Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karda said:
Apparently some of the community isn't, judging by the number of people who think batonning with rocks, hammers and the like or chopping your way thru cars and such is normal use and ok.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of the makers who use the same feats to demonstrate toughness and reliability of their knives. So, according to you they also "aren't"?

Karda said:
Apparently most of them are more than happy to be led around by the nose by Noss. Does this mean that you think Noss should come down off
Click to expand...
:) And here you are to enlighten them... Judging by your posts, you're more upset by the fact that those misguided souls are not listening to you, but Noss.

Karda said:
his high horse as false claim protectorate of the knife community?
Click to expand...
I think your horse is mucho higher...
 
Then it would be a formal fallacy to apply machine testing results to humans... At least not until we all have bionic hands.

M2 steel is routinely hardened to 66HRC and used to cut steel for few months... Very repeatable, very accurate result. Everything is fixed, angles, forces, metal(s), etc. Very scientific and accurate.

Now take that same M2 knife, and give it to a human, let's see how much metal he will cut. I suspect it'll break withing first 5 minutes.
 
Gator97 said:
Then it would be a formal fallacy to apply machine testing results to humans... At least not until we all have bionic hands.

M2 steel is routinely hardened to 66HRC and used to cut steel for few months... Very repeatable, very accurate result. Everything is fixed, angles, forces, metal(s), etc. Very scientific and accurate.

Now take that same M2 knife, and give it to a human, let's see how much metal he will cut. I suspect it'll break withing first 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the point of your argument.

Why would you want to test humans with machines? What are you testing for? How is this relevant to whacking things with a hammer until they break?

OK, so you take a piece of equipment that is meant to be used in a controlled manner and then bash it around in some uncontrolled manner until it breaks. What is your point? How is this relevant to the discussion in this thread. Perhaps you should spend a little time to formulate your arguments so that they are clear and relevant.
 
I think I will try batoning my beers with a sledge hammer to see how strong they are so next time I am in a bar fight, I will know which beer works best as a makeshift club:thumbup:

They will be brand new full beers that I will buy, or ask to be donated. I will be sure to let you guys know which beers are the toughest so that you can depend on them under ANY conditions. God only knows what would happen to you if you couldn't use your beer to crack your way through a cinder block or pry through sheet metal. Holding beer is only a fraction of what makes a beer a beer.

You can decide after my testing which beer is right for you. Draw you own conclusions after watching my service to the beer industry. Some beers may only last for a minute under the sledge, others will be able to cut endless cinderblocks!!!, and others will last to the end but spill a lot of beer along the way.
 
Last edited:
gajinoz said:
I fail to see the point of your argument.

Why would you want to test humans with machines? What are you testing for? How is this relevant to whacking things with a hammer until they break?

OK, so you take a piece of equipment that is meant to be used in a controlled manner and then bash it around in some uncontrolled manner until it breaks. What is your point? How is this relevant to the discussion in this thread. Perhaps you should spend a little time to formulate your arguments so that they are clear and relevant.
Click to expand...

Your discussion is irrelevant to the statement of Gator97, who wrote "Then it would be a formal fallacy to apply machine testing results to humans"

Where in the statement is there anything of testing humans with machines?

Nowhere.
 
Broos said:
I guess if road and track took videos of how long each car would float before it sank, I'd concede your point.
Click to expand...

Don't go down this road. 17-year-olds will be sinking cars left and right and posting videos on YouTube.


komondor said:
So some semblance of "science" has to be present in order to call it a test?

This is where you, Broos, and Phil are simply incorrect.
Click to expand...

The science argument emerges because we're saying there needs to be more scientific testing IF we're to learn anything useful.

Here's a definition for you: statistical validity- the degree to which an observed result, such as a difference between 2 measurements, can be relied upon and not attributed to random error in sampling and measurement.

All folks have learned is that a dude in a hockey mask can beat the crap out of some knives. Well, duh... we learned that with the Halloween movies. :p

Thank you for playing though.

And I totally agree that we shouldn't be testing humans with machines. :D
 
Last edited:
Well then maybe you can explain the relationship between knife "durability" & beating on a knife with a steel hammer.
Click to expand...

It's simple. Some knives broke more easily than others. And, by the way, the hammer test is just one test out of many.

I guess if road and track took videos of how long each car would float before it sank, I'd concede your point.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't have a valid analogy. People don't buy cars, nor do manufacturers make cars, for the purpose or desire of floating. However, many people buy hard use survival knives and want to use them very hard, so there is some validity to The Hocky Mask's tests.

He tests to see how durable they are, as performed in manners that would be reproduced in real life. I guess I don't get your floating car analogy.

Anyone who refers to science as "BS nonsense"
Click to expand...

I hope you are not referring to me. If not, my apologies. If you are, you have no idea what you are saying.
 
The science argument emerges because we're saying there needs to be more scientific testing IF we're to learn anything useful.
Click to expand...

Umm, actually you DON'T. If a gun tester tests two handguns side by side, during a durability test, exactly what kind of science is being applied? He can test these objects merely by interacting with them and reporting on them. His report/test becomes very useful.

