Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
The single biggest fallacy here is that these incidents of knife breaking prove anything about the product line the individual samples represent. The forces required to break the blade are not consistent, are not applied consistently, and are not truly reproducible in that sense. When the sample size is one or even two knives, you cannot make confident conclusions about every other knife of the same model.
 
I think the OP is being too general and sweeping in his statements regarding "reasonable" testing of a knife.

For example, many knives are designed and built as choppers. Wouldn't you consider it reasonable to test a Browning Competition Chopper to determine it's functional limits and beyond?

IMO, it makes perfect sense, and by watching his video, I don't have to destroy mine to get a reasonable idea how it performs under extreme stress.
 
Bors said:
In part the problem is that there are to many manufactures that are stretching claims or strongly implying that their tools are tough when they are clearly not.
Click to expand...
This same sentence could easily be written about destruction testing and the unreasonable evaluations we've seen.
 
brians said:
I think the OP is being too general and sweeping in his statements regarding "reasonable" testing of a knife.

For example, many knives are designed and built as choppers. Wouldn't you consider it reasonable to test a Browning Competition Chopper to determine it's functional limits and beyond?

IMO, it makes perfect sense, and by watching his video, I don't have to destroy mine to get a reasonable idea how it performs under extreme stress.
Click to expand...


You can't have it both ways. Either you are "pushing it to its limits and beyond" or you are are not destroying it.
 
The Germans consider David Hasselhoff a singing and acting genius.
An entertainer extraordinaire.
Misunderstood by his U.S. homeland. :D

Another renaissance man way ahead of his time,
most will never appreciate the marketing genius that is...

Sharp Phil, Inc.

Gratuitously using BladeForums for chronic self promotion.
Seven links alone in the posting profile. :thumbdn:


Are you being compensated and do you market your knife reviews that you link through this site by the knife suppliers? :confused:
 
We are attempting to have a productive conversation. You are not contributing to that with comments of that kind.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The single biggest fallacy here is that these incidents of knife breaking prove anything about the product line the individual samples represent. The forces required to break the blade are not consistent, are not applied consistently, and are not truly reproducible in that sense. When the sample size is one or even two knives, you cannot make confident conclusions about every other knife of the same model.
Click to expand...




Name one human being that can consistently apply the same force to any object in repeated use....
List one example of a scientific machine that can accurately reproduce the random actions of a human being....

Guys in white lab coats and precision calibrated machines are great when you are specking things out. Once you have specked it out and made the prototypes you hand them over to Human's for "Real world testing".

it's not totally uncommon for something to look great in the lab and on the blackboard but fail in the real world.....

If some one claims there product to be tough then it had d%^ well be better be tough.
 
Karda said:
This same sentence could easily be written about destruction testing and the unreasonable evaluations we've seen.
Click to expand...

Indeed not......

How many manufactures show how tough there products are......

If no one shows how though there product is how do you know.... I know it's very expensive, it looks pretty and was designed in part by a green beret so it must be tough correct...... :rolleyes:

The proof is in the pudding........
 
Sharp Phil said:
The single biggest fallacy here is that these incidents of knife breaking prove anything about the product line the individual samples represent. The forces required to break the blade are not consistent, are not applied consistently, and are not truly reproducible in that sense. When the sample size is one or even two knives, you cannot make confident conclusions about every other knife of the same model.
Click to expand...

And this differs from "reasonable evaluations" how exactly? Is the sample size required to draw a conclusion smaller for "reasonable evaluations"? How is stating that a particular knife can make 450 cuts of free-hanging yarn before re-sharpening any different from saying that a particular knife can be struck with a crowbar 450 times? In otherwords, what does this "single biggest fallacy" red herring of yours have to do with the price of beans in this discussion?

Regards,
3G
 
Last edited:
Karda said:
This same sentence could easily be written about destruction testing and the unreasonable evaluations we've seen.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In fact, I'd be glad to prove it to you. You find every independant source of "destruction testing" you can and post them here. I'll find every piece of ad copy from knife manufacturers, advertising their knives as designed for "abuse" and "very hard use," and I'll post them here. Let's see who's audience is broader, shall we?

