Sooo... Noss4 tested the Bravo 1

[chiral.grolim]

I've again re-ordered somewhat, and I'll reply to the last comment first, just to clear up:

...I do own both. IMHO USMC is very inferior to the Bravo1 in overall performance. But that's just my kind of use... But I'm not a soldier. As said before, I agree USMC is probably great knife for military use...

I was referring specifically to the Noss 'tests' regarding each, challenging your previous comment that his vids somehow suggest that the USMC is inferior to the Bravo1 as a tough military knife - I do not believe they (the videos) suggest this at all, and I personally feel more comfortable (based solely on watching those videos) presenting a soldier with a USMC vs. a Bravo1.
For my own use, I own a Cattaraugus 225Q which I prefer to either of the others for various reasons, but that is neither here nor there.
Main point, we agree that the USMC KaBar appears to be an excellent tool for military use, and I believe Noss' videos support that, that's all.

Again, this is very subjective. Who's expectations. If one person says "it is tough enough" and other one disagrees... Your expectations of hard use and mine are very different.

I highlighted "tough enough" because of its exceptionally relative nature - Enough for what? Hard-use? Since that has been our focus, 'enough' implies a generally accepted bare minimum of expectations. What it also implies is a range of 'tough' minimums, that one blade might be 'tough enough' to endure more strenuous use than another blade which is 'tough enough' for less strenuous use. This recommends testing of the various 'tough' knives to determine what their toughness limits indeed are, providing users some amount of data regarding the maximum stress-levels a blade can endure, a reference point from which to compare 'tough' knives - which are tougher, which toughest.

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... 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!

...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.

Sacrificing a secondary attribute (here, cutting-ability) in favor of another (here, toughness) is exactly what technological advancement and innovative design in this area aim to reduce, creating an objective stratum upon which similar knives (according to use) can be judged as superior or inferior.
If the woodsman saw a 1/8" knife that could accomplish more tasks better than his 1/16" with little sacrifice regarding some other attribute he cared about, he would admit that this 1/8" knife is superior - Superior specifically because it minimizes sacrifices between key attributes aimed at intended use or stress levels. He is not using my expectations as a reference point. The only subjective point is what value level he applies to the various attributes of the knife - what is primary, secondary, etc.

In 'hard-use' knives, it is generally accepted that toughness is the primary attribute, why INFI is so highly prized vs 65rc 1095. (Is this a major point of contention?)
Maximum toughness is the baseline, determined by limit-testing. How much toughness one is willing to sacrifice for increased cutting performance is subjective according to use, so the question is then NOT 'how tough is tough enough?' but rather 'what level of cutting performance is enough?'. Since cutting-performance is not primary, limit-testing is less appropriate. Instead, a minimum standard of expectation can be established and superiority of each knife is judged with reference thereunto and how little toughness was sacrificed to achieve it, again determined by limit-testing.

There is a better way... For example take Military standards...
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...

...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.

:thumbup: I'm aware of military specifications, and establishment of these minimum-standards is certainly quite useful. And while the gov't doesn't see a need to establish such standards, the consumers (i.e. soldiers themselves) still want to know which knife will best suit their purposes or give them the most bang for their buck, as is evident from the advertised Marine Force Recon group that helped design the Bravo1. Soldiers have their own expectation levels, and the ones that i know like to know the stress-limits to which they can subject their tools. Again, do you think Noss came up with this protocol all on his own?

I think Noss 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... 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.

Actually, I think this is exactly how most reasonable viewers employ these videos in their decision-making processes, approximating the performance level of each knife 'tested' to their own expectations of use. It really is not all that difficult, and it is also how Noss recommends his videos be used for those who care, just like cutleryscience.com

...I would've talked to people and came up with procedure that makes more sense, more acceptable and more usable by others... Toughness tests could've include:

...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...
Etc...

I think, this could've been pretty good evaluation of knife toughness and more controlled... less subjective... 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.

First off, again, do you really think Noss came up with this on his own without input from other sources?
Second, this level of control and collection of specific weight, torque, etc. information is precisely how data misleads those who put too much faith in scientific method, forgetting about the innumerable variables often involved. I would caution Noss against doing this as it generates numbers based on incomplete hypotheses and distances itself even further from real-life application. The "good reference point" you mention is more elusive and less relevant with such precision, because the same level and means of measurement is never present in field use. It is easier and indeed more valid to approximate performance level of a tool for your personal uses from watching another person test that tool's performance level vs. watching a machine do it and reading the collected data.
To reduce subjectivity, a better method would be to allow other users to use the same knife in similar fashion (e.g. stabbing the sheet-metal, batonning wood) and give their opinion regarding its performance. Subjectivity is based on the user - replacing the user with a machine does not solve this problem, better to simply multiply the number of users.

