- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Dave ... you're a good sport! 
And Pahl ... you might need to be banned for starting all this!
And Pahl ... you might need to be banned for starting all this!
-
All For Sale threads must have a pic showing the knife being sold with written date listed, your username & Bladeforums or BFC to prevent photo harvesting from elsewhere - scammers hate this one trick! The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Cliff Stamp
- Thread starter pahl
- Start date
Taz
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Apr 28, 1999
- Messages
- 2,557
First. Testing. Fine, bash the heck out of the knife and write about it. No prob, but how can someone compare it to another knife that he didnt test with it?? Yeah, you get to play with diff knives, abuse the heck out of them, and get another if it breaks. Do you have to pay for these blades at all?? if you test a few knives side by side, you can compare those knives, but what about other similiar ones??? you change tests very often, the cutting rope and thread is about the only thing that stays the same, but edge style, thickness, blade geometry, etc all affect it.
BTW, did you think to ask SOG about the sharpening on the knife? 52 degree angle seems a bit high, why didnt you thin it down to suit your specs first? or did you try to send it back at all for a proper sharpening? 52 seems a tad high, what is the norm for this knife?
I read the SOG Recondo review. It disgusted me. Beating a knife with pipe, vs beating a filet knife with pipe. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Knife Steel is HARD. Filet knife is SOFT and flexible. 440A vs BG-42, compare the specs of the steel, rockwell, hardness, etc. If it even was 440A, how do you know what steel it is? See the difference?????? Beating with a pipe is NOT like knife to knife impact. Pipe 3' of leverage 1" diameter IIRC. Knife, usually around 12" leverage, much less area of impact on the edge. with the pipe, going by leverage, you have 2 extra feet. If you want to do realistic testing, do realistic testing. Take a Busse, Strider, etc and do it. Relative same size, weight, thickness, etc. Go edge to edge, edge to spine, but with equal force on each. Dont just beat the heck out of a knife with a pipe, use another knife and at least border on realism here.
But make sure to use diff steels, keep the knives weight the same, and have ONE variable, not several.
Have you heard of control groups and indep and dep variables? blade grind, thickness, steel, HT, edge style, coatings, how the handle is oriented, EVERYTHING plays into how the knife performs. how bout testing for ONE variable???
You do real world testing. yeah, ok. you just enjoy smashing knives and breaking them and then using testing as an excuse. the cutting tests you do are fine, with the rope and stuff, but its hard to judge by 1 knife. maybe you got a dud, or the factory sends you a 2nd or a dud because they know you will destroy it.
you back it up with poundages and stuff, but look at your variations. "100 +/- 25 ft. lbs" Hmmm. so your strikes go from 50 to 150 foot pounds. Consistent, and how are you measuring the strikes?????
You compare knives that are dissimiliar. strider PAB vs recondo. Size, length, weight differences, yet you compare them. you are trying to compare steel, why have all of the other variables in there??? Did you smash the strider with the pipe yet? Did you shatter it with pliers because you wanted to or a hammer?????
Comparing a filet knife from a "guess" of 440a at a 45 "guess" rockwell, to a bg-42 at 61 to 62. WTF does that prove? the filet blade was thinner by 1/8", shorter, a ton softer. 45 rockwell is suitable for a THROWING knife or for a knife that the person doesnt know what edge holding is. of course its just gonna flex when the pipe hits it, its made to flex around the bones of a fish. you confuse toughness with softness. Do an edge retention on that paring knife, but with the same grind and thickness at the recondo. Oh wait, how can you make a flat grind knife thicker, wider and with a grind line on it? you cant!!! try cutting with that 45 rockwell 440a blade and see how it does. butter knife come to mind???
Hollow grinds make the knife very stiff. why do you think MS use a full flat or convex for their knives for the bend test???????? Hello. Blood grooves stiffen and lighten swords and knives for centuries. hollow grind is a stiffer knife with less flex, thats why it breaks, and due a little to being unsupported. If you take a knife with a flat grind, lay it on a flat surface vs one that is raised up, what do you think is going to happen????? Cliff, think about the stuff before you do it. oh yeah, what purpose does hammering a blade on a concrete floor have to do with real life?
I have read a few of the other tests. Cliff can do what he wants, its a free world in most places, unforuntetly for all knives out there. Abuse obviously has no place in Cliff's vocab. Putting companies in that spot is just plain rude. "hey, i abused you knife and it broke, can i have another to see if it was a fluke?" "hey, I beat your knife with a pipe, a hammer on a concrete floor and vise grips and it snapped. my filet knife is more durable and tougher". Damn insulting and makes you look pretty stupid with some of the conclusions that you draw.
Cliff.
My knives get REAL WORLD testing. How? People USE them. Not ABUSE AND DESTROY. They dont take them and beat them with pipes. They cut with them, do other stuff, light prying, etc that a knife would see as it is designed for the task. A small damascus neck knife is not going to be prying stuff and thrown, beaten, etc. A large camp knife will need to be up to the abuse, fine. I have had one of my blades cut nails, pry up a 800 lb pallet, and pry an axle into place while it was being welded and no probs with the blade, just the powder coating flaked off cuz it got melted. They are designed to take it, as well as steel choice. Diff Ht carbon is going to me more flexible and forgiving than a stainless steel. stainless at 45 is much forgiving and soften than stainless at 61. A knife is a cutting tool, not a prybar/bludgeon/knife/chin up bar/etc. I want to hear back from my customers about what they liked and didnt like about the knife so i can fix it for them, or change it for the next ones i make. it is a learning process and constructive feedback is important. If someone says the knife is crap, i am going to ask what makes it crap. If they like it, i am going to ask why. that is my real world testing, hearing from people who use the knife for the purpose, and use it realistically. Are you going to pry with a thin filet knife? are you going to cut down a tree with one? No? then why test it up against a knife doing the aforementioned things?
