Reasonable Knife Evaluation

[Ebbtide]

No I didn't learn a lesson, I made a mistake. I'm simply trying to point out that toughness, beyond Phil's notion of "reasonableness", as a metric for knife use is a valid concern.

Appreciate the answer though

Pssst you're supposed to learn from your mistakes

J/K

Then again Bismark said that it is folly to learn from your own mistakes and he'd much rather learn from the mistakes of others.

Cheers

 

[3Guardsmen]

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.

Karda, are we really moving back to your "destructive testers take advantage of knife manufacturers" argument again? I thought we covered that already. Instead of taking me up on my challenge and proving your point, you've brought up an issue that has already been discussed. Until you can show me a knife testers code of ethics, we're bound to disagree on what constitues a 'breach of ethics' on the part of the consumer.

Regards,
3G

 

[busselover]

I fixed the link for you

thanks!


I

thought we were talking about old advertising and when the whole toughness thing began?
That logo is newer than the CS Tanto ads that I saw in SOF back in the mid 80's.
Maybe look for the old logo, back from the 70's?
Either way, the head on that is round and not a hexagon, so I still vote nail.

Yes, I was thinking of the older logo, which, by the way, is called the "buck classic bolt logo"...I couldn't find it with a quick search. Anyway, I do not want to knit pick. The point is manufacturers have been marketing their knives using "abusive" "stunts" for quite a while....

In your heated desire to be right about something and to champion your cause you missed the fact that I never said anything against destructive testing.

ok....

I stated that the ABS tests the smith, not the knife.

Actually, they do test the knife and then make inference based on the performance of the smith's abilities, as I understand it....

 

[3Guardsmen]

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.

Then I'll just ask you this. Do you feel that any test that renders any product unusable is unreasonable?

I don't think it's an 'unreasonable' question, Phil, and furthermore, I think it would allow people to better understand your position.

Regards,
3G

 

[Ebbtide]

From my 80's vintage Buck 305S1 Clipper box.
The only Buck care/instruction sheet that I still have.

I hope that helps.
Nitpicking can be fun at times.

 

[Morningveil]

I still don't know what abuse is. You can tell me if some act is abusive, but then if I see a guy do it to a kitchen knife for an hour, I no longer think it should be considered abusive for any fixed blade knife of a thicker blade stock or more obtuse grind.

'Abuse' is not intuitively known, which is the whole point for testing to failure. If the manufacturer doesn't tell you what the expected performance is, nor indicates where failure should be expected, then I don't mind when someone else does. No manufacturers claims would ever impress anyone if we could all instantly know what level of 'abuse' any particular knife design could handle.

I also prefer when failure in a hand tool is reached by testing in hand. I can look up the material properties, that doesn't help in determining how the design and the ergonomics affect usage and subsequent causes of failure when wielded by a person.

Hardheart. This is a great point that sums up the need for more/continued testing and why the tests have become so popular. Well said. :thumbup:

 

[Ebbtide]

Actually, they do test the knife and then make inference based on the performance of the smith's abilities, as I understand it....

Cross posted.
Yes, the knife is tested but the smith is judged on his ability to manipulate the steel in the knife.

 

[busselover]

From my 80's vintage Buck 305S1 Clipper box.
The only Buck care/instruction sheet that I still have.

I hope that helps.
Nitpicking can be fun at times.

That's pretty funny-advertise your knives with a picture of one being hammered through a bolt/nail and then in fine print, tell the customer not to do it...

At least we know the Buck engineers do it as a TEST. Maybe Sharp Phil can make a video for them admonishing them about how unreasonable it is to abuse a knife.....

 

[Karda]

Karda, are we really moving back to your "destructive testers take advantage of knife manufacturers" argument again? I thought we covered that already. Instead of taking me up on my challenge and proving your point, you've brought up an issue that has already been discussed. Until you can show me a knife testers code of ethics, we're bound to disagree on what constitues a 'breach of ethics' on the part of the consumer.

No , i was just pointing out the Hypocrisy...i see no reason to indulge you in the silly challenges you offer. Until you can show me that testing has any better ethics, then yes we are bound to disagree.

