whose warranties cover unintentional abuse/breakage?

[BrandonLeeMcKinley]

That is funny. LOL

 

[BlackShark]

No problem. Before I do so I ask the following of Mick :

1) Do you deny that you sent me the WB to review. Do you deny that your responce to the review were personal attacks and more than a little negative.

2) Do you deny that you used to actively promote Strider knives by impacting them into concrete and metal at shows and infact promoted even heavier use in emails to customers

Don't talk arround, jerk. Show the evidence!

 

[Dr. Thor]

So Mick will win a strength and endurence contest. Thats awesome. But who makes the best knives. I honestly dont know. I own one Busse, and love it, and hope to someday get a Strider. But it does seem awefully suspicious that no one will take Jerry Busse up on his offer of a live knife competition. Its easy for you die hard Strider fans to sit at your computer and talk about how great Mick is, but what would really convince me is if he would take Jerry Busse up on his offer. I think Jerry would win, but even Mick lost, I would have more respect for him and his knives.

Thor

 

[Bastid]

Maybe it is time for folks to realize that they make much more legitimate posts when they stop calling people names and actually make a point. When that is done they actually might even be defending what they want to defend rather than making fools of themselves.

 

[BlackShark]

So Mick will win a strength and endurence contest. Thats awesome. But who makes the best knives. I honestly dont know. I own one Busse, and love it, and hope to someday get a Strider. But it does seem awefully suspicious that no one will take Jerry Busse up on his offer of a live knife competition. Its easy for you die hard Strider fans to sit at your computer and talk about how great Mick is, but what would really convince me is if he would take Jerry Busse up on his offer. I think Jerry would win, but even Mick lost, I would have more respect for him and his knives.

Thor

Personally I speak for Mick's folders. As evidence I have the test done by the german knife magazin to find out which is the toughest folder. They selected the ER Fulcrum II and the Strider GB because of their super solid overbuild construction. Any other brands were not considered to take part because they stated clearly: their are many solid folders out there, but Extrema Ratio and Strider are above all the rest. So they testet two standard folders from these brands lines. And, the GB won this test.
Be honest. Look at the overall construction of these two knives, disassemble them and look at the construction of their parts and then tell me a Spyderco folder is built more solid. No no. This is no offense against Spyderco!! Their folders are great and the inventions of Sal Glesser revolutionized the cutlery industry. It's not Spydercos intention to build an indestructible folder which can replace a fixed blade, so you can't compare them. You also can't compare a nice sports car with a Hummer. But ERs and Striders are made for that purpose. Just use the proper tools for a task! If you need a reliable proven great to carry EDC, a Spyderco will fit the bill more then adequate. If you need a hardcore folder for hardcore tasks, it's Striders (or Extrema Ratios)turn.
If you do destruction testing of a Spyderco and Strider then of course the Strider is the stronger folder. Because thats it's purpose.
And this is the part where I blame Cliff Stamp. He whacks knives against concrete and tries to compare apples to oranges. Maybe a Mercedes is one of the safest cars in an offset crash at 40 mph. But even in a Mercedes you will be killed in a crash at 100 mph. You can destroy everything if you try hard enough. This makes no sense.

 

[knifetester]

And this is the part where I blame Cliff Stamp. He whacks knives against concrete and tries to compare apples to oranges. Maybe a Mercedes is one of the safest cars in an offset crash at 40 mph. But even in a Mercedes you will be killed in a crash at 100 mph. You can destroy everything if you try hard enough. This makes no sense.

Except that if Mercedes went to car shows and had demonstrations of their cars being crashed at 100 MPH, and advocated they were safe for this use, i.e. warranted that they could meet this level of performance, then verifying such a claim would be proper.

A claim by a manufacter is really empty unless it can be duplicated by the consumer. Take washing machines, if I buy a Maytag that has a duty cycle warranted by Maytag for 10,000 washes, and they promote their washers as being suitable for washing horse blankets, would it be unreasonable to make a warranty claim if the washer broke after only 500 blankets?