Some of the tests you do have value, others simply do not. they are for people to read for amusement or lamentation. comparing diff knives of diff sizes from diff steels designed for diff purposes is not realistic. beating knives, chopping up driveways, etc is not. use the knife for testing, dont abuse it and then get upset when it shatters. fracturing the handle of a knife with an 8lb maul. WTF. then you send it back for the company to look at.
You do some legit tests, but then you go way overboard and abuse the knife to no end. Why? because you dont care. you want to prove what the companies say is true or not? or do you just get kicks out of demolishing blades? I sure hope you wear protective gear when hammering and shattering blades. would be a shame for a piece of that steel to poke you. maybe then you could write about penetration and how much force it takes to penetrate your thick skin.
I think that you comparing a knife of an unknown steel and unknown rockwell, the filet knife, to a knife with known values points out how well you think things through. Not very. lets look at it.
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/recondo.html
45 rockwell steel is tougher than 62 rockwell. Duh. Some of the conclusions drawn are completely out of line and pointless. read it and see what I mean.
HOW can you compare those 2 blades for toughness only??? Hmm. i'm gonna take my MT LCC and compare it to a paring knife kit I got from jantz and see which is tougher. See the relation here?
It seems like you think every knife should do every job equally well, even if they are not designed for it. Recondo was designed as a lightweight knife for utility and combat, not for chopping, not for beating with a pipe, not for smashing with a maul. Take that strider and bash it with a maul. See how long it takes the cordwrap to come off and for the handle to shatter. flat end or sharp end of the maul????
Test like and similiar blades, designed for the same tasks. use the same tests with the knives, and dont bring in another blade like you did the filet knife. It really takes away from you testing and makes you look like a fool for some of your conclusions that you draw Cliff. you want to test diff steels? then get the SAME EXACT knife made with DIFF steels to test the diff steels. Get them HT'd by the same person, to their "optimal" rockwell, using the same grinds, thickness, etc. basically the same knives as close as humanly possible with the diff being the steels used and test it. Then you can compare the toughness etc. Or maybe get 2 or 3, and you can compare the edge holding, toughness, etc for 3 blades to get a cross section.
You state you are interested in how the steel performs, but evaluate it on one knife in the test. Use several with the same steel. dont use one and then say you tested the steel.
In reference to the thread that started the tip stabbing, i saw nothing wrong with it. He explained why he said the stabbing into wood could be abuse (stabbing vs prying out) and the variables, which is why he wanted the knife back to examine. Flukes do happen. Ron wanted to examine it, but he didnt want everyone to take their Recondo, stab into wood and try to break it because it was covered under warranty IF it broke. the blade was examined, found to be a defect in the steel, and was replaced. Since then, with the new knife, no probs. I dont see the big deal with it. If you were a company rep, put yourself in Ron's shoes. Do you want everyone to beat the heck out of a knife like you do and then return it and say "i dunno what happened, the tip just snapped when i stabbed it into wood".
If you wanna test, fine. If you wanna abuse, you are free to do so. Just don't expect people to like it. Dont expect people to read your posts and believe you because you use a lot of jargon and numbers to try to make something appear more complicated than it is. Like this:
Rope cutting:
push cut straigh down: # of cuts until it takes X pounds of force to cut thru
draw cut: what grit the edge is at, length of the blade used to cut with, # of cuts until it takes X pounds of force downward to cut.
Something like this where the numbers are the same for all knives tested. In Wayne Goddards book, he talks about his cutting tests where he cuts on a scale until it takes a certain amount of force to cut. tests the edge holding, as well as the geometry of the edge. Others go until the knife cannot shave, which is subjective, or cannot cut newsprint cleanly, etc. that way when they compare it, people can relate to it rather than it took 52 +/- 7 ft-lbs to cut the rope. Who measures how much weight it takes??? "hold on, lemme whip out my pocket scale to see" They want to know how much it can cut w/o much effort. Make the tests PRACTICAL to people reading them so they can relate. you telling about chopping a certain type of wood in a certain way, well, fine and good, but meaningless unless there is a universal to compare it to. Pine is softer than maple, and the cutting stroke is different for diff people.
Make the tests so people can understand them and relate to them and understand what you are doing what you are doing. If you want to test edge to edge, dont use a pipe, use 2 of the same knives, or 1 that you use for everytime you test edge to edge. get some standards to compare the stuff to. Don't be so concerned with the poundages taken to cut something, it confuses people as a few have pointed out. Talk in real world terms to people know what you are saying.
1.Compare apples to apples, not combat to filets.
2.Use real world language that people can relate to. Dont use big scientific terms to try to wow the people with your knowledge.
3. test for 1 variable at a time. have you heard of control groups, indep and dep variables, etc???? you use all of the force, ft lbs, newtons, etc, but ignore other scientific parts. A blade with powder coating doesnt cut as well as a smooth blade finish, must be the edge itself. See how this sounds? you say the TiNi coating doesnt affect edge holding, but it does. it reduces friction on the side of the knife on the surface that is being cut. less friction, less pressure on the edge, less edge deformation. it may not be much, but it is there.
4. If you want to test a steel, test the steel and not the knife. if you want to test toughness, test it in ways people will be likely to encounter. Fine. But remember apples to apples. and use the same tests with all of the knives so people can compare them across the board, not just with the knives it went head to head with. beating with a pipe is not the same as edge to edge impact.
5. remain objective. you saw one persons tip break, and you decided to take it upon yourself to demolish that same model of knife to prove how bad it was. funny, that was the only return for that knife, and it was a defect. yet it was enough of a problem for you to investigate. you deliberately beat that knife until it broke. you compared it to another knife with a much beefier tip, and went at it until it snapped. 3/4" penetration into wood is a very tough test, and the strider is very Overbuilt and much beefier than the recondo, as well as a diff steel altogether at a diff hardness. The tip break test was scaled to the WB from the start. Also, did you do the testing at the same time? then why not beat the WB with a pipe?
