Opinel Blade Failure

[Cliff Stamp]

If those makers design (of which I have talked to some) their knives to do such things then testing them in that manner is fair after all they claim it to be capable ...

Exactly, now the next step is to realize that it should be obvious to expect similar abilities in knives of similar designs and steels or more from knives which are thicker and made from steels which are geared towards more toughness. As I noted there are stainless steels knives which are even slimmer than an Opinel and designed for such work and are even heavier so the impacts are greater so it is inconsistent to then claim it is abusive for an Opinel.

Why chop when you can just cut?

Because it is often faster to just snap cut than press cut. Generally you only press cut if the knife is really small. For example I spent some time trimming alders recently with a Byrd Finch and snap cuts would have done nothing so they were sliced under tension. However with the Paramiliary I would have just chopped them off and it would have been much faster. The knife in the above was damaged because it was defective, not because the method was problematic.

Rant?
Disinformation and hype?
Obviously you are bringing past discussions into this thread about Vivi and his Opinel.

Obviously you forgot what you just posted in the above. You are the one who went on a rant about destructive testing and hype and misinformation, your words. You are the one who constantly critized what Vivi did stating it wasn't testing but just breaking and it wasn't informative and the method had serious flaws, of course you would never critize Schempp for doing the exact same thing. Nor would you critize Fowler, Fikes, Ralph, for any of the heavy testing they do even though it is just as extreme as what is done by Busse combat who has a full guarantee on the performance they describe.

-Cliff

 

[Gryffin]

Why chop when you can just cut?

Because it is often faster to just snap cut than press cut. Generally you only press cut if the knife is really small.

Or light, like...say... an Opinel?

Go back to Vivi's original post. Those branches were too thick to "snap cut", as you say, with an Opinel or other light knife. But canranger's technique would've been less stressful on the knife, and safer to the user, than chopping at them like he did.

The knife in the above was damaged because it was defective, not because the method was problematic.

I'm perfectly aware of that. Try to keep up, Cliff!

 

[a223cat]

I see a pattern in a lot of threads I read here. A lot of folks just dont like Cliff!

I don't as yet know exactly why.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Or light, like...say... an Opinel?

An Opinel isn't even close to the limit of a knife restricted to light cutting. Take an Opinel, change the steel to 1.2582, harden it to 67 HRC, hollow grind it out so that at 1/4" back from the edge it is < 0.020" thick. Now on that knife you are limited to chopping basically alders and similar really soft woods. Plus it is so light chopping is fairly inefficient as it is like swinging a nerf bat.

If you use knives like that for any length of time you will then have a very different viewpoint of what an Opinel and similar knives should be able to do because the Opinels are many times thicker towards the edge so they are about 10 times stronger and thus should be expect to take far heavier loads.

Those branches were too thick to "snap cut" ...

Yes, he even noted the technique was less than optimal, it was mainly to evaluate the knife. However even on such wood you often snap cut. I had to trim back a bunch of thorny brush recently for example and I wasn't moving it with my hands so I just popped it down with the knife I was carrying. Ideally for that you have a nice pair of pruners and a small saw works better on the seasoned wood.

-Cliff

 

[Ebbtide]

Dog O' War,
No worries here

Cliff I show great restraint with you.
I haven't posted a rant on bf.c, much less anywhere on the net, yet.
You see, none of you have ever seen me go off.
And I don't plan to either.

I'm just having fun talking knives, knife safety and the perils of back yard knife testing to destruction in a (pseudo) scientific way.


XXOO
-Ebb

PS are we done yet?

 

[canranger]

Hey Dogs of War no sweat just the internet you know.

 

[Ebbtide]

Group hug!

 

[Gryffin]

Take an Opinel, change the steel to 1.2582, harden it to 67 HRC, hollow grind it out so that at 1/4" back from the edge it is < 0.020" thick. Now on that knife you are limited to chopping basically alders and similar really soft woods.

Wow, you're absolutely right!!

