Extreme testing of one of my D2 knives (with pics)

[Cliff Stamp]

There was no accident, it was a deliberate criminal act.

Of course it was not an accident. That doesn't make it criminal. It would be kind of idiotic though because it is likely you would get killed even if the car worked exactly as described.

People do intentionally crash cars, some even get together and compete by crashing their cars over and over until none of them can move. In doing so they depend on many attributes of the design to keep them safe.

It would be criminal if you did it with the intention to make money, like burning your house down and then going to the insurance company and of course not telling them you actually burnt it down.

Of course this doesn't even apply to the situation at hand because Razorback didn't even cite break points, the knife just needed sharpening. By the same reasoning any use of the knife which requires sharpening is abusive.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

Of course it was not an accident. That doesn't make it criminal.-Cliff

Uh...yes it does. You cited a controled event such as a demolition derby, the example was leaving the car dealership and deliberately crashing into a wall.

Try it and see how fast you will find out which crime that is. The first officer on the scene will be more than happy to explain it to you....assuming your still conscious that is.

People do intentionally crash cars, some even get together and compete by crashing their cars over and over until none of them can move. In doing so they depend on many attributes of the design to keep them safe.

Actually no they do not, they make extensive changes to the factory design to improve their saftey.

By the same reasoning any use of the knife which requires sharpening is abusive.

Most ridiculous statement in the history of this forum.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Try it and see how fast you will find out which crime that is.

What law are you breaking, you own the car and I assume the wall since you are conducting the test.

Actually no they do not, they make extensive changes to the factory design to improve their saftey.

Sure and they depend on others.

Most ridiculous statement in the history of this forum.

Razorback cited use which did nothing but have him sharpen the knife, he stated specifically that there was no chipping on the concrete block work it just dulled and he could still point wood with it - so how is that abusive. I have seen more wear on knives that were just extensively used cutting carpet and cardboard for extensive periods of time. They were blunted long past the point you could cut anything with them.

-Cliff

 

[Gossman Knives]

This will be my last post in this thread. First and formost I would like to apolgize for the fact that this thread was taken off topic. The main intent of me posting the test, was to share the results. This testing was done only to see how my heat treat worked out. It was not to test it against other knives in it's class. I was not making any claims about my knives. It was purely to see how my heat treat turned out. Anyone who reads this thread only need to concern themselves with the first post. That was the original intent of this thread. I'd like to thank everyone for their imput that concerned the original intent of the test. No one is perfect and we as humans are not always consistent in our work. Mistakes will be made in anything we do as people. You as the knife buyer need to draw your own conclusions from your own experience and not from someone else's. Someone else's experience must only be used for reference that you draw your own conclusion from. You and only you should be the one who decides what is best for you. I will always be a student of the blade forever wanting to learn and improve. I'll end it with a thank you to all who support me in my knifemaking efforts.
Scott

 

[Ebbtide]

:music up:
And so ends this week's episode of
As The Cinder Block Chops

Tune in next week, same block time, same block station.

Brought to you by
Dewey, Cheatham & Howe Attornys at law
And
I.B. Lyon Concrete Specialties

:music down:

Fade to black.

 

[Robbie Roberson]

Scott, you don't need to apologize for nothing. You did a great test/review on your D-2 knives with great pics.

As Kaosu04 said, simple.

I say, your making a great outdoor knife, keep it up, thanks.


Robbie Roberson

P.S. You don't need to respond to my post either

 

[STR]

Dido Scott. Great test and I now want to know more about that little knife and see the sheath and talk to you about maybe obtaining one for myself.

I like the style of it and the shape of the blade. Looks like a real winner to me.

As for the comments on the warranty. Most companies would call this test outside of normal use, and yes that goes for the ones that stab their knives into 50 gallon steel drums. Anyone can see that it is not the normal use of a knife. Anyone can see that stabbing a tanto blade through a steel drum or the hood of a car is not normal use also.

By the way, Cold Steel has a standard statement in their catalogs, and on their web site and in their proof videos and dvds. It is in small print but it is there and it reads:

"Most of the tests shown in MORE PROOF and SWORD PROOF are dangerous and should not be duplicated. These 'destructive tests' constitute gross abuse of a blade. Duplicating these tests or altering your knife or sword will void the warranty. The warranty covers defects in materials and/or workmanship. It does not cover abuse or the effects of normal wear and tear"

 

[knifetester]

IF they try to disclaim warranty covering acts they themselves perform to promote the knife can that be anything other than pure hype?

