Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[Gator97]

Maybe you're not hip to the whole becker history

Definitely not, guilty as charged, however I never claimed otherwise.

but Camillus used to manufacture both "carbon V" cold steel fixed blades and the becker line

That is exactly what was in the post if you had followed the link(would be nice if you did, would've saved you some time too) in my post to which you are replying here And I was quite clear in my post, what I was referring to, 1095 Cro-Van != Carbon V.

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.

I am really confused, even if I thought i understood after dl's post. Carbon V would be cold steel srk right? So, if we're talking older BK9s, then it's 0.265 vs. 0.1875, correct? If we're talking new gen, then it's 0.188 vs 0.1875, but then it's 0195 cro-van vs. carbon V.
Am I missing something here again?
In fact it's neither you listed, see below specs form knifetests.com.

So the SRK carbon V and camillus BK9 are the EXACT same thickness, same steel, same heat treat, same coating

How? Based on what you said above, it's either same steel(0170-6C), different thickness, or same thickness, different steel - 1095 CroVan, vs. Carbon V.

Besides, how does your "whole 9 yards" include different blade length, width and consequently, tapering?

yet one is "rated" as being twice as tough?

OMG! You know, thanks you and others from anti-noss company I had to visit knifetests.com 100x times more than I would otherwise.

For one, Becker is 9" blade, and SRK which I have owned for a while was 6" blade. Unless camillus or someone else made Noss version of 9" SRK that alone would account for the performance difference. Please note I am not trying to explain Noss' ratings. I am merely trying to find out, why do you personally expect two different knives to perform the same on several tests from Noss' arsenal?

So, one more visit to knifetests, and Becker specs as tested are listed there:
9" long blade, .210 thickness.

More eloquent posters beat me to the punch. In any case I hope this exposes some of the arbitrary nature of this rating system.

Yeah, and I beat you to acknowledging my mistake few times
Also, it is more than obvious that testing he does is arbitrary, biased (as all individual tests are) and imprecise. And what is new in all that, and how or why is that a reason to bash and resort to personal insults of the tester the way it's done in this thread.
Who exactly here, can conduct purely unbiased, non arbitrary in nature(what's that anyway) and scientific test to satisfy all testing criteria, which for the knives simply do not exist...

 

[Slim to None]

It doesn't stand to logic that a thicker, slightly longer knife of the same steel and heat treat would be half as tough as a thinner, slightly shorter knife. If we're operating on the assumption that the rating system is arbitrary then comparisons of the ratings are fallacious. The entire exercise is a massive fraud that doesn't stand up to critical thinking. The antics of the fools on jackass with a veneer of pretense. Cliff Stamp wrought large.

 

[Broos]

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.

My main objection has always been you do not learn very much at all from an inherently unsafe & non-repeatable test method. And anyone who can log on here can easily learn about the many difficulties and issues involved even with the precise and repeatable test methods used today to test steel for toughness.

What does cutting a straight line have to do with anything? We are talking about how to test something. The fact that people are different, and will have different opinions of the tool depending on ergonomics or some other subjective quality have nothing to do with figuring out the best way to test for some objective characteristic of the tool.

There is no scientific way to quantify or compare people's subjective opinions of anything, so I do not even understand what point you are making in defending this kid who has exhibited quite a lack of character by his actions here.

I guess I don't really understand what point you are specifically making about testing or these video reviews then. It sounds like you want to test a person with a knife, not a knife. That is called a review, and is subjective. If you want to know how comfortable a knife is, you have to use it yourself. If you want to know how well a knife cuts by measuring the downwards force required to cut something, want to know how well a knife resists impacts, or want to know how strong a knife is resisting a force perpindicular to the edge, you do not need a human to do so. One key idea is that you have to define what you want to test for before you start testing. What is it exactly that noss4 is testing in your words? I can tell you that any objective characteristic of the knife is not being tested reliably.

Since the threads about his tests are full of conclusions made by everyone posting about objective measures, ie. toughness & strength. I assumed the point is how to test for some scientific measure for toughness and strength. If you want a subjective measure of toughness or strength of a knife and a human user, then there is no point in testing for it, because it is impossible to scientifically quantify an opinion or compare opinions.

If your point is that they are a video review offering an opinion, then I agree.