...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.

Indeed, it is certainly better than nothing, and it'd be great if more users would present videos of their own. And debate is certainly very welcome :thumbup:, but that is not what one can call the sort of responses that often end Noss-threads.:thumbdn:

I would again like to thank you for your excellent posts, as you maintain this thread as a relevant discussion rather than something less :thumbup:

And no, it is not real 'use', as Noss himself has said. It is indeed destruction, abuse, but controlled abuse aimed at assessing approximate levels of toughness (limit-testing) in tools designed (or suggested) to be tough.
While the objectivity-level of the results is debatable, the usefulness of these 'tests' with regard to their actual purpose is (imho) often underestimated or grossly misunderstood. But again, that's just an opinion.

Just pure marketing.

There it is!

Depends on a purpose.

You wrote, "...I also think that putting 20 degree on Busse is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of that blade."
I replied "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 am implying is that, if Busse generally doesn't put a 20-degree edge on INFI knives, demonstrably able to withstand the 'rigors of hard use', who in their right mind would put one on an A2 blade labelled for similar use?

 

[Big Mike]

What did he say?




Big Mike

 

[rpn]

What did he say?




Big Mike

LOL..best post of the thread!

 

[effer]

Main point, we agree that the USMC KaBar appears to be an excellent tool for military use, and I believe Noss' videos support that, that's all.

Not his rating though. It is equal in performance (whatever it is) to Mora clipper .
I understand your point though.

I highlighted "tough enough" because of its exceptionally relative nature - Enough for what?

I'm looking for "tough enough" for my kind of use. Only I know what it is.

Hard-use? Since that has been our focus, 'enough' implies a generally accepted bare minimum of expectations. What it also implies is a range of 'tough' minimums, that one blade might be 'tough enough' to endure more strenuous use than another blade which is 'tough enough' for less strenuous use. This recommends testing of the various 'tough' knives to determine what their toughness limits indeed are, providing users some amount of data regarding the maximum stress-levels a blade can endure, a reference point from which to compare 'tough' knives - which are tougher, which toughest.

This recommends establishing 3-10 subjective toughness levels (limits), then testing knife gradually to see what level (limit) it can reach. Then consumer can decide what "level" (limit) of performance is acceptable for his use.
There is something like this in Noss' videos, like testing tip on wood, then on metal, then on concrete. It's good enough here. To bad that in other aspects he goes from one thing to another way too fast to assess the performance. Since cutting/batoning wood makes up 90%+ of the typical "hard" use (rather than metal or concrete), I would've loved to see more levels here. In lateral force testing, I want to see couple of "levels" also. Instead, for example kabar USMC didn't even make it here, because it was taken all the way to the limit in the other "test".

For example, I can't barely make out what is better for batoning. Bravo1 was hammered right into a hardened knot. Boone was batoned through some piece of wood so stiff that Noss barely got the blade out of it. Mora was batoned through yet a different kind of wood. And so on... It almost looks like Noss is doing his best to make those "tests" as subjective as possible.

Sacrificing a secondary attribute (here, cutting-ability) in favor of another (here, toughness) is exactly what technological advancement and innovative design in this area aim to reduce, creating an objective stratum upon which similar knives (according to use) can be judged as superior or inferior.

All knives come in different shapes and sizes with different edge geometry and blade materials. If you're aiming for "Tough", you can increase blade/edge thickness (design?) and/or select a material with favorable properties (steel?) and apply a voodoo heat treatment (mastership?). We sure want to reduce "sacrificing" as much as possible, but unfortunately we have to do it all the time. What steel is "the best"? What geometry is "the best"? Without exact "purpose" in mind it is almost impossible to answer this question. And no, "hard use" IMHO is not the exact purpose.
Just for fun... At one point I had Raidops LJ3. That's a small fixed blade with 2.5" blade, 1/4" thick. It sure was tough, I just had no clue what to use it for.