Regards,
3G
 
Sharp Phil said:
So the promulgation of abuse as the standard of testing is unreasonable and creates unrealistic expectations among relatively ignorant knife users, thus doing everyone in the knife-using community a disservice.
Click to expand...

I guess I got excited too soon- this is not an argument, this is just you restating your premis (again!) I, and others, have attacked and disputed your premis- defend it! Argue for it! Show some kind of logical proof why you are right and we are wrong, don't just keep repeating your initial point.

As a martial artist, in a match do you keep using the same technique over and over when it doesn't work? Don't you try a different technique, or at least, approach from a different angle?

I'm about to give up here- either you have nothing but an opinion that you're not able to argue in favor of, or you know you are in the wrong and just don't care to admit it.

That is another statement that you are welcome to disprove, argue against, or dispute, but please don't just give me some bootless platitude or meaningless remark about my emotions.
 
Sharp Phil said:
You can't have it both ways. Either you are "pushing it to its limits and beyond" or you are are not destroying it.
Click to expand...

Phil, are you honestly suggesting that Brians needs to "destroy" his knife in order to derive any benefit from seeing at which point another, identical knife can be destroyed? If so, why do you personally conduct knife reviews on your website? I mean, if each and every knife is different, what is to be gained from watching or reading any knife review, "reasonable" or otherwise?


Regards,
3G
 
You know the limit of the item you've just destroyed and no longer own, in a vague sort of way. You don't necessarily know the limit of every other model of the same knife with a sample size of one or two, broken through "tests" that are not truly reproducible or measurable.
 
Sharp Phil said:
You know the limit of the item you've just destroyed and no longer own, in a vague sort of way. You don't necessarily know the limit of every other model of the same knife with a sample size of one or two, broken through "tests" that are not truly reproducible or measurable.
Click to expand...

Then your actual argument should be that any and all destruction tests are useless, not just destruction tests of knives. Do you see any benefit in 'crash tests' of motor vehicles, I mean, if each individual vehicle is unique and all?

Regards,
3G
 
3Guardsmen said:
I don't think so. In fact, I'd be glad to prove it to you. You find every independant source of "destruction testing" you can and post them here. I'll find every piece of ad copy from knife manufacturers, advertising their knives as designed for "abuse" and "very hard use," and I'll post them here. Let's see who's audience is broader, shall we?
Click to expand...
Actually it isnt about "who's audience is broader", it's about ethics, the very thing you guys complain about and the very thing the testers are equally as guilty of, if not moreso.
 
Last edited:
3Guardsmen said:
Then your actual argument should be that any and all destruction tests are useless, not just destruction tests of knives. Do you see any benefit in 'crash tests' of motor vehicles, I mean, if each individual vehicle is unique and all?
Click to expand...

That is spurious logic. Find a knife with an airbag built into it and we'll talk about the appropriate way to test that air bag.
 
Sharp Phil said:
with a sample size of one or two, broken through "tests" that are not truly reproducible or measurable.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so now we are just back to the same old argument about how valid the results of these tests are.

Does anyone here know for a fact the sample size of vehicles used in the high speed offset crash test? I've tried googling this and everything I've read seemed to imply that only one of each vehicle is tested.

Sharp Phil said:
That is spurious logic. Find a knife with an airbag built into it and we'll talk about the appropriate way to test that air bag.
Click to expand...

LOL :D
 
Sharp Phil said:
You know the limit of the item you've just destroyed and no longer own, in a vague sort of way. You don't necessarily know the limit of every other model of the same knife with a sample size of one or two, broken through "tests" that are not truly reproducible or measurable.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many wings Boeing fatigue tests when designing a new aircraft? Usually 1. Why? In large part because the mechanical properties of modern materials are fairly well known and consistent.

No one is claiming, not even the tester, that the destructive tests done by Noss are perfect and the results absolutely definitive. They are one data point. That does not make them useless; one can't blame the data for conclusions drawn from it.

Your premise, however, seems to be that all destructive knife tests are unreasonable. That is a different argument and one you still haven't supported.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top