Reasonable Knife Evaluation

[Phil Elmore]

If people were commonly attacked by wild cinder blocks while stranded in the wilderness, hammering a knife through one to test its ability to withstand that stress would be relevant.

 

[Reeek]

Point taken.

I guess my real goal was to concede that in some survival situations one will probably find themselves using various devices or material in a manner it was not "intended" for.

I do think I'm interested in seeing the results of a test to failure for a survival type knife and obviously the tester would have to use his or her imagination to contrive viable survival tests. I just wonder how one can expect or plan to use a knife in a survival situation.

Thinking about this subject more, even if the tests are contrived I think I would like to see the results of several knives pitted against each other. At least with that we can start to see trends as to which knife(ves) tend to perform better than others but that would also require pitting knives against each other rather than a single knife pitted against some contrived battery of "tests".

Did I make sense at all?! HA!

 

[Phil Elmore]

Point taken.

I guess my real goal was to concede that in some survival situations one will probably find themselves using various devices or material in a manner it was not "intended" for.

Sure, you might. You might have to abuse the knife; you might have no choice. But there's also a question of what's likely, in context. Let's take the issue of batoning, for example. If you're in a situation where you might need to abuse your knife in order to make firewood, and you happen to have the knife in that situation in the first place, why would you not also have a small hatchet, if it's likely to come up at all?

 

[hardheart]

why would you not have a knife suitable for batoning, if it's likely to come up at all?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Why would you not have a screwdriver suitable for batoning, if it's likely to come up at all? Or a maul? Or a shoe tree, or a Garden Weasel, or a frozen leg of lamb?

 

[hardheart]

So why are you asking if a hatchet would be on hand? People have whatever various criteria for selecting their tools, plus old Murphy can pop in from time to time. I might have a shoe tree but no hatchet, who knows why, we can't possibly plan for every scenario.

edit-this is off topic and my internet connection is crapping out, gonna sit this thread out

 

[tsiloics]

I know intuitively that if I drain all the oil out of my truck and jump on the interstate, running at 70 MPH, it is abuse. It will fail. What difference does it make if it fails in 3 minutes or 10 minutes?

I have never done this, so how do I know it will fail? How do I know it is abusive? Common sense, or intuition.

Here's that example again. What you're saying is true, but not valid.

A valid example would be more along the lines of testing two trucks to see how much damage was sustained from running say, 100 miles with the oil volume at 50%.

Now, what is at issue here is this:

A.) Finding one truck superior to the other because it sustained less damage running on low oil would be a perfectly legitimate performance criticism, regardless of whether the manufacturer had made any such claims. This might very well be of interest and value to some truck owners or prospective buyers.

B.) Any given prospective truck buyer or owner might not see a need for the ability to run on low oil. In that case, he should simply disregard the test.

C.) It would not be appropriate for one to use the results of this test to badmouth a truck manufacturer on the basis of his truck's inferior performance, as long as that manufacturer had not made claims to the contrary.

D.) The fact that a given truck owner does not care about his truck’s ability (or lack thereof) to run on low oil does not make it inappropriate for other truck owners to value this attribute.

 

[tsiloics]

Sure, you might. You might have to abuse the knife; you might have no choice. But there's also a question of what's likely, in context. Let's take the issue of batoning, for example. If you're in a situation where you might need to abuse your knife in order to make firewood, and you happen to have the knife in that situation in the first place, why would you not also have a small hatchet, if it's likely to come up at all?

What on earth do you mean, why would I also not have a small hatchet? That makes no sense at all.

I currently own 10 or 12 knives that fall into the category we're talking about, and I do not currently own any hatchets, axes or similar implements... let alone carry them around with me.

This being beside the point, all other things equal, talking about hard-use utility knives, how is stronger not better? How is it not a legitimate asset for a knife of this type to be able to withstand batoning with a hammer or small maul? No one was talking about screwdrivers or multitools. This is not a big leap of scope.

So again, it's perfectly reasonable for any given user to reject that aspect of criticism, but it is not reasonable for him to argue that simply because he rejects it, it's not valid.

 

[Phil Elmore]

So why are you asking if a hatchet would be on hand?

Because a hatchet is intended for chopping wood. If you have the forethought to have a knife, you can have the forethought to have an axe, and hence use the right tool for the job.

So again, it's perfectly reasonable for any given user to reject that aspect of criticism, but it is not reasonable for him to argue that simply because he rejects it, it's not valid.

It's not valid because it is not logical. Rejecting it is a symptom, not a cause.

 

[SPXTrader]

Here's that example again. What you're saying is true, but not valid.

A valid example would be more along the lines of testing two trucks to see how much damage was sustained from running say, 100 miles with the oil volume at 50%.

I choose to disagree. It is valid. Any internal combustion engine is built to run at capacity, with a margin of error for consumption, leakage, etc. If you PURPOSELY drain out 50% of the oil, you are knowingly abusing the truck's engine beyond what the manufacturer states is normal operating conditions.

I personally don't buy my trucks based on how well they will perform when subjected to conditions that I willingly know in advance are abusive to them.

 

[tsiloics]

It's not valid because it is not logical. Rejecting it is a symptom, not a cause.

