freddeh, if you find the edge of your hand ground Bravo-1 too fragile for your intended use send it back to Bark River.
They will re-grind or replace the knife.
Bark River takes good care of their customers. :thumbup:
Big Mike
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Sooo... Noss4 tested the Bravo 1
- Thread starter Hawkings
- Start date
freddeh, if you find the edge of your hand ground Bravo-1 too fragile for your intended use send it back to Bark River.
They will re-grind or replace the knife.
Bark River takes good care of their customers. :thumbup:
Big Mike
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Messages
- 2,954
I'll hazard a reply here just to mention something that's been covered before. A2 is one of those steels that can get more brittle as it's tempered softer. Check out Latrobe Steel's spec sheet on it: http://www.latrobesteel.com/assets/documents/datasheets/LSS_A2.pdf
Toughness & strength/hardness both look pretty good at 59Rc. But if that blade got a little too hot when tempering, and dropped just a couple points Rc lower, then the steel gets almost as brittle as it is straight out of the quench.
This could perfectly explain the behavior of the blade in the videos. If it got a little too hot in the tempering oven, the blade would be softer, explaining the rolling & plastic deformation, and more brittle at the same time, explaining the nasty chipping/ snapping.
Toughness & strength/hardness both look pretty good at 59Rc. But if that blade got a little too hot when tempering, and dropped just a couple points Rc lower, then the steel gets almost as brittle as it is straight out of the quench.
This could perfectly explain the behavior of the blade in the videos. If it got a little too hot in the tempering oven, the blade would be softer, explaining the rolling & plastic deformation, and more brittle at the same time, explaining the nasty chipping/ snapping.
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=770729&highlight=noss+bravo1&page=16
Start at Post #320 pg 16.
:thumbup:Thank you for that link, effer - a great idea and a great way to compare edge profiles. Very informative, thank you! :thumbup:
Also, thank you for this post, it's very well typed (IMHO), and it's decent of you to go through the video in the process of typing it up. I also mostly skip through the videos
I think that's how Noss intended them to be watched, he just posts the entire thing so that no one can call foul-play - but I may be wrong.I bought my Bravo1 on Bluntruth4u's video recommendation - great stuff from him.I guess this is where my concern over the labelling of this knife 'hard-use' or 'tank' (as some people have) comes in. With a 20 degree, shallow-convex, satin blade, no one would doubt that the knife can slice, but most 'hard-use' knives aim to be sharpened pry-bars and so do have more obtuse edge-bevels - your edge-profile post helps to elucidate the difference in the grinds of most of those knives vs. this knife. I have inexpensive hollow-ground knives that can slice and keep their edge, and many thicker blades can be re-profiled to perform as exceptional slicers, but I wouldn't select a 'hard-use' knife based on slicing ability. 'Hard-use' for me implies sharp and tough, and a more obtuse edge can still be sharp...
Does anyone out there own a busse or something else with a similarly thin edge that can baton through 2x4 knots without similar deformation?
If not, I wonder at labelling any knife with this sort of edge 'hard-use'...
Excellent analysis :thumbup:
After the edge-rolling on the wood, I expected to see compaction as with a softer edge, not massive chipping
This, i think, is where people wondered at the HT of the knife.Is A2 prone to chipping?
:thumbup: Spine-thickness comes in to play...
Steel-on-steel impact fracture perhaps, not seen until proper lateral stress was applied to the point? Seen often with harder materials... So not that surprising on a through-hardened knife at high Rc?
:thumbup: My guess too.
BRKT's are cutters, but comparing the Bravo1 to other knives based on these demonstrations suggests that the BooneII (similar size & weight) is a much tougher knife from the same company, with an edge more appropriately designed for hard-use. Is the BooneII a cutter?Is Bravo 1 a hard use knife? Well it is one of the toughest built in BRKT line in that blade lenght. BRKTs are cutters. Edge is not designed for extreme abuse. Why would one want a thick spine on a cuter? How about overall blade toughness. It does support bouncing 225lb weight after all. Thickness is also good for batoning and when done correctly, it splits wood nicely and edge holds up just fine. For batoning through frozen logs a different knife (or axe) might be a better idea. Edge can be re-profiled for additional toughness if needed as well.
Is it good for military? Well apparently Kabar USMC isn't, even though it is issued most often, so I don't really know how to answer that question.
As to the KaBar USMC, the videos of that demonstration are fairly old, the testing somewhat different, and the blade actually holds up exceptionally well IMO - extrapolating to how the Bravo1 was tested, it is arguable that the KaBar performed better as a 'hard-use' blade.
