Large Regular Sebenza Review

[Cliff Stamp]

Sporting knives of M2 work better drawn back to 63-64 and certainly if the blade is more than about 40mm.

S90V performs best at 58-59, 63+ is way too hard for that steel.

Not for what I want it to do. I have 01, 1095 and M2 blades all at max hardness, with Alvin's patented cold treatment. Phil Wilson has been using CPM stainless at high hardness levels for years. He runs the nonstainless ones even harder.

Do people actually live in places where it drops to -30 or -40 degrees F?

Yeah but it's a dry cold. There are lots of advantages, you don't have to water your lawn for example, and when you take kids swiming, they never fight to stay for just 15 more minutes.

You believe that because CRK’s warranty doesn’t cover flicking, it makes the product inferior.

There is no issue of belief. One manufacturer has clearly stated one action voids his warrenty and is damaging to his knives (quoting another poster check the above) and another has stated his knives are designed to handle it. There isn't much room for debate there.

As noted in the above, this isn't the only point in which the Senebza is inferior to other knives I have used, it isn't even the most important one.

That type of lock in general has problems with torques and edge shear problems, plus jamming, and white knuckle issues. Then you have Sebenza specific problems like softer steel, and apparently now more obtuse edges (see recently thread in the main forum).

Then there are issues with ergonomics, then price considerations when you look at upper level production with matching and exceeding lock strength and stability, and materials.

Warrenties aren’t written the way they are because Company X tested the product in these circumstances and therefore we know it will hold up to this so then we will write the warranty to reflect that.

Lots of them are, I can think of several knife companies right here on Bladeforums that do that exactly. I can also think of many custom knifemakers who do exactly the same. It is mainly, about hype vs performance. The above quotes about rope cutting come directly from two makers.

As to the stresses induced by flicking versus impact on the edge, such as chopping, they are not the same.

Yes, chopping is *many* times worse, the impact energy is much greater, and it will still end up being focused on the same points. I have seen lots of flickable folders, only one yet which is capable of extended chopping without lock loosening.

As well in general flicking pales in comparison to simply exerting a lot of force on the blade. Awhile ago I bought 3 small voyagers. I took one part in the lock by just prying not sideways to snap the blade, but up/down to look at the lock. The lock bar broke off with relative ease. Flicking did nothing to it in comparison. I broke the lock in a Buck/Strider rocking it through a piece of wood in a similar manner - mainly due to an inherent weakness to liner/integrals, vs lockbacks and others.

I gave another Voyager to my brother who works in construction. He mainly used it for heavy cutting as he carried an Olfa for all lighter tasks. The serrations all broke off quickly cutting used material and cabling and again the lock went very loose and then failed just with heavy cutting, by this I mean puting max wrist strength into the blade to make deep cuts in wood, often rocking the blade to force it through, some times vertically which allowed near body weight into the blade.

Now they are just plastic folders and for their price I think they are decent though I would prefer the Spyderco versions mainly for the serration pattern. Its just a point about the possible stresses in heavy use compared to the inconsequential flicking impacts. Note here the method of failure isn't the same as in flicking when tends to flatten contact areas, the above tends to cause gross loosening/lateral shears or simply direct fracture. It gets even worse if you start batoning the folders, subjecting them to heavy Harvey class spine whacks - which again note a lot of knives can pass readily.

Doesn't the lube on the knife make the action too stiff to flick it open anyway?

Would depend on the lube, I don't put any on any of the folders I use and the knife isn't as cold as the enviroment, it is typically on you somewhere. Using them in freezing rain can be a problem as they can freeze open, but using any tools in such conditions is problematic. But the biggest problem for me is I wear glasses and thus I go blind in such conditions rapidly as the lens sleet over and without my glasses I am really near sighted, my far point is like 10 cm so I can't even see the ground to shovel clearly.

