Cringe review by Project Farm of which knife brand is "best"

DustinK said:
Are we supposed to be intimidated by someone with alot of social media followers? And alot of social media followers means we can't point out how the test is massively flawed?

I'm surprised at how many people I've seen on knife forums that think it was a good test.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was a good test. I really like many of his other tests. He is doing everyone a huge service imo. Occasionally I don't care for a video but that's life.

You want to buy a new epoxy? Which one is best... dude tests them in an appreciable way.

That is my take.
 
old4570 said:
test-result.jpg


The graph PF did lacked critical data - A starting point !
So in red is the starting sharpness after he re sharpened the knives !
This gives you the before and after data for edge retention and gives you some idea of the edge loss .
Click to expand...
i want all you knife nuts to explain to someone who knows nothing about knives, how the tenacious and sog outperformed(or matched) the benchmade?
they were all sharpened the same way and tested the same way.

also i know there is more to knives than just performance of the blade, but i see the elementum recommended so much for a budget knife. yet the tenacious and sog clearly outperformed a "more superior" steel.
 
Just a couple seconds in he says the cheapest knife being tested is "made by Smith & Wesson"... obviously not a knife expert...
 
darkcruzer said:
i want all you knife nuts to explain to someone who knows nothing about knives, how the tenacious and sog outperformed(or matched) the benchmade?
they were all sharpened the same way and tested the same way.

also i know there is more to knives than just performance of the blade, but i see the elementum recommended so much for a budget knife. yet the tenacious and sog clearly outperformed a "more superior" steel.
Click to expand...
He didn't cut anything, abrasion resistance wasn't tested and that's what most high end steel types are designed for.
Looking at the spread of steel performance, it's pretty obvious that you're only looking at a hardness test, you would get similar results using a block of copper as the cutting medium, the best possible steel in this exact test would be something like 1070 carbon steel run above 65RC.
Maxamet would have passed with flying colours as I believe I've read Spyderco runs that steel at 67RC, but it's about as durable as glass (not exactly but you get the picture).
This is still a legitimate test, you just need to understand what is being tested, I actually do find this information highly valuable as we are getting a sense for who is running their steel soft, but that only matters to people who specifically value edge stability, S30V at 55RC will still cut twice as much paper as 420HC at 60RC.
 
Joshua J. said:
He didn't cut anything, abrasion resistance wasn't tested and that's what most high end steel types are designed for.
Looking at the spread of steel performance, it's pretty obvious that you're only looking at a hardness test, you would get similar results using a block of copper as the cutting medium, the best possible steel in this exact test would be something like 1070 carbon steel run above 65RC.
Maxamet would have passed with flying colours as I believe I've read Spyderco runs that steel at 67RC, but it's about as durable as glass (not exactly but you get the picture).
This is still a legitimate test, you just need to understand what is being tested, I actually do find this information highly valuable as we are getting a sense for who is running their steel soft, but that only matters to people who specifically value edge stability, S30V at 55RC will still cut twice as much paper as 420HC at 60RC.
Click to expand...
He did run the blades over wood, which is testing abrasion resistance, no? He even sharpened the blades and ran another test on wood, which was good.

What he didn't do was test long enough to see how well the blades maintained a working edge, and that's where you'd expect the better steels to shine. You'd also want to put at least 3-4 new edges on the knives to make sure you've gotten rid of any damaged steel from the factory sharpening.

But at the end of the day, his conclusion is probably right. From a practical perspective--looking at a knife as a cutting tool only--there usually is no justification for spending hundreds of dollars versus buying a decent quality budget knife. The added cost *can* be justified by aesthetics, ergonomics, feel in hand (not just ergonomics), or just an appreciation of fine craftsmanship. Or in rare circumstances, and costlier knife might be justified if you need extreme corrosion resistance or toughness.
 
Hehehehehehehe ....

Funny stuff ....

A) Whats printed or claimed is not worth a bad penny
B) Edge retention tests cut thru BS
C) There was nothing wrong with his edge retention test
D) How do cheaper knives outperform more expensive knives ( That's rather obvious )

The market is full of overpriced underperforming knives ! And many so called knife reviewers are not helping the situation .
Almost all my RAVE Review knives are , not meeting my expectations . ( Underperforming )

A knife has one function ( important ) , and that is to cut / slice things for as long as possible . That is the function of a knife ( PRIMARY ) .. Everything else is secondary !
When a $10 knife kicks a $100 knife to the curb and stomps on it . Well , see ...... That's reality slapping you in the face !
 
Joshua J. said:
He didn't cut anything, abrasion resistance wasn't tested and that's what most high end steel types are designed for.
Looking at the spread of steel performance, it's pretty obvious that you're only looking at a hardness test, you would get similar results using a block of copper as the cutting medium, the best possible steel in this exact test would be something like 1070 carbon steel run above 65RC.
Maxamet would have passed with flying colours as I believe I've read Spyderco runs that steel at 67RC, but it's about as durable as glass (not exactly but you get the picture).
This is still a legitimate test, you just need to understand what is being tested, I actually do find this information highly valuable as we are getting a sense for who is running their steel soft, but that only matters to people who specifically value edge stability, S30V at 55RC will still cut twice as much paper as 420HC at 60RC.
Click to expand...