Again, I am not a lawyer, and do not proport or claim to give legal advise, however from my layman's perspective, and a basic knowledge of the UCC, it is arguable whether such a disclaimer in regards to an express warranty would be valid. Yes, performing or representing that the knife can perform certain tasks by demonstration is in fact an express warranty. (at least in my non-lawyer layman opinion.) So by making an express warranty by demonstration, they would then be estopped from validly disclaiming it.

It does get more complex though. While waranty provides strict liabilty, without regards to fault, it does not impose absolute liability, as in the car in the wall example might illustrate. Is this assumption of the risk? Is that a defense under warranty theory? Beats me, ask a lawyer.

No wonder Prosser deemed warranty theory to be the bastard child of the illicit union between torts and contracts.

It gets further complicated when you consider that the example given only cover warranty theory, not products liability, i.e. 402a of the Restatement of Torts.

If a seller puts a product into the stream of commerce, and a defect in design or manufacture makes it unreasonably unsafe, the seller/ maker will be striclty liable for the harm that results.
Aside from quasi-legal arguments, there are some pragmatic reasons not to engage in this hype. While I rarely need a big chopper, if I did I would look to someone like Justin Gingrich or Eric Issacson, just because of the strong warranties they offer, which translates into a strong confidence in theior knives.

Look at Bill Martino's warranty (something likeif something goes wrong, or you don't like the knife, I will make it right) how can you not prefer to buy a product from a maker/ seller like this rather than "defect in materials or workmanship, no abuse.", especially where the maker attempts to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes abuse.

Simply put, any claim that a maker makes either through words or demonstration in order to promote their product and is not supported (warranted) is pure hype. If you make a claim, be willing to back it up.

Edited to add: My comments above where in reference to Cold Steel's acts, as stated by STR. My comments were not directed towards Scott. Why the difference? Because Scott made his post to share his QC/ HT testing and R&D, not to promote his knives, as he clearly states. Whereas, Cold Steel puts out the Proof video in order to promote/ advertise their knives. This is an important distinction.

Again, I thank Scott for having the courage to share his R&D/QC teesting with us, I with more makers would. It shows confidence in their designs and ability, and by allowing people to comment, shows they are open to make improvements.

 

[DGG]

DDG, you're right about the other testing which would test edge retention more then strength. It will get a work out this fall when I hit the woods in pursuit of whitetails.
Scott

Good, that's the proof of the pudding. All this other stuff is BS IMHO. FYI a bone-saw is easier to quarter a deer and split a pelvis than a knife no matter how strong the knife is.

 

[Gossman Knives]

Good, that's the proof of the pudding. All this other stuff is BS IMHO. FYI a bone-saw is easier to quarter a deer and split a pelvis than a knife no matter how strong the knife is.

I know I said above that was my last post but I wanted to respond to DGG's comment. You are correct that the other tests are BS for the owner of the knife. As a maker the testing I did was to be certain that obtained a level of hardness in the blade so that it will hold an edge. If the HT is not done right it will not hold an edge. I could have more easily done it with a rockwell tester but I do not have one at my disposal. The tests show that I acheived the hardness I was looking for. I also test with a metal file. If it skates after hardening and tempering then you have properly HTed the steel. Once again everyone, thank you
Scott

 

[Brian Jones]

Scott,

Excellent tests, thanks for sharing it. The hallmark of a great up and coming maker is his willingness to learn and share, and share honest results. That, for me, is the only thing that generates confidence in a maker. I know when you deliver a knife to someone, you won't let it out unless it rocks. Can't wait to play with one of your knives soon. I'm around today, so will call.

Knifetester,

Regarding Cold Steel, etc., and warranties in general, I agree to a point that if they are showing gorss abuse of the blade and it survives, there is a certain implied guarantee in some ways. But the legal disclaimers protect them. We all know Cold Steel is a lot of hype, but not to Lynn. He really is that energetic and really does believe what he says! Now, that is his personality, so take it for what it's worth.

Trying to see their side of it, maybe it could be argued that they are showing that, if you happen to find yourself in extreme conditions, or accidentally brutalize your knife, that there is an excellent chance of the knife surviving. They happen to be doing one set of activities that show this result, but the results of abuse and not the methods are what count.

When I'm in an extreme environment (such as a survival situation), and all I have is my knife, I'm not thinking about a warranty at the time if the knife is used hard. I'm worried about getting out alive -- and having confidence that knife knife won't fail. The warranty won't save my life!