Nice resistance to cold by the way, i thought I was fairly decent in that regard, but I need more than a simple pair of cotton gloves when it starts heading towards -30 and I avoid any barehanded work strongly. I move away from gloves entirely at that point and use heavier mits. At this point in Labrador which is close by, schools will start to close with no snow, just due to temperature alone. As well you now have to start leaving your cars plugged in to heaters, more of a problem for Alberta than here.

...how many times have you flicked open a Sebenza

Maybe a few. I carried one, not mine, for a couple of weeks. I would not flick it significantly as it would void the warrenty, which is a bit of a concern on a knife of that cost especially when it isn't yours. If I was planning on flicking it I obviously would not buy a knife which wasn't built to take it. Which is one of, but hardly the only reason I would not choose a Sebenza as noted in the above.

or any other superior knife at the temperatures that you mentioned.

Not often, I usually carry fixed blades except at work. I do flicking in extreme temps and manipulation mainly for evalution, just like I try with mitts, thick gloves, etc. . Personally its not something that I am interested in its mainly to answer questions I get asked. Folders for me are more for recreation, serious work I do with fixed blades, though the Spyderco Chinook has been changing that as of late. I also also maybe thinking about ER for a baton level folder.

Precisely what testing have you done that backs up your blanket statements about CRK knives being inferior.

Why would I spend time trying to investigate a product when there are superior ones on the market, that seems an odd path to take if you are looking for maximum performance. I look at people making claims of higher performance, not less.

As for scope of work, as noted in the above flicking is well down the list of stresses when I consider hard work folders and thus when that is called abusive, a lot of other stuff gets automatically junked as well.

As for comparing knives for different tasks, yes that is done often and necessary because of the *huge* overlap. You don't but a knife to do just one thing (rarely), and thus what it can do well, and then ok and then not at all is useful information.

For example the Sebenza is inferior to the Opinel in regards to price, cutting ability, ergonomics, lock security, ease of sharpening and availability. It is superior in carryability, likely edge retention, corrosion resistance, ease of opening, lock strength and initial edge sharpness and formation.

These are of course two knives built for fairly different tasks, however compating and contrasting the two is a valuable exercise. Just like comparing any two tools or whatever, evaluate to judge scope of work and performance and then pick which one has the performance in the fields which are critical to the user.

It is no different than when buying snow shovels. They all move snow in lots of different ways and are inferior and superior to each other at various aspects, some can move more snow, some move less snow but easier due to handle design, some push it well but shovel poorly, some can handle gravel well but are heavy, some are very light but can break easy, etc. .

I personally mainly use an ergonomic plastic one with a wide scoop but have a metal bladed smaller one, plus an ice breaker and a very large scoop. The metal one is the one I would pick if I could have just one as it has the widest scope of work, though it does it all fairly poorly compared to the others, the others simple can't function at all in some areas

Thus while all being optimal at their own narrow niches, overall they are inferior to others for the same general type of work (shoveling snow). Every tool of course is the optimal design for something, so its meaningless to say something is superior or inferior as a blanket statement - these labels are only meaningful in contrast and when you define the judging criteria. All products are vastly inferior to scads of others at lots of things, even in very narrow scopes of work.

When you move to something broad like "cutting" its even more so. The Sebenza is huge inferior to an Opinel for cutting cardboard and woods, foods, etc., its massively inferior to an Olfa knife for paper, threads, even worse on thick insulation - fibreglass and foam the difference is many times over here, and the comparison gets even worst in its favor compare to the Olfa knives for really tough material and hard cutting/scraping which heavily damages edges.

Does it do some things well, sure. If these are the things that are of most importance to you then its the right choice, Reeve sells a lot of them so it is obviously true for a lot of people as many are repeat customers.

-Cliff

 

[R.A.T.]

Cliff,

After hearing someone else explain something to me, I have a question for you: If Superman and the Incredible Hulk were ever pitted against each other in a death match, who do you think would win and why?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[Cliff Stamp]

That's easy, Don King who of course is managing both.

-Cliff

 

[LaBella]

I do not, in fact Give A Flick! :barf:

 

[R.A.T.]

