Stronger Chinook/Manix pivot

S

SteelDriver

Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
790
Sal Glesser said:
I sent Cliff the Chinook II and I also sent him a Manix, knowing they will probably be destroyed. It helps us learn about our products. Cliff suggested a stonger pivot, which we are looking into.
Click to expand...
Sal,

I just want to second the idea of a stronger pivot for the Chinook and Manix. I know the locks are MBC rated, but I'm guessing that knife would fail at far less force in the lateral direction. The pivot is one thing that can be beefed up with negligible weight impact and no loss in performance.

On a related note, I'd be interested in learning more about how severe lateral stress affects lock security of the various locks Spydercos use, as well as their failure modes. How much force can the existing pivots take before the knife is permanently damaged (cannot fold, etc.)?

Thanks for your willingness to destroy your knives for the sake of making them better.
 
SteelDriver said:
Sal,

I just want to second the idea of a stronger pivot for the Chinook and Manix. I know the locks are MBC rated, but I'm guessing that knife would fail at far less force in the lateral direction. The pivot is one thing that can be beefed up with negligible weight impact and no loss in performance.

On a related note, I'd be interested in learning more about how severe lateral stress affects lock security of the various locks Spydercos use, as well as their failure modes. How much force can the existing pivots take before the knife is permanently damaged (cannot fold, etc.)?

Thanks for your willingness to destroy your knives for the sake of making them better.
Click to expand...
anyone know if cliff tested the manix yet?
 
Well in Cliff's test the blade failed long before the pivot in lateral stresses. The only thing that destroyed the pivot was hammering a blunted (broken off) tip into the wood, by batoning on to the butt end of the handle.
 
HoB said:
Well in Cliff's test the blade failed long before the pivot in lateral stresses. The only thing that destroyed the pivot was hammering a blunted (broken off) tip into the wood, by batoning on to the butt end of the handle.
Click to expand...
are you talking about the chinook2 or the manix? this sounds like the chinook 2 test, which i already read. i wanna see his review of the manix if he's already done it; granted, i haven't dug around for it yet. if you have a link, that would be appreciated.
 
The lock including the pins are identical on the Chinook II and the Manix. The only difference are the "cosmetic" shape of the head of the pins, which is a little rounder on the Manix than on the Chinook II. I would think that Cliff will concentrate on different cutting performance and blade strength in his comparison between the Manix and the Chinook.
 
We're making a model to test. At this point, we're not yet convinced that it's an improvement. The lock will hold up to a great deal of pressure. When it defeats, the pivot shears at VHD (Very Heavy Duty or MBC) rating. The lock remains intact and doesn't close so the knife might be safer at the breaking point the way it is.

We can select what we want to break first. That's why we test. Safety is always the primary consideration. Best if the blade does not hurt the hand.

sal
 
Thanks for the reply, Sal. The idea of 'engineered failure' is interesting indeed; it reminds me of crumple zones on a car. This is the first time I've heard of the concept being applied to folder locks.
 
Thanks for the update Sal.

It's not as simple as beefier pivot pin = better. I'd rather have a knife that doesn't close on me when it fails (not that it's ever going to get to that point in real life).
 
Just to clearify, the piviot on the Chinook isn't weak. That folder was the most durable one I have seen to date, try to find customs that will guarantee better results. When I do a review I always try to find or make suggestions on improvements, some times it is hard as the product is so solid, it was in this case. It is also easy to make a suggestion but designs are integral and convoluted, you have to be careful that when adjusting performance in one area you don't compromise it in another or as Sal noted cause the method of failure to shift to something which is adverse to safety or repair/replacement. What should come out of this issue most importantly isn't the performance of the knife which was extreme, but more importantly that the company wanted to get a *public* examination of said product and how they reacted to it. I have dealt with a lot of makers, Sal's attitude is very rare and it reflects in the quality of his products.

-Cliff
 
Sal's and Spyderco's attitude toward knife development and their customers is what originally drew my interest to their products. It is quite unique, in a very good way.
 
Cliff Stamp said:
I have dealt with a lot of makers, Sal's attitude is very rare and it reflects in the quality of his products.

-Cliff
Click to expand...
^^this is one of the reasons i'm a doomed lifetime spyderco fanatic. way to go sal, imagine that, an ego-free knife company that bases its products on customer feedback.
 
It is this very open attitude and the willingness to share the good news and the bad that make me feel much better about spending my hard earned dollars on your very well researched and well made Spyderco knives primarily.

Thanks Sal. Tonight I was accused of being a Spyderco 'fanatic' in one thread. Well, I guess I am. Go figure why. Should be obvious from threads like these that you openly start for feedback both negative and positive.

My signiture on another forum has been for some time: "it is not necessary to do extraordinary things in life, it is only necessary to do ordinary things extraordinarily well." I have maintained this philosophy in my own hand mades. Spyderco does this and in the process makes the ordinary lock back folder look and act extraordinary by simply doing it so well.