Well, im sick and tired of writing this. i hope it makes some sense and people can learn from it. if you want to test and abuse, fine, but readers, take it with a grain of salt. Cliff, please make the tests more reader friendly and give the results, and not just numbers with a range. compare apples to apples, please, if possible. if evaluating a steel, compare knives of identical specs, and change the steel. Comparing 1/4" Ats-34 with a diff grind to bg-42 .160 thick is not a good comparison. lastely, think about what you put down as test results. i bring that filet knife back to attention as it was udderly ridiculous. take that filet and chop down some trees with it and the
rope cutting tests, the sheaths, some of the handle tests are very informative, just some of the other tests need some help and made to be more reader friendly.
BTW, did you think to ask SOG about the sharpening on the knife? 52 degree angle seems a bit high, why didnt you thin it down to suit your specs first? or did you try to send it back at all for a proper sharpening? 52 seems a tad high, what is the norm for this knife?
I read the SOG Recondo review. It disgusted me. Beating a knife with pipe, vs beating a filet knife with pipe. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Knife Steel is HARD. Filet knife is SOFT and flexible. 440A vs BG-42, compare the specs of the steel, rockwell, hardness, etc. If it even was 440A, how do you know what steel it is? See the difference?????? Beating with a pipe is NOT like knife to knife impact. Pipe 3' of leverage 1" diameter IIRC. Knife, usually around 12" leverage, much less area of impact on the edge. with the pipe, going by leverage, you have 2 extra feet. If you want to do realistic testing, do realistic testing. Take a Busse, Strider, etc and do it. Relative same size, weight, thickness, etc. Go edge to edge, edge to spine, but with equal force on each. Dont just beat the heck out of a knife with a pipe, use another knife and at least border on realism here.
But make sure to use diff steels, keep the knives weight the same, and have ONE variable, not several.
Have you heard of control groups and indep and dep variables? blade grind, thickness, steel, HT, edge style, coatings, how the handle is oriented, EVERYTHING plays into how the knife performs. how bout testing for ONE variable???
You do real world testing. yeah, ok. you just enjoy smashing knives and breaking them and then using testing as an excuse. the cutting tests you do are fine, with the rope and stuff, but its hard to judge by 1 knife. maybe you got a dud, or the factory sends you a 2nd or a dud because they know you will destroy it.
you back it up with poundages and stuff, but look at your variations. "100 +/- 25 ft. lbs" Hmmm. so your strikes go from 50 to 150 foot pounds. Consistent, and how are you measuring the strikes?????
You compare knives that are dissimiliar. strider PAB vs recondo. Size, length, weight differences, yet you compare them. you are trying to compare steel, why have all of the other variables in there??? Did you smash the strider with the pipe yet? Did you shatter it with pliers because you wanted to or a hammer?????
Comparing a filet knife from a "guess" of 440a at a 45 "guess" rockwell, to a bg-42 at 61 to 62. WTF does that prove? the filet blade was thinner by 1/8", shorter, a ton softer. 45 rockwell is suitable for a THROWING knife or for a knife that the person doesnt know what edge holding is. of course its just gonna flex when the pipe hits it, its made to flex around the bones of a fish. you confuse toughness with softness. Do an edge retention on that paring knife, but with the same grind and thickness at the recondo. Oh wait, how can you make a flat grind knife thicker, wider and with a grind line on it? you cant!!! try cutting with that 45 rockwell 440a blade and see how it does. butter knife come to mind???
Hollow grinds make the knife very stiff. why do you think MS use a full flat or convex for their knives for the bend test???????? Hello. Blood grooves stiffen and lighten swords and knives for centuries. hollow grind is a stiffer knife with less flex, thats why it breaks, and due a little to being unsupported. If you take a knife with a flat grind, lay it on a flat surface vs one that is raised up, what do you think is going to happen????? Cliff, think about the stuff before you do it. oh yeah, what purpose does hammering a blade on a concrete floor have to do with real life?
I have read a few of the other tests. Cliff can do what he wants, its a free world in most places, unforuntetly for all knives out there. Abuse obviously has no place in Cliff's vocab. Putting companies in that spot is just plain rude. "hey, i abused you knife and it broke, can i have another to see if it was a fluke?" "hey, I beat your knife with a pipe, a hammer on a concrete floor and vise grips and it snapped. my filet knife is more durable and tougher". Damn insulting and makes you look pretty stupid with some of the conclusions that you draw.
Cliff.
My knives get REAL WORLD testing. How? People USE them. Not ABUSE AND DESTROY. They dont take them and beat them with pipes. They cut with them, do other stuff, light prying, etc that a knife would see as it is designed for the task. A small damascus neck knife is not going to be prying stuff and thrown, beaten, etc. A large camp knife will need to be up to the abuse, fine. I have had one of my blades cut nails, pry up a 800 lb pallet, and pry an axle into place while it was being welded and no probs with the blade, just the powder coating flaked off cuz it got melted. They are designed to take it, as well as steel choice. Diff Ht carbon is going to me more flexible and forgiving than a stainless steel. stainless at 45 is much forgiving and soften than stainless at 61. A knife is a cutting tool, not a prybar/bludgeon/knife/chin up bar/etc. I want to hear back from my customers about what they liked and didnt like about the knife so i can fix it for them, or change it for the next ones i make. it is a learning process and constructive feedback is important. If someone says the knife is crap, i am going to ask what makes it crap. If they like it, i am going to ask why. that is my real world testing, hearing from people who use the knife for the purpose, and use it realistically. Are you going to pry with a thin filet knife? are you going to cut down a tree with one? No? then why test it up against a knife doing the aforementioned things?
