Reasonable Knife Evaluation

[Karda]

"Common Sense" would also come into play here. There are proper ways to baton with a knife capable of and built to withstand that type of use And there are improper ways to baton a knife. Use of a hammer on them would be considered "abuse" while using a softer sturdy chunk of wood would not be. Also hitting said knife in a proper manner and in the proper place would also call for the use of "Common Sense".

Honestly, no matter how well made or described as tough by the maker, most knives are not the wisest choice for splitting wood. that is what we have axes, hatchets and wedges for. There are even some of these made specifically small enough for pack carry and camp use.

The only "knife" here on BF at all that i would consider for use in Batoning would be a larger than 15 inch Churwa Ang khola khukuri and still it would need to be used with "Common Sense"

 

[theonew]

"Common Sense" would also come into play here. There are proper ways to baton with a knife capable of and built to withstand that type of use And there are improper ways to baton a knife. Use of a hammer on them would be considered "abuse" while using a softer sturdy chunk of wood would not be. Also hitting said knife in a proper manner and in the proper place would also call for the use of "Common Sense".

I thought that too, until I came across Busses and watched lots of other blades survive punishing batoning with a hammer through not only wood but cinder block and metal. Once again my "common sense" had to be reevaluated.

Honestly, no matter how well made or described as tough by the maker, most knives are not the wisest choice for splitting wood. that is what we have axes, hatchets and wedges for. There are even some of these made specifically small enough for pack carry and camp use.

I wouldn't describe myself as an ultralight backpacker, but I'm definitely weight conscious and much prefer to carry one sturdy fixed blade knife that can serve multiple purposes and there are plenty available to choose from.

 

[Karda]

I thought that too, until I came across Busses and watched lots of other blades survive punishing batoning with a hammer through not only wood but cinder block and metal. Once again my "common sense" had to be reevaluated.

You may well have felt the need to reevaluate, But you shouldnt expect any maker to follow suit. All steels, even Busses have their inherant limitations. anyone expecting anything past these limitations should reevaluate the thinking that brought them to being the owner of a broken knife and should blame themselves ,rather than the manufacturer. They also should not expect the maker to make right their lack of "Common Sense".

I wouldn't describe myself as an ultralight backpacker, but I'm definitely weight conscious and much prefer to carry one sturdy fixed blade knife that can serve multiple purposes and there are plenty available to choose from.

When you are out in the wild with a broken knife, then who is to blame....surely not the manufactuer. Number one rule to survival is using "Common Sense", Number two rule to survival is "Preparedness". Surely you don't hike with just the clothes on your back, only one way to make fire or without a plan and a backup plan in case of need. People going into the wild without proper knowlege, "Common Sense" and gear suited to the needs of the endeavor are the reason our rescue crews are kept quite busy and all too often ends in tragedy.
Again the Onus is on the end-user of these products and endeavors to prepare and use "Common Sense" in their use and in pursuit of their endeavors.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The fact that an act of abuse is common or done "regularly" doesn't mean it's not an act of abuse.

 

[neeman]

Excellent video!

I work in Hi Tech manufacturing
All components on a tool are tested to failure.
This is a standard as part of the acceptance procedure to have them included on a tool.
This is reasonable use and not abuse
When and how will the component fail
When will it need to be replaced or serviced before failure.

Testing a component, tool or knife to failure is reasonable.
It is the only way to learn the limits of the tool, and if the limits of the tool are reasonable.

Not discussing methods!!!!LOL

 

[brownshoe]

Spyderco's Glesser says they test their knives to failure all the time. Spyderco finds "unreasonable" tests "reasonable." Why not Phil?

I work with engineers who always test things beyond their design capabilities to assure the risk of failure in "normal" use is low. Why is it OK for the engineers to do it but not some guy with money and a knife?

Tests to failure are relevant if you may use your knife in extreme situations. We had a guy on here a few years ago who did rough work around the artic circle where the severe cold makes knife performance...lets say testy

I think Phil that you are dead wrong in believing that us knife knuts can't judge for ourselves whether the destruction tests are BS, useful or just plain entertaning. For example, if the great destroyer pits a Forschner chef's knive against a cinder block, we'd all know he's crazy but entertaining. However, if you pit any "camp" knife against a stone, is this irrelevant? Anyone who's been camping for awhile has F-ed up and had their big camp knife contact a stone, concrete and maybe even a cinder block. Maybe even more than once. Not me of course, its always my fellow campers who bugger up their knives, I never miss a target with a swing

I think Phil, that as a reviewer-competitor, you may be a little jealous of the attention that the test to failure guys get.

