for those who don't trust a folding knife

[PrimitiveMan]

No, really, I mean it sincerely.

I don't think it is worth a hoot, but PLEASE someone get one and test it!

Maybe it IS the best thing since Oprah.

There is only one way to prove whether it works. I think that is something we all agree on!

 

[myright]

I meant no offense, my apologies if you were offended.

I'm very tempted to purchase this thing, but would not really look forward to really beating the crap out of it. It doesn't look to be available until July.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

No offense here. This has been a spirited thread.

I just think somebody needs to chop the heck out of something with one at this point.

Heck, send one to me. I'll video the carnage.

If it lasts, it lasts, if not, we know the limitations!

 

[myright]

Once its available I'll buy one and start up a pass around.

 

[Elen]

You are missing something. This axe isn't supposed to perform better than a traditional axe. The advantage of this axe is that it folds for easier storage/portability.

Well all know that fixed blades are stronger and safer than a folder, but the advantage of a folder is that it is more convenient to carry.

We don't use stone axes because they offer ZERO advantages over a steel axe.

No, I considered that factor, too. Stone axes do have one advantage. The materials are cheaper - one could even say they cost nothing and wouldn't be too far from the truth. As for the advantages of a folding axe, looking at the pics, it doesn't seem all that much easier to store and carry: you fold it, and you make it shorter, but also a hell of a lot wider. But sure, at least it's shorter than a similar handle length traditional axe. If that makes it worth it to someone, even though the downsides are obvious, then... uh... well, more power to them, I guess.

Final comment. Since there is not one spec of science behind the criticism, it's a good thing that we already have everything we need because nothing new has a chance. My only point is what kind of message does it send to people who really might want to know something, is that you need not try something to condemn it? If I didn't make that point then sorry, I was expressing a opinion that made sense to me, but I won't press it any further.

There is a lot of science behind the criticism, in fact, and to claim otherwise is plain silly. It is science that tells us a folding mechanism is inherently less strong and reliable than a fixed, non-folding solution in the same tool. The same science works for fixed blades and folding knives just like it works for axes and folding axes. Just because someone hasn't managed to personally break a folding tool doesn't mean there isn't a difference in durability as compared to a fixed one. Some things you need to try to know how they work. Some things you don't. For example, you don't need to try to jump off a tall building, head first, without a parachute, towards the concrete, to find out if falling from high places on your head hurts. Science will tell you even without trying that it will hurt. Science will also tell you that folding mechanisms are less reliable.

That is my final say on this thread. But for the record, I'm in no way offended (indeed, what reason could I have to be offended?), and this has in fact been a funny thread that has seen me laughing quite a few times.

 

[LittleHairyApe]

There is a lot of science behind the criticism, in fact, and to claim otherwise is plain silly. It is science that tells us a folding mechanism is inherently less strong and reliable than a fixed, non-folding solution in the same tool. The same science works for fixed blades and folding knives just like it works for axes and folding axes. Just because someone hasn't managed to personally break a folding tool doesn't mean there isn't a difference in durability as compared to a fixed one. Some things you need to try to know how they work. Some things you don't. For example, you don't need to try to jump off a tall building, head first, without a parachute, towards the concrete, to find out if falling from high places on your head hurts. Science will tell you even without trying that it will hurt. Science will also tell you that folding mechanisms are less reliable.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

1) On my planet, science depends on tests and facts and replication of results. Opinions rely on hot gas and spit and vinegar, so if you've got some of that kind of sciencey-stuff let's see your RAW DATA. Otherwise...

2) The gist of your argument, as far as I can see, is that prima facie the folding axe as a category is less strong than old style non-folding axe. So what? It doesn't answer the question of whether it is strong enough. You can bluster and armchair-guesstimate and sputter all you want, but testing beats talking eight ways to Sunday for those kind of questions. Specifics beat generalities and always will. You can't get around that.

 

[dartanyon]

Testing this thing ... when we use an axe the head will invariably get jammed, stuck and when this happens we use the handle as a lever , the handle hits the material either when battoning or a miss, the back of the head is used for hammering (i'm guilty of even using the back of my battery drills) and wacked, we twist the handle as the head strikes the material to produce variable chips, some of us throw our axes and hatchets, we use a ripping action as the head strikes the material to prevent the head sticking, we lever the axe head sideways to help split the log or stick ... maybe you could add some actions that puts forces on the axe handle that encourages us to find nice strong handles. Is this folding axe just going to be for pussy jobs only?

 

[LittleHairyApe]

No, only pussy jobs with $90 to throw away.

 

[Elen]

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

1) On my planet, science depends on tests and facts and replication of results. Opinions rely on hot gas and spit and vinegar, so if you've got some of that kind of sciencey-stuff let's see your RAW DATA. Otherwise...

2) The gist of your argument, as far as I can see, is that prima facie the folding axe as a category is less strong than old style non-folding axe. So what? It doesn't answer the question of whether it is strong enough. You can bluster and armchair-guesstimate and sputter all you want, but testing beats talking eight ways to Sunday for those kind of questions. Specifics beat generalities and always will. You can't get around that.

Well, I guess it wasn't my last post, then! Good grief, indeed.

