Opinion on destruction tests?

[SBaker34]

I might be opening up a whole huge can of worms on this, I know a lot of people hate them to the point of making death threats to those who make them. But I tend to find them informative, hammering a case slipjoint through a 2x4 or trying to hang a car off a folder is pretty idiotic, but I think of a lot of tests tell you a lot about how the knife will hold up to years of use or accidental screw ups.

Example, Up until 4 years ago I had no idea what a good knife was, I remember buying a 50 dollar smith and wesson "tactical" knife and thinking it must be high end since It cost 50$..... Well the liner lock was terrible to the point where I could easily close it by putting a little pressure on it, even a light tap on the spine would shut it, and if stabbed into cardboard it could close on your fingers... first time it happened cutting a box I developed a strong hate of liner locks. Being a bit stupid I stuck it into a stump and applying very low lateral pressure snapped the blade in two, not the tip. the blade. Figuring it was already ruined I hammered the remaining blade in and snapped it off at the pivot at the same point.

About a year later I bought a buck 110, much better knife, was actually sharp while I owned it, but I snapped the tip surprisingly easy peeling bark off a tree.

I bought a assisted open gerber, wasn't very sharp out of the box, lock broke the same day I bought it, learned about blade forums, returned it and bought a kershaw skyline, instantly realized what everyone was talking about, I could shave with it. Blade and lockup felt secure, BUT, I had dropped it a few times, and I noticed when droppd from waist height, regardless of if it landed tip first or on its side the liner would disengage pretty often. So I bought a BM griptilian to use when I might have to cut something heavy, Ive used it to sharpen hardwood sticks, used it to open electronics "bad idea but it was all I had" even cut cans in half, I have not adjusted the pivot in 2 years and it still feels solid and the blade is unchipped. What does that have to do with destruction tests? Well it took 2 years of oddball jobs to really test my folder out, simply sharpening a sappling about a 10 minute job is not going to tell you whats going to happen after its done so 100 times.

Simply put I view destruction tests as attempts to replicate years of use within a day. I think often it gets a little pointless, eg trying to cut a I beam with a folder, but I think a few spinwhacks and some wire cutting gives you a pretty good idea of what it can tolerate.


But what are your opinions? Like them? Don't care? Find them pointless? depends on the test?

 

[DB731]

If they make sense for cars and other equipment, why not?

 

[marcinek]

Pointless nonsense. One might as well taste the knife, it provides the same amount of diagnostic information.

 

[Goosey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmhsvz1EuNE#t=23m20s

^I now know better than to hammer a Voron 3 into a log and use a metal tube to bend it 90 degrees sideways! knife is junk.

 

[Bugout Bill]

If they are done in a controlled, "scientific" manner, they are valuable. When it is some idiot hammering a knife into a brick, it ain't worth spit.

 

[bdmicarta]

I think they can be interesting, but don't just lay the knife down and start beating on it with a hammer. I think tests that can somewhat replicate normal use would be better.

A couple of weeks ago I broke a thin utility knife just by cutting a cardboard box, and trying to be careful while doing it. Without taking my own knives to the breaking limit, how would I learn what they can do and what they can't do without watching tests by other people.

I used to watch the hockey mask guys on youtube and I thought some of their tests were pointless but after watching their tests of different knives I decided that they did provide a good comparison from one knife model to another. Somebody that thinks the tests are pointless must be a fan of one of those expensive tactical knife brands that snapped early in the test.

 

[Franciscomv]

I like to read and watch videos of tests that somewhat reflect the kind of activities the knife in question was designed to perform. I'm fine with the occasional abusive testing of knives that are designed for very hard use, survival and so on.

 

[dogstar]

Some people have an appetite for destruction. Doesn't have much to do with using knives.

 

[rajincagin]

So I bought a BM griptilian to use when I might have to cut something heavy, Ive used it to sharpen hardwood sticks, used it to open electronics "bad idea but it was all I had" even cut cans in half, I have not adjusted the pivot in 2 years and it still feels solid and the blade is unchipped.

These kind of stories are typical with Brnchmades. There's a reason why they're considered the best by professionals. I too enjoy the destruction tests. They demonstrate the quality, strength and durability of a product.

 

[dkb45]

Destruction and stress tests are great for knives if they are done in a controlled manner. Tossing a knife into a dryer full of rocks proves nothing, but chopping a 2x4 shows the knife can handle shock from chopping. I prefer stress tests, because they are generally much less extreme and don't set out with the purpose of obliterating a knife.

 

[blame it on god]

As long as it's not my knife I say have at it. It saves the rest of us from wondering how much a knife can take.

 

[Indianbladenoob]

The "test to Destruction" concept is followed in many industries. However, I suppose one needs to make the demarcation between a scientific test with controls and measurement and batoning a spryderco ladybug through a car.

