Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[Guyon]

Hey, that's entrapment :grumpy:
I said nothing about hammers.

Oh, so when you said "abuse," you meant something different?

Or were you the one who tried hacking through that train rail?

BTW Tyrkon, Jiff Crunchy absolutely destroyed the edge on my SHBM.

 

[theonew]

For the record, I meant spreading almost frozen chunky peanut butter. There I said it, are you happy. I don't feel good about it but yeah I admit I did it

 

[Guyon]

See what noss4 has done?

 

[theonew]

 

[Tyrkon Lawson]

theonenew, I'm sorry to hear that you banged on your FFBM with a sledge hammer while on several of your hikes.
Those two items alone must've made for a very heavy pack.

I swear... You guys and your "it's too heavy to pack" issues make me laugh. I have carried mine to and fro (from my house to my back yard hundreds of times). In the sheath too. With a peanut butter sammich. Piece of cake. :thumbup:

 

[Broos]

Well, yes and no. if you are trying to model something that unavoidably has both, unpredictability ad unrepeatability then, why? It will give part of the picture, but not vrey realistic one.

I think I have said this a couple few times already, but I'll try one more time - you do realize that everything that engineers and scientists model or test is in some way unpredictable or unrepeatable, right? No two pieces of steel will break exactly the same, no matter how hard you try to make everying identical with your test specimens or the test method. No two pieces of any material are perfectly identical or perfectly homogeneous, but that does not mean that we can't use knowledge and science to figure out ways to test products for human use.

Is how we use automobiles, ships, or airplanes predictable or repeatable? Of course the answer is a resounding no, and yet that does not change the fact that the tests done by engineers and scientists are ALWAYS designed to be as repeatable as possible. You must use knowledge to design your test to find out the things you want to find out, and it is a fact that if you want to make any reliable conclusion from a test, the test has to be repeatable.

Look through any ASTM or ISO tests, and show me where any one of these tests have any factor of unpredictability built into them. Of course you will not find any, in fact you will find exhaustive detail on what procedures you need to go through to ensure your test method is repeatable, and that the test specimens are as identical as is possible. And all these tests are used to design products that are used by people, in ways that are unpredictable. That fact in no way changes the rules of how one should test in order to make reliable conclusions.

 

[cj65]

Broos,

Some will not understand what engineers do. I am not an engineer, but did study some hydraulics and design principles as it relates to my field. Anyone who does not understand what you are explaining diligently and eloquently, is only throwing out their feelings or opinions. There is no foundation principle they are building on, it is not worth trying to explain.

 

[ishiyumisan]

I think I have said this a couple few times already, but I'll try one more time - you do realize that everything that engineers and scientists model or test is in some way unpredictable or unrepeatable, right? No two pieces of steel will break exactly the same, no matter how hard you try to make everying identical with your test specimens or the test method. No two pieces of any material are perfectly identical or perfectly homogeneous, but that does not mean that we can't use knowledge and science to figure out ways to test products for human use.

Absolutely true...and with the heat treatment on it, is impossible! Because with the breaking point will vary between two equal or identical knives.
Scientific Test maybe it's not some abstract thing; but probably not even the truth!!

Broos,

Some will not understand what engineers do. I am not an engineer, but did study some hydraulics and design principles as it relates to my field. Anyone who does not understand what you are explaining diligently and eloquently, is only throwing out their feelings or opinions. There is no foundation principle they are building on, it is not worth trying to explain.

Ditto!

λ variable operate in a region between order and either complete randomness or chaos, where the complexity is maximal.
Which means that if I can achieve something very sophisticated and because the complexity just by few people can get it, I still have a major variable......!!!

 

[Gator97]

I think I have said this a couple few times already, but I'll try one more time

Broos, pardon, but you are answering the question I never asked, and you never answered few questions I really wanted to hear your answer to.

- you do realize that everything that engineers and scientists model or test is in some way unpredictable or unrepeatable, right?

I do, and I never argued against scientific testing. Again, I argue that using ONLY perfectly repeatable tests with very precise forces and setups will give unrealistic picture, not suitable for humans.

Is how we use automobiles, ships, or airplanes predictable or repeatable? Of course the answer is a resounding no,

Sigh, no it is not resounding no when we compare to handheld tools like knives. Because I can drive ANY car (if it's working properly) at 25mph or 75mph per hour, and I can drive on a straight line.
Now, try to swing a knife exactly at 25mph speed, or as I asked you many times try to make a straight cut. You simply disregard the fact that cars, airplanes and other machines have tons of systems and auxiliary devices to compensate for human deficiencies compared to machines.
For your statement and ideas to be true, every knife would have speedometer, accelerometer, force gauge and level installed on it.

and yet that does not change the fact that the tests done by engineers and scientists are ALWAYS designed to be as repeatable as possible.

