Curious, why bother with a cutting test with *insert brand name knife here*?

sparky2016 said:
Well, yes and no.

CATRA TCC is a cutting test. Cutting tons of cardboard is a cutting test. Presumably it measures the properties of the steel, as well as the grind, blade geometry, and sharpness. Those matter.

But it doesn't tell you anything about durability, build quality, ergonomics, and so on.
Click to expand...

Excellent example of proper testing that removes the human element from a test. This is the kind of test that no one can argue with. When you involve the human element, things change and can and are less believable often. I don't think this test can account for blade geometry, not sure how it could though, but it will certainly tell you about a steel at a certain hardness and the example they gave is perfect. 2 points in Rc difference in elmax made a 20% performance gain.
 
Cobalt said:
Excellent example of proper testing that removes the human element from a test. This is the kind of test that no one can argue with. When you involve the human element, things change and can and are less believable often. I don't think this test can account for blade geometry, not sure how it could though, but it will certainly tell you about a steel at a certain hardness and the example they gave is perfect. 2 points in Rc difference in elmax made a 20% performance gain.
Click to expand...

Not just removing the human element, but removing variables. Although, edge geometry has a pretty profound effect on edge retention. I remember Hardheart did some CATRA testing on 4 different blades a few years back and published the data and edge geometry was the single biggest factor in edge retention, much greater than steel type.

It occurs to me to add, don't quote me on that as it's based on memories of a thread from several years ago. I'll see if I can dig up the actual thread.
 
Last edited:
Insipid Moniker said:
Not just removing the human element, but removing variables. Although, edge geometry has a pretty profound effect on edge retention. I remember Hardheart did some CATRA testing on 4 different blades a few years back and published the data and edge geometry was the single biggest factor in edge retention, much greater than steel type.

It occurs to me to add, don't quote me on that as it's based on memories of a thread from several years ago. I'll see if I can dig up the actual thread.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense.
 
Cutting paper is the most consistent way to test an edge.

It's a mainstay.

If I'm curious about how sharp a knife is its the best way to check.
 
DeadboxHero said:
Cutting paper is the most consistent way to test an edge.

It's a mainstay.

If I'm curious about how sharp a knife is its the best way to check.
Click to expand...

Well...If you read the above comments, it's been generally acknowledged that using the paper cutting test to prove the mettle of a given brand knife simply because it's that brand is a bit redundant simply because all knives are designed to cut in first place.

But if it's a personal at home cutting test after sharpening a knife just to see if you reached the sharpest edge you can get at home is something else entirely.
 
LadyEarth said:
Well...If you read the above comments, it's been generally acknowledged that using the paper cutting test to prove the mettle of a given brand knife simply because it's that brand is a bit redundant simply because all knives are designed to cut in first place.

But if it's a personal at home cutting test after sharpening a knife just to see if you reached the sharpest edge you can get at home is something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Sure, but out of the box, some are just plain sharper then other brands.
That's important to a lot of people.

As the knife sickness takes control, then learning how to sharpen comes into play.

Then the all doors are open.

That's when people realize that out of the box sharpness comparisons are all moot.
 
DeadboxHero said:
Sure, but out of the box, some are just plain sharper then other brands.
That's important to a lot of people.

As the knife sickness takes control, then learning how to sharpen comes into play.

Then the all doors are open.

That's when people realize that out of the box sharpness comparisons are all moot.
Click to expand...

Truth
 
DeadboxHero said:
Sure, but out of the box, some are just plain sharper then other brands.
That's important to a lot of people.

As the knife sickness takes control, then learning how to sharpen comes into play.

Then the all doors are open.

That's when people realize that out of the box sharpness comparisons are all moot.
Click to expand...

I can see how a novice would judge knives based on their initial sharpness instead of all the other factors that go into a knife. I hope that they learn that the folder they bought made of some version of AUS6 that may be sharper out of the box than a blade made of S35VN, isn't the way to judge a knife. I have owned several $60-$80 Cold Steel folders that were sharper out of the box than my Sebenza. So what.
 
DeadboxHero said:
Sure, but out of the box, some are just plain sharper then other brands.
That's important to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

A true knife collector/user would know that such view as this is very subjective and entirely based on how the factory speed-creates those knives to get it out of the door, some with quality check, some with none, all in the name of profit. It has essentially nothing to do with the quality of the steel, the overall build of the knife (depending on brands of course), so on so forth.

If it's "important" to a lot of people how the knife is out of the box, then it goes back to my original stance of being vastly amused at such narrow and linear point of view should they decide to trudge upon it. ;)

The last two sentence is what everyone should be following in first place.
 
shecky said:
Actual knife tests are notoriously unpopular around here. A pretty serious downside to the forum. I've maintained for a long time that BF is more about knife nuts signaling to other knife nuts as a social function, than actual knives. In that context, any knife testing that doesn't reinforce the dominating opinion is at risk of upending that social function.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
LadyEarth said:
A true knife collector/user would know that such view as this is very subjective and entirely based on how the factory speed-creates those knives to get it out of the door, some with quality check, some with none, all in the name of profit. It has essentially nothing to do with the quality of the steel, the overall build of the knife (depending on brands of course), so on so forth.