At least we know the Buck engineers do it as a TEST. Maybe Sharp Phil can make a video for them admonishing them about how unreasonable it is to abuse a knife.....

Maybe some could take that care sheet as a statement of what knifemakers(at least buck) tell to their customers with little or no common sense.

 

[Ankar Sheng]

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.

Saying abusive testing is a disservice to the knife community is flat out ignorant, you seem to think you know exactly how and where everyone uses knives.

I've been doing yard work and had to pry off a board that was nailed to something. You can drop everything and go find a prybar, or carry one around with you just in case. I know roughly how far my knife can flex before taking a set and how much further would actually break it.

The woods I frequent in the Canadian Shield are all granite with only a few inches of soil at most, and often nothing but moss or lichen covering the rocks. If you're cutting something on the ground and follow through, or chopping something and you glance off it, over/undershoot, chop through it, ect, youre going to hit granite. It doesnt happen often, but it has and it can. God forbid someone should demonstrate how an particular edge will hold up to something like that lest it somehow give the ignorant the "wrong idea: :jerkit:. Though I'm sure some armchair quarterbacks would just insist I carry a chopping block....

The only way to know what you can realistically expect from any given knife is to test it. A lifetime guarantee is all fine and dandy but it doesnt do you much good when youre in the woods with a broken knife.

If anything's is a disservice to the knife community it's your farcical crusade against abusive testing. If you dont like the tests, ignore them, dont try to stonewall them so I cant get the information.

 

[hardheart]

The toughest knife is a recent phenomenon. I'm 52 and feel that it all started with Cold Steel and their tanto punching thru the oil drum in their ads. Before that it was style, use, steel type and edge holding that were pushed in the ads. Again AFAIK/remember.

IMNSHO it (the toughest knife) is the answer to a question that no one asked.

During my visit, Kramer was absorbed in one of his incessant studies--this time, an attempt to replicate the legendary achievements of Frank J. Richtig. In 1936, Richtig, a Nebraska blacksmith, made "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" for an act that he performed at state and county fairs: according to "Ripley's," this was a man who "cuts cold steel . . . auto parts, railroad spikes, buggy axles, etc., with a butcher knife, and then cuts paper with the same knife!" (Cutting paper may not sound like much, but it's a surprisingly demanding test of blade sharpness which is still in use, even in modern factories.) Richtig supposedly had a special system for heat-treating his blades, which he never revealed. To this day, scholarly papers occasionally appear in the annals of metallurgy which attempt to uncover Richtig's methods. "I would love to crack this," Kramer told me. "If I could do that, game...

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-36140812_ITM

 

[Karda]

Saying abusive testing is a disservice to the knife community is flat out ignorant, you seem to think you know exactly how and where everyone uses knives.

I've been doing yard work and had to pry off a board that was nailed to something. You can drop everything and go find a prybar, or carry one around with you just in case. I know roughly how far my knife can flex before taking a set and how much further would actually break it.

The woods I frequent in the Canadian Shield are all granite with only a few inches of soil at most, and often nothing but moss or lichen covering the rocks. If you're cutting something on the ground and follow through, or chopping something and you glance off it, over/undershoot, chop through it, ect, youre going to hit granite. It doesnt happen often, but it has and it can. God forbid someone should demonstrate how an particular edge will hold up to something like that lest it somehow give the ignorant the "wrong idea: :jerkit:. Though I'm sure some armchair quarterbacks would just insist I carry a chopping block....

The only way to know what you can realistically expect from any given knife is to test it. A lifetime guarantee is all fine and dandy but it doesnt do you much good when youre in the woods with a broken knife.

If anything's is a disservice to the knife community it's your farcical crusade against abusive testing. If you dont like the tests, ignore them, dont try to stonewall them so I cant get the information.

You needed destructive testing to tell you that?

 

[Ebbtide]

OK.
I think the key word there is "act"

 

[hardheart]

I'm not sure what you mean. It was how he advertised his knives, it was how he got in Ripley's, it was how he got a mastersmith title, it was how his heat treat methods were considered impressive enough to be investigated more than half a century later.

