Cliff - Aircat knife tests ?

I'm all for R&D, Cliff, I just don't think you do it. Criticizing people's products before you touch them is hardly R&D. :rolleyes:
 
thombrogan said:
How is that trashing a knife? How? Could anyone, even those whom have unhealthy grudgeborne character-assassination vendettas going on, please tell me how that comment is trashing a knife?
Click to expand...


post #34. just thought it was worth the bump. at worse, he called them speed holes.

"Cliff;
Have you tested the Aircat Knives By Dwaine Carillo ? They look to be heavy duty but before I drop a large sum on one, what are you thoughts or have you used them ?

Be well
Floyd"


he asked for his opinion chiro. he didnt have the qualifier "but only say good things about it, because i dont want to hear anything bad about them.". likewise he didnt say "what are you thoughts - but only if you've used one"




cliff isnt calling this discussion of aircats knives research and development. sarcasm in a serious discussion is very rarely funny or useful, let alone constant sarcasm.
 
After reading this thread I'm glad I ordered a Super Modified Chameleon Tripwire with tan G10 from EDCKnives :D

Chris
 
Chiro75 said:
Criticizing people's products before you touch them is hardly R&D.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, it is the first stage of the design process in particular. You sketch out what you think is a decent knife which has the features that you need based on your experience, then you show it to a few people, get some feedback and then continue with the process.

The R&D I was refering to in the previous post by the makers would include work beyond the design stage obviously, into the prototypes, extensive shop and field testing, and finally end stage blade versions and then repeating all the testing again.

For example when I was designing my large brush blade with Parrel a few years back I basically took a picture of one of his large knives and asked him to modify it extensively, change grip, blade length, blade curvature and heat treat.

He didn't freak out that I critized his design from a picture, we just talked about what I was basing the performance on, he was interested in the blades I had worked with, and he made sure he got a solid feel for where I wanted to go with the design.

When it was made I then took it into the woods and used it extensively, still do. Nice blade.

Seth, I agree that there were some strong opinions about the knives, and some were pretty negative. But the forums should be just as open to critism as praise. If posters should be free to look at a knife and sing its praises then they should also be free to say the exact opposite in the same conditions.

-Cliff
 
All criticism should be taken with a grain of salt and no more. It's simple opinion, and in the overall scheme of things is just a tool to make you think a little about a topic. To argue about criticisms is a waste of time. Always remember.

No one has ever made a statue of a critic. No one ever gets critic of the year in any field of business. If it were important, the Blade Show would have a category at the show for best overall critique of a knife. Not gonna happen.
 
Satrang said:
All criticism should be taken with a grain of salt and no more. It's simple opinion, and in the overall scheme of things is just a tool to make you think a little about a topic.
Click to expand...

I agree that things get overheated -- especially when someone's favorite brand gets dinged in any respect whatsoever or someone's least favorite "critic" says anything at all.

(Never tried that analysis on a teacher. They seemed to think criticism justified grades. Wonder if it would have made the experience better. :confused: )
 
Cliff Stamp said:
Seth, I agree that there were some strong opinions about the knives, and some were pretty negative. But the forums should be just as open to critism as praise. If posters should be free to look at a knife and sing its praises then they should also be free to say the exact opposite in the same conditions.
-Cliff
Click to expand...

you are right... i just really dont like the rolly eyes icon in most discussions...

however i was more regarding the idea that negative praise should not be present unless the knife is handled by the person giving the negative praise. specifically under the circumstances, since it was a question of opinion not hinging on having personally used it.
 
SethMurdoc said:
i just really dont like the rolly eyes icon in most discussions...
Click to expand...

I was on discussion forums before icons, even before the ascii ones, way back when you actually had to use context judgement. I often wonder if the people who smatter them everywhere are the same people who use air quotes.

however i was more regarding the idea that negative praise should not be present unless the knife is handled by the person giving the negative praise.
Click to expand...

It is a silly arguement and ignores the fundamental selection process that people use all the time when buying anything or when designing anything. It is just a red herring.

Lets say that someone shows you a Deerhunter and a Battle Rat (just pictures and spec's) and asks you which once would make a better utility knife for their son in scouts.

Is it impossible for you to give a meaningful selection without actually handling the knives, or can you based on the pictures and specs make an informed judgement.

Of course you can, and this is why the above arguement is just nonsense. Now what would be hard would be if I showed you two pictures of two knives which were very similar in design and asked you to pick which one cut better.