Except this Opinel didn't have a blade made of 1.2582.

And it wasn't RC 67.

And it wasn't hollow ground.

And it wasn't soft alder wood.

So as usual, you've got the right answer! Of course, you also changed the question...

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Except this Opinel didn't have ...

That was the point, so it isn't so limited in use. The Opinel is far thicker and is made from a steel which is optomized more for durability and is so hardened to optomized durability over retaining a high sharpness for light cutting. This all obviously means it was designed for heavier use.

Note that cutting thicker wood is actually far less stressful. If the wood Vivi cut was reduced in size until they were just at the point the knife could cut through them it is usually close to the maximal point of stress on the knife. So it is actually harder on the knife (but easier on you) to hack at some thick wood than chop through some smaller branches directly.


-Cliff

 

[canranger]

Hey guys just realized I should have posted this last time but my appoligies to anyone I might have offeneded as well.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I haven't posted a rant on bf.c, much less anywhere on the net, yet.

Yes you have, many times, you simply don't understand the defination of the word, just like you don't understand what destructive testing means.

I do not and will never carry a battle mistress or any other blacticle sharpened prybar.
I'm sorry but I don't buy into the marketing, hype, pseudo science or destructive testing.

If you want to believe in the marketing, hype, pseudo science and destructive testing, go right ahead "for all I care"

Chop with an Opinel, or mash potatos with a Buick.
Go ahead, "for all I care"

Knife breaking is not science, no matter how hard the practice is defended.
Now actually using a knife well, that could be a science, but much harder to learn than breaking one.

That is a rant. It means a prepared responce, delivered in public with emotional presentation, usually also characterized by being frequently repeated under a given stimulus which won't adapt to confrontation. In this case you deliver the rant frequently in responce to references to tactical, "destructive" testing, or Busse Combat. Like most rants you also ignore any refutations or even general implications such as for example all the makers I listed in the above are also so characterized by the labels you use to characterize Busse.

The speech about testing vs breaking is another rant and again you ignore the fact that all the critism you apply to Vivi applies to makers like Schempp who even do more extreme work as they intentionally damage the knife by abusive cutting. They do this of course to make sure their knives can withstand it, and because strength isn't linear with cross section, it only takes a little more steel to make an edge far more durable. Of course a user can also reduce the edge a little but can't actually add material to it, so it is obviously safer to err a little on the side of caution.


-Cliff

 

[kel_aa]

By the way, destructive testing is defined as anything which either causes material loss or changes the structure. So if you submit something for non-destructive testing it means you expect it back in mint condition. So any cutting with a knife falls under the label of destructive testing as it causes material loss from the edge.

Is it so rigidly applied as to encompass any miniscule changes? It is my understanding that hardness testing is considered a non-destrutive representation of the strength of the material.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

It is my understanding that hardness testing is considered a non-destrutive representation of the strength of the material.

Hardness testing is destructive, non-destructive testing are things like x-ray, ultra-sonic and the crack testing Swamp Rat does. Nondestructive testing is generally much more expensive, it is much easier to obtain the information if you are willing to damage the sample.

For example you can measure the sharpness by cutting something which is very cheap and easy or examine the edge under high magnification which doesn't effect the edge but costs a lot more and also isn't as direct because now you have to infer properties indirectly.

-Cliff

 

[Easy Rollins]

Am I the only one that skips over Cliff's posts?


This was a great thread with lots of good infomation shared,thanks to all who contributed,I learnt something. :thumbup:

 

[canranger]

Cliff I said I was going to leave this alone but you have a tendency here to group things togehter by shear family of responce taken as a whole if you want to break something fine drawing conclusions as to the value of opinionated thing when you can not specifically focus on the intended use. In the end you can list as many makers as you want but perhapps you might concider this before YOU test a knife or any knife for that matter call the maker up and tell them what YOUwant to do with said knife or what YOU are loooking for that knife to do then get that knife and use it for such. YOU will find there aren't too many makers out there that won't say "you wanna do what". This will help you pick the right tool for the right job.

