Extreme Judgement : just some spec's and a little splitting

[Cliff Stamp]

Edges don't behave like thicker pieces of steel.

It is all steel, the steel deforms at a level far beyond the geometry of the edge. This is why knives can pass the brass rod test at low angles and fail them at high angles.

Now to be clear, overall durability will fall off very rapidly at low angles, but the failure mode will be more ductile, you get a lot of compression and bending. At really low angles everything becomes ductile.

If you go really low the bend rates are extreme. I have taken edge down to 8 per side on steels which chip easily but at that low they bend massively before plastic deformation is reached.

Of course they are easier to bend then. Again to be clear we are talking about the *MODE* of failure not the onset

Now, when you say "we" it implies that you were part of the process, doesn't it? Is that what you meant to say? I don't know, but it is what you wrote.

No it was just a general we. I can tell you the same thing about lots of makers, it is what I discuss with them, why they do what they do, how they got there, etc. .

I have questioned the necessity of a knife that has prying listed as a major attribute.

Lots of mine could be broken trivially if you attempted to pry, not every knife needs that, not every knife needs to chop either.

And the ever popular "Why on earth would you chop on a cinder block?"

Because you accidently hit rocks when using a large knife outside.

If you stick to your 'Stock Tests of Sharpness', come up with other stock tests (ergos etc) then catagorize what constitutes Excellent, Good, Fair & Poor you'd have a scale to refer too and there would be no reason to mention the other brands.

Again, to put the numbers in perspective you have to list the performance of the other knives, otherwise it means nothing because you have no way to tell if the performance is due to the user, or the materials, or method, etc. . So if I say I stab 650 pages into a phonebook but don't tell you what another knife does this could just be cause I am really strong.

-Cliff

 

[Cliff Stamp]

IMy issue is with the fact that the overwhelming majority of your reviews come back to your favorites.

I just did a quick check, less than 10% of the reviews significantly mention Busse. All of the reviews reference other knives, the most common ones are a work bolo from Tramontina and the GB axe as these are what I use to guage chopping performance usually and I have to use a reference blade there as wood variability is extremely high.

For fine cutting I usually go by the stock tests and just reference the comparison link. Often times I do reviews in tandem as I get knives in bunches and thus some reviews contain specific comparisons do either a similar knife or slightly different one.

A few of my favorite knives are a custom from Phil Wilson, another from Mel Sorg and another from a local forger, all of which I had significant input into the design, none of which are frequently mentioned in the reviews because they would be a poor reference point being one of a kind customs so no one but me would find them meaningful.

I would also not imply a knife was better, I would simply say it was, stating the criteria used in the evaluation and how it was specifically evaluated. I don't imply anything. Implicications and vague statements are for people who don't have the confidence in their own work to make it public and accept challenges. I want to have what I say challenged, it is a chance to learn.

Being vague, getting personal, this does nothing aside from trying to cover facts with misdirection. You do this when the facts are your enemy, they are not mine. You find fault with my facts or logic then point it out, one of us is obviously wrong. If it is me then good I have learned something that day, this is a positive thing not a negative.

Fire away either in public on the forums or in email, it doesn't matter to me either way. I have no secrets and there is no one that I won't share what I have learned with, if they ask then I'll tell them. It is all *public* knowledge.

-Cliff

 

[OwcA]

none of which are frequently mentioned in the reviews because they would be a poor reference point being one of a kind customs so no one but me would find them meaningful.

I fail to see how constantly reprofiled (even worse, adjusted for at least some tests) comparison blades are any better reference?

On the topic of objectivity. A quote form your review of CRK Project I:

As well note the comparisons also lacked very heavy work such as prying and cutting hard materials like bone, all of which would have heavily favoured the Busse Basic.

How can you make such claim without a shread of experimental data to back it up and call yourself not biassed?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I fail to see how constantly reprofiled (even worse, adjusted for at least some tests) comparison blades are any better reference?

They are not, that is why as noted I don't use them very often. In fact it states this right in the very review you quoted from, in the very line before you quoted :

"UPDATE : comparing a new knife to a heavily used one such as done in the above in general is poor reviewing practice as it can readily lead to missinterpertation unless as noted care is taken to properly put the results into perspective. As noted, the above should not be used to judge the relative performance of the two knives in general but as an illustration of how the various factors such as geometry, mass and balance effect performance."