I think your assessment regarding repeatability is right-on, and I doubt Noss would argue it. My understanding is that the early steps of his demonstrations are meant to approximate exaggerated (i.e. extended & strenuous) use of a blade, demonstrating over the course of an hour what a user might expect to experience over the course of many years of such use without touching up the blade-edge. Obviously, such experiences are not precisely repeatable. 'YMMV but don't be surprised if you have this experience'.
I think Noss has posted in his forum that his ratings are highly subjective and that viewers should watch the videos to form their own opinions, esp. if they are not familiar with exactly what he is subjecting these knives to. I believe he has spoken of removing the ratings entirely for this very reason, and has mentioned a desire to re-'test' some of the early knives using his more recent 'protocol'. We all agree that the ratings might give novices the wrong idea.
As to cutting, and we may disagree here, the main attribute of a 'hard-use' knife is not slicing-ability. That is the main attribute of kitchen-cutlery. A hard-use knife is not expected to slice or hold an edge like a fine ceramic blade, it's expected to handle stress and impact and hold it's shape while maintaining a reasonable level of cutting-ability and be easy to re-sharpen in the field should that edge degrade. So while cutting is important, for these knives it is indeed secondary to another attribute.
Yes, geometry is largely ignored in the 'tests', as is steel-type and HT, and those details can actually be found on the forums where members discuss how a knife fared and hypothesize as to why. The point of the 'tests' is not to challenge those post factum hypotheses, it is to challenge the initial hyperbolic hypothesis that suggest this knife or that knife is a tough 'hard-use knife', a 'tank', 'able to handle anything', 'indestructible'... or it is just to see how a given knife will fare
. If someone hypothesizes that this knife or that knife is tough because...(geometry, steel-type, HT)... but does not test the hypothesis, people will be misled by the reasoning, actual evidence being absent. Once a result has been achieved, however, then and only then can discussion on the topic commence.Note: in peer-reviewed scientific papers, the hypothesis is introduced, the methods and materials lain out, the results presented, and THEN the discussion. Do not put the cart before the horse.
I agree that here-in lies the danger of carrying conclusions from an N=1 demonstration too far - "All generalizations are false, including this one."
Indeed, the makers should be extreme-testing their knives themselves prior to releasing advertising regarding their proposed use, especially if the product is relatively expensive and advertised for 'hard-use', then they will have data to present when an N=1 challenge is presented, lest they lose business should the N=1 test go against them.
After the RC-4 'test', I'm willing to bet that sales went UP on the knife because it exceeded viewers expectations, and the same with the Mora Clipper. It is wiser for a maker to under-estimate the capabilities of his product and suppress hyperbolic hypotheses - let the data speak for itself.
As to Noss' 'tests' as the 'only truth... preached to the uninformed', the videos are free to be viewed in their entirety, more than one knife is 'tested', and he even offers a forum to discuss the results - all freely available through the internet. The 'uninformed' may purchase a knife on the basis of a single glowing hypothetical review from a collector - far more common than user reviews; but if they base the decision instead simply on Noss' ratings, is that Noss' fault? Should such demonstrations be banned because results can be misinterpreted? Of course not.
Noss does not label his videos 'Hard Use Test' even though they may approximate it somewhat, enough that it generates discussion.
What is 'hard-use' or rather, what does it include or what can be expected of a knife labelled as such? I suppose that gets to the heart of the matter. Since 'hard-use' can vary among individuals, the most appropriate course seems to be to push the tool to its limits, i.e. destroy it through stressing its various surfaces against magnified forces that may be encountered in a variety of fields of use:
- Edge stability (resistance to deformation and fracture) when push-cutting soft materials, more abrasive fibers, tougher and harder materials (dry wood)...
- Edge stability when impacted with these materials and others that may be encountered (e.g. if it fares well on wood, what about concrete or metal)
- Overall fracture resistance when subjected to significant impact along the spine
- Tip-strength on a variety of materials, what are the limits
- Lateral strength (resistance to deformation and fracture) when subjected to variable force (bouncing weight), constant force (flexibility), and impact force (hammer blows)
These aspects (and probably some others) help to demonstrate the level of a blade's toughness and strength, appropriate to 'hard-use' however you define it, no?
Throw in subjective opinion on handle ergonomics during use, corrosion resistance, overall weight, etc. and maybe we end up with a decent review of performance level in a 'hard-use' knife?
