Knifetests.com Project 1 Destruction Test.

[t1mpani]

For me, the value of a custom knife is that I can say, "I want it for this application, so I want it out of this steel in this geometry and to these dimensions. Oh, and I have long fingers so make that grip bigger. Oh, and I'm going to be in the cold with it so make it a hidden tang instead of an exposed. Oh, and can you put the lanyard hole towards the bottom instead of the top?" This control over design is something you don't have with any production knife, you just don't. It isn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND YOU WILL DIE WITHOUT IT, but it sure is nice when you can have the materials, design, features and ergonomics you want all together in one package. You pay for it, just like you pay for exceptional food at an exceptional restaurant. In both cases, you're paying someone with the skills to provide it to give you something better than you can find ready made, be it in a box at a sporting goods store or under a heat lamp in a buffet.

Saying that that is or isn't worth it for anybody but yourself is pretty much as dumb as thinking you can argue somebody else into which girl is prettier.

Which brings me back to my original point, that just because it doesn't survive long on an intentional destruction test doesn't mean that it isn't a good knife.

Jimro

Absolutely agree. And, some knives won't cut as much cardboard as other knives before getting dull, but this does not mean that they are not good knives. And, some knives will not resist corrosion as well as others, but this does not mean that they're not good knives. But it is NOT blasphemy to tell how they compare to each other in these areas, and can be useful information depending on how you intend to use the knife.

Saltwater corrosion tests are an extreme test of how "stainless" a steel is. If Noss was doing corrosion testing instead of durability testing, do you really think there'd be this many pages of people sarcastically commenting that, "Well, I don't keep my knives in a saltwater tank, so his rusting them in one doesn't tell me anything."? No. Or, "Well who needs to cut that much cardboard? This test is stupid!" No.

Say what you want, this is a (albeit still a much more subjective one than I'd like) comparison of the toughness of knives that are claimed by their makers to be tough. You can't test that by opening mail, cutting up a chicken, or splitting a little kindling for your campfire---it'd be 95 years before you had any results, because a SAK can stand up to that with ease. You HAVE to make tests extreme in order to get any results in a timely fashion.

The fact that the Project 1 is not as tough as the FFBM does not make it a bad knife. The fact that the FFBM will not penetrate in a stab as well as the Buck Nighthawk does not make it a bad knife. All of these knives have strengths and weaknesses. I'd far rather have the Project 1 than the Busse FFBM in a fight, because it's faster and has a far better point for penetration. For heavy work, on the other hand, my preference would be different.

 

[Gator97]

Actually, a chef's blade could make a great weapon in the hands of a skilled user.

Agree partially, as long as you don't break it during the fight.

The amusing thing here is that we all have different concepts of what a 'survival' blade should be, yet J. Curd has some sensible comments. Of course, I won't have my razor sharp Tuatahi work axe to cut myself out of a downed shopper when I need it.

Comments are sensible for civilized enviromnent such as your own backyard or workshop. Donno how many ppl take axes even to their one day camping/hiking trips. I doubt not a whole lot. Prybars anyone? Saws may be? I haven't seen too many hikers with chisels in their backpacks either.

What will be in my reach is a well used SAK.

Probably. So, when U have only that will you be so picky what you should or shouldn't do with it? U won't chop with it because it simply can't but you'd definitely would chop and pry if it could.

My point is when knives are promoted for survival and tough use they should withstand it. Especially that in "survival" situation you most likely are stressed, can be pressed for time, in short lots of things to deal with to worry about making precision cuts and perfect chops. I.e you'll be stressing your blade intentionally or not, well beyond of what U do at home under normal use scenario.

 

[Bors]

....kicks ass tremendously. You know you're doing something right as a knife company when you don't really have any worthy production competition.

Yep.....

 

[Jimro]

My point is when knives are promoted for survival and tough use they should withstand it.

NOSS doesn't perform "tough use" tests, he performs destruction tests. So far he's managed to destroy every knife tested.

Jimro

 

[shecky]

So far he's managed to destroy every knife tested.

Sounds like a very thorough "tough use" test. How does one evaluate such things without finding the breaking point?

 

[Gator97]

So far he's managed to destroy every knife tested.