So, I think part of it is generating customer confidence. And it's fun to watch them do stupid things to knives anyway. I wonder how many outtakes there were (knife breaking, etc.). Did anyone see band-aids on the testers in the videos? Anyone killed or grieviously wounded???

 

[knifetester]

When I'm in an extreme environment (such as a survival situation), and all I have is my knife, I'm not thinking about a warranty at the time if the knife is used hard. I'm worried about getting out alive -- and having confidence that knife knife won't fail. The warranty won't save my life!

Yes, I suppose when Davenport (I think) was sliding down the galcier and dug his Ontario PSK into the ice to slow his desent, he was not thinking warranty issues.

if they are showing gorss abuse of the blade and it survives, there is a certain implied guarantee in some ways.

I think it is an express warranty by demostration.

But the legal disclaimers protect them.

I don't think it does. I think that by making an express warranty by demonstration, the disclaimer is not valid, the would be esptopped (precluded) unless they were very specific about the purposes of the demonstration. If it was to promote their knives, i.e. induce customers to buy them, then it is a warranty in my mind.

I don't think you can both offer an express warranty and then in the same breath discalim it.

But again, that is a pretty techincal legal argument and I am not an attorney, just offering a lay opinion base on limited knowledge and facts.

There are lots of lawyers on the forum, perhaps one will add some info.

Anyways, it has been a long time since I saw the Proof video, I remember that it was amusing though!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Good, that's the proof of the pudding. All this other stuff is BS IMHO. FYI a bone-saw is easier to quarter a deer and split a pelvis than a knife no matter how strong the knife is.

Heavy impact work is more to deal with accidental inclusions rather than dedicated chopping through bone/concrete, however I ran chopping vs saw trials on caribou legs and it was way faster to just chop them up than saw them, and yes you can easily get knives which will do it with no damage and they are in fact designed to do so.

Anyone can see that it is not the normal use of a knife. Anyone can see that stabbing a tanto blade through a steel drum or the hood of a car is not normal use also.

Depends on the knife, some are designed for it, some are not.

"Most of the tests shown in MORE PROOF and SWORD PROOF are dangerous and should not be duplicated. These 'destructive tests' constitute gross abuse of a blade. Duplicating these tests or altering your knife or sword will void the warranty. The warranty covers defects in materials and/or workmanship. It does not cover abuse or the effects of normal wear and tear"

Yes that is why the tests are meaningless hype.

If you make a claim, be willing to back it up.

On an interesting note, this only gets applied to the durability work, you rarely see anyone refuse to guarantee other aspects of performance such as edge retention, but it would be hard to argue that, whereas for some reason people tolerate durability claims and see a huge distinction between accidental and deliberate testing in that regard.

I would wonder if it just applies to knives, would people have the same problem with taking a steel toe boot and hitting it with a hammer to test the toe insert, or pressing it into a nail to see how much weight it would take to fail, I have done both, I wasn't going to walk around a construction site with a plate that could not take walking on a nail.

Because Scott made his post to share his QC/ HT testing and R&D, not to promote his knives, as he clearly states.

Legally I can see where a distinction can be drawn, however if someone buys the knives because of performance statements made by makers, are they not responsible to live up to them irregardless of why they made them. At a basic level they are either true or false, if they are true then what is the problem, and if they are false why are they saying them?

[edge thickness]

At a 1/16" back it's 0.075 at 1/8" back it's 0.108"

Given this cross section, the lack of damage is understandable, in comparison here are the thickness of a few knives at the 1/8" back from the edge :

22" Ang Khola khukuri : 0.075"
Safari Skinner : 0.040"
Spyderco Temperance : 0.026"
Dozier K2 : 0.016"
Krein/U2 : 0.012"

Edge angle and thickness make a huge influence on damage, with enough cross section you can make anything durable enough, this is why you should also give the corrosponding test which shows the opposite property. For example while durability is enhanced by cross section, cutting ability is lowered. So chop up and poke a block, and then press cut / slice some rope and stab a soft target and show at what cost the durability is obtained. The tougher steels can prevent damage in slimmer profiles.

In regards to makers sharing work, it is always appreciated, however discussion and debate over what the work actually shows should be encouraged, this is how you learn. Awhile back I sent some results of edge retention work to Wilson as I thought I had discovered something interesting, he didn't think my conclusions were correct and after some thought I checked it with some more work of a different path. I learned because he challenged it, had he not done so I might still think the same erronous conclusion.