While I realize most of us are abhorrent to abusing our blades, there is some value to watching exactly how much wanton abuse a knife can take in terms of the confidence it would give you during regular/normal use. As dkb45 and Bugout Bill mention, the method needs to be scientific, both in terms of measurement and the nature of the testing itself. No one in their right mind is going to try to cut through an I-Beam with a BK2 except to "see what happens". I don't know how much that contributes to my confidence in a blade that would not do what a blade is intended to do, which is cut. Which btw is not to say the BK2 doesn't. The point is I don't need it to cut an I-Beam

 

[jeffsenpai]

I do enjoy watching the hard use tests by that Russian guy on youtube, he really puts the knife through its paces, and it is not uprising that many folders fail through the process. Great to watch.

 

[Cereal_killer]

There's two types of destruction tests- one, not very informative, the other slightly more informative.

One method is done usually by the factory but anyone with the equipment could do it, it's done under strict conditions with precise measuring equipment and [usually] a computer controlled hydraulic machine (tho weights can be used for smaller manufactures that don't have 10k for the real equipment) to provide the load. I'm all for these test, either at the mfg or by QUALIFIED non-biased individuals who have the equipment for whatever reason. It shows us all what the knife can actually handle and can be very informative and they are [usually] pretty repeatable.

The other kind of test is where some idiot is out in the shop with flip-flops on hammering a knife into steel square stock and attempting to say its demonstrating _____ ability. Those tests (especially the ones where the people are not even wearing proper shoes for the stuff their doing/place they are-a shop with heavy equipment and a guy torching something 6 feet away for example) have zero impact on my decision making come buying time.

 

[A Justice]

Everything you do with a knife gives you a better idea of its performance, and sometimes its limits.

I think if you're going to test to destruction though, you might as well do it in a controlled manner and test several blades in the same class for comparison. Usually that will draw even more criticism (nobody likes finding out that their favorite brand is only half as tough as its competitor), but it offers comparable data. If you just go off and try to hammer a 200$ knife through a rail road tie, you're wasting your time and money.

Moreso than just destructive testing, People have been discounting all scientific testing of knives for so long on the forums that it's just reflex anymore. Like with a spine whack test, it has become the de facto response that it's useless and doesn't prove anything because regular knife use exerts force in the opposite direction. The problem with that is, Knifemakers have been working for decades to develop locking mechanisms that work to prevent knives from moving in that very direction. You could take almost any product out there and testing individual features is an accepted and encouraged practice - if a knife features a locking mechanism, part of the intended design is to arrest movement of the blade; a test of the effectiveness of that mechanism is a legitimate form of product testing. Even if a spin whack test introduces shock stresses into the equation (the most scientific version of that test would be to apply consistently increasing force, and accounting for leverage potential of the length of the blade) it still represents data that may correlate to other tests and identifies a weakness in the effectiveness of a design feature. Knives are very good products for independent testing by consumers (there are lots of cheap knives, it is possible to develop simple mechanical tests that give repeatable results, there are lots of tests you could run without damaging the knife, even if you do introduce a destructive test you could conduct a dozen non-destructive tests prior to destroying the blades), but there isn't a whole lot of data available. Data and testing works best when there is a lot of it - for example, a spine whack test would be more valuable if the results often correlated closely with the results of other tests of the locking mechanism that isolate shock; there should be such an abundance of data available that we could confidently say whether or not there is a correlation and identify which exact models have features that cause them to fail that test while performing much better at others, but there isn't. Instead it's mostly subjective explanations.

It's useful for the knifemaker to take their design out of the equation and test materials, features, etc. themselves (like Sal Glesser making a Mule Team to take other factors out of play when testing steel), but for a consumer there is great value in testing popular stock production designs as a whole. That type of testing is accepted for automobiles, toothpaste, cleaning supplies, vacuums, paint, and hundreds of other products that consumers choose between every year. With knives, it has become the standard for knife enthusiasts that field use is the most widely accepted testing of a knife design; people say that it keeps the intended use of the knife in the forefront, removes abusive practices from testing. It's also completely subjective and doesn't offer any comparable data points, doesn't identify weaknesses (many of which are apparent in the design from the beginning) and it doesn't test any feature of the item to failure or to its maximum effectiveness.

It's like going out into the woods and shooting targets with an Ar-15. In almost all cases, the gun is going to be capable of combat effective accuracy and most will stay reliable for a couple thousand rounds in optimal conditions. I wouldn't ever be able to identify the velocity of the bullets for different barrel lengths; I would never see that the round is most effective when it yaws and fragments in the target; so I wouldn't know that with a 9" barrel most basic .223 ammunition is only capable of fragmentation at a very limited range and that a hole in the target ceases to be combat effective when the usual dynamics of the round are taken out of play at lower velocities. I also wouldn't see the differences in reliability that become more pronounced when fouling and dirt are introduced into the mechanism during a test that isolates that feature. Straightforward tests like shooting for accuracy at a defined distance with the same factory loads from a bench rest that isolates many of the variables are no longer acceptable when someone comes along and points out "the humidity and temperature wasn't controlled in this outdoor environment. The 16" barrel is meant for mid range shooting and the shorter barrel is designed for CQB. The first gun tested was designed in 2004, and the second in 2011 so it's not a fair comparison of the builder's skill. etc. etc. etc." It's always going to be easier to criticize 3rd party testing by consumers than it is to carry out such testing, but that shouldn't discount the results as long as the tests are objective and measured accurately. We can analyze the results later - showing that certain tests do not correlate to more controlled testing is a better way to challenge results than it formulate theoretical reasons why certain knives performed poorly, and aim to discount the testing outright i

