Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "standard" is set regardless of whether it is consciously done. It is set by the default expectations that prevail among the community of users. One relatively ignorant subset of these users is redefining those expectations at unreasonable (abusive) levels, and this does everyone a disservice.
 
The only reason there is any utility in the Noss tests to failure is the simple fact that some knives take more abuse than others. If they all failed at the same point, there would be nothing to note.

Tools marketed for extreme use are marketed on their toughness and ability to withstand abuse. There is nothing absurd about finding those limits and if the product lives up to its marketing.

Buck's logo was the knife being hammered through a steel bolt. Is this normal knife usage? Is it abusive? Sure, but it shows the capabilities of the product to withstand abuse and still function. Clearly there are people who value a knife that can take abuse and not break. Not everyone will want or need to cut a steel bolt/concrete block/car hood with their knife, but there are a great many people who would like to know the limits of their tool and it is these people that can find value in destructive tests.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The "standard" is set regardless of whether it is consciously done. It is set by the default expectations that prevail among the community of users.
Click to expand...

Well, if 10 knives are destructively tested and 1 or 2 are found to be markedly tougher than the others, then certainly one can say that those knives set a standard for toughness. Among knives marketed for hard use, this info, along with the prices, would be valuable information. How can you say that expectations are unreasonable when some knives clearly outperform others?




Sharp Phil said:
One relatively ignorant subset of these users is redefining those expectations at unreasonable (abusive) levels, and this does everyone a disservice.
Click to expand...

Must you insult?

Some knives, either because of design, materials, or both, take more abuse than others. Without destructive testing, we would not know the relative toughness nor the price/performance ratings.

On the contrary, for knives marketed on toughness and extreme use, expectations are based on manufacturer's marketing; the testing shows the reality of those claims. For some manufacturers, expectations seem to actually have been lowered based on performance that was mediocre in comparison to other products.
 
Sharp Phil said:
It's not an "on" or "off" concept. It can be mild, or it can be extreme.
Click to expand...

If it's not an on or off thing then where's the 'on' point where the mfg. can say "you abused my product and therefore the warranty doesn't apply"?

If you can't define where abuse begins than how can you exclude it in a warranty?
 
Phil, you make a good point...test the knife for its intended use.

I can see a point that you may have to use your knife hard, such as wood for a fire or building some type of shelter. It does happen that somebody on a day hike can run into trouble such as unexpected weather. In this instance you may possibly have to baton a knife through some wood as it is faster than chopping when it comes to most knives. In the interest of weight with other equipment you might have, a hatchet might be something that gets left behind in favor of a more versitile tool like a knife.

Thats where common sense comes in. You baton a knife with wood through wood...there is a difference, beating it with a 3 pound sledge (which you probably wont have with you) is far more damaging to most knives than wood. It is also something you should learn to do correctly if there is a chance you will be doing it at all.

As for those who dismiss a knife because it fails some Mister-Destructo-knife-Testers "test", well you have to consider many things.

For those who say "I wont buy that knife because I need one in case the SHTF"...I challenge you to point out a survival situation which requires chopping through mountains of concrete...and steel pipe. Trust me, if an average commercial building falls down on you, assuming you live through it, even your trusty super knife aint gonna hack your way out of it. In a wilderness setting your not going to be chopping steel pipe and concrete for your fire.

Yes, some knives maybe called upon to do things that a knife is not meant for and most including CRK for instance will get you through if you do your part and use a little common sense.

For most of us, if you like a knife then buy it. As Phil has pointed out, use your knife as a knife. Chances are you will enjoy it very much.

Good job Phil!!
 
elkins45 said:
If it's not an on or off thing then where's the 'on' point where the mfg. can say "you abused my product and therefore the warranty doesn't apply"?

If you can't define where abuse begins than how can you exclude it in a warranty?
Click to expand...

That's up to the individual manufacturer. Exercise your own judgment -- if it is not impaired by unreasonable expectations.
 
watchcollector1968 said:
Phil, you make a good point...test the knife for its intended use.
Click to expand...

That is what Noss has done! He subjected extreme use knives to extreme use and found that some can handle harder use than others.

watchcollector1968 said:
Yes, some knives maybe called upon to do things that a knife is not meant for and most including CRK for instance will get you through if you do your part and use a little common sense.
Click to expand...

And some will apparently get you through more before breaking when the need arises....
 
Sharp Phil said:
Exercise your own judgment -- if it is not impaired by unreasonable expectations.
Click to expand...

Oh I think the tests have made for much more reasonable expectations. We now know not to expect a CR knife to take the kind of abuse that BUSSE and others can handle without failure.
 
busselover said:
That is what Noss has done!
Click to expand...

No, it's the opposite of what he has done. He has made abuse the standard of his video stunts, and those of us who believe in realistically evaluating knives are tired of hearing about him. If he wants to take off his hockey mask, take responsibility for his work, and actually stand behind what he does, I might be willing to listen to what he has to say. Until then, this thread does not involve him.

busselover said:
We now know not to expect a CR knife to take the kind of abuse that BUSSE and others can handle without failure.
Click to expand...

No, you don't know that; you've simply supposed it, based on a single flawed and illogical stunt.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The "standard" is set regardless of whether it is consciously done. It is set by the default expectations that prevail among the community of users. One relatively ignorant subset of these users is redefining those expectations at unreasonable (abusive) levels, and this does everyone a disservice.
Click to expand...

Ignorant is defined as not being in agreement with you? This whole thread is the very definition of a subjective argument--neither side can call upon objective fact to conclusively defeat the other side. This is a disagreement of opinion, not of fact on both sides.