And again, the KaBar USMC - how well do you think it fared in the 'tests'? I'd still present one to a soldier, confident, especially after watching the videos, in its abilities to handle the stresses it might experience. I personally cannot say the same for the Bravo1, esp. given the price difference. But I still like the Bravo1 and will keep my own, now better informed as to its limitations.
Just my thoughts. Again, great post, effer :thumbup: and thank you for the profile-thread & pics.
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
Thank you for the link! Very interesting information...:thumbup: I was wondering about this. It presents a plausible hypothesis to explain the behavior seen in the vids. Awesome. (Is there a clapping-smiley?) Any makers out there willing to chime in?
Last edited:
The problem is that not many people know about this edge profile. They get happy when knife cuts wood like nothing else they own, but get upset when this same knife gets deformed edge easier than the other one. In fact two things are related. One can blame BRKT for disinformation, but they never said that B1 supposed to be a sharpened pry-bar and term “hard use” is not defined clearly. Though I totally understand someone who wanted “indestructible” being upset about thin edge.
The things is that it’s the only edge cast that I did
. I got my B1, it was the first BRKT that I ever owned, and I was surprised by cutting performance. Wanted to figure out the angle, and that was the only way I could do it.I didn’t make any other casts, though I might do something like it later. It is inexpensive, but takes time to cut and polish JB carefully to get a clear profile and do image analysis. I’m just lazy I guess. Calculating profile of thick V-grind on the other hand is much easier. I wish data like this is available from knife makers, this way one could predict some performance and make an educated purchase decision according to his own needs.
Does anyone out there own a busse or something else with a similarly thin edge that can baton through 2x4 knots without similar deformation?
If not, I wonder at labelling any knife with this sort of edge 'hard-use'...
My first Busse was Hell Razor with competition finish and convex edge. I’m pretty sure edge wasn’t as thin as B1, but still… I couldn’t believe people were labeling those “sharpened pry-bars”, because it was cutting pretty good. Not as good as my other smaller knives, but still very usable. I didn’t have a chance to really use it hard. Well, I have sold that HR. I acquired and let go couple more “medium-sized” Busses. V-grinds on those were pretty thick. I let them all go. Got my hands on Jackhammer with competition convex edge. Didn’t use it, understood that I was missing my first Hell Razor, so I let JH go, got myself another HR. V-grind. Didn’t like how it cuts. Well, it didn’t stay as V-grind for long. Spent some time (no powertools), put convex on it, but not too thin. Cuts much better. This Hell Razor is still with me. I don’t really know the edge profile yet. I have used it, but maybe not as hard as it could be used. I have batoned with it with no ill effects, but again, I didn’t have big problems with B1 either. That Hell Razor is my zombie apocalypses blade. I rarely use it
. It’s a bit too big for me. I don’t get out in the woods too often and usually take something else. Though, who knows my preference might change depending on my needs and wants. I do backyard hacking from time to time, but it's not the same.So all this typed and I still can’t answer your question. I remember reading a thread in Busse land on BF about one with 20 degree edge. I remember it didn’t hold all that good. Of course the big plus of INFI is that it didn’t chip out badly. I also think that putting 20 degree on Busse is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of that blade.
I also have Cold Steel GI Tanto. It was a terrible cutter. I have convexed it, maybe a bit too shallow. It performs much better at cutting now, but I don’t know how edge will hold up as I have done it very recently and didn’t abuse it at all. I think it is a lot weaker now, but I want to see if I can maintain the edge with a bit more care. Good chances are that I will have to find a compromise a bit later on, and sharpen it to a bit more obtuse angle. I abused that GI tanto a lot while it had obtuse V-edge, several times I have used a hammer on a spine “batoning”, I used it as a throwing knife and other activities. Well, now I will have to see if it can hold up with a thinner grind.
We don’t know the edge geometry of Boone II. The grind starts lower than on B1, so it might suggest a slightly thicker edge. Sure it can cut, but edge performance might be shifted. It is too difficult to make out which one is a better cutter from Noss’ videos. All I can see is that Boone is pretty good at batoning.
