Folder Features: Necessity and Excess

[stealthchaser13]

all I need is a sharp blade that wont dull from one very easy cut. 440 is perfectly fine with me (actually I don't believe I own any knives with steels "better than" 440)
I also need something that will lock (even a slipjoint is included in this), so it will not close on my hand/fingers.
I also like having a clip if its a larger knife, so that it doesn't take up a six-load of room inside my pocket, and is easily gotten out; If its a slipjoint, there is no need for a pocket clip, because it will ride down inside my pocket.

 

[Charlie Mike]

Tactically, all you need is a toothbrush, a concrete floor, and a rectal cavity

 

[TLR]

Since I already published the response below I will leave it in a lighter shade.

After going back and re-reading your initial post I think we are just coming at this from two different directions. Your premise is that we only need "a sharpened bar of steel."

You then asked what we think are "essential" to components of a folding knife.

My disagreement with your initial statement lies in your blanket definition of what "excessive" means.

My premise is that you can't define "excessive" without defining usage.

So to try and add something constructive to this thread let me state that my bare minimum for a knife designed for cutting simple and everyday items (not steel, rock, concrete or prying) is this-

A hardened blade of tool quality steel
A mechanism to hold the blade in an open position (but not necessarily locked)
A comfortable and fairly durable handle material.

I see, next time let others post their opinions but don't post mine. Gotcha.

Not at all what I'm saying. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

After your last post I just realized that you were trying to make a point and not really looking for a discussion. That's fine with me.

In the future I would simply suggest that you either choose to create a thread for discussion or make a statement without disguising it as a discussion. Just my .02

I'll leave it from here.

Oh and CM- Dude that's not tactical or right

 

[Kaizen1]

Not at all what I'm saying. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

After your last post I just realized that you were trying to make a point and not really looking for a discussion. That's fine with me.

In the future I would simply suggest that you either choose to create a thread for discussion or make a statement without disguising it as a discussion. Just my .02

I'll leave it from here.

Oh and CM- Dude that's not tactical or right

Interesting how you insist on telling me what I intended despite all evidence to the contrary as shown by my continued conversations with so many in this thread. I didn't agree with your approach and you felt rejected.

 

[TLR]

Kaizen1

I edited my previous post as you were posting please reread post #43

 

[Kaizen1]

Since I already published the response below I will leave it in a lighter shade.

After going back and re-reading your initial post I think we are just coming at this from two different directions. Your premise is that we only need "a sharpened bar of steel."

You then asked what we think are "essential" to components of a folding knife.

My disagreement with your initial statement lies in your blanket definition of what "excessive" means.

My premise is that you can't define "excessive" without defining usage.

So to try and add something constructive to this thread let me state that my bare minimum for a knife designed for cutting simple and everyday items (not steel, rock, concrete or prying) is this-

A hardened blade of tool quality steel
A mechanism to hold the blade in an open position (but not necessarily locked)
A comfortable and fairly durable handle material.

I apologize if I came off as rude in any way.

After we seemed to agree that even the folding aspect of a knife could be considered "excessive", I thought we were on the same page. Addressing the line of questioning that you posed afterward seemed to go backward from there, though I realize you were simply trying to see if that might have lead to maybe a more substantial discussion.

Though I see merit in going that direction, I thought it might lead us back to the larger misconception that many folks (I feel) have been harboring on these forums over the past couple of weeks. Specifically that in going down that road and labeling those answers as "necessary" features, we might end up justifying the superiority complexes so many have been exhibiting. So I decided not to do so and left it open for debate. And then we started our little quarrel, probably because of the way I posted my words. Tonality isn't conveyed so easily and it's easy for me to forget that before clicking the "submit reply" button.

Your answer here seems to me to be really getting down to the bare bones, the necessities.

 

[Kaizen1]

BTW, I don't completely think the usage point is invalid. I just don't think it's as relevant as we tend to think it is. For instance, if we have a smaller blade but need to chop something, we might use our smaller blade to make a stone ax. As effective as a steel ax? Of course not. But once we have a usable ax in hand, anything above that is a matter of convenience to whatever degree.

 

[TLR]

Kaizen1 - No worries.I certainly made a mistake that I know better than to make which is to continue down a line of thinking without constantly re-engaging the initial thought.

I see where you're heading... now onto the knives.

