What would you like to see in a knife test?

[Daniel Fairly Knives]

I like making uncut videos to show what a knife will do. How do you like this idea?

I recently tested a chopper first by slicing paper then cutting down a big aspen tree and then cutting more paper. I show the edge at the beginning and the end. This was done in one long take to show what it would really do. Is this a good test for a chopper? The one long take offers credibility but is a bit long; is a 3 minute video too long to watch?

Would you like to see 2x4's instead?

What would you want to see in a good test video?

Would you prefer a third party doing the testing instead of the maker?

Would passing extreme "real life" tests be better than something more controlled like rope or 2x4's?

Are destruction tests that important?

Feel free to answer whatever questions you want or ignore them and tell me what you want to see!

 

[DennisStrickland]

destruction tests are not very credible, cutting is always good but a review of tests by ankerson & knarfeng will give you some guides, 3 minutes is certainly not too long. for all test its a good idea to have a known performer to compare the product tested with.--dennis

 

[Daniel Fairly Knives]

destruction tests are not very credible, cutting is always good but a review of tests by ankerson & knarfeng will give you some guides, 3 minutes is certainly not too long. for all test its a good idea to have a known performer to compare the product tested with.--dennis

Thank you Dennis for the input and great ideas, much appreciated.

 

[Nternal]

I would say try cutting or stabbing through a free-hanging old jacket or other thick clothing material.Maybe the same through a thick,tougher fruit or vegetable like a cantaloupe, coconut or corn with husk still on it.

 

[foxx]

Film a third party using the knife in it's intended environment. Hunting trip, weekend of camping, or at least some wood processing for a fire. Build a shelter, use it, like a wilderness person would. Use it hard, but no abuse. NO cinderblocks, vices, or 2X4's.
Edit the video to show the highlights, and close-ups of the edge, and what it takes to sharpen it back up.

 

[NeoClassic]

I think the "bushcraft knife challenge" write-ups in the Wilderness Skills & Survival forum are a great example of excellent written tests, by way of reference. Great job to all who participated in that very informative undertaking:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/828712-Bushcraft-Knife-Challenge-results

For knife reviews in general, photos illustrating various hand holds, details on the knife that are either good or bad, and the condition of the edge (like very close macro shots) taken AFTER hard use I think are much more valuable than shots of knives stuck in large pieces of wood or throwing sparks from a ferro rod with the spine. By way of example, here are some great photos -- again from the bushcraft knife challenge -- that show in a matter of seconds whether I'd like to have this knife or not (and, boy, would I ever ):

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8783170&postcount=34

As far as videos -- I like to see knives used in the real world. YouTuber Virtuovice, a Japanese stag hunter who kills and skins upwards of 40 deer per year (per the country's deer-population-control regs) has some of the best test and evaluation videos I've ever seen done by an amateur knife user. All he does is show the knife in use in the field, talk about what he likes and doesn't while using it, then summarize his thoughts in more detail in a tabletop format. Brilliant. Sometimes he even shows the knife edge through a microscope, when discussing details about edge geometry.

http://www.youtube.com/user/virtuovice

Seeing the knife in real use is paramount to the credibility of a good test, in my opinion. Rope cuts, slicing cardboard and chopping wood are all tests in their own right, but I personally don't care to watch videos of such things and I don't trust them to bear out real-world performance. Such things are useful, however, when comparing knives back-to-back to see which one performs the best under controlled conditions.

-Matthew

 

[Allcaps321]

I would like to see extensive testing of knives, with pictures of the magnified edges to keep a visual tract of how edge wear progresses over all imaginable tasks. As well as limit and failure testing using equipment that actually measure the forces involved.

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

It depends on the type of knife. I make mostly large knives, so when I have one finished I do with it what I would expect the end user to do with it. I test the edge, I test the handle integrity (comfort and build strength). I test the blade (chopping, battoning, side impact test). Throughout the process I test the edge to see how it is maintaining sharpness.

Andy

 

[Bufford]

Knife tests involving the processing of game or livestock would prove the quality of a knife. A good test would be for knives to be used and tested at the slaughter house by the workers. As for choppers like machetes, then brush clearing would make sense.

