no harm intended question

LeftytwoGuns

LeftytwoGuns

Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
678
Hey guys, relatively new to this forum, compared to most. And I just discovered knifetests.com last week, and was checking out some of the videos..

Not to step on anybody's toes, and not intended as a dis (I actually have checked out a few C R knives and considdered buying) but why were the green beret and that one piece so easliy broken?

Obviously, these are very nice knives, and I'm sure made of quality materials. Is that particular steel just not impact resistant, or is it due to blade shape, or what? I am just curious.

I would never hit a $300 + knife with a hammer so it doesn't really affect me, but I'm just curious. I'm sure this has been discussed before, and I just looked but could not find it. Anyone mind filling me in on the verdict?

thanks for reading,
-LeFty Guns
 
The way he "tests" knives is completely unscientific. There is no control over what angle or how much force he uses. There is no guarantee he isn't selectively destroying certain knives more than others.

Worse yet, he gives other people the idea that this kind of destruction might say something about knives. It doesn't. When legitimate industrial testing does "tests to detruction" they measure every aspect of the test. In the auto industry, for example, they use a dummy constructed to absorb damage the way a human body would. They measure the speed at which the test vehicle hits a wall. noss4 measures nothing.

Frankly, this subject has come up again and again. Of course, especially with his own forum, he is pushing his demonstrations, keeping them in the public eye. I personally give them no credibility. They say nothing about the knives or steels involved.
 
I agree with esav benyamin . I have 15 CRK one piece knives and I would never think of doing what noss does to them. And I would bet my life on any of them if I was in a life threatening situation. I have always said, noss babies busses. I like the busse knives, but I am not about to take my $600 nmfbm and hit concrete with it, pound it through steel plate, put it in a vice and bend it 35 degrees. The people that do that have more money than brains. A2 is actually a tool steel, so its designed for toughness, edge holding, etc. Any tool steel can not accept bending. Its just not what it was designed for. I am sure the one piece knives could be made from better stock, but if its good enough for Chris Reeve, its good enouh for me. Plus, the 2 that broke had serrations and both broke in that area. And if you watch, he hits the CRK with glancing blows which ( bend, twist ) the steel. On others, its only dead on blows. I am not a fan of noss and his tests, but I have seen enough of them to see him favor some and not others. This has been addressed in many posts. Look in the archives. In the end, knives are made for cutting....period, not for bending, prying,chopping steel, chopping cement, etc.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
The way he "tests" knives is completely unscientific. There is no control over what angle or how much force he uses. There is no guarantee he isn't selectively destroying certain knives more than others.

Worse yet, he gives other people the idea that this kind of destruction might say something about knives. It doesn't. When legitimate industrial testing does "tests to detruction" they measure every aspect of the test. In the auto industry, for example, they use a dummy constructed to absorb damage the way a human body would. They measure the speed at which the test vehicle hits a wall. noss4 measures nothing.

Frankly, this subject has come up again and again. Of course, especially with his own forum, he is pushing his demonstrations, keeping them in the public eye. I personally give them no credibility. They say nothing about the knives or steels involved.
Click to expand...

Succinctly and accurately summed up. The individual in question hides his identity for that very reason -- he knows he cannot take responsibility for the things he does because they would have negative consequences based on his lack of integrity, honesty, and sincerity. His "tests" are about getting attention and making himself a pseudo-celebrity, not about actually informing anyone of anything. Beware any man who tells you, "Take my word for it!" while hiding behind a mask.
 
The "tests" are designed for the entertainment of those who possess no critical thinking skills. As Esav has explained, they contain nothing else of value. You may also wish to ponder the issue of biases and hidden agendas.

If you wish to get somewhat better evaluations of knives you would do better to talk to those who own and use them in the manner in which you might be using them.

The value of these "tests" has been discussed at length on this forum. The end result is that you should make up your own mind after reviewing information from several sources.

Good luck.
 
It has been discussed before, search for a big thread in the knife test forum here.

