"Fred Whitlock" <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote in message news:81mlv8$dr6
> I think MD made a mistake in failing to honor the warranty > because of the way the warranty is written.
Yup. If his mouth wrote too big a check, he should refrain from shooting it off so in the future. But, in the meantime, his behavior in the face of the failure of his knife says a lot about his operation and character, and none of it terribly good.
Just for laughs, I posted the following to the "new" Tactical forum at 13:08PM, 11/26/99, their time. Let's see how long it takes for them to delete it, eh?
I'm surprised to note that, despite Mad Dog's failure to honor his warranty for Cliff Stamp's broken TUSK -- and his ex post facto (that's latin for "after the second one broke, too") rewriting of his warranty -- the usual claims about the knives and the warranty are still being made.
I'm also curious as to why, if he's not going to honor the warranty, he hasn't even sent Mr. Stamp his knife back.
Would it be possible to interrupt the no-doubt-deserved praise and self-congratulation on the quality of Mr. McClung's high-price and often highly-prized products for some answers?
Or -- as was his wont on the previous Forum -- will messages critical of Mr. McClung simply be deleted?
> Just for laughs, I posted the following to the "new" Tactical forum at > 13:08PM, 11/26/99, their time. Let's see how long it takes for them to > delete it, eh?
> I'm surprised to note that, despite Mad Dog's failure to honor his warranty > for Cliff Stamp's broken TUSK -- and his ex post facto (that's latin for > "after the second one broke, too") rewriting of his warranty -- the usual > claims about the knives and the warranty are still being made.
> I'm also curious as to why, if he's not going to honor the warranty, he > hasn't even sent Mr. Stamp his knife back.
> Would it be possible to interrupt the no-doubt-deserved praise and > self-congratulation on the quality of Mr. McClung's high-price and often > highly-prized products for some answers?
> Or -- as was his wont on the previous Forum -- will messages critical of Mr. > McClung simply be deleted?
I thought you posed a good question regarding the return of Cliff's knife. I don't think the issue of Cliff's ownership is in question, so if MDK isn't going to replace it, they should return it per his request.
Mike
Mike Swan <mjs...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message > news:A6C%3.553$2p2.25392@news.uswest.net... > > As expected, the message lasted about fifteen minutes. (About what I had > > figured.)
> > I guess we've seen how open and frank the discussion on the "new" forum is > > going to be, eh?
> I thought you posed a good question regarding the return of Cliff's knife. > I don't think the issue of Cliff's ownership is in question, so if MDK isn't > going to replace it, they should return it per his request.
> Mike
Well, of course they should. But it's an embarrassment -- and the folks at MDK are, apparently, unwilling to deal with embarrassment other than by denial, denial, and denial.
I suggested a long time ago that Cliff Stamp should sell his broken TUSK to one of McDog's competitors, for display at knife shows. Cliff said he wouldn't do any such thing -- and I believe he's as good as his word -- but I can see why the folks at MDK, who demonstrably aren't as good as their word, would fear otherwise.
> >And, since it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Mad Dog Knives, > >there'll be none of those pesky discussions of fairness and > >integrity, so we can just focus on how perfect Mad Dog Knives > >are! ;-)
> Take a look and judge for your self.
Just to keep the record straight, I did log on to the forum in question, did make a post about Mad Dog Knives that was, while mild, other than the sort of flattering one that Mr. McClung appears used to, and both it and my posting privileges were promptly deleted.
This being a private forum, that was, of course, their right. But I hope this will put an end to any nonsense about this "new" forum not being a circle of, err, mutual self gratification for McClung and his fans.
In article <81mlv8$dr...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>, Fred Whitlock wrote: >Nobody has a design or a type of blade material that will outperform >similar competition meaningfully.
There are advances in materials. The high alloy tool steels are better blade materials than the high carbon steels. For specific tool uses you can also go to stainless or high-speed steels. Just recently there are the CPM steels, INFI and non-iron based "super alloys" like Talonite.
As an example I recently did a corrosion based edge holding test comparing M-INFI (the production version) to 1095. After sharpening both blades on a medium grit SiC hone the were soaked in salt water (2tbs of salt per 8 oz) for 5 hours. After that I checked the cutting ability as compared to the initial performance. The M-INFI blade was still performing unchanged, the 1095 blade now needed twice as much work to accomplish a given slicing task. I can make similar comments concerning hard impact durability / strength, high impact edge retention, wear based edge retention, push cutting / slicing ability, sharpening (coarse/fine), and other aspects such as grip ergonomics, strength / durability and security.