 

[Josh K]

Just because Phil likes attention doesn't mean he has a bad point. I believe that these destruction tests are useful in evaluating a knife, however you have to take into consideration the knife's intended audience.

Some knives are intended for light duty use such as opening the mail or picking your fingers. Others are designed to withstand brutal abuse, and are marketed as such.

Take reviews with a grain of salt and you'll be a lot better off.

 

[hardheart]

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.

 

[Will Power]

He asks us to use and test tools within context and this is absolutely right.

Knives are actually very precise instruments,view them accordingly.

Well argued polemic that video:thumbup:

 

[Phil Elmore]

Spyderco's Glesser says they test their knives to failure all the time. Spyderco finds "unreasonable" tests "reasonable." Why not Phil?

A manufacturer is not a customer. The manufacturer has different interests and concerns because they are the manufacturer. Their investment in the product is different than that of the end user.

I think Phil, that as a reviewer-competitor, you may be a little jealous of the attention that the test to failure guys get.

Please don't project irrelevant issues onto me. If you feel some emotional reaction in examining these issues, it has nothing to do with me.

Just because Phil likes attention doesn't mean he has a bad point.

I'm not interested in attention for attention's sake. I like to share what I do because I enjoy it and because I think others might find it useful.

I still don't know what abuse is.

Abuse is deliberately using a tool for a purpose it was not designed to fulfill.

He asks us to use and test tools within context and this is absolutely right.

Knives are actually very precise instruments,view them accordingly.

Well argued polemic that video:thumbup:

Thank you!

 

[C. STORR]

Leatherman thanks you...:thumbup:

 

[hardheart]

Abuse is deliberately using a tool for a purpose it was not designed to fulfill.

I'd say that is a bit too wide a definition. I have knives I do not use for cutting, I own them because I like them, nothing more. They were designed and constructed to cut things, but by this definition I am abusing them by only looking at them for enjoyment.

Still, even for the knives I do use, how much leeway is given for the defined use? Cutting can take on many forms, when does the separation of matter become abusive to a tool that was designed to separate matter?

Knives can be used to pry with, even knives that are not advertised as suitable for prying. If I pry apart two objects glued together by an adhesive whose holding force is well under the yield point for a certain blade geometry, did I abuse the knife, even though the manufacturer does not think it is suitable for prying? There was zero risk of failure, the math states as much.

I don't think someone should abuse their tools when working, but I also think we don't know what abuse of a tool is until we find out somehow beyond speculation.

 

[SPXTrader]

I still don't know what abuse is.

'Abuse' is not intuitively known...

I know intuitively that if I drain all the oil out of my truck and jump on the interstate, running at 70 MPH, it is abuse. It will fail. What difference does it make if it fails in 3 minutes or 10 minutes?

I have never done this, so how do I know it will fail? How do I know it is abusive? Common sense, or intuition.

 

[Karda]

I for one would like the destruction test supporters to show me where any manufacturer states that their knives were meant to be forced thru cinderblock,concrete, steel pipe in the same test while being hit with a 3lb hammer. or driven into any piece of wood/metal point first and beat on for an hour with said hammer or clamped in a vice and stood upon by an overweight person and forced to endure his bouncing on it.

Which brings us all back to the "Common Sense" and "Reasonable Testing" issue.

As i stated before...All Steels have their inherant limitations. anyone expecting anything past these limitations should reevaluate the thinking that brought them to being the owner of a broken knife and should blame themselves ,rather than the manufacturer. They also should not expect the maker to make right their lack of "Common Sense".

 

[Phil Elmore]

I'd say that is a bit too wide a definition.

Not at all. Some abuse is mild. Some is extreme. If your knife breaks while using it to do something for which it was not designed, this is not a failure of the knife; it is a failure of the operator.

 

[MVF]

I don't think anyone is saying that the destructive part of the testing is the only relevant part or criteria. For myself, if I can see that knife "A" for $100 will do everything that knife "B" for $300 will do AND take 5 more whacks with a sledge hammer before it breaks, then all else being equal, I will go out and save $200- and rightfully so, I think.