You mean the edge, right? Well, I have USMC. The edge is very thick. I agree, I think knife can be used pretty hard, with the weakest point exactly where it was broken. B1 vs USMC? Opening ammo crates (if it is still valid), B1 wins. Digging holes, opening food cans, crushing concrete, USMC wins. Stabbing stuff… USMC wins. I just don’t know other “hard-use”. USMC is a very good blade for a soldier. On top of that B1 is way too damn expensive to give it to a soldier to trash. Special operators? Well, I have no clue what their needs are. They are “special” after all
. USMC can be a cutter too, it just took 16 hours to get there. Check this video out (not mine). I'm sure the edge isn't all that strong anymore, but it sure cuts great:
http://www.youtube.com/user/virtuovice#p/u/12/r6UuNJ51wi8
[YOUTUBE]r6UuNJ51wi8[/YOUTUBE]
It’s not just the rating. The whole purpose needs to be explained better. Instead it looks more like a crusade for a “questionable truth”, a search for the ultimate “pry-bar”, “witch hunt” to find those who lie about blade being “hard-use” and prove them wrong. That’s the attitude. With more methodology, less attitude, and more open mind, those videos could’ve been accepted with less problems. Noss, gives the “other camp” no compromise. It’s more like “it is not tough, it is a bad knife”, “it is tough, it is a great knife”.
You see, the independent testing labs/people have no opinion about the test or the product. They just do it. Noss (like most knifenuts) has opinion about desired knife use (Busse FFBM probably being the ideal). Blades are not equal and some are hardly comparable, so the “tests” are lopsided, even if only “hard-use” blades are reviewed and go though the same procedure.
I understand. I for one often prefer “tougher folding knives”. The problem is that “hard-use” is not defined. Without clear definition and expectations of “hard-use”, labeling a knife as “hard-use” or “not-hard-use” can be both right and wrong depending on the point of view.
I disagree, but that’s just my opinion.
Again, see the top comment. “Hard-use knife” is not defined. Everything is destructable if hammer is big enough
Or it is just to see how a given knife will fare
That is useful, if one knows what to look for.
I agree that some info from the video is useful. The problem is that before any discussion is commenced the product is labeled by one person (probably with subjective opinion), formulated from a bit subjective tests of one property, without statistics (you might as well say that Bluntruth4u has proved Noss wrong), without clear indication of practical application or a good reference point.
The website is called “knife tests”, not “knife toughness tests” and more than once the result of the test was “preached” to people as “ultimate”, even though pretty much only one property (toughness) was tested. Indeed, only if you combine this with cutting tests, and edge retention tests and add your personal use preferences, you can get a very good understanding of a product.
I think forums on Knifetests are full of “fanboys” of the procedure, just like other forums are full of “fanboys” of the product. At least “fanboys” of the product actually used that product.
I agree. The more the better… I would like to see “not hard-use” knives “tested” too. I think it would be fun to watch. It’s not my knife after all. Add more cutting to it ...
Among the other things…
And again, term is not defined and agreed upon. Your definition is vague and can be very different from someone else’s. Who's right.
Thanks for reply.
Last edited:
Define irony.
As far as the test itself, I would expect a knife built as the bravo one is to handle the wood battoning much better. If the folks over at BRKT intend for this knife to be "jarhead" proof then the edge shouldn't roll when only subjected to this moderate use, especially when other cheaper knives with plainer steels did just fine.
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,724
There once was a time on Bladeforums when men could do crazy things to their knives and other men, who were knowledgeable about steel and knife performance, could discuss it without being incessantly trolled while doing so.
Oh well, good things never last. Brand Nannies are running the show.
Oh well, good things never last. Brand Nannies are running the show.
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 23,085
Says the guy trolling this thread.
I think there is a noss forum somewhere on the interwebs.
Your first post in two months.......
Is a Troll post.... to call people names.
Isn't that Special. :thumbup:
Isn't that a wee bit of a doublt standard? Didn't Esav Benyamin call a registered member here a name? If its ok to call Noss a troll and what he does trolling, shouldn't the reverse be acceptable? I'm confused here.
It's OK,Man, we're used to it.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 43,808
Sooo...
So what? Noss4 tested, or Noss4 put on a show. It's great entertainment for the bored or uninformed. Testing it is not. Visual trolling, perhaps.
Have fun. Stay polite. No insults or vulgarity. please.
No, Esav did not. He said that what Noss did was not testing.
I might have used the word "grand standing" to describe Noss's efforts, but both I and Esav would be describing the procedure, not the person. "testing" it is not.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2000
- Messages
- 45,835
If we're going to link old noss4 threads, why not go for the really good ones?
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442167
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442235
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442620
Classics. All of them.
.
Describing someones actions as "visual trolling" is a round about way of calling them a troll.
If this is fine, then its perfectly legitimate to say that someone objecting to what Noss does as a brand nanny.
Goose and gander and what not.