That I do not argue. However, how close and realistic the test results will be is what I argue.

Look through any ASTM or ISO tests, and show me where any one of these tests have any factor of unpredictability built into them.

Which one of those tests is designed to model human/knife interaction? Your argument is that there is no difference who is holding the knife, human or a machine and I find it very hard to believe that you yourself believe that statement.

That fact in no way changes the rules of how one should test in order to make reliable conclusions.

It doesn't and shouldn't. However, tell me where in any industry you see the guideline to test products designed for humans completely disregarding human body anatomy...

 

[Gator97]

Some will not understand what engineers do. I am not an engineer, but did study some hydraulics and design principles as it relates to my field. Anyone who does not understand what you are explaining diligently and eloquently, is only throwing out their feelings or opinions. There is no foundation principle they are building on, it is not worth trying to explain.

Hmm, I figure being a software engineer I have a general understanding what engineers do Second, since I have masters degree in applied math and my major or whatever, was automated systems, it was very close to the discussion subject, mathematical modeling of various systems (of all complexity).

I think you and Broos while studying engineering and hydraulics, both somewhere along the way forgot that the knives we talk about are held and wielded by simple and imprecise human hand Not in a hydraulic press...

 

[Guyon]

I thought that Broos' point all along as that we don't learn a whole lot from "tests" involving something as imprecise as human "feel." That comparison between the Cold Steel and the Becker is a great case in point. Same steel, same factory... radically different Swords of Doom.

 

[Gator97]

Actually I asked Broos the same question in earlier post. His objection to Noss tests is that noss is using "feel" and no instruments to measure forces, ensure repeatability etc.
Then when you read his arguments with me, it's entirely different, he argues that machine cutting isn't that much different from hand cutting. So, then what's wrong with Noss, he's much worse than that hypothetical human Bross is using in his arguments?

I asked him repeatedly, to try to cut a straight line on paper or carpet or leather to "feel" the difference between the machines and humans, but he's not really going there, I suspect because he knows the result. So, instead, he argues the usefulness of repeatable tests which nobody here is arguing against anyway.

All the theory is good, but practice or practical results also need to be considered. In other words proper start conditions. Modeling human/knife interaction based on hydraulic press or a vise is not quite that useful. It is ok to evaluate metal properties, but doesn't tell much about the rest.

 

[Gator97]

So after perusing TGHM's website again, how does one explain the difference in rating between the Camillus Becker BK9 and Cold steel carbon V SRK?

Because one is 14.5 inch long knife and another is 10.75? And the blade geometry, including thickness, width and tapering is vastly different?
You really needed this input from us? Specs weren't available?

Those knives were made in the same factory, of the same steel, with the same heat treat. In fact, the SRK has larger stress risers in the stick tang.

It is NOT the same steel, but similar. I figure you won't take my word for it, but our own knarfeng posted here Carbon V is 0170-6C, not 1095 Cro-Van.
Here's a graph for you - Carbon V vs. 1095 CroVan steel composition comparison.

That comparison between the Cold Steel and the Becker is a great case in point. Same steel, same factory... radically different Swords of Doom.

Well, as you said, be careful whom do you endorse. It ain't the same steel. And heat treatment isn't the same, and finally I don't understand why different thickness, width and length knives should behave the same in destruction test even if they were made out of the same steel, identically heat treated... All things fair, Broos has to be the #1 objecting to that assumption.

 

[cj65]

Actually I asked Broos the same question in earlier post. His objection to Noss tests is that noss is using "feel" and no instruments to measure forces, ensure repeatability etc.
Then when you read his arguments with me, it's entirely different, he argues that machine cutting isn't that much different from hand cutting. So, then what's wrong with Noss, he's much worse than that hypothetical human Bross is using in his arguments?

I asked him repeatedly, to try to cut a straight line on paper or carpet or leather to "feel" the difference between the machines and humans, but he's not really going there, I suspect because he knows the result. So, instead, he argues the usefulness of repeatable tests which nobody here is arguing against anyway.

All the theory is good, but practice or practical results also need to be considered. In other words proper start conditions. Modeling human/knife interaction based on hydraulic press or a vise is not quite that useful. It is ok to evaluate metal properties, but doesn't tell much about the rest.

OK, Gator, I see your point. I also see Broos point. I am sure Noss enjoys what he does, but what if there is a bias factor? Does Noss like another knife better than another. Does he tire after hard physical blows on one knife, then go right into the next knife fatiqued, so his blows are not at the same force. Those are the anomalies that I wonder about. I am really just throwing in my two cents, just sticking my schnozzola in this, when I probably shoulda just watched quietly from a cyberfar.

Carry on Gents! BTW. Merry Christmas to all, Engineers, and those who only play them on TV.