I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the big pivot point came when the #3 maul was used in place of a wood baton, and a blade broke. The idea that some users would find that to be a valid weakness is not illogical. That is all I'm saying. I am not trying to extrapolate from there to screwdrivers, multitools or legs of lamb.

 

[busselover]

I personally don't buy my trucks based on how well they will perform when subjected to conditions that I willingly know in advance are abusive to them.

A lot of what might be considered abuse occurs in situations that are not "known in advance". When in a pinch, you use what you have in any way necessary to survive. If I came across someone trapped and needed to use my Busse knife to cut them out of a car, I wouldn't hesitate because Sharp Phil thinks that it would be "abusive".

Destructive testing is a legitimate, rational, and logical means to determine the ultimate capabilities of a product that is designed and marketed for hard use, if for no other reason than to compare the toughness and ultimate strength of competing products to ascertain the limits of each.

Would hammering a swiss army knife into concrete be a legitimate destructive test? No, the product is not designed or marketed as a tool of last resort.

Is hammering a knife marketed as an extreme conditions/usage product into concrete a legitimate test? Of course. Are tests comparing extreme use knives used extremely useful/valid/reasonable? Sure as they show the comparative ultimate strengths of a product marketed on the basis of strength/endurance/toughness/etc.

No one buys a knife planning to cut concrete with it. And no intelligent person willingly chooses to cut concrete with a knife. No one would claim that a knife is designed for cutting concrete. But if I was shopping for a hard use knife and had to choose between one that could handle chopping concrete in an emergency situation and one that couldn't, thank you Noss, I will choose the one that doesn't break.....Any other choice is illogical.

 

[tsiloics]

I choose to disagree. It is valid. Any internal combustion engine is built to run at capacity, with a margin of error for consumption, leakage, etc. If you PURPOSELY drain out 50% of the oil, you are knowingly abusing the truck's engine beyond what the manufacturer states is normal operating conditions.

I personally don't buy my trucks based on how well they will perform when subjected to conditions that I willingly know in advance are abusive to them.

I am not talking about intentionally depriving the motor of oil. I am talking about having the ability to drive for some distance on low oil vs. not.

Let's say you hit a rock 50 miles up a Forest Service road and put a leak in the pan. That sort of thing happens all the time. My BIL did it just this past summer. Having a vehicle that can make it back to the shop with minimal additional damage is a potentially significant asset.

Maybe you live in town and never drive your truck off the tarmac. Maybe you just don't care. That's fine. I am not arguing that you should care. What I am saying is that some people do, and to those people this would be a valid issue, and a valid reason why one truck was superior to the other - even if the manufacturer had not made claims in that respect. So for that reason, it would not be appropriate to log onto truckforums and start a thread about how hitting a rock with your oil pan fell outside Ford's intended scope of performance.

Now, if you were trying to drive a Zamboni up a Forest Service road, that would be a little different. In that sense, the Zamboni engineers have a little more latitude in terms of placement and reinforcement of the pan, and the vehicle's ability to run on low oil is much less relevant.

 

[Phil Elmore]

A lot of what might be considered abuse occurs in situations that are not "known in advance".

Then how do you know you'll even have the knife with you?

There may be cases where it is necessary to abuse a knife. Abuse should never be the standard by which we evaluate the "success" or "failure" of a tool.

 

[tsiloics]

Abuse should never be the standard by which we evaluate the "success" or "failure" of a tool.

Except of course in cases where the tool in question is designed and marketed partly around the idea of being able to withstand abuse - and to groups of people who will undoubtedly find themselves in emergency situations where solutions will have to be improvised.

 

[SPXTrader]

There may be cases where it is necessary to abuse a knife. Abuse should never be the standard by which we evaluate the "success" or "failure" of a tool.

Exactly.

Except of course in cases where the tool in question is designed and marketed partly around the idea of being able to withstand abuse - and to groups of people who will undoubtedly find themselves in emergency situations where solutions will have to be improvised.

But to what level of abuse to you set the standard? Hammering thru cinderblocks? Being attacked by a gang of car hoods? As for the groups of people that will find themselves in emergency situations, I hope they have brought more than a knife. Just about any emergency call out for a FD mandates more equipment brought than is normally necessary.

 

[busselover]

Then how do you know you'll even have the knife with you?

How do you know you won't?

Abuse should never be the standard by which we evaluate the "success" or "failure" of a tool.

If it is marketed as an extreme usage product, the ultimate failure point is of importance. Knowing the limits and boundaries of use for something marketed on the basis of its toughness and strength allows consumers to buy to suit their risk profiles.

Comparative destructive testing does not yield "successes" and "failures" since by definition all test pieces "fail". What it shows is distribution of relative toughness/strength/endurance for a sample group. One can then make price/performance valuations and choose accordingly.

 

[akadave2]

Koolaid all around!

 

[busselover]

But to what level of abuse to you set the standard?

There is no need to set a standard. Comparative destructive testing simply shows the ultimate strength of a sample. When using to failure a number of samples, a relative ranking based on ultimate strength is obtained. Products can then be ranked on a price/performance basis, where performance is ultimate strength....

 

[tsiloics]

But to what level of abuse to you set the standard? Hammering thru cinderblocks? Being attacked by a gang of car hoods?

There is no need to set a standard. People are able to draw their own conclusions from anecdotal evidence.