 

[Brian1095]

I would like to see a mortician moonlight as a knife tester, same with a butcher throw a few knives on the table all sharpened the same and see which one lasts the longest.

 

[whetrock]

I'd just like to see the knife put through it's paces at the tasks it's designed for sorry but I'm not interested in mindless destruction but rather practical real world evaluations.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

With respect to the OP, I get the feeling destruction is not on the menu. If so, there's not a thing wrong with that. Testing a knife for function is of course, indispensible for evaluation.

But those of us who care about outdoor knives not only as replaceable tools but implements of survival as well, want information on their ultimate durability. The only way to get an idea of which knives will last longest under harsh abuse is destructions testing.

In the world of the status quo, an ordinary kitchen knife, SAK, or multitool can work well for game preparation, fire starting and the erection of shelters. But when TSHTF and and desparate conditions replace life as we know it now, your indispensible knife will likely not be replaceable. And the chances of it being misused and abused over and over increase dramatically. It is then that the user is forced to rely on the ultimate durability of his equipment.

Testing for function alone, although necessary and valuable, will not reveal inherent weaknesses which usually show up under step by step, gradually more extreme destruction testing. Neither will excellent appearance and useability of a knife give any indication of how easily it will fail under harsh abuse.

Hidden differences in the durability of knife makes and models can only be uncovered by testing to destruction.

 

[Daniel Fairly Knives]

Thanks everyone for the really great contributions, I am listening closely and it is great to know what everyone thinks.

And yes, I'll do whatever to prove my knives worth including a destruction test! First I'm thinking documenting the knife doing purpose suited tasks, camping with a camp knife, fileting a ton of fish with a filet knife, etc.

After that it will be time for harsher tests, and possibly destruction. I make custom knives, but when I plan on putting a line of knives out I think a destruction test would be appropriate.

Keep the great ideas rolling in, you guys have really been helpful!

 

[Rick Marchand]

As a maker, I test to destruction but that is for my own purposes. If a knife can't perform well in conventional knife related tasks... then by definition, it is not a good knife. Anything beyond that is only valuable if the user deems it as so. I say test a knife how ever the hell you want it tested... the results will speak for themselves.

 

[chiral.grolim]

I like making uncut videos to show what a knife will do. How do you like this idea?

:thumbup:

I recently tested a chopper first by slicing paper then cutting down a big aspen tree and then cutting more paper. I show the edge at the beginning and the end. This was done in one long take to show what it would really do. Is this a good test for a chopper? The one long take offers credibility but is a bit long; is a 3 minute video too long to watch?

Not too long at all. :thumbup:
However, I prefer to see the blade edge (high resolution) more than seeing it slice paper (direct vs. indirect evaluation). I never use a chopper to slice paper so why would I need the edge that sharp? I just need to know how much it has chipped/dulled so I know what level of maintenance is required to keep it performing well. I also like to know how polished the edge is. Still, if the blade will not cleanly slice paper afterward, demonstrate how much effort it takes to touch it up. A lot of inexpensive blades will perform equal to expensive blades except for dulling, but they may also be easier to sharpen which makes them many times more useful than those priced many times above them (imho).

Would you prefer a third party doing the testing instead of the maker?

I would prefer a disinterested party perform any testing, i.e. the knife was purchased at fair-price or was donated to be tested to its limits, is not a gift, and will be returned to the giver. Test-results can be significantly affected by technician disposition toward the knife. Adherence to the testing protocol must be of greater value to the technician than the performance of the knife being tested - if he likes the knife he will treat it more gently than if he dislikes the knife.

Would you like to see 2x4's instead?

Not "instead", unless you intend the video-reviews for comparative analysis. In that case, 2x4's offer decreased variability in cutting medium (more uniformity and increased number of pieces that you can chop), which offers more reliable data regarding comparative performance :thumbup:. For "woodsman scenario" go with what you find in nature, for comparative analysis use the control-medium.

What would you want to see in a good test video?

- Give specifics on manufacturer, weight, blade and handle materials, and MRSP$ at the beginning. Admit any prejudice in favor or against. Note sharpness level and edge-angle if known.
- Save commentary until after completion of a task, then summarize ergonomics and effort level require to complete the task. Make mention of your own gender, size, weight, activity-level (so other potential users can put themselves in your shoes and extrapolate to themselves). Be honest/modest.
- Eschew hyperbole. Do NOT comment on hypothetical performance of a tool, do NOT hypothesize at all! Do not make purely subjective comments like "this blade is awesome" or "this blade is junk". Be as objective as possible.

