some wood for a fire, it is doubtful you are going to find a sledge sitting there waiting on you, more than likely you will have another piece of wood to use as your hammer.

So, is banging on steel with more steel even an accurate or fair test? It seems the shock taken by the knife from the much heavier hammer is simply asking for trouble. A piece of wood would do the same thing with much less shock/stress to the steel of the knife?

 

[noss4]

Just to add my two cents here. The destruction "tests" presented by Noss have absolutely 0 value to anyone capable of putting a round peg in a round hole.

As has been argued many times, knives aren't axes, anchors, hammers, pitons, prybars, ladder rungs, or screwdrivers. Fit the right tool to the right job and you won't have a problem.

Essav nailed it perfectly on the first page and it should have stopped there:


And therefore has, once again, ZERO value. Since day one, that very first Strider, it's only ever been about "how long can I beat on this knife until it breaks?"
There is no argument here for real world applications, Noss has said it himself:

So for those of us who will actually use a knife like a knife (square peg into square hole) and not stand around like a monkey flinging poop to see what happens, once again ZERO value.

As Noss states, "these are destruction tests I want to see how much it will take to destroy a knife, these are crash tests!" Ok right. When I buy a car I have an innate understanding that if I drive that car into a brick wall at 40+ MPH it will be destroyed. I don't need Noss to tell me that because I'm not an idiot. Once again ZERO value.



We know, and that's the point.

Congratulations Noss, you've carved out a niche for yourself as Lynn Thompsons illegitimate love-child. Cheer up though, I'm sure you'll be on the PROOF video next year buddy. :thumbup:

Yeah that was worth about 2 cents alright.

The applications are limitless for what I show during the tests. Everything I do
in the tests is real and many knives can tackle very difficult tasks very easy. Many people would have said no way you do that with a knife. Well I have showed people knives are far more versatile a tool then just cutting some simple items like rope. I have the tests to back up what I say. This is modern times in the age of the hard use combat knife were failure is not an option. Many of the knives I test are marketed as this very thing. Until you push a blade to it limits you will never know what it is capable of. A tough knife on a persons belt can be a true life saver in the real world full of very tough objects all around us and no other tool is available.

 

[noss4]

I do have a question that hopefully can be answered. When the CR breaks during testing, he is smacking through the 2x4 with a steel sledgehammer.

I have a few fixed blades I have done some chopping with, and when going through larger pieces of wood, I tend to find a good piece of wood and use that as the hammer on the spine and have never had any problems.

If you are out in a survival situation and chopping up some wood for a fire, it is doubtful you are going to find a sledge sitting there waiting on you, more than likely you will have another piece of wood to use as your hammer.

So, is banging on steel with more steel even an accurate or fair test? It seems the shock taken by the knife from the much heavier hammer is simply asking for trouble. A piece of wood would do the same thing with much less shock/stress to the steel of the knife?

Watch some of the other tests besides the CRK's like the Busse, scrap yard Cold steel GI tanto. The Himalayan Imports kukhri and you will see just how many knives can laugh off 3 lb steel hammer impacts. Many times the hammer is not enough to break a knife.

 

[orthogonal1]

I like the NOSS4 tests.

To use the "MPH into a brick wall" analogy of Chambers, it is nice to see which knives are usable after a "20mph crash" (assuming 40mph is positive destruction) and which are not.

 

[shecky]

Why do I get the sense that Noss' detractors are primarily scared of finding out how poorly some highly esteemed knives will fare?

I'll buck the trend here and say that the tests are in fact scientific. Scientific testing isn't a binary process, where a fixed threshold is met and suddenly a test is declared "Science!" Some methods are flawed more than others, some are more repeatable than others. But Noss presents a data set that few others are willing to provide. There is no reason to believe that the data set is falsified. And it's reasonably consistent from knife to knife. It is therefore reasonable to extrapolate some value about the performance of the knives being tested.

The problem is that claims of "unscientific testing" are thrown about here as a mask for "you're making my favorite brand look like junk!" IF Noss were to devise a machine that stressed the knives in exactly the same way every time, there would still be some knives that fail well before others. And the apologists would still be here crying the tests have "ZERO value". Hurt feelings are part of the territory.

 

[chasden]

I agree with Shecky. It seems like some users are attacking Noss's methodology and casting doubt on his credibility because their precious Sebenzas may not actually be as good they seem to accept as an article of faith.

 

[coolhand68]

So, is banging on steel with more steel even an accurate or fair test? It seems the shock taken by the knife from the much heavier hammer is simply asking for trouble. A piece of wood would do the same thing with much less shock/stress to the steel of the knife?

In some situations the only thing available to baton with may be a heavy stone or rock. My guess is that would put almost as much strain on a blade as the hammer.

