Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[snorkem]

In some recent threads I have posted there has been some controversy over Knifetests.com. I think everyone is aware that no one is going to be in a situation where they need to chop cinder blocks in half or have their knife withstand lateral impacts from a hammer. I agree that it is an unfair review to a knife, I have seen a lot of good knives get bad reviews. But isn't it nice to know that the knife you own can chop through a cinder block and withstand forces that you know would never occur? I think most people who buy Busses see it this way. Also I know without a doubt that any knife that did get a good rating from Knifetests.com is an excellent knife to withstand so much. What do you think about Knifetests.com?

 

[tjsulli790]

I'm gonna go with this:

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I'm gonna go with this:

Knifetests.com does not "test" knives.

 

[Karda]

What do you think about Knifetests.com?

Sensless destruction under the misleading guise of helping consumers. Does more harm to the knife community than good. The only one whos being helped is the originator, to gain supposed fame and notoriety.

If you had really read the many threads already here on this subject, you wouldnt have felt the need to post this topic.

 

[theonew]

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=600896

 

[shecky]

They're destruction tests. About as valid a test as any.

Does more harm to the knife community than good.

How in the world does this figure? The knives he tests all claim to be very hard use tools. Some perform better than others under hard use. This magically harms the knife community, how?

I would say the tests were pointless if Noss were doing this to pencils or baseball caps. But he isn't. He's testing knives that are marketed specifically as heavy duty implements capable of surviving abuse. I can understand why some knifenuts are offended by what he does. I'd be, too, if I saw my badass $300 zombie killer fare poorly against a $10 no name pigsticker. But I'd reserve my ire for the company that charged so much, and for myself for letting a pricey name sucker me out of my money.

Detractors have cried foul claiming the tests are not scientific, and even more disingenuous charges. All nonsense. They are about as scientific as single random sample can get. And for all the hatred thrown his way, nobody has so much as lifted a finger to perform more quantified destruction tests on any of the models Noss has tested.

 

[DennisStrickland]

well here goes the can of worms again. enough abuse can destroy anything.bleach will defeat stainless over time ,ozone will defeat any plastic in time. this is an old storey of mine. my ford truck was stolen , driven thru barbed wire fences then ran off a cliff to land on granite boulders.the truck would'nt start, so by your conclusion ford trucks are defective. i wo'nt say any more since we've been thru this months back. would you please let this dog die ?.

 

[THE PUNISHER]

i don't go for it,you know in worst case scenero,perhaps sticking it thru a car hood or door perhaps,but lynn has tested that..........what does it prove.

 

[Karda]

How in the world does this figure? The knives he tests all claim to be very hard use tools. Some perform better than others under hard use. This magically harms the knife community, how?

Nevermind the unscientific aspect of the so-called "tests"

It Skews the average knife consumers,the uninitiated or unthinking individuals perception of what a knife, hard use or not, should be able to accomplish. It fosters unreasonable expectations of knife usage and due care, and the belief that if a knife fails one of his tests that the makers work is no good. IMHO, the fallacy of the knife tests is no better than the claims of the makers that the "tests" are supposedly trying to reveal as untrue, and is nothing but a ruse. Not only is it a ruse, it is a pathetic attempt to garner attention at others expense.

The "Tests" and comments such as this:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6211965&postcount=13
(which Noss claims not to have said), Do nothing but hurt makers and in turn the community as a whole.

 

[effer]

It is entertaining, but hardly a test to draw any conclusions from.
For a knife to survive long in one of his tests, it just needs to be the thicker the better, the heavier the better, and not hardened too much. It is not really a test to see what knife will perform better under the hard use, because it is not a "use" what he does, it is just a destruction.

For the real use, in most cases I would want to have a well balanced knife, comfortable, not crazy thick and with good heat treatment so it will keep the edge longer.