If the woodsman saw a 1/8" knife that could accomplish more tasks better than his 1/16" with little sacrifice regarding some other attribute he cared about, he would admit that this 1/8" knife is superior

He might as well show you that his 1/16" is better for 95% of his daily use, than that tougher 1/8" knife, so for him 1/16" might be tough enough and superior to the other one.

The only subjective point is what value level he applies to the various attributes of the knife - what is primary, secondary, etc.

Exactly. And this is one big subjective point.

.... the question is then NOT 'how tough is tough enough?' but rather 'what level of cutting performance is enough?'. Since cutting-performance is not primary, limit-testing is less appropriate.

Again, that's one of our major disagreements.
We both are looking for some sort of a balance. Yours is shifted more towards toughness, mine is more towards cutting in this particular case. We didn't even establish how exactly we will be using our knives.

Again, do you think Noss came up with this protocol all on his own?

Actually I have no clue how all this started.

Second, this level of control and collection of specific weight, torque, etc. information is precisely how data misleads those who put too much faith in scientific method, forgetting about the innumerable variables often involved.

Agreed, but that's the only fair way to compare one thing to another.

Here is a cutout from Wiki about MIL equipment testing:

"The environmental management and engineering processes described within MIL-STD-810 can be of enormous value to generate confidence in the environmental worthiness and overall durability of a system design. Still, there are limitations inherent in laboratory testing that make it imperative to use proper engineering judgment to extrapolate laboratory results to results that may be obtained under actual service conditions. In many cases, real-world environmental stresses (singularly or in combination) cannot be duplicated in test laboratories. Therefore, users should not assume that a system or component that passes laboratory testing also would pass field/fleet verification trials."

It is easier and indeed more valid to approximate performance level of a tool for your personal uses from watching another person test that tool's performance level vs. watching a machine do it and reading the collected data.

More valid - agreed. Statistics usually win.
Easier - not at all. How many videos are out there "testing" exactly the same knife, or better yet, testing several knives using some kind of protocol. Not many at all.

I would take one "scientific" test over one or two "unscientific", but at the same time I wouldl take 100 "unscientific" over one "scientific".

To reduce subjectivity, a better method would be to allow other users to use the same knife in similar fashion ....Subjectivity is based on the user - replacing the user with a machine does not solve this problem, better to simply multiply the number of users.

You will be hard pressed to find another person who would want to subject his own knife to the same kind of "testing" as Noss.

I would again like to thank you for your excellent posts, as you maintain this thread as a relevant discussion rather than something less :thumbup:

Same here.

You wrote, "...I also think that putting 20 degree on Busse is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of that blade."
I replied "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 am implying is that, if Busse generally doesn't put a 20-degree edge on INFI knives, demonstrably able to withstand the 'rigors of hard use', who in their right mind would put one on an A2 blade labelled for similar use?

First of all, I was talking about my Busse Hell Razor. I don't want to put 20 degree on it, because it will sort of defeat the purpose for my kind of use. I see my HR as more or a chopper. I also have already sacrificed cutting performance and ease of Some use (maybe carving) just by selecting a knife with 7" blade.
I wouldn't want a very thin edge on BRKT golok. I have no clue what geometry is there, but I can guess that it isn't what I want. At the same time, 0.32" thick 3" tough blade with 45 degree edge might be inferior to 0.15" thin 3" CPM-154 with 20 degree edge blade in overall performance, because I most likely will see no advantage in toughness level whatsoever. All this still depends on exact kind of use each of those knives would be subjected to.

 

[STAGE 2]

The biggest problem I have with people who gripe about these tests is that they are griping about things that have never been said, at least not by Noss.

These videos measure how much abuse a knife can take. No one here is suggesting that this should be the only criteria, or even a major one, that people should use in deciding whether they should purchase a knife.

If all you care about is slicing, then this isn't going to be of very much value to you. However there are people that do care about toughness and do want a knife that can handle a ridiculous amount of abuse.

That doesn't make them wrong, just different. There are plenty of people who use a knife for unintended chores that don't want things snapping, cracking or chipping under hard use. What noss does is going to be relevant to these people.

 

[Karda]

There are plenty of people who use a knife for unintended chores that don't want things snapping, cracking or chipping under hard use. What noss does is going to be relevant to these people.

And when a person uses knife for unintended chores, who is at fault, the person or the manufacturer? Doesnt seem fair to blame a maker or the knife for the persons lack of common sense and pencant to abuse things. But thats what the knifetests do....
It doesnt necessarily mean that the knife is not tough, it just means it's not idiot/abuse proof.....a factor not usually built into knives because most makers figure that if a person isn't smart enough to use his tools for their Intended use,then perhaps a broken knife for the person is the least of their problems. And thats all that the "tests" prove.....

