Sooo... Noss4 tested the Bravo 1

[STAGE 2]

Your supposed broader view of knife usage does not mean that it is a proper view of usage.

So who gets to determine the proper view of knife usage. You? Me? The manufacturer? Seeing as how certian makers state that their knives can withstand things other than cutting its indisputable that for at least some knives, there is a broader view of knife usage.

However, even if you were correct, that there is a proper limit, and what Noss does exceeds it, the information is still valuable because at some point, someone may be in a situation where they have to use their knife in an improper manner.

A little common sense can tell you that using your knife on frozen wood, chipping concrete..etc.. has the potential to damage the knife.

Having the potential to, and actually damaging are two different things and are exactly why these tests are valuable.

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.

So the person stuck in the woods during winter and needs a fire is uninformed when they start battoning? The soldier that uses his knife to dig out what may be an IED, or clear away some concrete for a better field of view is uninformed?

You keep wanting this to be about common sense, or propriety or information and its not. Its about the bad things that can happen in real life regardless of how well prepared someone might be. Its nice to know which knives are more tolerant of abuse and won't be a weak link if something bad ever does happen.

 

[dingy]

"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."


your words here , are cool. reasonable.:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Karda]

If a person is in one of your supposed "real life" situations, they should expect that their knife, any knife, may be sacrificed in the endeavor. No testing necessary. That doesnt make the knife bad, it means that you've gone beyond the structural limitations of the steel. Does that mean the manufacturer of the steel is bad? no it doesnt. It means that the end user should've taken care to note that he was breaking the knife. But you don't see knifetests going after steel manufacturers do you? The same applies for the knifemakers whom knifetests purports to be exposing as engaging in fraudulent advertising (or hype as you like to call it). The onus in on the end user to be have enough situational awareness to use some care with his tools, despite what any marketing machine may tell them. In all actuality the knifetests are as guilty as anyone else for using "hype" in their marketing.

 

[STAGE 2]

If a person is in one of your supposed "real life" situations, they should expect that their knife, any knife, may be sacrificed in the endeavor.

Its certianly a possibility, but again, certian knives are going to fare better than others, hence the point of the tests. If I know I'm going to deploy and want to take something with me thats going to withstand abuse, I'm not going to be flipping through a mora catalogue, I'm probably going to head over to the scrapyard/esee/busse section because I know that I can dig, or pry without worrying about damage.

That doesnt make the knife bad, it means that you've gone beyond the structural limitations of the steel.

The steel is only one part of the equation. Things like blade design and heat treat make a massive difference. Case in point, ka bars and rats are both 1095, but they performed very very differently.

But you don't see knifetests going after steel manufacturers do you?

As I said above, the steel is only a single part of knife performance. A super steel with a crappy heat treat will perform much worse than a entry level steel with a good heat treat. Same with design. A rat tail tang, or serrations that cause stressed areas make a difference. All of this is on the maker not the steel manufacturer.

The same applies for the knifemakers whom knifetests purports to be exposing as engaging in fraudulent advertising (or hype as you like to call it). The onus in on the end user to be have enough situational awareness to use some care with his tools, despite what any marketing machine may tell them. In all actuality the knifetests are as guilty as anyone else for using "hype" in their marketing.

But again you keep making the same fallacy. No one is saying that because a knife survived being hammered that its now acceptable to do so. Nor are they saying that you shouldn't care about your tools.

What is being shown is how different blades respond to abuse, and whether this comports with how they are advertised.

 

[Broos]

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.

I agree with everything except the last conclusion. Considering the unthoughtful & random nature of the display, there is no way, no how that the next knife is going to break with the same number of hammer blows!

 

[noviomagus]

The steel is only one part of the equation. Things like blade design and heat treat make a massive difference. Case in point, ka bars and rats are both 1095, but they performed very very differently.

True.I like the form of the handle of the Ka-bar knife quite a bit better.
They are more hand friendly than the somewhat flat handle slabs with square/angular corners that dig into the handpalm and fingers.Oval or round handles is my preference.(Why isn't a barbell or dumbbell handle square but round?handle ergonomics isn't something that should be underestimated).


I still think Noss his test have some purpose.
You can see where weaknesses of a knife can be.You don't have to like all he does.There are parts that have use.Like a bit of chopping.Nothing wrong with testing that.stabbing wood then metal shows the toughness of the tip.

The Ka-bar isn't a knife that comes out 'toughest' of his test perhaps.But then we should all carry a Busse?
For me not.
The Ka-bar steel is good enough for me.. and the RAT handles...a bit more rounded like in the Bravo1/Kabar would be a little nicer.

 

[Joshua J.]

I think it is useful to see the behavior of steel when pushed beyond its limits.
Destruction tests for cars are useful, and fun to watch. Same here.

 

[Broos]

I think it is useful to see the behavior of steel when pushed beyond its limits.
Destruction tests for cars are useful, and fun to watch. Same here.