Some of the tests you do have value, others simply do not. they are for people to read for amusement or lamentation. comparing diff knives of diff sizes from diff steels designed for diff purposes is not realistic. beating knives, chopping up driveways, etc is not. use the knife for testing, dont abuse it and then get upset when it shatters. fracturing the handle of a knife with an 8lb maul. WTF. then you send it back for the company to look at.
You do some legit tests, but then you go way overboard and abuse the knife to no end. Why? because you dont care. you want to prove what the companies say is true or not? or do you just get kicks out of demolishing blades? I sure hope you wear protective gear when hammering and shattering blades. would be a shame for a piece of that steel to poke you. maybe then you could write about penetration and how much force it takes to penetrate your thick skin.
I think that you comparing a knife of an unknown steel and unknown rockwell, the filet knife, to a knife with known values points out how well you think things through. Not very. lets look at it.
http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/recondo.html
45 rockwell steel is tougher than 62 rockwell. Duh. Some of the conclusions drawn are completely out of line and pointless. read it and see what I mean.
HOW can you compare those 2 blades for toughness only??? Hmm. i'm gonna take my MT LCC and compare it to a paring knife kit I got from jantz and see which is tougher. See the relation here?
It seems like you think every knife should do every job equally well, even if they are not designed for it. Recondo was designed as a lightweight knife for utility and combat, not for chopping, not for beating with a pipe, not for smashing with a maul. Take that strider and bash it with a maul. See how long it takes the cordwrap to come off
and for the handle to shatter. flat end or sharp end of the maul???? Test like and similiar blades, designed for the same tasks. use the same tests with the knives, and dont bring in another blade like you did the filet knife. It really takes away from you testing and makes you look like a fool for some of your conclusions that you draw Cliff. you want to test diff steels? then get the SAME EXACT knife made with DIFF steels to test the diff steels. Get them HT'd by the same person, to their "optimal" rockwell, using the same grinds, thickness, etc. basically the same knives as close as humanly possible with the diff being the steels used and test it. Then you can compare the toughness etc. Or maybe get 2 or 3, and you can compare the edge holding, toughness, etc for 3 blades to get a cross section.
You state you are interested in how the steel performs, but evaluate it on one knife in the test. Use several with the same steel. dont use one and then say you tested the steel.
In reference to the thread that started the tip stabbing, i saw nothing wrong with it. He explained why he said the stabbing into wood could be abuse (stabbing vs prying out) and the variables, which is why he wanted the knife back to examine. Flukes do happen. Ron wanted to examine it, but he didnt want everyone to take their Recondo, stab into wood and try to break it because it was covered under warranty IF it broke. the blade was examined, found to be a defect in the steel, and was replaced. Since then, with the new knife, no probs. I dont see the big deal with it. If you were a company rep, put yourself in Ron's shoes. Do you want everyone to beat the heck out of a knife like you do and then return it and say "i dunno what happened, the tip just snapped when i stabbed it into wood".
If you wanna test, fine. If you wanna abuse, you are free to do so. Just don't expect people to like it. Dont expect people to read your posts and believe you because you use a lot of jargon and numbers to try to make something appear more complicated than it is. Like this:
Rope cutting:
push cut straigh down: # of cuts until it takes X pounds of force to cut thru
draw cut: what grit the edge is at, length of the blade used to cut with, # of cuts until it takes X pounds of force downward to cut.
Something like this where the numbers are the same for all knives tested. In Wayne Goddards book, he talks about his cutting tests where he cuts on a scale until it takes a certain amount of force to cut. tests the edge holding, as well as the geometry of the edge. Others go until the knife cannot shave, which is subjective, or cannot cut newsprint cleanly, etc. that way when they compare it, people can relate to it rather than it took 52 +/- 7 ft-lbs to cut the rope. Who measures how much weight it takes??? "hold on, lemme whip out my pocket scale to see" They want to know how much it can cut w/o much effort. Make the tests PRACTICAL to people reading them so they can relate. you telling about chopping a certain type of wood in a certain way, well, fine and good, but meaningless unless there is a universal to compare it to. Pine is softer than maple, and the cutting stroke is different for diff people.
Make the tests so people can understand them and relate to them and understand what you are doing what you are doing. If you want to test edge to edge, dont use a pipe, use 2 of the same knives, or 1 that you use for everytime you test edge to edge. get some standards to compare the stuff to. Don't be so concerned with the poundages taken to cut something, it confuses people as a few have pointed out. Talk in real world terms to people know what you are saying.
1.Compare apples to apples, not combat to filets.
2.Use real world language that people can relate to. Dont use big scientific terms to try to wow the people with your knowledge.
3. test for 1 variable at a time. have you heard of control groups, indep and dep variables, etc???? you use all of the force, ft lbs, newtons, etc, but ignore other scientific parts. A blade with powder coating doesnt cut as well as a smooth blade finish, must be the edge itself. See how this sounds? you say the TiNi coating doesnt affect edge holding, but it does. it reduces friction on the side of the knife on the surface that is being cut. less friction, less pressure on the edge, less edge deformation. it may not be much, but it is there.
4. If you want to test a steel, test the steel and not the knife. if you want to test toughness, test it in ways people will be likely to encounter. Fine. But remember apples to apples. and use the same tests with all of the knives so people can compare them across the board, not just with the knives it went head to head with. beating with a pipe is not the same as edge to edge impact.
5. remain objective. you saw one persons tip break, and you decided to take it upon yourself to demolish that same model of knife to prove how bad it was. funny, that was the only return for that knife, and it was a defect. yet it was enough of a problem for you to investigate. you deliberately beat that knife until it broke. you compared it to another knife with a much beefier tip, and went at it until it snapped. 3/4" penetration into wood is a very tough test, and the strider is very Overbuilt and much beefier than the recondo, as well as a diff steel altogether at a diff hardness. The tip break test was scaled to the WB from the start. Also, did you do the testing at the same time? then why not beat the WB with a pipe?
