Who verifies the tests that we see

[HoB]

I didn't mean to say that reviews are useless. I read and enjoy many, but I read them as what they are: An opinion that someone formed of a knife. I also try to read out of those reviews from what viewpoint the knives were approached. It works very similar to the review of a movie. Certain movie reviewer have a very similar taste as I do. When they like a movie, there is a good chance I will like it too. With others I mostly disagree.

The call for a completely unbiased and reliable review that is supposed to tell everyone who is going to read it how they are going to like the knife reviewed is a very immature view, me thinks.

I think for that precise reason many of Cliff's reviews are misunderstood. Somebody takes a look at one of his reviews, doesn't bother to really read it, scrolls down and reads "blade broke" and goes ballistic because that knife happened to be one of the readers favorite, instead of trying to figure out in which way they were tested and to what end. Even if a blade breaks during testing you still have to evaluate for yourself whether you will reach that point during your own intended use + safty margin. But, no, many Mallninjas want a blade that is "indestructable" and the moment they read "broken blade" they figure the knife is crap. Also the manufacturers intended use plays a role. If a knife is marketed to withstand extreme use it should be reviewed differently than one that is marketed for extreme cutting ability.

It seems that a review both requires some effort on part of the reviewer as well as on part of the reader.

 

[DGG]

Who verifies the tests that we see floating on knife forums?

I am not trying to question the integrity of dependant knife testers but How do we know they have no special interests?

As a user, How do I know that what I get is real information ?

Here is a test site that I respect.

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/reviews.html

 

[DaveH]

You couldn't have a clue as to how it would feel in somebody else's hand. These are aspects that are driven by the particular reviewer.

I disagree, I think one can judge pretty well. A recent passaround the first reviewer (me) comments on the poor ergonomics almost all the subsequent reviewers agreed more or less. It's not a perfect prediction, but it's pretty good. IMO.

 

[beera]

beera, no offense, but why do you need somebody to tell you how good a knife is. This forum alone offers plenty of suggestions what you could buy. Why don't you go out, buy a couple of knifes and figure out for your own what you like and what you don't. Much more effective than reading in a journal or high gloss magazine what supposedly the best steel or knife is. For about 20 editions of the typical high gloss knife magazin, you get already a very nice knife and you can always trade it, if you don't like it.

I will admit, I get a bit annoyed at people that read x number of reviews and afterwards know exactly what the best *enter category here* is, but never actually held one in their hands. Reading reviews is fine, if you want to narrow your choices down or if you want to avoid a dud. But I think one shouldn't push it too far. I mean, you can even participate in the passaround. What review could possibly beat "owning" one for a day?

....And you have no idea about the politics in academia. There were times at which I have wished I had gone into politics instead of science...at least in politics people are trustworthy and honest....in comparison :barf:. Trust me, the Korean guy that got caught with his stem cell research is not an isolated case..... But that is a different story.

Hi Hob

I know what you mean. It is better but there is so much in the market, it is confusing. Wish had all the money to buy and try. So many good knives these days but some are better. Reviews taught me what to look for in a knife. Its great education . Some are misleading though or kind of personal. I just wish there was a standard and a reputable source of reviews that compares knives and steels. Maybe offer advice on value for money too.

Thanks

 

[Practical Use]

Kim Breed knows what he is doing. Retired 5th Special Forces and a Active Hunter and Fisherman.

With all due respect, the fact that someone is Special Forces, or a hunter, or a shooter, does not make them an expert.

Their knowledge does, which may or may not be a product of their background and/or hobbies.

That said, I think Kim Breed does have a high level of knowledge, and I respect what I have read of his.

 

[HoB]

Hi Hob

I know what you mean. It is better but there is so much in the market, it is confusing. Wish had all the money to buy and try. So many good knives these days but some are better. Reviews taught me what to look for in a knife. Its great education . Some are misleading though or kind of personal. I just wish there was a standard and a reputable source of reviews that compares knives and steels. Maybe offer advice on value for money too.

Thanks

Yes, I understand. Please excuse my harsh words. :foot:

 

[AmadeusM]

Here is a test site that I respect.

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/reviews.html

Thanks a lot!!

 

[Cliff Stamp]

The call for a completely unbiased and reliable review that is supposed to tell everyone who is going to read it how they are going to like the knife reviewed is a very immature view, me thinks.