In this particular case the design aspects were fairly radical or clear (loops catching, tubing grips getting punctured) so you would not need to handle it to know it wasn't suitable, just like for example you can make judgements on clothing and enviroment.

If I asked you to select clothes for a swim would you need to try out a sweater to know it would not be a good idea. Hopefully not.

-Cliff
 
Hi, everybody. Long-time lurker here, seems like as good a time as any for me to wade in.

I think anyone can tell just from the pictures that some features of AirKat knives are strictly cosmetic.

Now since I don't have a problem with people buying and collecting knives they think are attractive and that they may never actually use, I don't have a problem with makers turning out knives with some purely cosmetic features. I don't know at what point a knife ceases to be a working tool and becomes a fantasy knife, but for the guy who buys this kind of knife, you know part of the fantasy is using the knife for all kinds of daring exploits, defeating enemies in combat, etc.

I'm cool with all that. Whatever floats someone's boat.

However I also think it's good to point out when the cosmetic and fantasy features actually detract from the knife as a tool. With something like Airkat this seems particularly so, because I imagine some guys may decide to buy these to carry and use.

It's clear to me from the pictures that these AirKats sacrifice function to get their extreme tactical look. I'm sure you could use one for some jobs, but the cosmetic features both add to the cost of manufacture and take away from the function, making them probably not such a good value if it's a real working tool you're after.

Is that criticism of AirKat? I don't think so, just stating the facts. I think most of us here own a lot more knives than we carry or use at any time. We buy things because we like them, sometimes the reasons are practical, sometimes not.

I hope AirKat sells millions, and the people who own them like them for what they are, even though it isn't what I'd call a practical, working design.
 
Just realized that this post was specifically asking Cliff about Airkat. So my original post was out of line.
 
I did some poking around on :

http://www.messermagazin.de/

looking for the Aircat work, but it is hard to navigate because a lot of the text is images or otherwise hidden so online translators won't translate it. I have done site searches with google but they didn't find anything.

As for someone asking me, to make it clear, I am interested in other peoples opinions, so if you have something to offer on a knife I would hope you share it regardless of if I was asked specifically.

-Cliff
 
This definition seems fitting here.
Pedantic; adjective:
1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.
2. one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
 
Careful Thomas, you irritate the wrong people and you are just begging for a covert delamination.

-Cliff
 
Wow. I can't believe people are actually complaining about Cliff giving his opinion of these silly knives... Seems to me that any decent maker would invite criticism - either it's so wrong-headed that it can easily be countered, making the maker look good, or it's fair, in which case he has an opportunity to improve his knives. I'm sure that in this case, Cliff's criticisms are largely irrelevant to the maker, because the knives are clearly not designed to be used. Nonetheless, I bet there are people out there who look at these things and think "ooh, that'd be good in the woods". Now, one can make a case that such naive people don't deserve to be disabused, but I think it's only fair that they have a chance to realize their mistake before spending god knows how much on a useless knife.

It's a fact of life that less knowledgeable people are easily swayed by appearances - imagine DO's typical customer! So when a knife like this one is mentioned (ditto the hilarious strider in another recent thread), it's only fair that someone points out that it's not really a 'using knife'.
 
Jim,

Are these even LEGAL to own in the U.K.? How do you know how they perform in the woods?

Chris
 
Heh. Legal to own; not legal to walk down the street with... Let's not get into the obvious argument, for both our sakes!

I have no idea how it performs, but I can tell! The design of that knife clearly shows that it is aimed at a certain kind of person; not the kind of person who uses it daily for hard work. I have no quarrel with the maker or buyers of that knife, or any other fantasy-type knife. But it's important to be clear about the difference between a knife made for how it looks, and one made to perform.
 
CPR said:
How do you know how they perform in the woods?
Click to expand...

After you have done it for awhile you start to get a decent idea of what it takes in a blade, they don't look like Aircat's, they look like this :

http://www.rakerknives.com/Bebach Bowie.jpg

If you accept the fact that it is possible for a maker to design a knife, you have to accept the fact that a user can also reject a radical design upon inspection.

If I go into a hardware store and I ask for a framing hammer, and someone points me to a 2 lbs short maul, I don't need to try it out to realize it won't work.

-Cliff
 
You have GOT to be f--king kidding me! Based on LOOKS, the Kershaw Outcast should chop very well. Go try and cut some saplings with an early (first 500 pieces) Kershaw Outcast and see how well your "powers of observation" work. They were ground too thin and the blade can't handle it. Why don't you guys quit bitching about how a knife LOOKS and actually use an Airkat? Maybe it'll surprise you. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top