There are better blade and grip materials, just the same as it is for any tool or piece of work, it is not all vague. Most people avoid direct comparisons as it allows over promotion. The ones on top could not care any less about it.
In article <81mmke$ed...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Mike Swan wrote: >Ask Cliff if guys who pay a kilobuck for a blade complain when they fail.
I know of MD failures just as drastic as mine that have not been made public. I know of similar cases from other makers as well. I have several times in the past few months been asked to consult on warrenty situations with individuals who felt they were being leaned on unfairly. For all of these cases I usually suggest going public, however rarely do people want to do this. If you make a largely negative post about a maker with a large following you can get a large backlash. This does bother some. Consider for example what happened a few months ago when a couple of people made posts on Bladeforums about problems with warrenty issues with Livesay blades. They got critized on Bladeforms and outright attacked on Livesays forum by Newt and various members.
Note as well concerning failures, there is a far greater ability now for public discussion than there was just a couple of years ago with the expansion of rec.knives into the very large forums that offer almost real time discussion and the ability of almost anyone to have archives of public data in the form of webpages. When considering the correlation between reported failures and actual ones, you must factor in the ability and ease to make the reports.
In article <kiC%3.670$2p2.26...@news.uswest.net>, Joel Rosenberg wrote: >I suggested a long time ago that Cliff Stamp should sell his broken TUSK to >one of McDog's competitors, for display at knife shows. Cliff said he >wouldn't do any such thing -- and I believe he's as good as his word -- but >I can see why the folks at MDK, who demonstrably aren't as good as their >word, would fear otherwise.
They have nothing to fear from this as it won't happen. I simply don't think it would be a fair thing to do.
> In article <81mlv8$dr...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>, Fred Whitlock wrote:
> >Nobody has a design or a type of blade material that will outperform > >similar competition meaningfully.
> There are advances in materials. The high alloy tool steels are better blade > materials than the high carbon steels. For specific tool uses you can also > go to stainless or high-speed steels. Just recently there are the CPM > steels, INFI and non-iron based "super alloys" like Talonite.
And there are also design issues. O1, while a forgiving steel, is going to be more brittle at RC 62 than at RC 59, all things being equal. A thinner blade, while lighter, isn't as strong as a thicker one, all things being equal.
> As an example I recently did a corrosion based edge holding test comparing > M-INFI (the production version) to 1095. After sharpening both blades on a > medium grit SiC hone the were soaked in salt water (2tbs of salt per 8 oz) > for 5 hours. After that I checked the cutting ability as compared to the > initial performance. The M-INFI blade was still performing unchanged, the > 1095 blade now needed twice as much work to accomplish a given slicing task. > I can make similar comments concerning hard impact durability / strength, > high impact edge retention, wear based edge retention, push cutting / > slicing ability, sharpening (coarse/fine), and other aspects such as grip > ergonomics, strength / durability and security.
> There are better blade and grip materials, just the same as it is for any > tool or piece of work, it is not all vague. Most people avoid direct > comparisons as it allows over promotion. The ones on top could not care any > less about it.
> In article <81mmke$ed...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Mike Swan wrote:
> >Ask Cliff if guys who pay a kilobuck for a blade complain when they fail.
> I know of MD failures just as drastic as mine that have not been made > public. I know of similar cases from other makers as well. I have several > times in the past few months been asked to consult on warrenty situations > with individuals who felt they were being leaned on unfairly. For all of > these cases I usually suggest going public, however rarely do people want to > do this. If you make a largely negative post about a maker with a large > following you can get a large backlash. This does bother some. Consider for > example what happened a few months ago when a couple of people made posts on > Bladeforums about problems with warrenty issues with Livesay blades. They > got critized on Bladeforms and outright attacked on Livesays forum by Newt > and various members.
Which is unfortunate. If a maker's word isn't good, why on earth would any reasonable person buy from him?
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of days reading up on the infamous TUSK incident. My online references include Cliff Stamp's website, BladeForums, and rec.knives (via DejaNews). I would have included the pertinent posts on KnifeForums, but its my understanding that the Mad Dog Knives forum content was lost due to a systems failure.