That true, but unless we are going to judge behavior relatively, its also irrelevant.
Its one thing to disagree, but its another to lable another member a troll, and an entirely different thing if a moderator does it.
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
Isn't this the Knife Reviews & Testing forum?
Why are we discussing each other and not the knives?
That's about what gets these threads closed, as someone asked earlier.
If you are criticizing another member, there may be a better forum for it.
If you are identifying the member you criticize as a moderator, take it to Tech Support.
Why are we discussing each other and not the knives?
That's about what gets these threads closed, as someone asked earlier.
If you are criticizing another member, there may be a better forum for it.
If you are identifying the member you criticize as a moderator, take it to Tech Support.
chiral.grolim
Universal Kydex Sheath Extension
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 6,422
I played a bit of 'mix-n-match' with your post, effer - I hope this reply is still coherent.
What is 'hard-use' or rather, what does it include or what can be expected of a knife labelled as such?...
Since 'hard-use' can vary among individuals, the most appropriate course seems to be to push the tool to its limits, i.e. destroy it through stressing its various surfaces against magnified forces that may be encountered in a variety of fields of use:
- Edge stability (resistance to deformation and fracture) when push-cutting soft materials, more abrasive fibers, tougher and harder materials (dry wood)...
- Edge stability when impacted with these materials and others that may be encountered (e.g. if it fares well on wood, what about concrete or metal)
- Overall fracture resistance when subjected to significant impact along the spine
- Tip-strength on a variety of materials, what are the limits
- Lateral strength (resistance to deformation and fracture) when subjected to variable force (bouncing weight), constant force (flexibility), and impact force (hammer blows)
These aspects (and probably some others) help to demonstrate the level of a blade's toughness and strength, appropriate to 'hard-use' however you define it, no?
Throw in subjective opinion on handle ergonomics during use, corrosion resistance, overall weight, etc. and maybe we end up with a decent review of performance level in a 'hard-use' knife?
Initial sharpness, and ease of maintenance might also be included in the above, but the main idea is to 'test' the tool to its limits before giving it any label regarding endurance level according to its design.
.
Of course, part of improving steel-type and HT may be to create a lighter, more-durable, better-cutting blade than other makers - a 'good' acute-angled knife-edge may be tougher than a crappy obtuse-edge blade, so actual use must still be tested.
From the data I gathered on the BooneII (0.187" thick, 1.125" at widest point, ~0.563" bevel-width), the inclusive angle should approximate 19 degrees, similar to the Bravo1 - but I don't actually own the knife to verify this. But my main point in looking at the BooneII was to show a that a BRKT 'cutter' can still have a tough edge designed for 'extreme abuse' contra your previous post. Assuming that the BooneII is still inferior to the Bravo1 in cutting ability (noticeable?), the demonstrated increase in edge-toughness (per the Noss-'test') would justify the sacrifice.
Again, my challenge here is that the Bravo1 was labelled as designed to withstand "the rigors of hard use", but the BooneII better fits the that description?
This assumes that Busses are designed for 'hard-use'. Not all are, of course, but it is accepted that toughness is where INFI excels. Now, does not putting a 20 degree edge on a similarly intended, potentially less tough blade also 'defeat the purpose'?
Noss has made clear that the purpose of his demonstrations is limit-testing hard-use of knives, and that really should be obvious to even the most novice of observers - if not, his forum is there to elucidate the matter. They do not condemn any knife for being 'not tough', only a supposed 'hard-use' knife, where toughness is the primary attribute desired. When you perform this sort of 'testing' on more than one knife, it is only natural to draw comparisons, but the 'witch-hunt' aspect enters when reviewers rave about the supposed indestructibility of a knife or manufacturers advertise it as 'hard-use'... someone needs to be willing to blow the whistle, and Noss has presented himself as that man. His attitude toward those who attack and condemn him for the 'tests' notwithstanding, and his methodology still being refined, his videos actually seem to have been accepted, perhaps mainly because no one else offers what he does.
That said, will responders now condemn me and send this thread the way of many a Noss-thread before it?
A non-chopper which performs poorly at chopping is not then condemned for this lack, and the 'protocol' is adapted to test a blade's various strengths and weaknesses. Watch the Mora Clipper review for a non-'hard-use' blade being 'tested' by Noss.
The Noss test followed far behind the release of this knife, discussion had already commenced prior to the test and conclusions had been reached about the blade's toughness-level (limit-testing) well before data actually existed! Now some amount of data does exist, and so the discussion has taken a new direction...