 

[hardheart]

'Hard use' knives have a different spine thickness, primary grind, blade shape, tip strength, etc. They cut differently from light users. Expensive knives have no such distinction. They are either expensive hard users, or they are expensive light users. But, they are still expensive. People spend whatever they want without necessarily changing how much force is required to cut & slice. One is an issue of what we want our knives to do, the other is an issue of what we want our knives to represent. Tangible vs intangible. The line blurs in high-end production or custom, but it's there.

Someone could buy a CS Lawman, or they could get the custom version from Andrew Demko. Someone else could buy a Case swayback Jack, or they could buy one made by Tony Bose. One guy wants a hard use knife, one guy doesn't. These guys either spend a lot, or they spend relatively little. It's doubtful either one would be happy with the other guy's choice for whatever the job at hand is, regardless of cost. Choosing a 'sharpened prybar' or the new derogatory term 'cheese cutter' is a matter of what you want the knife to do, not what you think about the expense. Both kinds of knives are represented at all price levels.

Hard use has nothing to do with mere excess. It is about tradeoffs in actual cutting, prying, or other. Relative to the 'typical' knife, excessive ability to be pried with means relative loss in ease of cutting. Excessive thinning of the stock or grind angles for ease of slicing means a loss in ability to take lateral force. Excessive spending on a knife doesn't do anything of the sort.

"Hey, don't criticize my wanting hard use, you spend a lot of money on knives." I don't even know how a guy who pays Strider, Carrillo, or Hinderer prices could say this. Those are both hard use and expensive. If the premise of this thread is asking people to look into the deep down question of 'Where do you get off saying X when you do Y.', then what do we say about the guys representing both?

I don't need a folding knife, regardless of features or cost.

 

[TLR]

I think "practicality" and "convenience" is where our excesses begin when it comes to folding knives in particular.

I think that the bare minimum of a modern knife is a bar of hardened steel that is sharpened to some length with an unsharpened length suitable for holding. If that is the bare minimum then everything else comes down to "practicality and convenience." This certainly encompasses why a folding knife exists.

I believe that the point where a pocket knife crosses in to being "excessive" is when it's design exceeds it's practical usage. Perhaps this occurs when a knifes design limits it's function as a cutting implement for the intended usage.

Following this line of reasoning an xm-18 would be excessive for filleting a trout and a bar of steel that is sharpened but functions better as a crow bar rather than a cutting instrument (which I believe is a necessary function of anything defined as a knife) is also excessive. Both however have their place which is why this is such a hard thing to even begin to quantify or address.

 

[hardheart]

I think that the bare minimum of a modern knife is a bar of hardened steel that is sharpened to some length with an unsharpened length suitable for holding.

That is merely a definition, which I agree is all you can do in setting a minimum with no other parameters. A knife needs to have this to be considered a knife. That's just the minimum to exist, not to necessarily be useful or even needed.

The folding knife in any form is excessive, it is a tool for mechanical advantage, convenience, speed, etc. We could eat grubs and berries and live out our days without one, even without a stone tool, so they are not absolutely needed, but they make things a lot easier. It's what they make easier, or even capable, that shows the difference. Again, this is where 'hard use' comes in. A hard user makes some thing capable, while making the initial use of a knife, cutting, just a little harder than it would be if the knife were not 'hard use'. But if you 'need' to chop or pry, there you go.

 

[Kaizen1]

'Hard use' knives have a different spine thickness, primary grind, blade shape, tip strength, etc. They cut differently from light users. Expensive knives have no such distinction. They are either expensive hard users, or they are expensive light users. But, they are still expensive. People spend whatever they want without necessarily changing how much force is required to cut & slice. One is an issue of what we want our knives to do, the other is an issue of what we want our knives to represent. Tangible vs intangible. The line blurs in high-end production or custom, but it's there.

Someone could buy a CS Lawman, or they could get the custom version from Andrew Demko. Someone else could buy a Case swayback Jack, or they could buy one made by Tony Bose. One guy wants a hard use knife, one guy doesn't. These guys either spend a lot, or they spend relatively little. It's doubtful either one would be happy with the other guy's choice for whatever the job at hand is, regardless of cost. Choosing a 'sharpened prybar' or the new derogatory term 'cheese cutter' is a matter of what you want the knife to do, not what you think about the expense. Both kinds of knives are represented at all price levels.

Hard use has nothing to do with mere excess. It is about tradeoffs in actual cutting, prying, or other. Relative to the 'typical' knife, excessive ability to be pried with means relative loss in ease of cutting. Excessive thinning of the stock or grind angles for ease of slicing means a loss in ability to take lateral force. Excessive spending on a knife doesn't do anything of the sort.