The chances of cutting a fire stick or slicing a sandwich and things of that nature are of a greater occuring factor then most of the stuff that distructive testing will cover. But on the off side chance we will cover it, it is not the same thing as testing a car for a crash test don't even try and put it there a car crash happens many more times then a person with a knife in their hands getting locked out of a building on the other side of a fire door and needing to cut there way back in. CAr crash testing is done though because of the nature of the irtem being tested and the likely hood that one will depend on it, as well as a good excuse for the insurance companies to up premiums if any one notices they always attach a dollar amount.

 

[canranger]

P.S. seems like you find it easier to pick on Ebb then his arrguments which is in direct contraditction to what you support yourself.

 

[Ebbtide]

So I guess this means we're not done yet?

If I'm the one typing it, I think that I would know if I were ranting or not.
I wasn't then. And I'm not ranting now.
(see smilies!)

I'll let you in on something.
In the top bar of my posts there is a line that sez:
Location: NYC
That means that I live in NYC, (The Big Apple, The City That Never Sleeps.)
I type as I speak.
We New Yorkers (pronounced Noo Yawkas) are busy folks. We speak in short sentences that get to the point quickly and directly.
See my posts above and reread them with that in mind.
Now if you have a problem with the way I type or the way I speak...I guess you have a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebbtide
I do not and will never carry a battle mistress or any other blacticle sharpened prybar.
I'm sorry but I don't buy into the marketing, hype, pseudo science or destructive testing.

If you want to believe in the marketing, hype, pseudo science and destructive testing, go right ahead "for all I care"

Chop with an Opinel, or mash potatos with a Buick.
Go ahead, "for all I care"

Knife breaking is not science, no matter how hard the practice is defended.
Now actually using a knife well, that could be a science, but much harder to learn than breaking one.
That is a rant. It means a prepared responce, delivered in public with emotional presentation, usually also characterized by being frequently repeated under a given stimulus which won't adapt to confrontation. In this case you deliver the rant frequently in responce to references to tactical, "destructive" testing, or Busse Combat. Like most rants you also ignore any refutations or even general implications such as for example all the makers I listed in the above are also so characterized by the labels you use to characterize Busse.

First off, if you had copied the whole thing you would have noticed that this was not directed at you it was specifically directed at DogsofWar (who I have made nice with, since)
Secondly, I have used the phrase sharpened prybar encompassing the entire genre. Not one specific company. (The only reason I mentioned the Battle Mistress, in that post, is because DogsofWar mentioned it in the post that I was responding to.)
Another case of you putting words in my mouth
Third, Marketing, hype, psuedo science and destructive testing are all separate things I don't believe in. That is not one thought as you implied.
Fourth,as I have said before, that is my opinion.
I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

I was more than willing to let it go and stop this gosh aweful waste of bandwith.
You brought it back.

Once again, if anyone posts something that goes against cliff's belief system the thread turns into one about cliff.

(Dear readers, please note: This has not been a rant. This has been a rational response by a knifeknut from NYC. Not written in anger, frustration or rage.)

Are we done yet?
Oh wait I didn't address the cliff destructive tests vs famous knifemaker destructive tests...
Well, we've already done that in other threads, and I promised not to rehash old discussions that went nowhere then and would only go nowhere now.

So are we done yet?

 

[Cliff Stamp]

...call the maker up and tell them what YOUwant to do with said knife or what YOU are loooking for that knife to do then get that knife and use it for such.

Like all the presuppositions you made about me in the above, this is also completely false and shows how you are perfectly willing to form conclusions without ever even asking a question - which is kind of absurd given that presuppostion in particular.

I contact makers when I going to publish a review and ask what they knife is designed to do, how they have evaluated it and what they would like to see done which best showcase its abilities. Aside of course from the cases where I have talked to them in detail about such issues before. I also link the reviews to a public forum where I have no editorial control so said maker can freely comment on the reviews and if they don't feel comfortable doing that I'll even put a link to a commentary on a private website they own.