This was a really early review where I was developing methods and didn't have a large body of blades to draw from in comparisons and I had done a lot of comparitative work before I realized I was comparing the Project to a heavily modified and used blade. But at the time it was also the only other blade of its size I had on hand.

How can you make such claim without a shread of experimental data ...

That was based on work done by the Basic and using the fact that the Project chipped more readily on similar work, and the fact that the edge is more acute, thinner, softer and hollow ground. It pointed out that while the profile on the Project gave it a cutting advantage it had a downside as well. Not pointing that out would be a bias.

-Cliff

 

[Ebbtide]

Sigh.
I meant your reviews as posted here in this forum. Not the links that you have supplied.
I thought that was clear when I congratulated you on waiting until your fifth post to mention another knife brand.
(Maybe I was clear, maybe I wasn't. Sort of like your generic we )

I tire of answering your quotes of one sentence as opposed to the whole.
It is so simple to appear correct that way.
For example:

Because you accidently hit rocks when using a large knife outside.

We don't.

Sigh.

So let's look forward to future reviews then, eh?

 

[Steelhed]

I do think there might be some Busse bias on this thread, but I'm not at all certain Cliff is the responsible party, or that the bias is positive rather than negative.

Cliff has stated his position pretty well. He tests knives and posts the results. All of us are free to take the results as we see fit. I took Cliff to task for some of his methodology early on and I quickly learned he was a work in process. I really questioned his earlier reviews for their accuracy because he had not yet established a large enough sampling base and his comparisons were sometimes more apple and orange. But he has expanded and improved and his sampling base and methodology have improved. Take what he offers or leave it. At least he does it. I don't have the time or inclination to do what he does. In nothing else, he posts interesting threads, and this from the guy who satired him with Kliff Stamp. I want to hear more about his Fehrman tests. In the end he'll tell us something about them. I like Fehrmans, but I don't know all they can or can't do. I will not test mine like Cliff.

BTW, sharpened pry bars have their place. Most soldiers do not use knives as weapons or fine cutting implements. They use them for opening things, and breaking things down. Take a look at one of those WWII quartermaster knives. They are sharpened pry bars.

 

[thombrogan]

This is Cliff's review. He mentioned everything he did and both his findings and some of his judgements regarding those findings. So he doesn't care for subhilt-style survival-knife handles. So?

If anyone finds this review too biased, too flawed, or involving too small of a test sample, buy your own Fehrman Extreme Judgement and do you own test. If you want to put it head-to-head with Cliff's test, perform the same tasks he performed and see how your performance compares. Maybe your findings will confirm or invalidate his test, but I'm pretty sure that Cliff isn't levelling a shotgun at you and preventing such tests from being made.

 

[jedi_pimp]

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

 

[powells85]

Actually Thom, you are quite wrong about that. I have contacts in a very secret intelligence organization who have revelead that anyone trying to invalidate the "results" of Cliff's reviwes is subject to assasination by a group of rouge seals who flipper their victims to death. They have a back up group of Cod Commandos.



I don't know much about statistics, but I would say a sample group of one is pretty damn small. If you call that improved, I would hate to see your idea of deficient.

Right.....

 

[Ebbtide]

Sharpened pry bars do have a place.
If you like them, buy them. Buy lots of them
I even have one.

But lets remember, it's not what knife you buy that will save your bacon in a "Survival" situation, it's what you've got between your ears.

No bias here.
Just my humble opinion.
I still think chopping cinderblocks is silly.
I also think that destructive testing of mass produced knives, by third parties, in samples of one, are next to meaningless.
Entertaining reading? Sure.
Vicarious thrills for some? Sure.
But that's me. Opinions and noses, we all have one.

If Cliff is having fun 'doing the work' great.
But let's look at it for what it is, and not make it something that it isn't.

 

[Eric_425]

Cliff's reviews contain more consistency and volume of objective data than any others seen. Everything that can be measured, edge geometry to forces applied during testing, is. I don't think he's completely without bias, but he's the most objective reviewer found right now. None of his reviews have ever presented any knife as completely superior to any others...oftentimes, testing data is given without opinion at all. An $8 opinel may severely outcut an $800 custom when pointing a dowel. He'll present test data, unsugarcoated. Even data which, reflecting poorly on a popular maker on bladeforums, he knows will obviously get him flamed by it's supporters. It's usually suicide to one's credibility when going up against an established maker of any forum, regardless of the quality of the product. I don't want to be a jerk, but ebbtide, before declaring someone's reviews biased because he used the word "we" or set a tone with his 1st sentence, look at your own review.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173478

By your standards... if Cliff's reviews hints of bias... yours must be dripping with it.

