Raw material optimisation - Less parts = Less things to go wrong!!!

B

blixxx

BANNED
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
237
Hello my friends,

Like all of us, I can say "I love knives"! Knife making is an awesome mix of Art and Engineering. I give so much respect to knife makers. One thing in a knife I like are features using no added material e.g. half serrated blade allows choosing best edge for cutting different material, flat right angle spines to strike ferro rods etc. So getting multiple features from a "tool" is terrific!

So in conjunction with the thread title, Its so nice that flippers and spyderco type holes inherently use less parts than lets say a blade that has a thumb stud. So taking a page out of common sense...Less parts = Less things to go wrong!!!

Keep up the good work all Knife Designers and keep bringing us great evolutionary features like the "wave" and flippers!!! Otherwise we'd all still be using the two handed thumb nail groove :(

What other features do you my friends like?

Sorry for my bad English.
 
So we should all be carrying fixed blade Becker Tac Tools with no scales?

And I have never had a problem with a thumb stud on any decent quality knife.
 
TriviaMonster said:
So we should all be carrying fixed blade Becker Tac Tools with no scales?

And I have never had a problem with a thumb stud on any decent quality knife.
Click to expand...

Hey, the point of this thread wasn't to start an argument, the OP simply said less parts means less things to go wrong. He didn't say thumb studs are a problem he just used then as an example.

If you take it to the extreme it does sounds stupid, but your putting words in the OP's mouth, in an argumentative way I might add. No disrespect intended, Kirby

To the op: the two things that come to mind are integral washers (spyderco native and ka-bar folding hunter) and integral knives which allow you to make a knife with as little as 3 parts!
 
blixxx said:
Otherwise we'd all still be using the two handed thumb nail groove :(


Sorry for my bad English.
Click to expand...

Ah but I chose a slipjoint because I didn't want a lock to fail. No lock = less to go wrong. ;)

And your English is pretty good.
 
So taking a page out of common sense...Less parts = Less things to go wrong!!!
Click to expand...

I've always thought that to a certain extent, the above notion is a false one.

Given two items that do the same job, I'd rather have one with five quality parts rather than one with three crappy parts, thought I'd rather have one with three quality parts than five if possible. Bottom line, a lower parts count isn't synonymous with higher performance.

Then there is the fallacy when it comes to type. Penny farthings are/were bicycles. They have a low parts count and use direct drive. hence have fewer things to go wrong. The more complex chain driven bicycle has utterly stomped the big wheelers into irrelevance because it was reliable enough though more complicated and a safer design.

A typical liner lock is far more parts simple than an Axis lock. I know I'd trust the more complicated Axis lock at its limits way more than any simple liner lock.
 
Boats said:
I've always thought that to a certain extent, the above notion is a false one.

Given two items that do the same job, I'd rather have one with five quality parts rather than one with three crappy parts, thought I'd rather have one with three quality parts than five if possible. Bottom line, a lower parts count isn't synonymous with higher performance.

Then there is the fallacy when it comes to type. Penny farthings are/were bicycles. They have a low parts count and use direct drive. hence have fewer things to go wrong. The more complex chain driven bicycle has utterly stomped the big wheelers into irrelevance because it was reliable enough though more complicated and a safer design.

A typical liner lock is far more parts simple than an Axis lock. I know I'd trust the more complicated Axis lock at its limits way more than any simple liner lock.
Click to expand...
Ahh, the exception that makes the rule. Nice Boats.
 
Boats said:
I've always thought that to a certain extent, the above notion is a false one.

Given two items that do the same job, I'd rather have one with five quality parts rather than one with three crappy parts, thought I'd rather have one with three quality parts than five if possible. Bottom line, a lower parts count isn't synonymous with higher performance.

Then there is the fallacy when it comes to type. Penny farthings are/were bicycles. They have a low parts count and use direct drive. hence have fewer things to go wrong. The more complex chain driven bicycle has utterly stomped the big wheelers into irrelevance because it was reliable enough though more complicated and a safer design.

A typical liner lock is far more parts simple than an Axis lock. I know I'd trust the more complicated Axis lock at its limits way more than any simple liner lock.
Click to expand...

It really depends.......yes, maybe the Axis lock will have a higher abuse tolerance than a simple linear lock and if you must do 1 or 2 VERY DIFFICULT actions it will probably perform better.

