Spine whacking? WHY????

Status
Not open for further replies.
bodog said:
Not an unfair statement but everyone has different grip strength and not all people always grip the knife as hard as they can when they're cutting random stuff. I guess the closest way to replicate it would be to have one of those big butterfly paper clips clamped onto the framelock. But then it's not a matter of lock strength, it's a matter of grip strength and becomes essentially a friction folder with the long piece hanging off where your hand is supposed to keep the blade open versus the locking mechanism. Then it's no longer a lock so much as a way for your hand to act as a lock. And that's not a very good marketing tool.

"We make a knife with the best fit and finish and instead of a lock we offer something that only keeps the blade open if you're gripping it right and with a lot of strength. You don't really need a lock anyway, people have been carrying non-locking knives for a long time! And we don't believe in modern and useful cars and airplanes either because people got by with horses and trains for a long time, too! But modern CNC machining is the tits, we don't know what we're trying to accomplish! Are we modern, or are we not? Do we believe in innovation and producing the best, or don't we? You decide!"

Not very good.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding. Maybe go post that in their subforum and see if you can run them off as well.
 
Buy a knife with a well engineered lock and light spine whacking isn't necessary. A well made lock should be strong enough that any info gained will be from destructive testing.

This isn't going to make me very popular, but don't buy a frame, liner, or back lock and you won't need to test for hard use. They just aren't a well engineered lock and some examples work just fine but others, even of the same model, just don't hold up and the lock will slip and fail with light to moderate forces.

If I want a heavy duty folder that I can be confident in should I somehow need it in a crazy, extreme situation, the 3 above locks will not be on my knife regardless the maker or how beefy it is. Those locks just aren't designed to put forces on parts that can handle high forces and that can't potentially slip.
 
craytab said:
You've got to be kidding. Maybe go post that in their subforum and see if you can run them off as well.
Click to expand...

Hey Crabby ! You should not accuse others of committing your own sins . Just shows your hypocrisy !
 
johnnytoxin said:
You do know that CRK wins the manufacturing quality award almost every year at bladeshow right? That is voted on by his peers, knife makers and companies that make up the industry. They must all be complete fools to vote for a company that produces locks that fail when a light breeze hits them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they really aren't judging steels or locks or ergonomics because there is A LOT of controversy about those. The only thing that CRK consistently and inarguably brings to the table is fit. No one argues that. But as shown by Demko, and rather reluctantly at that, yes, the equivalent of a breeze caused two Sebenzas to fail. It was videotaped, you can tell it was unexpected, and you can tell the testers weren't excited about what happened. But it happened. And it was a miserable failure on behalf of the CRK brand name. Yes, everything else can be debated, but what really cannot be debated is the lack of strength of those locks. They were weak and shouldn't have been called locks, especially after proclaiming themselves as manufacturing a lock with "bank vault solid" lockup. Has anyone else observed those failures? Maybe not. But who else has taken a $400 folder, put the blade in a vice, and pushed down to see if the lock failed? Anyone? Maybe Demko was unfair. If so, someone should put their knives/money on the line to disprove those tests. Otherwise, it really does stand that the frame locks on CRK knives shouldn't be trusted for anything but light use. And saying that, the handles and blades are extremely overbuilt and unnecessary given the lock is the obvious weak link.

I'm not trying to bash CRK knives. Obviously their machining tolerances are hard for anyone to match and should be honored for being that benchmark. But people shouldn't defend what is most definitely something really weak. Especially by saying "we got by without locks for a long time." That's a foolish argument. If people demanded CRK come up with a better lock, I'm sure they would. As it stands, people accept it so they keep producing it, even in spite of the obvious and documented weakness.

If they really wanted to they could incorporate a rotary lock within the framelock to ensure it doesn't budge. But they don't. Because they make money now. Why fix it?
 
