ZT 0452 lock up

For some reason, this thread about this "issue" makes me think of this:

"It hurts when I move my arm like this."
"Well then, stop moving your arm like that!" :D
 
I don't have the 452 but do have the 450. After reading this thread I tested my 450 by exerting pressure to the lockbar that I normally wouldn't and it did jamb into the far side where for a minute thought I'd have to get a screwdriver to pry it away from the far side.
It really doesn't bother me because this is the first time it has happened and that was because I made it happen. Under normal usage it has never happened.
I am still considering buying the 452cf because I don't think the possibility of a lockup would ever affect me. Should ZT look into this? Yes.
 
I have had this knife about a month. My biggest complaint was that it came very tight. But it broke in nicely.
Lockup problem or no I'd buy another in a second as it's a fantastic design and worth a lot more than we pay
for it.

Maybe if there is a 452b down the road they can add a lock-bar stabilizer or just angle the tang more acutely.
Either would solve this - minor - problem.
 
101N said:
or just angle the tang more acutely.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is then the lock-bar can slip off the tang...

Manufacturers have it tough.
Some folks bash bricks with the spine of the blade, so you have to try and make it so it won't fail there.
Other folks try to squeeze it like a puppy they love too much...so that becomes a thing to contend with.

For me, as long as the lock works as a lock, and keeps the blade open when it should be, I'm pretty good with it. :thumbup:

Luckily for people who feel differently, there are a whole bunch of different lock designs out there...they should be able to find at least one that meets their needs.
 
Blues Bender said:
That doesn't answer the question why my 0454, 0452, and 0562 all have the same problem...
Click to expand...

I don't think this is an issue with Sinkevich's design, I believe most have the 'reverse over-travel stop' (wish I had a better name for it) like the custom SiDiS below, a Nura; besides it wouldn't explain why an 0562CF Hinderer design failed. It's a ZT engineering problem -- IF the original Cardinators had the inward travel stop, the 045X series should have had it. If not...

11251750_765340153585816_940720802_n.jpg
 
I wonder how hard it would be to get an answer from ZT on this, as to if they consider a lock bar that can be pushed over like these defective locks? I have no idea what their official stance would be about it. They might say, they are defective, they may say they know all about it and it's not considered a flaw. Being there's pretty much two opinions being voiced here, it's flawed, or it's not it would be very interesting to have some official word. Maybe someone with more time (and know how even) than me will get an answer from ZT. (if ZT comes out and says it's fine then I'd not care, if they say it is flawed send it in we'll make it right, then cool too)
 
Last edited:
jill jackson said:
I wonder how hard it would be to get an answer from ZT on this, as to if they consider a lock bar that can be pushed over like these defective locks? I have no idea what their official stance would be about it. They might say, they are defective, they may say they know all about it and it's not considered a flaw. Being there's pretty much two opinions being voiced here, it's flawed, or it's not it would be very interesting to have some official word. Maybe someone with more time (and know how even) than me will get an answer from ZT. (if ZT comes out and says it's fine then I'd not care, if they say it is flawed send it in we'll make it right, then cool too)
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the ZT contact page; you can leave an email explaining the problem, in as much detail as you like, or as short as you like. They usually respond quite promptly and politely. I'm interested in seeing how they respond, but I haven't had this problem, and I wouldn't feel right explaining an issue others have had. It's not my place.

http://zt.kaiusaltd.com/contact
 
stabman said:
For some reason, this thread about this "issue" makes me think of this:

"It hurts when I move my arm like this."
"Well then, stop moving your arm like that!" :D
Click to expand...

Hardly...

If you read any of my posts here, you'd know that lockstick is an issue from the poor lock geometry as well...
 
Test lock by exerting pressure on spine ---> lock fails
"Hey man you don't CUT with the spine. This thread is useless"

Use a knife for hard cutting ----> lock jams and requires 2 handed unlocking
"Hey man you don't 'squeeze' the knife like that when you cut. This thread is useless"

Soon we will all just be staring at our knives for fear of "using them wrong".

You can never win on Bladeforums! :)
 
kniferbro said:
Test lock by exerting pressure on spine ---> lock fails
"Hey man you don't CUT with the spine. This thread is useless"

Use a knife for hard cutting ----> lock jams and requires 2 handed unlocking
"Hey man you don't 'squeeze' the knife like that when you cut. This thread is useless"

Soon we will all just be staring at our knives for fear of "using them wrong".

You can never win on Bladeforums! :)
Click to expand...

Agreed...

At times, I wonder why I even bother discussing issues like this...
 
^We're knife folks, it's what we do (for better or for worse, admittedly :))...

stabman said:
The problem with that is then the lock-bar can slip off the tang...

Manufacturers have it tough.
Some folks bash bricks with the spine of the blade, so you have to try and make it so it won't fail there.
Other folks try to squeeze it like a puppy they love too much...so that becomes a thing to contend with.

