Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Geez Phil I would have never guessed that you would be that articulate :thumbup: You've made a fan!
 
Thanks for posting, Phil. I agree with you that a knife must be tested 'reasonably'. Yet I want a survival knife that I can trust cut after cut in any thinkable circumstances for which a knife should be used (that is not cutting through concrete, I agree too) year after year. During my survival trips, I depend my life on my knife and I don't want a tool that can break easily no matter how well it can cut paper. In that perspective, knifetests.com provided me valuable information on the durability and the strength of the knives that were tested. I know, a bit over the top, but it gives a good insight in which blades are strong and which are not and they have definitely demystified CR's fixed blades.
 
There are some in the knife community who should be reminded of these facts regularly. Unfortunately they are often those least likely to listen to the voice of reason. Well stated Phil, I look forward to more videos from you.
 
While I would hesitate to ever beat my knife through a brick wall, there are moments when unreasonable demands are placed on a knife due to the extremes of the situation. Several reviewers have shown that several knives rated "hard use" are not all that "tough."

Granted, these reviews are at an extreme, but if that's the situation you find yourself in, wouldn't you want to know how much you can depend on your knife?

I liked the review, as some people would be mislead by these "destruction" tests. Thanks Phil. :thumbup:
 
yobbos1 said:
There are some in the knife community who should be reminded of these facts regularly. Unfortunately they are often those least likely to listen to the voice of reason. Well stated Phil, I look forward to more videos from you.
Click to expand...

I liked that very much Phil. And I agree with what he said as well.
 
I don't see anything wrong with testing to failure. IIRC the History Channel special on axes that I watched not too long ago showed video of a major manufacturer testing axe handles to failure using powerful hydraulic equipment specifically designed for this purpose. I am almost certain that most hand tool manufacturers routinely test things like ratchets, sockets, and wrenches, etc. to failure just to see what they can take. I view this as an integral part of the research and development process. It also can be an effective marketing tool, as if a company or an individual can convince me (through demonstration or otherwise) that their product is more durable than their competitors product, I would be more likely to purchase from them, all other things being equal. I believe in having respect for tools and in using them for their intended purpose but sometimes being resourceful and improvising can be important and knowledge of a tools limitations can be a valuable resource. Just my $0.02 -DT
 
Last edited:
I think you are absolutely correct that it is wrong to base the evaluation of a tool solely on performance of tasks that it was not meant to be used for.

Let's imagine that one is comparing a range of relatively similar tools in order to render a comparative analysis. For the sake of argument, let's assume that all the tools' manufacturers make essentially the same claims for their products, and issue essentially the same use directives.

Let's also assume that some of the tools demonstrate broader utility outside the prescribed range than some of the other tools. That is a legitimate asset of the former tools as opposed to the latter. And that is a valid reason to render a favorable critique of the former.

It might be that a given prospective buyer has no interest in the non-prescriptive performance. In that case, the buyer will likely disregard that aspect of the evaluation.
 
tsiloics said:
I think you are absolutely correct that it is wrong to base the evaluation of a tool solely on performance of tasks that it was not meant to be used for.

Let's imagine that one is comparing a range of relatively similar tools in order to render a comparative analysis. For the sake of argument, let's assume that all the tools' manufacturers make essentially the same claims for their products, and issue essentially the same use directives.

Let's also assume that some of the tools demonstrate broader utility outside the prescribed range than some of the other tools. That is a legitimate asset of the former tools as opposed to the latter. And that is a valid reason to render a favorable critique of the former.

It might be that a given prospective buyer has no interest in the non-prescriptive performance. In that case, the buyer will likely disregard that aspect of the evaluation.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with testing to failure, but the case here appears to be people dismissing absolutely great knives just because they can't be beat through brick. :rolleyes:
 
Josh K said:
There is nothing wrong with testing to failure, but the case here appears to be people dismissing absolutely great knives just because they can't be beat through brick. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't recall reading that anyone dismissed any knives from purchase consideration simply based upon upon any one person's review.
 
Definitely some interesting points there. Nice work.

Looks like your wearing pj's under your jacket;):D
 
Josh K said:
There is nothing wrong with testing to failure, but the case here appears to be people dismissing absolutely great knives just because they can't be beat through brick. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am trying to avoid a thread redux here, but that is definitely not what happened.

Transparent as he might be, Phil was at least able to state his case in general terms.

Why not just comment on his argument as it was presented?
 
That was a well thought-out, well stated commentary.
:thumbup::thumbup:
 
Great vid Phil!, simply stated and well organised so that Anyone can understand what "reasonable use" is. Anyone testing past a makers suggested use should expect to own a broken knife. In the event that someone should find themselves in an "unreasonable" circumstance,they should evaluate their own thinking and habits.
While i do see some small merit in destructive testing, i do not believe anyone should be basing purchases on them.

I don't recall reading that anyone dismissed any knives from purchase consideration simply based upon upon any one person's review.
Click to expand...
Those that are stating this obviously need to reread the thread in question.
A makers entire line was dismissed by the tester himself and agreed with on several occasions.
 
Karda said:
Anyone testing past a makers suggested use should expect to own a broken knife.
Click to expand...

I agree with that :thumbup: Unfortunately when it comes to some of the larger fixed blades we don't get much information from the makers regarding suggested use. I think it would be great if it was clearly stated, for instance, that a knife wasn't intended to be batoned at all, or was intended to be batoned lightly with wood but just not to be cross-grain batoned, or was made to be batoned with anything that was at hand, or can be batoned with and through just about anything. It would surely clear up a lot of the confusion that results when a knife is generically labeled as tough.
 
theonew said:
I agree with that :thumbup: Unfortunately when it comes to some of the larger fixed blades we don't get much information from the makers regarding suggested use. I think it would be great if it was clearly stated, for instance, that a knife wasn't intended to be batoned at all, or was intended to be batoned lightly with wood but just not to be cross-grain batoned, or was made to be batoned with anything that was at hand, or can be batoned with and through just about anything. It would surely clear up a lot of the confusion that results when a knife is generically labeled as tough.
Click to expand...
"Common Sense" goes hand in hand with the idea of "Reasonable Use".
Most makers depend on the user to understand what is "Abuse" by using "Common Sense". Just as we the end user depend on them to use "Common Sense" when deciding to warranty a broken knife or not.
If it seems like "Abuse", then it generally is.

The only thing about this vid though (and it could be my computer) is the sync with the voicetrack. I know phil is into martial arts and such....but i felt sorta like i was watching one of those badly voiceovered 70's kung -fu films.:D
 
Last edited:
Karda said:
"Common Sense" goes hand in hand with the idea of "Reasonable Use".
If it seems like "Abuse", then it generally is.
Click to expand...

Before I started hanging around BF, my "common sense" would have told me that batoning with any knife is abusive. And yet it turns out to be something that people here do quite regularly and it dramatically expands the capabilities of a capable knife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top