Well, im sick and tired of writing this. i hope it makes some sense and people can learn from it. if you want to test and abuse, fine, but readers, take it with a grain of salt. Cliff, please make the tests more reader friendly and give the results, and not just numbers with a range. compare apples to apples, please, if possible. if evaluating a steel, compare knives of identical specs, and change the steel. Comparing 1/4" Ats-34 with a diff grind to bg-42 .160 thick is not a good comparison. lastely, think about what you put down as test results. i bring that filet knife back to attention as it was udderly ridiculous. take that filet and chop down some trees with it and the
rope cutting tests, the sheaths, some of the handle tests are very informative, just some of the other tests need some help and made to be more reader friendly.
Taz
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Apr 28, 1999
- Messages
- 2,557
Wow. Thats a long post.
If you dont want to read it, ill try to summarize it.
1. testing, all well and good, just make it relavent.
2. test things that can be compared. testing steel? then use blade that are very similiar in all aspects except the steel. Dont use one blade .160 thick, and another .25" thick with diff grinds and them compare. Compare the same thicknesses and stuff so the tip strength with the steel is being compared, not the thickness, not the grind method.
3. Make the results more user/reader friendly and more standardized. Ie: make a cut off point in pounds on a scale that when the blade takes that many pounds to cut, then it is "dull" and record # of cuts to get there. use the same thickness rope, same type rope, not nylon and then hemp (just an example, dont think cliff did this)
Real world testing is what pushes the makers to improve and strive for surviving the real world testing. U want to test hard hit on solid object? fine. but dont expect miracles.
Knives are for use and some abuse. It happens. testing in the field for a while and putting it thru hell is fine, but deliberately doing odd tests to it to make it break to try to make people think it is inferior isn't IMHO. A knife is a knife first and foremost. if people want a knife to abuse, Busse, Strider, etc come to mind. other people make knives, and all of them can take abuse to an extent, but they are not DESIGNED from the abuse standpoint. they are designed from the "use and beyond" standpoint as I like to call it. hope this helps!
If you dont want to read it, ill try to summarize it.
1. testing, all well and good, just make it relavent.
2. test things that can be compared. testing steel? then use blade that are very similiar in all aspects except the steel. Dont use one blade .160 thick, and another .25" thick with diff grinds and them compare. Compare the same thicknesses and stuff so the tip strength with the steel is being compared, not the thickness, not the grind method.
3. Make the results more user/reader friendly and more standardized. Ie: make a cut off point in pounds on a scale that when the blade takes that many pounds to cut, then it is "dull" and record # of cuts to get there. use the same thickness rope, same type rope, not nylon and then hemp (just an example, dont think cliff did this)
Real world testing is what pushes the makers to improve and strive for surviving the real world testing. U want to test hard hit on solid object? fine. but dont expect miracles.
Knives are for use and some abuse. It happens. testing in the field for a while and putting it thru hell is fine, but deliberately doing odd tests to it to make it break to try to make people think it is inferior isn't IMHO. A knife is a knife first and foremost. if people want a knife to abuse, Busse, Strider, etc come to mind. other people make knives, and all of them can take abuse to an extent, but they are not DESIGNED from the abuse standpoint. they are designed from the "use and beyond" standpoint as I like to call it. hope this helps!
Not very many. Flat ground (including chisel ground), hollow ground, and convex (Moran). You might have two graphs for each grind showing the, I would think, linear effects of edge thickness and edge angle. I would expect a combo edge, as Busse has used, to perform remarkably like one or the other.
Yes! The steel type would be a relatively small variable, right on! But the effects of the other variables, edge geometry, would prove completely predictable and repeatable, eliminating the usefulness of the information. Once you have determined the effects of edge geo for one steel, you have determined it for all steels. Of course the edge gets stronger as it gets thicker, of course the edge gets stronger as the included angle goes up. You would be right back to factory spec sheet info as the inherent steel characteristics are the only independant variable, and hence usefull information.
But all this is off topic. We are supposed to be talking about Cliff.
So we're beating up on Cliff again, are we? What fun, O Boy! Or should I say O Boyo! 
I understand why so many people have complaints, including many whose opinions I respect [ya, that includes eric] But i think some of the criticism is a little unfair. I take some of Cliff's claims to scientific rigour with more than a few grains of salt. In a scientific sense, his testing and results do tend to be "biased" in favour of his personal preferences, for choppers like Busses, for example. But his testing an analyses are useful for laymen like me who are interested in certain types of knives and certain performance characteristics, and I categorically reject any suggestion of deliberate distortion or bias - but we've been through that before.
i do value Cliffs efforts and opinions; and I value all reasonable criticism of his methods and conclusions too. I'm very happy that Cliff is out there smashing knives to pieces and reporting on his results and opinions. Is his work definitive? Of course not. But it must be alotta fun at times!
I understand why so many people have complaints, including many whose opinions I respect [ya, that includes eric
] But i think some of the criticism is a little unfair. I take some of Cliff's claims to scientific rigour with more than a few grains of salt. In a scientific sense, his testing and results do tend to be "biased" in favour of his personal preferences, for choppers like Busses, for example. But his testing an analyses are useful for laymen like me who are interested in certain types of knives and certain performance characteristics, and I categorically reject any suggestion of deliberate distortion or bias - but we've been through that before.i do value Cliffs efforts and opinions; and I value all reasonable criticism of his methods and conclusions too. I'm very happy that Cliff is out there smashing knives to pieces and reporting on his results and opinions. Is his work definitive? Of course not. But it must be alotta fun at times!
