Cliff Stamp

I am glad knife makers are mad at cliff, it just shows that he is doing a great job. if they were all happy with him then we know, he would be just another mag writer. kissin'A$$ instead of kickin A$$
Click to expand...

My favorite post of the thread so far! Cliff as a one man consumer watchdog group! Knife buyers of the world rise up and tell those manufacturers you won't take the hype any more!

There are knife makers and distributors who are in a position to take advantage of what Cliff says about them. Busse did it publically, and that impressed me! Of course I'm easily impressed....
 
Look, if you want scientific results, especially if you have half a brain, it's relatively easy to rig up an apparatus to do your testing with repeatable, measureable results.

Tip impact strength? Rig a sliding jig with a weight and a clamp so that the knife impacts a media at a 90 degree angle. The weight doesn't change. The impact angle doesn't change. Using the right media - that won't change either. Velocity, impact, etc all have gone from subjective to quantitave, repeatable, measureable factors. You've removed the human from the equation.

Chopping tests? Same principle. Knife in clamp, mounted on swing arm. Weight attached to swing arm at known distance. Medium in rotating jig, say capable of 15deg right and left rotation off perpendicular for 30 deg total rotation. Raise knife known distance, release, switch jig angle, repeat. Measure amount of impacts it takes to chop through given medium, say a 2x4 of given wood. Math will give you impact weight, which turns into consistant amount of force.

Chopping comfort is another matter - for things like comfort, ergo's, you <b>have</b> to rely in subjective testing. But there is no reason why you can't make devices for repeatable, quantitative testing, especially if you are billing yourself as just such a testor.

Consumer Reports goes through similar testing procedure for their product tests. Someone with access to machine tools and simple materials could easily rig up several tests, with repeatable results, and eliminate any claims of bias.

Stabbing a knife into concrete repeatedly certainly is a test. Whether it's a real world test is beyond me - I can't see a need to use a knife as a rock chisel. Sending it through glass certainly is interesting. Setting the grip on fire would do neat things. How they apply to the real world is another matter.

Draw your own conclusions.

Kevin
 
Kevin,

I'm not completely convinced that jigs and machines and wonderous mechanisms are the way to go here. Not that there's anything wrong with them, mind you, and if someone wants to build one, I'll happily read the results. But if we take just for example a chopping test, in real life there are subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) differences in each chop, which put all kinds of stresses on an edge that a perfect-every-time machine wouldn't. If I test two knives by hand, the chops with each knife won't be identical, but that's okay -- I just want them to be close enough to be able to draw some conclusions. And doing it by hand not only lets me also gauge comfort, but also lets me gauge whether or not the handle itself has some problem that causes bad strokes (or perhaps helps keep strokes more accurate).

In short, a machine might test just the blade, under perfect chops that I'll never be able to actually duplicate. That's still interesting information, but I'd also like to see someone test the knife, to see how the whole thing comes together in the real world, under real conditions of fatigue, etc. Now the edge will see torques it wouldn't otherwise, the handle's weaknesses and strengths will be more obvious, etc.

Joe
 
Was wondering if/when Spark would get in on this.

Bottom line on this whole subject is that this is a "forum." A place where "everyone" can voice their opinions on whatever the subject matter for that "forum" is. Now if we're to go by the standards that "some" people feel we should follow, i.e. if you don't have the scientific apparatus required to perform evaluations of a maker's knife then you shouldn't be speaking up, then I guess we better stop the pass-around knives, unless of course our evaluations make the manufacturer look good. Would any of the "big" knife company's be complaining if the only knives that Cliff tested were chinese/pakistan knockoffs? Does everyone that has an opinion on a knife have to feel restricted on stating that opinion due to incurring the displeasure of the major knife company's? Why can't manufacturer's reps read these threads, pick out what they feel is useful and ignore the rest, like most intelligent participants do? I'm beginning to believe that maybe this thread might be a major battle line in on-line forums and the freedom of responsible expression that people have just assumed is open to them...
 
All I'm saying is don't try to pass off as scientific what is entirely subjective. Don't try to pass of as meaningful what is pointless. Stabbing a concrete block repeatedly is not what I would call a "true test of a knife's worth".

That's just me.