 

[OwcA]

@Cliff:

They are not, that is why as noted I don't use them very often. In fact it states this right in the very review you quoted from, in the very line before you quoted

I intentionally haven't quoted anything since it's not just one isolated case. For example when you tested CRK Green Baret you were comparing it to Buck 119. If one looks at the review of 119, one can see that you have again modified the edge. The logical question at this point is what geometry was actually used in comparison and overall ranking since you state:

The edge was later modified after hard impacts and repeated tests against other blades, the new profile left the edge 0.019-0.022" thick and ground at 9.2 +/- 0.2 degrees per side.
...
The Buck 119 was used alongside the Green Beret to cut various metals with the initial edge as well as the slightly more acute modified edge.

Either way at least one set of results is missing, again casting a shadow of doubt over your work. If you want to make scientific comparisons I am all for it. If you want to play a scientist by all means do, it's your free time. Just make it clear which one is it.

That was based on work done by the Basic and using the fact that the Project chipped more readily on similar work, and the fact that the edge is more acute, thinner, softer and hollow ground. It pointed out that while the profile on the Project gave it a cutting advantage it had a downside as well. Not pointing that out would be a bias.

There isn't a single mention of chipping in regard to any other blade in that review. In fact you even state:

The Project handled the work well and the edge didn't chip or roll.

Why do you bother with error margins if in the end it all boils down to "similar" work and hidden parameters?
And by the way, a softer edge would, if anything, make it less prone to critical failure.

@thombrogan:

If you want to put it head-to-head with Cliff's test, perform the same tasks he performed and see how your performance compares.

The problem is that this is impossible since it seems that not all tests conducted are properly recorder, yet they are referenced in some conclusions. Either that or Cliff is making stuff up as suits him best for each debate he gets involved in. I have no intention in passing judgment, decide for yourself which one is it.

 

[Jeff Clark]

Cliff's bias is that he really likes to chop things with knives and he likes high cutting performance. He also has a bias towards long term durability. He doesn't want to see that he can chop something once or twice (like it was some rare emergency function) he wants to see that he can chop for hours or days on end. He worries about progressive breakdown of the edge and about a handle that forms blisters with long continuous use. On top of that he seems to be able to overstress blades during chopping tests more than most people. (I wonder if any of that is temperature related.) Given this bias he performs tests that explore areas where blades are subject to failure during chopping. It just happens that the staff at Busse and Swamp Rat seem to have a similar performance focus. They optimize their designs and test their designs to criteria that match Cliff's chopping tests. They will get referred to as examples of blades that cut well and can take it.

If you read his tests reports carefully you will find enough information to make your own decisions. You can discount or derate his tests to approximate your own uses and needs. For example I came away with a very positive impression of the Fehrman from this review. If I thought that I was going to do a lot of chopping in knotty wood I might decide to take the edge back a little bit and convex it with my belt sander. Since I think my use would be a lot lighter than his I would actually probably thin the edge down to a little under 15 degrees since I would want to optimize light brush clearing ability; ala a machete (that is my bias).

As an example of Cliff's bias you might look at his tests of the AG Russell Deer Hunter knives. http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/deerhunters.html These are thin bladed, ultra fine edged hunting knives. He not only compares their cutting performance and ability to cut through bone, but he stabs them into wood, splits wood, cuts metal, prys with them and stabs concrete blocks. My bias would have restricted my tests to cutting flesh, hide, and bone. If I did any battoning it would have been to see if I could quarter an elk with the blade. His bias is that everything should be durability tested as a camp/survival knife. First he will tell you how well it cuts and performs within its primary range of applications, but then he will go out there and show you its limits in something more like the survival arena. This might give you the impression that he thinks that the Swamp Rat Howling Rat is the only reasonable choice for a hunting knife. I don't think that is the case at all. He isn't trying to give you recommendations, he is trying to give you lots of information so you can pick knives that fit your own needs. He always gives you more information than you need. You just have to sift through it to pull out what is important for your purposes.

Rather than pick at his technique, I would rather pick his brain. For example, how would he fix the "rippling problem" on the Fehrman? Would he simply change the geometry or would he see the need for a different alloy and heat treatment (harder edge perhaps)?