I would like to see him do:
1) Cut rope and see how long the blade stays sharp. Also might comment on the comfort of the handle.
2) Cut some thin metal if he wants to go overboard. See how it holds.
3) Puncture some sheet metal and see the condition of the tip after 10-30-50 blows.
4) Put the knife in the vice and see how many pounds of pressure it takes to break the blade (if the knife would be used for prying). Would be a lot more scientific than striking it with a hammer.

It would be still a destruction, but closer to the real tasks.
That would cover all the basic stats that I would want to know about the knife. Edge retention for cutting, comfort for a longer use, tip strength for stabbing, blade strength for prying.

He could've helped a buyer to find a knife for the hard use that suits his individual needs better, probably a well balanced knife. Instead, the knife that comes out as a winner in his tests is the one that can take more blows with the hammer.

UPDATE: Just checked couple of his latest videos. He's got a bit more scientific with the torque wrench, so it is a good thing. But still the most important test is left out. How well the knife cuts, how long it stays sharp, how comfortable it is for the long use?

 

[dberry]

IMO I think the mall ninja type get more into the "torture" test thing. I think with firearms the torture testing stuff is more releveant. It makes for good entertainment if you get into that chopping concrete block,etc. Hats off for being able to destroy all those nice useful knives, I sure could not go that far.

 

[Guyon]

Pay $10 to upgrade your account and do a Search. You'll find plenty of opinions.

These two recent posts of mine state how I feel pretty plainly...

Those tests are an abomination in the knife world, and I've long warned that this noss fellow would have just this kind of negative effect on the knife community. In other words, Johnny Hockey Mask, with his destruction stunts, is giving new knife users the impression that knives should be judged primarily on how well they stand up to lateral impacts from a three-pound sledge.
...

...
Noss4 appeared on the scene at BFC acting like a moron, and I don't see him having really changed. His "tests" are nothing more than inconsistent stunts with a sample of 1. If that's what floats your boat, I have no problems. But I also have no problems carrying my BK-9 afield. It's taken a lot of abuse and is holding up just fine. My sample of 1 suggests something quite different from that of the Great Hockey Mask.

I'm a fan of Busse knives and own the blades to prove it. But I still think the Great Hockey Mask is little more than an attention-seeking stunt man who often tarnishes the image of some very fine knives with his so-called "tests." He is the MTV Jackass of the knife world.

 

[Guyon]

Nevermind the unscientific aspect of the so-called "tests"

It Skews the average knife consumers,the uninitiated or unthinking individuals perception of what a knife, hard use or not, should be able to accomplish. It fosters unreasonable expectations of knife usage and due care, and the belief that if a knife fails one of his tests that the makers work is no good. IMHO, the fallacy of the knife tests is no better than the claims of the makers that the "tests" are supposedly trying to reveal as untrue, and is nothing but a ruse. Not only is it a ruse, it is a pathetic attempt to garner attention at others expense.

The "Tests" and comments such as this:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6211965&postcount=13
(which Noss claims not to have said), Do nothing but hurt makers and in turn the community as a whole.

+1.

Very nicely put. :thumbup: :thumbup:

 

[knarfeng]

In some recent threads I have posted there has been some controversy over Knifetests.com. I think everyone is aware that no one is going to be in a situation where they need to chop cinder blocks in half or have their knife withstand lateral impacts from a hammer. I agree that it is an unfair review to a knife, I have seen a lot of good knives get bad reviews. But isn't it nice to know that the knife you own can chop through a cinder block and withstand forces that you know would never occur? I think most people who buy Busses see it this way. Also I know without a doubt that any knife that did get a good rating from Knifetests.com is an excellent knife to withstand so much. What do you think about Knifetests.com?

NO it is not nice to know. Such "testing" favors knives made of alloys that are tough rather than alloys that hold an edge. I'm much more interested in how well a knife cuts and how well it retains its cutting ability than in how many times I can hit it with a hammer. Most knives that are worth my interest are not going to perform well in those tests. I have no interest in knives made of 1055. I do not agree that a knife that does well in those "tests" must be a good knife.