Kevin
 
The concrete block chopping was my fault.
After a thread on a Marbles knife that the edge busted out, I made a comment that it was the heat treat that caused it and if it had been done right, it would have only impacted the edge.
I TOLD Cliff to chop the block of concrete when he had finished testing my Journeyman Smith performance test knife jsut to see if my theory had been correct. It was. I had straighted it out after I recieved my JS stamp at Atlanta. Cliff tested 4 other different blade steels that I had made and heat treated identically along with the JS Bowie. It seems that there are several that now want to chop concrete blocks to show the properties of their blades.
My knives were all returned to me and I used the JS Bowie to cut my wedding cake last month. I have never met Mr. Stamp and I had read enough of his evalutions to offer mine for testing. His third party place in testing would lend credance to the knifes capabilities or lack thereof.
As has been said, he will state that this is what he does and this is what he got. And yes, Mr. Stamp has learned a lot about testing knives in the process. We make them and he figures out what they can and can't do. All knives don't do all things and some do some things better than others. Edge holding is what Cliff tests a lot of and that is the part that I like about the tests. Every one has their area of likes :).
MY concrete chopper is hanging next to the computer so I can see it every day, it is the "original".
 
Please understand that when I say that Mr. Stamp's testing isn't scientific, I don't mean to say that it isn't without value. You just have to understand what it is. Without truly scientific knife testing, those potential customers who want some evaluation of a knife they're considering have to make what use they can out of reports such as Mr. Stamp's.

To be scientific, testing must be repeatable. Two different testers must be able to conduct the tests at two different facilities and come up with the same results within acceptable experimental error. This pretty much means getting the human factor out of the testing. That pretty much means machines of some sort. Consider, for example, chopping with a knife. I may swing harder than you do. I may swing with a different "english" if you will, a different style. So, we have to get the human factor out of the test. Consider this suggestion

Drawing1.jpg


Some standardizing body would have to design this device and produce a fully-detailed drawing package of it. Anyone who wanted to could, for a small fee, purchase a copy of that drawing package. Then, any machinist could follow those drawings and assemble an exact copy of the machine. My machine would be the same as Spark's machine in every way.

The knife under test is rigidly attached to the machine's arm probably by drilling holes in the knife and bolting it on. The machine's arm is raised up and the energized electromagnet holds it. When the magnet is switched off, the weight pulls the arm down making a prefectly repeatable chop every time. Each chop would be the same as the previous one and, OH AND THIS IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT: each of my chops would be the same as each of Spark's chops even though I'm in Oregon and he's in Florida, even though I skipped breakfast, but he hit the buffet at Shoney's... several times, even though I'm a tough weightlifter and he's a whimp.

And what would the knife chop into? We'd have to standardize that too. And it probably wouldn't be a natural material such as wood since there's to much variability. My guess is that our standardizing body would select a specific type of plastic and we'd use standard-size pieces of it.

Now, with this sort of mechanism, we could conduct scientific tests. My results would be virtually the same as Spark's.

Some may argue that such testing wouldn't be "real world." But, if we design the tests carefully, they'd be close. For example, if the machine's arm were about 2.75 feet, about the length of an average man's arm, if the weight of the arm were specified to be about the weight of an average man's arm, if the weight of the weight that pulls the arm down were selected to produce about the same force as an average man chopping with a knife, if the standard material to chop into were selected to be about the same hardness as an average tree limb, then the test could approximate real-world performance and still be highly scientific. Then, I could really compare two knives side-by-side and Spark could duplicate my tests and get the same result. Then, we'd start to have science!
 
I wouldn't have used an electromagnet where a simple cotter pin would have worked, but Chuck is obviously on the same sheet of paper as I am.

Scientific testing is impartial, and most of all, repeatable. Taking the human out of the equation removes the greatest amounts of bias. Best of all, you can point and say "Hey, this is exactly the amount of force it took to produce this result."

You get results that you can measure and compare. Not feelings and guesses that can be twisted, skewed, and manipulated at a whim.

Again, just my two cents.

Kevin
 
Imagine, for example, if our standardizing body standardized several dozen different materials to try cutting, each with different hardness.

Our test might go something like this:

First, we tried a standard 1"-diameter rod of standard material #5 and knife X chopped cleanly through it in one chop. We tried a standard 1" rod of material #7 and knife X chopped cleanly through it in one chop too. We moved to a standard 1" rod of #9 and knife X did not cut through it in three tries. So, we tried a rod of #8 and knife X did cut through it two out of three tries. So, we concluded that knife X was initially sharp enough to chop through material #8 in the standard test.

Next, we made 50 chops with Knife X on a 1"-diameter rod of standard material #20 (which is actually a specific Aluminum alloy with a standard density and hardness) with knife X.

