CR Project Got Pwnd

roughedges said:
Unless you are fluent in dutch or french I suggest you give the guy a break. With the very likely exception of Esav Benyamin, it is a good bet that Jos speaks more languages than anyone else posting in this thread.

edit: I'd say great minds think alike but I'm only fluent (debatable) in one language. I can curse in 3 or 4 though!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't correct him in dutch or french. that you for your suggestion though.
 
Dave, as I see it, it isn't going to go away in either circumstance, especially if there are people dedicated to making it hurt the maker. But he doesn't he to participate if he feels there are no legitimate issues to address.

There was another tester on BF once who criticized a well-known folder and later admitted he hadn't ever held it, criticized a style of fixed blade handle and later admitted he hadn't ever held that either. Yet his criticisms are remembered by some people to this day; his own lack of integrity ignored.

CRK are not active on this forum. I wish we did hear more from them, especially when substantive questions come up. But I don't need them to come here just to get lemon meringue pies tossed in their faces. :D
 
I think it's correct to view these tests as beyond the scope of normal use. I also think they provide a degree of valid information, though.

The geometry of the knives in question is based partly on being able to use the knife for non-cutting tasks, and in what might be called extreme situations. Let's take the example of a CRK one-piece. If you're going to carry that sort of knife solely as a slicing tool, you will be toting around a bunch of extra mass, and a less-than-ideal cutting geometry. Obviously it's not going to slice as well as a comparably sized Krein. So, the CRK's design is definitely based partly on "hard use".

The question is, what in the world is "hard use", and to what extent does any given user want to sacrifice other capabilities (like slicing efficiency) in deference to it?

Sacrificing real-world, everyday utility for real-world "hard use" capability undoubtedly makes sense for some users. Of course one would want to be reasonably certain that the knife in question was up to the anticipated task. If it's not, the user would be better off with a more lightly constructed tool that cut better.

Destructive testing is useful in that it shows how much (ab)use a given knife can withstand.
 
tsiloics said:
Destructive testing is useful in that it shows how much (ab)use a given knife can withstand.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why BF encourages testing by having a subforum for it in Knife Reviews and Testing, without setting standards for what and how to test.

But it is a shame many people overinterpret the results of the tests, like the original poster in this thread.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
But it is a shame many people overinterpret the results of the tests, like the original poster in this thread.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree. I also think it's a shame that people have a tendency to get wrapped up in brand cheerleading, as opposed to objective problem solving. Guess I have an issue there, as I tend to look only at the technical side, politics be damned.

Thinking back over the years on BF...and all the teapot-tempests. MD, Strider, TAD, Busse, CRK... so much of this is just bench racing of the marques and silly politics.
 
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it is note worthy that the knife failed before the test even got rough. Those were not dead blows. The knife was just being hammered into lumber. That is a pretty soft target. I have a kitchen knife or two that would do that.

Its also note worthy that the knife seemed to fail just like the GB. Right at those serrations.

I really believe no matter who made it a .225 inch thick knife blade made from A2 should do way better. I have no axe to grind with CRK. I love the company and I even have a little phone crush on Heather. :D

But I think there is a problem. I wish I had the extra money to send Noss a Un-serrated version for testing.

Another concern is that the knife was not that great a cutter either. So we have a not so great cutter that is also not very tough.

Serious question here.....No agenda... Why buy it?
 
We don't know that the knife is "not very tough". Not to belabor the point but all we know is Noss can break a knife with a hammer.
 
Let's try reciprocal testing.

One blow of the hammer anywhere on the knife.
One blow of the knife anywhere on the hammer ...
 
I don't understand. He destroys every knife he buys (the total is in the several thousand dollar range now) and we discern some as getting "owned" and others as being "so tough"?
 
carrot said:
I don't understand. He destroys every knife he buys (the total is in the several thousand dollar range now) and we discern some as getting "owned" and others as being "so tough"?
Click to expand...

That is correct he tests all knives to failure. The difference is at what point they fail. The tests get tougher the longer the knife lasts in the test.

So in general...One can say that a knife that lasts longer in the test is a tougher knife. Pretty simple really.