I think you can do this, it would just take awhile. I see an ideal review consisting of materials data, stock work (numerical), and then general work done by a group of individuals of different skill levels and physical backgrounds benchmarked against a large variety of knives, the last part being critical.

You would present to the reader exact specifications (which should be part of the promotion but rarely are), specific controlled work which shows such things as cutting ability, impact level, edge retention, durability and then general statements based on preference by group (occupation, age, skill, physical ability).

It seems that a review both requires some effort on part of the reviewer as well as on part of the reader.

In general, it is the same as reading any journal article or even a textbook. It you really want to get useful information it takes work, you have to cross reference, see how the results were obtained and think about the validity based on the method. They, like all information are complementary at best and supplementary at worst.

For example I have been working with issues of balance recently on large knives, and discussing it with possum. Progress would be a lot slower if I had to do it all independently, and what he does allows me to skip certain things and choose more efficient paths. I still duplicate what he does just to check and I assume he does the same, but I don't redo everything as that defeats the point.

This is just like the work I have done on edges and so on which is heavily based on reading reviews by Joe and Mike and commentary by Alvin, it gives direction, refinement and serves as a reference to check for confirmation.

For example, part of a knife review should include comments on ergonomics and grip security. Any comments on ergonomics and grip security would be biased, as the fit of the knife to your individual hand is obviously biased.

If you state clearly the criteria, this isn't biased as it is a fair and honest judgement. The problem with many reports is that it is never said what the judgements are based upon. You can also describe the handle in detail, take pictures, show contours, and ask others for feedback and include that. There is nothing forcing you from writing only your viewpoint and excluding all others.

Also, you are wrongly assuming that all aspects of a knife are tested.

No, I am assuming the reviewer is open to examining any attributes, and isn't promoting a knife based on some irrational preference not related to the criteria being judged. Pick up a journal article and see if every attribute was studied and examined

It never is, you simply don't have the time or money or often even inclination. You have to look at the conclusions reached and the reasoning, and the ability of the reviewer to be flexible. If they are not, and refuse to report/discussion contradictory information, that is a bias.

You’re also forgetting the effects of the human subconscious. To pretend that it is not there, does not make it go away.

I have discussed this many times before, it isn't an impossible problem to solve nor even a difficult one. For example I have done reviews on knives comparing steels when I didn't know what the steel was, knives supplied by Kirk for example. There is no way I could skew the results to a steel because I didn't know what they were.

Similar when I do cardboard and rope cutting, I have at times stopped in the middle of a run and had a friend do an unknown amount of cuts and then continue and only after the work was completed find out how much work they did. It is then impossible to favor one knife over another because again I don't know how much work was done.

If I am out with friends for example and do wood working, I often have them pick the wood to be cut when comparing blades to prevent me from picking easier wood to favor certain blades. I don't believe I actually do this as I don't care which one does better, just figuring out which one does, but it never hurts to eliminate any possible source of systematic deviation if you can.

Plus you check of course. I recently ran a series of trials on two axes and consistently got better edge retention with one. I was satisfied with the results but still had a friend compare the two, who didn't know either brand, or the price and he got the same results. He didn't know my results either because this could have skewed him, as many people don't like conflicts and thus avoid contradictory reports.

This then is also checked against other reports I read on line, and referenced against the materials properties of the two axes and again checked for confirmation/contradiction. There is again nothing stopping you from doing all of this when you do a review. There is nothing forcing you to either of course. I would never demand anyone do any of it as a hobby, it would be ridiculus, I just appreciate whatever they do and find it more than a little extreme to do otherwise.

-Cliff

 

[Buzzbait]

No. I promised myself that I'd never get baited into another semantics argument with Cliff again.

:jerkit:

 

[Cliff Stamp]

[ergonomics]

I disagree, I think one can judge pretty well.

You would hope so, lots of people do this for a living, develop ergonomic tools. People's hands are all basically the same, unless you are deformed somehow. There are however influences in various attributes, hand size, tolerance for discomfort and toughness of skin, which is why it helps in general if you give more information.

For example when talking about a handle you find unergonomic say why, what attributes are causing the problem, give details if possible, pictures, and give other grips you also find problematic and those that you find very ergonomic. In general the more information you provide the more likely the reader can judge what you mean.

I would really like to see the person for example use a small Sebenza and Meadowlark for a lot of carving and say the Meadowlark is more ergonomic (too many sharp points on the grip). Which brings up the other point that it depends on what you are doing. Lots of grips are ergonomic in low stress, but when you really lean into them they are not.