Last edited:
The only reason Demko was reluctant is that he knew that wasn't a genuine test. It was a fakey fake advertising spot.
 
bodog said:
Yes, but they really aren't judging steels or locks or ergonomics because there is A LOT of controversy about those. The only thing that CRK consistently and inarguably brings to the table is fit. No one argues that. But as shown by Demko, and rather reluctantly at that, yes, the equivalent of a breeze caused two Sebenzas to fail. It was videotaped, you can tell it was unexpected, and you can tell the testers weren't excited about what happened. But it happened. And it was a miserable failure on behalf of the CRK brand name. Yes, everything else can be debated, but what really cannot be debated is the lack of strength of those locks. They were weak and shouldn't have been called locks, especially after proclaiming themselves as manufacturing a lock with "bank vault solid" lockup. Has anyone else observed those failures? Maybe not. But who else has taken a $400 folder, put the blade in a vice, and pushed down to see if the lock failed? Anyone? Maybe Demko was unfair. If so, someone should put their knives/money on the line to disprove those tests. Otherwise, it really does stand that the frame locks on CRK knives shouldn't be trusted for anything but light use. And saying that, the handles and blades are extremely overbuilt and unnecessary given the lock is the obvious weak link.

I'm not trying to bash CRK knives. Obviously their machining tolerances are hard for anyone to match and should be honored for being that benchmark. But people shouldn't defend what is most definitely something really weak. Especially by saying "we got by without locks for a long time." That's a foolish argument. If people demanded CRK come up with a better lock, I'm sure they would. As it stands, people accept it so they keep producing it, even in spite of the obvious and documented weakness.

If they really wanted to they could incorporate a rotary lock within the framelock to ensure it doesn't budge. But they don't. Because they make money now. Why fix it?
Click to expand...

So basically you are not only saying that CRK produces faulty locks,but are questioning the integrity of the company as well? Please verify that I am understanding what you are saying. Thanks.
 
johnnytoxin said:
So basically you are not only saying that CRK produces faulty locks,but are questioning the integrity of the company as well? Please verify that I am understanding what you are saying. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I'm saying. Good people caught slipping up because no one has really checked them before. It's not about integrity at all. I don't have any idea how the people who own and run CRK are.
 
Danke42 said:
The only reason Demko was reluctant is that he knew that wasn't a genuine test. It was a fakey fake advertising spot.
Click to expand...

I'm not even comparing the triad lock, you can watch the videos and see how other knives fare, as well. Are you questioning Andrew Demko's integrity?
 
I had to Google "spine whack test."

I don't get it, but perhaps those for whom this test is important have knife needs that are completely different than my own.
 
johnnytoxin said:
So basically you are not only saying that CRK produces faulty locks,but are questioning the integrity of the company as well? Please verify that I am understanding what you are saying. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Just curious if you're also questioning Andrew Demko's integrity. Either the Sebenzas failed because of truly subpar locks or Demko rigged the test by modifying the lock interface. It's not like he came up with some crazy test that can't be replicated or read a lot into nothing. He clamped the blade for safety purposes and pushed down on the handle. You can see just how easily the lock slipped. You can also see how little effort he put into it to get the lock to slip. What, maybe 5-10 lbs of pressure, if that. You bind that blade into something and it wouldn't take much to slip the lock and maybe hurt yourself. Try to stab the knife into something and there's a real chance you'll hurt yourself. It's a total false sense of security. With slip joints you wouldn't try it because there's no sense of security and anyone with some common sense knows it. With a lock, especially with the reputation of a Sebenza, you'd believe there's a safety net. It's not like we're talking about a jarbenza. I'd assume any reputable manufacturer would see a lock failing with maybe 10 lbs of pressure as a failure and either redesign the lock, offer replacements, or offer refunds. That's an engineering failure. Any reasonable person would see that. Shoot, some slip joints are harder to close than at least one of those Sebenzas in that video.

I'll say maybe Demko got a bad batch with screwed up lock interfaces, but even that's hard to believe considering the acknowledged sky high tolerance standards of CRK. And if a CRK fails so easily, maybe that's reason enough to put some decent pressure on ANY knife's lock just to make sure it won't fail if you need to stab into something with some decent force. Leave spine whacks out of it, most of us who use knives with locks want to be able to stab into something without the knife inadvertently closing on our fingers. Stabbing into something requires a moderately strong lock. Not anything crazy, but something reliable and reasonably strong. I'd guess 50 lbs of pressure unless you're a strong person and using everything you have. Maybe that's what should be tested rather than spine whacks and obvious downward force on the handle. Stab into something hard and while stabbing create some twisting motions, up/down and side to side. Maybe that's a more appropriate lock test. I'd hope most of us could wrap our minds around that since nothing but downward slow and steady force or fast and shocking loads are hard for people to grasp the necessity of.
 
