Torture Test - PM2

Hard cold proof that if you do stupid things with your knives they will break. Think what people never understand about these videos is that they do absolutely NOTHING to prove whether it is a good knife. It is simply showing the limitations of the "abuse", (and lets not mince words its abuse) a knife can take before failing. But when people post these types of things in hopes of getting a "oh, my god its such a crappy knife" I think those people are incredibly misinformed. If you take a champagne glass and knock someone over the head with it its going to break. It is not a bad glass because you decided to use it for a purpose it wasnt intended. Does it make it a bad self defense weapon if the desired result is to use it more than one time? Sure. But that should have been painfully obvious "BEFORE" you smashed it. These knife destruction videos are not any different. It represents using something in a manner it was never designed, nor intended to be used. And any assumption by anyone that the above video represents anything other than entertainment and you really are expecting too much.
 
PURPLEDC said:
...what people never understand about these videos is that they do absolutely NOTHING to prove whether it is a good knife. It is simply showing the limitations of the "abuse", (and lets not mince words its abuse) a knife can take before failing. ... It represents using something in a manner it was never designed, nor intended to be used. And any assumption by anyone that the above video represents anything other than entertainment and you really are expecting too much.
Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat with these assertions. "Abuse" is using the tool in a manner in which its design-limitations are likely to be exceeded. But knives vary in design and durability to an extent that the limitations can vary dramatically in ways that are not obvious to all consumers/users. It is helpful for consumers to have dramatic evidence demonstrating what those limitations are. For example, many might consider a thin Mora companion to be unsuitable for many tasks which it is perfectly capable of as demonstrated by the old Noss D-test, and much thicker/larger blades may actually be less durable per demonstration. In this video, the Russians show that the PM2 has fairly good cutting-geometry (although the handle may be uncomfortably thin for heavy cutting) and the thin blade and tip in this steel (and associated HT) at this temperature make it unsuitable for much prying or hammering through nails - for such use, another knife might be a better choice. Similarly, the compression-lock gives way to heavy spine-whacks that a fixed-blade or another lock-design might not succumb to, but it is also important to note how heavy those whacks were and that the lock was still quite functional under other stresses even after this abuse - so don't hammer with the spine of this knife as you might be able to with another knife, but be confident in the reliability of the lock and the handle's structural integrity :thumbup:. I have seen back-locks endure such whacking but then fracture and become unusable.

In summary, I thought that this test was a good demonstration of the reliability of the PM2 lock and the decent cutting geometry while also presenting its limitations. An Opinel might have better cutting-geometry but lower durability, a Benchmade Adamas might have greater durability but much worse cutting performance, and fixed-blades might present just as much variability again depending on design. Personally I find a great deal of value in these videos, and they help to dissuade me from attempting things that I might be otherwise tempted to if I found myself in comparable circumstances.
 
While I was not surprised that the tip broke (it was very cringe-worthy), I was a little surprised at how the rest of the blade broke. Also, I don't place much stock in spine-whack tests, but I did think the Compression-Lock would have fared a bit better than that.
 
I don't get the point, really, other than seeing one example of what it took to break the knife. I hope these guys will start doing brick-down static tests of vehicle engines to see just how high they can run up the RPMs before the engine blows, and give us a post mortem to show what actually broke first. It'd be more useful than these videos. :rolleyes:
 
chiral.grolim said:
I disagree somewhat with these assertions. "Abuse" is using the tool in a manner in which its design-limitations are likely to be exceeded. But knives vary in design and durability to an extent that the limitations can vary dramatically in ways that are not obvious to all consumers/users. It is helpful for consumers to have dramatic evidence demonstrating what those limitations are. For example, many might consider a thin Mora companion to be unsuitable for many tasks which it is perfectly capable of as demonstrated by the old Noss D-test, and much thicker/larger blades may actually be less durable per demonstration. In this video, the Russians show that the PM2 has fairly good cutting-geometry (although the handle may be uncomfortably thin for heavy cutting) and the thin blade and tip in this steel (and associated HT) at this temperature make it unsuitable for much prying or hammering through nails - for such use, another knife might be a better choice. Similarly, the compression-lock gives way to heavy spine-whacks that a fixed-blade or another lock-design might not succumb to, but it is also important to note how heavy those whacks were and that the lock was still quite functional under other stresses even after this abuse - so don't hammer with the spine of this knife as you might be able to with another knife, but be confident in the reliability of the lock and the handle's structural integrity :thumbup:. I have seen back-locks endure such whacking but then fracture and become unusable.

In summary, I thought that this test was a good demonstration of the reliability of the PM2 lock and the decent cutting geometry while also presenting its limitations. An Opinel might have better cutting-geometry but lower durability, a Benchmade Adamas might have greater durability but much worse cutting performance, and fixed-blades might present just as much variability again depending on design. Personally I find a great deal of value in these videos, and they help to dissuade me from attempting things that I might be otherwise tempted to if I found myself in comparable circumstances.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree. I guess being in this hobby for 25 years I dont need someone to physically destroy a knife before my eyes for me to understand what it will and wont do. And furthermore I dislike these videos because if they ARE in fact designed for the lesser informed individual it can give the false impression that the knife is unreliable or failure prone. The PM2 has a thin delicate tip. If you stab it into a 2x4 and pry with it you are going to break it its not quantum physics. But someone who knows nothing about knives is going to see that and think the knife is being "tested" and failed when in reality there is no way it could have survived. To me what is much more useful is to only put a given design through what it should be exposed to and if it fails then you know it may not be worth a second look. And I still feel that doing a "torture" test of a knife like that is shock value and entertainment. I dont need someone to to blow up the engine on a corvette for me to know that you dont drain the oil and bury the needle. Some things just require some common sense and dont need to be spelled out. Im not saying that its not fun to watch those videos. It is. But I dont think anyone should judge a knife too harshly if it fails doing something it wasnt intended for. And if you are watching the video because you dont know how are you supposed to know if it should have survived or not?
 