See, Noss' test gives no final judgment, rather it furthers discussion and challenges established supposition - where it isn't censored, that is.
Personal-use preference is, of course, up to the user, so limit-testing may not apply, and users who have no need to know their knives' limits have no obligation to watch the videos. Practical application is also not inherent in limit-testing. If the knife sucks at basic applications, it should have already been condemned by normal users. Noss just summarizes this with the early apple & web-cutting tests. On the Mora, he does some novice carving.
As to cutting & edge-retention on softer materials - paper & card-board - those are more crucial for dedicated slicers (imho), kitchen-cutlery & scalpels, less so for 'hard-use' blades. Nevertheless, perusal of Noss' forum will reveal his personal endeavor at designing a machine for just such a purpose
An odd assumption. In my experience, "fanboys" of a product sing it praises and that of the brand without testing the limits, which stands in opposition to users who employ a product according to its demonstrated ability without regard for brand. "Fanboys" do NOT "use" the product regularly. Perhaps your experience differs?
Also, many KnifeTest forumites already use the knives 'tested', among others, and some submit their own knives for the purpose of testing - the Bravo1 was such a knife. The assumption that they do not use their knives is ridiculous. As to their approval of the procedure, there is no reason to disapprove it and there are no similar offerings on the web that I have found.
So, any ideas for an inclusive list of 'hard-use' criteria for blade limit-testing and examples of implementation?
I think that it is just that sort of obfuscation which Noss' demonstrations, and Cliff Stamp's before him, work to ameliorate. If the term "hard-use" is highly subjective, no clear definition can be formed. But expectations as to what constitutes 'hard-use' do already exist, and evolve as technology improves. It is those expectations which lay the groundwork for establishing a working "definition". I'll re-post this section from my previous post:
What is 'hard-use' or rather, what does it include or what can be expected of a knife labelled as such?...
Since 'hard-use' can vary among individuals, the most appropriate course seems to be to push the tool to its limits, i.e. destroy it through stressing its various surfaces against magnified forces that may be encountered in a variety of fields of use:
- Edge stability (resistance to deformation and fracture) when push-cutting soft materials, more abrasive fibers, tougher and harder materials (dry wood)...
- Edge stability when impacted with these materials and others that may be encountered (e.g. if it fares well on wood, what about concrete or metal)
- Overall fracture resistance when subjected to significant impact along the spine
- Tip-strength on a variety of materials, what are the limits
- Lateral strength (resistance to deformation and fracture) when subjected to variable force (bouncing weight), constant force (flexibility), and impact force (hammer blows)
These aspects (and probably some others) help to demonstrate the level of a blade's toughness and strength, appropriate to 'hard-use' however you define it, no?
Throw in subjective opinion on handle ergonomics during use, corrosion resistance, overall weight, etc. and maybe we end up with a decent review of performance level in a 'hard-use' knife?
Initial sharpness, and ease of maintenance might also be included in the above, but the main idea is to 'test' the tool to its limits before giving it any label regarding endurance level according to its design.
I agree, it'd be nice if knife-makers provided edge-geometry data. Maybe some will take the hint from you and apply your method
.Of course, part of improving steel-type and HT may be to create a lighter, more-durable, better-cutting blade than other makers - a 'good' acute-angled knife-edge may be tougher than a crappy obtuse-edge blade, so actual use must still be tested.
From the data I gathered on the BooneII (0.187" thick, 1.125" at widest point, ~0.563" bevel-width), the inclusive angle should approximate 19 degrees, similar to the Bravo1 - but I don't actually own the knife to verify this. But my main point in looking at the BooneII was to show a that a BRKT 'cutter' can still have a tough edge designed for 'extreme abuse' contra your previous post. Assuming that the BooneII is still inferior to the Bravo1 in cutting ability (noticeable?), the demonstrated increase in edge-toughness (per the Noss-'test') would justify the sacrifice.
Again, my challenge here is that the Bravo1 was labelled as designed to withstand "the rigors of hard use", but the BooneII better fits the that description?