Martin j:
An "ordinary guy" giving real-world, real-use opinions is one thing. The other is the purported "expert". Expert status is accorded to those who have verifiable qualifications. This is true in all fields. There must at least be some sort of formal background. This need not be extensive. Even a basic course in "Strength of Materials", required of all college kids studying mechanical engineering might do.
Once the expert has stepped into the realm of being, or trying to make or break a given maker or manufacturer, YES, I want to know the background and qualifications of that individual.
So I ask: "Where's the Beef?"
It would seen this matter could be very easily resolved. So far no one has stepped up to the plate.
I do not want to, nor is it my intent to be drawn into a "Cliff-bashing" mode. I have, in fact, enjoyed reading his posts and I'm sure I will into the future. But graphs, charts, etc. are one thing. Background is something that is there inherently and for real. Anyone has the right to give a lecture on quantum physics. It's a free country. But wouldn't you be at least a bit interested in the speaker's credentials?
BTW, this thread has been both interesting and informative and I think everyone should be commended for keeping the tone courteous and professional.
An "ordinary guy" giving real-world, real-use opinions is one thing. The other is the purported "expert". Expert status is accorded to those who have verifiable qualifications. This is true in all fields. There must at least be some sort of formal background. This need not be extensive. Even a basic course in "Strength of Materials", required of all college kids studying mechanical engineering might do.
Once the expert has stepped into the realm of being, or trying to make or break a given maker or manufacturer, YES, I want to know the background and qualifications of that individual.
So I ask: "Where's the Beef?"
It would seen this matter could be very easily resolved. So far no one has stepped up to the plate.
I do not want to, nor is it my intent to be drawn into a "Cliff-bashing" mode. I have, in fact, enjoyed reading his posts and I'm sure I will into the future. But graphs, charts, etc. are one thing. Background is something that is there inherently and for real. Anyone has the right to give a lecture on quantum physics. It's a free country. But wouldn't you be at least a bit interested in the speaker's credentials?
BTW, this thread has been both interesting and informative and I think everyone should be commended for keeping the tone courteous and professional.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2000
- Messages
- 3,021
I greatly value Cliff's testing and input. I have learned a lot from him. I feel that after reading one of his reviews, I have a good understanding of what the knife will be like for me. That does not mean I do destructive testing; but I know what would happen if I did.
One thing I don't quite understand is why knife manufacturers/makers sometimes get angry and combative when Cliff breaks one of their knives. This does not always (perhaps rarely) mean the knife is of poor quality, design, etc. I feel that most of the knife-buying public is not going to think, "Hey, Cliff broke that knife! It must suck!" Heck, Cliff has broken a Busse before, and other very tough knives.
If Cliff's tests were all positive, only minimally challenged the knives, etc., more knife manufacturers and makers would like him and he would not have to endure such personal (and otherwise) attacks (though he seems to handle them well). However, the tests would not really mean much, atleast to me. As it is, Cliff shows us the whole story, and it is enlightening to read his reviews.
Cliff, thank you very much for all the time you've put into the testing and reviews you've done over the years as well as for all the time you've spent sharing your knowledge on this forum. You have taught me a great deal.
One thing I don't quite understand is why knife manufacturers/makers sometimes get angry and combative when Cliff breaks one of their knives. This does not always (perhaps rarely) mean the knife is of poor quality, design, etc. I feel that most of the knife-buying public is not going to think, "Hey, Cliff broke that knife! It must suck!" Heck, Cliff has broken a Busse before, and other very tough knives.
If Cliff's tests were all positive, only minimally challenged the knives, etc., more knife manufacturers and makers would like him and he would not have to endure such personal (and otherwise) attacks (though he seems to handle them well). However, the tests would not really mean much, atleast to me. As it is, Cliff shows us the whole story, and it is enlightening to read his reviews.
Cliff, thank you very much for all the time you've put into the testing and reviews you've done over the years as well as for all the time you've spent sharing your knowledge on this forum. You have taught me a great deal.
Hey Guys...
Not2..
He'll only go and break it....
Cliff was the type of child that had all of his Christmas toys broken by the beginning of Christmas dinner..LOL
ttyle
Eric...
Originally posted by not2sharp
If we are going to roast Cliff periodically shouldn't we send the guy a watch or something?
n2s
Not2..
He'll only go and break it....
Cliff was the type of child that had all of his Christmas toys broken by the beginning of Christmas dinner..LOL
ttyle
Eric...
Taz
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Apr 28, 1999
- Messages
- 2,557
Lol. I was like that with RC cars. I took them apart to fix them, and well, i had a whole lot of extra parts
.
Cliff does have some good info with his testing, but it can be a bit hard to relate and compare the results as no 2 knives he tests r the same. The ft lbs of the cuts is great, but what does that mean to everyday users? What does 50 or 60 ft lbs of force feel like?? Also, some of the results are a little either out there, or seemingly pointless, ie, once again the filet knife vs the recondo. It just creates problems. he is going along pretty good with the testing, then WHAM, something just jumps in there and makes people go
Would be nice to have a knife made up several times, with different steels HT to their "optimal" Rockwell, and then have them compared. Size, weight, grind, edge, etc, all the same except the steels. that way it would be a good test to see what the steels do and how they compare to eachother. kinda to level the playing field. unfortunetly, this would be very expensive. Think of all of the steels. 440-C, 154-cm, Ats-34, BG-42, RWL-34, CPM1V, S30V, CPM3V, S60V, S90V, 5160, L6, 1084, 1095, 1075, 1060, 1050, O-1, A2, D2, M2, Damasteel, W1, 52100 just to name a few 24 steels. say 1 knife for testing, 1 for destruction. 48 knives. Think of the cost!!!! thats why it cant be done.