If you want to learn you encourage debate and contention, only people who want to soap box do otherwise.

-Cliff

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes, I suppose when Davenport (I think) was sliding down the galcier and dug his Ontario PSK into the ice to slow his desent, he was not thinking warranty issues.

Chas Clements noted similar way back on rec.knives, in a discussion about durability. My brother used a Basic #7 as a stepping platform while free climbing, he had the faith in the blade due to the performance claims made by Busse being covered under the warrenty, and the fact that he had witnessed many of them being tested by me, and done them himself. Of course if you are in a situation where it is do it or else, then you take your chance anyway as if it breaks well you are no less screwed anyway, however being sure it won't is kind of nice.

-Cliff

 

[knifetester]

Legally I can see where a distinction can be drawn, however if someone buys the knives because of performance statements made by makers, are they not responsible to live up to them irregardless of why they made them. At a basic level they are either true or false, if they are true then what is the problem, and if they are false why are they saying them?

I think the distinction is logical as well. If you want to hold a maker liable in warranty for all statements made, this will result in no makers sharing knowledge or their testing process.

I have no doubt that what Scott is saying is true: Why he did the test, why he published them, he performed those tests, and that was the extent of the damage.

He has also stated that is not the intended use of his knives. Therefore, it is not logical to hold him to strict liability for those statements.

If a kydex sheath maker discussing the attributes of kydex notes that his sheath was run over by a bulldozer on accident and survived, it is just a commentary. Not a promotional claim. IT is not logical to extend warranty liability for "bulldozer run over failures" to him based on his comment.

Just think what kind of chilling effect on the free interplay of ideas that would impose.

however I ran chopping vs saw trials on caribou legs and it was way faster to just chop them up than saw them, and yes you can easily get knives which will do it with no damage and they are in fact designed to do so.

This is a Ron Hood test as well. It shows serious toughness. I ahve never chopped any leg bones, but I would venture this is not a trivial tasks for most knives.

here are the thickness of a few knives at the 1/8" back from the edge

While that is very interesting, I think a more suitable comparison is a measurement at 1/16" back, where Scott's knife is .075" because that is the cross section that matter in this application given the localized damage shown. Cross section further back is fairly irrelevent, since the damage did not extend into the primary grind to that extent. In fact, I think the damage was confined to the edge of the knife, so that is really the measurement that is important.

Heavy cross section far back in the primary grind does not add much, if any, edge durability which what is being showen here. By analogy, a GB axe is over an 1" thick a couple inches from the edge, but the edge is very fine. Because there is little cross section at the point of impact, it is more easliy dmagaed than a thicker edged tool. The fact that it is thick at the poll does not help the edge.

Extra thickness through the body of th balde adds strength to the balde for prying or other lateral strength, or just adds mass for more energy. It does not make the edge stronger or weaker.

For example while durability is enhanced by cross section, cutting ability is lowered.

True.

The tougher steels can prevent damage in slimmer profiles.

True. Conversely, really strong steels can also prevent damage because the stress level exerted is not enough to plastically deform the steel. Ie.e420V rope chopping blades that would surive wear really tough 1050 blade at identical geometry (very thin) would fail by rolling.

 

[sak_collector]

It is sometimes difficult to imagine how some people can spend so much energy on semantics. Showing what a particular knife is able to withstand to the point of destruction is not a concrete statement that it should automatically be covered under warranty.

The knife I have that is probably used the most for heavy work and possibly abuse is my Becker-9. It has been used to chop, dig, pry and all the other good stuff. It has even on accident smacked the occasional rock. If I am out chopping, and OOPS, must have been a rock there and the blade broke, I would probably take a shot at warranty service. If however I go out in the yard, find a rock and repeatedly and purposely smacked it over and over until the blade broke, that is no fault of the knife...it would just make me an idiot.

Remember the old super glue commercials where some guy is hanging from an I-beam because his hard-hat is glued to the beam? They are trying to demonstrate that the glue can hold under extreme circumstances. I think common sense would tell you that to try the same stunt over and over until the glue lets go and then claim it was all hype is a pretty good demonstration of stupidity.

Personally I enjoyed reading the extreme testing of the knife in this thread. I in no way took it as an implication though that I could order one of the knives along with a stack of cinder blocks and go to work turning them into dust. What the test does tell me is that if I ordered the knife, I could use it as a knife and if I absolutely had to use it to break a cinder block (dont know why I would) then I probably could assuming a better tool was not available.