 

[harkamus]

I agree with Shecky. It seems like some users are attacking Noss's methodology and casting doubt on his credibility because their precious Sebenzas may not actually be as good they seem to accept as an article of faith.

I think that's just a generalization. In that case, you could say the same thing if it were ____ (instead of CRK Sebenza). I don't even own a Sebenza, nor have I ever handled one.

 

[Culpeper]

I agree with Shecky. It seems like some users are attacking Noss's methodology and casting doubt on his credibility because their precious Sebenzas may not actually be as good they seem to accept as an article of faith.

That is why I only have a few Randalls, SOGs, Ka-bars, Sheffields, ROSarms, and a drawer full of Taylor Brands. A knife is a knife. If someone's knife got broke during one of Noss's test than that is just too darn bad. Take the pain.

 

[lsstaipei]

Although the method might be not scientific,the results seem reasonable to me.S7,5160,1055 are very shock resistant.But there are large primary carbides throughout the matrix of the A2 tool steel.

 

[mcswood]

Casually carrying a knife in the field is something we all do. I seldom carry an axe, prybar, chisel or other heavy duty impliment into the field.
If stranded in the field with only a knife I would hope it could withstand heavy chopping, splitting firewood, digging, etc.
The hardest chore needed of the knife would in my opinion be splitting wood.
Using a log to hit the back of the blade.
If my life depended on it I would rather have a bent knife than a broken one.
I think a ( survival ) knife shouldn't be hard enough to break. I'd rather have one that dents, disfigures, and bends when hit with a hammer ( or dropped from height onto a rock, hit by a car, run over by a tank, etc. ).
I haven't seen this test and don't intend to. My life doesn't depend on a knfe.
If I bought a hard ( brittle ) blade to depend on as a survival knife then I guess this would give me concern.
"Dropped onto a rock" from height/s. Sounds like realworld testing doesn't it. Could it happen in the field ? Yes. It can and does.
But every knife wouldn't hit just the same ! Some would break and some wouldn't. I guess it would be the hard ones that break. Wouldn't it.
So......... If it can break. Then it might break.
The ones that don't break. Might not break, WHEN MY LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.
But we're not hitting rocks with knives. That would be to simple a test.
We've never dropped a knife. Have we ?

 

[nullack]

My profession is in testing, and consulting on test results. I think I know a little bit about testing.

At the end of the day, Noss makes a good point about his testing methodology and the comparison to the ABS tests.

Noss' test results do have value when the test types are considered. OK, you may not use the knife in the same way, so conduct other tests under a different testing methodology to prove other things. The word here is test objective. One test wont show everything to everyone. To claim that because the tests objective isnt exactly what a given person wants to see results in having no value, is just ignorant and limiting. More tests, more data, more insight.

His tests obviously dont have precision repeatability to them but I take that into consideration when reviewing his test results. And any engineer knows that the world isnt simple, static textbook mechanics. Many things come together in dynamic situations in the real world that are difficult to design for.

Im thankful for the tests Noss does and hope that more people do more testing.

As for other test types, have a look at this website which covers some repeatable test designs with different test objectives. In the faq have a look at the testing harnesses they used and the test methodology:

http://www.diamondbladeknives.com/faq.aspx

 

[hardheart]

I am still waiting for the 'knives are only for cutting' crowd to answer a simple question... why are these blades a quarter inch thick? Somebody should tell these guys they're wasting a hell of a lot of steel making these things so damn thick.

 

[STAGE 2]

A little late to the party, but there are two glaring things that I feel need to be addressed.

It's not very scientific.

1) You're not hitting exactly the same spot every time.
2) You're not hitting with the exact same amount of force each time, which in this case would be a measure in pounds per square inch.

Let me start by saying it doesn't matter. Are you ever going to chop or baton something by hitting the exact same spot with the exact same force every time? Absolutely not. Its humanly impossible. I'd go so far to say that such a test where everything was exact, identical and perfect would be less informative than what is done here beause that is never going to be reproduced in the field by any human anywhere.

So lets stop with this "science" nonsense because thats completely irrelevant to what any knife will ever see when in use.

As has been argued many times, knives aren't axes, anchors, hammers, pitons, prybars, ladder rungs, or screwdrivers. Fit the right tool to the right job and you won't have a problem.

So for those of us who will actually use a knife like a knife (square peg into square hole) and not stand around like a monkey flinging poop to see what happens, once again ZERO value.

Well, on one hand you're right. If all you ever intend to use your knife for is light to moderate cutting then these tests probably aren't going to be high on your list of importance when selecting a knife.

On the other hand, and judging by what what you've written, its going to come as a shock to you that there are people out there that A) do use their knives for things other than moderate cutting or B) want to know how far their knives will go should a situation ever arise that they would need to work in a pinch.