I'm a dissenter to the above opinions. I not a fixed blade buyer or user, but to me a knife such as the ones tested should have held up better.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
The way he "tests" knives is completely unscientific. There is no control over what angle or how much force he uses. There is no guarantee he isn't selectively destroying certain knives more than others.

Worse yet, he gives other people the idea that this kind of destruction might say something about knives. It doesn't. When legitimate industrial testing does "tests to detruction" they measure every aspect of the test. In the auto industry, for example, they use a dummy constructed to absorb damage the way a human body would. They measure the speed at which the test vehicle hits a wall. noss4 measures nothing.

Frankly, this subject has come up again and again. Of course, especially with his own forum, he is pushing his demonstrations, keeping them in the public eye. I personally give them no credibility. They say nothing about the knives or steels involved.
Click to expand...
He said it perfectly. :thumbup:
 
DaveH said:
It has been discussed before, search for a big thread in the knife test forum here.

I'm a dissenter to the above opinions. I not a fixed blade buyer or user, but to me a knife such as the ones tested should have held up better.
Click to expand...

As someone who, by his own admission, is not a buyer or a user of the knives in question, by what rationale do you assign a baseline of performance to them?
 
I was going to chip in but Phil beat me to it (and said it much more succintly). I think the OP has been adequately answered and as others have stated - the topic comprehensively discussed previously
 
As stated above this has been beaten to death, Kinda a sore subject.
All those stupid "Test" videos do is prove you can Destroy a really good knife if you put your mind to it.
-Eric
 
As long as participants remain polite -- which they have -- there is no reason to move it. And if anyone does try to stir up trouble, there is always the warning or infraction route.
 
Pass the homemade beef jerky and diet root beer please.....



I was shocked to see the Project I break like that. It's possible there are biases in the way the knives are tested, even if such variances are not intended by the tester.

I have to say, though, I like the idea of a knife being able to withstand great amounts of punishment and still be able to function. How does one know if he will not find himself in such an extreme situation?

As far as agendas are concerned, would one have reason to believe that this particular tester has some grudge or vendetta against CRK, and wishes to make their products look bad?

I may have made a reference myself that suggests that, but in hindsight it wasn't the right thing to do. Only Noss knows, and he would have to live with his dishonesty if that is indeed the case. It's more likely that is not the case.

In the end, I must say that the Project I is clearly a combat/fighter knife. That is the style and blade profile. It's not an all-out survival knife. So maybe the expectations of the knife's level of indestructibility were the only things that were less than genuine.
 
Rock, paper, scissors. I can slam a car into a bull and kill it, but I can destroy the same car with a sledge hammer. What does either exercise prove?

TESTING is stressing a product with a measured amount of force a specified number of times in a specified way. This is not only exactly repeatable with another product of the same model but also with other products from other companies.

This is comparative testing. Waling away with a hammer is not. The question noss4 asks with his demonstrations is "can i break stuff?" Yes, of course he can. Chris Reeve knives can break stuff, too. They can chop through the handle of a hammer. Rock, paper, scissors.

Meanwhile, guys who have used CRK products in the field know that noss4 is a meaningless noise. All he does is confuse newbies about what knives are really for.
 
Rock, paper, scissors. I can slam a car into a bull and kill it, but I can destroy the same car with a sledge hammer. What does either exercise prove?
Click to expand...

Logically speaking, using your metaphor, it proves that some knives are more like the car, and some knives are more like the sledgehammer. A sledgehammer can kill a bull, too.

In other words, some knives can take X amount of abuse, but fail under the Y test, but some knives can pass both the X and Y tests.

I don't know. :confused:

Chris Reeve knives can break stuff, too. They can chop through the handle of a hammer.
Click to expand...

Indeed they can, and apparently they can also break when pounding them through a 2x4 with another tool.

All he does is confuse newbies about what knives are really for.
Click to expand...

What are knives "really for?" Are all knives designed for the same purpose? Is a machete used for the same task as a doctor's pen knife? Is a skinner used for the same task as a camp knife?

I don't think there should be any reasonable question that Noss doesn't test his knives to see what they "are for." I think he tests them to see what they can do. Huge difference.

And if newbies are confused as to the proper use of certain knives then they need a mentor in their lives.