"Abrasion resistance refers to the ability of materials and structures to withstand abrasion. It is a method of wearing down or rubbing away by means of friction."
he clearly tested it by using friction. maybe no one uses their knives to cut wood, but a very hard wood is a lot faster and more damaging than cutting cardboard

3D Anvil said:
He did run the blades over wood, which is testing abrasion resistance, no? He even sharpened the blades and ran another test on wood, which was good.

What he didn't do was test long enough to see how well the blades maintained a working edge, and that's where you'd expect the better steels to shine. You'd also want to put at least 3-4 new edges on the knives to make sure you've gotten rid of any damaged steel from the factory sharpening.

But at the end of the day, his conclusion is probably right. From a practical perspective--looking at a knife as a cutting tool only--there usually is no justification for spending hundreds of dollars versus buying a decent quality budget knife. The added cost *can* be justified by aesthetics, ergonomics, feel in hand (not just ergonomics), or just an appreciation of fine craftsmanship. Or in rare circumstances, and costlier knife might be justified if you need extreme corrosion resistance or toughness.
Click to expand...

he probably has limits on video length, not to mention its way faster to run the knives over a very hard wood vs cutting thousands of pieces of rope or cardboard. even if it wasnt long enough, thats NO excuse for a $258 knive with a "superior steel" to perform worse. if anything even a short test should expose the durability of weaker cheaper steels/knives. correct?
 
darkcruzer said:
"Abrasion resistance refers to the ability of materials and structures to withstand abrasion. It is a method of wearing down or rubbing away by means of friction."
he clearly tested it by using friction. maybe no one uses their knives to cut wood, but a very hard wood is a lot faster and more damaging than cutting cardboard



he probably has limits on video length, not to mention its way faster to run the knives over a very hard wood vs cutting thousands of pieces of rope or cardboard. even if it wasnt long enough, thats NO excuse for a $258 knive with a "superior steel" to perform worse. if anything even a short test should expose the durability of weaker cheaper steels/knives. correct?
Click to expand...
DBK uses a huge thick bit of rope to cut thru to test edge retention .. ( Expensive Rope )
And knives can go maybe only a few slices to maybe a dozen slices in their test .
What is important
A) Test is repeatable an consistent
B) Test is comparable

So their test may not be relevant to us in any way !
But it is a comparable test for them .
And it allows them to grade and compare knives for edge retention . ( Tests they have done )
And a lot of the stuff DBK does , is irrelevant and maybe over the top .. It's what they do and they are famous for it ..
Look for DBK on youtube , at the very least they are excellent time killers !
 
old4570 said:
DBK uses a huge thick bit of rope to cut thru to test edge retention .. ( Expensive Rope )
And knives can go maybe only a few slices to maybe a dozen slices in their test .
What is important
A) Test is repeatable an consistent
B) Test is comparable

So their test may not be relevant to us in any way !
But it is a comparable test for them .
And it allows them to grade and compare knives for edge retention . ( Tests they have done )
And a lot of the stuff DBK does , is irrelevant and maybe over the top .. It's what they do and they are famous for it ..
Look for DBK on youtube , at the very least they are excellent time killers !
Click to expand...
Maybe that's a better test. But it still doesn't explain how a cheaper steel/knife can match or outperform an expensive one rubbing across some wood.
 
Some of these people are actually mad that a knife did what I was supposed to do. Knives cut.. even if they're not expensive. Deal with it.
 
Didn't get to see all of the testing.

The way this guy talk, non stop and in a repetative and annoying tone of voice, gave me a headache after aprox 2 mins...
 
I’m with Boattale, didn’t get any farther than Smith & Wesson. You don’t have to be an expert to get your basic facts straight. Saying “this knife is made by Smith & Wesson” is a flat out lie.

All us BFers know the truth, that S&W licensed out their name to some Chinese factory making knives that would sell for $13 with no brand at all. That makes me sad. I’m even sadder that Colt and Winchester have done it too. But his regular viewers, not being knife knuts, now have a mental picture of the S&W shop foreman hollering in Chinese, “Shut down the gun production boys, we’re gonna change up our tooling and build us some $13 knives!” They believe this dishonest reviewer, not knowing what they don’t know.

Here’s my problem: now that he’s lied to me concerning something I know a little something about, if I ever see him again reviewing toasters or table lamps or teacloths (which I know nothing about), I can’t believe a word he says. He’s worthless to me now, even if his teacloth info is straight up. I need teacloth advice from some other strangers. I need to go register as “catspa” on TeaclothForums and ask all the newbie questions, and I just don’t have the time.

And thanks to Shane, for calling it where you see it.

Parker
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top