At times Cliff was discussing his testing plans with forumites and dealers, and at other times he was talking directly to Kevin himself. Advice like "beat the hell out of it until you have confidence again" seems questionable at best - It boils down to a blatant challenge to try and break the knife. I'm curious as to whether this came from Kevin or some other source.
I've been pondering this concept of "Unconditionally Guaranteed - No Fine Print". Earl's site still displays this statement, whereas Shannon's site does not currently contain any warranty information at all. Kevin says that the "No Fine Print" warranty was made by Mad Dog Tactical, Inc., a company that closed it's doors two years ago. I think most folks would agree that it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to communicate warranty changes to their dealers. If this warranty change was not communicated for some reason, then MDK was negligent in their duties and bears a responsibility for cleaning up the mess caused by this oversight.
On the other hand, if the new warranty information was communicated by MDK to their dealers, and yet some of these dealers chose to continue advertising the original warranty, then these dealers have gone out on a limb and extended the manufacturers warranty. This would leave the dealer holding the bag.
Just for the sake of completeness, the third possibility is that the new warranty was communicated to Cliff, but since there were conflicting warranties floating around, he decided to hang his hat on the best one. I have not seen anything to make me believe this was the case.
If it wasn't for the "No Fine Print" warranty clouding the issue, I'd say that Cliff successfully tested his knife to death and was out of luck. Since the open ended warranty was, and continues to be, communicated by authorized MDK dealers to general public, it seems to me that someone owes Cliff a refund.
In article <81uvmf$ol...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Mike Swan wrote: >I've spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of days reading up on >the infamous TUSK incident. My online references include Cliff Stamp's >website, BladeForums, and rec.knives (via DejaNews). I would have included >the pertinent posts on KnifeForums, but its my understanding that the Mad >Dog Knives forum content was lost due to a systems failure.
>At times Cliff was discussing his testing plans with forumites and dealers, >and at other times he was talking directly to Kevin himself. Advice like >"beat the hell out of it until you have confidence again" seems questionable >at best - It boils down to a blatant challenge to try and break the knife. >I'm curious as to whether this came from Kevin or some other source.
Anyone involved. For example when I asked Kevin if I could do heavy prying with the blade his responce was a very strong yes (he said something like "hell yes, pry the shit out of it") . This was directly after the first TUSK failed so this was probably him making sure that I was to understand this should not be used a a measure of the strength of his blades. Fair enough I reasoned, mistakes happened.
Basically no matter what stress I considered, I could find refererences on line from Kevin and dealers that easily surpassed it. I spent some time collecting this information (forum archives, discussing the issue with MD and others) before I had the second TUSK so as to set an understood line of reference for the stress barrier. MD had no complaints about me testing the blades to the full limit of my physical ability when I discussed it with him on the phone or on the forums (until after I did it of course).
>I've been pondering this concept of "Unconditionally Guaranteed - No Fine >Print". Earl's site still displays this statement, whereas Shannon's site >does not currently contain any warranty information at all. Kevin says that >the "No Fine Print" warranty was made by Mad Dog Tactical, Inc., a company >that closed it's doors two years ago. I think most folks would agree that >it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to communicate warranty changes >to their dealers. If this warranty change was not communicated for some >reason, then MDK was negligent in their duties and bears a responsibility >for cleaning up the mess caused by this oversight.
>On the other hand, if the new warranty information was communicated by MDK >to their dealers, and yet some of these dealers chose to continue >advertising the original warranty, then these dealers have gone out on a >limb and extended the manufacturers warranty. This would leave the dealer >holding the bag.
>Just for the sake of completeness, the third possibility is that the new >warranty was communicated to Cliff, but since there were conflicting >warranties floating around, he decided to hang his hat on the best one. I >have not seen anything to make me believe this was the case.
That is a very important point. It is essential that what was communicated either directly or indirectly be the point of reference. To be specific both MD dealers I bought knives from, Earl Stewart and Shannon Lew both stated "satisfaction guaranteed" warrenties. There was no discussion about limits of any kind before and after the first TUSK broke.
>If it wasn't for the "No Fine Print" warranty clouding the issue, I'd say >that Cliff successfully tested his knife to death and was out of luck. >Since the open ended warranty was, and continues to be, communicated by >authorized MDK dealers to general public, it seems to me that someone owes >Cliff a refund.
