Spyderco Forums

Cliff Stamp wrote:He is providing feedback, if it had been positive would there have been a reaction, a demand for "proof" - no. This shows a clear bias and an obvious problem which tends to promote disinformation. The guy had a problem, he didn't rant and attack the maker, or designer or even the knife.

He bought an expensive knife, he used it in a manner that a $5 knife can handle and his expensive knife failed. He deserved to be upset and there is no reason to excuse the behavior of the knife or support people who attempt to silence such information.

I have never, not one time, in over 15 years of interacting with Spyderco about their products, been asked not to discuss my experiences on any knife forum. In fact it is promotion of open discourse, among other things, which always leads me back to Spyderco even if at any given moment there isn't a design which catches my eye.

The subject matter was not in question, of course I wholeheartedly agree that any problems should be aired and solved, I just don't agree that posting a thread with such a provocative title and little substance is the way to go about it, that's just my opinion not spyderco company policy.
The rest is history, an abundance of misquotes and misunderstanding. Best wishes to the Op hopefully we can get some good information when the knife is returned under warranty.

Ok, now the only remaining problem is how many Tuff's did Jdavis buy? And if they are all "defect".

It's kind of funny that anyone is actually surprised that a Tuff slipped.

RILs are nothing new. We know how they behave, both the best of them and the worst of them. Neither the lock on this knife nor its described behaviour here are anything new.

It's a shame they couldn't have kept the integral Compression Lock like the original prototypes had. I guess to do that probably would have meant making it in Golden, which would have meant waiting a lot longer and paying a lot more. IMO they should have changed the name after changing locks.
This knife is in kind of the same situation as the ZT0560, people develop unrealistic ideas of what something is when the community is constantly talking about it and you never hear anything negative.

Joshua J. wrote:It's kind of funny that anyone is actually surprised that a Tuff slipped.

RILs are nothing new. We know how they behave, both the best of them and the worst of them. Neither the lock on this knife nor its described behaviour here are anything new.

It's a shame they couldn't have kept the integral Compression Lock like the original prototypes had. I guess to do that probably would have meant making it in Golden, which would have meant waiting a lot longer and paying a lot more. IMO they should have changed the name after changing locks.
This knife is in kind of the same situation as the ZT0560, people develop unrealistic ideas of what something is when the community is constantly talking about it and you never hear anything negative.

Hi. How certain are you of this statement please? Ed mentioned that the proto has seen so many years of development before final production. So, how certain is it that the RIL is less stronger than the ICL?

w3tnz wrote:I just don't agree that posting a thread with such a provocative title and little substance is the way to go about it, that's just my opinion not spyderco company policy.

I agree in general that a more neutral title is the best way to go, but I would argue that in general, not just for the negative and you really need to be consistent to maintain that position. I don't think it is fair to criticize someone for example to say "Tuff not so Tuff" but if he had done the same work without problem and he posted "Tuff definitely Tuff Enough !!" then you have to levy the same criticism but few do and that is the problem I have in general with perspectives on what should or should not be said.

I also think it is one of the strength's of Spyderco that they don't come down on people who do this and this to me really speaks volumes about confidence in product. This thread in particular, and Ed's response really makes me want to buy a Tuff even though I don't at this time have a need/desire to replace the Paramilitary.

KardinalSyn wrote:Hi. How certain are you of this statement please? Ed mentioned that the proto has seen so many years of development before final production. So, how certain is it that the RIL is less stronger than the ICL?

Exactly. Ed went RIL or a reason. Likely so he could easily make it extremely robust. Only they know how it compares to their other locks (including the Comp lock).

The OP's knife is not up to spec.

KardinalSyn wrote:Hi. How certain are you of this statement please? Ed mentioned that the proto has seen so many years of development before final production. So, how certain is it that the RIL is less stronger than the ICL?

As far as the prototypes using the Compression lock, that's just what I remember being talked about. It probably was mentioned a very long time ago, but I remember being surprised when I first saw the RIL on the Tuff.

The strength of the RIL has been the subject of many very long threads. Here's STRs blog and a very convenient post from Ed Schempp.

http://strsbackyardknifeworks.blogspot.ca/

Ed Schempp wrote:To be able to close a frame lock or liner lock you have to be able to move the lockbar. If the force to move the lock is the same on a frame lock and a liner lock then the lock strength is similar. Frame locks are easier to clean and don't have a cavity behind the lock which can trap dirt. Liner and frame locks are a long leaf spring and they tend to collaspe under pressure. Compression locks and lock backs are much stronger...Take Care...Ed

Edit:

Ooh! found this.
http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/yy40 ... ffprot.jpg

Please note that I'm not trying to say it's a bad knife or that making it was a mistake. That it is a RIL makes me that much more curious to see what Spyderco's best attempt at the strongest RIL they could manage looks like.

I cant see a regular RIL holding over 200 lbs, it relies on friction and a shallow tang angle to keep it open without the bar going to the other, the flat seems like it has a downfall as its something to slip ( vs a radius where the bar as to travel along an arc, then a flat area 90 degree area) - maybe this one is something special, beefy cutout, maybe there isnt much angle on the tang, then you have the great tension pushing the bar into the tang. Id like to know how much closing pressure it can withstand without fail, and how much shock pressure it can withstand.

I think a compression lock would have been easier to use and stronger, especially with a steel locktab. You pretty much have to CRUSH the lock tab to fail it.