Last edited:
caseknife64 said:
i guess i really dont understand the concept of "spinewhacking" and why so many do it and feel it is such an important factor on choosing some knives. Really, in normal to heavy use, please someone tell me how a spine on a lockback would Be hitting a solid object with that much force to bring to failure? Dont remember using my Buck 110 that way ever for the 15 or so years I had it.
Click to expand...

Have you gotten your answer :)
If not we can go on
 
Because if not done like an idiot it's a very good test of lock security, period. If the lock fails with a gentle tap on the spine on a table or non-impact closing pressure on the blade, IMO it's defective as a lock. Liner and frame lock fanboys disagree because those designs have the most problems with that lock security tests.

Now I'm not talking about guys taking big swings on metal workbenches spine wacks, or the cold steel testing silliness. I think most of us can agree that's not very practical. However, I test every liner/frame lock knife I get with a light tap on the back of the spine, not even enough to dent a wood table. Because the reality is there are times where I need to use a folder to cut things where the blade can get stuck and I want to know that the lock isn't going to fail with extra closing pressure on the blade. Really the same test can be done without impact just trying to force the knife closed against the lock. However, I've never had one fail under just closing pressure that would pass a light spine tap. If the knife/lock is really too fragile and poorly fit to survive a light spine tap on a table, I sure don't want to rely on it.

I've seen a lot of liner/frame lock knives, from expensive customs to all the big fanboy makers have liner/frame lock issues over the years. It's only popular with companies and makers because it's cheap, no licensing fees, and no extra machining/parts required by a more secure locking interface. Unfortunately if the tolerances are not just right, it's also not very secure. We can't go a couple days on the forums without someone posting a liner lock problem, at all price ranges from all companies/makers. Some are better than others but we see liner lock problems from just about every company and maker you can name.
 
bodog, you make the assumption that most folders and their users stab stuff.
I don't, well never with any real pressure and if I did I'd use a different tool. The vast majority of folders are bought for a cutting edge, and most aren't going to be pushed through more than carboard; not stabbed just push cut or sliced into a material. Again its trying to justify folders doing a fixed blade job, just not necessary as most people don't use them that way. I don't think Serbenza buyers require more lock than the Serbenza gives. Most folders are built to a portable compact scale and well up to the task. They are after all a "half" broken fixed blade and the lock is really just to keep them open.

A good lock at best is adequate, don't care what it is or what it surmises to be. I wouldn't trust any with any real force as they are mechanical and therefor fallible.

Passing the spine whack test proves it can, what actual benefit that is is very questionable. I think that its nice but pretty irrelevant to how I use my folders. If its important to you then fair enough.
 
GREENJACKET said:
bodog, you make the assumption that most folders and their users stab stuff.
I don't, well never with any real pressure and if I did I'd use a different tool. The vast majority of folders are bought for a cutting edge, and most aren't going to be pushed through more than carboard; not stabbed just push cut or sliced into a material. Again its trying to justify folders doing a fixed blade job, just not necessary as most people don't use them that way. I don't think Serbenza buyers require more lock than the Serbenza gives. Most folders are built to a portable compact scale and well up to the task. They are after all a "half" broken fixed blade and the lock is really just to keep them open.

A good lock at best is adequate, don't care what it is or what it surmises to be. I wouldn't trust any with any real force as they are mechanical and therefor fallible.

Passing the spine whack test proves it can, what actual benefit that is is very questionable. I think that its nice but pretty irrelevant to how I use my folders. If its important to you then fair enough.
Click to expand...

you gotta remember most of us old timers on the forum had as many non locking knives as locking knives back in the day. We used our knives from the presumption that it would close and cut your fingers if you did not pay attention. Today, the lock advertising has created a culture of thought that folding knives should be solid like fixed blades. It has certainly made for better locking mechanisms. But now all locks are expected to sustain heavy impacts without fail .
 
bodog said:
I'm not even comparing the triad lock, you can watch the videos and see how other knives fare, as well. Are you questioning Andrew Demko's integrity?
Click to expand...

I think he's made a mistake to sell his name with that knife company and he knows it.

Some folks may not be sharp enough to read his body language and expressions in that video; it is clear he wasn't a willing participant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top