On the matter of chopping concrete blocks, maybe people don't recognize why this is not as big a deal as it seems. Most of the time we don't build heavy duty structures with pure cement, we use concrete (cement with rocks added). Cement blocks are actually a concrete made with a very fine, sand-like, aggregate in place of rocks. Concrete blocks are neither first class cement nor a first class concrete. Compared to most cement and concrete they are both brittle and crumbly. Chopping into concrete blocks gives you a medium that offers some challenge to the blade, but it is limited and it is somewhat reproduceable. Concrete blocks are a relatively uniform and standardized product. You can find them anywhere and they will be pretty similar. Their biggest advantage is that chopping concrete blocks impresses the customers. In previous times a knife maker might have chopped bricks to make a similar impression. Bricks are even softer and more brittle than cement. You can chop bricks with a trowel if you know what you are doing.

 

[thombrogan]

I have contacts in a very secret intelligence organization who have revelead that anyone trying to invalidate the "results" of Cliff's reviwes is subject to assasination by a group of rouge seals who flipper their victims to death.

He must have seen this leak eventually making it through the system (hide while can!) as he hides behind anti-seal rhetoric.

The problem is that this is impossible since it seems that not all tests conducted are properly recorder, yet they are referenced in some conclusions. Either that or Cliff is making stuff up as suits him best for each debate he gets involved in.

You can still do your own tests and describe your own methods and your own results. Re-read those tests. See why the Buck 119 was modified (it wasn't bought new-in-box. If that upsets you, mail a new-in-box Buck 119 over to Cliff and see if he has time to review it. If you want him to compare it to a fresh Chris Reeve Green Beret, send him one of those, too). See why his testing methodologies changed as his experiences grew. The makers of the knives he's reviewed have built upon their previous knowledge to make better knives.

Imagine if every knife any maker sold was always exactly like the first one they ever made. They're changing things to suit them (and their customers), too, but in that context, as well as in the context of Cliff's reviews, that's not only fine, but highly expected.

What I got out of this review is that the Fehrman Extreme Judgement is an extremely well made knife, but it won't suit all users or perform certain tasks at certain levels without certain risks. It's great at being a Fehrman Extreme Judgement, but may be cumbersome compared to a Mnandi. It's great at being a survival/tactical knife, but it's not great at being a straight-razor and survival knife at the same time. I that doesn't matter to you, don't get upset about it. If that does matter to you, that will free up one more space on Eric Fehrman's waiting list as he's selling a tough, overbuilt survival knife to customers who want such things.

 

[OwenM]

If you read his tests reports carefully you will find enough information to make your own decisions. You can discount or derate his tests to approximate your own uses and needs. For example I came away with a very positive impression of the Fehrman from this review.

I agree, but I think most people don't read carefully. Anyone who reads carefully, will see that Cliff said the Extreme Judgment's chopping ability is on par with the Wildlife Hatchet(that is "extreme" cutting performance for a knife of this size). If they compare to his other reviews, they will see, for example, that the Camp Tramp's edge measured .058" at the start of the edge bevel, while the Fehrman's was less than half that, and while relatively light for its size, the Fehrman offers close to double the chopping performance. If they read carefully, they will see that Cliff stated that he had yet to test a knife with similar geometry that could handle the use that damaged the Fehrman.
I came away with a very positive impression, too.

 

[Ebbtide]

Hey Eric, you're not a jerk at all.
And thank you for digging that up, I lost that picture & didn't realize that it is still there.
So I wrote a glowing review. I still feel the same way about that knife.
I didn't break it.
I didn't compare it to another maker (production or custom).
I didn't imply that is was better or worse than any other knife.
And....
I didn't chop cinderblocks with it
That knife, at that time, was exactly what I wanted. Still is.

I didn't start posting in this thread to change Cliff.
Cliff is Cliff and he will continue to do as he pleases.
I did start posting in this thread to get people to think for themselves.
(As evidenced by you digging up a post from 3 1/2 years ago )
To read between the lines.
Not to accept one tester's (sample of one) results as gospel.
Not to be swayed by either craftily or poorly (I honestly don't know which) worded posts.

You'll notice that I haven't debated steel types, edge geometry and other 'technical' stuff in this thread.
The "issues" that I have are with the presentation of the information, here in the forums.
Maybe it's my 28 years in advertising that makes me notice the irregularities that I originally posted about.
In the thread about the RS that broke, I pointed out the clever and careful wording of the CS ads. Same thing here. Whether Cliff's words were carefully chosen (read: agenda) or honest mistakes...I don't know.