 

[burned_pretzel]

And when a person uses knife for unintended chores, who is at fault, the person or the manufacturer? Doesnt seem fair to blame a maker or the knife for the persons lack of common sense and pencant to abuse things. But thats what the knifetests do....
It doesnt necessarily mean that the knife is not tough, it just means it's not idiot/abuse proof.....a factor not usually built into knives because most makers figure that if a person isn't smart enough to use his tools for their Intended use,then perhaps a broken knife for the person is the least of their problems. And thats all that the "tests" prove.....

I disagree about the blame issue here. It doesn't seem like Noss is saying that one knife is better than another (and therefore that one manufacturer did a lousy job and another did not) , just that one knife performed better.

I guess it's a matter of how you interpret the ratings. I took a quick look at that site and, yes, it is a bit foolish. I still don't think that Noss is claiming that one knife is better, since he is only testing certain uses, whether those uses be ridiculous or not. If he uses his knives that way, then it is relevant to him. It seems that the point is more to figure out what the knife is suited for.

It is entertaining though, I suppose.

 

[STAGE 2]

And when a person uses knife for unintended chores, who is at fault, the person or the manufacturer? Doesnt seem fair to blame a maker or the knife for the persons lack of common sense and pencant to abuse things. But thats what the knifetests do....
It doesnt necessarily mean that the knife is not tough, it just means it's not idiot/abuse proof.....a factor not usually built into knives because most makers figure that if a person isn't smart enough to use his tools for their Intended use,then perhaps a broken knife for the person is the least of their problems. And thats all that the "tests" prove.....

Three points.

First, the definition of "unintended" is very very relative. A good portion of the knives that have been tested, and a majority of the popular knives for sale today are marketed on their toughness. You will see phrases like "virtually indestructable" and "hard use". You will see pictures of people sinking the blade into wood and then standing on it. CRK states that their hollow handled knives to be used as a hammer in a pinch. So, the argument that "its a knife and can only be used for cutting" doesn't comport with what many manufacturers are saying about their own product. As a result, its pefectly valid to test the claims that manufacturers are making about their knives.

Second, I don't see anyone blaming anybody. To my knowledge there isn't a thumbs up or a thumbs down based on these videos. There's only a relative rating based on where a knife exists compared to other knives. There are tons of reviews on bladeforums where people have several knives and then rate each based on their cutting ability. This is no different.

Finally, you don't need to be an idiot to end up in a situation to where your knife needs to be a hammer, prybar, step, etc. If you're a soldier (which lots of these companies market towards and use to market) then your knife is an all the above. If you're a regular joe caught in a bad situation the same applies.

Cars aren't designed to be driven into things, and yet we still crash test them because things happen. Same thing with these tests.

 

[shecky]

he raged at me when i commented on his gränsfors bruks vid saying they were handmade and what he did was rather disrespectfull.

This, I think, hits the nail on the head as to why folks on this forum cannot discuss Noss and his tests with any sense of reason. For some knife nuts, a knife, or more likely a brand, is simply too sacred to be truly put to the test. What follows is indignation and grasping straws over why his tests are not of any value. Yet for all the strong feelings, nobody ever seems to want to verify his results. Perhaps more proof that the issue with Noss isn't his methods, but rather that he's skewering sacred cows.

 

[Karda]

I can verify noss's "test" results.
Repeatedly smash knife, with hammer.
Repeatedly abuse knife.
Break knife.
A knife will break if you abuse it and repeatedly hit it with hammer.
Verified.

Any other data gleaned is for the most part subjective and presumptive on the "testers" part without more controls and repeatability. The only real data gleaned from these tests is how many hammer blows it takes to destroy a knife.

 

[Bryan J]

Imagine somebody posting a youtube video of himself in the forest. This person builds a nice campfire and then reaches deep into his front pocket. From his pocket he pulls out two one hundred dollar bills, crumples them up and throws them into the fire.

That's pretty much the Noss4 video in a nutshell.

 

[STAGE 2]

Any other data gleaned is for the most part subjective and presumptive on the "testers" part without more controls and repeatability. The only real data gleaned from these tests is how many hammer blows it takes to destroy a knife.