 

[Gator97]

It doesn't stand to logic that a thicker, slightly longer knife

Let's to very simple math, 0.1875 is ~89% of 0.210. I.e. difference in thickness is 11%. Blade length, 6" would be ~67% of 9". So, we have 33% difference in length and 11% difference in thickness. Of which, you consider 33% slight, then 11% by that virtue should be very, very slight...
Terminology aside, you have a knife which is 33% longer, but only 11% thicker.
Given the nature of Noss tests I'd say longer blades have higher chances of failure. With all the prying, standing on the knife and chopping and whatever else he does...
I don't have enough materials engineering knowledge and a will to go dig up all the related formulas somewhere, but perhaps someone can chime in and explain to us how 11% increase in thickness can compensate for 33% increase in length when the blade is subjected to strong lateral loads and impacts...

of the same steel and heat treat would be half as tough as a thinner, slightly shorter knife.

"Tough" is a very relative term. What Noss did, gave twice as high rating based on his criteria. I don't think he provided charpy V notch testing result or anything of that sort. His criteria and that's all to it. Why are you so upset? His tests don't fit your criteria? Fine, but that doesn't make him evil.

If we're operating on the assumption that the rating system is arbitrary then comparisons of the ratings are fallacious.

And which ratings aren't in any review?

The entire exercise is a massive fraud that doesn't stand up to critical thinking. The antics of the fools on jackass with a veneer of pretense. Cliff Stamp wrought large.

Chill out dude Fraud? As in, he's deliberately deceiving you somehow? He openly says I do this and that, shows on the video and then says I think this knife gets 2 or 4 or whatever stars. What fraud are you talking about anyway? You disagree with him fine, there is nothing wrong with criticizing his methods, better yet do your own destructive or non destructive test, post your result, prove him wrong, but why all the name calling? You don't have anything better to prove your point?

 

[Gator97]

My main objection has always been you do not learn very much at all from an inherently unsafe & non-repeatable test method.

To which I never objected. I merely point out that the other extreme, doing perfectly calibrated and repeated tests gives us very little knowledge of how the object will interact with a human being. Ot those two will interact with the third party. E.g user + knife vs. a log or whatever...

What does cutting a straight line have to do with anything?

Hmm, I was trying to convince you that hand cutting and machine cutting are not the same as you stated several times(with me), and that humans have inherit imprecision built it. I don't know why did I need to tell you that, especially when you object to Noss' tests for exactly same reason.

point you are making in defending this kid who has exhibited quite a lack of character by his actions here.

Actually Broos, I am defending not the kid, and I suspect he ain't no kid, but the right to test/post freely w/o being bashed and called names based on the fact that someone else's rating criteria are different.
If oyu post your test results on your site tomorrow and someone will treat you same as noss gets gere, I'll most certainly will be on your side, for the same reason. I may not necessarily agree with your test methods, or conclusions, but that alone doesn't make you jacka$$, or give me the right to call you other names..

I guess I don't really understand what point you are specifically making about testing or these video reviews then.

That they still have some value, depends on the person watching. And that it is ok for a person to break his stuff, he paid for it after all. All this hysteria about knife abuse, I really don't get it.

If you want to know how well a knife cuts by measuring the downwards force required to cut something, want to know how well a knife resists impacts, or want to know how strong a knife is resisting a force perpindicular to the edge, you do not need a human to do so.

We are going in circles.. And honestly, I already said, I am having hard time understanding your position. In the arguments with me, you did say few times machine cutting is the same as human, and I don't see how it is the same when neither me nor you can replicate a machine. At the same time, you position out that Noss' tests are invalid because he's doing them by hand and not by machines... A != B even if A == B?

According to you it is easy to create a machine that can model average human body mechanics, yet despite of the worlds top robotics scientists best efforts for last 50-60 years, that step is still really far.

One key idea is that you have to define what you want to test for before you start testing. What is it exactly that noss4 is testing in your words?

Noss is testing whatever he sees as "toughness" of the knife. Which doesn't exactly translate into metallurgical definition of the toughness.

I can tell you that any objective characteristic of the knife is not being tested reliably.

Fine. I don't argue that. But again, his knives, his tests and his criteria, if you disagree you disagree, forum is free for open discussion, why all the slur...

If your point is that they are a video review offering an opinion, then I agree.

yeah, and it's not something to get overly upset with, or throw around strong accusations about massive frauds and all that.

 

[Guyon]

Position: we don't learn much from tests that are unsafe and un-repeatable
Position: we don't learn much about human/tool interaction by testing with machines alone

One of these strikes me as a point about testing for toughness. The other strikes me as a bit of qualitative navel gazing. I'll let you all decide which is which. If TGHM's tests are bound up in all this imprecision, then what the heck is he testing? If he's trying to teach us something about human interaction with a tool, well... he's succeeded in showing that humans can break knives. Bravo.