Destructive impact tests on cars always test an undamaged car, and they don't repeatedly smash damaged cars to test them. They have every car going exactly the same speed, at exactly the same angle, and hitting the barrier in exactly the same spot. For every test. Then after the test they actually analyze the information they get from many sensors on the car and on the test dummies. The method was chosen just so they could answer the question they wanted to answer - what injuries would a human passenger sustain in the crash. They actually use their (repeatable) test to obtain data to make an informative conclusion.

Now if they wanted to emulate nossy's "test method", they would have to forget about the test dummies and fancy test sensors they use, & randomly careen the cars off guardrails and trees, hit them with sledge hammers, run them without oil or coolant, then drop them in a car crusher to see how "tough" they are. Then if IIHS just posted videos of the random mayhem on the internet along with just some vague general comments about the video, they would be similar.

 

[michaelm466]

I think what Noss' defenders here keep forgetting is that this is still just one test with no controls on angles or force. The knife tested, could be in the best knife made of that model, perfect heat treat, no bubbles, ground perfectly, or it could be the worst ever made, bubbles all over, imperceptible crack, over hardened, etc. But since the sample size is exactly one, we won't know, people just take for granted that this is how all of that particular model tested would perform. As for the crash test analogy, Noss' test would be more like testing a car by putting only one through a demolition derby and seeing which one would still run after an hour of crashing into other cars being "tested". I would be more willing to believe if some of his followers (>10) repeated his tests on the same knife, sure its not perfect like most edge holding tests we do here on BF, but if they all got about the same or at least 8/10 of them got the same results I'd be much more inclined to believe those results. Bottom line even if Noss' tests were completely controlled and measured... You can't draw results from a sample size of one.

 

[orthogonal1]

....

You can't draw results from a sample size of one.

Why are you on this forum than?

How many of the opinions expressed on this forum are based on "a sample size of one"?

I'll wager the vast majority of opinions expressed on this forum are based on "a sample size of one".

Since there are no valid results (in your stated opinion) that can be gained by "a sample size of one", I fully expect to never read any of your comments regarding the merit(s) of any knife for which you have not bought and used multiples of.

 

[michaelm466]

As I said above, if multiple people draw the same conclusions even though the methods aren't completely controlled but testing in the same fashion, for example rope cutting tests, cardboard cutting tests etc, and ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V then yes I would put stock in that, which is what happens here, while Noss performs his test once, makes a generalization about that knife and all his followers believe that and defend it with fervor, instead of doing their own testing, I've never seen another Bravo-1 or CRK FB destruction test, have you? Yet, many people now believe from this one test that Bravo-1s are junk, just like weak CRK's.

ETA: I don't buy a knife after reading one good review of it, I read as many as I can, the reason I spend time here, just like I don't take it off my list because of one bad review.

 

[orthogonal1]

As I said above, if multiple people draw the same conclusions even though the methods aren't completely controlled but testing in the same fashion, for example rope cutting tests, cardboard cutting tests etc, and ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V then yes I would put stock in that, which is what happens here, while Noss performs his test once, makes a generalization about that knife and all his followers believe that and defend it with fervor, instead of doing their own testing, I've never seen another Bravo-1 or CRK FB destruction test, have you? Yet, many people now believe from this one test that Bravo-1s are junk, just like weak CRK's.

ETA: I don't buy a knife after reading one good review of it, I read as many as I can, the reason I spend time here, just like I don't take it off my list because of one bad review.

Where did you state "if multiple people draw the same conclusions even though the methods aren't completely controlled but testing in the same fashion, for example rope cutting tests, cardboard cutting tests etc, and ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V then yes I would put stock in that".

And you obviously haven't kept up with what Boo and his fellow peanut gallery members (people who can't actually do anything) has been promulgating.

Oh, and feel free to buy some samples for Noss to test - thereby meeting this "multiple sample" criteria.

And whose "tests" result in the conclusion that "ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V"? How many sample were used, what was the heat treat, what was the final hardness, and for what use?

And, the fact of the matter is there are few people who have the financial where-with-all, much less the mental attitide, to buy a reasonably expensive item to purposefully destroy. Know any?

As to the wonderful world of scientific testing, it is well established that no matter the stated results of the "other", one must provide documented evidence that the "other"s results are incorrect if one is to properly despute them. Mere allegation or critique of methodology is insufficient without proof of some dishonesty or some such.

Dishonesty being along the lines of "to prove second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer" or the making up of data like the wills of people from the 1700's.

And the Bravo-1 is junk - what idiot puts serrations at a point of high stress? This for combat?

Anyone of some modicum of knowledge of knives, steels, stress-risers, etc. should not be surprised by the results Noss gets. This ain't rocket science.

 

[michaelm466]

Where did you state "if multiple people draw the same conclusions even though the methods aren't completely controlled but testing in the same fashion, for example rope cutting tests, cardboard cutting tests etc, and ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V then yes I would put stock in that".