Ignoring the drastic oversimplification, you've managed to invalidate your objection with this single statement. If knife X takes 5 blows to fracture and knife Y takes 36, then knife Y is the tougher knife assuming neither are defective.

 

[Karda]

Ignoring the drastic oversimplification, you've managed to invalidate your objection with this single statement. If knife X takes 5 blows to fracture and knife Y takes 36, then knife Y is the tougher knife assuming neither are defective.

And further assuming that both knives recieved the same exact treatment in respect to any of the "testing" procedure, which is impossible with the current format, which is also why the ratings are so arbitrary and the "testing" nothing but a presumption. Also assuming that the "testing" procedures have anything to do with a real life situation that a person could find themselves in. Perhaps i'm not the only one using drastic oversimplification, yourself included. Sorry, i like my testing data to come from repeatable reality based data......not assumptions from fantasy island.

 

[HandofCod]

I think Noss is onto the right track but still thinking far too small. Why doesn't he take a plasma torch to the knife? Isn't that an extreme test of toughness?

How about sticking it into a furnace? Or dipping it in liquid nitrogen?

If he wants to go 'extreme' by bashing a thin cutting edge through flat steel and concrete then why hold onto any semblance of 'real world' testing, he may as go all the way and title his videos:

WILL IT BLEND?

 

[shortwinger]

Since the beginning of time it has always been the same.

• Boy sees tool.
• Boy uses tool.
• Boy compares tool to someone elses tool.
• Boy uses tool to compete with other boy.
• Boy trys to see how tool is made.
• Boy trys to break tool.
• Boy breaks tool.
• Boy searches for another tool to "test."

***Extra Credit:

• If you wear a hockey mask while you do the things mentioned above, you get extra points.
• If you can somehow make your sister cry while doing the things above, more extra points.
• If your mother has to actually hit you to make you stop "testing" and come in for dinner, even more extra points.

That is the way it was in the beginning,
That is the way it is now (thanks Noss4) and,
That is the way it will be until the end of time.

Moral of the story? Don't cry because your knife didn't do good, just go out and buy another knife! It really is the perfect excuse dropped right in your lap! "Honey, my knife just failed on Noss's test, I need to get a safer one right away. Don't wait up!"

Bill
Virginia

 

[chiral.grolim]

Not his rating though. It is equal in performance (whatever it is) to Mora clipper .
I understand your point though.

:thumbup:

This recommends establishing 3-10 subjective toughness levels (limits), then testing knife gradually to see what level (limit) it can reach. Then consumer can decide what "level" (limit) of performance is acceptable for his use.
There is something like this in Noss' videos, like testing tip on wood, then on metal, then on concrete. It's good enough here. To bad that in other aspects he goes from one thing to another way too fast to assess the performance. Since cutting/batoning wood makes up 90%+ of the typical "hard" use (rather than metal or concrete), I would've loved to see more levels here. In lateral force testing, I want to see couple of "levels" also. Instead, for example kabar USMC didn't even make it here, because it was taken all the way to the limit in the other "test".

:thumbup::thumbup: For agreement, esp. on the bold parts, and on disappointment with how the KaBar USMC 'test' proceeded - but it was an early one, the BooneII 'test' being a significant improvement.

...I can't barely make out what is better for batoning. Bravo1 was hammered right into a hardened knot. Boone was batoned through some piece of wood so stiff that Noss barely got the blade out of it. Mora was batoned through yet a different kind of wood. And so on... It almost looks like Noss is doing his best to make those "tests" as subjective as possible.

:thumbup: A good recommendation for Noss, try to be more uniform in choosing wood to split (pretty sure he just used whatever he found lying around on a given day). This is something I really like about the Bluntruth4u vids, where he push-cuts/carves roughly the same media with each knife he tests. So again, no argument from me (other than that I don't think he is trying to be misleading using the various wood media)

All knives come in different shapes and sizes with different edge geometry and blade materials. If you're aiming for "Tough", you can increase blade/edge thickness (design?) and/or select a material with favorable properties (steel?) and apply a voodoo heat treatment (mastership?). We sure want to reduce "sacrificing" as much as possible, but unfortunately we have to do it all the time. What steel is "the best"? What geometry is "the best"? Without exact "purpose" in mind it is almost impossible to answer this question. And no, "hard use" IMHO is not the exact purpose.

