Wayne :
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You think the fine grained nature of BG42 could cause a lack of cutting performance in some respects? </font>
Yes, this is nothing new. You will lose slicing aggression at a high polish as you decrease the grain size, all else being equal which is never the case. As I noted in the above, is it to be expected to the extent that I saw with BG-42, I don't know. I have other blades coming with very different grain sizes (D2 and 52100) so I will be able to make a more definate comment then as to the extent. And again, when I work with another BG-42 blade I'll try to confirm or refute the performance see with the Recondo in that regard.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I found it odd as well that you performed a strong lateral bash and expected a near spring tempered and thinner blade to be a fair comparison!</font>
The point of what was that was to show that there are steels hard enough to withstand edge impaction even with a more acute edge profile, but still not be that hard that they would fracture under the strain and that furthermore this was not a high standard given the cost of the blade that could do it.
For example, the cutting done with the PAB that resulted in the above pictures generated higher impact pressures because of the reduced contact area as I was chopping into the walls of the pipe. It also took far more stress on the spine and on the edge when I mashed the pipe flat with it. The edge on the PAB is not as thick as on the Recondo either.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">why not take a hammer and bash a nail sideways into a tree and start hammering with the blade in that area</font>
Because that would generate a much higher contact pressure than the pipe hits (much harder material being impact/twisted against and a *much* smaller contact area). Generally I work up a force ladder, as you obviously can't go down one. You can also extrapolate up (something more forceful will cause worse damage), but can't down as you don't know exactly where the onset will take place. Those kinds of impacts and twisting (off a nail or worse) will damage even the most durable blades I have, you can see evidence of this in other reviews.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">the Recondo is a smallish knife at that</font>
The Recondo is not that long, but look at the amount of steel cross section wise. Using that as a standard look at other blades in that same class. Would the Recondo stand up to use for camping, well yes, but why would you buy a thick sabre ground blade for that. It would be directly outperformed by the A.G. Russell Deerhunter for example, which is exactly optomized for that kind of use, made from nearly 1/3 the stock thickness, with a much deeper grind that runs to a significantly thinner edge in both thickness and angle. The only reason that you put that much steel in a blade (Recondo) is to optomize it for something other than simple cutting.
Ron :
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">regardless of how much the reviewer may say the tests are extreme and may not be indicative of real world applications</font>
This implies that this was my perspective. It is not. I don't feel that what was done was extreme for that kind of knife - directly based on the fact that knives of similar design will handle it without problem. As well as noted in the above it is directly related to several aspect of actual use, and not at the limits of that either for reasons also detailed in the above.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'm not convinced that data on this level should be designated for the populous at large.</font>
We are in fairly strong disagreement here. You have to take the good with the bad. If you eliminate the work that causes the blade damage or shows low relative performance, you end up with a very skewed and biased perspective.
In regards to the reviews swaying people unfairly because they don't appreciate the context - well yes this is obviously a problem and the primary reason why I put up links like these so the maker/manufacturer can discuss the context.
Now if those people want to ignore that commentary - well then, no I am not going to not present data because it could be misleading to them. It simply would not be fair to those that will take the effort and put some thought into the interpretation.
On thing that is amusing is that your commentary in the first few posts tended to slant towards the work being "unscientific" now in the above posts strongly suggests the exact opposite, that the reviews are far too technical, with comments like :
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">how many people are skilled in the sciences, are able interpreters of complex data, and can weigh the merits of the tests</font>
You can't have it both ways Ron. As I noted in the emails we exchanged, I could be far more detailed in the descriptions of what I have done and could in fact easily do it in a more controlled manner. However I don't feel that in many cases this would lend itself to making the work more meaningful.
If I did do this, the work would then become exactly what you are describing, something only relevant to a few individuals and very abstract. I think however that I will add more controlled work, not a replacement, but just more detail for those that want it. Plus it will make it easier for me to compare present with past results.
In any case, in that regard, there are many people who do seek clarification, mainly though email, and we can discuss the interpretation to whatever detail they want. The reviews have also been changed to adapt to suggestions they they have made, for example now they include a simple rank out of a 1-100 scale on all numerical comparisions.
Again, such questions could also be raised in this thread.
-Cliff
[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 05-17-2001).]