Then, we tried to chop through a standard rod of material #8 knife X again and were not able to. In fact, we had to back all the way down to material #4 before knife X was able to chop through in two out fo three attempts.


Moving on, we mounted knife Y on the machine. Knife Y was able, initally, to chop through a standard rod of material #9 in two out of three tests and chopped through a rod of #10 in out of three tests.

Next, we made 50 chops with Knife Y on an 1" diameter rod of material #20.

Then, we tried to chop through a standard rod of material #9 with knife Y again and were unable to. We had to back down to Material #3 before knife Y was able to chop through a rod, and to #2 to chop through two out of three tries.


Moving on, we mounted knife Z on the machine. Knife Z was able to chop through a 1" diameter rpd of standard material #8 only once in three tries. Knife Z chopped through two out of three times only when we moved down to material #7.

Next, we made 50 chops with Knife Z on a 1" diameter rod of material #20.

Then, we found that Knife Z was still able to chop through a 1" diameter rod of #7 two out of three times.


The conclusion: Knife Y was sharpest out of the box but had the worst edge-retention under chopping use. Knife Z was dullest, but had the best edge retension.

And Spark could do those same tests and probably get darn close to the same results.

That's science. You can compare three knives that way in a valid head-to-head, and you can compare my results with Spark's across the board.
 
And I'll donate the SOG portion of the knives for such an evalutation! I want them to be the "Z" knives...OK? ;)
 
I want the guy who posted that picture of cut down trees to tell me what the hell he used and whether it hurt his freaking hand when he did it.

Enough of this babble...

Ever read a Tac-Knives review? How about Blade? Now there's some in-depth testing...cut me a break. In a Tac Knives editorial they even admitted that they won't test\review a knife that doesn't 'look' up to snuff to begin with, how's that for scientific testing? So ALL the knives they test are 'good'. Even though highly rated knives in the magazines are often picked apart by real-world users on this very forum.

A guy (Cliff) dedicates huge amounts of time and money, puts what he did and what he found out for us to read\study and all of a sudden were talking science? I don't find his work overly scientific, or even calling itself PURE SCIENCE. Blade steel characteristics, Rc hardness, edge geometry, length and weight, number of cuts, or blows withstood? All seems rather basic to me.

And after those numbers are given it is all about how the knife cuts, chops, and holds up. I don't appreciate Cliff's reviews for the 'science' any more than I read Consumer Reports for the 'science'. Most of Consumer Reports 'science' is bogus anyhow imho. How's this: Consumer Reports has determined that using a cell-phone while driving is dangerous because conversations are distracting...hmmmm....so now are they going to lobby for a no-converstation with passengers while driving law? Freaking nit-wits....

As I said, after the basic 'numbers' have been given, all I need to know is how it cut, and how it felt in the hand...

Cliff's reviews ALWAYS seem to provide me with that and more. I can't understand the attempts to so totally discredit the work that Cliff has done. He is certainly as entertaining and as informative as any other reviewer I've read. Why the hatred?

Maybe we should ask Consumer Reports to test our knives for us? I mean they can rig up all their marvelous toys and measure it all out and then we can rest assured that we have made a good knife purchase! But wait! Consumer Reports would consider our knives too dangerous! Maybe we should all carry Consumer Reports approved kitchen cutlery instead?

arggghhhhh......RANT MODE OFF...

Cliff, thanks for all your efforts, I as well as many others here appreciate your work and reports. As always you continue to conduct yourself as a gentleman and a scholar.. :) (I seriously don't know how you do it).

Looking forward to your next review...

Mongrel
 
Cliff is one of the best here. I've learned more from Cliff than from anyone else on the forums. Thanks, Cliff.
 
I appreciate Cliff's work also. He at least makes me think, even if I disagree.

I think it is important to note that you have to assume the reader is halfway intelligent, and knows something about knives. It is up to the reader to read the tests that are relevant and discard the rest. Some may be for morbid curiosity, some may be to see if you really can "bet your life" on a knife, etc. For folks who don't need or want that kind of testing, they can mentally discard that portion of the write-up.

It is still valuable to have it all, and even if you think part of the test doesn't apply to your vision of what a knife should be, there might be someone out there who uses knives in ways that you never thought of that will be interested in that kind of testing.
 
what is all this BS about science. like the knife industry can afford to contract scientically calibrated machines to test a knife like cliff does. the liabilty ain't that high.


but there is a science to swinging a knife into concrete. if you have a hundred knives and swing them in concrete from the same distance that is a kind of science. sure there are going to be variables but that is the nature of this planet.


just because it is "science" doesn't mean it is absolutely perfect. many times statistics are fudged much in the same way accountants cook books. there is always room to fudge.
 