 

[theonew]

Saying abusive testing is a disservice to the knife community is flat out ignorant, you seem to think you know exactly how and where everyone uses knives...

Good post. The post you are responding to is one of Phil's biggest whoppers in this thread.

__________________

So the promulgation of abuse as the standard of testing

Wrong, no one is saying it is a standard, it is simply a metric of toughness, there are lots of others doing testing on other important aspects such as edge retention and edge stability and corrosion resistance.

is unreasonable

Wrong, you are just putting forth your wrong opinion.

and creates unrealistic expectations

Wrong, just gives some performance data to knife purchasers

among relatively ignorant knife users

Wrong for obvious reasons and condescending.

thus doing everyone in the knife-using community a disservice.

Wrong conclusion based upon previous spurious logic.

 

[3Guardsmen]

Here's a quick one-post summary for anybody just tuning in:

The OP is unwilling to accept the idea that any opinion but his could possibly have merit:

We do not agree about knife breaking stunts or their utility. We are not going to agree. You are not going to persuade me to agree, because you are wrong.

When asked to back up a claim made, the OP's biggest supporter in this thread has this to offer:

i see no reason to indulge you in the silly challenges you offer.

Good stuff here.:thumbup:

Regards,
3G

 

[Phil Elmore]

Saying abusive testing is a disservice to the knife community is flat out ignorant,

Abusive testing is "flat out ignorant."

That's pretty funny-advertise your knives with a picture of one being hammered through a bolt/nail and then in fine print, tell the customer not to do it...

It illustrates quite well the concepts at play here, actually. The manufacturer has different priorities and a different investment in the product than does the end user. What the manufacturer does and what the customer should do are different things. Thus, the manufacturer tells you quite plainly not to do something so godawful stupid as to chop bolts with your knife, because it is not designed to do that -- even if they've done it at the factory for their own purposes as the manufacturer.

 

[busselover]

Abusive testing is "flat out ignorant."

That is not an argument but an unsupported opinion. You have yet to offer any evidence in support of your premise.

It illustrates quite well the concepts at play here, actually. The manufacturer has different priorities and a different investment in the product than does the end user. What the manufacturer does and what the customer should do are different things. Thus, the manufacturer tells you quite plainly not to do something so godawful stupid as to chop bolts with your knife, because it is not designed to do that -- even if they've done it at the factory for their own purposes as the manufacturer.

It is actually quite disingenuous of Buck, but then again many manufacturers make claims, either directly or indirectly, in their advertising. Without independent testing, we would have no knowledge of the veracity of these claims. Chalk one up for destructive testing.

Sharp Phil, rather than play hit and run, replying only to other's post facto comments when you think it suits you, why don't you man up and actually answer the real questions addressed to you by numerous posters. It would actually lend credibility to your to posts if you actually addressed the issues. The silence to date speaks volumes....

 

[Phil Elmore]

It is actually quite disingenuous of Buck...

No, it isn't -- to anyone who understands the concepts at play.

Sharp Phil, rather than play hit and run, replying only to other's post facto comments when you think it suits you, why don't you man up and ...

Spare me your infantile concepts of "manning up." Sooner or later you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that there are people in the world who disagree with you.

 

[brians]

You can't have it both ways. Either you are "pushing it to its limits and beyond" or you are are not destroying it.

This makes no sense? Are you assuming it is the same knife? Please explain your logic.

I already have it both ways. I test and use my knife's functionality for it's intended purpose (i.e. "not destroying it").

I also watch the destruction video to help determine how much further the knife can be pushed to the point of failure (limit and beyond).

I concede that this information is anecdotal and I don't need this failure point information, but wouldn't you consider this relevant information valuable? I use my chopper for clearing trails and bow hunting shooting lanes. Now I lanyard my blade, but it is conceivable that this usage could result in being dropped from high place (e.g. tree stand to rock resulting in significant impact stress) or even possibly being run-over by an atv or truck (e.g. between rock/truck possibly resulting in significant lateral stress).

Brian