Onto the tasks "to show what a knife will do":
- Select tasks/uses of increasing difficulty relevant to the tool, and push the tool its limits in that task. In cutting tests for example, you should keep cutting until the edge dulls to a predetermined level (whatever level of damage that may entail). This means either keep cutting the same medium until the limit is reached or cut a specific amount and then move to a more difficult (harder) medium and cut a specific amount or until dull (whichever occurs first) and so on. "Dullness" needn't be static when advancing through cutting mediums. E.g. a "dull" knife might not slice paper cleanly but might still carve/chop wood, skin, etc. well enough. When advancing to the "Grade 3" mediums mentioned below, the edge is expected to lose paper-slicing ability immediately - knives are not intended to cut these materials, the point of "Grade 3" materials is to quickly test the resilience/ductility of the blade from spine to edge, chipping vs compaction vs rolling etc., highly useful objective information even without the possibility that the blade may encounter such materials in use (which it indeed may).
For example:
Grade 1: paper -> fruit/veggie/meat -> cotton/nylon rope/webbing
Grade 2: sisal-rope and cardboard -> leather/hide (preferably with fur) -> soft wood -> hard wood
Grade 3: frozen-wood or wood with ice-chunks present -> soft steel -> hard steel -> concrete, brick/ceramic.

Never stop a test before the limit is reached.

After reaching the limit, note the distance (amount of control-medium) cut and then resharpen. Comment on ease/comfort of use during cutting and also ease/amount of time required to resharpen.

That accounts for cutting, but many users do more than simply cut with their knives, and indeed most knives are designed to do more than cut. Test each knife's 'other abilities' including piercing ability and tip-strength stabbing/digging/drilling, batonning, lateral strength/ductility. Subject the knife to variant stresses along edge, tip, spine, side: slow steady force, impact force, oscillating force (bouncing weight). If you expect a test to result in catastrophic failure, try to save it until after all lighter tasks have been accomplished.

Would passing extreme "real life" tests be better than something more controlled like rope or 2x4's?

Are destruction tests that important?

"Better" is relative to the user/viewer. Some viewers will hardly ever use their knives, merely collecting or preserving for the possibility of re-selling; some viewers will only use their knives on soft materials where just about ANY knife will suffice for their needs, and some users are looking for a single knife which they will use (however they need) until it wears out entirely, with a preference for longer-term tools (reference the state of many a vintage Buck 110).
None of these groups need supposed "extreme 'real life' tests" - I am skeptical of the very phrase.
There are already many written and video reviews demonstrating cutting rope and chopping/batonning 2x4's with high-priced and budget-priced blades alike, and such reviews cater to the first 2 groups. There is no limit-testing involved, they simply demonstrate if the knife will handle some basic tasks to make it acceptable for a specific use. That is fine. :thumbup:
My review-preference caters to the last group, the professional user who wants to spend his money on the best tool he can afford for the job. For these users, limit-testing is highly informative. There are reviewers on this forum and others who test comparative performance between different steels in the same or similar knife-models from a single manufacturer, the same steel in similar knife-models from different manufacturers (HT), and entirely different knives intended for the same uses (design), by using the knives in a controlled manner to a predetermined limit. The limit needn't be total destruction of the knife, as noted earlier, it may simply entail loss of a razor's edge. However, if the knife was specifically designed for "hard use" then the limits of the proposed "hard use" should be determined, and that entails catastrophic failure or 'destruction'. So if the knife you're testing isn't intended or employed in "hard use" scenarios, catastrophic failure (total destruction) is irrelevant though it may still be interesting and is always informative. Tailor your tests to the type of knife being tested.

Unnecessary elements: machine control and precise measurement/calculation of applied stress-forces: for the user (and the researcher), more reliable data is gleaned from simply watching another user perform a task and then comment generally on the experience vs. watching a machine perform a task and generate numeric data points.