I just bought a Super Tactical Industrial Ninja Knife. In an unbiased effort to find out the practical strength of the blade and edge retention, I laid it across a rail of the railroad tracks by my house prior to the West Coast Unlimited running through. After the train passed through (one engine, two passenger cars, one baggage car and a lounge car) running at exactly 90 MPH with 5 crewmembers and 12 passengers, the blade of the STINK (see above) or at least the pieces that I found had excellent edge retention.

Now this review might have quite a few people checking it out, but most would read it, chuckle at it, maybe even say "wow, cool" or "what an idiot" but no one is going not buy a STINK because it couldn't hold up with a train running over it.

Now Cliff's tests are not this impractical or ridiculous and certain aspects of his tests are applicable to a lot of people. But most of these people are going to take Cliff's results and use them as just one part of their decision whether to buy or not. If you've got your choices narrowed down to two knives and they're just about even in your evaluation and Cliff has an evaluation on one of them that said knife A raises a blister on your hand after chopping through a dozen cement blocks, is using that information any more unreasonable than making your final decision on the color of the blade coating or whether or not the blade clicks or whether it clunks when the linerlock engages? Why don't manufacturer's reps look at the review and say "I wonder what we can do to the ergonomics to improve the grip to keep a blister from rising."

Please do not attempt to perform the railroad test on any knife!!!!!!!!!!!! (this statement is to protect the many people in this forum that supposedly don't have the intelligence to be able to discern what they should and shouldn't do with information imparted to them).
 
Why don't manufacturer's reps look at the review and say "I wonder what we can do to the ergonomics to improve the grip to keep a blister from rising."
Click to expand...
Who says "Manufacturer Z" doesn't?
 
What should've been stated is "Why don't manufacturer's reps look at the review and say "I wonder what we can do to the ergonomics to improve the grip to keep a blister from rising." instead of saying the whole thing was bogus because chopping 12 cinder blocks is unscientific.
 
Okay. I feel like a bigmouth today, so I’ll add a bit to the conversation. I admit to finding many knife magazine reviews to be rather “wishy-washy”. Not all of them, but many. The reason is simple. The manufacturers are submitting knives for review, and are also paying for advertising space. If these magazines decided to start publishing bad reviews, then the manufacturers would stop sending in knives and renting advertising space. No more magazines.

Now, if an independent magazine were to come into publication, which did not rely on knife submissions or advertising, we might get more honest and meaningful reviews. The cost of the magazine would probably be 100 times more expensive than what we now have, but it would be a start. Such a magazine would have to be VERY careful in its testing though, as the level of scrutiny would be extraordinarily high. Let’s face it; the idea is doomed from the start. The “perfect world” view of such a magazine is wonderful, but the reality is quite bleak. We’ll just have to learn who the more talented and scrupulous reviewers and writers are, and lend them more credence than the rest. That’s the best you can ask for in the business world.

As for the whole idea of controlled testing through machines, I do believe that there is a certain amount of validity to the idea. I don’t think for a minute though, that a machine could ever take the place of a person for the entire testing process. A machine could do an adequate job of testing cutting efficiency and maybe lateral strength, but that’s about it. It would be very hard to simulate something like twisting a blade that is buried in a hunk of hard wood. Push cuts might be easily tested, but slicing would be much harder.

My favorite mechanical test so far is Buck’s CATRA test, as it was applied to a knife that I already knew well. The test demonstrated the cutting efficiency of Buck’s Edge 2000, over the old Buck 110 blade geometry. The CATRA test merely added a pertinent amount of data to the large amount of Buck 110 knowledge that was already available. The CATRA test was only somewhat useful on its own, but added a bit of unbiased science to the mix. The CATRA test in no way revealed the comfort of the handle, the leverage gained by the handle, the center of balance, the tip strength or the fit and finish of the Buck 110. But it did tell me something but the blade geometry. Buck was forthcoming about the strengths and weaknesses of the tests, which allowed me to gain a certain amount of perspective on the reliability of the information. Buck is a class act.
 
Ron, my posts have nothing to do with SOG knives in general (I own several and will probably purchase/trade for more) and I am really impressed with SOG's (your) presence on this and other knife forums and the fact that you do read and respond to the posts. The only question in my mind is your dogged determination to discredit Cliff and the implied question of our ability to be able to use his information in an intelligent manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top