Spark:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Subjective testing, like whacking with a mallet, is *not* scientific, sorry.</font>
The reason that you do rigid controlled testing is to allow prediction of real life use which depends on the aspect you are measuring. If you can not do this, then there is little value in doing the controlled study. Except of course to give you a promotional tool.
Not to mention of course that the statistics claimed by REKAT for the rolling lock exceed the abilities of any human being to have ever exist. On the webpage for the Pocket Hobbit it states : "The REKAT Pocket Hobbit redefines lock strength by taking over 1000 pounds on its' Rolling Lock[tm] without failure."
The simple fact is, scientific method or not, no matter how Rage did a pressdown, he could not come near 1000 lbs of force. If the lock was really as strong as stated on the webpage then it is simply not possible for it to fail in the way it did.
However the fact is that the lock was not tested with 1000 lbs of force. And the fact remains that even 1000 in.lbs of torque another often claimed limit, was out of the range for Rage to exert as even his max weight thrust would have needed a 4.5" distance from the piviot which would mean basically at the point at the very end of the handle. This is impossible as there is no way to grip the knife in this manner.
As for what in.lbs actually mean, Sal Glesser had a nice writeup on exactly this in the Spyderco forum awhile ago. It was concerning the functional limit for in.lbs of torque. What is required for what and that sort of thing. The kind of strength levels for the different folders they have and some comments on what would be expected for a "fighting" knife. It is far from impossible to know what kind of strength you need to various uses - which is a good thing as it is what a knife maker has to be able to do to design a functional knife.
On a related example, recently in the Survial forum it was commented that an older Busse blade chipped out on a coconut. I asked on the Busse forum if this was the expected behavior of the A2 blades. Very quickly Andy Prisco commented that it was not. When I discussed this with Busse later on he said the same thing. There was no excuse about coconut chopping being unscientific. Why not? There is easily as much variation in stress on the edge chopping a coconut as pressing down on the handle of a folder?
The same direct attitude about dealing with performance issues can be seen with Strider, HI, Buck etc., and many custom makers . None of them avoid questions about their blades.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Failure to return a damaged or defective knife does not indicate a problem with the manufacturer or the product - and pointing to </font>
There were several reasons given by the people who didn't return their knives. Either they had some limited function in their existing state or they simply didn't have any confidence in the customer service. And Andy Wires did return his and it was returned with several flaws. Pretty much supporting the argument as to why some faulted blades were not returned.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">an intentionally damaged product does not indicate a flaw with the product itself.</font>
Depends on how it was damaged. I can intentionally have a 1095 blade rust extensively by leaving it exposed to salt water. Does this show a flaw in the blade - well it shows that it rusts readily. Some will obviously consider this a flaw.
However this was never even the argument made against REKAT, by me anyway. I have never said "Rage broke a Rolling lock - therefore the lock is weak." My problem has always been not with the results of the tests themselves but with how they were responded to by REKAT.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If someone has an axe to grind</font>
Again showing your very strong bias Spark, how are you concluding that there is some motive behind the posts. Simply because of their negative content. This violates one of the fundamental laws of scientific logic.
As well Spark, you and Mike have a history of entering into threads about REKAT, making claims and or attacks to antagonize the posters into attacking and/or then locking the threads before the people you are making statements to refute what you say. The last thread I started about the Gunting for example :
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002298.html
And why don't you defend the other companies with the same zeal that you speak out for REKAT. I recently posted up a review of the Machax from BK&T and it contained many negative elements, fit and finish issues, steel dents up and chips out on wood, handle is too slippery etc. . There are no posts by you in any of the threads about it.
I also discussed the performance with Will Fennel, he also never made any comments about unscientific methods of testing nor attacked me for being biased. We just discussed the performance and he clearly stated the expected behavior (not what I saw) and openly stated that the warrenty covers the problems I had.
-Cliff
[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 12-12-2000).]