Thanks Cliff. That should lay this whole thread to rest and answer the questions raised within it.

 

[DCK]

Yah, but Cliff, I asked you in my previous post this question...

Precisely what testing have you done that backs up your blanket statements about CRK knives being inferior.

To which you replied with this...

Why would I spend time trying to investigate a product when there are superior ones on the market, which seems an odd path to take if you are looking for maximum performance? I look at people making claims of higher performance, not less.

Later in your reply you state the following...

When you move to something broad like "cutting" its even more so. The Sebenza is huge inferior to an Opinel for cutting cardboard and woods, foods, etc., its massively inferior to an Olfa knife for paper, threads, even worse on thick insulation - fibreglass and foam the difference is many times over here, and the comparison gets even worst in its favor compare to the Olfa knives for really tough material and hard cutting/scraping which heavily damages edges.

Just exactly how can you justify your latter comments? Aren't you saying in one breath that you haven't spent any time testing a Sebenza and in the next breath you go right on saying that the Sebenza is inferior to all of these other knife brands when it comes to specific uses? Sorry, if I'm coming across as being tough on you Cliff but I'm not one for Dogma and it seems to be getting rather thick with your conflicting statements.

 

[TedV]

Maybe to put things back into perspective:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2513107#post2513107

The whole issue of flicking knives has gotten a little away from reality! No, it is not a sin to flick a Sebenza but it is not something we recommend.

Flicking a knife is an activity that has the potential to damage the whole lock mechanism. It causes the parts to slam together, creating unnecessary wear. Flicking the blade open once in a while it is not a problem – in fact, we recommend it as part of the assembly process. It is the compulsive, continuous snapping open of the blade that is a problem; the spending an afternoon in front of the television and flicking-your-knife-open-breaking-the-lock-closing-it-flicking-it-open-again for the duration of a football game, or movie or whatever, and doing it every week.

This is as true for Sebenzas as it is for any other knife – or any hinged mechanism with a stop and a lock. Of all the knives on the market, the Sebenza is best able to withstand flicking because the size of the stop pin/sleeve, and the configuration of the pivot bearing and bearing surface, cause the energy to disperse over a large area.

Here is an analogy that illustrates what we are trying to say:
A man owns a Porsche – it is a well-built car and the whole vehicle has a “bank vault” feel to it. He particularly likes the sound of the doors closing – thunk. To work off his obsessive frustrations about life at large, this man spends hours and hours just opening and closing the door. Eventually the hinges wobble and the doors whistle when he is driving because they don’t close securely any longer. Do you suppose Porsche will replace the doors happily and at no charge?

So in summary, we do not advocate flicking knives at all – it is not in the best interest of the knife – any knife.

Anne

 

[Kevin Wilkins]

Not for what I want it to do. I have 01, 1095 and M2 blades all at max hardness, with Alvin's patented cold treatment. Phil Wilson has been using CPM stainless at high hardness levels for years. He runs the nonstainless ones even harder.
-Cliff

M2 knives at (near) quench hardness are brittle and won't take much lateral stress. Clamp a drill bit in a vise and see how easily you can break it. Industrial applications generally use M2 at a higher hardness than 63-64, I have found the lower hardenss increases edge stability under lateral stress such as when cutting into something and twisting the blade. BTW: How can you get a patent on heat treating? M2 isn't exactly a new product. Who's Alvin? Maybe I can send him a few knives to run for me?



CPM S60V and S90V have sometimes gotten a bad rep for brittelness because people temper them too high. They are britte if used at RC 61+, which is why all the experienced German (and other) makers (and myself) who make 100s of knives a year for years now from these steels follow Crucible's guidelines. Crucible gives a user hardeness for S90V at 56-59. The best results for sporting knives come at 57-59. I have my blades done at 58 +/- 1 as do most makers I know.

S90V has extreme wear resistance, it does not have extreme impact resistance and is actually LESS impact resitant than D2 tool steel at 59 RC.