I would agree with your conclusions on the warrenty issues. However I disagree with the abuse statement. I don't think what I did was abuse as the stress levels I imposed were less than the level indicated by the dealers and MD. Abuse has to be set specific to each knife. You can't make broad general statements.
For example is chopping on concrete abusive? You would assume so (it doesn't seem all that sensible to me), however consider that recently on Bladeforums a maker claimed specific blades he makes could do that with no functional damage (blade would need to be sharpened). Taking this into account would you consider it abusive now for the blade he referenced?
Or as another example. I have a 10" fillet knife from Phil Wilson. if I bent this until it snapped in half (is a distil tapered 1/8" blade) would this be abusive? Now consider that Phil has told me that his heat treat leaves the blade tough enough so that they can be deformed beyond the plastic limit and such a snap will not happen. Is it abusive now?. For reference I have bent the blade, it doesn't snap, I realize this weakens the steel, I was doing a review and he wanted me to confirm the behavior.
The latter brings up an interesting point. Lets assume I bent the blade back and forth until it snapped (eventually it would due to the steel becoming fatigued). Now is this abusive? I would consider it if I was the one doing it because I understood what was happening and I would not think it fair to ask for a replacement. However lets assume I didn't know. Now the situation is altered very importantly. How about I think the ability is interesting and ilustrate it to friends so as to show the quality of the blade. Eventually it would break and I would stare at it in confusion wondering what happened. Is this a case of abuse? No I don't think so.
Or another example specific to MD knives. One of the things often stated about his blades (and rightly so) is that the handles are very durable. This has been illustrated with exposure to fire with the handle soaked in gas by Hilton and confirmed by others (I tried to burn mine, no effect). Now lets assume an individual repeats this but is not careful and effects the temper of the blade (does it for too long, applying gas or whatever). Now further assume that he doesn't understand the idea of tempering a steel and he is just dumbfounded by the possibility of the steel being effected by the heat when the handle is not. Would this be abuse? I don't think so. Is it fair to require the buyer to have an indepth knowledge of materials? Shouldn't a basic warning about effecting the temper be made when making the "set the handle on fire" demo?
Anyway, very basically the issue is this - I understood the blade was to be able to handle a certain level of stress. I tested this and the blade failed under these stress levels therefore I think it reasonable to ask for a refund as I was not satisfied with its perforamance and I was guaranteed I would be.
The other nice thing about people having to live up to boastful warranties is that it encourages accuracy. I can recall several manufacturers, for example, explaining that a knife will be the most expensive and least satisfactory pry bar that one could ever buy.
In this case, it's all pretty clear: McClung only changed the terms of both the guaranty and of what he claimed his knife could handle after the second one broke. That's just plain wrong.
"Cliff Stamp" <sst...@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> wrote in message
> In article <81uvmf$ol...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Mike Swan wrote:
> >I've spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of days reading up on > >the infamous TUSK incident. My online references include Cliff Stamp's > >website, BladeForums, and rec.knives (via DejaNews). I would have included > >the pertinent posts on KnifeForums, but its my understanding that the Mad > >Dog Knives forum content was lost due to a systems failure.
> >At times Cliff was discussing his testing plans with forumites and dealers, > >and at other times he was talking directly to Kevin himself. Advice like > >"beat the hell out of it until you have confidence again" seems questionable > >at best - It boils down to a blatant challenge to try and break the knife. > >I'm curious as to whether this came from Kevin or some other source.
> Anyone involved. For example when I asked Kevin if I could do heavy prying > with the blade his responce was a very strong yes (he said something like > "hell yes, pry the shit out of it") . This was directly after the first TUSK > failed so this was probably him making sure that I was to understand this > should not be used a a measure of the strength of his blades. Fair enough I > reasoned, mistakes happened.
> Basically no matter what stress I considered, I could find refererences on > line from Kevin and dealers that easily surpassed it. I spent some time > collecting this information (forum archives, discussing the issue with MD > and others) before I had the second TUSK so as to set an understood line of > reference for the stress barrier. MD had no complaints about me testing the > blades to the full limit of my physical ability when I discussed it with him > on the phone or on the forums (until after I did it of course).
