Twindog said:
I also was really interested in the website for Trident knives that was linked in another thread, which shows the knifemaker hammering an S30V blade into an anvil and carving a notch out of it. No damage. I'd love to see Cliff duplicate that test.
That hammering was really light so basically all that was being tested was the hardness, since the edge of the knife is harder than the anvil it cuts into it. The only critical mode of failure will be side torques so this requires a decent thickness/angle, but nothing excessive, 0.020", 15/20 micro would be fine. If you go really light with the impacts you can cut up metal all day long, I have cut 3.5" nails in half with Deerhunters for example, you just have to hit it a *lot*. If you wanted to make a definate statement about performance you would measure notch depth in impacts.
gunnerjohn said:
I said I have no interest in testing other makers or companies knives. This also means I don't want to spend time talking about it.
You already have, my origional statement was one which directly involved such a comparison, by disputing it you are directly commenting on the performance of the other knives because that was exactly what was used to make the origional statement.
How this knife was chosen is certainly none of yours, anybody on any internet forum or my business.
When it starts being used as a promotion tool to sell the knife to said users then obviously it is thier business as to the merits of said selection process. Which other knives was it in direct competiton with? In what ways was it found superior. Are those uses actually relevant to the users in question?
gunnerjohn said:
If one uses rock to judge the chopping ability of a knife's edge, is the same rock used for all knives?
I have rarely used rocks to judge the chopping ability of knives, I have done it on occasion to look at durability, usually in a gross sense as to check if the edge will chip or roll when overstressed. Some of the work has issues with benchmarks, especially the really early ones for fairly obvious reasons, I simply didn't have many knives then. It notes issues like this in the reviews frequently.
Mr. Stamp has done more than just test our knife, he published his stated opinion which was a "thumbs down" on the purchase of the Green Beret Knife.
He is no longer a neutral "scientific observer" as he claims.
By the above logic, Joe Talmadge can't perform an unbaised evaluation of a liner lock because of what he has stated in the past, or Clark check the sharpness of 440C, or HoB the cutting ability of a waterstone.
hardheart said:
no one is going to accept that their knife got last place in an independent test, the controls and testing will never be adequate.
Lots of makers do, the above is actually the minority responce, they just yell the loudest so they attract the most attention. Just read the number of reviews and check how many of these types of threads are generated, the frequency is actually really low.
Most people realize that any performance advantage comes with the cost of a direct loss in some other area. One of the first comparisons I did was a D2 custom vs a 10V custom in regards to edge holding and the 10V custom was superior. This isn't surprising considering it was harder and much more wear resistant.
The maker, Mel Sorg, didn't go on rants about bais, we discussed cost/performance and corrosion resistance, sharpening, and other aspects of the knife in general. Few makers think that everyone would pick their knife first in every instance, most realize that there will be lots of people who will pick it last for lots of reasons.
There are lots of knives that I rate highly that my brother won't even consider using, he simply has a different set of values on various performance aspects.
gunnerjohn said:
Was the knife broken by grabbing the handle barehanded or was additional "cheater" leverage applied with a pipe or wrench?
Pipe, the torque break point was very high as would be expected due to the very shallow hollow grind and lack of taper.
Second, What previous tests were performed on the knife prior to breaking? Did any of these near destructive tests let the knife fail earlier than it could have?
No, just light work on the edge, cutting rope, chopping micarta, and a nail impact (light), the breaks were not in those regions, and in general edge damage, even extreme (bevel gone) doesn't have that much of an effect in prying loads. It can effect impact failure, but this has to be really severe when you consider for example the relative size of the notch/sample as compared to charpy v-notch or similar, and the fact that it is rarely directly loaded as in those notched impact tests.
If he didn't do or observe this test himself ....
I observed it, I didn't do it. The reviews at times link to other work done, a lot of it I don't see, I just trust the people who provide the information like Clark on sharpening, Talmadge on locks/sharpening, Swaim on cutting, and dozens of others. The same thing works in published papers in scientific journals for example, references to "private communications", when you cite something from someone which was never published.
gunnerjohn said:
I can't seem to find any mention by Mr. Stamp of that knife being tested in concrete like ours was.
I have done it with the CU/7, Swamp Rat has done it live in front of many people with little to no effect on the blade, Justin of Ranger Knives has posted pictures of extreme impact work on his forum, I have subjected my BM and other INFI blades to very harsh contacts, some on purpose, some accidental. This isn't the major reason I would pick those knives over the Green Beret, I wasn't even considering it when I ran that list, I was thinking more of cutting/handling ability and weight/performance issues.
Archer26 said:
Why was the GB knife dropped 12ft tip first onto concrete?
To check the tip strength/durability.
Can't find another knife this was done with?
I did this with a half a dozen knives recently and discussed the results on the forums. Really heavy concrete impacts from stabs have been done with various knives, far greater, it isn't really that stressful, check the work with the Deerhunters for example, and that was on maker request.
And why were they not done all all the knives?
Some things are tried once or twice and never done again as better ways were found to examine the same attributes. Some things are done for awhile but then changed because I didn't like the stability, or found a better way, or someone suggested one. The reviews are fairly stable now, in that similar things will be done to similar knives, but if you go back 6 or so years ago I was developing many of the ways I now look at the aspects and thus the reviews were in a large state of flux and one review was very different from another.
Dr. Thor said:
Why do people want to only look at the destructive elements of Cliff Stamp's testing?
Because they are trying to present the idea that this is all that is done irrespective of the nature of the knife, if you can't in general make an arguement on facts, just present sweeping statements, it doesn't matter if they are false, when that is pointed out, just make up another set and hope something sticks. Note in the above how this happens time and time again, and there is no dealing with the facts which are presented. This is nothing origional, and not even overly well done.
I have listed the numbers numerous times in the past in regards to the numbers of knives which were functionally damage and not only is this a small amount and in the majority of the times it is on request. Except in really rare cases, it is also only a small part of the review which usually focuses on cutting ability, edge retention, sharpening, handling and the like, and the reviews are usually quite long in terms of time to completion so it isn't like it is difficult to suggest other work or I have a history of ignoring such requests.
They arguements are also obvious in nature because you will notice that the same people don't participate in discussions while it is in progress and being discussed, such as the recent sharpening experiments with the South Fork. The heavy bias is immediate and obvious because such arguements are only ever made about work which shows less than optimal performance. Go check for reviews which promote the GB, now will you find similar demands placed on those individuals, of course not.
As for why makers use steels, it isn't simply because of optimal performance, it is also because it sells. This was discussed on the knife-list long ago (before the forums) and L6 was heavily favored by makers in their knives for themselves, Joe even notes it in his FAQ - but this in general isn't a commonly used knife steel. Loveless also mentioned he would prefer A2 but makes stainless for his customer demands. You can't judge quality by popularity, similar would be for example picking knives for performance based on price or wait list time.
-Cliff
i have a solution.as i'm a knifemaker i have a teensy bit of experience deforming good steel to look like knives.i also have been using knives a lot longer than i've been making them.so to put this matter to bed once and for all i suggest the honourable gentlemen send me a few knives for absolutely controlled cutting tests[the controll will come from my knife hand]
maybe if I was his age again