A higher user hardness than that recomended by Crucible's engineers (who after all created and make the steel) is detrimental to product perfomance. Don't you think Crucible's engineers have tested their own product at a wide range of hardnesses? It's in Crucible's interests to give their customers good information about using their products and they do a good job at it.

Crucible's guidelines have also been borne out over here by makers such as Peter Herbst and Michael Jankowsky (to name just 2) whose main clients are hunters. Higher hardness = less perfomance and edge chipping. For chopping (impact heavy applications) choose another steel. For supurb cutting sporting knives, S90V is certainly at the very top for corrosion resistant tool steels. But at RC 63+ I'd put it right back down near the bottom. If you and / or Mr. Wilson will call Crucible, their eingineers can will be glad to provide you more information regarding getting the best perfomance from their products.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Thanx Ted, I think Anne's response says it pretty clearly. Funny how it's usually not good or bad, in most knife issues, but usually some type of optimum or trade off.

To support Kevin's comments, Crucible regularly works with makers and factories. They are always seeking to improve and serve the knife industry.

We tested (CATRA) some "chunks" of S120V and S150 for Crucible a couple of years ago. Some experimental stuff they were working with. Took forever to shape & grind the mule. They were quite phenominal in edge retention (at their heat treat instructions). "Too abrasion resistent?". quite possibly. Crucible, IMO, seeks the "optimum" solution to the question. Great American Steel company.

sal

 

[brownshoe]

One key point in the CRK statement about flicking knives...they say it's true for all knives. Not so. Many custom makers and production companies allow and encourage flicking. Terzuola indicated that his Spyderco Starmate was designed to be flicked open. Same can be said of any Emerson Wave product. I believe Ralph and Carson have both said their production knives can, and in some cases, should be flicked.

Another key point about the CRK statement is they say occasional flicking is OK, but not constant. What does this mean about the long term stability of their knife? If one hour of TV watching and flicking say 200 times can harm the knife, what about 5 years of use?

When it comes to testing the sebenza's flicking capability, why bother? Users say it can be flicked but the company says its abuse. Why not just believe the company?

Buy a Spyderco ATR or a Benchmade Skirmish if you want big, ti-handled, frame-type lock in a production knife.


Finally, when it comes to stating the sebenza is inferior to other knives, I have to agree with Cliff. All you need to do is pick one up and open and close it a few times to see how it's inferior. It's ugly, the handle is not friendly, the thumb stud hurts, it doesn't open smoothly and the blade's too wide for many EDC applications. When it comes to fit, yes they have good fit, except for their tightness, but their finish is horrible. The cheapo, cover all mistakes, blasted finish is just a cop-out. You have to pay more to get a decent blade finish and then it's only partial. When you finally look at the price and you know the sebenza is inferior to a lot of other products.

Final reason why the sebenza is inferior, to quote ATBarr; "Don't buy no ugly knife."

 

[DaveH]

I love this thread! Why? because I can always check in a read some more stuff people have written!

---------------------

It's ugly

Maybe, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

thumb stud hurts

True, if you open it with incorrect technique.

doesn't open smoothly

I think they do. They don't swing open like a balisong, I don't understand why people think all knives should.

blade's too wide

Having a little trouble imagining what it's too wide for, but maybe.

finish is horrible

I've had some satin finished Ti handles that get marred up anyway. So the blasted finish makes sense, low cost, and the end user can fix it up themselves with some polishing cloth if desired.

Spyderco ATR or a Benchmade Skirmish

Knives without the blade bushing will have a hosed up lock fit even faster when being "flicked". Then you get to sit there forever trying to tweak the pivot screw so it locks up tight, yet still opens. Oh and you'll need to locktite the screws until the next time it needs adjustment, a couple of days later.