Even if you washed horse blankets only to measure what the failure point of the washer is, that is you intentionally washed to failure, how does that make the underlying warranty claim invalid? It doesn't.

So if a knifemaker warrants that their knife will not fail if used to cut a steel cable, and then the consumer uses it to cut the same type of cable and the knife fails, how is it unreasonable to assert a claim under warranty?

A warranty is simply a promise, it can be express, i.e. "Our knives can be used to cut 1/8" mild steel cable", or it can be implied, i.e. maker uses the knife at live demonstrations or in print to cut 1/8" cable, thereby implying it is suitable for such use.

Whether the use is done purposefully to test the makers claims and the products capabilities, or done on accident is not material, it is irrelavent.

Warranty claims are akin to strict liabilility in tort, that is liability without regards to fault. In fact, Prosser (a famous writer in American tort jurisprudence) wrote that warranty was the bastard child of the illicit union between tort and contract law. This is because warranty theory is a mix of both.

While it is important to note that some warranties are implied at law, such as the warranty of merchantability, etc. (See your state's version of Uniform Commerical Code), most warranties are up to the maker to develop or disclaim.

So it is simple, if a maker does not want to replace knives that have been dmaged when used for chopping coconuts open, then don't chop coconuts open to demonstrate how tough your knife is.

Don't use chopping steel cables as an advertising tool if you don't paln to honor warranty claims where failure was induced by duplicating the claimed feats. In other words, don't "hype" your products and you don't have to worry about such claims. If you warrant that your knife will do something, and it does not, be prepared to repalce it or refund the money.

In the end, I suppose whether a failure falls under warranty is a legal question. Since I am not a lawyer, perhaps there is a lawyer in the house that can shed some light on the subject.

 

[JDBLADE]

I agree - as I said in my previous post "In my view destructive testing of knives does nothing more then feed the egos of those doing the testing and those consumers who seek to denigrate other brands whilst championing their own."

If a knife company refers to one of their knives as "unbreakable" we all know that means under normal usage. But to some it is a red rag to a bull and they must go out and break the knife. Anybody can do that. When testing knives for consumers one has to be responsible and it is not responsible to deliberately break a knife or seek to break a knife.

As I also said in my previous post - I test knives as part of my business and have spent $1000's to buy knives (no one has provided me with knives to test nor have I sought "freebies" as I believe that once you do you are indebted in some way to the provider, however small, and that does not lead to an unbiased review in my opinion) to test for the convenience of my customers. In the course of these tests I have never had to use a manufacturers warranty as I tested these knives within the limits of their known capabilities - a knife is a cutting tool, not a hatchet, hammer, shovel or chisel, and to abuse such an instrument is irresponsible. The only time when abuse is legitimate is when it is in a lifesaving situation and no other tool is available and if you break it saving a life esp., your own who is going to quible over a warranty in such a situation.

 

[soa]

If you do destruction testing of a Spyderco and Strider then of course the Strider is the stronger folder. Because thats it's purpose.

Wasn't one of the issues Cliff had that the Strider lock failed in torque. The Spyderco Chinook broke before the lock failed.

With that, which is the stronger?
[I have some Spyderco knives, and covet an SnG, FWIW]

 

[thombrogan]

If a knife company refers to one of their knives as "unbreakable" we all know that means under normal usage.

JDee,

Under gentle enough usage, everything is unbreakable. There is no planet-wide 'normal' useage. If a maker sells a knife with copy stating it's unbreakable and someone breaks it, the maker has either learned something new must be done or was hoping that people would buy the knife and never question, through deed or word, the statements of the maker.

Also, not all destructive testing is done to feed the ego of the tester. If you know something is strong, but want to know how strong, you'll have to push the item to the point of failure. If you want to make the lock on a folding knife stronger or more reliable, you have to push your existing locks to failure. If you want to make a steel harder, tougher, more wear resistant, or more corrosion resistant, you have to push the steel through several modes of failure.