This assumes that Busses are designed for 'hard-use'. Not all are, of course, but it is accepted that toughness is where INFI excels. Now, does not putting a 20 degree edge on a similarly intended, potentially less tough blade also 'defeat the purpose'?What I meant was that, in regards to the Noss vids, the USMC is by no means inferior to to the Bravo1 in overall performance. Still a great knife for a soldier.:thumbup:
Noss has made clear that the purpose of his demonstrations is limit-testing hard-use of knives, and that really should be obvious to even the most novice of observers - if not, his forum is there to elucidate the matter. They do not condemn any knife for being 'not tough', only a supposed 'hard-use' knife, where toughness is the primary attribute desired. When you perform this sort of 'testing' on more than one knife, it is only natural to draw comparisons, but the 'witch-hunt' aspect enters when reviewers rave about the supposed indestructibility of a knife or manufacturers advertise it as 'hard-use'... someone needs to be willing to blow the whistle, and Noss has presented himself as that man. His attitude toward those who attack and condemn him for the 'tests' notwithstanding, and his methodology still being refined, his videos actually seem to have been accepted, perhaps mainly because no one else offers what he does.
That said, will responders now condemn me and send this thread the way of many a Noss-thread before it?
Extrapolate?
A non-chopper which performs poorly at chopping is not then condemned for this lack, and the 'protocol' is adapted to test a blade's various strengths and weaknesses. Watch the Mora Clipper review for a non-'hard-use' blade being 'tested' by Noss.
The Bluntruth4u vids do not prove Noss 'wrong', because there isn't a 'right' vs 'wrong', there is only data - it is only the conclusion drawn from that data which may prove incorrect.
The Noss test followed far behind the release of this knife, discussion had already commenced prior to the test and conclusions had been reached about the blade's toughness-level (limit-testing) well before data actually existed! Now some amount of data does exist, and so the discussion has taken a new direction...
See, Noss' test gives no final judgment, rather it furthers discussion and challenges established supposition - where it isn't censored, that is.
Personal-use preference is, of course, up to the user, so limit-testing may not apply, and users who have no need to know their knives' limits have no obligation to watch the videos. Practical application is also not inherent in limit-testing. If the knife sucks at basic applications, it should have already been condemned by normal users. Noss just summarizes this with the early apple & web-cutting tests. On the Mora, he does some novice carving.
As to cutting & edge-retention on softer materials - paper & card-board - those are more crucial for dedicated slicers (imho), kitchen-cutlery & scalpels, less so for 'hard-use' blades. Nevertheless, perusal of Noss' forum will reveal his personal endeavor at designing a machine for just such a purpose
An odd assumption. In my experience, "fanboys" of a product sing it praises and that of the brand without testing the limits, which stands in opposition to users who employ a product according to its demonstrated ability without regard for brand. "Fanboys" do NOT "use" the product regularly. Perhaps your experience differs?Also, many KnifeTest forumites already use the knives 'tested', among others, and some submit their own knives for the purpose of testing - the Bravo1 was such a knife. The assumption that they do not use their knives is ridiculous. As to their approval of the procedure, there is no reason to disapprove it and there are no similar offerings on the web that I have found.
Good suggestion. Again, I think the Mora Clipper falls under this category. Noss accepts donations of knives to test, but it may take him a while to get around to it...
So, any ideas for an inclusive list of 'hard-use' criteria for blade limit-testing and examples of implementation?
Exactly.
Again, this is very subjective. Who's expectations. If one person says "it is tough enough" and other one disagrees. Whom should we listen to and why? Your expectations of hard use and mine are very different.
There is a better way to do it.
For example take Military standards for electronics MIL-STD-810F. Pretty much product is exposed to various environments (different temperatures, water, wind, dust etc) to see it it can "survive". Toughness test. This makes sense. You can check it out on the internet. I have owned several laptops built with such specs.
Hypothetically, if military comes up and says that each knife in US army needs to be able to:
1) pierce a metal plate without loosing more than 1 millimeter of it's point (tip strength test)
2) Withstand X-amount of square inch/pounds of pressure on it's edge, without more than 0.1 millimeter deformation. (push cut test? Strength for batoning?)
3) When impacted with metal rod (of such and such properties), it should not loose more than X-amount of depth on the edge (chipping or rolling wouldn't make much difference if depth is the same)
4) Should withstand 10 (20..30..whatever) hits on the spine with such-and-such amount of force.
5) Should withstand 200Lb (150..300..whatever) of lateral force (variable/constant/impact). (good to know for prying)
etc...
So, if there would be such thing as MIL-STD-KNIFE2011, then manufacturer's could've tested the knife, or re-build a knife, if they wanted to get that MIL-STD rating.
I doubt that such thing will ever come out. I just think they don't need it, because the NEEDED requirements (for field use) will be pretty low, even for military.