Don't buy no ugly knife

That really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but since you brought it up, I prefer sound engineering principals, quality materials, fit, finish and function first then a knife can be pretty.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

ust exactly how can you justify your latter comments? Aren't you saying in one breath that you haven't spent any time testing a Sebenza and in the next breath you go right on saying that the Sebenza is inferior to all of these other knife brands when it comes to specific uses?

I didn't do any extensive flicking comparisons which is what the first statement was in responce to because the manufacturer already has stated it is a weakness. As Brownshoe pointed out, Reeves statement in the above is severely flawed as it ignores makers who design knives to be able to be flicked. So he is either unaware or unwilling to admit there are superior designs.

In regards to the cutting comparisons and lock and handle issues I have handled a Sebenza and many other knives of similar design which is where those comparisons were made. Would you really argue a Sebenza is better for Fibreglass insulation than an Olfa, or rough cutting (used carpet) and scraping? On some points like the lower hardness I have not used a Sebenza but have used other knives of similar properties which allow deductions to be made.

M2 knives at (near) quench hardness are brittle and won't take much lateral stress.

Their strength is quite high, the toughness really low, but I don't need it for those knives.

How can you get a patent on heat treating? M2 isn't exactly a new product. Who's Alvin? Maybe I can send him a few knives to run for me?

That was a joke, Alvin's cold treatment is to put them in his freezer I think. He is a hobby maker who hangs out on rec.knives.

Higher hardness = less perfomance and edge chipping.

Depends on what and how the cutting is done. I have as noted lots of knives at hardness levels in the 62-66 HRC range, none of them chip out. The are also ground fairly thin, as in 0.010" thick with edge angles of <10 degrees per side. They are not "tacticals".

If you and / or Mr. Wilson will call Crucible, their eingineers can will be glad to provide you more information regarding getting the best perfomance from their products.

I have talked to them on more than one occasion, Phil has on *many* occasions, including showing them test blades he has done and doing cross calibrations on hrc testors to insure he is one the same page with them, he also is one of the first makers to get steel runs.

For the performance he wants, the higher hardness is the better option. Of course it depends on the knife, when he used 3V on a large bowie he dropped the hardness way down. I would go about 58 HRC for a knife like that in 3V, but 65 HRC for a small utility knife in 15V.

-Cliff

 

[Steelhed]

Cliff - I find it interesting that you take at face value claims by makers who say their knives are designed to be flicked. You usually challenge that stuff. Have you tested any knives so designed, and have they held up better than other knives, like the Sebenza? Of course you haven't because, as you said, you didn't test the Sebenza in that regard. If after an extensive test wherein a Sebenza was flicked open several thousand times and compared to one of the knives that was "designed" to be flicked after it had been flicked several thousand times then we might be able to draw some conclusions, including the fact that some knifemakers may say their knives are designed to be flicked because they know no one will test that assertion to any great extent.

Let me ask you this: If you were given two knives whose makers made no warranty promises, how would you determine if one was inferior to the other (in whatever category)? I know the answer, I'm being a smartass. But all I'm pointing out is your own inconsistency when you champion evaluating knives for their intrinsic material capabilities versus the hype offered by the makers, yet you turn around and denigrate one knife (Sebenza) versus another based solely on the words written in a warranty. Either words don't matter when it comes to material performance or they do. Which is it?

No, this does not mean I think makers lie, or that they don't test their products before they make claims. I'm sure most do. But I am not going to say one knife is better than another based on the words alone. I am going to use them, even abuse them, and then draw my own conclusions.

I have used a Sebenza as much as or more than any other folder I own. I own many, of many different designs. I have yet to unlock a Sebenza or a Benchmade Axis lock despite some pretty tough usage. I have unlocked several liner lock models made by various companies. A Sebenza will unlock if the point is driven deeply into wood and then twisted, but I have not done it myself, since I would not use any folder in this manner anyway. There are some things about the Sebenza I do not like: 1) The handle, especially the new version (not the Classic) can cause friction sores after extended use, mainly due to the scallops along the lock area. 2) Edge retention is nothing to write home about. CRK keeps the HRC low compared to other makers using S30V. This does facilitate quick and easy edge touch ups, and I have never chipped out an edge - something I cannot say about Benchmade edges. 3) The Sebenza is tip up carry and one of mine has opened in my pocket, although I did not cut myself when I pulled the knife (it did cut my jeans pocket a bit though). Otherwise, the Sebenza has served me well. It locks up tighter than any other folder I own, is pretty dang corrosion resistant, and I like the blade profile and overall geometry for all around use.