I suppose the "tests" have entertainment value of a sort, yet such "tests" become a source of performance expectation for those who do not understand how a knife is supposed to be used. In this teaching of false values, they do a disservice to the knife community as a whole.

 

[Guyon]

It's nice to see some common sense in a Noss4 thread. :thumbup:

Maybe most of his fanboys now post over in the Hockey Mask forum.

 

[Guyon]

I suppose the "tests" have entertainment value of a sort, yet such "tests" become a source of performance expectation for those who do not understand how a knife is supposed to be used. In this teaching of false values, they do a disservice to the knife community as a whole.

Agreed on the entertainment. Some folks like watching Jackass too.

In the knife community, the same kind of bizarre performance expectation can be seen with the so-called "spine whack" test for folders. Whoever thought that one up was a real brainiac.

 

[hoopster]

They're destruction tests. About as valid a test as any.



How in the world does this figure? The knives he tests all claim to be very hard use tools. Some perform better than others under hard use. This magically harms the knife community, how?

I would say the tests were pointless if Noss were doing this to pencils or baseball caps. But he isn't. He's testing knives that are marketed specifically as heavy duty implements capable of surviving abuse. I can understand why some knifenuts are offended by what he does. I'd be, too, if I saw my badass $300 zombie killer fare poorly against a $10 no name pigsticker. But I'd reserve my ire for the company that charged so much, and for myself for letting a pricey name sucker me out of my money.

Detractors have cried foul claiming the tests are not scientific, and even more disingenuous charges. All nonsense. They are about as scientific as single random sample can get. And for all the hatred thrown his way, nobody has so much as lifted a finger to perform more quantified destruction tests on any of the models Noss has tested.

I second this sentiment. If one is not intelligent enough to see that Noss' tests are certainly limited and on the fringe of knife use then they deserve what they derive from them. I see them as destruction tests, nothing more, nothing less. I fail to see how they're destroying the knife community and I certainly don't see the need to get my panties in a bunch over them.

 

[misque]

His channel would be more aptly named "knifedestruction.com". One might even add the word "senseless" at the beginning of the title for the sake of accuracy in description.
Just MHO, of course, which is only worth what you paid for it.:yawn:

I've watched a handful of his "tests" and marveled at why someone would waste their money (and time) in such a manner.
But, it's his money and time, soooo...:jerkit:

I'd like to see a video series testing knives for what they were meant to do. That being, cutting various organic media sans concrete block chopping.:thumbup:
Anyone have a link for something along that line?


And lastly, whichever way you may lean in this ongoing pissing contest, fortunately, you still have the freedom to take it or leave it. (Thank God)
Personally, I just went my way doing this

 

[orthogonal1]

I like them.

I figure a knife that can get by such treatment succesfully will easily surpass just about anything I foresee doing with it.

Admittedly the tests are geared more toward toughness than edge retention, but not all people base the disireability of a knife on edge retention and it is rare to see knives that do well in both areas.

 

[Broos]

It is often not easy reading, but anyone with a little technical acumen can do some searching & reading into just how little is learned by randomly hitting a small piece of really hard steel with larger piece of work-hardened and irregularly shaped steel (I recall they make no attempt to ever face the hammer or regulate the blows or the impact locations) until the small piece breaks. Hardened steel on hardened steel impacts leads to immense local stresses due to the resistance of the hard steel to deformation and the small area of impact.

Heck, do some reading on the charpy test (scientific toughness) and you will get some idea - this is an exacting ASTM test and still experts argue over exactly what the results tell you. And I laugh uproariously at any attempt to compare the videos with real destructive tests done by engineers who know what they are doing.

Not to mention it is an inherently unsafe practice, and a good way to lose an eye, even with safety glasses on. The ding-dongs who wrote the loading bucket manual refered to in the article below apparently used the noss "test", and will now be fighting a lawsuit because they thought beating on something with a sledgehammer was a substitute for real testing, and knowing what the heck you are doing:

http://machinedesign.com/article/inadequate-safety-glasses-no-miner-factor-in-injury-0810