The price of the knife seems to have little to do with it. It seems to be about: Design/profile of blade, Steel choice in that order.

You just can not escape the fact the the CRK fixed blades have not done as well as knives of similar profile and steel.

What does it all mean? I don't know. I know that I am pretty well set with hard use knives for the rest of my life with the Busse, Strider and BRK&T knives I own. But I might be influenced by these test results if I was still in the market for big "tough" knives.

Its not about brand loyalty for me. I have lots of Strider folders for instance. I like them. But I don't like Strider fixed blades. I think for me this pattern will hold true for CRK stuff.
 
I dont have to much loyalty to any brand, I buy what works weather its Busse, Strider, CRK, Cold Steel, or Mora.

I consider batoning cross grain with a hammer real world use, I have done so with a granite rock(harder then noss's hammer) before when a wood baton wouldnt cut it.
I also testing the tip on sheet metal real world use, pilots sometimes have to egress through the skin of the aircraft.
Also what would you do with out a can opener.

So I think the project failed at what I consider a real world test.
 
Izan said:
Well another test at KT,com shows this knife breaking very easily. I am disappointed to say the least.
Click to expand...

Life is full of disappointments.

DaveH said:
Excellent point Esav, CRK may feel it's beneath them to make a careful reply.

That's their choice, but these things don't go away unless they are addressed. The GB issue didn't go away really, IMO, it just added additional evidence that CRK doesn't seem to care.
Click to expand...

While they may not have made a public statement they have no issues talking about it over the phone. I had a very in depth conversation with Anne not too long after the Green Beret 'issue' and she not only addressed all my questions but educated me on a few points I was previously less informed on.
macgregor22 said:
I dont have to much loyalty to any brand, I buy what works weather its Busse, Strider, CRK, Cold Steel, or Mora.

I consider batoning cross grain with a hammer real world use, I have done so with a granite rock(harder then noss's hammer) before when a wood baton wouldnt cut it.
I also testing the tip on sheet metal real world use, pilots sometimes have to egress through the skin of the aircraft.
Also what would you do with out a can opener.

So I think the project failed at what I consider a real world test.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to take this post.

Never had the need to beat a knife with a rock or a hammer and just for reference the Aluminum skin of an aircraft is quite a bit softer than sheet metal.
As for a can opener, I always have a P38 on me. One in my wallet and one on my key chain.
I don't put a whole lot of faith in the testing done by noss or cliff stamp.
 
Aircraft aluminum is actually quite hard, and isnt it better to test the knife on harder materials so you know it wont fail on softer materials.
 
I've kept a copy of a from review in the mid eighties when CR knives first appeared in the UK that I keep meaning to scan (need a scanner first) and post. A Jereboam (the original saw back version) and a 7" tanto were tested.

I've just found the review - it was by Alan Carr in 'Guns and Weapon User', winter 1986 and was one of the factors in my receiving a MkIV in 1987 for a survival course with John 'Lofty' Wiseman.

The Jereboam was used to open ammo boxes, hammer and prize nails, lift floorboards and dig pits. It was also used to stab oil drums, metal dustbins (anyone in the UK remember those!), sheet metal, car doors, bonnets and tyres.

The tanto was used for the above plus cutting bricks and breeze blocks.

Neither broke. You should have to do something phenomenal to break one.
 
markwood said:
I've just found the review - it was by Alan Carr in 'Guns and Weapon User', winter 1986: SNIP Neither broke. You should have to do something phenomenal to break one.
Click to expand...


I assume then you're not happy with the new easy to break feature either? :D
 
macgregor22 said:
Aircraft aluminum is actually quite hard, and isnt it better to test the knife on harder materials so you know it wont fail on softer materials.
Click to expand...

Hard compared to sheet metal, I disagree.

When I was in Mosul we had an 'incapacitated Iraqi plane near our AO. A few of us went to check it out while clearing the area. While there I tried some stabbing/cutting with my Shadow IV in a couple different spots. My SGM just rolled his eyes but watched as I cut into the plane. The aluminum skin cut quite a bit easier than I had thought it would and there was no noticeable damage to my knife.
I wouldn't have tried that with sheet metal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top