BTW Cliff, I know what you are up to. You want someone to sacrifice his Sebenza by giving it to you to do one of your tests. Well, I'm not falling for it. I refuse to send you my Sebenza so you can send it back to me in 14 pieces. Besides you'd have to find some other idiot to give you one of those knives "designed" to be flicked so you could send that one back to him in 14 pieces (or more).

I agree with you about folders in general. They are almost always a compromise favoring portability and concealability over a fixed blade's inherent superiority in the areas of strength, utility and ergonomics. There are things I simply will not attempt with a folder of any kind, but wouldn't hesitate to do with a fixed blade.

 

[Megalobyte]

OK, first, to Cliff...

Thanks ever so much for using Emerson production knives, as being one of those types that are superior to CRK in toughness, and/or hard usability. You specifically mentioned the waved Emersons, suggesting that they are knives designed to be flicked, and presumably can handle flicking without damage, while, in contrast, CRK can't.

.
.
.
.
.
.

OK, sorry, had to go wipe the streams of tears from my eyes from laughing so hard, but, now that I have cleaned myself up, let me tell you something, oh, and also, thank you, for making my point better than I could have myself.

So, you suggest that waved Emersons are one of these wonder knives that is superior to the Sebenza in toughess because Emerson says they can be flicked witout damage, ummm, yeah right.

With few exceptions, production Emersons, waved or not, are some of the worst made high-end production knives I have seen. The QC is horrible, most notably, their liner locks, which vary widely in spec knife to knife, in fact, I don't recall ever seeing a productiion Emerson at a knife store, or show, that had a lock that was not in some way at least somewhat defective, and out of spec right from the factory, and many are completely defective. So, if a new Emerson starts out, brand new, with its liner lock almost touching the right hand side of the handle, and slips out of engagement at the slightest touch, who cares, or can even tell if flicking will throw it out of whack, its already hopelessly out of whack, and defective from the get go, flicking, and its consequences, are therefore the least of your problems, and becomes a moot point. I suppose you could say that well, if the liner starts off brand new, all the way over to the right, then flicking won't cause it to go much farther, since, well, it can't, but, that's a pretty ridiculous argument, don't you think?

So, are there lots of companies, like Emerson, who say flicking is OK, that their knives are strong enough to withstand it, sure, easy to say when you can't even produce a knife that begins its life within spec. Emerson claims to be the #1 hard use knife, and apparently doesn't prohibit flicking in their warrantee, so, obviously Cliff, they are better knives and tougher than CR knives, ummmm, uh-huh.

There is NO way, a production Emerson will handle flicking as well or better than a Sebenza, and, at the very least, with a Sebenza, the odds are pretty slim you'll ever even need the warrantee, since the defect rate on them is minescule, whereas with the Emersons, the odds are, if you care about your knife, and its lock being reliable, closer to an absurd 50%. To blindly accept that Emerson production knives are able to withstand flicking, becuase they say so, and are therefore superior to CRK in this regard, or any other, is just laughable, and your willingness to believe it, and cite it as an example, as you clearly did, is pretty strong evidence of your anti-CRK bias.

You see, it's no secret that CRK takes great pride in using and maintaining extremely close tolerences and very tight specs, tolerences a company like Emerson is unable, or at least unwilling to come close to, so, yes, CR is proud of his ultra tight specs, and that may be why he prohibits excessive flicking, because to a perfectionist like him, who prides himself on the tightest tolerances possible, the slightest deviation, like that which occurs from repeated flicking, is unacceptable, whereas on knives like Emersons, where the specs are so loose and variable to begin with, they probably could care less about a very small deviation, that to them is way too small to be concerned about, while to a guy like CR, any deviation from his exacting specs is too much. Get it?


