Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are the one making attacks. I am merely pointing them out. If you wish to make the conversation productive, you must be productive.
 
More psychobabble meant to deflect attention from your avoidance of addressing the issues raised here by a plethora of posters.
 
If you wish the conversation to be productive, you must be productive. Comments like that won't accomplish such a goal.
 
There have been numerous civil, earnest attempts made to engage you in a rational discussion of your premise yet at this point they still await reply. Tick tock, tick tock.....
 
Every time you make a response like that rather than focusing on something substantive, you're just perpetuating the same mode of exchange. If you want the conversation to be productive, you will have to start being productive.
 
I have focused on something substantive-your failure to reply to the challenges to your premise posed here by numerous posters. Are you going to reply with something of substance to the issues that have been raised which challenge your premise or are you going to obfuscate, misdirect, and continue to ignore them? What have you added that is productive to this discussion?
 
You're not focusing on anything substantive. You're simply perpetuating pointless bickering.

If you wish the conversation to be productive, you will have to be productive in your approach to it.
 
There isn't anything substantive to focus on (other than your lack of addressing the questions put to you) because you fail to provide a substantive rebuttal to the issues placed at your doorstep.

It would seem clear that despite given every opportunity, you are not going to address the issues raised. People who post controversial points of view then refuse to support them all the while throwing more fuel on the fire are called trolls. How is your behavior here any different?

I can see where this merry-go-round is headed, time to step off.....
 
That would probably best.

To get this thread back on track, I am reposting the original video.

[youtube]U0J0O0tz3v0[/youtube]
 
neeman said:
Can we come back to three ways of looking.

Normal reasonable use
Destuctive Testing
Abuse

Normal use of a tool will not damage it.

Destructive Testing is destroying on purpose, you are doing this for the express purpose testing to find where the tool breaks.

Abuse is extending normal use knowing that you might damage the tool.


Can we seperate Destructive Testing and Abuse?
A tester breaking a tool is different from a user breaking a tool.

Can we seperate Normal reasonable use and Abuse?
Normal reasonable use is actually set by the manufactuer and their claims, and their warrenty.
So Brand A sells their knife with claims of 'unbreakable', then they have moved the definition of reasonable use
Click to expand...

Sharp Phil said:
No, we can't.
Click to expand...

neeman said:
Why not?
Can you answer this?
When you do, you can clarify your argument.

You propose that reasonable usage is the way to test, and you are against destrutive testing as abuse.

Destuctive Testing is a normal method of testing.
We can call it abuse with a purpose
Which is different from abuse without a purpose

Can we seperate Destructive Testing and Abuse?
This point is actually the crux of your whole discussion.
Your answer is pivotal
Click to expand...

Sharp Phil said:
You will get the respect you offer.
Click to expand...

neeman said:
Then please respect my question

and post an substantive answer

Thank you
Click to expand...

neeman said:
Waiting
Click to expand...

Phil,

I also would be very pleased to see a concise, crystal clear... answer to this question.

As I have stated before... your video is just fine for what it is and the point it makes..... Normal reasonable use of a tool & choosing the proper tool for the job at hand.

I fail to see a valid reason for your apparent distain of ... destructive/testing to failure.

There are/can be times in a survival situation, or any other situation for that matter... where a tool may have to be pushed to the limit. Beyond what may be considered "normal reasonable use / proper tool for the job".

In my way of thinking it is nice to have some idea of what that limit might be.

Respectfully,
Chuck P
 
Destructive "testing" of the type I'm decrying doesn't provide meaningful insight into the answer of that question. There's simply no way to know if the conditions you face will mirror those that broke the knife, unless it's something obvious. To say, "I hammered this knife through a cinder block and it broke" is fine and good, and if you expect to encounter cinder blocks in an emergency, I suppose that is relevant. Otherwise it really is not. To evaluate a knife as a tool, you look at what it is designed to do and what it is intended to do, and then you evaluate how well it accomplishes those goals.

When you deliberately abuse a tool, the assumption you should make is that it may break when you do that. Every time you pry open a paint can with a pocket knife, for example, you should acknowledge that the tip of the blade may break off. That's simply the assumption of risk that you assume.

There are very few real survival situations that would require you to something truly Herculean to a knife, such as hammering it through a brick wall. If the issue is whether the knife can be batoned without breaking it, and that is really a huge concern to the owner, it would be better to carry a small hatchet in conjunction with the knife. All of this planning presumes you'll have either tool in the aforementioned emergency anyway. You can't predict every tool you'll need, but you can provide for the basics such that you don't have to risk abusing a needed tool.
 
Thank you for the answer Phil.

This "debate" could go on forever with no real "answer".

While I see nothing basically wrong with your video or what you say in it, I think that further "testing" or whatever one wishes to call it is just fine. It is a natural progression for those who wish to know the limits of something.... knives being what we are talking about here.

Sure a "scientific" testing process with specific criteria would be fine and dandy... however in the absense of that... I myself see nothing wrong with whatever one does to "test" their knives as long as they tell and show it like it is for what it is.