If it also shows me that knife "C" for $400 will do all that AND chop through concrete and a pipe, then I know something else, and can now make an even more educated buying decision.

Personally, I haven't broken a knife since using a cheap folder for a screwdriver broke the tip off. I don't have any intention of cutting concrete or metal with a knife, but when it comes to buying a knife I can count on not to break when I need it, at least I can now make a more informed decision.

I feel bad for all those who paid a premium price for knives billed as "tough" and "hard use" that break before much cheaper alternatives. I don't really understand why so many people get so upset by these tests. Do they think people aren't capable of judging for themselves how relevant each part of the tests are to their particular use? Or are they just mad because their particular favorite didn't test as well as they wished?

I found them pretty entertaining at first, and am glad that someone is doing this type of testing. With all the good knives out there these days, how are you going to compare their capabilities without going to extremes? Any decent knife will do any reasonable task longer than most people could keep going, so how would you test?

 

[hardheart]

I know intuitively that if I drain all the oil out of my truck and jump on the interstate, running at 70 MPH, it is abuse. It will fail. What difference does it make if it fails in 3 minutes or 10 minutes?

I have never done this, so how do I know it will fail? How do I know it is abusive? Common sense, or intuition.

What about if you don't change it at 3000 mile intervals an wait til 3500 or 4000, what if you run it half a quart low, what if you use a different weight, change your plugs to a different heat range or otherwise alter your ignition system, put in a different radiator or just swap the thermostat, put on a set of headers with no wrap, put a shift kit in your tranny, do anything outside of factory spec? Will your engine fail, does adding a few extra hp, raising the operating temp of the motor 10 degrees, or some other alteration constitute 'abuse'?

Draining all the oil out of your engine and then setting the truck on fire is also abusive. I'm wondering what the bare minimum that constitutes abuse is, the extremes are easy to imagine.

 

[Phil Elmore]

It's not an "on" or "off" concept. It can be mild, or it can be extreme.

 

[mmmotorcycle]

Spyderco's Glesser says they test their knives to failure all the time. Spyderco finds "unreasonable" tests "reasonable." Why not Phil?

I work with engineers who always test things beyond their design capabilities to assure the risk of failure in "normal" use is low. Why is it OK for the engineers to do it but not some guy with money and a knife?

Tests to failure are relevant if you may use your knife in extreme situations. We had a guy on here a few years ago who did rough work around the artic circle where the severe cold makes knife performance...lets say testy

I think Phil that you are dead wrong in believing that us knife knuts can't judge for ourselves whether the destruction tests are BS, useful or just plain entertaning. For example, if the great destroyer pits a Forschner chef's knive against a cinder block, we'd all know he's crazy but entertaining. However, if you pit any "camp" knife against a stone, is this irrelevant? Anyone who's been camping for awhile has F-ed up and had their big camp knife contact a stone, concrete and maybe even a cinder block. Maybe even more than once. Not me of course, its always my fellow campers who bugger up their knives, I never miss a target with a swing

I think Phil, that as a reviewer-competitor, you may be a little jealous of the attention that the test to failure guys get.

First, Phil is a normal guy who does not have access to a factory making knives. I hope you can see that the average knife user will not test knives to failure, unless supplied with a substantial disposable income.

Second, as an environmental engineer my dad tests systems to failure to determine their limits for safety. It is impossible to apply macro engineering principles a "small" knife that will like injure an unsuspecting knife user.

Third, Phil has an office job and like most knife users does not require an EDC item (knife or otherwise) to be readily capable in extreme environments. Phil recognizes that nearly all knife users never need to destroy a knife and to do so is ludicrous. So, if you never miss a swing, why do you insist on having knives that can stand up to such careless abuse?

Lastly, Phil has started this forum back on the track of practicallity. I am all for that. I can not afford to break half of the knives and tools I own. I have woods carving tools for woods carving. Folders and small fixed blades for EDC. More and more, as I prepare for college, I understand how important it is to have the right tool for the job.

Would it be too much to commend Phil for doing a fine job in a sadly underexplored method of evaluating knives?

 

[Reeek]

Common Sense reviews of a knife for it's intended purpose is fine with me. I agree with that. But how do you classify "intended use" in a "survival" knife?

To me, the intended use of a survival knife is to help me survive . . . I'm not sure I have any rule(s) toward that pursuit except to . . . survive.