> >I've been pondering this concept of "Unconditionally Guaranteed - No Fine > >Print". Earl's site still displays this statement, whereas Shannon's site > >does not currently contain any warranty information at all. Kevin says that > >the "No Fine Print" warranty was made by Mad Dog Tactical, Inc., a company > >that closed it's doors two years ago. I think most folks would agree that > >it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to communicate warranty changes > >to their dealers. If this warranty change was not communicated for some > >reason, then MDK was negligent in their duties and bears a responsibility > >for cleaning up the mess caused by this oversight.
> >On the other hand, if the new warranty information was communicated by MDK > >to their dealers, and yet some of these dealers chose to continue > >advertising the original warranty, then these dealers have gone out on a > >limb and extended the manufacturers warranty. This would leave the dealer > >holding the bag.
> >Just for the sake of completeness, the third possibility is that the new > >warranty was communicated to Cliff, but since there were conflicting > >warranties floating around, he decided to hang his hat on the best one. I > >have not seen anything to make me believe this was the case.
> That is a very important point. It is essential that what was communicated > either directly or indirectly be the point of reference. To be specific both > MD dealers I bought knives from, Earl Stewart and Shannon Lew both stated > "satisfaction guaranteed" warrenties. There was no discussion about limits > of any kind before and after the first TUSK broke.
> >If it wasn't for the "No Fine Print" warranty clouding the issue, I'd say > >that Cliff successfully tested his knife to death and was out of luck. > >Since the open ended warranty was, and continues to be, communicated by > >authorized MDK dealers to general public, it seems to me that someone owes > >Cliff a refund.
> I would agree with your conclusions on the warrenty issues. However I > disagree with the abuse statement. I don't think what I did was abuse as the > stress levels I imposed were less than the level indicated by the dealers > and MD. Abuse has to be set specific to each knife. You can't make broad > general statements.
> For example is chopping on concrete abusive? You would assume so (it doesn't > seem all that sensible to me), however consider that recently on Bladeforums > a maker claimed specific blades he makes could do that with no functional > damage (blade would need to be sharpened). Taking this into account would > you consider it abusive now for the blade he referenced?
> Or as another example. I have a 10" fillet knife from Phil Wilson. if I bent > this until it snapped in half (is a distil tapered 1/8" blade) would this be > abusive? Now consider that Phil has told me that his heat treat leaves the > blade tough enough so that they can be deformed beyond the plastic limit and > such a snap will not happen. Is it abusive now?. For reference I have bent > the blade, it doesn't snap, I realize this weakens the steel, I was doing a > review and he wanted me to confirm the behavior.
> The latter brings up an interesting point. Lets assume I bent the blade back > and forth until it snapped (eventually it would due to the steel becoming > fatigued). Now is this abusive? I would consider it if I was the one doing > it because I understood what was happening and I would not think it fair to > ask for a replacement. However lets assume I didn't know. Now the situation > is altered very importantly. How about I think the ability is interesting > and ilustrate it to friends so as to show the quality of the blade. > Eventually it would break and I would stare at it in confusion wondering > what happened. Is this a case of abuse? No I don't think so.
> Or another example specific to MD knives. One of the things often stated > about his blades (and rightly so) is that the handles are very durable. This > has been illustrated with exposure to fire with the handle soaked in gas by > Hilton and confirmed by others (I tried to burn mine, no effect). Now lets > assume an individual repeats this but is not careful and effects the temper > of the blade (does it for too long, applying gas or whatever). Now further > assume that he doesn't understand the idea of tempering a steel and he is > just dumbfounded by the possibility of the steel being effected by the heat > when the handle is not. Would this be abuse? I don't think so. Is it fair > to require the buyer to have an indepth knowledge of materials? Shouldn't a > basic warning about effecting the temper be made when making the "set the > handle on fire" demo?
> Anyway, very basically the issue is this - I understood the blade was to be > able to handle a certain level of stress. I tested this and the blade failed > under these stress levels therefore I think it reasonable to ask for a > refund as I was not satisfied with its perforamance and I was guaranteed I > would be.
In article <wdT04.219$Vz.16...@news.uswest.net>, Joel Rosenberg wrote: >The other nice thing about people having to live up to boastful warranties >is that it encourages accuracy. I can recall several manufacturers, for >example, explaining that a knife will be the most expensive and least >satisfactory pry bar that one could ever buy.