When you see a well-made knife, you don't shake your head in pity for its maker(s), yet that person or people all did that which you say you despise.

 

[knifetester]

In my view destructive testing of knives does nothing more then feed the egos of those doing the testing and those consumers who seek to denigrate other brands whilst championing their own

Actually the most important function of destructive testing is that it allows consumers to see if the claims made by the maker are valid. This true whether the destruction (functional failure) of the knife was an intended, likely or totally unintended consequence of using the knife in the manner it was claimed to be suitable for.

Should I have to wait until I really need the knife, where its failure could have life threatening consequences, to find out if it will do what the maker claims it will?

If Olfa claimed their extra hardened utility blades will cut through 1000 feet of 5/32" cardboard, and the blade snaps after cutting 150 feet, how is that in any way irresponsible.

a knife is a cutting tool, not a hatchet, hammer, shovel or chisel, and to abuse such an instrument is irresponsible. The only time when abuse is legitimate is when it is in a lifesaving situation and no other tool is available. . .

When a maker states, implies or endorses that their product is fit for a certain use, by definition using it for that use can not be abuse. Use of a knife can only be abusive if it exceeds the makers claimed scope of use.

If I use a fillet knife to chop through knots and it fails, that may be abusive, sicne it is not within the knife's intended scope. But if it fails while filleting a salmon, how can that be abusive, such use is the knife's intended purpose.

When a knife is being touted as combat knife, and is promoted as being suitable for extreme use such as emergency digging, prying open ammo crates, etc., why is unreasonable or abusive to use it for tasks that are much less stressful?

If a maker promotes their knife by chopping into steel table legs, and therby implies that it is suitable for such use, why is it abuse for a consumer to do the same thing? Isn't that what Cold Steel did?

Simply put, if a maker does not want their knives used for a specific task, it should not promote their knives as being capable of performing that same task.

It does not matter what the underlying circumstances are, wheter you are cutting a table leg at a show, or in your backyard, or in a combat zone, the basic action of cutting a table leg is still the same.

If a car maker advertises their car as having a top speed of 220MPH, disclaims any damage to the car resulting from use at speeds over 35MPH, they have engaged in pure hype. The same holds true for washing machines, basketballs and knives.

 

[JDBLADE]

Thombrogan

If you read my previous thread you would have noted that it is up to the tester to test a knife up to the claims of the maker.

What irks me is the fact that testers go beyond the claims of the makers and then either downgrade the knife or seek to claim under warranty. I am talking about all knives here and not just the so-called super strong knives. To give an example if you read Cliff Stamps review of the Blackjack Small he in my view went beyond the parameters of the knife eg the knife lost 1/8" of the tip working on a coconut - now how does that assist in the evaluation of a knife that is designed for much lesser tasks plus the knife was not new and obviously had been sharpened a number of times - all the smalls I have seen do not have the type of point that would snap - in fact my tests of the Small and Slick have shown the tip to be quite strong.

 

[knifetester]

JDBlade,
I am not familir with the knife or review you referenced, but I have used cheap kitchen knives to open coconuts a number of times. If you are claiming a knife should not be expected to do this, you are setting a very low standard for durability.

now how does that assist in the evaluation of a knife

If it does not help you, for example if you don't open coconuts, just ignore it. The review was not intended for you to be its sole audience. Why bash someone for writing a review, if it just their honest impressions and documentation on how a knife performed?

 

[bobert]

Well, IMO, just because a knife maker makes a video abusing one of his knives by hacking into concrete, that doesn't mean it was designed to cut concrete. It's simply a demonstration of abuse to show what happened to the knife, not that cutting concrete was it's intended purpose. I loved the Superglue/hardhat example, that's perfect and I agree wholeheartedly.