Here's a question for you that is both philosophical and practical: what defines 'hard use'? I can think of one mfg. in particular that refers to their knives as being tools suited for 'hard use'. Must they define precisely what is normal use, hard use or abuse for the knife buying public?

Isn't that the only way to have objective standards for knife performance? Or are makers allowed to say anything they want about the durability of their products, secure in the knowledge that anyone who actually finds themselves needing that promised durability is abusing the knife by definition?

Sounds like a self-referential definition: anything that breaks a hard use knife sets the bar for where hard use ends and abuse begins.

As for me, I'll happily watch Phil's reviews and Noss's reviews and be entertained and informed by both. I'll just be getting different types of information from each.
 
Sharp Phil said:
No, it's the opposite of what he has done. He has made abuse the standard of his video stunts, and those of us who believe in realistically evaluating knives are tired of hearing about him. If he wants to take off his hockey mask, take responsibility for his work, and actually stand behind what he does, I might be willing to listen to what he has to say. Until then, this thread does not involve him.
Click to expand...


It is called destructive testing and it shows the amount of abuse a so-called hard use knife can take before failure.

It is a realistic and reasonable method of testing hard use knives. A good case could be made that it is the only way to test a hard use knife.



Sharp Phil said:
No, you don't know that; you've simply supposed it, based on a single flawed and illogical stunt.
Click to expand...

I believe more than one CR knife was tested with same outcome: it failed significantly earlier than the other knives.

Subjecting an extreme use knife to extreme use to see how much hard use each can take before failure? Flawed and illogical? No.
 
No, it's a knife-breaking stunt, not a test. "Test" implies scientific method and reproducible, measurable results. It's an unrealistic means of establishing abuse as the benchmark of a tool's success or failure, and that's why it's foolish.

Deliberately ubjecting a knife not designed for a given abusive act to that abusive act until it breaks? Flawed and illogical.
 
Patient: "My arm hurts when I move it like this."

Doctor: "Then don't move it like that."




Customer: "My $400 knife broke."

Knifemaker: "You abused it."

Customer: "How do you know if I abused it?"

Knifemaker: "Because it's broken."
 
Sharp Phil said:
No, it's a knife-breaking stunt, not a test. "Test" implies scientific method and reproducible, measurable results. It's an unrealistic means of establishing abuse as the benchmark of a tool's success or failure, and that's why it's foolish.
Click to expand...

Actually, "test" does not necessarily require scientific method, etc. to be a "test".

However, while crude, he did make attempts to make his test uniform across specimens. And the results are easily measured. He performed the test on several knives, including two CR knives, with the same result. That is reproducibility.

His purpose was not to set a benchmark but to subject hard use knives to hard use. His purpose was to see how much hard use each could take. Nothing foolish there....Clearly some products can take more hard use than others.

Sharp Phil said:
Deliberately subjecting a knife not designed for a given abusive act to that abusive act until it breaks? Flawed and illogical.
Click to expand...

Knives marketed on the basis of their toughness and strength are fair game for destructive testing that puts that toughness and strength to test. The purpose of the testing however is not to see which knife can take hard use but how much hard use each knife can take. Completely reasonable.
 
I like the tests because he said my Browning "...is a serious chopping machine" :)

We all have to live with our purchase decisions.
 
Sharp Phil said:
No, it's a knife-breaking stunt, not a test. "Test" implies scientific method and reproducible, measurable results. It's an unrealistic means of establishing abuse as the benchmark of a tool's success or failure, and that's why it's foolish.

Deliberately ubjecting a knife not designed for a given abusive act to that abusive act until it breaks? Flawed and illogical.
Click to expand...

A couple of things, Phil.....there is much that we don't agree upon, and maybe an equal amount of agreement.

1. There was certainly nothing shocking about your video, nor overtly objectionable. It was somewhat entertaining, and very informative...on this, well done.

2. The major objections you raise about the abuse of knives for entertainment are valid....it is pretty hard to take seriously....BUT....if you know what you are looking for, there is useful information...it is the BUT that is a problem.....there are a lot of people that are going to look at gross abuse of a knife that breaks, and conclude "this knife sucks"....which is just not accurate.

3. The supposition that you will be prepared for all of life's adventures by bringing what you need is fundamentally flawed. I had a no $hit sphincter tightener about 8 years ago snowmobiling offtrail in Wyoming.....I needed a shovel.....I had a cigarette lighter, a pack of smokes and a bottle of Jaegermeister....a big knife would have been helpful, and with the temps it would have been subjected to, quite possibly brittle...ax would not have been helpful.

4. I made a post that many found useful some years ago about what you want the knife for. The first question for any buyer should be "what do I want this knife for"....a lot of times, the answer is to "look cool"...which is an area that United Cutlery filled or fills quite nicely for many more than we would like to think about....as you drive up the performance requirement of the educated buyer who has reasonable expectations, the market of available knives, and buyers becomes proportionally more rarified...it is for PRECISELY these buyers that a "test" like HockeyMaskFace2000 does is helpful for narrowing down the field....unfortunately many of the wrong audience is lauding the information as the Gospel....Happened with C. Stamp as well....some people just need a leader, and casting aspersions makes you an enemy and a hater.

Given the gross variety of options, all the information CAN be helpful, just needs to be processed in the right context.....as an example, Stamp's statement that a popular brand of custom prybar could possibly be made of another lesser steel was accurate, based upon use.....his pronouncement that FFD2 was all hype and mirrors was ludicrous, based upon independant field reports made by those who have nothing to lose or gain by being honest....if HockeyMaskFace2000 had tortured one of these FFD2 knives in his "tests" it probably would not have held up very well....and people would have called them garbage.

Context is, and will remain key.....you MUST have an idea what you want to do with the knife, and your initial statements about cutting, slicing and chopping remain very clear, and easily understood.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top