No altered videos... no BS, just show what they do and the result.

IF a person who watches does not realize that "testing to failure" is, in most if not all cases... intentional GROSS ABUSE..... hopefully they will wise up sooner than later.

So... best we can hope for here is to agree to disagree.... :thumbup:

Thank you sir,
Chuck P
 
Well, even that is not what bothers me about the increasing prevalence of such testing. Individuals are free to break their stuff all day long. The reason I bothered doing this polemic at all is that I think there exists a growing segment in the "knife community," if we can call it that -- people who are perhaps relatively young, or perhaps relatively uninformed (though I'm really not trying to take a crack at them) who are developing unreasonable expectations for the baseline of what a knife should be able to do.

I think this is happening specifically because these knife-breaking stunts are promulgated. I believe this does the entire community of knife users a disservice because it moves the baseline of one's expectations from a reasonable one to an unreasonable one.
 
Kinder gentler tests or reviews defiantly have their place and they provide the basics. However I argue that they can be misleading.

The screw driver as an example is the most misused tool in the tool box. It's designed to insert and remove screws according to the shape of it's head "and that's all". Yet it's used as an ice pick, scraper, wood chisel, pry bar, paint can opener, for punching holes in drywall, drift pins and the list goes on...... So the kinder gentler review following the manufacturers designed purpose would depict it inserting and removing screws and that's all. The kinder gentler test fails to provide all the information about the tool. To really know the tools limits you have to stress it which includes to the breaking point....
 
Sharp Phil said:
Destructive "testing" of the type I'm decrying doesn't provide meaningful insight into the answer of that question. There's simply no way to know if the conditions you face will mirror those that broke the knife, unless it's something obvious. To say, "I hammered this knife through a cinder block and it broke" is fine and good, and if you expect to encounter cinder blocks in an emergency, I suppose that is relevant. Otherwise it really is not. To evaluate a knife as a tool, you look at what it is designed to do and what it is intended to do, and then you evaluate how well it accomplishes those goals.

When you deliberately abuse a tool, the assumption you should make is that it may break when you do that. Every time you pry open a paint can with a pocket knife, for example, you should acknowledge that the tip of the blade may break off. That's simply the assumption of risk that you assume.

There are very few real survival situations that would require you to something truly Herculean to a knife, such as hammering it through a brick wall. If the issue is whether the knife can be batoned without breaking it, and that is really a huge concern to the owner, it would be better to carry a small hatchet in conjunction with the knife. All of this planning presumes you'll have either tool in the aforementioned emergency anyway. You can't predict every tool you'll need, but you can provide for the basics such that you don't have to risk abusing a needed tool.
Click to expand...


Ahhh! Now we're getting somewhere- I'm glad I checked back.

I agree that some of the tests (hammering through a cinder block) done in isolation really wouldn't provide much meaningful information. I think the value comes in when you put different "hard use" knives through the same tests, and some break and some don't.

As you point out, there really isn't much chance that anyone will have to chop through a brick in a survival situation, but then again, the target audience for this type of knife is looking for a knife that will be up to whatever unforeseen circumstance they find themselves in. It may not be chopping through a brick, but now you know that this particular knife can withstand that kind of use (abuse?) and that particular knife can't.

"To evaluate a knife as a tool, you look at what it is designed to do and what it is intended to do, and then you evaluate how well it accomplishes those goals."

This is very true, and I think, when the test subjects are "hard use" "survival" type knives meant to be an individuals lifeline tool in any desperate situation, then these kind of tests are called for. Anything less than finding out what breaks the knife does not answer the question of "just how far can I trust this knife?" I am assuming that all the knives cut and hold an edge to a reasonable degree.

"You can't predict every tool you'll need, but you can provide for the basics such that you don't have to risk abusing a needed tool."

I think that's the point- you can't predict! People are looking for these knives to be THE tool that will provide for their needs.

There are people who put too much enphasis on tests like these, but there are also mall ninjas, steel snobs and all kinds of different points of view. So what?

If it does turn out that tests like these raise expectations, is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at the performance of some of these blades! Not just the Busses, but who would have thought a Cold Steel Bushman would do so well? I had always thought of them as cheap novelties.

You are absolutely right that some people may use these tests to demean otherwise worthy knives- I love my Dozier Gentleman's knife, it is one of the best slicers I own- in spite of the fact that it would never pass one of these tests. But then, it was never advertised as a tough, hard-use knife.
 
MVF said:
There are people who put too much enphasis on tests like these, but there are also mall ninjas, steel snobs and all kinds of different points of view. So what?
Click to expand...

So the promulgation of abuse as the standard of testing is unreasonable and creates unrealistic expectations among relatively ignorant knife users, thus doing everyone in the knife-using community a disservice.
 
Bors said:
The screw driver as an example is the most misused tool in the tool box. It's designed to insert and remove screws according to the shape of it's head "and that's all". Yet it's used as an ice pick, scraper, wood chisel, pry bar, paint can opener, for punching holes in drywall, drift pins and the list goes on...... So the kinder gentler review following the manufacturers designed purpose would depict it inserting and removing screws and that's all. The kinder gentler test fails to provide all the information about the tool. To really know the tools limits you have to stress it which includes to the breaking point....
Click to expand...

