Comment

BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

They are all good since they are all single extruded so no food remains getting in between the metal part and the plastic/wood/other

Though, we could argue that 1. is better that the others for the easy grip due to its in-curved handle. Or that its diametrical opposite, number 5. Is the best thanks to its filleted handle making it easier to hold in the case of the food scooped by it not being very hard.

source

Sort:hotnew top

eldain@feddit.nl ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
But only 2 and 5 look post processed after extrusion to remove sharp edges, while the others don’t. I have cheap cutlery like this and I don’t like the feel.

source
- BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  That’s true
  
  has that large bolge at the end and is very thin where the gripping takes places making it feel w3ird in the hand
  
  So it looks like 5. wins this contest
  
  source
  - ulterno@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I don’t like the bulging teeth in the sides of 5, but I guess that depends more upon what you are eating with it.
    
    I prefer teeth with as acute an angle as viable, so for the front part, I’d go with 2.
    
    The space between the teeth also matters:
    
    it decides how soft and brittle an object you can pierce with it, without the object breaking down.
    
    as it decides the variety of objects you can use to clean them.
    
    The fork I use has ~1.5 times the space between teeth as 2
    
    As you said, the handle in 2 is a no. I would be fine with either of 1 and 5 for that.
    
    Though I like 5 for the neck girth of the handle in the 3rd dimension, which would make it last longer and be better for harder stuff, the oval shape seems like it would cause more unwanted turning during use, requiring a higher Dexterity for handling.
    
    While the handle for 3 looks like it would be fine for use, it seems like it would break in ~6 months.
    
    source
  - eldain@feddit.nl ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Agreed.
    
    source