More importantly, concrete comes in many forms. Some of it is a lot tougher than others, on top of that, it varies from batch to batch. It is not consistant enough to use as any sort of reference. Personally, I think there are too many variables for concrete to prove anything, including a demonstration by the maker.

On top of that, does anybody (besides Cliff) think that the warranty is weak because they'll only let you intentionally break the knife once? I think it's awesome that they'd replace it even one time. Just because you buy a knife, the maker shouldn't have to go along with the idea that you are somehow qualified to duplicate their demonstration. The fact that in your mind the demonstration means that the knife was designed to cut concrete is enough to prove your not qualified, IMO.

The fact that no one came up with an example of Strider refusing to warranty a problem with a knife speaks much louder than someone who thinks the warranty is weak because they can't get more than one replacement when they intentionally break them.

Bobert

 

[BlackShark]

Wasn't one of the issues Cliff had that the Strider lock failed in torque. The Spyderco Chinook broke before the lock failed.

With that, which is the stronger?
[I have some Spyderco knives, and covet an SnG, FWIW]

He said the Buck Striders would fail in torque but he never tested a Strider Folder. I say it will NOT FAIL. What I know is he never did a folder test. The germans did and the Strider DID NOT FAIL.

 

[Sal Glesser]

Jedi, what? no push-ups?

While I do not wish to get invoved in the argument over Cliff's opinions, nor do I want to be in the pissin' match, I will say that I do advocate destructive testing.

A wise man told me, "you can't know the limits until you exceed them" (Dick Newick).

We break / destroy about 1/2 % of our production. We do so to make sure that the standards that we set for our products are being maintained. In addition to RC, edge angle, etc, we dull 'm, break 'em, rust 'em (except H-1) and dissect them. becasue of that, we know what our products should and shouldn't do.

I sent Cliff the Chinook II and I also sent him a Manix, knowing they will probably be destroyed. It helps us learn about our products. Cliff suggested a stonger pivot, which we are looking into.

This thread seems to be going nowhere.

Words of wisdom, of which there have been many, seem to fall on deaf ears.

too bad.

sal

 

[thombrogan]

If you read my previous thread you would have noted that it is up to the tester to test a knife up to the claims of the maker.

I did read your previous post and feel fortunate to have read it. You said that you tested the knives within their known limits. If the limits were actually known, what was the purpose of your testing? Could a maker be selling a knife with far more capabilities than what are listed/known? If so, testing beyond what is known will reveal whether or not a knife is a bargain-of-the-century relative to what it can do. Why fault that?

What irks me is the fact that testers go beyond the claims of the makers and then either downgrade the knife or seek to claim under warranty. I am talking about all knives here and not just the so-called super strong knives. To give an example if you read Cliff Stamps review of the Blackjack Small he in my view went beyond the parameters of the knife eg the knife lost 1/8" of the tip working on a coconut - now how does that assist in the evaluation of a knife that is designed for much lesser tasks plus the knife was not new and obviously had been sharpened a number of times - all the smalls I have seen do not have the type of point that would snap - in fact my tests of the Small and Slick have shown the tip to be quite strong.

In the quoted passage, you are saying you are irked by the fact that testers go beyond the claims of the makers and then either downgrade the knife or seek to claim under the warrantee. The example you give is of Cliff Stamp's still-in-progress testing of Blackjack's "Small" in 52100.

Where in that review did he make a warranty claim to Mr. Warner? Where or how did you come to the conclusion that he used the knife beyond its parameters? On his website, Mr. Warner does not or no longer sells a 52100 small, only 1095 and AUS-10, so did those parameters disappear with the 52100 version? In the write-up for the AUS-10 Small, Mr. Warner wrote: "In the field, the Stainless Small will prove to be as much knife as most outdoorsmen need." It's a pleasing description, does not go into specifics. It doesn't warn against use on coconuts, rubber, light vegetation, foodstuffs, or basswood dowels (though one could argue that those items are more likely found in a super-store than the outdoors) and its point is thicker than the Blackjack Slick.

