Value of Noss's Destruction Tests

[theonew]

Well, yet another thread is up and running regarding Noss's destruction tests. The arguments on both sides haven't really changed much, so I thought it might be interesting to get a show of hands now.

 

[Ozy]

Where is the "Who the hell is 'Noss'" Option?

 

[theonew]

Where is the "Who the hell is 'Noss'" Option?

Check out this thread, it is just one of many.

 

[2sparky]

Im sure there would be alot more honest votes if there would be an "I think the value lies in entertainment" catagory. No they arent scientific or repeatable but there is a certain value to them.
-Barry-

 

[Joshua J.]

Regardless what people think of the tests, this is the most fun I've had in the reviews and testing section in a long time.

 

[on_the_edge]

Im sure there would be alot more honest votes if there would be an "I think the value lies in entertainment" catagory. No they arent scientific or repeatable but there is a certain value to them.
-Barry-

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Culpeper]

It's like watching the president-elect election night all over again.

 

[yablanowitz]

Im sure there would be alot more honest votes if there would be an "I think the value lies in entertainment" catagory. No they arent scientific or repeatable but there is a certain value to them.
-Barry-

I think that is like saying there is value in train wrecks. I've had him on ignore for years. Longer than I've had Cliff Stamp on ignore, in fact.

 

[theonew]

Seems more like the Reagan-Carter election night to me. But there's still two weeks to go.

 

[wildmike]

I see value in his tests though I seldom look for them. In fact unless one is mentioned in the forums I never see it. However I believe his tests have some value even though they are torture tests they remind me of what we used to put equipment through before carrying it in the foield in the Marine Corps. The testing which I find least valuable is the scientific kind for it seldom reflects field performance. While Noss's tests are extreme and destructive they do show if an item may fail catastrophicaly under extreme use.

 

[Ravaillac]

Not bad, one thing to keep in mind is that he only tests toughness. That means that some tough knives will score high while they'll have significative drawbacks in many other aspects.
He doesn't even really test ergonomics, how the edge will stand (most people won't break their knife, on the other hand they'll quickly destroy the edge).

 

[gajinoz]

Many reports from various people about how a particular knife performed in real world situations has some anecdotal value and rigorously controlled scientific tests have some value. Anything else is pure entertainment, enjoy it but don't take it too seriously.

 

[just10minreader]

priceless

 

[moxie]

I don't know why people get so exercised about these tests. They are just one more data point and you may ascribe as much or as little value to them as you desire. Or, one may totally ignore them. I do find them interesting and entertaining.

 

[roughedges]

If there had been a "decent entertainment value" category I would have picked that.

 

[Lycosa]

The Threads that Noss's test create, will go down in BF history!

 

[GIRLYmann]

There is a breaking point to everything.
And because a great majority of knife users will probably never have to put their products under extreme abuse.
Hence a great facination for owners and interested parties to know what punishment their product can take - thank's to such test, we now know what abuse does to a particular model of a knife.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I was even less interested in this topic when it was about Cliff Stamp.

 

[pedicabdriver]

I find them valuable when it comes to brands that try to market themselves based on toughness. If he had tested a Busse and the tip had snapped off doing something like sheet metal penetration, I would have been less than impressed. But considering what the FFBM went through before it finally broke, I believe what Busse says about their knives' ability to take punishment.

I have a question for some of Noss's saysayers. What if his tests only went through the first, less destructive tests? What if he only did tests like peeling the apple, cutting webbing, chopping, batoning, maybe a little sheet metal stabbing or flex tests? It he wasn't determined to break the knife from the outset, would you consider the tests more valid? Just curious.

 

[thombrogan]

Noss' tests are fun. Sometimes fun is useful; sometimes fun is just fun.

Just like with everyone's tests: If it didn't help you, do your own. If you think it's leading people down the wrong path, make your own that you feel leads people down the right path.

Since Noss' tests usually end in destruction, I like seeing where the knives don't fail. If a pointy knife is able to stab sheetmetal repeatedly without losing its point and then dig out a 4x4 without snapping, that's very nice. Even when it shatters later, it still did impressive things along the way.

I don't think Noss could do anything that would please his critics and don't think he'd gain anything if he did. He knows what he wants and monkeys with the knives to see how of that want they'll deliver. I don't see the "problem" with that.