"Hey, don't criticize my wanting hard use, you spend a lot of money on knives." I don't even know how a guy who pays Strider, Carrillo, or Hinderer prices could say this. Those are both hard use and expensive. If the premise of this thread is asking people to look into the deep down question of 'Where do you get off saying X when you do Y.', then what do we say about the guys representing both?

I think you're missing some points that have been covered. For instance, me owning a higher end "hard use" knife in no way invalidates the argument put forth. The OP is stating that going above a specific price point given today's technology of knife making is a matter of convenience and luxury. Whether it's $20 above that point or $1000 above that point has no relevance to that. The principle is the same. So what, the guy who spends X+$2 can't point out to the guy that spends X+$1 that they're both discussing luxury? That's ridiculous I think. It's an ad hominem.

If the point I made is valid, then getting ANY "hard use knife" whether it cost $60 or $600 is "both" by definition. Even so, that has no relevance to the issue.

The arguments put forth against hard use knives is that whatever features they have that make them "hard use", such as thicker blades for prying, etc are indeed excessive for a knife. Like putting a blow horn a knife. The arguments are that the added thicknesses, etc are essentially superfluous, which I think can reasonably be considered "excessive."

The price point, as mentioned in the OP exceed some dollar amount is a reflection of materials, fit and finish, etc. Even if you don't consider the price to be a "feature", what that price reflects, certainly is.

 

[TLR]

That is merely a definition, which I agree is all you can do in setting a minimum with no other parameters. A knife needs to have this to be considered a knife. That's just the minimum to exist, not to necessarily be useful or even needed.

The folding knife in any form is excessive, it is a tool for mechanical advantage, convenience, speed, etc. We could eat grubs and berries and live out our days without one, even without a stone tool, so they are not absolutely needed, but they make things a lot easier. It's what they make easier, or even capable, that shows the difference. Again, this is where 'hard use' comes in. A hard user makes some thing capable, while making the initial use of a knife, cutting, just a little harder than it would be if the knife were not 'hard use'. But if you 'need' to chop or pry, there you go.

I agree on both counts. Which is why I think rather than arguing excessiveness based on the bare minimum definition of a knife you have to examine the premise based on use and ability to cut. I do think there is a point where a "sharpened prybar" begins to exceed the definition of knife but that is pretty extreme.

If I have an argument in the "hard use" genre it is that to me the lock is generally seen as the defining characteristic of a modern "hard use" knife and I think that might be a mistake.

 

[TLR]

BTW, I don't completely think the usage point is invalid. I just don't think it's as relevant as we tend to think it is. For instance, if we have a smaller blade but need to chop something, we might use our smaller blade to make a stone ax. As effective as a steel ax? Of course not. But once we have a usable ax in hand, anything above that is a matter of convenience to whatever degree.

By the way I agree with you in this. I would say however that if we are already accepting certain conveniences (such as a folding knife)then it becomes harder to define what is an excessive convenience as it becomes much less objective and much more relative to a task and the users preferences.

 

[hardheart]

The arguments put forth against hard use knives is that whatever features they have that make them "hard use", such as thicker blades for prying, etc are indeed excessive for a knife. Like putting a blow horn a knife. The arguments are that the added thicknesses, etc are essentially superfluous, which I think can reasonably be considered "excessive."

As I said, I don't think it's about 'excess' or 'luxury', it's about gain/loss. This is also why I don't see the comparison to price. Excess thickness isn't simply superfluous in the minds of proponents or critics, it's performance changing. 'Excess' thickness alters cutting & prying ability. Some people want that change, some people don't, but it's a change in how the knife acts as a knife. Paying for carbon fiber vs G10 over full liners, adding scrimshaw or engraving don't do that. They are excesses for the sake of excess, not to change how the knife functions but because we like them. The only time 'hard use' features are superfluous is when they aren't used-but they still can be used to different effect. You don't need to spend more than $30 to get a knife that works. You do need to have a hard use knife for hard use, if there is a definition of that. We've already covered what a 'knife' is, and the minimum to meet that. Now we just need the definition of a hard use knife.

 

[Charlie Mike]

To a degree, it is about luxury. At that point you have to ask "Do you want a Rolex Submariner or an equally priced Patek?" ... Both are luxury items and both have their uses. You can get a folding tank from Andrew Demko for $450 for the base model. Or you could buy a custom MOP/damascus slipjoint for the same amount. It all matters on what you expect from your knife. Will you ever need to baton with a folder? Or do you need a piece of functional bling to go with the Patek Philipe. Both knives are worth it.