This is a great example....the Chapman Gun screwdrivers are generally regarded as some of the finest U.S. made precision gun screwdrivers in the world. They are a purpose built tool....the brochure specifically states that they are NOT designed to pry, open paint cans....they are made to tighten and loosen screws....they are expensive....by much of the reasoning demonstrated in this thread, does this make them inferior to the Chinese or even domestic made screwdriver that can handle all of the above activities without any damage....but chews the heck out of screws?

I don't think so....maybe others do, but it goes back to Phil's original statements concerning intent of the maker AND the user.

A Chapman screwdriver bit is used for tightening and loosening screws...only.

Best Regards,

Steven Garsson
 
MVF said:
Ahhh! Now we're getting somewhere- I'm glad I checked back.

I agree that some of the tests (hammering through a cinder block) done in isolation really wouldn't provide much meaningful information. I think the value comes in when you put different "hard use" knives through the same tests, and some break and some don't.

As you point out, there really isn't much chance that anyone will have to chop through a brick in a survival situation, but then again, the target audience for this type of knife is looking for a knife that will be up to whatever unforeseen circumstance they find themselves in. It may not be chopping through a brick, but now you know that this particular knife can withstand that kind of use (abuse?) and that particular knife can't.

This is very true, and I think, when the test subjects are "hard use" "survival" type knives meant to be an individuals lifeline tool in any desperate situation, then these kind of tests are called for. Anything less than finding out what breaks the knife does not answer the question of "just how far can I trust this knife?" I am assuming that all the knives cut and hold an edge to a reasonable degree.

I think that's the point- you can't predict! People are looking for these knives to be THE tool that will provide for their needs.

If it does turn out that tests like these raise expectations, is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at the performance of some of these blades! Not just the Busses, but who would have thought a Cold Steel Bushman would do so well? I had always thought of them as cheap novelties.

You are absolutely right that some people may use these tests to demean otherwise worthy knives- I love my Dozier Gentleman's knife, it is one of the best slicers I own- in spite of the fact that it would never pass one of these tests. But then, it was never advertised as a tough, hard-use knife.
Click to expand...

Exactly! You have hit all the salient points.

For any product marketed as extreme use, the only way to determine the service envelope, and to compare it to other like products, is to test to failure.

I think an important point that needs to be addressed is the fact that these destructive tests that Sharp Phil has a problem with are done AFTER the knives are put through various pedestrian tasks-peeling fruit, cutting rope, etc. It is only after the typical usages are investigated that the knives are put to their limits. To be clear: is not as if is some guy is simply taking knives out of a box, putting them in a vice and snapping them in half. That would indeed provide little insight into their endurance when used to extreme.

Testing a product or material to failure is a pillar of modern engineering design. The only reason we know what the limits of materials are is because they have been tested to failure. Any product that may have a life depend on it is destructively tested-cars, airplanes, firearms, etc. An extreme use knife that may be used in a life or death situation is no different and should be destructively tested for that reason alone.

Another valid reason is to simply verify manufacturer's marketing claims of product durability. If I was going to send a child into harm's way I would want to see independent testing verifying a manufacturer's claims that the knife can take hard use and remain serviceable.

And another important reason is to compare products meant for hard use to determine which are the best value. Why should anyone looking for a hard use knife spend $300 on a knife that fails well before a $50 knife? These price/performance comparisons are of great interest to many people.

To deny the manifold benefits of destructive testing because of the potential it creates to engender artificial expectations of performance on behalf of a small, unsophisticated population does a far greater disservice to the community at large. Not to mention the absolute danger potential to those that may come to depend on the product in a life threatening situation.
 
The "life threatening situations" that require the knife to be hammered through cinder blocks and other feats of absurd strength are greatly exaggerated by those who use them as justification for these stunts.
 
Kohai999 said:
This is a great example....the Chapman Gun screwdrivers are generally regarded as some of the finest U.S. made precision gun screwdrivers in the world. They are a purpose built tool....the brochure specifically states that they are NOT designed to pry, open paint cans....they are made to tighten and loosen screws....they are expensive....by much of the reasoning demonstrated in this thread, does this make them inferior to the Chinese or even domestic made screwdriver that can handle all of the above activities without any damage....but chews the heck out of screws?

I don't think so....maybe others do, but it goes back to Phil's original statements concerning intent of the maker AND the user.

A Chapman screwdriver bit is used for tightening and loosening screws...only.

Best Regards,

Steven Garsson
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that destructive testing of a fine gentleman's folder, for example, is meaningful. The knives under discussion are marketed as extreme use tools and as such should be able to withstand usage above and beyond what most would consider "normal everyday use". "Use the right tool for the job" is grotesquely obvious- the extreme use knife is made to go beyond the "normal" and withstand what would be abuse of an "everyday" knife.

Sharp Phil has gone a step further and claims that destructive testing is abuse, period, and thus has no place in the evaluation of ANY knife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top