PURPLEDC said:
... I dont need someone to physically destroy a knife before my eyes for me to understand what it will and wont do.
... it can give the false impression that the knife is unreliable or failure prone...
...Some things just require some common sense and dont need to be spelled out. Im not saying that its not fun to watch those videos. It is. But I dont think anyone should judge a knife too harshly if it fails doing something it wasnt intended for. And if you are watching the video because you dont know how are you supposed to know if it should have survived or not?
Click to expand...

:thumbup: Hopefully the makers of the video would clarify the level of 'performance' with what is expected in regard to the design/construction and also in comparison to other samples/subjects which they put through the same 'tests'. Of course, these are Russian videos and if you don't speak Russian you may not catch any explanation given. This is similar to Noss' D-tests - he was very explicit about the intentions of his destructive abuse of each knife and also about comparative performance between knives, but much of that was lost in the outrage expressed by viewers seeing knives abused in such fashion. From all I read surrounding those, there were far fewer "lesser informed" folk getting a false impression than there were "more informed" folk who hadn't bothered to understand the point and simply attacked him for making the videos in the first place. Someone would cry, "Of course it failed like that under such abuse! It isn't designed for such abusive nonsense!" disregarding the fact that other knives with very similar design - sometimes thinner and thus intuitively weaker - proved to be stronger/more durable. I remember seeing tests where engineers DID drain the oil from engines and then maxed them out to see which oil provided the most lasting level of protection against seizure, something which was NOT known until actually tested. "Common sense" can prevent innovation and improvement of designs in particular directions. Look at CPM-3V, steel designed as a more durable high-wear replacement for older tool-steels which, per "common sense" (i.e. experience) were the best possible... until someone came up with something better 8)

What if the PM2 were tested in a different steel? S30V isn't the toughest out there, it could suffer a micro-fracture that propagates to failure more easily than another steel. Or what if the PM2 were compared to a knife of similar size and geometry for general purpose use? If one is a better slicer but slicing-performance isn't the most important feature for such use (it's not a kitchen knife) and the knife fails under tougher conditions which might be expected in such use, then that design is inferior... but potential buyers won't know that unless someone shows them the fact, much more reliable than taking someone's "word" that it can/cannot endure such use. Watching videos made by knife-makers here on BF has shown how far such innovation can go, with knives both thin and hard performing tasks which "common sense" would relegate only to softer or thicker knives. I think immediately of the ESEE founders whose warranty only covers soft spring-steel knives and decries that ANY hardened knife used for throwing will fail and anyone who says or does otherwise is "an idiot". They try to dictate "common sense" and people believe them despite a plethora of evidence (including video) contradicting their ridiculous assertion. There are others known for decrying certain steels as "fragile" and unsuitable for specific tasks, or that they are difficult/impossible to sharpen... despite a plethora of evidence (even video) showing just how capable and durable knives made from those steels can be, and easily sharpened as well. Again "common sense" may not be the same thing to everyone.

The trouble that I see is when people draw inappropriate conclusions from the data presented in these videos, but that is as common from "experienced" users as it is from the "lesser informed". So bring on the videos! Without them, discussions of durability (which are ubiquitous) are mere arm-chair theorizing. And like you said, they're entertaining t'boot ;)
 
Can anyone verify whether that knife was or wasn't a genuine spyderco? In all reality it could absolutely be a clone and we just watched a destruction test of a chinese fake with crap steel. Even if it was was a clone, it didn't perform terribly for such a thin blade.
 
PURPLEDC said:
We will have to agree to disagree. I guess being in this hobby for 25 years I dont need someone to physically destroy a knife before my eyes for me to understand what it will and wont do. And furthermore I dislike these videos because if they ARE in fact designed for the lesser informed individual it can give the false impression that the knife is unreliable or failure prone. The PM2 has a thin delicate tip. If you stab it into a 2x4 and pry with it you are going to break it its not quantum physics. But someone who knows nothing about knives is going to see that and think the knife is being "tested" and failed when in reality there is no way it could have survived. To me what is much more useful is to only put a given design through what it should be exposed to and if it fails then you know it may not be worth a second look. And I still feel that doing a "torture" test of a knife like that is shock value and entertainment. I dont need someone to to blow up the engine on a corvette for me to know that you dont drain the oil and bury the needle. Some things just require some common sense and dont need to be spelled out. Im not saying that its not fun to watch those videos. It is. But I dont think anyone should judge a knife too harshly if it fails doing something it wasnt intended for. And if you are watching the video because you dont know how are you supposed to know if it should have survived or not?
Click to expand...


totally agree with you, also ,this could have been a knockoff blade,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top