Edited to add: I suspect much of the name calling stems less from how TGHM treats knives, and more from how TGHM behaved himself during his stint here at BFC.

 

[theonew]

All this hysteria about knife abuse, I really don't get it.

It's clearly not rational. I think it somehow has to do with Cliff Stamp related mass hysteria. While Cliff had a fair amount to offer, when he was losing an argument he would shift the discussion and just continue on. It was pretty maddening and I can understand why people despised him so much. Unfortunately I see the same thing from folks here in discussions about Noss. He's bad for the community, he's judging the whole knife on only one aspect, his ratings are arbitrary, his tests aren't scientific [enough], he's biased, he's dishonest, I can't see his face; as doubt is cast over the validity/poignancy of one point, the discussion shifts again.

Then when all else fails, let's talk about his awful character. Well, if I was attacked as much as he was for attempting to add to the paltry base of knowledge concerning the elusive and controversial nature of knife toughness, I'd be pretty angry myself :grumpy:

 

[Guyon]

I'm gonna Gator this one...

He's bad for the community,

You don't say...

he's judging the whole knife on only one aspect,

Well, he makes some feeble attempts to gauge sharpness, I suppose.

his ratings are arbitrary,

They seem so. Picking a number out of a hat would at least imply that you have some method at the mercy of chance.

his tests aren't scientific [enough],

Asked and answered.

he's biased,

No, I think he beats on all knives with equal inanity.

he's dishonest,

Well, he seems to be in denial about his own motives.

I can't see his face

I know it! There's a big hockey mask in the way.

his awful character.

Maybe he's reformed? If Tiger Woods can do it...

I really should have made each one of these replies a separate post.

 

[dl351]

You know, I don't mean this at all in an argumentative way, but Slim to None has an interesting point. A knife that is slightly thicker, but longer, and also wider, broke easier than the smaller one of the same steel. It just seems like something to think about. I know geometries are different, but a bigger cross section is a bigger cross section. Perhaps the larger blade made for larger torque applied to the blade during various "tests." I'm just not sure about this one.

 

[theonew]

You don't say...

I don't and lots of others don't. The cornerstone of that argument is that people are idiots. Fine if you're pompous enough to believe that. Secondarily, we have plenty of evidence that concrete chopping used as a marketing shtick, which has been going on for awhile, long before Noss, hasn't harmed the community. The few newbs who pop up with praise for these videos are probably just as effected by the marketing of Busse and Strider. As well some users really need very rugged equipment.


Well, he makes some feeble attempts to gauge sharpness, I suppose.


He has stated that other aspects of knife performance aren't a part of the test or the ratings. Easy to understand.


They seem so. Picking a number out of a hat would at least imply that you have some method at the mercy of chance.


He states his methodology and you can watch the videos and decide for yourself whether his ratings have merit or not. Nothing sinister here.


Asked and answered.


Also expounded upon, i.e., hand testing of a knifes performance doing similar tasks, while not as precise as machine testing, offers a different sort of insight into performance. Hand testing on low budgets is pretty much as much as we can hope for from home users. If it's not enough, fine, but why should it be loathed?


No, I think he beats on all knives with equal inanity.


So you don't see bias.



Well, he seems to be in denial about his own motives.


Irrelevant armchair pseudo-pyschology.



I know it! There's a big hockey mask in the way.


Indeed


Maybe he's reformed? If Tiger Woods can do it...

I really should have made each one of these replies a separate post.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Slim to None]

The idea of a numerical rating system is to compare one rating to another quantitatively. 5 stars being 25% better than 4, what have you. When the ratings are arbitrary, then comparisons of them aren't valid. Does this compute with anyone?

Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/thumbs down was much more honest. Like, dislike, fine, that makes sense.

 

[Guyon]

I think I've been out-Gatored.

theonew sure knows a lot about TGHM and what he's stated. :thumbup:

 

[Sal Glesser]

Sure seem to be a lot of opinions on testing.

The purpose of testing a product is to determine how well it performs and what are it's limits. One must exceed the limits to know the limits.

As a factory, we use repeatable lab testing for sharpness, edge retention, strength (lock, blade, etc) and Q-fog for corrosion testing. We use the foundries specs on toughness (but we do have our own Charpy).