You are right, it is very inexact, but that is part of why I think toughness is the primary factor - not knowing just how 'hard' the user intends to use the knife, isn't it better to error on the side of caution, i.e. designing the blade to resist catastrophic failure under most or even extreme conditions? I guess the way to do that would be to ask your target-market how they expect a blade to perform at a given price-range, and then limit-test...
You know, the more i think about it, the more I like the idea of establishing an unofficial MIL-STD , maybe using the old KaBar as a base, comparing all 'hard-use' knives of similar size thereunto...
Anyway, again no disagreement from me.

...At one point I had Raidops LJ3. That's a small fixed blade with 2.5" blade, 1/4" thick. It sure was tough, I just had no clue what to use it for.

:thumbup: I feel that way about the Busse 'fat' small blades, e.g. Fat Game Warden - not a clue To each their own, i guess.

He might as well show you that his 1/16" is better for 95% of his daily use, than that tougher 1/8" knife, so for him 1/16" might be tough enough and superior to the other one.

(in reference to subjective establishment of attribute-values on overall knife rating) Exactly. And this is one big subjective point.

It sounds like we're talking about kitchen knives vs. hunting knives now, or bushcraft vs military 1-tool survival - specialized tools for special purposes with different focus.
What I was really suggesting with the 1/16" vs 1/8" is that there might exist a 1/8" blade superior to the 1/16" for >50% of the hypothetical woodsman's primary purposes, theorizing a superior knife for the woodsman based solely on the objective properties of the knife (geometry, HT, composition, general design, etc.). Now, the knife might be prohibitively expensive, in which case his own knife is 'good enough', but 'good enough' does not mean that a superior knife does not exist - the price of a knife does not change its objective properties. But, yes, what value one puts on each of these objective properties informs.. er... commands?... overall subjective 'rating'.
Are we typing around each other here? It doesn't sound like we disagree...

Again, that's one of our major disagreements.
We both are looking for some sort of a balance. Yours is shifted more towards toughness, mine is more towards cutting in this particular case. We didn't even establish how exactly we will be using our knives.

In this particular case, i.e. Bravo1 marketed as superior to the USMC KaBar in the eyes of a US Marine Force Recon group said to have helped design it, I expect it to cut better than the KaBar (or rather my own Cat225Q) AND also resist edge-deformation, chipping, catastrophic failure better than the other knife under similar stress-conditions - i.e. toughness limit-testing should be 'higher'.

In my own use, my Cat's cutting performance is 'good enough' for my uses and it offers a longer blade for splitting thicker logs (often the only decent wood I find in close proximity to a bivy-site) more efficiently. If I need better cutting-performance, I carry a small folding-knife kept razor sharp. A note, my B1 hasn't deformed on me or anything, so no comment from me on durability vs the Cat.
Field-dressing white-tail and smaller game, I'd prefer the B1 to the Cat, but my S30V W.C. Davis Loveless-style drop-point hunter is king.
So, for my uses, the Bravo1 is more of a jack-of-all-trades sort of knife...
But I really like it nonetheless and will strive to use it more to give it a more informed rating - I've only owned it for a few months, the Cat225Q for years

Here is a cutout from Wiki about MIL equipment testing:

"The environmental management and engineering processes described within MIL-STD-810 can be of enormous value to generate confidence in the environmental worthiness and overall durability of a system design. Still, there are limitations inherent in laboratory testing that make it imperative to use proper engineering judgment to extrapolate laboratory results to results that may be obtained under actual service conditions. In many cases, real-world environmental stresses (singularly or in combination) cannot be duplicated in test laboratories. Therefore, users should not assume that a system or component that passes laboratory testing also would pass field/fleet verification trials."

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Awesome, well written.

More valid - agreed. Statistics usually win.
Easier - not at all. How many videos are out there "testing" exactly the same knife, or better yet, testing several knives using some kind of protocol. Not many at all.

I would take one "scientific" test over one or two "unscientific", but at the same time I wouldl take 100 "unscientific" over one "scientific".

Well, there aren't many (any?) videos of machine-testing non-kitchen knives, and even if there were, the measurements collected on pressure, torque, impact velocity, etc. must first be translated into 'real-world' values through reference to values measured on a significant number of human users (in order to calculate a reasonable average) applying similar forces, whereupon the information can THEN be extrapolated to an individual's expected use and what sort of forces he/she will apply - and even then, the predictive data is still only an approximation.
IMO, it is easier to extrapolate from watching a few (assumed honest) human users perform less precise tests with less precise measurements, giving a closer approximation to 'real world' use, letting my own mind account for difference in mass, strength, and skill of the users vs. myself.
But that is for toughness/durability tests. For cutting & edge-retention tests, I'm all for the machine-controlled, precision, data-heavy model :thumbup: And I'd still like to see the machine-model for the durability limit-tests
So ultimately, I think I agree with you.

