- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,151
As a scientist by training and trade, I'm REEEAALLLLLYY bothered by how subjective the blade tests are. Sure, they do a fairly good job of swinging the blades similarly for all entrants, but the only times that I feel the tests are truly "fair" are the ones using automated systems. There is no way that they can claim 100% reproducibility of their tests.
I know that Ray's blade wasn't perfect, but I was screaming at the TV that the test was not carried out in a completely fair manner.
At first this is what I thought too, but the more I think about it, I'm not really so sure...
Part of being a successful knife maker is not only maximizing your product within the confines of your metallurgical limitations (proper heat treat, edge/blade geometry, hardness, etc...), but also maximizing it's usability for the end user.
For example, if I'm using a skinner, I'd rather have a knife with a comfortable handle that I can use and hold on to, even if I have to sharpen it 2 or 3 times more often, vs. a knife with the latest greatest super steel that 'never needs sharpening', but has an uncomfortable handle that I can't hold on to or slips out of my hand on every cut.
Now if you clamp both knives into a CATRA machine, obviously the 2nd knife will win hands down for cut tests. But if you add the human element into the mix, which knife comes out on top?
Granted, I realize that the coconut chop is primarily used as an example of edge retention, but I think a secondary purpose is also function, or how well the knife handles.