Buzz, the next time you get some free time, walk into a university during a presentation, a defence would be ideal, and after the speaker has finished stand up and proclaim loudly that his work was biased because it didn't examine every attribute, he used personal judgement in deciding which methods to use, and has preferences for certain techniques over others and didn't present every bit of data he produced.

See how many people in the room agree with your perspective, repeat this a few times. Ideally do it at a conference and keep doing it for every speaker and examine the reaction.

-Cliff

 

[Ebbtide]

What if he walked into a room full of knifeknuts and said the same thing?

 

[Buzzbait]

Talk to the hand, Cliff. Talk to the hand.

:jerkit:

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Buzz that is about what I expected. Of course it is easy to anon proclaim something, much more difficult to do it live, in public when a few hundred people are there to interact with you and that defence doesn't in general work, except on Springer, especially if your opening statement is made with such emphasis and so general, everyone there would be so covered as well by the directive.

Ebbtide, that would depend on their background, lots of people into knives also have solid backgrounds in experimental analysis, both makers and users. I discuss methods with them on a fairly regular basis on both how to do work and how to interpret the results. It goes both ways, there is a group of guys doing very solid work now on planer blades, I have learned much from what they have done.

However without the background yes you can easily be mislead. Many people for example are taught in high school that scientific means you must only change one variable at a time. You have to start somewhere, and the statistics necessary to study systems when more than one variable change are many times more difficult. However people do scientific work where dozens of variables change at the same time for many reasons.

-Cliff

 

[Ebbtide]

Cliff, once again you have missed the point.
Buzzbait already did come into a room (albeit a virtual room) full of knifeknuts and he already said what he said.

sigh.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Hi Beera,

I've been watching this thread develop. I don't think there is any definitive source or process to determine the type of "absolute truth" you are seeking.

Mostly it is the "opinions" of people interested in knives.

This is evident by your statement that many think that S30V is good while you think it isn't. We do our own testing at Spyderco in a lab (we have our own CATRA as well as prupose built equipment) and we also rely on the input from those in the field (real world testing).

We've done scores of tests on S30V and we have received scores of positive trestimonials to its use. Yet you have a bad taste for the material.

I had a person post that "serrations are bad". They had tried the serrations of one company, (which were poor performers) and surmised that ALL serrations must be bad. This type of thinking is cheating yourself of possibilities outside of your experience. (I've heard some women say all men are bad )

There are many aspects of a knife, which is why many are attracted to them. It might be simply the color of the handle that is attractive, or the chemistry of the materials. It depends on the depth of understanding you are willing to invest.

To say that S30V "is" or "isn't" something, is in need of more depth. Heat treat, edge geometry, skill of sharpening, etc, all play important roles in the performance of a material.

We've found huge differences in the strength of G-10 from different sources. All G-10 IS NOT the same.

Many knives are marked "440". Is that 440A, 440B or 440C? Huge differences in each of those. We've even tested some knives listed as 440 that weren't any of the 440 materials .

IMO, in the end, it will be the company producing the product that will provide the most trust in a product and not the "name" of the material.

sal

 

[beera]

Thanks for the detailed reply Sal. I appreciate it.
I have not got Any of your knives yet. I am waiting for an ocelot with a Flat a a full flat ground
or a a stretch with an ocelot handle
Or a Chinese folder with a frame lock

Don't be frustrated that everyone wanting his own design
You are doing a great job

Thanks

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Cliff, once again you have missed the point.

No, your point is simply illogical. You could walk into a room of non-knife people and run Cutco's advertizing scheme and get little if any opposition because they would all be ignorant of the facts necessary to know you are completely miselading them. However does that actually make the arguement valid, of course not.

And if one person actually did understand about knives and pointed out the problems, would you then say "talk to the hand" and refuse to discuss the facts and just move to another place where hopefully you could find others who you could mislead as well - well maybe you would, however if you were interested in actually learning about your argument you would discuss it with people who were knowledgable.

We've done scores of tests on S30V and we have received scores of positive trestimonials to its use. Yet you have a bad taste for the material.

Lots of people have had bad results as well, and in general there is little to no aggressive defence of the material by the makers/manufacturers, so you can't blame them, their opinions are pefectly valid from a scientific point of view, just as yours are, it isn't uncommon for these types of clashes to happen because data pools are not 100% uniformly accessable. I have discussed this with several individuals who recieved absolutely no reply from the makers/manufacturers as to why the S30V knife had problems, and some even get replacements which are flawed with the same problems. What would any reasonable person conclude in such circumstances?