You will be hard pressed to find another person who would want to subject his own knife to the same kind of "testing" as Noss.

Agreed, but what I really meant was for Noss to do some batonning, then hand the task off to someone else, then maybe a third person, etc. all using the exact same knife - user variation.

...I was talking about my Busse Hell Razor ...defeat the purpose for my kind of use... chopper. I also have already sacrificed cutting performance and ease of Some use (maybe carving) just by selecting a knife with 7" blade.
I wouldn't want a very thin edge on BRKT golok. I have no clue what geometry is there, but I can guess that it isn't what I want. At the same time, 0.32" thick 3" tough blade with 45 degree edge might be inferior to 0.15" thin 3" CPM-154 with 20 degree edge blade in overall performance, because I most likely will see no advantage in toughness level whatsoever. All this still depends on exact kind of use each of those knives would be subjected to.

Ah, got it, understand, and completely agree :thumbup:
7"-blade, probably not the best carver
3", cutting performance probably outweighs toughness as primary attribute (unless a 3" prybar is the perfect tool for your use ) :thumbup:

Gosh, with all this agreement, I'm not sure I'll have anything more to contribute to this thread! Thank you again for your posts, effer. Have a great day!

 

[STAGE 2]

And further assuming that both knives recieved the same exact treatment in respect to any of the "testing" procedure, which is impossible with the current format, which is also why the ratings are so arbitrary and the "testing" nothing but a presumption. Also assuming that the "testing" procedures have anything to do with a real life situation that a person could find themselves in. Perhaps i'm not the only one using drastic oversimplification, yourself included. Sorry, i like my testing data to come from repeatable reality based data......not assumptions from fantasy island.

The testing doesn't need to be 100% scientifically repeatable because human beings aren't 100% scientifically repeatable. Neither you nor I nor anyone else is going to be able to do something exactly the same way every single time. So testing under these conditions is actually more realistic than in a controlled scientific environment because this is what is going to happen in the real world. Thats why, as has already been stated, people like the military do real world live tests on arms and equipment even though they've been lab certified because murphy doesn't live in a lab.

As far as doing these things in a real life situation, you seem to only be focused on the later parts of what Noss does i.e. hacking at concrete. The first half of what is done is quite regular, cutting cordage, slicing cardboard, chopping and batonning wood and there are some knives that had trouble with these things.

 

[Karda]

I never said anything about "scientific"........just repeatable.
The "testing" may look like noss does everything the same, but i can guarantee that his testing methods are as wild, ramdom and arbitrary as his rating system. Noone batons with a 3 pound hammer....at least the smart and knowledgable ones don't. I suppose noss's "testing" methods had nothing to do with why some knives fail simple tests? Which is why, in reality, the "tests" are not much more than a vehicle for the "tester" to be a somebody on youtube.

 

[STAGE 2]

I never said anything about "scientific"........just repeatable.

Semantics. His pounding on a knife is going to have the same variations as any other human being. Its as repeatable as humanly possible and thats why its more valuable data than a controlled environment because no one is going to do something the exact same way every time.

The "testing" may look like noss does everything the same, but i can guarantee that his testing methods are as wild, ramdom and arbitrary as his rating system.

Based on what?

Noone batons with a 3 pound hammer....at least the smart and knowledgable ones don't.

I've battoned with frozen wood that was easily 3 lbs. I've seen knives used as shovels and hammers. I've talked with soldiers that have used their knives to pry open crates, cut through metal (just as Noss does) and even chip away at concrete in order to have a wider field of view.

You have a specific and limited area of use for knives. Thats fine. Not everyone does. That doesn't make them idiots.

 

[Karda]

You have a specific and limited area of use for knives. Thats fine. Not everyone does. That doesn't make them idiots.

Your supposed broader view of knife usage does not mean that it is a proper view of usage. A little common sense can tell you that using your knife on frozen wood, chipping concrete..etc.. has the potential to damage the knife. It doesnt necessarily make the knife bad, but possibly does the person using it. True, it doesnt make them idiots, it just makes them ill-informed, which the Knifetests foster quite nicely.