Why....

DocH

DocH

Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
433
Sort of curious... Has there been any info as to why $300.00 will not buy a GB that will not fail a test that MANY other knives that cost 1/5 as much will pass?

If there was a metal problem, then SAY there was a Metal problem... I had a Dana axle fail that the Manf replaced so fast that it made my head spin.
And they made no excuses etc, but just stated that they felt very bad that it had failed.
Just curious....
Doc
 
DocH said:
Sort of curious... Has there been any info as to why $300.00 will not buy a GB that will not fail a test that MANY other knives that cost 1/5 as much will pass?
Click to expand...

Whats the test your talking about ?

If its the "destruction test" then this has been talked over many times.
 
DocH, it's really very simple. There is a serious disconnect between "tests" like Noss4's and scientific "tests to destruction". Scientific testing is replicable because all factors are measured, quantified, and repeated with several samples.

Noss4's tests are literally CRK bashing, and that's all they are.

So what should CRK do, respond to an invalid and possibly malicious attempt to injure its business? This would validate the test on some level by giving it anything resembling credence.

As Haze said, we've discussd this here at excessive length. Rehashing it would be a waste of bandwidth, and will not reflect well on anyone joining the trashers.
 
Damn so are you telling me that CRK will not replace my Sebenza I just put in the wood chipper?!? Come on it is a $400 knife it should be able to handle a wood chipper. Don't they stand behind their product?:jerkit:
 
CRK sent noss a new knife.

Really the green beret is just not designed to be a sharpened pry bar. Its designed to look cool and to make some people some money. It can do simple tasks but IMO CRK's heat treat is not right. The Pacific looks like it would be even worse because of the super toothpick tip. Avoid impact work.

The a2 model failed in about the same way.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
DocH, it's really very simple. There is a serious disconnect between "tests" like Noss4's and scientific "tests to destruction". Scientific testing is replicable because all factors are measured, quantified, and repeated with several samples.

Noss4's tests are literally CRK bashing, and that's all they are.

So what should CRK do, respond to an invalid and possibly malicious attempt to injure its business? This would validate the test on some level by giving it anything resembling credence.

As Haze said, we've discussd this here at excessive length. Rehashing it would be a waste of bandwidth, and will not reflect well on anyone joining the trashers.
Click to expand...
I agree with what he Esav said.
 
A friend of mine brought up Noss's tests. While he is not a CRK fan now, we came to an understanding after some conversation ;).
 
Last edited:
I don't think the knives would have broken nearly as quickly, had they not been serrated. That kind of abuse with a stress-riser built right in is doomed to snap sooner or later under steel impacts.

All those tests proved is that you should not buy a relatively thin and narrow bladed knife equipped with serrations if you intend to beat it with a steel mallet. The coming results were obvious. Both of those knives would and have stood up to years of hard use, as advertised.
 
Guess I one of the only GB owners that is happy you have to whack it with a 3# mallet for it to break.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top