To Brownshoe:

It appears somebody needs to explain to you the difference between objective and subjective, it's easy, follow along, and, all I need to do is have you reread your earlier post. You see, subjective are the various things you were complaining about, while objective, is where you grudgingly admitted they were very well made knives. Simple, isn't it.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I find it interesting that you take at face value claims by makers who say their knives are designed to be flicked.

It is quite possible that some of the knives which guarantee superior performance, actually don't have it. However the warrenty is a point of superiority in and of itself.

As for pure performance, many of the flicking makers are *very* vocal about it, plus have done it publically and again it is guaranteed. So when compared to Reeve saying his design can't take it. Well that seems to be an easy decision.

Now if the flicking guys were new, their knives unused, and the warrenty weeks old - that is another matter. Even then though the question would seem obvious as to how an established maker was allowing claims of superiority. If it was me I'd just ask, how come your knives can't do that.

...some knifemakers may say their knives are designed to be flicked because they know no one will test that assertion to any great extent.

This holds for some claims, but flicking is more like recreation to many, I would be wary of hyping knives in that regard because it is so easy to do, just sit in front of a tv and flick away, same with spine whacking.

What you note does hold for a lot of knives though for various properties. Not a lot of people take a $600 tactical machete and go whacking away with it like a $10 bolo not caring if that patch of grass is over a piece of fencing, so yeah there is a lot of hype.

But all I'm pointing out is your own inconsistency when you champion evaluating knives for their intrinsic material capabilities versus the hype offered by the makers, yet you turn around and denigrate one knife (Sebenza) versus another based solely on the words written in a warranty. Either words don't matter when it comes to material performance or they do. Which is it?

The warrenty is a superiority in and of itself, even if the performance isn't there.

Consider - I buy one of Ralph's folders. I flick it and it falls apart, Ralph covers the damage as its under a guarantee. Now if I repeat it and it fails again I conclude that its most likely hype - depending on the makers attitude. But the warrenty was obviously of significant benefit. This has happened to me on more than one occasion, with the Livesay RCM for example.

With the Sebenza, no I am not going to go out and buy a knife which the makers says doesn't have the performance I want just to see if he is wrong. That just seems really silly to me, what if he was right - and even if he was wrong, what happens at a later date if there is a problem?

Yes of course I'll check the other way, that's a totally different matter. But if am am looking for an auto shutoff toaster well yeah I am going to buy the one which has a guaranteed auto shutoff not one which says that it won't.

They are almost always a compromise favoring portability and concealability over a fixed blade's inherent superiority in the areas of strength, utility and ergonomics.

Some folders can have stronger utility / versatility like a SAK, or nice slipjoint, but yeah for strength, well a join is a join. But I think it is possible to get a lock so strong and secure that it covers most if not all of utility use, outside of heavy bowie or entry tool work. I have done really heavy cutting with a Chinook and am getting curious now with prying would the blade break before the handle would come apart in lateral prying the lock is also really strong so chopping and batoning may even be possible, to an extent anyway.


-Cliff

 

[Steelhed]

Cliff - I actually think we are getting somewhere here.

"The warrenty is a superiority in and of itself, even if the performance isn't there."

Yes, a good warranty is better than a poor or non existent warranty. This does make for a superior product, but not because of any intrinsic material superiority. It is superior because the customer is covered if the product fails for whatever reason, so long as that reason is covered in the warranty. I never argued that point. I argued and still do that warranty coverage is another category of value quite distinct from the material properties of the product. It's like with firearms and handloads. Most firearm warranties are void if the manufacturer finds out you used handloads in their gun. Why? Because the manufacturer has no control over how you make your cartridges, while manufactered ammunition is controlled to SAAMI specifications. It does not mean the manufacturer thinks there is some mystical difference between a properly concocted handload and factory ammunition. It's that lack of control that bothers them (and the lawsuits). The same may apply to a knife manufactuer. They may feel flicking or spine whacking varies too greatly from one person to another. One may do it occasionally with a simple flick of the wrist or whack on a table top, while another may flick it constantly with violent snaps of the wrist strong enough to decapitate an Iraqi insurgent. Again lack of control may be the issue, not the inherent mechanical properties of the knife.

