Reasonable Knife Evaluation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharp Phil said:
Well, even that is not what bothers me about the increasing prevalence of such testing. Individuals are free to break their stuff all day long. The reason I bothered doing this polemic at all is that I think there exists a growing segment in the "knife community," if we can call it that -- people who are perhaps relatively young, or perhaps relatively uninformed (though I'm really not trying to take a crack at them) who are developing unreasonable expectations for the baseline of what a knife should be able to do.

I think this is happening specifically because these knife-breaking stunts are promulgated. I believe this does the entire community of knife users a disservice because it moves the baseline of one's expectations from a reasonable one to an unreasonable one.
Click to expand...

I do understand what you are saying here.

However to believe that these "stunts" are responisible or can be blamed for moving or reestablishing baselines of expectations for the entire knife community at large is unrealistic, IMO.

The totally uninformed may or may not understand this. They need to be / become, informed........

......but to place limits on the entire knife community based on what the newbie/uninformed may or may not know or think.......
......... that, is the real disservice to the entire knife community.
 
Not the entire community, no -- just the ignorant subset of it that is likely to be influenced because its members don't know any better, or don't understand... or can't understand.
 
In this thread several logical, viable, and quite reasonable points have been put forward repeatedly in defense of destructive testing of knives marketed for hard use. None of these points have been addressed by Sharp Phil despite repeated requests. To summarize:

-It keeps manufacturers honest by verifying their marketing claims (think consumer reports)

-It finds the ultimate toughness and performance of a blade made for extreme use, thus defining the capabilities for the end user (think proof testing of a firearm where a firearm is deliberately subjected to overpressure (abusive, yes))

-It provides price/performance data that can be used by consumers to make purchase decisions (again, think consumer reports)

-Destructive testing is an accepted, even indispensable, tool in engineering design. It is used every day in countless labs around the world. Without it, we would be in the dark ages as it plays an important role in the design of almost every product we associate with modern life. To deny its role and importance is sheer folly. Unless of course one is a Luddite. Anyone with any knowledge or training in engineering design understands this and accepts it as a given.

-A hard use knife is a tool like any other.

Sharp Phil's only articulated argument, to date, against destructive testing, is that it creates "unreasonable expectations" among some undetermined subset of knife users. While this is certainly possible, it is hardly just cause to throw the baby out with the bath water. In reality, the benefits greatly out weight this rather nebulous possibility. The fact that destructive testing is the norm is proof positive.

Looking a bit closer at Sharp Phil's primary argument, to date, against destructive testing, ( that it creates "unreasonable expectations" among some undetermined subset of knife users), we have to ask ourselves, what is the damage caused, and to whom, by these new "unreasonable expectations"? Clearly, the user, by having his expectations increased, suffers not. Oh, but what about the manufacturer? Only those whose products fail to live up to the marketing claims have anything to lose.

So, in essence, Sharp Phil is out to protect not the "knife community", but manufacturers, chiefly those that may suffer from product that does not live up to its marketing. An anti-consumer activist, if you will.....

Criticism of the Noss tests as not valid is a separate argument. Again, extrapolating his work to the general case that all destructive knife testing is "ignorant" is a leap that seeming lands one in a dark, lonely, defenseless place.

Without addressing these challenges to his premise, Sharp Phil's argument is impotent and his claims half-baked.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you cannot make any contribution to this thread without making personal attacks indicates that you have lost the argument before it has begun. Your declarations are intellectually bankrupt.
 
Don't project your failings on me. Your inability to address the issues substantively is what has lost the argument.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Not the entire community, no -- just the ignorant subset of it that is likely to be influenced because its members don't know any better, or don't understand... or can't understand.
Click to expand...

..or don't agree with me."

:D

Hubris, Inc.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Not the entire community, no -- just the ignorant subset of it that is likely to be influenced because its members don't know any better, or don't understand... or can't understand.
Click to expand...

There will always be those people in any group.

But to place limits on any group, knife group included......... based on the "understanding" of those people limits any future progress.

Nothing would ever "progress" past the lowest common denominator.

Because those that do not understand, for whatever reason....... will most likely never understand.

Testing, progress, and/or forward movement cannot be allowed to be hindered or dictated by that group. Whatever the endeavor may be.
 
Sharp Phil said:
I'm not placing limits on anybody. I'm simply informing people that some behaviors are stupid.
Click to expand...

I know that this is probably not the intended response, but knowing Phil a little bit from cyberspace, this is a very funny statement....slightly accurate, but very funny.:D

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
teacher said:
I agree, some are.
Testing to failure is not one of those behaviors however.
Click to expand...

Phil may be arguing this point as a whole, however, I'll stick to the "who and how".

There is a guy named Dan Maragni who earned his ABS MS way back in the day('80's) and went to work for Cold Steel, developing amongst other things, Carbon V.....now...people can CERTAINLY take exception to Cold Steel's marketing, but I never heard anyone say that Carbon V itself was garbage....and Dan has very methodical, and repeatable tests, and keeps excellent data.....I trust his opinion, know his methods, and understand his results....

On the other end of the spectrum, we have amateurs who treat this like a big joke, and wind up potentially hurting established makers who don't deserve this....and that is what myself and many others who keep jumping back on this horse object to.