It has become almost dangerous for a company/maker to report any of the findings from testing their knives. I mean, if I made a knife and tested it and found that I could cut 100 pieces of cardboard and reported it and somebody set out to imply I was lying then I am automatically at a disadvantage. Lets say this self appointed knife-testing-god got one of my knives, they test it and can only cut 90 pieces, then would I be subject to claiming my knife is all hype?

Lets try a little common sense here. I know there are knives that are supposed to be able to support the weight of a couple of grown men, or more. That should show you that the knife is capable of supporting a lot of weight, and if you are in a situation that calls for it, you probably have a pretty good chance of doing it. It does not mean that is the actual purpose of the knife, nor does it mean you are supposed to hang from it as many times as it take to finally break it and then claim it is faulty.

Go ahead, tear this post apart bit by bit.

 

[Bastid]

Go ahead, tear this post apart bit by bit.

I can not it hits the nail right on the head.

(or should I say cinder block)

This was a thread about tests a maker performed on his knife.
The rest is B.S. in regards to the thread.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think the distinction is logical as well. If you want to hold a maker liable in warranty for all statements made, this will result in no makers sharing knowledge or their testing process.

Most makers are well aware that I use knives heavily and will actively check performance claims. This doesn't stop a lot of them from talking to me about the performance. Many get really specific in emails so I can actually try to repeat what they are doing as they want me to do the work as they are interested in the confirmation or refutation. My point of view is quite simple, your knives should be able to perform as you describe them performing. That is all.

He has also stated that is not the intended use of his knives. Therefore, it is not logical to hold him to strict liability for those statements.

Consider the statements :

"I only did this to prove to myself that my D2 knives with my heat treat are up to hard use in the field."

Now isn't this a statement of performance to the consumer, clarifed in :

"I was merely employing some extreme conditions that may be encountered in the wilderness. The possibility of hitting rock and metal in the wild is very real."

However, lets say he never said any of that, and just assume you did it out of curiously and the blade performed massively different, isn't it still evidence it is obviously defective and should be replaced?

Here is a similar question, let's assume that Razorback got a new batch of steel from a different manufacturer and repeated the tests, and the knife performed radically worse. How would he (or you) react?

How would you feel if you contacted the steel manufacturer and they said "What are you getting on about, that isn't the expected use of your knife is it?"

IT is not logical to extend warranty liability for "bulldozer run over failures" to him based on his comment.

Depends on how it is presented, if someone says, how durable are your sheaths and that is the answer it certainly is a promotional claim. You can easily word it otherwise though :

"Yeah it got ran over, it survived ok, but I think I got lucky there."

It is clear this isn't a promotion of performance.

I think a more suitable comparison is a measurement at 1/16" back, where Scott's knife is .075"

Ang Khola : 0.037"
K2 : 0.015"
Safari Skinner : 0.024"
Temperance : 0.020"

Don't have the U2, but it is close to flat there, so half the 1/8" thickness.

[vs 100]

...they test it and can only cut 90 pieces, then would I be subject to claiming my knife is all hype?

You would have to argue the difference is significant and it would be hard to do so given difference in cardboard, user cut speed, and a reasonable variance from knife to knife.

I try to be fairly controlled cutting cardboard and the results are never exact from one run to the next, even averaging 3-4 runs the precision is rarely below 10%. One shot comparisons would be expected to be significantly more divergent.

In the above case the user and maker would discuss exactly how they did the cutting and the maker would have to decide if the difference either indicated a defective blades or was simply due to differences between him and the user.

If I was the maker the first thing I would do is just ask them to repeat it a few times to check the consistency, and knowing how it was when I did it would be in a position to make a decent evaluation.

This actually came up on the Busse forum. Someone took a BM and attempted the cutting Busse has done in the past and got different results. They just discussed the method and worked out why the results were different.

I don't get the same results Wilson does when he does rope cutting for example because I use a different finish and cut in a slightly different manner and use a different method to judge the stopping point.

-Cliff

 

[JD Mandrell]

Yes, I suppose when Davenport (I think) was sliding down the galcier and dug his Ontario PSK into the ice to slow his desent, he was not thinking warranty issues.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JD Mandrell]

if I absolutely had to use it to break a cinder block (dont know why I would)

WHAT??? You mean you have never been attacked by a ravaging band of mall ninjas armed with Kung Pao Bricks?