Knives Illustrated Sebenza...

[Lycosa]

flipe8---In a German Knife Mag. article, A CRK&T folder came out on Top, in a folder test, with some well-known folders. Some of CRK&T knives are Outstanding!

 

[ToyKnife]

Again, I've not read the article, but seems as though one of the criteria for determining the subject knives would be cost. At the very least, including some more expensive knives would stop naysayers from arguing that the 'Benza won purely on the merits of its greater cost.

The SnG and XM-18 would be logical choices. That would bring a number of interesting technical issues into focus; most obvious being brute sturdiness vs. cutting ability. My personal opinion here is that the 'Benz wins. It has better slicing geometry, but less strength. A worthy trade for a folder, IMO. If you need a piton, prybar or hammer, reach for a fixed-blade (assuming of course, you don't have the piton, prybar or hammer available).

On a slightly more subtle level, one then gets into the structural elements themselves, like the thumbstuds-as-stops, Hinderer brace, thickness at lock bar recess, etc.

Seems like a pretty interesting discussion, although a whole new vBulletin site might be needed to sterilize the politics, lol.

My thoughts exactly. The cost does reflect the little details that do make it better then the others. What does "better" mean? That is the real question and a whole new story. Does "better" mean higher quality or higher performance? I'm sure that Spyderco is on the same performance level, if not higher, but it doesn't have the same quality level as the Sebbie. So which better is more important in a "tactical" knife? Then you have to ask yourself. Is the extra cost worth that little bit of higher quality?

 

[ToyKnife]

Of the list of knives in the article, I'm not surprised the Seb comes out on top. But, at the same time, I'm pleased to see the CRKT on the same list as it is a much more likely knife to be found in the pockets of many "average joe" users. To me, I look at this and think there are plenty of reasonably priced users out there without hefty price tags and that's a good thing. I have a friend whom owns a CRKT M16 and uses it for everything(works in construction) and after about 3.5 years of everyday use, it's amazingly tight and solid. He brings it to me for semi-regular sharpenings and each time I give it back to him , I shake my head. I know he's used it as a screwdriver because I've witnessed it, and it shows no damage. I think some of the best tests are those performed by those non-knife people whom own just one knife and use it without concern.
I look forward to reading the article.

+1:thumbup: These are the people that need a high quality and top performance knife. They are the ones that will or may end up destroying a knife at that particular time that they "need" it.

 

[tsiloics]

My thoughts exactly. The cost does reflect the little details that do make it better then the others. What does "better" mean? That is the real question and a whole new story. Does "better" mean higher quality or higher performance? I'm sure that Spyderco is on the same performance level, if not higher, but it doesn't have the same quality level as the Sebbie. So which better is more important in a "tactical" knife? Then you have to ask yourself. Is the extra cost worth that little bit of higher quality?

My answer to that is "better" means nothing until it's qualified. It appears that many of the Internet knife folks qualify "better" in terms of how meticulously the knife is constructed. I'm not looking to kick sand in their faces, because I do identify with that mentality, but I also look at things in a less abstract context.

Evaluating performance is simple, as long as relevant criteria can be established. When you start looking at quality in a more abstract context, things get a little more complicated.

Someone used BMW as an example in one of these threads. The so-called Ultimate Driving Machine. BMW's mission is to fuse sporting performance with comfort. Problem is, those two concepts are diametrically opposed. Sporting performance involves making the car as stiff, light and responsive as possible. Minimizing resiliency. Comfort seeks to maximize resiliency. In one case you are transmitting as much information into the driver's rear end as possible. In the other you are trying to disassociate the driver from the tarmac as much as possible.

It's easy to make a basic commuter car out-handle anything in BMW's line, as long as you are willing to give up comfort. That's because you're no longer trying to reconcile two conflicted criteria. Black + white always = gray.

There is no knife that's going to excel at everything. This uber-knife idea is as ridiculous as BMW's ad slogan. Give me two cars to work with, and I'll easily bury any single BMW, simply by building one car for racing and the other for comfort. Same with knives.

In the case of the sort of knives we're talking about, there's an abstract notion of quality that doesn't necessarily correlate to performance at all. For example, CRK's high machine tolerances are taken by collectors to be indicative of elevated quality. This might actually be a liability if you were trying to work on the knife in the field, though.

All sorts of technologies find their way into these knives. For example, using the thumbstuds as stop pins and bracing the lock bar, a la Hinderer. This is intended to strengthen the blade against hyper-rotation, and hailed as an improvement over the Sebenza. What do I care though, if the Sebenza's blade will snap before it hyper-rotates? Those improvements would be of no practical value to me without a more robust blade, but the stouter blade cuts less well than the Sebenza's, so it kind of shoots you in the proverbial foot. Unless you're looking for a folder design where ultimate sturdiness is more important than cutting performance... kind of a BMW folder, I guess.