.Cliff does have some good info with his testing, but it can be a bit hard to relate and compare the results as no 2 knives he tests r the same. The ft lbs of the cuts is great, but what does that mean to everyday users? What does 50 or 60 ft lbs of force feel like?? Also, some of the results are a little either out there, or seemingly pointless, ie, once again the filet knife vs the recondo. It just creates problems. he is going along pretty good with the testing, then WHAM, something just jumps in there and makes people go
Would be nice to have a knife made up several times, with different steels HT to their "optimal" Rockwell, and then have them compared. Size, weight, grind, edge, etc, all the same except the steels. that way it would be a good test to see what the steels do and how they compare to eachother. kinda to level the playing field. unfortunetly, this would be very expensive. Think of all of the steels. 440-C, 154-cm, Ats-34, BG-42, RWL-34, CPM1V, S30V, CPM3V, S60V, S90V, 5160, L6, 1084, 1095, 1075, 1060, 1050, O-1, A2, D2, M2, Damasteel, W1, 52100 just to name a few
24 steels. say 1 knife for testing, 1 for destruction. 48 knives. Think of the cost!!!! thats why it cant be done.- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 5,461
I bet this will get as much traffic as the old Mad Dog debates
It all boils down to the basics. Cliff offers information and he offers more information than most so it gives the appearence that he is reliable soruce for information. Is he? Who knows & who cares but just like any other source for information you must take it with a grain of salt and use your own judgement to determine if his results merit your own acceptence. I would rather have multiple sources of information and make my own decision than to only have one, or just the manufacturers claims to guide my buying decision.
Most manufacturers claims are accurate. Busse for example went out on a limb with his claims and even I found them hard to beleive. Even after I tested his knives LIVE at the Blade Show there were still claims of bias. I say we just read Cold Steel's claims and take them at their word, NOT
The other issues the involve certain makers and manufacturers should be decided by you, the buying public. See how the manufacturer responds to questions about their claims. This is usually a good indicator of the ability to back up claims. The facts always speak for themselves and the question here seems to be "Are Cliff's methods of testing truly scientific and accurate?". Does he use scientific methods?
Let's see!
Here is an example of the scientific method for testing.
ASK a question, or POSE a problem you want to solve.
GATHER information about the question.
FORM a hypothesis, PROPOSE a solution.
DEVELOP methods to TEST hypothesis by making MODEL PREDICTIONS
CONDUCT the experiment, or TEST the proposed solution
EVALUATE the data -- Is the hypothesis correct? Did it work?
REPORT results -- Let everyone who's interested know what you found.
AMEND/CHANGE the hypothesis, or PROPOSE a better solution, and try again.
Are his tests controlled?
No. From what I can tell his tests are on a whim and change from knife to knife and since he can in no way apply the exact same amount of pressure, force or torqe on each swing the results are NOT scientific.
Can he repeat the results?
NO. Simply because he can not afford to. And you all would question them anyway, right?
Does he have a large test group?
No. He does not have 25-50 of each knife to work with.
So we must look at what Cliff does and make our own judgement based on his analysis. I can say that I don't think I have ever seen Cliff lose his cool. I did remember seeing a picture of Cliff or a claim that it was Cliff and if so all I can say about Cliff is that he is one really hairy ugly dude
No offense Cliff!
It all boils down to the basics. Cliff offers information and he offers more information than most so it gives the appearence that he is reliable soruce for information. Is he? Who knows & who cares but just like any other source for information you must take it with a grain of salt and use your own judgement to determine if his results merit your own acceptence. I would rather have multiple sources of information and make my own decision than to only have one, or just the manufacturers claims to guide my buying decision.
Most manufacturers claims are accurate. Busse for example went out on a limb with his claims and even I found them hard to beleive. Even after I tested his knives LIVE at the Blade Show there were still claims of bias. I say we just read Cold Steel's claims and take them at their word, NOT
The other issues the involve certain makers and manufacturers should be decided by you, the buying public. See how the manufacturer responds to questions about their claims. This is usually a good indicator of the ability to back up claims. The facts always speak for themselves and the question here seems to be "Are Cliff's methods of testing truly scientific and accurate?". Does he use scientific methods?
Let's see!
Here is an example of the scientific method for testing.
ASK a question, or POSE a problem you want to solve.
GATHER information about the question.
FORM a hypothesis, PROPOSE a solution.
DEVELOP methods to TEST hypothesis by making MODEL PREDICTIONS
CONDUCT the experiment, or TEST the proposed solution
EVALUATE the data -- Is the hypothesis correct? Did it work?
REPORT results -- Let everyone who's interested know what you found.
AMEND/CHANGE the hypothesis, or PROPOSE a better solution, and try again.
Are his tests controlled?
No. From what I can tell his tests are on a whim and change from knife to knife and since he can in no way apply the exact same amount of pressure, force or torqe on each swing the results are NOT scientific.
Can he repeat the results?
NO. Simply because he can not afford to. And you all would question them anyway, right?
Does he have a large test group?
No. He does not have 25-50 of each knife to work with.
So we must look at what Cliff does and make our own judgement based on his analysis. I can say that I don't think I have ever seen Cliff lose his cool. I did remember seeing a picture of Cliff or a claim that it was Cliff and if so all I can say about Cliff is that he is one really hairy ugly dude
No offense Cliff!
Im not here to jump on anyone at all,but i have noticed a trend in knife testing overall.
You go out in your back yard and chop up two by fours to see if its a good camp knife. you may also take it in the kitchen and cut up some vegetables as well.Hell you may even walk around the house with it on your belt to see how it feels.
If you want to test a camp knife,take it camping!
If you want to test a skinner,SKIN WITH IT!
If you want to test a man killing super duper tactical death dealing knife,then join the navy seals and USE IT!