Thanks Joshua and Razorsharp. I am okay with even a 100lbs. Note to self. Do not try to cut tree branches with Tuff till the issue on this thread is resolved.

It would be interesting to see how the Tuff compares to a Strider SMF. In many ways they're comparable. I'm not remembering a lot of complaints about lock failure on SMFs, but I have searched for them since reading this thread either.

Spyderco makes locks in four strength ratings to facilitate different purposes. The Tuff qualifies for the strongest tier; if it didn't they wouldn't release it yet.

It's fair to say the compression lock is stronger than a frame lock if you throw in the word "contextually"; birds are smaller than dogs unless you are talking about an ostrich (the Tuff is one huge ostrich).

I have to imagine the Tuff was designed, tested, redesigned, and retested many times through its life. If you don't that is ok but your placing your theorycrafting above engineers with testing equipment.

OK ready. I'm going to just jump into the end of thread without reading the entire thread. :p

I think it stinks that Spyderco gets blamed for lock issues when all they did was manf. a knife by a collaborating designer. I doubt if the issue with the lock is an engineering issue. More liking it was a lock chosen by a designer for many reasons, being foolproof may have not been a high priority.

Jim

edit: nevermind

MountainManJim wrote:More liking it was a lock chosen by a designer for many reasons, being foolproof may have not been a high priority.

Jim

I disagree. Ed Schemp's designs are amazing, and from a few threads I've read, I think his priority was to make the knife as strong as possible. There's a reason the RIL lock was chosen I'm sure. Just have no idea what it is. But I think this is just one case of one knife failing, not something all Tuff's have..

They did say that the Tuff was gonna be abuse rated...

Y-A-A-A-W-N!! Phew, excuse me, fellas, I nodded off for a couple decades. Holy moly, is this thread still going on? Are any of the original cast still involved, or have they moved on with their lives? Speaking of moving on..... :D

Tod

tr4022 wrote:Y-A-A-A-W-N!! Phew, excuse me, fellas, I nodded off for a couple decades. Holy moly, is this thread still going on? Are any of the original cast still involved, or have they moved on with their lives? Speaking of moving on..... :D

Tod

So why don't you move on? There's still a discussion going on, if you don't care to participate.

tr4022 wrote:Y-A-A-A-W-N!! Phew, excuse me, fellas, I nodded off for a couple decades. Holy moly, is this thread still going on? Are any of the original cast still involved, or have they moved on with their lives? Speaking of moving on..... :D

Tod

When the going gets tuff...

Blerv wrote:Spyderco makes locks in four strength ratings to facilitate different purposes. The Tuff qualifies for the strongest tier; if it didn't they wouldn't release it yet.

It's fair to say the compression lock is stronger than a frame lock if you throw in the word "contextually"; birds are smaller than dogs unless you are talking about an ostrich (the Tuff is one huge ostrich).

I have to imagine the Tuff was designed, tested, redesigned, and retested many times through its life. If you don't that is ok but your placing your theorycrafting above engineers with testing equipment.

I wasn't aware that the Tuff was MBC rated (200 inch/lbs per inch of blade), that really does make the it something out of the ordinary for a production knife.

I applaud Sal and Ed for going against the grain and making a folder the best it can be as a tool, instead of making another smooth opening toy (well, for some this is still just going to be a rough opening toy, but I digress).

KardinalSyn wrote:Thanks Joshua and Razorsharp. I am okay with even a 100lbs. Note to self. Do not try to cut tree branches with Tuff till the issue on this thread is resolved.

What I'm really trying to get at is the usual "you're using a folding knife" warning.

A lock of the best design made by the best maker in the world still has the potential to be out of spec, or become out of spec in normal use. That the RIL and similar locks (Linerlock) are so finicky means you've got an increased chance of something being off.

My reasons for preferring the Compression lock over the RIL are:

The lock bar on the RIL is long, angled off center from the pivot, and requires a finely tuned angle on the blade tang to hit the sweet spot between being too sticky and sliding under pressure.

The Compression lock keeps all the critical components in line with the blade (you aren't pressing on the lock bar from a funny angle), and the part that interacts with the blade is closer to a block than a bar (especially on the integral Compression lock). As far as stability under pressure goes the Compression lock should be an order of magnitude better.

I'm probably repeating what I said about the Military years ago.
Everything I see indicates that this knife is the best of its kind, but that doesn't mean it's a clear exception to the behaviour normally associated with that kind.
We've seen many overbuilt folders from many companies fail unexpectedly without doing anything overly stressful, this knife is no different.

It would be interesting to see how the Tuff compares to a Strider SMF. In many ways they're comparable. I'm not remembering a lot of complaints about lock failure on SMFs, but I have searched for them since reading this thread either.

I have a NIB SMF 3V GG that I had up on another forum for sale because I believe the Tuff to be the stronger and better built of the two.

I didn't get anything but two cancellations on the SMF so I pulled it.

I still stand by my decision and will be keeping the Tuff ( Please note* This really isn't a sleazy attempt to sell a knife. I don't do subtle stuff and come out with what I mean. In addition I have more respect for Sal and Kristi as people to do that here. ) Anyway, I broke it, dissolved it in acid accidentally, Messed it up trying to pimp it, then got mad and hit it with a very, very large hammer. So, if anybody wants a 3V SMF for $3000.99 plus shipping with the above defects, don't call here. :o


Joe