If a manufacturer suddenly decided to offer a warranty for their firearm even if handloads are used, that would not mean the firearm was suddenly inherently stronger and superior. It would still be the same gun, only the warranty would have changed. Likewise, if CRK suddenly decided to include flicking in its warranty that would not mean the Sebenza has suddenly become a stronger, better designed knife. It may simply mean the manufacturer changed their mind about what they would cover under warranty.

"The warrenty is a superiority in and of itself, even if the performance isn't there."

And even if the performance is there. See, we are saying the same thing.

"With the Sebenza, no I am not going to go out and buy a knife which the makers says doesn't have the performance I want just to see if he is wrong. That just seems really silly to me, what if he was right - and even if he was wrong, what happens at a later date if there is a problem?"

Well, silly or not, we do this sort of thing all the time. How many of us have bought vehicles and then used them beyond their intended operating parameters just to see what they will really do. It may exceed the warranty, but at least we know the vehicle's true limits. People are often silly.

 

[kbog]

It is funny to read this:

It appears somebody needs to explain to you the difference between objective and subjective, it's easy, follow along, and, all I need to do is have you reread your earlier post....

In the same post where an argument is made like this:

There is NO way, a production Emerson will handle flicking as well or better than a Sebenza, and, at the very least, with a Sebenza, the odds are pretty slim you'll ever even need the warrantee, since the defect rate on them is minescule, whereas with the Emersons, the odds are, if you care about your knife, and its lock being reliable, closer to an absurd 50%.

I agree with much of what you say, but posts like these can affect credibility. If you meant it jokingly, I apologize but it sure read like you were belittling.

 

[Kevin Wilkins]

So when compared to Reeve saying his design can't take it.
-Cliff

Did Chris Reeve actualy say his design "can't take it" or is this YOUR statement? I'm not aware of Chris having made such a comment and Anne Reeve's very clear statement is posted above in this very thread where she make their position crystal clear and it's certainly NOT that Sebenzas can't take it.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

...it's certainly NOT that Sebenzas can't take it.

It does exactly, and it goes beyond that and assumes it happens to all knives which is simply false, and quite frankly absurd for one maker to make a statement of that nature about anothers knives, especially when the other makers have publically stated the opposite.

It may exceed the warranty, but at least we know the vehicle's true limits.

As recreation or just idle curiosity yeah. For example whenever a knife or tool in general isn't useful for me I may do things to it I know are abusive just to gain information. However if I am actually looking to buy a tool to get a specific level of performance I will look for the ones built to take said use, not ones that that the maker says its abusive to do so.

Of course its all money and free time. The more you have the more you can waste. Personally there are so many good knives out there, and more makers coming on the scene that I don't have enough time to look at all of them, and my restrictions on performance are fairly high. If the performance I want is not guaranteed I just move on, because there are those that will.

-Cliff

 

[Kevin Wilkins]

Cliff I think you need to read Anne's statement again. Never does she say their knives "can't take it". That's your assertion, and one which you have not proven or substantiated. I think it's a low blow on your part to distort Anne's words to fit your opinion. If you're so sure Sebenza's "can't take it" why don't you buy 10 or 20 and subject them to flicking until the locks fail, compile the statistics and let us all know?

As to Anne's statement that compulsively flicking open a knife - as opposed to opening the knife normally - puts added wear and tear on the lock mechanisn of any folder, well that's obvious to me and evidently to many other people here as well. I might add, I have designed and made quite a number of folding knives over the years too.