It is very significant that you accuse Cliff of using knives outside of their parameters and seeking warranty service, but then provide an example where neither the parameters of the knife were listed nor did a warranty claim, deemed either valid or inappropriate, occur. Why did you do that? Did you mean to point me and the readers to a different review from Cliff where he allegedly performed such deeds?

 

[wetdog1911]

I don't Bro. After drinking a case [or two ] of beer, I hopped on my wife's lap and danced like a freakin fool. All I got was bitch slapped for crushing her pelvis and a week of sleeping on the couch.

I see no joy in lap dances, unless I am doing it wrong!!

You didn't read the post carefully. As Burkestar said, go to a bar FIRST (leave wife at home), preferably one that offers lap dancing. Give the nice naked lady a $5 or $10 and she will show you how a lap dance is properly done.

Sorry about your wife's pelvis and the couch thing. Was this before or after the toe incident? If you had bled all over her too she really would have gotten hacked off. LOL

This whole thing has gotten so weird, I'm wondering if I really did quit doing drugs or not.

Rob

 

[thombrogan]

This whole thing has gotten so weird, I'm wondering if I really did quit doing drugs or not.

If you didn't buy any Spyderco folders since mentioning how you were impressed with them, maybe a drug test is in order. Search the house and, if there are enough drugs to keep up with this modified deathchat, go for it!

Um, I mean, drugs are bad, m'kay?

 

[knifetester]

Well, IMO, just because a knife maker makes a video abusing one of his knives by hacking into concrete, that doesn't mean it was designed to cut concrete. It's simply a demonstration of abuse to show what happened to the knife, not that cutting concrete was it's intended purpose.

The primary reason a knifemaker would perform such a demonstration is to promote the durability of his knives. If you are promoting your knives by demonstrating that they can withstand being chopped into concrete, then you have warranted them or that use. For a knifemaker to claim his knives can chop concrete without functional damage, yet turn around and say that such use voids the warranty or is otherwise not covered is absurd and unethical. I am not refering to any specific maker here, or any specific warranty, just speaking in generalities.

You can not seriously be suggesting that the grade, age or condition of the concrete or the skill of the user is the defining factor are you? If that is the case, then it should be noted by the maker doing the demonstration.

Again, if you make a product, don't let your advertising write checks you product can't cover. Warranties are to protect the consumer, and to engender trust in a product which the producer benefits from.

For the most part, knifemakers are making their own warranties through their words and actions. It is illogical to be angry at a consumer, be it a plain user or a reviewer because your pet brand of knife was not able to perform the tasks which its maker claimed it could. Your negative feeling s should be directed at the maker for asserting performance claims that are not accurate.

As for the idea that live cutting after running a marathon should be the test, that seem silly to me. My brother is confined to a wheelchair, does that mean he can not design and build running shoes? Of course not, he simply has assistance in research and development from a wide cross section of testers.

How does the ability to scale a rock wall in any way increase or decrease the ability to design or build a knife? It doesn't, of course. They are totally unrelated. It is a complete non-sequiter argument.

As for makers and their fans being upset when negative points about the product are raised, how do you expect people to improve their product when they only hear the good and not the bad. It would behoove makers to listen to consumer's suggestions to improve the product they produce, as you can see Sal Glesser did with the Chinook pivot.

If Cliff had used an MBC rated knife to cut only grapefruit and twine, then pronounced it was a suitable hard use knife, what credibility would that have, what would Cliff, Spyderco or the consumer have learned from the evaluation? Nothing.

 

[Ebbtide]

Sal, with all due respect, you make and break your own knives.
That's the big difference between you and Cliff.
Cliff has proudly mentioned being published in 'peer reviewed' journals, but refuses to become a peer by making a knife of his own.

Back in the 70's we'd call that a double standard.