-Cliff

 

[Sal Glesser]

Hi Cliff.

Not only are the data pools not readily accessible, they are not very large.

Lab tests do have their limitations and I really prefer a few years of "real world testing" from ELUs.

Still, I think it difficult at best to fault the material itself when there are so many different companies processing the same material in different ways.

In the area of manufacturers response, Crucible has been very helpful anytime we've had a problem. New materials always require more information. Our first "go-around" with CPM-125V presented new "adventures" to solve, but we're persistent.

Spyderco has also gone out if ts way many times to carefully check out any products that come back with particular material complaints, Rc testing, etc. It is in our best interest to learn as much as possible about a new material.

We are currently doing the same type of testing with Hitachi's ZDP-189. Lab tests are good, but a few years in the field is "mo' betta". We have also found Hitachi to be helpful in the development of any new material.

sal

 

[Ebbtide]

cliff once again, you pick one sentence so you can appear to be correct.
Sigh.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Not only are the data pools not readily accessible, they are not very large.

The amount of information available from users is quite large, how many S30V blades have been made, this constitutes a much larger sample than in general anyone would argue is necessary to evaluate the steel. The problem is cultivating the data, in particular making it in the interest of the users to report issues, in general this is a problem on the forums because often harsh critism isn't appreciated, not a problem with Spyderco in general that I have seen, but can be seen with other brands/makers.

I think it difficult at best to fault the material itself when there are so many different companies processing the same material in different ways.

Again it depends on the data presented to the individual, users for example have reported multiple instances of poor performance even across many different makers/manufactures. Some of the defect rates are so high that no reasonable person would conclude otherwise especially when the responce from the manufacturer isn't aggressive enough to contradict it, and especially when the initial promotion of the steel was the complete opposite.

I have seen solid results from S30V in several blades, above ATS-34 class for a cutting steel for edge retention on abrasive materials and with proper abrasives easily obtaining a very sharp edge. I have ran many trials for example where Spyderco's S30V held its own with Dozier's D2, and outperformed many other blades, however I also have handled S30V blades from Benchmade and they could not even be sharpened let alone hold an edge.

The user knowledge is also a factor, based on your vast experience with steels and the wide variety of manufacturing details, you can easily look at a defect and it will be obvious to you to ask; how was the steel treated, was it ground after it was hardened, how was it sharpened, could it even be the edge was too coarse and heavy grind lines are being chip lines when people are sharpening. But a casual user buying a $150 Benchmade as a "top quality" knife probably doesn't know any of this, and it is easy to see how they could conclude the material itself is at fault.

Again, I don't agree with some of the severe complaints that S30V is a bad steel, but I can certainly see where they are coming from and don't fault the users for forming their perspectives, it is a reasonable conclusion based on the data they have and what is presented to them. To combat this more makers and manufacturers need to be more public about what their steels can do with rigerous definations of sharpness, edge retention, lock strength/security, and so on, this way when a user gets a problem they have a way to check and see if they are seeing a defect or not as for a user the most critical question usually is "Was that supposed to happen?"

Users in general also have to be more willing to realize that a lot of contradictory information is out there based on just variances in the geometrical differences in the knives alone but also user method and skill. One person can easily take a knife and cut a 2x4 with no problems, but another can take another sample of the same knife and it will get mauled on another 2x4. Now is the knife suitable for that or not? This isn't an impossible question to answer if the users are willing to share information in detail. However the very first step to this process is to move past the perspective which just writes off all contradictory data as user bias or opinion.

As an example, many moons ago when I first got serious about sharpening and read a lot of Clark's posts we had very different viewpoints on several issues, and could have with Buzzbaits arguement just wrote off Clark as biased and it was all just his opinion. This of course leads to nothing productive, you can't learn anything that way. I assumed that his information was just as valid as mine and started looking at the details to see where the contradiction origionated, ironing out the differences in language as often we were not defining terms exactly the same, and I found out that primarily he was seeing differences because he had a much higher standard of sharpness and quite frankly could sharpen better than I could at that time, probably still does.

It again goes back to what I said earlier, what is your intent, if it is to learn then you don't take the everyone is biased approach, that is essentially the chewbacca defence.

-Cliff