1) On my planet, science depends on facts, too. And the fact is that folding mechanisms are weaker. This has not been "tested" scientifically by me, because I'm not a scientist. It's not my job. But, folding mechanisms have been tested enough both by scientists and regular users for it to be common knowledge that they are weaker. If anyone seriously claims otherwise, they are only doing it for the sake of arguing, and the burden of proof lies on them as they are the ones going against commonly known scientific fact. You might want to look at what you're saying here. Folding mechanisms in all sorts of tools have been tested extensively, and found to be weaker (although not too weak for some tasks). The facts say that. On the other hand, no one that we know of outside Gerber has tested this particular folding axe concept. Those who say that the concept works have absolutely nothing to base their claims on, because they have not even held the axe in their hands, much less actually used it to chop something. Naturally, those who think the concept is weaker than traditional axes haven't used it either - but at least they have well-known scientific facts on their side.

2) "So what?" Isn't it obvious? The point is that a) it's weaker, b) it's more expensive and c) it's somewhat shorter in length when folded but also wider. The folding axe has one thing going for it - that you can fold it into a shorter package (but also wider). Everything else is against it: it is more expensive, less durable, slower to deploy, harder to clean and maintain... It is plainly inferior as a tool. And then we have the question: "Strong enough, for what?" I'm sure the folding axe is more than strong enough for some, very light uses. For some uses, like heavy chopping on frozen wood in -30 C weather, even traditional axes are barely strong enough and will relatively often suffer handle failure in that stress. In those conditions, no, the folding axe isn't strong enough, or reliable enough. One can't get around the science, even though one would wish to. One can talk about testing even unto the ending of the world, but that doesn't change what is already known about folding mechanisms. Science beats testing by amateurs eight ways to Sunday for any kind of technical question.

But again, that doesn't change the fact that obviously any kind of tool, including this folding axe, can be used carefully enough to perform some tasks. That doesn't make it a particularly good tool, though.

 

[LittleHairyApe]

Science beats testing by amateurs eight ways to Sunday for any kind of technical question.

And to that I agree, but amateur doers beat talkers, scientific or otherwise, like a cheap rug, because Talk is Cheap.

So if you've got any science, bring it on. But you're not a scientist so your quasi-scientific pontificating is empty chatter, and I guess you don't have any actual facts and/or numerical data (amateur or otherwise), so you don't have anything scientific worth listening too. At least you have your opinion, but at the end of the day that's all it really is. Your opinion, and as previously noted, it isn't a scientist's opinion either. Hmmm.

And since we have more than enough log cabins here in Orange county, and the ice is rarely more than a couple of feet thick, I guess a smaller folding hatchet that is ready-to-hand due to its foldable portability might serve me better in an emergency than the full size axe I have in my storage unit.

Your ancestors, if you're of Scandinavian origin (I am), didn't conquer Europe by sitting around the fire yacking about it. They didn't worry that their pretty little boats might break or get burned a little. They went out and just did it with crappy iron swords, torn sails, leaky boats, moldy food and all. That's all I'm saying. So, unless you have something concrete or scientific to say, something besides weak generalities, I 'm done here. But it has been entertaining.

 

[Elen]

So if you've got any science, bring it on.

...

Your ancestors, if you're of Scandinavian origin (I am), didn't conquer Europe by sitting around the fire yacking about it. They didn't worry that their pretty little boats might break or get burned a little. They went out and just did it with crappy iron swords, torn sails, leaky boats, moldy food and all. That's all I'm saying.

I think I already did "bring it on", in saying that science has demonstrated folding tools to be less strong than those that do not fold. Do you contest this fact? Or are you just "undecided" as in you "do not know" and need me to find you a credible scientific source that claims such? If so, I posit that this conversation is then pointless to continue, as everyone will see that it is about arguing for the sake of arguing alone rather than facts. If we go on this road (of having to show links to studies that show folding tools to be less strong than fixed ones, which is something everyone already knows), then next you will have me prove to you that axes are designed to be used for chopping or that water is wet and the snow cold!

As for the folding axe serving your needs better, if so, good for you! Always good to find a tool that works best for you. That's what this stuff is about, of course, and I'm not saying that no-one should ever use a folding axe. Heck, for all I care, they can use only a folding axe for the rest of their life. But that doesn't change scientific facts about the performance of such designs, and their suitability to heavier tasks.

I'm not sure what my origin has to do with axes. But yes, I was born here, like the fathers of my grandfathers, their fathers, their fathers' fathers and their dogs. My ancestors didn't conquer Europe. But if they had done so, they would not have done it by making folding boats, folding swords or even folding axes, either. Instead, they would have built them simple and strong, so that they not only work in light tasks but also in very hard, even somewhat abusive tasks.

 

[dartanyon]

I've got this folding shovel in the back of my 4WD that s**ts me to tears whenever I use it, it keeps coming loose and even takes bits of bark off the back of my knuckles due to the spike that folds up at the back. I've had it for 15 years and I still use it even when I know there are better ones.
This folding axe will be bought, will be used and some may even like it although I sorta liken that to some of the cheap chinese tools I get for doing a job once or twice ... even then I still end up modifying them because they don't even do the job they were supposed to.
I'm wanting to hold one of these axes to see if our forecasts are upheld.

 

[k_estela]

Maybe you guys didn't read my last post. Quit the immature bashing and arguing. To satisfy everyone, I'll contact Gerber when I can and see if I can get one to test. I'm sure I'll do it right.

For now, THIS THREAD IS OVER.