I have mixed feelings about these tests overall, but I lean towards finding them somewhat useful. They are, at the very least, interesting.
 
I think you are missing the point. He is not "testing" knives. He is breaking them. He is not doing so in any way that tells us what kind of hard use they can take.

This can be as interesting as a Friday the Thirteenth movie. Spectacular, but unreal.
 
Esav, I think we can all agree that there has been a HUGE increase in interest of how tough fixed blade knives can be. It probably started with Lynn Thompson and Cold Steel, and perhaps many master bladesmiths with their full custom pieces. Then you had Busse, Swamp Rat, Ferhman, etc. all doing similar tests.

Consumers are genuinely interested in the durability of things-- not just knives. So it stands, reasonably, that a hard-use tool like a field knife should have the same qualities for edge toughness and lateral strength and toughness. People want that.

Noss' testing is just a response to that concern and demand for really hard use knives.

So yes, he is indeed testing them. He is testing them to determine the integrity of the edge and the blade itself.

But, again, I'm not sure about the overall usefulness of these extreme tests. At the very least, they are interesting.
 
komondor said:
Esav, I think we can all agree that there has been a HUGE increase in interest of how tough fixed blade knives can be. It probably started with Lynn Thompson and Cold Steel, and perhaps many master bladesmiths with their full custom pieces. Then you had Busse, Swamp Rat, Ferhman, etc. all doing similar tests.

Consumers are genuinely interested in the durability of things-- not just knives. So it stands, reasonably, that a hard-use tool like a field knife should have the same qualities for edge toughness and lateral strength and toughness. People want that.

Noss' testing is just a response to that concern and demand for really hard use knives.

So yes, he is indeed testing them. He is testing them to determine the integrity of the edge and the blade itself.

But, again, I'm not sure about the overall usefulness of these extreme tests. At the very least, they are interesting.
Click to expand...

While on the surface this sounds reasonable, I think some critical thinking applied to the "tests" will show that they are nothing of the sort.

You are absolutely correct when you say that people want to know how well their knife/car/aeroplane/microwave oven/toothbrush/whatever will work under various conditions. No argument here at all. This is why scientific testing was developed. Objects are subjected to tests that have been carefully designed and properly controlled and the results can be accurately analysed and quantified and so on. I'm sure you've seen videos of cars being pushed into barriers with crash test dummies inside. These are very carefully controlled tests from which good, OBJECTIVE information can be derived.

Banging on something with a hammer until it breaks might be entertaining, but it is not accurate, objective testing. What are the parameters of the test? What are the controls? How are these things recorded and analysed?

I have absolutely no problem with noss banging on knives till they break, if it gives him, and his legion of loyal disciples, a thrill good luck to him. My only issue is when these activities are represented as objective and valuable tests of anything, they are not.

When you get right down to it, does it really mater either way? If you enjoy his show, great. If you think it's a bit of nonsense, great. Everyone should make their own evaluations and then do what they think is best for them.
 
Sharp Phil said:
based on his lack of integrity, honesty, and sincerity.
Click to expand...

Wow, less than 3 hours after the OP you jump in with personal attacks on a fellow member.

And after another member gently mentions dissent you jump on him with rhetorical nonsense.

Sharp Phil said:
As someone who, by his own admission, is not a buyer or a user of the knives in question, by what rationale do you assign a baseline of performance to them?
Click to expand...

You are such a troll. Do you run a query every few hours for the keywords 'Noss' and 'knifetests' so you can stir the pot?

While there is a very vocal minority here that will go to great lengths to dismiss what they see with their own eyes, most people here find value in seeing what a knife can handle even though it might not be something they would readily try and isn't performed using strict scientific methodology. While obviously we don't know the force and angle of every blow administered during these tests they are reasonably similar to most folks that don't have an agenda, as is evidenced by this poll (in which members names aren't hidden)

Poll

While Noss4 may were a hockey mask, what he does is videotaped and made available for all to see.

This really doesn't need a reexamination as the following threads seem to cover the issue quite well:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=600280
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=563190
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=543407
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=563397
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top