It all goes back to real world testing I suppose. What good does chopping a cinder block with a strider do? Take it out and use the knives you buy,people. Then you will know whether it works or not.Enough with simulated testing already.
You go out in your back yard and chop up two by fours to see if its a good camp knife. you may also take it in the kitchen and cut up some vegetables as well.Hell you may even walk around the house with it on your belt to see how it feels.
If you want to test a camp knife,take it camping!
If you want to test a skinner,SKIN WITH IT!
If you want to test a man killing super duper tactical death dealing knife,then join the navy seals and USE IT!
It all goes back to real world testing I suppose. What good does chopping a cinder block with a strider do? Take it out and use the knives you buy,people. Then you will know whether it works or not.Enough with simulated testing already.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
After the traffic in this thread, is there anyone going to debate the fact that Cliff is just your average "Tom, Dick, or Harry" BladeForum reviewer?
Mike, thank you for touching upon and voicing my main point, Cliff Stamp is a choice. I don't really know him, but he could be the Cliff Claven of the Blade Forums and it wouldn't matter. He has an opinion, right wrong or indifferent and he should have the right to express it and people should have the right to read it and listen to it if they want. If people want to base their buying choices on Cliff's reviews that is their choice. If Cliff is giving bad meaningless info than the buyer's listening to him will soon figure that out. I'm not saying you can't point out that his info may be wrong. I'm just saying don't dismiss him because his methodology doesn't meet your criteria.
Richard
BOUNCED EMAIL: I need to update my email address in my profile!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 1,742
Some of it maybe simulated testing Mo, however some of that also translates to real use for some.
For instance, I use mine in the kitchen for testing, but thats because I also use them in there regularly. I have a set of Henckels kitchen knives and IMO they stink. It might seem a little strange to use a custom drop point hunter or a Becker 7 as a kitchen knife, but they work well and I enjoy it.
As for chopping up a few trees, again that is also real world use for me. I live in the country and do alot of minor chopping on a regular basis. I suppose I could use and axe, or even a chain-saw, but then it becomes 'work' where if I use my knives Im still getting done what I need, but having fun doing it.
I cant really test a camp knife while camping as I dont do that (although I have been invited to Colorado for camping). As for hunting, well I like to do that....but I suck at it
Oh yeah, this thread is about Cliffs reviews. I used to read most of them, and even found a bit of useful info, but some of that stuff is just way out there. I mean, when somebody starts saying that to cut rope, or cardboard or whatever took 2 strokes at 2.34lbs +/- .23lbs of pressure and then somebody asks how he measured the pressure (including the variation) and he states something to the effect that he just knows from stuff he has done in the past then I just dont buy it.
I mean, go chop a limb, I bet that you cannot know if the force used was 102 ft. lbs....and for sure you cant tell that the margin of error was +/-2.30 ft.lbs. To say thats what you do in one chop, much less 10 chops and still claim to 'just know' the force used is wishful thinking at best, and pure BS at worst.
For instance, I use mine in the kitchen for testing, but thats because I also use them in there regularly. I have a set of Henckels kitchen knives and IMO they stink. It might seem a little strange to use a custom drop point hunter or a Becker 7 as a kitchen knife, but they work well and I enjoy it.
As for chopping up a few trees, again that is also real world use for me. I live in the country and do alot of minor chopping on a regular basis. I suppose I could use and axe, or even a chain-saw, but then it becomes 'work' where if I use my knives Im still getting done what I need, but having fun doing it.
I cant really test a camp knife while camping as I dont do that (although I have been invited to Colorado for camping). As for hunting, well I like to do that....but I suck at it
Oh yeah, this thread is about Cliffs reviews. I used to read most of them, and even found a bit of useful info, but some of that stuff is just way out there. I mean, when somebody starts saying that to cut rope, or cardboard or whatever took 2 strokes at 2.34lbs +/- .23lbs of pressure and then somebody asks how he measured the pressure (including the variation) and he states something to the effect that he just knows from stuff he has done in the past then I just dont buy it.
I mean, go chop a limb, I bet that you cannot know if the force used was 102 ft. lbs....and for sure you cant tell that the margin of error was +/-2.30 ft.lbs. To say thats what you do in one chop, much less 10 chops and still claim to 'just know' the force used is wishful thinking at best, and pure BS at worst.
TAZ,
Cliff did do a test on 4 knives of different steels that were made by the same maker and heat treated exactly alike (except the D2 was hardened by another maker with a Paragon oven). They were tempered together at the same time and all had the same grind. They didn't come up with the same Rc because of the difference in the steels. They were; 1084, L6, D2, and 52100. They were returned to me after testing and I still have them. Since I am a 52100 fan, I was interested in the results since D2 is also a very good steel. I will still take the 52100 when I have a choice even though the D2 beat it in a few catagories.
By themselves, the ft/lbs do not mean a whole lot. When used in the same table of testing, it is very useful as a comparison to the others.
FWIW
Cliff did do a test on 4 knives of different steels that were made by the same maker and heat treated exactly alike (except the D2 was hardened by another maker with a Paragon oven). They were tempered together at the same time and all had the same grind. They didn't come up with the same Rc because of the difference in the steels. They were; 1084, L6, D2, and 52100. They were returned to me after testing and I still have them. Since I am a 52100 fan, I was interested in the results since D2 is also a very good steel. I will still take the 52100 when I have a choice even though the D2 beat it in a few catagories.
By themselves, the ft/lbs do not mean a whole lot. When used in the same table of testing, it is very useful as a comparison to the others.
FWIW
Rob Simonich
Big Bear
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 2,294
Hey, all this discussion is really moot! I saw the Ginsu infomercial and nothing can beat a Ginsi Knife! I think they use Rostefi steel, now what can be better than that? I saw it with my own eyes on there video........ 