 

[hardheart]

I think we can't determine luxury or excess without the definition first. We have a definition of sorts now, and if we stick to it, then being made of steel, being hardened, having an edge, and having a handle are not superfluous. But, does the blade have to be steel? Does it have to be hardened steel? How sharp is sharp, and does it get too sharp? Do you need a handle? Is the knife a luxury item itself, compared to a flintknapped rock or our fingernails and teeth? I would say no, that takes it too far because we have to keep the concept in luxury grounded in current reality. Is a homeless person experiencing the luxury of owning a single set of clothes and a pair of shoes because ancestors were naked? What if this person was wearing a Kiton suit?

Back to our knife definition-what kind of steel, how hard, how thick, how is it sharpened? All of this effects what is normal & 'hard' use. We have a rough definition of a knife. But in that definition, I could have a two-foot long, half-inch thick piece of 4140 with about an inch of cutting edge, and it would be a prybar with the ability to sort of cut some small stuff. Just what is a knife? A parer, a kukri, the Tom Brown Tracker, a William Henry Kestrel? Well, yes, all shapes and sizes.

I don't think there is 'hard' use. There is use of a tool for what it was designed for, and there is misuse. Hitting things is not hard use for a hammer. Prying things is not hard use for a wrecking bar. Turning screws is not hard use for a screwdriver. But, they are designed to do these things, and under a certain load, with some level of safety factor. You go beyond that, you aren't using your tools hard, you're using them wrong. Everyone should always use the right tool for the job, and maybe that tool is an sak or a folder with a 1/4 inch thick spine.

I think the real problem is the lack of identifiable separation between hard use and light/medium use folders. I've seen people post about doing things that are not a challenge to most knives. The 'hard' use doesn't come in from the task, but from performing the task wrong. The hard users aren't better at getting the job done, they're better at surviving doing the job wrong. Cost has nothing to do with that, and function is not a matter of excess or luxury.

 

[heekma]

Kaizen,

I get the point you're making. I guess a person could also argue that anything more than a bus token is excessive for transportation needs.

I guess I could also tool around in a 1981 Datsun 310 like the one I owned in High school. Strictly speaking, it's cheap, basic transportation, so anything nicer would be excess.

You can take the bus or drive the Datsun if you want, I'll gladly take a more excessive route and enjoy my trip.

Best,
heekma

 

[heekma]

Kaizen,

I get the point you're making. A person could also argue that anything more than a bus token is excessive for transportation needs.

I could also tool around in a 1981 Datsun 310 like the one I owned in High school. Strictly speaking, it's cheap, basic transportation, so anything nicer would be excess.

You can take the bus or drive the Datsun if you want, I'll gladly drive something more excessive and enjoy my trip.

Best,
heekma

 

[Boats]

The arguments put forth against hard use knives is that whatever features they have that make them "hard use", such as thicker blades for prying, etc are indeed excessive for a knife. Like putting a blow horn a knife. The arguments are that the added thicknesses, etc are essentially superfluous, which I think can reasonably be considered "excessive."

The above is a misstatement of the critics' actual position on this trendy class of knives.

I think the real problem is the lack of identifiable separation between hard use and light/medium use folders. I've seen people post about doing things that are not a challenge to most knives. The 'hard' use doesn't come in from the task, but from performing the task wrong. The hard users aren't better at getting the job done, they're better at surviving doing the job wrong.

The above is a nutshell of the actual criticisms.

It's not about "excessiveness" or "luxury" or "hard use," whatever that means on August 13th 2010 that it didn't mean in the Buck 110's salad days. It's about where the line is drawn between an adequate knife, fixed or folding, locked or not, and one that is being designed to be used, unimaginatively in most of the cases posted in the various threads on this topic to date, as something other than a knife--and whether that "beefing up" makes any sense from the classical perspective which holds that a knife is exclusively a cutting tool.

Boiled down, one guy wants to be able to use his knife as a pressed into service digging tool, the other wants his knife to be designed to as efficiently as possible fashion a digging stick, or barring that, use something else, anything else, other than his knife.

One guy wants to be able to baton a folder through a branch for whatever reason while the other thinks that such a move is a knowledge and technique failure. One doesn't even need a knife to break branches suitable for firewood and batoning through green branches is "necessary" in what context?

Those instances get to questions of design priorities and functionality, not of taste and prejudice per se.

As to the other introduced facet of this discussion, as someone stated earlier, any knife is a luxuy/convenience good. Humans have gotten by for most of their stay on this earth with sharpened rocks, sticks, antlers, and wood with shark teeth mounted in it.