I think Spark has the right idea -- just rename the Knife Reviews forum to more accurately describe the topic.
Testing to destruction is done so rarely a special forum for it would get very little traffic.
Trouble with the idea of a standardized testing routine is we'll never agree on the best way to test knives, not even for one category of knives. I think we're moving in the direction of more comparable testing, though, and that's a good thing. The people doing tests are reading reports of previous tests and doing the same tests to make theirs comparable even if they add other tests they think will be revealing. There's a growing trend to ask everybody what tests they want to see before doing a test, too, and taking additional suggestions after posting the results. Eventually we might end up with something close to standardized testing for knives having similar purposes, but it's going to take a while to develop, for consensus to emerge, and I think we'll always have people doing new and unusual tests in addition to the standard tests everybody else does -- which is a good thing, of course.
I think it's better to use cardboard than rope to test edge retention because it's so readily available. Manila rope costs money (and takes longer to dull an edge) -- I'd just as soon not see any testing on manila rope at all.
However, there are several mechanisms involved in edge wear and which come into play the most depends on the material being cut. However clear it is that knife A retains its edge much better on cardboard than knife B, that does not necessarily mean the same will apply if you test on something else like electrical wire, or use a sawing motion on the cardboard instead of pushcutting.
Edge retention is not a simple quality we can graph on a linear scale. Ideally we should test on several different materials, resharpening between tests, and report the results separately -- if you want a knife to cut cardboard with a number reflecting an average of its performance on cardboard and wire would not tell you what you want to know.
Pine 2x4s are readily available (at least in the US -- is that true in other countries?) and that's become the standard for testing chopping knives. Notice how Arnistador is having trouble finding spruce to duplicate Mike's test. OTOH chopping harder wood is good because it might reveal a problem with edge brittleness, and different knives work better on hard and soft woods, as Cliff's tests have shown.... The solution is to test on pine 2x4s to compare the qualities that reveals (how long and how much effort it takes, whether the handle is uncomfortable or slippery) and also test on harder wood ... I don't know if we can find a harder wood that's readily available most places to standarize on, though.
I wonder if the Strider test might become a standard for knives that are intended to be very tough, just because mild steel pipe is readily available. The only trouble with that is someone might say he whacked away at a pipe with enthusiasm when in fact he only tapped it a little ... and unfortunately we can't hack *through* a steel pipe (okay, one idiot did, but it took him hours...). If the tester can post pics, though, seeing what the pipe looked like after the testing would be a good clue.
Of course you can fake pictures or a movie of anything; the only possible assurance a test is genuine and unbiased is the personal reputations of the testers and witnesses involved. I don't think that's a problem except when a maker does a test for advertising purposes -- then the best assurance is to confirm it by duplicating the test. All scientific results have to be confirmed, anyway -- quite apart from possible dishonesty, there are always hidden variables....
-Cougar Allen :{)
