When is something new a real advantage?

SammyB

SammyB

Joined
Jan 17, 1999
Messages
539
The discussion of a new pivot and a conversation with a knifemakin' buddy really has me wondering...

If there is no real upgrade in the functionality or in the durability of a feature (Pivot...Blade material...Action...Lock...Etc...) then I can only think of a few reasons to purchase it as a consumer.

1. It is "The newest thing" and a maker is using it to stand out from the pack. (For the early adopters)
2. It increases the gadget factor and I have the discretionary income to apply towards it. (Guys love gadgetry!)
3. I really don't have a three right now...

I see the advantages to pushing the envelope for the sheer techno-challenge. This in itself justifies the makers willing to try new materials and construction styles. It however doesn't justify my buying one IMO.

I think overall that the more complex a system the more easily any one part can bring it to a grinding halt. So, unless the inherent improvement increased the underlying functionality of the tool the increase in failure rate wouldn't justify including the feature...

What is the take of other buyers and the makers?

-Sam.

(Just in a comtemplative mood:))
 
SammyB,

You can't be talking about steels because, as I think you will agree, every steel has a purpose, a function...somewhere.

I do not subscribe to the 'newest is the best' idea either, things must be used and proved. I do like the 'gadget factor' though. :)
I think that the frame lock has been around long enough...but not the Axis lock.

I love the gadget factor of the Axis, but like you, I wonder about it's life. The one I have locks very solidly, but the Axis system has yet to prove itself...at least to me. I trust the spring on a frame lock but not the springs on an Axis, at least not yet. :)

Good question!


Steve-O
 
Overall that was my thought. Not on steel..But if you look at people trying out Stellite and Talonite, Tauntung or Ti and carbide the cost/benifit is still applicable.

Take the current discussion on using bearings for a pivot or the new T/A (Triple action) auto mechanism. Which of these increases the utility of a knife to the point where it is holding an advantage worth the cost and possible loss of durability over a much less complex system? Bearings will wear and acccumulate play and be more difficult to service/repair and a three way auto is at least an order of magnitude more complex than a D/A (Just a random scale:0) But it has to become easier to break as it increases in complexity.

I mean really if I was woried about using the knife least likely to fail there wouldn't be a folder in my pocket ;)... But where do makers and collecter/users draw their line?

-Sam.
 
Sammy, many of the D/A mechanisms used are no more complicated than a S/A mechanism. Take a look at Darrel Ralph's 'Illusion' release, for example.

--JB
 
Personally I don't need a lot of fancy mechanisms. What I crave is good design and function. There so many combinations of materials possible that you could spend a lifetime just making liner locks and always have something new to explore.
 
Interesting thoughts, Sammy. For you, it would appear that functionality and durability are the two characteristics of a knife that you value above all others. And without question those are two pretty darn good factors with which to be concerned. But I think we should recognize that not everyone who collects knives necessarily shares these sentiments. At the very least we should probably make allowances for individuals who adjust their "needs hierarchy" based on the intended use of the blade.

In my case, for example, I highly value the extreme toughness, durability and functionality of my custom Strider folder. But, this doesn't in any way lessen the value I place on the ultrasmooth needle roller bearings of a Larry Chew Quicksilver, or the innovative double action, coil spring activated mechanism found on a MT D/A SOCOM. True, I might not use them all in the same place and for the same purposes, but I do enjoy using each of them nonetheless. Perhaps this can be summed as a love for the "gadget factor", but I feel that on some level this term takes away from the creativity, innovation and dedication to precision fit and finish displayed by men such as Larry Chew and Tony and Al at MT. At any rate, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to suggest that "functionality" may mean slightly different things to different people, and that for some, "functionality" per se, might not be important at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top