One application I've heard of for the super-burly folders is for guys on duty in positions where fixed blades are not allowed. As if politics were more important than sturdiness of tools in the trades where people are being dragged out of burning buildings. Either way, that's a very specialized set of circumstances, and not something I'd use as an argument in favor of, for example, an SnG over a Sebenza for my personal EDC. The Sebenza cuts better than the SnG. If I want to carry a stouter knife, I'll take one of my GW's, AD's, my SA, BAIII, or maybe my Pack Rat. They all lock up quite a bit better than an SnG.

So anyway, what I'm saying is that you can't really relate quality to performance without specific criteria. And, you're selling yourself short arguing from someone else's authority if his performance criteria differ from yours. Pure performance is a rare and precious thing. No sense in wasting it on abstract ideas that don't apply to your situation... unless of course you're a bench racer.

 

[ToyKnife]

I concur. So we have basically come to the conclusion that "better" is only measurable on an individual basis, purely subjective, unless there is a set criteria. But you can't set a criteria because we can't all agree on what a knife should do (read all testing on GB/Project). We all know it should cut or slice but should it pry? If so, how much?......

.....So once you have cut.....hehehe.....through all the bull just pick one that fits you. Don't worry about who makes it or the little details....unless it is a pile o' junk. Oh man, back to price again.

 

[BlackEnd]

My answer to that is "better" means nothing until it's qualified. It appears that many of the Internet knife folks qualify "better" in terms of how meticulously the knife is constructed. I'm not looking to kick sand in their faces, because I do identify with that mentality, but I also look at things in a less abstract context.

Evaluating performance is simple, as long as relevant criteria can be established. When you start looking at quality in a more abstract context, things get a little more complicated.

Someone used BMW as an example in one of these threads. The so-called Ultimate Driving Machine. BMW's mission is to fuse sporting performance with comfort. Problem is, those two concepts are diametrically opposed. Sporting performance involves making the car as stiff, light and responsive as possible. Minimizing resiliency. Comfort seeks to maximize resiliency. In one case you are transmitting as much information into the driver's rear end as possible. In the other you are trying to disassociate the driver from the tarmac as much as possible.

It's easy to make a basic commuter car out-handle anything in BMW's line, as long as you are willing to give up comfort. That's because you're no longer trying to reconcile two conflicted criteria. Black + white always = gray.

There is no knife that's going to excel at everything. This uber-knife idea is as ridiculous as BMW's ad slogan. Give me two cars to work with, and I'll easily bury any single BMW, simply by building one car for racing and the other for comfort. Same with knives.

In the case of the sort of knives we're talking about, there's an abstract notion of quality that doesn't necessarily correlate to performance at all. For example, CRK's high machine tolerances are taken by collectors to be indicative of elevated quality. This might actually be a liability if you were trying to work on the knife in the field, though.

All sorts of technologies find their way into these knives. For example, using the thumbstuds as stop pins and bracing the lock bar, a la Hinderer. This is intended to strengthen the blade against hyper-rotation, and hailed as an improvement over the Sebenza. What do I care though, if the Sebenza's blade will snap before it hyper-rotates? Those improvements would be of no practical value to me without a more robust blade, but the stouter blade cuts less well than the Sebenza's, so it kind of shoots you in the proverbial foot. Unless you're looking for a folder design where ultimate sturdiness is more important than cutting performance... kind of a BMW folder, I guess.

One application I've heard of for the super-burly folders is for guys on duty in positions where fixed blades are not allowed. As if politics were more important than sturdiness of tools in the trades where people are being dragged out of burning buildings. Either way, that's a very specialized set of circumstances, and not something I'd use as an argument in favor of, for example, an SnG over a Sebenza for my personal EDC. The Sebenza cuts better than the SnG. If I want to carry a stouter knife, I'll take one of my GW's, AD's, my SA, BAIII, or maybe my Pack Rat. They all lock up quite a bit better than an SnG.

So anyway, what I'm saying is that you can't really relate quality to performance without specific criteria. And, you're selling yourself short arguing from someone else's authority if his performance criteria differ from yours. Pure performance is a rare and precious thing. No sense in wasting it on abstract ideas that don't apply to your situation... unless of course you're a bench racer.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Lycosa]

Good to have you on the Forums, Tsiloics.

 

[missin_hobo]

I bought this issue of Knives Illustrated on an impulse - I do that from time to time - because Blade and Tactical Knives weren't out with their new issues yet. It was my first issue of KI, and I can't say I was impressed. The articles read (past-tense) like catalogue entries; mentioning little besides the steel, the type of grind, expedient materials used, etc.
I agree with the magazine's assertion that the Seb is one of the greatest tactical knives designed, if not the greatest tactical knife, but I don't place a lot of faith in whatever logic brought them to their conclusions. The articles don't show a lot of thought or information that couldn't just as easily have been gleaned from CRK's website.
And their definition of 'tactical knife,' while more thoughtful than most of the article, was no less arbitrary than any other definition. I agree with the posters here who think that 'tactical knife' has become a term like 'bread and butter.'