"I would be more willing to believe if some of his followers (>10) repeated his tests on the same knife, sure its not perfect like most edge holding tests we do here on BF, but if they all got about the same or at least 8/10 of them got the same results I'd be much more inclined to believe those results." -- From my first post.

And you obviously haven't kept up with what Boo and his fellow peanut gallery members (people who can't actually do anything) has been promulgating.
No, I don't spend much time on Noss threads, too many worthwhile threads out there.

Oh, and feel free to buy some samples for Noss to test - thereby meeting this "multiple sample" criteria.
I care about these tests about as much as I care how well a sledge hammer cuts paper, so why would I waste the money?

And whose "tests" result in the conclusion that "ZDP-189 consistently comes out ahead of S30V"? How many sample were used, what was the heat treat, what was the final hardness, and for what use?
This was a general example I could have very well said S90V consistently holds an edge better than 420J2, and I think most members would agree with me that have used both. But with just a quick search Catra test results from spyderco...
440C 360-400
VG10 500-510
S30V 550-580
S90V 750
ZDP 189 750
S125V 1200


And, the fact of the matter is there are few people who have the financial where-with-all, much less the mental attitide, to buy a reasonably expensive item to purposefully destroy. Know any?

This has nothing to do with the main arguement just because, his supporters can't afford to repeat his tests doesn't mean that we just will have to take his test/word for it. Just because only one person can afford to buy a $100,000 knife does that mean we should take his word for it that its the best knife ever made?

As to the wonderful world of scientific testing, it is well established that no matter the stated results of the "other", one must provide documented evidence that the "other"s results are incorrect if one is to properly despute them. Mere allegation or critique of methodology is insufficient without proof of some dishonesty or some such.

Dishonesty being along the lines of "to prove second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer" or the making up of data like the wills of people from the 1700's.
Yes, that is needed to disprove scientific testing, however this isn't so it isn't necessary, you can't disprove data that doesn't exist (force of blows, angle of blows, hardness, etc)

And the Bravo-1 is junk - what idiot puts serrations at a point of high stress? This for combat? The Bravo-1 isn't serrated...?

Anyone of some modicum of knowledge of knives, steels, stress-risers, etc. should not be surprised by the results Noss gets. This ain't rocket science.
I agree, much closer to a demolition derby

This is just like every other Noss thread, Illogical arguments without data or experience to back it up (ie, tests done by other members instead..."Anyone of some modicum of knowledge of knives, steels, stress-risers, etc. should not be surprised by the results Noss gets. This ain't rocket science." People who reach Noss' results just by looking at the knife. I've wasted enough time on this thread. Have fun...

 

[orthogonal1]

This is just like every other Noss thread, Illogical arguments without data or experience to back it up (ie, tests done by other members instead..."Anyone of some modicum of knowledge of knives, steels, stress-risers, etc. should not be surprised by the results Noss gets. This ain't rocket science." People who reach Noss' results just by looking at the knife. I've wasted enough time on this thread. Have fun...

I know the feeling - feel free to actually add some useful information or comment.

 

[noviomagus]

Noss at least does show us some form of a destruction test.And it is not THAT bad.
It is unjustice to act as if the tests the knives undergo are all totally different.They are not !
Maybe a bit,and that'where you can say ,where's the science and all under the same perfect circumstances.But come on,the Busse will do better than the Bravo1 also under perfectly same scientific cirucumstances.I find the arguments against Noss a bit hateful.

and I still like my KA-BAR's better than a Busse BM even when standing/bouncing on it is not recommended.
A "Battle" Misstress may have the name for combat and it is great in hacking concrete and batoning metal.But it is not the fastest knife in hand.And THAT is what combat is about.
So...
The test doesn't tell you everything .A less stronger knife can be more suited to many tasks than that tank coming out of the destruction test.
All it needs are brains to figure that out yourself .

But it doesn't mean that the tests don't have any value.
They do.

 

[Bryan J]

I think what Noss' defenders here keep forgetting is that this is still just one test with no controls on angles or force. The knife tested, could be in the best knife made of that model, perfect heat treat, no bubbles, ground perfectly, or it could be the worst ever made, bubbles all over, imperceptible crack, over hardened, etc. But since the sample size is exactly one, we won't know, people just take for granted that this is how all of that particular model tested would perform. As for the crash test analogy, Noss' test would be more like testing a car by putting only one through a demolition derby and seeing which one would still run after an hour of crashing into other cars being "tested". I would be more willing to believe if some of his followers (>10) repeated his tests on the same knife, sure its not perfect like most edge holding tests we do here on BF, but if they all got about the same or at least 8/10 of them got the same results I'd be much more inclined to believe those results. Bottom line even if Noss' tests were completely controlled and measured... You can't draw results from a sample size of one.

Well said.