Use each knife, enjoy yourself while doing it, take breaks whenever necessary, and again, Have fun! :thumbup:


Okay, that's my long $0.02.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

While destruction testing is in many ways, a highly subjective process, it remains the only way to test for ultimate durability. Until machines are developed which supply absolutely uniform stress, duration and wear, human testers with their conscious and subconscious motivations will be the ones doing the testing. But destruction testing does produce useful information. The proof in the pudding is that certain knife makes and models have uniformly emerged as the most durable by different testers. As more people test to destruction, patterns should become more clear cut.

The average person usually does not have the resources or motivation for destruction testing. For that, he has to rely on the publicized results of a select few. But an average knife buyer is often capable of choosing a knife he thinks will function well for his purposes and then finding out to what extent it's true. On this, many a knife collection is based.

 

[Allcaps321]

@chiral.grolim

I would suggest that a technician who likes a knife might be more confident in it and use it harder then he would a knife which he has less confidence in. Probably a different situation then a technician who has a vested interest in a knife doing well in a test.

 

[Rick Marchand]

If a knifemaker/company does not promote their product as "hard use" or "extreme performance" oriented... then I do not see how destruction testing can be of any use. You wouldn't test a high performance Ferrari the same way you would test a Hummer... or a minivan, for that matter. However, if the manufacturer is making claims, then they have to stand behind them.

There are those that feel they need an indestructable blade when TSHTF and they are fine to do whatever testing they want. The problem comes in the interpretation of those results and the ensuing hype that follows. It is controversial and shocking so it flies through the social networks and gets people talking. Once the excitement is gone, folks will understand what these tests really translate to.

Rick

 

[Allcaps321]

Its important to understand that destruction doesn't always mean "hard use" that is really a marketing thing. If I bought a Ferrari or a Hummer I would expect both models to have gone through a crash test for safety reasons, even if their intended uses are different. Same with any knife.

 

[chiral.grolim]

As a maker, I test to destruction but that is for my own purposes. If a knife can't perform well in conventional knife related tasks... then by definition, it is not a good knife. Anything beyond that is only valuable if the user deems it as so. I say test a knife how ever the hell you want it tested... the results will speak for themselves.

:thumbup: I agree with this and also appreciate your dedication to your product, testing it yourself for your own purposes.

@chiral.grolim

I would suggest that a technician who likes a knife might be more confident in it and use it harder then he would a knife which he has less confidence in. Probably a different situation then a technician who has a vested interest in a knife doing well in a test.

:thumbup: Thank you, that is another (and highly observant) extrapolation of the requirement I was trying to lay regarding disinterest in the knife as a control of test-condition variation:
a) a technician who wants the knife to do well or is afraid that the knife will break too easily (and there may be other reasons) may compromise the testing-protocol through reduced harshness
b) a technician who is confident in the knife's abilities or dislikes the knife (and there may be other reasons) may compromise the testing-protocol through increased harshness

Ideally multiple disinterested users should test the same knife model to generate data further suppressing user variation... But the key is to subject each knife to approximately the same levels of stress.

If a knifemaker/company does not promote their product as "hard use" or "extreme performance" oriented... then I do not see how destruction testing can be of any use...
However, if the manufacturer is making claims, then they have to stand behind them.

Mr. Marchland, what about "limit"-testing - pushing each of the various aspects/properties of the knife to its limits as described in my previous post? (e.g. cutting through conventional materials until the knife loses its edge)

For the car example, obviously each car will have the test tailored to its specific uses, but you might push the engine of each car to the limits of performance, maximum speed and rate of acceleration, wheel traction, braking ability, resistance to the elements, etc. The "limit" in such tests includes a certain level of "destruction" though perhaps not catastrophic failure of the entire automobile. Let's not shoot bullets through the ferrari's lack of armor plating since that is not one of its supposed properties, but we might throw rain and hail and rocks at it... *shrug*
Or perhaps we could test the limits of sexiness in the women that we can attract with each car Video or photographic documentation would be essential for this, of course.


My favorite thing about limit-testing knives is the surprise performance level of products NOT marketed for "hard use", knives devoid of hyperbole, knives like a $10 Mora... of course the skill-level of the user can greatly effect the limits of knife's performance, which is why it is better that the tester be of average skill-level, another control.