Many people think there is something extraordinary about Chris Reeve knives. No. I don't see that. They, like the Spyderco are an ordinary everyday knife that is simply made extraordinarily well. I mean this as the highest compliment. This is, in my mind the one thing that sets Spyderco knives ahead of all the competition. IMO.

Steve
 
It was definately the attitude that turned me to the knives, I bought a couple, had problems with a Military, but Sal's frank and open attitude to not simply praise about the knives, and let's face it, who can't take praise without problems, but ability to deal with, and hell even seek out complaints is worthy of respect. I have time and time again seen manufacturers try to drive out, censor and otherwise limit critism of their products, while refusing to answer hard questions about performance. You have to give credit to those that take the other road.

-Cliff
 
Nobody said:
Sal's and Spyderco's attitude toward knife development and their customers is what originally drew my interest to their products. It is quite unique, in a very good way.
Click to expand...

I felt the same about Spyderco's products. Despite comments about 'butt ugly,' the knives perform well and customer service has never been a worry to me. Oft times, the CS surprises me with the extent they'll try to solve a customer complaint. I noticed this, Sal imbues, with great care, some of his philosophy about life and things in his knives. That ideal, aloing with quality, tends to draw me to Spydercos; even those 'butt ugly' ones I sooner or later use as an EDC. From what I quoted here, small world, I thought it was only me.
 
There are two kinds of beauty I guess. The kind you see and the kind you feel with your hands. I never appreciated the Spyderco knives until holding one in my hands and then using it.

Kind of similar to not appreciating full bodied woman until I got my hands on them compared to the visual appeal of the skinny models. But that is another story.

Point is I see what you mean.

Cliff, I agree with you again. Sal has learned to take a negative and turn it into a positive by adopting this approach he has. It is a rarity. You begin to wonder about some companies and individuals when they become more and more evasive and defensive as things come up with their products rather than just move forward objectively and try to deal with it in a positive light.

Of course in their defense, if I sent you one of my hand made folders and you tore it up I'd be put out and not all too happy also.
 
Wow. This is a really cool thread.

I had no idea that Sal cared so much about the product he makes. That's very rare these days.

I have to say that in the last few weeks that I've been up in the air about what I want to buy more of Benchmade or Spyderco. This thread answered it for me. I'll be buying more Spyderco knives and less of Benchmade.

Thanks for a great product and a kick butt company Sal!

Cheers,
Fisher of Men
 
STR said:
...if I sent you one of my hand made folders and you tore it up I'd be put out and not all too happy also.
Click to expand...
As a maker you should on a regular basis test all your products to destruction, including a finished product. For makers that do this, broken products don't induce an adverse reaction.

What I tend to see the worst reaction from are people who don't actually expect their products to be used, those that do see broken products all the time, usually not to full destruction, but to some extent because there are accidents, and if you take dozens of people and encourage them to really use the knife can you really expect not even one of them to overstress it, all it takes is a difference of opinion on scope of work.

This is much more of an issue with production rather than custom knives as production knives are generally used most heavily, just like people who buy an Endura are far more likely to overstress it than people who buy a Manix, just because of cost.

-Cliff
 
As a maker you should on a regular basis test all your products to destruction,
Click to expand...

I don't fully agree there with you Cliff. This is maybe necessary with a knife you are toting as 'tactical' or 'survival' but a gents folder or a whittler? I don't think that kind of 'destruction' testing needs to be done. I just don't see this as being necessary at all.

I believe testing should be done but my idea of testing a whittler is to use it for whittling and see if it works well. I carve a face or a shoe or some other wood carving of an object with it, carry it, test it to see how well it comes on and off the pocket, test the lock for defeat and if it passes these simple tests I mail it off.

I believe there is a fine line that needs to be looked at as 'reasonable' vs "insane" or 'unreasonable' testing. And to be honest with you Cliff. Some of your tests don't need to be done in my opinion. You know the outcome before you do the test so why do that to the knife knowing that it is going to come apart ahead of time? To me that is just waste. A waste of energy and a waste of a good knife that would most likely hold up under 'normal' conditions for several life times. Believe me you are entitled to do it though. If you like it and feel it is productive that is fine. Go for it. I just have to shake my head sometimes and wonder though.

I mean really. I have some old Case and Buck lock backs that I'm sure you could find fault in. These knives have been used heavily and they perform well both in the hand for what they were designed for and for some tasks that push them to the limits of the lock strength. They'll most likely be handed down to my family members when I die. Can they be torn up? Sure in a matter of minutes. There isn't a knife that can't be ruined in the right (or should I say wrong) hands.

Even the most extreme fanatics I know have never done some of the things I read from your tests. But some companies saying their knives will do something like what you have put them through do indeed need to be informed if they will not hold up.

In my mind a gents folder with a .050 liner lock is not a candidate for a twist test of the lock strength. Anyone that makes them knows it will fail that test by it's very design regardless of the thickness of the lock. This is a knife to cut tape with. To open mail with, or cut open boxes, sharpen pencils or cut rope. Just a daily task knife. What more testing besides the lock needs to be done on a knife like that? I just don't see it needing to be destroyed to gain any insight there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top