Not every

Sounds like a very thorough "tough use" test. How does one evaluate such things without finding the breaking point?

Like if you need to chop the wood and use another blunt object as a baton (because you don't have your favorite axe with you, otherwise yes, we all know axes chop better and industrial saws are even better). Makes pretty specific breaking point or at least tells you what your knife can do and what not.

 

[t1mpani]

Of course he's broken all of them--hence the whole "how much can they stand before they break" question that every single one of these has been about. How on earth do you think they test chains, cables and ropes for strength??? "Um yeah, we didn't want to break it so we stopped a bit lighter, but it'll probably hold up that ski lift---try it and see."

 

[Broos]

How on earth do you think they test chains, cables and ropes for strength???

They measure the breaking force of many trials to failure, have known force vectors that cause the failure, measure ambient conditions, and investigate the failures after testing. No deep thinking required for a tensile strength test - not the same for a test designed to simulate a tool in real world use.

 

[t1mpani]

Indeed, but the simple fact is, failure is what is being tested to. I've said it many times, I'd like to see much more consistency and control in these tests, but can't give any weight to the opinion that testing extremes is useless. Testing it by cutting miles of cardboard is also an extreme.

 

[hardheart]

Well, the steels used are already tested extensively. Noss is testing blades, not steels, heat treats, or specific handle materials. He is testing platforms that are a combination of these things. If all you do is read a blurb that says "Noss broke knife X", then you get absolutely nothing, as he does break every knife put through a destruction test. If you bother to see if it broke chopping, while using a wooden baton, while doing point work in wood, etc, etc, maybe you then get to pick up on something. He is testing quite a few blades, for a one man show with retail purchases.

Criticizing without offering any testing to the contrary is rather empty. Words in a post carry no weight in comparison, no matter if they are correct or not. Noss is doing something, and he's doing it openly.

 

[Jimro]

Sounds like a very thorough "tough use" test. How does one evaluate such things without finding the breaking point?

I appreciate NOSS's tests for what they are, but it is important to remember what they aren't.

They are not calibrated. Exactly how many joules of energy does one NOSS hammer stroke contain?
They are not measured using any scientific devices such as a transmission electron microscope or Xrays to measure changes/damage to the steel matrix.

There are plenty of questions that a destruction test can answer, but as it sits NOSS's tests don't answer anything objectively, only subjectively.

Jimro

 

[Cotherion]

True, he hasn't measured his results but If knife A broke at 30 minutes video while batoned into wood (using wood) and knife B broke at 1 and a half hr video while being batoned into a steel pipe using a steel mallet I have to say the results are pretty obvious...

(note that knife A and B experienced similar testing for the 1st half hr)

 

[Gator97]

They are not calibrated. Exactly how many joules of energy does one NOSS hammer stroke contain?

Agree they're not calibrated. Neither are human beings. If you knew how many joules of energy NOSS hammer stroke contained what would that give? Would you replicate that yourself? Or can you guarantee your blow will not be more at least once if you have to do the same?
Machine tests are pretty much meaningless when we're talking about knives used by humans. industral cutting machines use cutting blades at theyr max hardness because they're machines, but no knifemaker will harden a knife to that level because in human hand it'll break easily...

 

[t1mpani]

In all truth machine tests are not meaningless--a knife that is stronger in a particular axis of applied force than another is just stronger, whether a machine is doing it or a human. The advantage of a machine doing it is that you know the comparisons are fair. Yes it is true that humans are not digital, and will not use tools in a digital way, but the stresses applied in any kind of a test should be as near to each other as possible, especially since the designs/geometries of the different blades being tested are so different to begin with. If Peewee Herman tested one blade and Andre the Giant were side by side doing a comparative torture test, that would not be considered fair by anyone. Well, it's less extreme, but the same kind of disparity exists with one person testing--because that person will be feeling better or worse on any given day, feeling stronger or weaker on any given day, and will apply force differently to a knife in a swing because of how the handle fits his or her particular hand, than he/she will to another, or than you or I would.

The disadvantage to machines is it's difficult to replicate knife uses with them.