The really harsh work that is done in the reviews is frequently done on request so it is obvious that makers are not only aware of it they want to see it done. I started doing the concrete block chopping for example as Ray Kirk asked for it on a knife which was in no way a tactical prybar, it was a knife he used to pass his ABS test. He noted this repeatedly when I would be critized for doing it until I emailed him and told him it was pointless because this information was known already. Plus several makers promoted this long before I did it and recieved nothing but praise so it isn't like the arguement is logically consistent anyway and dependent on facts.

...this was not directed at you

It is a public forum, in particular its a recorded public forum unlike most chats, so it is like writing a letter to someone which you then take particular instruction to mail to everyone on the planet at the same time. Email is a private web medium (aside from all the bots who scan it and those who moniter the bots).

Third, Marketing, hype, psuedo science and destructive testing are all separate things I don't believe in. That is not one thought as you implied.

You linked them several times in the above, aside from marketing, which is an odd thing to not believe in as a general concept.

This has not been a rant. This has been a rational response by a knifeknut from NYC. Not written in anger, frustration or rage.)

Have you not seen the greatest martial arts movie of all time, Enter the Dragon; emotional content or passion doesn't mean anger unless that is the only emotion you are capable of forming. If for example you mention stainless steel around Alvin on rec.knives he will almost always go into a rant about how horrible stainless steel is for knives. I don't think I have ever seen him even irritated, let alone angry.

-Cliff

 

[Dog of War]

.... that this was not directed at you it was specifically directed at DogsofWar (who I have made nice with, since)

LOL, ebbs .... didn't realize that was all aimed at me!

I'm sure we agree on marketing and hype, I've just tried to tone down my disappointment with certain popular (actually, most) manufacturers because I think people were getting the idea I was on some kind of crusade. I do own a Battle Mistress of sorts but IMO it's a poor choice as a survival knife.

Of course I see the bigger point you and canranger are trying to make, you don't go out and buy an Opinel #12 for chopping. I wouldn't choose an Opinel as a primary survival knife either. But, say if you'd already lost your other gear and had no other choice.....

Probably fair to say, I look at Vivi's post a little like when some guy puts nude pix of his really hot girlfriend on his webpage - I'm not going to do that with my girlfriend, but I'm glad to look at his pictures. Or more seriously (and not to be morbid, just illustrating a point) you could compare it to advances in orthopedic surgery derived from 'experiments' done in the Nazi concentration camps in WWII .... you can't reverse damage already done, so IMO you at least try to salvage something from it and see what can be learned.

Just rambling. How about now we all build a fire with Vivi's choppings, gather round and sing 'Kumbaya'?

 

[canranger]

Cliff I already apologized to everyoner else for possibly having offened them so this one is for you what was your childhood like anyway? For god sakes man first of all a lot of makers complain about you and your nonsense tests. As for publishing tests results and then contacting people that doesn't make any sense it should be done before hand. It is truely hard for me to believe any maker would willingly just hand over a knife to you and say "here test away" knowing you have no set standard of testing because you can't even catagorize your knives firstly.

As for using the word publish you better check that one because writing something on the internet is not publishing especially what you write I don't have to make assumptions about you Cliff we all have seen what you write. So as a writer please don't use the word publish especially when it comes to your results. Publish denotes a more responsible and well thought out direction.

I am sure you will give me a lecture at this point about the definition of publishing and what it really means but before you do show me one thing that you have published where some publication has taken it.

ok everyone Ebb and I will tie Cliff up here go learn stuff in other threads without him interfearing.

Anyway Cliff tell me whats your favorite colour?

Whats this ink splot look like to you? "well Canranger it looks like a guy batoning a cheese slicer through the Alaskan oil line"

It is a good thig I am balding so I don't have any hair to pull out.