The problem people have is not taking the tests on knives for what they represent. It's not an indictment on the designer, if a knife has a thinner blade for better slicing it would be expected that fail in a strength test against a pry bar, most people will never use a knife hard enough to reach a point of failure even on a knife that gets comparatively poor results, there is no test for cutting ability that is completely objective (even with most ABS tests, it is possible to design a blade that excels at that given test while being inferior to knives it beat at similar tests), testing products with different specs and designs is a legitimate practice that offers insight to the consumer especially when the results are separated by class, every knife is a compromise.

I understand the valid criticisms of independent testing by consumers, but I think everyone should be more accepting of such testing as valuable contributions unless they're planning to offer more substantial or controlled testing that identifies weaknesses in the latter. We should be working toward a deeper understanding of why there are inconsistencies, and not just writing off the practice of testing as useless just because it's not perfect.

 

[HotSteel]

Destruction tests are entertaining.

 

[Bob6794]

There's two types of destruction tests- one, not very informative, the other slightly more informative.

One method is done usually by the factory but anyone with the equipment could do it, it's done under strict conditions with precise measuring equipment and [usually] a computer controlled hydraulic machine (tho weights can be used for smaller manufactures that don't have 10k for the real equipment) to provide the load. I'm all for these test, either at the mfg or by QUALIFIED non-biased individuals who have the equipment for whatever reason. It shows us all what the knife can actually handle and can be very informative and they are [usually] pretty repeatable.

The other kind of test is where some idiot is out in the shop with flip-flops on hammering a knife into steel square stock and attempting to say its demonstrating _____ ability. Those tests (especially the ones where the people are not even wearing proper shoes for the stuff their doing/place they are-a shop with heavy equipment and a guy torching something 6 feet away for example) have zero impact on my decision making come buying time.

I was going to say I don't have respect for destruction tests as they tell me nothing. But I forgot about seeing the tests done in an controlled environment those provided a little bit more information. Will it influence my decision, no it won't. At end of the day I use my knives for cutting things I don't throw them into stumps, hit the spine of the blade, throw them, etc.

Destruction tests tell me almost nothing I want to know about a knife. I want to know how good of a quality a knife is made, materials, dimensions, etc. Ability to be thrown off a skyscraper, runned over by a sherman tank, take .308 rounds at point blank and still be usable are not things I care about and most likely having these qualities built into a knife will make it a very poor tool for cutting. I was raised on slip joints and it's what I came back to using now. I was starting to get into overbuilt folders as I liked some of the designs in them such as flippers which prevented the blade collapsing on you in case the worse somehow happens but than I came to realize those overbuilt folders can't cut that well in comparison to a good thin blade like the kind you find a traditional slip joint.

As far as how much abuse a knife can take, I still have my first knife a Victorinox Recruit sitting right beside me in my desk and it looks dang good despite all the years of use I got out of it. And I used that knife hard back when I was a kid. The only thing I need to do is sharpen it back up and it's ready for EDC use. If I really wanted to I could use that knife till the day I died and it would perform admirably. And I bet if you ask around there are a lot of other people here who have a knife like that. At end of the day a good ol fashion slip joint can take a beating, they aren't just for show. I think a lot of us forget that and rely on overbuilt folders and unrealistic tests now days for some weird reason.

 

[Firestrike]

I personally love Destruction Tests. I don't care if they are scientific or not. Noss was my favorite to watch, now I have to watch Nut-N-Fancy and Equip-2-Endure.

As far as the haters go, well most of them cry when they find out thier favorites break very easily.

To be completely honest Noss is the only reason I ever decided to drop $$$ on a Busse, first time I ever seen him give up on trying to break a knife.

 

[sideways]

I strongly dislike the side effects of destruction testing.

People look at the tests and buy the knife that does not break under extreme abuse. This leads to knives with otherwise desirable attributes like actually being good cutters being passed over. Those companies go out of business and the sharpened prybar phenomenon continues.

 

[Stays Sharp]

Some people have an appetite for destruction. Doesn't have much to do with using knives.

I like that.

Companies have tests in place before releasing new knives. While I am curious to hear about failures from regular use (most were just lemons), it's ridiculous what I see on youtube and on the boards. Hammering knives into oblivion, throwing them in volcanoes... C'mon now. You guys ever seen Neptuneknives? I want to hammer his head...With a hammer.