I ask you this, which I think the OP was getting at.........which is more likely to fail under longer term repeated use of the typical variety (opening letters, cutting boxes, etc)? I'd wager that if each product was of equal production quality, the linear lock would fair better if I were to just flick it open and closed until failure of the lock mechanism.

Less moving parts = less things to go wrong WHEN PARTS ARE MOVING.............not necessarily speaking to the strength of a particular lock at it's strength limits, where no movement is occurring, fewer/more parts provides no advantage by parts count alone. When things are moving, fewer parts = fewer parts to wear, fewer parts to fail = less probability of failure while parts are moving, not while parts are not.
 
Simplest knife would be a basic friction folder. 2 handle slabs, a blade, a pivot screw (I prefer at least one more at the end of the handle), and a stop pin. It has one moving part. If only people made friction folders with liners and pocket clips with decent steels for under $100. If there is one I would love to know what it is so I can buy a bunch of them.
 
Basically, I think we're talking variations of the KISS principle , which states "that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided".

I've found that principle to be quite valid in all sorts of things, from designs to using those designs.

blixxx said:
Sorry for my bad English.
Click to expand...
Where? I kept looking and could not find it :D. Your English it fine.

Its so nice that flippers and spyderco type holes inherently use less parts than lets say a blade that has a thumb stud.
Click to expand...
TriviaMonster said:
And I have never had a problem with a thumb stud on any decent quality knife.
Click to expand...

Like you, my initial reaction was that the OPs second example wasn't really a good one, but then after a bit of thought I realized that I have had problems with poor placement of a thumb stud on some knives, while the Spydiehole always seems to work well...as do most similar hole type openers..regardless of placement.

Jastab said:
Glock has changed the gun market with this philosophy.
Click to expand...
While I take your point, I think John Moses Browning beat them to it a few decades earlier ;).
 
Jastab said:
Glock has changed the gun market with this philosophy.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Glock was 69 years late to the "it disassembles without tools" party. Glock changed to gun market by popularizing plastic receivers and by using rock bottom prices for agency deals, not though parts simplicity.

Push comes to shove, a typical Glock is no more statistically reliable than any other modern handgun design.
 
More on this subject and I didn't mention in this thread...the evolutionary flipper doubles as a guard and is naturally ambidextrous!!! No need to use an extra part that is side specific.

I also think lanyard holes that double as glass breakers deserve a nod.
 
blixxx said:
More on this subject and I didn't mention in this thread...the evolutionary flipper doubles as a guard and is naturally ambidextrous!!! No need to use an extra part that is side specific.

I also think lanyard holes that double as glass breakers deserve a nod.
Click to expand...

What flipper knife is ambidextrous?
 
I'm with ya, blixx. I prefer a simpler design in every way... not just in parts count but in overall design. On the other hand I also agree with others in a way. For example I reeeeeally like the integral designs such as the Scott Cook Lochsa, Peter R. integrals or say, the Lionsteel TiSpine, but without an added stop pin (lochsa) there is nothing that can be replaced if it develops up/down blade play because the lock gets buffed down too much. With all of the above I'm not sure that the lock bar can be bent in to easily fix it either. It may just be all in my head but this is why I prefer a few more parts and the overall designs of CRK Sebenzas and Strider SnGs. IMO, the Axis locks do take the parts count overboard. I've owned several and they are not for me.
 
Boats said:
No, not really. Glock was 69 years late to the "it disassembles without tools" party. Glock changed to gun market by popularizing plastic receivers and by using rock bottom prices for agency deals, not though parts simplicity.

Push comes to shove, a typical Glock is no more statistically reliable than any other modern handgun design.
Click to expand...

A glock 17 has 34 parts where as a 1911 has 53. Look at the many you tube videos proving glocks reliability. You can get great reliability from a 1911, but your gonna pay more than a stock glock cost. There is a reason glock is the most carried service weapon in the world. Glocks can munch any ammo you feed it, even +p+ ammo. Watch the video of the 1000 round torture test, the guide spring rod melts out of the gun and it still fires.... if a gun can break a critical part and keep going that's a clear advance in technology. Plus they offer 10mm, and any self respecting man should have one.
 
So, following the thoughts of the OP, how many parts is your current/favorite EDC folder? (Don't forget the detent ball or washers... ;))

Strider SnG: 19
It was harder to count than I expected.

Edit: Got bored, counted parts my prior EDC.
Spyderco Stretch: 24 parts

Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top