I pointed out the irregularities and got some of you to think for yourselves.
I'm done.

 

[lsstaipei]

I use my knife quite carefullly,therefore,I'm willing to trade a little bit durability for much more cutting performance,that's why I choose my hand-forged,edge-quenched, 12" "mountain knife" and the Japanese nata as my main jungle knives.After reading Mr.Stamp's review,I really want a Fehrman FJ.Edge rippled after chopping frozen knots?I don't care.I'dont use my knife like that.Hitting a rock?I'm reatively careful,I'm willing to take my chance.Anyway I really appreciate Mr.Stamp's efforts.

 

[J.Davey]

Holy crap, has this thread become a cheerleader-like slap fight, or what???? I'm sorry, but this was one guys review. A lot of people (myself included) like Cliff's reviews for the simple fact that he does push most knives he reviews to their limit (which many of us won't do with something we spent hundreds of dollars on). I'm not always happy with his reviews, but if an edge rippled or a blade broke, then that's what happened PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Maybe it was due to a manufaturing flaw or maybe it wasn't. The point is it happened. Even if he is biased, so what??? I don't know many knife enthusiasts that aren't biased to some extent. We all have our favorites, and we will always compare new knives to them. I think we would have all been better off taking this review for what it is; one person's opinion. With an opinion, there is no right or wrong; that's what makes it an OPINION. And that's what this post is; my opinion.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

For example when you tested CRK Green Baret you were comparing it to Buck 119. If one looks at the review of 119, one can see that you have again modified the edge.

As it was bought used. When I use a knife I end up modifiing it. Later on when I compare it to something odds are that it is therefore not stock. This is a monetary limitation mainly, if you want to see stock comparisons then I'll be happy to do them, just get me the stock knives. Otherwise I will be restricted to what I have at hand, and as noted clarify what is being done.

Either way at least one set of results is missing ...

No, it is all in the above. What you quoted was the summary. You need to read the review for it to make sense. In general this usually helps. A few sections above what you quoted I describe each comparion with the various geometries.

[project review]

There isn't a single mention of chipping in regard to any other blade in that review.

Again, read the full review not just pieces, specifically :

After 250-500 chops in wood, the edge was a little below shaving, and restored with 5-10 strokes on canvas followed by 5-10 on leather loaded with a CrO. This was repeated for a few sessions, however fractures set in readily. After 3000 chops the chips were about 1/50 of a millimeter deep and similar in width along the entire edge.

Why do you bother with error margins if in the end it all boils down to "similar" work and hidden parameters?

Some parts are closely controlled and thus error margins have meaning, other parts are not and thus bounds are very large and you are just looking at judgements like much better; better; similar; much worse; worse.

And by the way, a softer edge would, if anything, make it less prone to critical failure.

It would deform easier, and it chips out easier due to inherent properties of the steel.

I came away with a very positive impression, too.

I think you will like it if the handle suits you. You should also look at Murray Carter's camp knives. They are ground even thinner, 0.010". At this point though even chopping into knots can be a problem. I could not do it even on medium density wood going fairly light. Your skill level would need to be impressive, or the wood dead soft. But as a pure utility large cutter it is awesome. I picked one up awhile back.

And yes I do a lot of things that a lot of people are not interested in, this is because they are not wrote for any one individual, they are a complication of requests from many people. Pick what is meaningful to you.

-Cliff

 

[OwcA]

No, it is all in the above. What you quoted was the summary. You need to read the review for it to make sense. In general this usually helps. A few sections above what you quoted I describe each comparion with the various geometries.

If raw data (presented as befits a scientific report) is not sufficient to form a meaningful interpretation, test methodology is seriously flawed and any conclusion based on that data highly suspect.

Again, read the full review not just pieces, specifically :

How can you expect others to read carefully if you are unwilling to read a single sentence? I said "in regard to any other blade".

Some parts are closely controlled and thus error margins have meaning, other parts are not and thus bounds are very large and you are just looking at judgements like much better; better; similar; much worse; worse.

Such a judgment is something that should be done when interpreting collected results not a measurement in itself. Other vise error margins are just trinkets to impress layman.

It would deform easier, and it chips out easier due to inherent properties of the steel.

Yes it would, but a rolled edge is not a critical failure.
Which properties are you talking about? The way I see it, the more it deforms the more energy it burns.