Does it say anywhere that more than one sample of any given object has to be tested before the test becomes valid?

It doesn't.
 
gajinoz said:
I fail to see the point of your argument.
Click to expand...
No, You simply failed to read...

gajinoz said:
Why would you want to test humans with machines?
Click to expand...
Once again, it was applying machine test results... Not machines. And I think I made that abundantly clear. 2 posts earlier, I mentioned specific machine and inability of any human to reproduce its results.

gajinoz said:
OK, so you take a piece of equipment that is meant to be used in a controlled manner and then bash it around in some uncontrolled manner
Click to expand...
No, I said compared to the machine everyone of us will be beating it in uncontrolled manner. No matter how had you try, whatever you do with your hand is "uncontrolled" compared ot that machine. Got it?

I'll skip the rest because you're arguing about nonexistent points in my post.
 
Guyon said:
Here's a definition for you: statistical validity- the degree to which an observed result, such as a difference between 2 measurements, can be relied upon and not attributed to random error in sampling and measurement.
Click to expand...
That invalidates 99.99% of the knife reviews posted here or elsewhere. Since, a) most of the people, in most of the cases, buy 1 knife of a kind. b) Even wen they buy 2 or 3, which happens with knifenuts, they still test/review one.
Yet, you don't criticize those guys that harshly.
Therefore, it's about methodology, not statistical validity.
BTW, those who worry about statistics and sampling, well you could send Noss several blades of the same type you're concerned about...

Also, do you honestly believe that CRK fixed blade failures is a matter of "sampling" and not the design issue?
 
The Government said:
They will be brand new full beers that I will buy, or ask to be donated. I will be sure to let you guys know which beers are the toughest so that you can depend on them under ANY conditions. God only knows what would happen to you if you couldn't use your beer to crack your way through a cinder block or pry through sheet metal. Holding beer is only a fraction of what makes a beer a beer.
Click to expand...

That's just ridic... heyyyyy... wait a minute!

Okay, I'm sold.
 
Guyon said:
You nailed it.
Click to expand...
So, you are against knife reviews per-se?

Then you are wrong, because of many reasons. And ultimately you could start questioning, and complaining to the knife manufacturers to substantiate their claims by providing test data for multiple blades of a given data... Good luck with that :)

Speaking of statistics, there is a reason why industrial testing and most of the testing(including opinion pools), is done on very small sampling.
You don't believe car manufacturers crash 10% or more of the cars they produce do you?

P.S. You didn't answer the question whether or not you believe the failure of those fixed blades was design flaw or matter of statistics, i.e. it was a single or couple defective knives, and should he test 10 more the results would've been different?
And in that case statistically what were the chances of Noss getting both blades defective?
 
Gator and komodor, stop confusing the shenanigans in this thread with an honest discussion about the pro's and con's of backyard knife testing. It never has and never will be about that. The self-appointed guardians of the knife community are so positive they know exactly how everyone should use every knife that they don't need to actually debate the issue but rather just make glib and derisive remarks and call anyone, who doesn't immediately declare these tests to be utter useless garbage, a fanboy aka a nosshole.

Note to Newbies: if you want to make some quick friends among the knife "intelligentsia" here on BF, all you have to do is come forward in this thread and declare you're hatred for Noss and these "stunts". It doesn't matter if your points make sense or your analogies are on target, all that matters is that you truly feel the hatred. Then sit back and watch your supporters post, "+1", "What he said", "Well stated", etc.
 
Gator97 said:
You don't believe car manufacturers crash 10% or more of the cars they produce do you?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that car manufacturers wailed away on their vehicles with sledge hammers and then declared one "tougher" than the other.

Must be a Chevy thing. :p
 
Guyon said:
I wasn't aware that car manufacturers wailed away on their vehicles ...
Click to expand...
You are avoiding answering pretty simple question. Matter of fact you never answered any questions, just keep making comments you know are absolutely irrelevant.

If it wasn't clear, the question was about the sample quantities, which is what you brought up as an argument. Not the methodology, since, obviously cars are tested differently than the knives.

And you still haven't clarified, if you are against all of the knife reviews, regardless who did them, based on your "1 sample" criteria.
 
Statistical validity and quantitative testing has nothing to do with the exercises Noss does any more than it does when using a knife the first time at a campsite. It is a qualitative evaluation. His testing of knife performance are equivalent to what tractor pulls are to the fair evaluation of agricultural equipment. And sure, there may be a very few farmers out there who buy their tractor brand based on the winner at the county fair, but most watch just to see if the pistons will blow through the engine cover. It's this same entertainment value that keeps em' coming back to knifetest.

What make's Noss' testing controversial is the name of the site and the scoring system, which is based on series of destruction tests which are entirely arbitrary and skewed heavily in favor of the sharpened prybar class of knives. But in the end, it's entertainment-what else could a hockey mask wearing guy beating knives through a cinder block be?? Like anything else, people who don't like him shouldn't watch him, but otherwise just see it for what it is and let him do as he pleases with his knives.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top