For me, as long as the lock works as a lock, and keeps the blade open when it should be, I'm pretty good with it. :thumbup:

Luckily for people who feel differently, there are a whole bunch of different lock designs out there...they should be able to find at least one that meets their needs.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. Production framelock lockbars and tang geometries are a bit of a conundrum. It used to bother the heck out of me that I could push my Sebenza's lockbar all the way to the opposite slab, but then again, that geometry gave me a lot of confidence from a potential slippage/safety standpoint. And in the ten+ years I carried one, I never wore one out.

I used to think that steel lockbar inserts were the next evolution for framelocks from a long-term wear standpoint. When done right, I think they may yet prove to be.

However, I have to wonder about the majority of lockbar insert designs. ZT, as much as I LOVE their style, use what equates to only about half the total lockbar's thickness of steel to interface the blade tang. Realistically, it's not that much thicker than a robust, area-hardened linerlock. Other manufacturers, like LionSteel and MT (Socom Delta, etc.) subscribe to what I would think would be a more ideal steel insert design, that manifests in an "L" shape where the steel insert's equivalent of the total thickness of the lockbar interfaces the tang.

Yet in both scenarios, geometries are still crucial from the standpoint of safety and long-term wear resistance. I would think it would be incredibly difficult to manufacture framelocks consistently that addressed both concerns. The small batch approach may nail it in some cases but drives up the cost.

If I were a production knife company, I'd be on the bus trying to take folder locks to a new place.
 
Last edited:
Problem solved for lockbar travel, but it seems now that as the lockbar insert and/or tang face wears, there's nothing to prevent up & down slop because the lockbar cannot naturally fill the wear void that will be created by use.
I'm talking myself into buying the 452 because I don't see it as a normal use problem.
Sikael said:
I don't think this is an issue with Sinkevich's design, I believe most have the 'reverse over-travel stop' (wish I had a better name for it) like the custom SiDiS below, a Nura; besides it wouldn't explain why an 0562CF Hinderer design failed. It's a ZT engineering problem -- IF the original Cardinators had the inward travel stop, the 045X series should have had it. If not...

11251750_765340153585816_940720802_n.jpg
Click to expand...
 
jill jackson said:
I wonder how hard it would be to get an answer from ZT on this, as to if they consider a lock bar that can be pushed over like these defective locks? I have no idea what their official stance would be about it. They might say, they are defective, they may say they know all about it and it's not considered a flaw. Being there's pretty much two opinions being voiced here, it's flawed, or it's not it would be very interesting to have some official word. Maybe someone with more time (and know how even) than me will get an answer from ZT. (if ZT comes out and says it's fine then I'd not care, if they say it is flawed send it in we'll make it right, then cool too)
Click to expand...

Contact them. I know it sounds crazy but that might be the only way to know what they think on the subject. No need to speculate.
 
stabman said:
The problem with that is then the lock-bar can slip off the tang...

Manufacturers have it tough.
Some folks bash bricks with the spine of the blade, so you have to try and make it so it won't fail there.
Other folks try to squeeze it like a puppy they love too much...so that becomes a thing to contend with.

For me, as long as the lock works as a lock, and keeps the blade open when it should be, I'm pretty good with it. :thumbup:

Luckily for people who feel differently, there are a whole bunch of different lock designs out there...they should be able to find at least one that meets their needs.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly where i am at with it. And for me if it only happens when i purposely try to do it then i dont have to worry about it. Combine that with a great warranty and im simply not worried. I know some say "but what if its a problem later on?" Then to me if and when that time comes kai will take care of it.
 
Sikael said:
I don't think this is an issue with Sinkevich's design, I believe most have the 'reverse over-travel stop' (wish I had a better name for it) like the custom SiDiS below, a Nura; besides it wouldn't explain why an 0562CF Hinderer design failed. It's a ZT engineering problem -- IF the original Cardinators had the inward travel stop, the 045X series should have had it. If not...

11251750_765340153585816_940720802_n.jpg
Click to expand...


Curved lockface. It cant be a problem.
 
Besides, it could be worse...

I went and got a coffee today (mandatory Tim Horton's :) ), and found where some homeless guy had been sleeping under a bridge:

Photo0765_zps7yaqvshe.jpg


Nearby was this message:

Photo0760_zpstwjubbtz.jpg
 
stabman said:
Besides, it could be worse...

I went and got a coffee today (mandatory Tim Horton's :) ), and found where some homeless guy had been sleeping under a bridge:

Photo0765_zps7yaqvshe.jpg


Nearby was this message:

Photo0760_zpstwjubbtz.jpg
Click to expand...

I would have got him the burger. And a slurpee.
 
PURPLEDC said:
I would have got him the burger. And a slurpee.
Click to expand...

I would have as well, but the fellow had vacated the area.

Done some homeless outreach things before, and the amount of gratitude they have for a cereal bar or a sweater you don't use anymore is staggering.
It makes me feel slightly silly about getting annoyed that a knife showed up a day late...but I still do. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top