Triad lock vs...

100eyes said:
I think minor variables are perfectly acceptable - if two knives are comparable, that's fine. There doesn't need to be a final answer for which one is a tiny bit better than the other. The type of data that would be most useful are results that are completely obvious once tested. If two knives of similar price, weight, lock, etc. were tested and one isn't even half as strong as the other, that's valuable info for consumers making a purchasing decision, and manufacturers who will pretty much be forced to make improvements to stay competitive. Such obvious results are also harder to criticize, while very similar results wouldn't really be worth fighting over.

As unscientific as someone might claim your knife tests are in the vids you make, one would be a true fool not to learn anything from it at all. (I actually think better of Strider knives after I've seen your testing lol)
Click to expand...


The really big issue is that the test knives can only be used once and then thrown away...... ;)

That means they can't be retested so that would mean that a very large amount of knives must be tested to gain a large enough database, read lots of knives would have to be acquired and would be destroyed.

The cost would be very high just for the knives alone.

10 Knives of each model from all of the different manufacturers would add up very fast.
 
Mountain Mike said:
But is all that really necessary? With very little research any sensible person interested in knives should be able to see that something like a CS Recon would be a better choice to pry or abuse than say Para 2. I really don't think an approval or seal would change most peoples minds anyway.
Click to expand...
The extra data point may prove useful to some. Andrew Demko pointed out that he could not get a framelock to take more than ~235 lbs (IIRC) in the same test he uses for the Tri-ad. Sal Glesser also explained that Spyderco found that a framelock could not reach MBC rating in their testing. For someone who is looking for a "tough" folder and perhaps doesn't want the weight, cost, bias direction of operation, or exposed metal slab of a framelock, this information lets them know it is not the strongest lock available and that there are definitely alternatives with features they may prefer. When Ankerson induced blade play in a Manix 2 from batoning/overstrikes/spine whacks, there were grumblings of misuse/abuse (which it obviously was, that was the point), but Spyderco responded and made design changes to the lock. Building a lock to handle more impact or static loads does not require making the lock difficult to operate, overly complex, or very heavy. With no real down sides, why not bump up the resilience? We're supposed to be knife knuts who look for the sharpest, longest wearing steels, the highest grade handle materials, the comfiest ergos, the most beautiful designs, yet we have to avoid the beefiest locks for "tactical" folding knives.
 
I could put my Remington 700 in a vise and whack the barrel with a sledgehammer, then see if it still shoots sub-MOA groups afterwards. Would that be a valid test to see how well it's built for it to do what it was designed for?
 
firearms do get "torture" tested...

Seeing if it still shoots sub-moa after 20 rounds in less than a minute would be more akin to spine-whacking, weight-hanging, etc.
 
gooeytek said:
I could put my Remington 700 in a vise and whack the barrel with a sledgehammer, then see if it still shoots sub-MOA groups afterwards. Would that be a valid test to see how well it's built for it to do what it was designed for?
Click to expand...

Anyone who would do this is deserving of a spine whack or two themselves!:p
 
you could drop it and see how it functions, but then again, nobody ever drops their rifle
 
A tough folder is more about being able to handle emergency use and long-term durability when actually used often on a daily basis. It's not really about trying to be cool by using a folder when you should be using a hatchet, machete, hammer, or solid pry-bar.
 
Ankerson said:
What Remington does to those rifles makes hitting one with a sledgehammer seem like NOTHING..... ;)
Click to expand...

I can imagine. I got to tour their ammo production facility just outside Little Rock several years ago. As well they should, they do treat every step of the manufacturing process like it's life and death...because it is!
 
ThePharce said:
I can imagine. I got to tour their ammo production facility just outside Little Rock several years ago. As well they should, they do treat every step of the manufacturing process like it's life and death...because it is!
Click to expand...

It can be more than you know....
 
No, because the purpose of such a test wouldn't be to see "how well it's built for it to do what it was designed for". The entire reason behind destructive testing is seeing 'how well it's built for it to do what it wasn't designed for'.

Why do people want to know the details of something that might never happen? The same reason why we carry knives, guns, flashlights, etc. - shit happens.

If two guns do what they're supposed to do very similarly, but one can survive more torturous conditions than the other, wouldn't that affect your purchasing decision?
 
100eyes said:
No, because the purpose of such a test wouldn't be to see "how well it's built for it to do what it was designed for". The entire reason behind destructive testing is seeing 'how well it's built for it to do what it wasn't designed for'.

Why do people want to know the details of something that might never happen? The same reason why we carry knives, guns, flashlights, etc. - shit happens.

If two guns do what they're supposed to do very similarly, but one can survive more torturous conditions than the other, wouldn't that affect your purchasing decision?
Click to expand...


Guns are a different discussion all together..... With a whole different set of variables.
 
Ankerson said:
The really big issue is that the test knives can only be used once and then thrown away...... ;)

That means they can't be retested so that would mean that a very large amount of knives must be tested to gain a large enough database, read lots of knives would have to be acquired and would be destroyed.

The cost would be very high just for the knives alone.

10 Knives of each model from all of the different manufacturers would add up very fast.
Click to expand...

no one said it'd be cheap :D

I think I remember someone once saying all the cars "wasted" during crash testing would be worth it if it managed to save just one more life.

I think such knife tests would be worth it if it managed to save just one more life of a soldier or LEO.
 
100eyes said:
no one said it'd be cheap :D

I think I remember someone once saying all the cars "wasted" during crash testing would be worth it if it managed to save just one more life.

I think such knife tests would be worth it if it managed to save just one more life of a soldier or LEO.
Click to expand...


The difference is the car companies donate those cars for testing. ;)

I don't see any one person that would put out that kind of money, really it would be burning it......
 
Ankerson said:
The difference is the car companies donate those cars for testing. ;)

I don't see any one person that would put out that kind of money, really it would be burning it......
Click to expand...

Once something becomes a form of 'certification', companies don't mind donating their products because a positive result is positive marketing.

Quick, make the Ankerson seal of approval and get companies to send you one of each lol
 
100eyes said:
...The entire reason behind destructive testing is seeing 'how well it's built for it to do what it wasn't designed for'.

...
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that. How well is something supposed to perform, doing something it wasn't designed for? How relevant would the results be, for the object being tested?

That's like rating a Prius for towing capacity, or a Dodge Viper for fuel economy.
 
hardheart said:
The extra data point may prove useful to some..
Click to expand...

But are there enough people demanding that sort of data to justify the cost? (as Ankerson has been saying)


hardheart said:
We're supposed to be knife knuts who look for the sharpest, longest wearing steels, the highest grade handle materials, the comfiest ergos, the most beautiful designs, yet we have to avoid the beefiest locks for "tactical" folding knives.
Click to expand...

Who says we are avoiding beefy locks? If the industry was avoiding such a thing there would be no "Tri-Ad" or innovation.

We also have to remember that the words like "hard use", "tactical", and "tough" etc. are used as marketing terms, not to mention that they are opinion adjectives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top