We have found that "real world" testing can defy the lab numbers, so we feel that actual use in "real world" situations is just as impoortant as lab tests.

The difference in testing is often the amount of accumulated knowledge one has when doing these tests.

"Testing" your "first knife", is really just learning and while providing opinion, isn't very credible. Testing only one knife as a sample of the species is also not a very good sampling, in my opinion.

The more knowledgable the tester, the more weight to the test.

sal

 

[Guyon]

Thanks for taking the time, Sal. You've always been swarmed by folks when I've hit the Spyderco booth at Blade, but next year, I'm going to bide my time and shake your hand. It was a Spyderco Standard that got me hooked on quality knives. I owe you and your company a thank you.

 

[Gator97]

A knife that is slightly thicker, but longer, and also wider, broke easier than the smaller one of the same steel. It just seems like something to think about. I know geometries are different, but a bigger cross section is a bigger cross section. Perhaps the larger blade made for larger torque applied to the blade during various "tests."

I think it's quite natural that a longer blade broke easier. I think it would be a lot more helpful and constructive if one of the several people in this thread with engineering background could provide a formula or calculated numerical data to estimate how much effect 11% increase in thickness vs. 33% increase in length has on overall strength of the knife. For simplicity we can assume it is a square bar or if the formulas exist for it triangular or wedge shaped.
That will be something solid to go with instead of the vague statements

Broos? Slim?

 

[Gator97]

The idea of a numerical rating system is to compare one rating to another quantitatively...
Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/thumbs down was much more honest. Like, dislike, fine, that makes sense.

Hmm, considering that numerical rating system is used a is more widely than thumbs up and down... Besides, I've seen a lot of "2 thumbs up/down" ratings as well.
If he were to use just 1 thumb up/down I am sure a lot of people would object, why A and B got thumbs up, when A is so much better than B.. Or how can 500$ knife can get the same thumbs up as 20$ knife, etc...
And I am not sure you wouldn't be one of the complainers there.
So, you disagree with movie critics, they rate by numbers, ice skating judges, since they rate by numbers, and the list is pretty much endless...
When your doctor asks you to rate your pain on the scale from 1 to 10, what do you do? Call him an a$$hole and advice him to switch to thumbs up/down system instead?
Anyhow, as I posted above, Slim, how about you help to calculate the actual difference in strength of the metal bar made by 11% increase in strength and 33% increase in length.

Position: we don't learn much from tests that are unsafe and un-repeatable
Position: we don't learn much about human/tool interaction by testing with machines alone

One of these strikes me as a point about testing for toughness. The other strikes me as a bit of qualitative navel gazing.

Fascinating. So, if someone asks for #1, he's all cool and scientific. If another person asks for #1 and #2 he becomes naval gazer... That about sums it up how much fairness and non biased approach you guys use on this subject.
At least Mr. Glesser clearly opts for #1 and #2. And that is what I was telling Broos long ago in this very thread. Field tests often defy very elaborate lab test setups.

I'll let you all decide which is which.

Great. Step 1 completed. Now, how about you let us decide what is the value of Noss' testing and this whole thread can become to an end.

 

[Guyon]

Either he's testing for toughness and needs a more scientific approach. Or he's doing in-hand reviews that, when you really examine it, aren't really about toughness at all. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[orthogonal1]

Either he's testing for toughness and needs a more scientific approach. Or he's doing in-hand reviews that, when you really examine it, aren't really about toughness at all. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can either prove the conclusions are incorrect or you can drivel on about minutae without any proof that the conclusions are in fact incorrect.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Guyon]

Last I checked, I didn't need physics to "prove" that TGHM is grandstanding.

In all seriousness, the moment you call into question someone's methodology/approach based upon what we already know about sound methods, you simultaneously question his conclusions. You don't need to "prove" anything to the contrary in order to have doubts.

 

[orthogonal1]

Last I checked, I didn't need physics to "prove" that TGHM is grandstanding.

In all seriousness, the moment you call into question someone's methodology/approach based upon what we already know about sound methods, you simultaneously question his conclusions. You don't need to "prove" anything to the contrary in order to have doubts.

In all seriousness, what does "grandstanding" have to do with it? Nothing.

People have regularly come to correct conclusions without the use of "sound methods", whatever these may be at any given time.


Until your "sound methods" prove otherwise, any statements as to the correctness of the conclusions of NOSS4 have no more weight than his.

Doubts are fine, but you and others put forth much more than mere "doubts" justify.