This is not exactly true, it obviously depends on the blade of course but to be specific, a reference point I use is Ontario's 1095 blades. To be even more specific, the ones 1/4" thick, about ten inches in length, with a full flat grind and a uniform temper in the high fifties it is very difficult to snap. To see how long it would take I spent at least an hour bending their bolo back and forth until it gave way. I could do nothing to the Marine Raider as its a sabre grind and has too much metal. The high allow tool steels are even stronger as they should be.
The reason most people get upset about heavy prying on heavy duty blades is not that it is unreasonble, it is just very easy to do and they know if they state it is very likely that someone will do it as a performance check. Even if you can exceed the stress limit on a steel blade, unless it is very very very hard the worse that should happen is you go beyong the plastic deformation barrier and you bend the blade. If you snap a blade by prying and you have not excessively fatigued it by doing this repeatily before, the blade was too brittle to be useful for heavy work like chopping and the like anyway. It is similar situation with most things that many makers complain about like digging for example.
Cliff Stamp wrote: > The reason most people get upset about heavy prying on heavy duty blades is > not that it is unreasonble, it is just very easy to do and they know if they > state it is very likely that someone will do it as a performance check
It seems that makers chose the word 'tactical' without knowing the implications of the term. If a knife was going to be subjected to common 'camping' stresses, that would be one thing- escalating it, 'bivouac' requirements are a little stiffer- the word 'tactical' means another level once again- I consider it comparable to 'expeditionary' as a measure of quality- 'safari grade'. The 'tactical' knife is expected to take the weight of a hammer, a wire/strap cutter, a light wrecking bar, a light pick, a fighting tool of last resort.... It's also a consumable. One must be utterly willing to screw up their knife at a moments notice; $800 consumables are a booger if Sam ain't picking up the tab. If I pay that kind of money for a 'tactical' tool, it better be railroad stout or, if I get back, I'm gonna be really pissed <g>
>Anyway, very basically the issue is this - I understood the blade was to be >able to handle a certain level of stress. I tested this and the blade failed >under these stress levels therefore I think it reasonable to ask for a >refund as I was not satisfied with its perforamance and I was guaranteed I >would be.
Cliff,, I'm trying hard to understand what you are saying... But what you do to blades is Abuse Plain and Simple..
If it breaks by accident,, thats one thing,, but Trying to destroy a blade is utter nonsence! It's meaningless to know that your brother dig pull ups on a blade to see if it would break. What does it prove? I don't understand the reasoning behind it.. To me it's meaningless, and what you are doing confuses the general public on knives, and creates false impressions.
Sure if a guy is hacking away with it on a tree and blows a chip out,, thats one thing,, but if he takes it out and say "Hey Watch This" as he hacks concrete blocks in half,, well the guys a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Why would you subject a knife to that? That is Abuse!
If it were me,, you wouldn't get your money back,, that easy!
Eric E.Noeldechen <er...@mnsi.net> wrote: > Slamming blades edges against each other until one knocks a > chuck out means nothing. I would never do that sort of thing with > a blade that I owned,, and doubt 99.9% of the people wouldn't > either...
Cliff didn't do that, although he does tend to test knives beyond what many of us would ever subject a blade to. His website contains a fairly detailed description of the testing that he's performed on various knives. It makes for interesting reading.
I don't know where you that the idea that what Cliff was doing was "destructive testing" -- but it's not accurate. In fact, when the first knife broke, the maker said that the knife (that particular one) was defective, and it should be able to handle the stresses put on it. It was only when the second knife broke under the same sort of stress that the maker changed his story. Repeatedly.
"Eric E.Noeldechen" <er...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
I have read these tests with interest. I have never commented on them. However, your assertion that the tests are "meaningless" appears to me wrong on its face. If all the knives had failed, all you would have learned is that anything can be made to fail, which is trivial, but some did not! A few took everything he threw at them. This tells you something about how certain steels can take abuse while others cannot, and this information is interesting. Of course, as others have said, I for one cannot afford to be lending Cliff any knives.
The controversy is whether MD's ridiculous claims should ever have been taken seriously. It seems their warranty was just a bluff, and the company responded badly to having it's bluff called. But at this point it's beating a dead horse. Hype will always be with us.
