Ebbtide :
He it talking about how knives are made and how they perform. Reads like knifemaking to me.
No, knife using. You can easily understand how to use something, and evaluate it for that function and have no ability to make it. Lots of people around here know how to drive, few can make a car. It would also not be necessary to point out problems in handling characteristics or general problems.
But in all of my 47 years I've never had the need to cut a cinder block in half with my knife.
Neither have I. The ironic thing about this test getting stuck to me was that it was not invented by me, but by by two custom makers who used it to promote their knives. I did it out of curiously as I wanted to know what would happen if I tried it with some knives to put their statements in perspective. Some knives can do it well as they are tough, some knives can't.
It basically tells you how knives handle hard accidental impacts, which can be important for large brush knives, however it also correlates well to hardness, impact toughness and ductility which effect edge retention even on more "normal" materials. On a side note, it isn't even that hard of a test which is the most amusing part. It has been done live and left the knife still able to cut cardboard.
tique :
I don't consider R.W.'s knives in the hard use category. I doubt seriously that I would ever chop with one, beat it with a baton, pry stuff out of wood with one, or any other such activity, as they are not really designed to do so. I don't consider testing with R.W.'s knives in the above activities to be terribly valid, as said above, they are not really designed to do so.
It is how he is promoting them. I even asked about it before I did anything thing and he specifically said that the knife could do it, and even promoted use beyond what I had considered doing.
blademan 13 :
But for jeez, does the knife cut well in the real world?
The stock testing correlates well to normal use as it does use "real" materials, fabrics, ropes, wood, food etc., no hologram testing . For most sections of the reviews, there are also sections on quantitative and subjective testing. The quantitative testing is there for those who are interested.
Many knifemakers do these kinds of tests and measure the performance in many ways. Wayne Goddard, who in many ways is the father of such testing having mentored many, used a scale when doing rope cutting to allow him to guage cutting ability and edge retention and would benchmark blades against other knives. Phil Wilson carries on this method as taught to him by Goddard.
I used this at first after talking to Phil about edge retention testing but switched to other methods to guage sharpness as the force on the scale is too gross a measurement. For most it is just putting a more precise value on phrases like "cuts better", or stays sharp longer.
The top sawmakers and users for example constantly do controlled time runs on the same piece of wood to evalute designs. It is the same in pretty much any areana. The final test is of course when it it released to the public and you hope that you have done a decent job in your testing and not left out any weak points (which is why the reviews in general take so long to write as there is a rather extended daily carry).
I also happen to think their was an agenda behind the testing before it began.
Yes there was. R.W. payed me to write the review, he was getting some good press on the forums and wanted to put a stop to it and needed someone to argue against in a really inflamatory manner. He thus sent Gabe a free knife to send to me because it would look pretty stupid for him to send me a knife and then go mental when I reviewed it.
As I said before, there is a lot more to a knife than how tough it is or how much abuse it will take. Cliff doesn~Rt seem to get this.
Yeah, that is why the reviews contain more information than that.
I am still waiting for the day when as much credit is given to an Opinel for cutting efficiency as it is to a Busse for strength.
The high cutting ability of the Opinel has been described and referenced several times. It is even a benchmark used in several reviews. The performance listed is much higher than the various Busse Combat and Swamp Rat knives used for such tasks. At many tasks it is a much more optimal knife as are lots of other knives, all of which has been said many times before.
sph3ric pyramid :
BTW, of the reviews that I've read, he gives credit to both the CS Twistmaster and Spyderco Calypso Jr. as having exceptional cutting efficiency on soft materials.
That is the problem, you have to read the reviews to get this information and not be completely distracted by the occasional number or worse yet mention of a Busse Combat or Swamp Rat product.
Back to the Model 10 :
It was used on cardboard, and two trials ran against an Olfa Extra Heavy duty utility knife. In short it had no edge retention advantage. However initially it tended to cut better than the Olfa because of more friction on the Olfa (this isn't the optimal Olfa to use for this type of work). More details are in the reviews for those interested in some numbers.
-Cliff
Anyone having second thoughts about the quality of Ron's work based on this thread need to have their head examined. 