If it's "important" to a lot of people how the knife is out of the box, then it goes back to my original stance of being vastly amused at such narrow and linear point of view should they decide to trudge upon it. ;)

The last two sentence is what everyone should be following in first place.
Click to expand...

No, but it has something to do with the consistency and finish of the knives that a particular manufacturer lets out the door. I don't really care all that much and I never use the factory edge anyway, but all other things being equal I would rather buy from a company that sends their knives out properly sharpened. It's not anywhere near the top of my list of important features but IMO it says something about a company when they will send out new cutting tools that are butter knife dull.
 
Surfingringo said:
No, but it has something to do with the consistency and finish of the knives that a particular manufacturer lets out the door. I don't really care all that much and I never use the factory edge anyway, but all other things being equal I would rather buy from a company that sends their knives out properly sharpened. It's not anywhere near the top of my list of important features but IMO it says something about a company when they will send out new cutting tools that are butter knife dull.
Click to expand...

The dullest knives I have ever received out of the box(and I just mentioned this in another thread) were my Condors, all of them. I still believe they make a good quality product and still own most of those, though I have reprofiled the edges to get them to be working sharp.
 
Sharpness out of the box doesn't matter to me unless I believe they can provide a better edge than I can make, like rockstead. And that's where the issue really is. Most people don't sharpen, don't know how to sharpen, don't even believe they CAN sharpen except with some electric pull through thing they saw at Walmart. So yeah, out of the box sharpness, I believe, means something to most people. Your level of sharpening capabilities defines just how much it matters. The less it matters or the fewer companies who create edges you care about the better you are at sharpening, IMO. The average knife buyer can't sharpen at all so out of the box sharpness matters A LOT to most people. Shoot, just look at how many people believe that simply slicing printer paper or roughly shaving arm hair is impressive. Most people. But we get an unfair sampling because for most of us here that level is when we feel like we need to sharpen.
 
Last edited:
Cobalt said:
Excellent example of proper testing that removes the human element from a test. This is the kind of test that no one can argue with. When you involve the human element, things change and can and are less believable often. I don't think this test can account for blade geometry, not sure how it could though, but it will certainly tell you about a steel at a certain hardness and the example they gave is perfect. 2 points in Rc difference in elmax made a 20% performance gain.
Click to expand...

The human element and variables is exactly what a knife needs to be tested for. Yes the test tells you what a steel will do at a hardness but it doesn't throw in random staples into the cardboard being rammed into at full force. It don't tell you what happens when a box full of something metal right under the cardboard will do. When you get that inevitable swipe into the concrete. When you have flaps glued down so hard you need to pry it apart. Them are the things tests will not tell you. Ask anyone who has worked around any amount of cardboard. All of them will tell you about multiple staple hits in a day, concrete accidentally contacted, fiberglass reinforced tape, hard metal object in a box the tip will contact. Exactly everything you need a cardboard cutting knife to endure. From what I've seen the high wear resistant steels will chip like crazy and you won't be happy you spent so much on them. Cardboard cuts easy. Anything you can rip with your hands is not much of a test for a knife. Yeah, it's abrasive but it is still not tough. A thin dull very tough knife will still cut it easily where a harder more wear resistant steel will chip on variables and the cardboard itself. In every case I've seen the trade off to wear resistance is toughness.

Yes one does better in a no variable human factorless test, but them variables are what defines what you look for a knife to work through for a work knife. Even if you have to touch it up at the end of the day. Atleast there is an edge to sharpen instead of a chipped out damaged one.
 
Duane Sanders said:
The human element and variables is exactly what a knife needs to be tested for. Yes the test tells you what a steel will do at a hardness but it doesn't throw in random staples into the cardboard being rammed into at full force. It don't tell you what happens when a box full of something metal right under the cardboard will do. When you get that inevitable swipe into the concrete. When you have flaps glued down so hard you need to pry it apart. Them are the things tests will not tell you. Ask anyone who has worked around any amount of cardboard. All of them will tell you about multiple staple hits in a day, concrete accidentally contacted, fiberglass reinforced tape, hard metal object in a box the tip will contact. Exactly everything you need a cardboard cutting knife to endure. From what I've seen the high wear resistant steels will chip like crazy and you won't be happy you spent so much on them. Cardboard cuts easy. Anything you can rip with your hands is not much of a test for a knife. Yeah, it's abrasive but it is still not tough. A thin dull very tough knife will still cut it easily where a harder more wear resistant steel will chip on variables and the cardboard itself. In every case I've seen the trade off to wear resistance is toughness.

Yes one does better in a no variable human factorless test, but them variables are what defines what you look for a knife to work through for a work knife. Even if you have to touch it up at the end of the day. Atleast there is an edge to sharpen instead of a chipped out damaged one.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top