> >Anyway, very basically the issue is this - I understood the blade was to be > >able to handle a certain level of stress. I tested this and the blade failed > >under these stress levels therefore I think it reasonable to ask for a > >refund as I was not satisfied with its perforamance and I was guaranteed I > >would be.
> Cliff,, I'm trying hard to understand what you are saying... But what you do to blades is Abuse > Plain and Simple..
> If it breaks by accident,, thats one thing,, but Trying to destroy a blade is utter nonsence! It's > meaningless to know that your brother dig pull ups on a blade to see if it would break. What does it > prove? > I don't understand the reasoning behind it.. To me it's meaningless, and what you are doing confuses > the general public on knives, and creates false impressions.
> Sure if a guy is hacking away with it on a tree and blows a chip out,, thats one thing,, but if he > takes it out and say "Hey Watch This" as he hacks concrete blocks in half,, well the guys a few > fries short of a Happy Meal. Why would you subject a knife to that? That is Abuse!
> If it were me,, you wouldn't get your money back,, that easy!
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote: > I don't know where you that the idea that what Cliff was > doing was "destructive testing" -- but it's not accurate.
Some of the test subjects did not survive. In those cases, the testing process was destructive.
If your tests were done more on a scientific level, it would be a different story.. I don't want to know how many Fat people it takes to blow out the suspension in my Pinto.. I want to know what kind of weight it will hold without destroying the suspension, but thats the level you are taking it to.
I think if you went about it in a little bit different of a way I could see them as being valid.. Right Now I cannot! Slamming blades edges against each other until one knocks a chuck out means nothing. I would never do that sort of thing with a blade that I owned,, and doubt 99.9% of the people wouldn't either...
A Consumer Reports way of testing would be a little more convincing and Real Life as far as I'm concerned anyway....
Hey I'm not an expert,,I'm sure you are quite qualified at doing what you are doing, and don't want this to turn into a flame war.. You have some valid points,, it's just some of the way you test these things is beyond reason, and are frankly nonscense.
I'm just expressing my views,, it's ok, I'm not trying to convince anyone and surely don't want a flame war.. I just have serious objections to the process of destructive testing on things that don't need it!
>wrong on its face. If all the knives had failed, all you would have >learned is that anything can be made to fail, which is trivial, but some >did not! A few took everything he threw at them. This tells you >something about how certain steels can take abuse while others cannot,
Well this is true... I guess it's not the fact that it's destructive testing,, it's the way it's done! The way it is done is meaningless..
I've also read some of Cliff reviews,, and would be happy to go over them again,, but I don't think that Hammering a blade into a tree and doing pull ups,, or walking across a blade is worth anything..
Doesn't sound very professional,, almost to the point of being childish.. Anyone who does this,,shouldn't own a knife in the first place.
It's like,, the next thing Cliff will be trying is to shoot one out of a cannon.. Why not strap one onto a rocket? Why not have an A-10 fire Depleted Uranium rounds at the blade? What does it prove...
I'll tell you one thing,, if I just got done working several weeks on a blade worth several hundred dollars,, I sure as hell wouldn't want that done to it...
This is the point I'm trying to make. Having a big fat guy bouncing on the tip is Meaningless and holds absolutely no weight with me...
Now on the other hand,, putting the tip in the vise and fixing a 5 foot pipe to the handle to see if the blade snaps,, is a completely different thing,,, as long as it's done under proper conditions and a scientific manner...I'm not against destructive testing,, only when it's done in an abusive manner...
>The controversy is whether MD's ridiculous claims should ever have been >taken seriously. It seems their warranty was just a bluff, and the >company responded badly to having it's bluff called. But at this point >it's beating a dead horse. Hype will always be with us.
I won't comment as I've only heard bits and pieces of MD knives...
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote: > > I don't know where you that the idea that what Cliff was > > doing was "destructive testing" -- but it's not accurate.
> Some of the test subjects did not survive. In those cases, the testing > process was destructive.
That's an interesting bit of semantics, but I don't think it holds up to careful examination, at least as the term "destructive testing" is normally used. (The idea in destructive testing is to make sure that the test subject doesn't survive -- what you're measuring is not whether or not the subject survives, but what it takes to destroy it. Using an object well within the claims of its maker isn't that.)
|
