List of ZTs that Don't Have Lock Failure Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Horizon7 said:
Does anybody else think ZT should include a nail nick on the blade, so they are consistent with other slip joints?
Click to expand...

Horizon7 said:
All ZT threads should be moved to the Traditional Folder forum.
Click to expand...

You claim to not be trolling but then you make garbage posts like these that are devoid of any kind of facts at all and are just meant to inflame.
 
I’ve heard lock bar inserts and lock geometry each called out as possible drivers for lock failure. This is genuinely interesting to me.

1. If geometry is to blame, and we know that some knives fail, while others pass, then it would follow that the geometry must be different between the failing group and the passing group.

There are possible explanations for this type of thing happening. For example, machine settings being incorrectly programmed for some runs. This type of thing would generally be an anomaly, rather than a reoccurring issue. If it were a reoccurring issue, that would indicate bad settings being used as the norm, and the failing group would outnumber the passing group. This would mean that somebody “messed up” or deviated from the normal settings, resulting in accidentally correct geometry for the runs yielding the passing group.

In either case, we would expect to see serial number groupings reflecting runs with pass/fail geometries, rather than static settings across a given run yielding results either direction.

TL;DRWhen speaking in terms of machine driven production, bad geometry would be consistent, and easy to observe across serialized runs.

2. If lock bar inserts were to blame, the knife world would be burning. Kizer, Reate, WE, Spyderco, CKF, etc using lock bar inserts would all be failing, and steel liner locks would also be universally reviled.

If the matter is geometry, explain how so many ZTs pass.

If lock bar inserts are the problem, explain how that isn’t a problem anywhere else.

Reminder to those assigning blame to a specific cause: Hitchens’s Razor is a thing. The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.
 
RBid said:
I’ve heard lock bar inserts and lock geometry each called out as possible drivers for lock failure. This is genuinely interesting to me.

1. If geometry is to blame, and we know that some knives fail, while others pass, then it would follow that the geometry must be different between the failing group and the passing group.

There are possible explanations for this type of thing happening. For example, machine settings being incorrectly programmed for some runs. This type of thing would generally be an anomaly, rather than a reoccurring issue. If it were a reoccurring issue, that would indicate bad settings being used as the norm, and the failing group would outnumber the passing group. This would mean that somebody “messed up” or deviated from the normal settings, resulting in accidentally correct geometry for the runs yielding the passing group.

In either case, we would expect to see serial number groupings reflecting runs with pass/fail geometries, rather than static settings across a given run yielding results either direction.

TL;DRWhen speaking in terms of machine driven production, bad geometry would be consistent, and easy to observe across serialized runs.

2. If lock bar inserts were to blame, the knife world would be burning. Kizer, Reate, WE, Spyderco, CKF, etc using lock bar inserts would all be failing, and steel liner locks would also be universally reviled.

If the matter is geometry, explain how so many ZTs pass.

If lock bar inserts are the problem, explain how that isn’t a problem anywhere else.

Reminder to those assigning blame to a specific cause: Hitchens’s Razor is a thing. The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.
Click to expand...

You made some interesting ponts but there is a flawed assumption here, which is once the machine is set, it will produce absolutely identical locks until it is reset.
 
sharp_edge said:
You made some interesting ponts but there is a flawed assumption here, which is once the machine is set, it will produce absolutely identical locks until it is reset.
Click to expand...

To be fair, every analysis offered here assumes things.
We have no choice but to make assumptions until Zero Tolerance provides a meaningful statement as to why these lock failures are happening.
 
sharp_edge said:
You made some interesting ponts but there is a flawed assumption here, which is once the machine is set, it will produce absolutely identical locks until it is reset.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Variance as tools wear, etc is obviously going to occur, and machines themselves are built to perform within a range of acceptable tolerances. I understand this very well. The assumption that I’m actually making is that ZT isn’t using machines producing enough variance from one sample to another that the variance itself determines pass vs fail.
 
Horizon7 said:
Why are you taking this personal? I'm sorry if these threads bring down the worth of your collection. Some ZTs have proven to be dangerous to use, and the knife community needs to know about the many cases of lock failures out there. MANY CASES.
Click to expand...
Horizon7 said:
You're welcome.
Click to expand...
I smell the stink of ^TROLL^ coming from this guy Horizon7. It's becoming very clear to me that it's his second account and he gets off on arguing with folks and or he/she or It is just another knucklehead noob millennial so why don't you just ride off into the Horizon or start backing your shit up with Pics or Vids. FACTS Kid, We want FACTS. Or Walk On ........:eek:
 
RBid said:
Not at all. Variance as tools wear, etc is obviously going to occur, and machines themselves are built to perform within a range of acceptable tolerances. I understand this very well. The assumption that I’m actually making is that ZT isn’t using machines producing enough variance from one sample to another that the variance itself determines pass vs fail.
Click to expand...

The difference between a framelock that will slip and another that will not may not be as big as one would think or believe.

IMO all framelocks will fall if smashed hard enough (see Demko cold steel vs xxx tests), but thats sth insane to do. Moderate tapping on the spine to check if the lock is secure on the other hand does have some value, although even that should not be done repeatedly.

I guess what I am saying is that there is a spectrum of force applied to the spine, from the lightest to the heaviest. It is the exact point on this spectrum when a framelock fails that people cannot agree to. Also, machining variance can affect where this point sits on the spectrum, for even the same batch of knives.
 
sharp_edge said:
The difference between a framelock that will slip and another that will not may not be as big as one would think or believe.

