The "Ask Nathan a Question" Thread

Pete M said:
To sell more knives when the blade inevitably breaks from all the holes and notches in it. 😂
Click to expand...
Right?

Why perforate it, like an old postage stamp, and in one of the most high stress areas? It serves absolutely no purpose, it doesn't even look cool, and it severely detracts from what is supposed to be a "tough" knife.

Lots of design flaws in that one, but the perforation is the most egregious.

I expect this is an example of what you get when you have people who know nothing about knives, designing knives. Some designer somewhere thought it looked cool. SMH.
 
KR_SEPT_2019_14.jpg


When seen from the perspective of rotting food, this doesn't seem very appealing to me at all. It seems gross, like something I would throw away. But when you realize it is not food and it is intended to be art, you can view it from that perspective and maybe find beauty in it.

That knife is the exact opposite of this.
 
You can’t tell me the integral dagger isn’t a (functional) art piece. No, it’s not an art knife by definition. But still.

I’ve often wondered how it strikes a maker to produce a fine, sharp, tough, durable, deadly knife that in most/many cases only ends up on display (at best) or in a dark, dusty box (at worst). Ok maybe wrecked by JoeX at worst.

All that said, CPKs do truly shine when pressed into use, so use them!
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Question part 1: We will make some TT if people order it in the pre-order.

Question part two: Personally, I get no satisfaction making something that isn't as functionally optimized as I can make it.

I consider myself an inventor, not an artist. I have no problem with makers and work that are made for no other reason than it's artistic value. I appreciate work of that nature. But that's not something that I want to do.

Art and artists benefit humanity, but I often look at artistic flourish on a working tool with disdain. I want my microwave to look like a microwave, not something that should be in the museum of modern art. "Form follows function" means the shape and design of something is derived from its use and what it does. Something that is well designed and engineered is often very beautiful, but attempting to force beauty on an object can detract from my appreciation of that object because it feels insincere. And, when an artistic flourish actually detracts from the function of an object, that's probably not an object that I personally would want to possess.

Exhibit A:View attachment 2682180

I can just about guarantee to you that this is pure engineering and there were no design decisions made for aesthetic consideration. And in my opinion it is beautiful.

Exhibit B:

View attachment 2682185


WTF? Why does this exist?

I would find one of these to own it just to have an example of bad design, except I don't want it in my house.
Click to expand...

Says the maker of one of the most beautiful daggers evah!
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
I consider myself an inventor, not an artist.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong in being both. There is beauty in form following function perfectly.

Consider this:

i-vPvZNcs-XL.jpg


Vs. this (Pictures from MoMA):

Eames.jpg

1728567700907.png

1728567744910.png
 
Last edited:
xYIc0KT.jpgwWaXSDC.jpgzJhsPUH.jpgiBQaxmw.jpgJKNsvzZ.jpg

The question wasn't, "would I make a piece that would never be used"

The question was "Do you ever get the urge to make a knife with total disregard for functionality and do it just because it looks cool?"

I'm not going to make something with total disregard for functionality. The integrals are weighted, shaped, and structurally perfect for their intended function, whether they get used for that or not. No superfluous elements in that design, it's pure function.
 
Richard338 said:
Maybe you didn't read the article. Flawless is mentioned a few times as well as "high-quality care put into the design".
Click to expand...

Part of me hopes he never sees me publicly trashing his design, because he might be embarrassed.

Part of me hopes he does see me publicly trashing his design, because he should be embarrassed.

This was a part of the design program where I was educated in product design at NC State. You would periodically be put in a room in front of other professors and students to discuss and defend your work and, most of us were publicly eviscerated in front of our peers at least once. One develops thick skin. It's an important part of the education. It's an important part of the process. It also makes us insufferable at trade shows. Please don't ask me to look at your work, we might not be friends afterward. 😁
 
ferider said:
Ask yourself this: would somebody who knew nothing about CPK (and wouldn't see the logo) recognize that these all come from the same maker ? If yes, Why ?

i-dFpdgL6-X2.jpg
Click to expand...
I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s one of the reasons I sold off my Busse knives.

With CPKs, you can ID that they’re by the same maker, because the handles (and blades) are iterative evolutions over time, with certain characteristics and commonalities from Nate refining the contours for different primary objectives, but even blind, you can feel the similarities.

The handles of the Busse knives I previously had, were all over the place. Some were really blocky, some actually were nicely contoured (the molded resin handles on the B10 LE model, IIRC, felt the best of the Busse’s I had), but picking up the different models, you couldn’t tell that they were made by the same manufacturer.

With CPKs, from the EDC, to the Behemother, you can feel the commonalities that contribute to grip and comfort.
 
bluemax_1 said:
With CPKs, you can ID that they’re by the same maker, because the handles (and blades) are iterative evolutions over time, with certain characteristics and commonalities from Nate refining the contours for different primary objectives, but even blind, you can feel the similarities.
Click to expand...

Agree. Once I know which "family" the knife is in (DEK1, UF, Shiv) vs (FK2, BFK, SDFK/HDFK), I can handle the knives blindly. Not just the scales, but the overall balance, switching grips, the belly and tip shapes, etc., all "as expected" instinctively; also including the sheaths, BTW, down to the "click" that they make :)

The only other "things" that I feel similar about are my Leicas.

Roland.
 
nu4an said:
Nathan, how do you feel about convex-ground knives? Is there a possibility you'll ever make one? (I know your Kephart has the "experimental" convex grind, which has facets rather than a smooth curve.)
Click to expand...

Some folks might disagree with me here but

I feel that my S grind (that wins the majority of Bladesports cutting competitions) is a convex grind. It's just so narrow that it became slightly concave in the middle. But functionally it is a very narrow convex grind.


Personally, I don't like a overly convex blade profile. The steel does not need it for durability, and it gets really thick when you start sharpening it.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
The question wasn't, "would I make a piece that would never be used"

The question was "Do you ever get the urge to make a knife with total disregard for functionality and do it just because it looks cool?"

I'm not going to make something with total disregard for functionality. The integrals are weighted, shaped, and structurally perfect for their intended function, whether they get used for that or not. No superfluous elements in that design, it's pure function.
Click to expand...
Please make more of these daggers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top