Again, I'd like to see much MUCH more control in these tests before anybody puts serious stock in "this knife gets three points and this knife got four points" type of comparisons. That said, when the results are SO different, where one knife lasts 15 minutes and the other lasts 150, the margin of error doesn't cover the difference. I have trouble when they're as close as the SRK and the Buck Nighthawk believing one to be tougher than the other unless I saw the results repeated ten or twenty times. I'm far more comfortable believing in toughness difference between this knife and many of the others that did so much better, however.

 

[hardheart]

because that person will be feeling better or worse on any given day, feeling stronger or weaker on any given day, and will apply force differently to a knife in a swing because of how the handle fits his or her particular hand, than he/she will to another, or than you or I would.

then the knife needs to function within that range.

 

[me2]

Can someone start a thread about how scientific or unscientific Noss's tests are, just so we dont have to go through this every time he posts a new test on the site? This thread would be about 1/3 as long if it werent for the endless debate that happens in every knife test that shows a knife does less than it is expected to do.

 

[Abacus]

Can someone start a thread about how scientific or unscientific Noss's tests are, just so we dont have to go through this every time he posts a new test on the site? This thread would be about 1/3 as long if it werent for the endless debate that happens in every knife test that shows a knife does less than it is expected to do.

That's pretty natural. Obviously no one will complain if a knife does well. I agree, there is a lot of debate about his tests, but I think that debate is very valid, because there are serious criticisms that can be taken with his methods of testing.

If there was no discussion, do you really prefer a thread with everyone saying, "Nice test! You rock Noss!"

Boooooring....

 

[me2]

Of course no discussion would be exceptionally dull. My point is that the exact same arguements are made in every thread about his tests, regardless of which knife is tested. I'm just suggesting getting all the "that's not scientific" and "we know its not, but its the best we got" responses that happen in one place.

 

[savagesicslayer]

I take Noss's tests as knife-related entertainment with a bit of education thrown in for good measure.If I got all bent out of shape when every knife I owned got tested to death I'd never own any of my favorite blades.of my favorite blades the Noss gauntlet has claimed the Ka-bar,A1,Warthog,AK bayonet Soon the Ka-bar D2 extreme.The tests haven't diminished the blades in my eyes in fact some of them have earned my respect as being tougher than I thought.My A1 is my favorite big fixed blade.Tested and destroyed by Noss totally.I still take it into the woods with total confidence it will work for me no matter what because I have seen what it'll take to fail.

 

[t1mpani]

then the knife needs to function within that range.

What sense does that make? We're talking about comparisons here--if he's really on his game one time and hits nearly all of his hammer blows dead on the spine of a knife, and the next time has more of a tendency to glance his blows to one edge of the spine or the side, then he's subjecting one knife to torsional forces that the other isn't having to stand up to. That's a whole new dimension of stress that the first knife didn't have to survive. And actually, torsional forces are MUCH more of a challenge to steel than compression forces.

Individually, yes, standing up to many many blows from a 3 lb. sledge does indeed have merit in determining a knife to be tough. Using this method to call close comparisons between different knives, though, like it gets five daggers instead of four, can not be supported. As I said, vast differences are obvious (knife survived two hours versus 20 minutes), but close calls can't honestly be made unless the stresses involved are EXACTLY the same. Similar isn't good enough. It'd be like giving two kids a history test, where one has to answer multiple choice and the other has to write an essay, and then saying this one or the other got the "better grade." Or a physical fitness test where one has to do weighted pushups and the other dips. Yes, you can determine if one or both are basically physically fit, but if they're both pretty good you can't say which one is better when the tests aren't the same.

Short of building a machine or jig setup to normalize the stresses, the ideal would be for more than one of each knife to be tested--and if they all fail at the same approximate point as their brethren, or doing the same type of thing, then you can draw some conclusions. If not...

This is, of course, cost prohibitive, so I suppose my real world preference would be for the ratings (whether a knife gets two daggers, five, or seven) to be removed, and just let the videos stand on their own.

I'm not flip-flopping sides here, I like the idea of subjecting products to point-of-failure tests---hell, whether you're talking about toughness, corrosion resistance, or edge holding, testing to failure is really about the only way to garner useful data. But the rating system that has been arrived at is what I have a problem with---it seems to be somewhat arbitrary conclusions based on very imprecise data.