IMO all framelocks will fall if smashed hard enough (see Demko cold steel vs xxx tests), but thats sth insane to do. Moderate tapping on the spine to check if the lock is secure on the other hand does have some value, although even that should not be done repeatedly.

I guess what I am saying is that there is a spectrum of force applied to the spine, from the lightest to the heaviest. It is the exact point on this spectrum when a framelock fails that people cannot agree to. Also, machining variance can affect where this point sits on the spectrum, for even the same batch of knives.
Click to expand...

That’s very sensible presented, and I think it’s ironclad.

Where we may differ is in how much credit we’re willing to give machining variance within a static setting for producing these results. It seems unlikely to me that ZT would be an outlier in the industry in terms of lock face machining variance, for the simple fact that they’re probably using the same machines, with the same range of tolerances, as multiple other companies.

It makes the most sense to me that, in order to get both pass and fail groups of substantial size within a single run, there would most likely have to be two or more variables at play. If there were one issue, such as simple geometry, we would expect to have an evident grouping of same results across serial numbers. Machine tolerances could explain randomization, but this inconsistency, on a reasonably large scale, should be easy to observe, and would similarly effect other groups using the same machines.

The best guess I could make would be a combination of both geometry near a pass/fail tipping point so fine that machine tolerances are able to skew pass/fail.

...and that’s a non-maker and self professed idiot on the internet attempting to troubleshoot from the outside. If it were so simple, I think it would be reasonable to believe that a specialist in the field, who is likely smarter than me, probably would have picked up on it.

At the end of the day, I think I’m left with this:

All I know for certain is that every ZT I’ve tested has passed.

No more, no less.
 
RBid said:
That’s very sensible presented, and I think it’s ironclad.

Where we may differ is in how much credit we’re willing to give machining variance within a static setting for producing these results. It seems unlikely to me that ZT would be an outlier in the industry in terms of lock face machining variance, for the simple fact that they’re probably using the same machines, with the same range of tolerances, as multiple other companies.

It makes the most sense to me that, in order to get both pass and fail groups of substantial size within a single run, there would most likely have to be two or more variables at play. If there were one issue, such as simple geometry, we would expect to have an evident grouping of same results across serial numbers. Machine tolerances could explain randomization, but this inconsistency, on a reasonably large scale, should be easy to observe, and would similarly effect other groups using the same machines.

The best guess I could make would be a combination of both geometry near a pass/fail tipping point so fine that machine tolerances are able to skew pass/fail.

...and that’s a non-maker and self professed idiot on the internet attempting to troubleshoot from the outside. If it were so simple, I think it would be reasonable to believe that a specialist in the field, who is likely smarter than me, probably would have picked up on it.

At the end of the day, I think I’m left with this:

All I know for certain is that every ZT I’ve tested has passed.

No more, no less.
Click to expand...
x2 ^ and BTW Still w8ting on all those BF Members finger loping vids to show up ;) Lol
 
Horizon7 said:
To be fair, every analysis offered here assumes things.
We have no choice but to make assumptions until Zero Tolerance provides a meaningful statement as to why these lock failures are happening.
Click to expand...
Do you expect every knife company to release a statement about an insignificant amount of error in their product?
 
I'm curious about the possibility that a lot of the ZT's that fail the spine whack are counterfeits?
 
I remember when "lockup %" was a huge thing.

Some demanded no more than 40-60%, so that there was room for wear.

Others wanted 70-80% "for safety".

I wonder where the ones "failing" are locked up at?

My two primary ZTs---0920 and 0452--have large frames that let you exert a good amount of pressure on the lockbar.

If I flip them they end up around 40% "naturally" and are not going to come undone on accident. However, if I want to, I can apply pressure inwards with both thumbs (due to the size of the lockbar plenty of surface area and I have strong hands) and get them over to the 70-80% range. At that lock-up I bet most people don't even have the finger strength to unlock them safely and certainly they would never come undone by mistake. I don't want to prematurely wear anything so I have only done this about 2 times to each one just to see what their "range" is, mostly after seeing a post here where someone sent one back because out of the box they felt the lockbar had too much travel (would move easily to 90% under little pressure). After seeing that I always do this "test" to new knives to see the extent of the lockbar travel out of the box. I've noticed the smaller ZTs tend to not be as versatile in this regard either due to the diminished surface area of the blade and lockbar insert or the lack of surface area on the lockbar and knife itself for your hands to act upon.
 
cbrstar said:
I'm curious about the possibility that a lot of the ZT's that fail the spine whack are counterfeits?
Click to expand...
Unlikely. Counterfeiters don't usually make copies of such a small amount of knives, given the different models. Maybe the 0562.

More likely is that we don't know of the abuse these knives have sustained before failure. The longstanding quality members here that I know through their post history, I trust their failures are legit and warrant attention. As we have seen, there are also trolls here who like to hype an issue because they are trolls. There are also members who abuse their knives and wonder why they fail. Then there are instatubers that have no connection to this community; plus those here that repost their untrustworthy info.

We've got to trust the information we are getting when taking an issue seriously. I've only seen a handful of failures that I think are genuine and those are nowhere near the epidemic level some would have you believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top