 

[dl351]

It is NOT the same steel, but similar. I figure you won't take my word for it, but our own knarfeng posted here Carbon V is 0170-6C, not 1095 Cro-Van.
Here's a graph for you - Carbon V vs. 1095 CroVan steel composition comparison.

Umm, the Camillus Beckers (which is what was tested on knifetests.com) are indeed 0170-6C steel, or in Cold Steel terms, Carbon V, not 1094 CroVan. So yes, they are made of the same steel. You can see that here:

http://www.collectors-of-camillus.us/Becker/Camillus Website Becker Info.pdf

here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696336

and even at the bottom here:

http://knifetests.com/page5.html

I do understand that there is much more that factors in to blade strength, but they are in fact the same steel.

 

[Gator97]

That's pretty strange several sites list bk9 as 1095 cro van...
http://bepreparedtosurvive.com/Becker BK&T Ka-Bar Knives.htm
http://www.knivesplus.com/CM-BK9-Combat-Utility-Bowie.html

Either it was produced in both, or all the above is wrong. Anyway, I stand corrected.

Regardless, I can repeat what I said above, even if they were made of the same steel, with identical heat treatment and hardness it would be still unrealistic to expect identical performance in most of the areas based on the geometry differences.

 

[dl351]

That's pretty strange several sites list bk9 as 1095 cro van...
http://bepreparedtosurvive.com/Becker BK&T Ka-Bar Knives.htm
http://www.knivesplus.com/CM-BK9-Combat-Utility-Bowie.html

Either it was produced in both, or all the above is wrong. Anyway, I stand corrected.

Regardless, I can repeat what I said above, even if they were made of the same steel, with identical heat treatment and hardness it would be still unrealistic to expect identical performance in most of the areas based on the geometry differences.

Oh, it's a simple mistake! Those ones you're looking at are the new Ka-Bar Beckers. The one tested was the discontinued Camillus Becker. That's the reason for the different listed steels. I also agree that geometry differences can make dramatic differences in how the blades perform.

 

[Guyon]

It's the same steel. The guy who named the stuff posts here at Bladeforums:

Carbon V definately came first. It was the brainchild of the Metal God, Dan Maragni, & was, in my opinion, what put Cold Steel on the map all those years ago.

When Cold Steel came to Camillus to make their carbon steel knives, they did not want to pay for the vast amount of steel that had to be purchased in order to have a custom steel made to their specifications.
Consequently Cold Steel agreed that Camillus could also use the steel (& pay them a royalty, I believe) but could not call it Carbon V.

I came up with the name 0170-6C, based on an almost close (but NOT) steel produced by Sharron Steel called 0170-6.

All this is historical trivia.

The real issue for those who understand is Heat Treatment!

The reason that the Camillus Beckers perform so well is that Dan Maragni set up a system of heat treatment at Camillus for the Cold Steel knives, & oversaw almost every batch of knives produced. What we learnt about heat treating Cold Steel seeped over to the Becker knives.
All that is now lost forever!

In my humble opinion, the values of the Camillus Beckers may not rise significantly in the collector market, but for those interested in a high performance user, get them while you can. Without Maragni's methods, I don't care what a future maker of Beckers uses, they will just be well designed carbon steel knives covered in powder coat!

I dearly hope I am wrong & the new maker will consider trying to improve their methods. Time will tell..............

 

[Gator97]

dl351, thanks for the clarification.

Guyon, I already acknowledged my mistake, based on my assumption that BK9 in question was 1095, I stated it wasn't Carbon V.

Other than that, see above. I dunno why would one expect identical ratings or performance from two very different knives, which have not much in common besides being fixed blades and having the same steel

May be smaller SRK performed better than the bigger one. As in size/toughness ratio and hence the higher rating. I haven't watched either test, and can't comment

 

[Slim to None]

It is NOT the same steel, but similar. I figure you won't take my word for it, but our own knarfeng posted

Maybe you're not hip to the whole becker history, but Camillus used to manufacture both "carbon V" cold steel fixed blades and the becker line. When camillus folded, cold steel went to china and becker went to kabar.

The Camillus beckers and the Carbon V cold steels are the same steel, same coating, same heat treat, the whole nine yards. I'll go mic the thickness of my camillus brute right now but I'd be willing to bet it's the same or thicker than the SRK.

Ok .265 for the brute, who's got specs for the last generation, camillus manufactured carbon V? the spec listed around is 3/16, or .1875. The new beckers made by kabar, which are somewhat thinner, are listed at .188, the exact same thickness of stock.

So the SRK carbon V and camillus BK9 are the EXACT same thickness, same steel, same heat treat, same coating yet one is "rated" as being twice as tough?

EDIT: More eloquent posters beat me to the punch. In any case I hope this exposes some of the arbitrary nature of this rating system. There seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on as well.