I haven't spent much time on Noss's site, but I don't recall him saying that his tests were intended for any and all knife users. Quite the opposite, he quite clearly says they are hard use destruction tests. Thats going to interest some and not others.

Personally, I wish I had your ability to know that for the rest of my life I won't ever be involved in a situation in which I have to rely on my knife for something unintended. However I don't, so I fall into the category of people that want to know how far a knife can go.

And that brings us to the other reason your logic is problematic, namely advertising. CRK is one among many companies that produce "hard use knives". All the cliche phrases praising "to hell and back reliability" or being "tough as nails" are thrown about in an effort to sell. Just glancing over CRK's website I see things like "optimum performance", "efficient, tough, exceptional". For the green beret specifically, we have "no nonsense hardworking tool" and "uncompromising". And to top it off, in regards to the hollow handled knives, it explicitly says that the buttcap was designed to be used as a hammer. So we have the company themselves stating that their knives were in fact designed for activities other than what one would traditionally expect out of a knife.

Taking all that into account there really isn't any excuse for such an expensive knife to fail so early on when other knives that don't cost half as much and have not made the same claims as to toughness.

So, to sum it up, because you don't find any validity in what Noss does doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. Making statements to that effect only makes you sound like a brand groupie who's butthurt because his racehorse choked.

 

[Elen]

I've steered clear of these threads recently because of the way some people allow themselves into devolving to argumentation via personal attack and get all heated up as if this was a life and death question. It should be obvious to anyone that what Noss does isn't "scientific" nor intended to be that. User reviews on Bladeforums most certainly aren't scientific either, but yet they have some value beyond entertainment.

Personally, I'm very well aware that knives are cutting tools. Most of my knife use involves relatively small and thin knives optimized for cutting. But sometimes, it is convenient (not necessary) to me to have one knife that is strong enough to use for non-knife tasks such as axe-work and even prying so I don't need to bring another tool. For such knives, why shouldn't durability be of more importance than with knives used only for cutting?

But the really interesting question is this. For all those people who believe knives are for cutting, more precisely only for cutting:

I am still waiting for the 'knives are only for cutting' crowd to answer a simple question... why are these blades a quarter inch thick? Somebody should tell these guys they're wasting a hell of a lot of steel making these things so damn thick.

That is the question. If knives are only intended for cutting, why would you want to use or advocate a knife that is not optimized for cutting? Knife designs like the Busse Combat Battle Mistresses or Chris Reeve Green Beret with their thick blades are not optimized for cutting. They are clearly a compromise by design, having been made thicker and of less acute edge to sacrifice cutting performance for durability in abusive use. If you just want to cut things, why the heck would you want to do it with a knife that's a quarter inch thick and heavy as all hell? Answer me that, because I would really like to know the answer. Because if it's just basic cutting tasks that we're doing, a 3€ Mora knife sharpened properly will outcut a $ 300 Chris Reeve Green Beret any time, and it will even be more ergonomically comfortable and lighter in hand, especially in the cold. So, what is the justification for thick "combat" "hard-use" knives if it's not durability in abusive use, because quite obviously cutting performance isn't what they're best at compared to other knives. Are they just art knives for display or toys for mall ninjas?

As someone who owns quite a lot of those thick "hard-use" knives, I will say that I own them not because they cut better than my lighter, thinner knives, which they don't. I own them because I can use them heavily for tasks more suited to an axe or entry tool than a knife. In such tasks, durability is important, and for that Noss' test do tell some things, even though they might not be news to you and me.

I will say this. We can all think what we will about Noss' testing and its merits. But for those who like to call him names and say that his tests have absolutely no value at all and that said tests tell absolutely nothing about the knives being tested, answer me one thing: Do you honestly think that the difference in durability displayed in Noss' testing between knives such as the Busse FFBM and the Ka-Bar USMC or the CRK Green Beret aren't real differences? Do you think they are in fact equally durable or even near so? Sure, all will handle cutting thread and wood, but if you get abusive on them for some reason, will there be no difference in durability revealed? Because in reality, anyone with a pair of eyes can tell that there are real differences, and as if by sheer wild coincidence, they reflect the results of Noss' testing that according to some have absolutely no truth or value in them at all.

Of course, a knife shouldn't be judged by its durability in non-knife uses alone. But it's quite ridiculous to claim that said durability should not be considered at all, especially for enormously thick and heavy knives obviously designed and marketed to be used in somewhat abusive tasks instead of pure cutting use.

Why people don't see this stuff I will never know.

 

[Culpeper]

OK, you may not use the knife in the same way, so conduct other tests under a different testing methodology to prove other things.

At the risk of quoting out of context I would have to agree with that statement 100%.