I know Chris Reeve, and never heard him say that he makes indestructable knives, but proudly emphasizes ergonomics, cutting ability and usability....all accurately represented in my book......Jerry Busse says basically, "my knives can take anything that you can throw at them" and as far as I have seen, this is accurate as well...aesthetic considerations aside.

The context still matters, and this thread has absolutely proven that it is impossible to meet everyone's expectations, all else being equal. Buy what you like, use it, and share the results...pretty simple.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Phil's video was the first I have seen regarding knife reviews, and I appreciated what he had to say on the topic. It seems that the clashing here centers around our individual beliefs rather than our opinions. What I would really like to know (though I realize it is not possible) is what effect reading this thread and watching the video will have on those who have recently entered the knife world, and are still forming their beliefs/opinions.

Edit:
STeven Garsson,
That was very well put.
 
Last edited:
Kohai999 said:
and Dan has very methodical, and repeatable tests, and keeps excellent data.....I trust his opinion, know his methods, and understand his results....
Click to expand...
What are his methods? More specifically, do they involve anything outside of cutting duties? It has been posted more than once in this thread that if you do anything outside of the scope of reasonable cutting, the tests are invalid.

Which is strange, because I wonder how steel choices are to be made for knives. Apparently pin-on-disk, charpy, or rockwell tests are irrelevant for knifemaking.

Honestly, I would like any info on his testing.
 
If knife testing doesn't attempt to find the limits of performance then aren't all knife reviews essentially the same kind of subjective crap you get at the flea market?

"It feels pretty good in my hand."
"It holds an edge for a good long time."
"It's really easy to sharpen."
"It opens really smoothly."
"Great ergonomics."

Underlined is the subjective element in each statement.

Bashing a knife with a hammer is arguably more valid and objective than 'usability' reviews, because at least we can count the hammer blows and measure the mass of the hammer. What's the repeatability standard for "feels good"?
 
Last edited:
Sharp Phil said:
Not the entire community, no -- just the ignorant subset of it that is likely to be influenced because its members don't know any better, or don't understand... or can't understand.
Click to expand...

Ok, then why are you so very concerned with this small "ignorant" subset of people?

If they are ignorant, let them be.
 
hardheart said:
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.
Click to expand...

I say act because that's what it was described as in the quote.
Instead of dragging this poor, tired, old thread down yet another tangent, I'll say that any time I see "secret" methods that "can't be replicated" I start to wonder.
If he was all that and a bag of chips, how come he wasn't the next coming in the knife world? Or sell his heat treat secret?
Or start a knife company and make the best knives in the world using his secret method?
Interesting as well, with all of the great metallurgists, smiths, knife knuts, and technology out there, that no one has been able to duplicate his feats.
That article was about one smith, and his fascination with the man, Richtig.

Cutting axles and all that didn't have anything to do with Richtig getting his MS title. As stated before the ABS has it's own test specifications.

There has been much ado about James Black, Jim Bowie and the meteor that was forged into the steel of Bowie's knife as well.
I wonder about that as well.

It's interesting that Buck can be derided for their use of the knife cutting the nail/bolt in their logo/advertising, but Richtig's advertising/self promotion is taken at face value.

Again, only cuz you asked :)
 
Real world Human destructive testing validates all the research and math that is hopefully done before hand. Many things work on paper or in the lab but fail miserably in the real world.

If your a person who finds themselves in situations that require a tool to preform above and beyond it's stated design then destructive tests can give you incite about the tool.

If your a person who cringes at a blemish on there knife then these tests will be of no value to you because you won't be able to "see" or understand what's being presented.
 
Ebbtide said:
It's interesting that Buck can be derided for their use of the knife cutting the nail/bolt in their logo/advertising, but Richtig's advertising/self promotion is taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Seems that Buck is all for show whereas this Richtig fellow walked the walk....Maybe that is the difference?
 
hardheart said:
What are his methods? More specifically, do they involve anything outside of cutting duties? It has been posted more than once in this thread that if you do anything outside of the scope of reasonable cutting, the tests are invalid.

Which is strange, because I wonder how steel choices are to be made for knives. Apparently pin-on-disk, charpy, or rockwell tests are irrelevant for knifemaking.

Honestly, I would like any info on his testing.
Click to expand...

Not being disingenuous here, but I am not at liberty to repeat this information....I can say that he tests metal and knives to destruction.

Dan now works at Ontario Cutlery, if you want to contact him directly.

Best Regards,

STeven Garsson
 
Sharp Phil said:
Destructive "testing" of the type I'm decrying doesn't provide meaningful insight into the answer of that question. ....
Click to expand...

Phil,

Thank you for your finally replying to my question, all be it with pressure from Teacher.

So your statement is clear that there is a type of Destructive testing that is valid.
I understand you do not like a certain person's methods.
But Destructive testing is valid as a testing set


Your premise in the video is "All Destructive testing is non valid".
And you admit here there is a valid type of destrutive testing
Ergo Sum

For the sake of intelectual honesty and intergrity:
Please re shoot your video, and say in it that your opinion is relevant to a certain sub-set of destructive testors


thank you
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top