I think Noss could've come up with his own system. Again talking about methodology. Could've come up with ToughUse-1, ToughUse-2,..3... Even if those will be subjective, it would be better then what he's doing now (If he wants to call this a full blown "TEST" with ratings). Why this would be better? Because people could have applied the performance in those tests, to their own expectations of use much easier. Ratings would've made some sense.
For example, one is choosing a knife for "hard use bushcraft".
-If knife can pierce 1-2mm plate and retain most of it's tip, it is good enough. (TU-2 rating).
-Depending on environment (typical wood in the area, New Zealand is different from Sweeden), one could've chosen what level of edge deformation is acceptable for his use. (maybe TU-3 is needed, or desired).
-If he pries with knife he could've assessed the strength needed for his kind of use (ex, if knife can withstand 200lb, and his weight is 180, it is good enough, but trusting his 300lb buddy with is might not be a good decision)
etc...
And sure a knife can be gradually taken all the way to total destruction in attempt to see what level of toughness it can achieve.
If one is choosing a "survival blade ~4-inch", probably his requirements will be higher (taking his experience, methods, even his weight into consideration). Chopper probably should be one of the "toughest" available in desired price range and length.
Why I think "good enough" is much better than "taking knife to it's limits"? Because, in most cases one has to sacrifice one property for another. Thick knife is strong, but is not as good cutter, as a thin knife. Thin edge cuts great, but isn't tough and is easier to deform. Thick tip is good for prying, but isn't as good for piercing. Etc... I can find a knife that is a good cutter and is tough-enough for me, and I will have a winner! You find a knife that is at the top of the toughness results and is good-enough cutter, and you have a winner!
If I would be as committed as Noss, I would've talked to people and came up with procedure that makes more sense, more acceptable and more usable by others (makes a lot more sense to spend all that time, if results are useful). Toughness tests could've include:
1) Fix the knife at the bottom (floor) edge up, drop material with preferably even density (hard plastic, different metals) along with attached weight on the edge using guides (like guillotine). Using different materials, taking pictures after each drop, the edge deformation and it's strength can be assessed and rated. If a good reference point is established, then it would be even less subjective and better for comparison, than batoning through wood and knots of unknown density.
2) Something similar as above to check tip strength (Cold Steel has pretty cool guillotine to check blade penetration and tip strength). Different weights to assess the level of toughness.
3) Lateral force I think doesn't require much explanation. (Constant->Impact->Variable). Again, different weights to assess the level of toughness.
Etc...
I think, this could've been pretty good evaluation of knife toughness and more controlled. Ratings would've been a lot less subjective also. Again, do extensive cutting tests (what he's doing right now can barely indicate the blade performance) before toughness tests and we could have a lot better picture.
He can call people like me a chair whiner (or whatever other term he's using). And, no, I'm not going to do those tests myself. I'm too lazy, I'm not as interested, not as committed. I just think that if he's doing those test for reason, then better "reasoning" is needed. I sure appreciate other people spending their time making videos and such, but sometimes I wish for better "quality" of material. On the other hand, in most cases, anything is better than nothing. Though if you bring up a questionable material, expect a debate.
Doing it the way he does, I'm sure is a lot more fun, but very questionable. It is not a real "USE" (not even hard-use). It is what it is - destruction, with questionable assessment of performance and little real use application.
No. Lets' say one used 1/16" - 3/32" in the woods his whole life and it was plenty tough for him. If you would give him a typical 1/8" he probably will say that it is "overbuilt", "really tough", maybe better for some "hard use". Why does he need to use your expectations as a reference point? You show him how you expect to use your knife and he will call you crazy.
Just pure marketing.
But if I'm a maker of Mora, I can say that this knife can withstand the rigors of hard use, and without definition of "hard use" you can't really say that I'm wrong. I can also say that if you hit it with your 3lb hammer, then you're a stupid person, knife is not a tool for this. You might disagree.
Depends on a purpose. In some cases I'm willing to sacrifice some cutting performance, edge retention, corrosion resistance etc to gain advantage in another property like toughness. In other cases I might have to do the opposite. Chopping, zombie killing, digging holes... I would opt for 30+ edge. "Survival" in the woods might be easier with 20 degree edge, but it depends on how you use it.
That's the thing. I do own both. IMHO USMC is very inferior to the Bravo1 in overall performance. But that's just my kind of use. For me USMC is a pain in the butt to use without major re-profiling, top guard removal. But I'm not a soldier. As said before, I agree USMC is probably great knife for military use. I also know for a fact that in some countries they don't even issue "knives" in the army. They use bayonets. Blunt as hell, can't cut anything, only good for killing and abuse.
Last edited: