Quatloos!

fuelsaving wrote:

TheBest wrote:Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

How many? Have you actually got the report, or are you just being promised it by your upline? Do you see any reason to believe them, based on previous experiences?

Don´t know what you mean about "previous experiences", but yes, I believe that this test are coming, as they also told us this when we where in contact with TÜV in Austria.

TheBest

TheBest wrote:Don´t know what you mean about "previous experiences", but yes, I believe that this test are coming, as they also told us this when we where in contact with TÜV in Austria.

I mean the experience with the Millbrook test, which is now (as Wes mentions) nearly four months overdue. Why should we believe this will be any different?

My suspicion, and that of many skeptics, is this: the test at Millbrook has been completed, but the results show no economy gain with MPG-Caps. So FFI are simply sitting on it and not releasing it. My guess is the same is true with the TÜV report.

TheBest wrote:
Don´t know what you mean about "previous experiences", but yes, I believe that this test are coming, as they also told us this when we where in contact with TÜV in Austria.

TheBest

Who exactly is "they", and who exactly are "we" in this matter ?

Do you have any names, profession and position on this people?

All the fake "tests" and testemonials and all the delays gets more and more pathetic as the time goes...

TheBest wrote:Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/s8d7l59tbb.mid

TheBest wrote:

fuelsaving wrote:

on Sun Jul 1st TheBest wrote:TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.

15 days elapsed, and counting...

Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

Well, that's almost a month gone by now and - as I predicted - nothing has appeared from FFI. And the Millbrook results are now well over four months overdue.

TheBest, I have to ask: when FFI keep letting you down like this - promising irrefutable test data and then totally failing to produce it - is there not even a tiny thought in your mind that maybe the skeptics are right? It seems to me that either FFI are astonishingly incompetent, or else the product simply doesn't work as claimed - what other explanation can there be?

fuelsaving wrote:

TheBest wrote:

fuelsaving wrote: 15 days elapsed, and counting...

Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

Well, that's almost a month gone by now and - as I predicted - nothing has appeared from FFI. And the Millbrook results are now well over four months overdue.

TheBest, I have to ask: when FFI keep letting you down like this - promising irrefutable test data and then totally failing to produce it - is there not even a tiny thought in your mind that maybe the skeptics are right? It seems to me that either FFI are astonishingly incompetent, or else the product simply doesn't work as claimed - what other explanation can there be?

Well, I´m not skeptical as I know the product works.
(why do you think we turn over products for 5 - 800 000 $ a week?)
And if you had known the owners of FFI you wouldn´t
have used the word incompetent.

And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

/TheBest

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Well, I couldn´t care less what you think or mean, it doesn´t count, at least not in my book.

/TheBest

TheBest wrote:Well, I couldn´t care less what you think or mean, it doesn´t count, at least not in my book.

/TheBest

You write fiction?

/TheBest

TheBest wrote:Well, I´m not skeptical as I know the product works.

Based purely on anecdotal evidence and uncontrolled on-road tests (ie the same "proof" as offered by hundreds of scammers in the past). No proper scientifically rigorous evidence at all.

TheBest wrote:(why do you think we turn over products for 5 - 800 000 $ a week?)

Any independent evidence for that? We were told for years that Ethos FR was a hundred-million-dollar-a-year product, but it turned out that 95% of those sales were only in the company's imagination.

TheBest wrote:And if you had known the owners of FFI you wouldn´t have used the word incompetent.

How else do you explain them repeatedly promising test data, then totally failing to produce it? And the "anti-matter car wash" was pure fiasco.

TheBest wrote:And as I told you, I will send you the TÜV report, when it´s ready.

I hope I live that long...

May this announcement by Honda will put this dubious industry on the back burner, http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Ne ... eId=107691

fuelsaving wrote: I hope I live that long...

I think we all need some cure to extend our life before that Tüv test is public.

Several scientic institutions and car producer's including Saab has warned about this lurium. The big Lie in the norwegian media about the bus company and ferry company was made of an major ex-WGI pusher. More and more people get aware of thus scam now, as more and more is written about the scam. So I think we can see the end of this scam. But I believe a new one will take over as long as there is enough naive people to lure.

Hello? Anybody home?

TheBest? artessa?

Anybody?

But wait a second - News Flash! FFI is opening up shop in another sophisticated, technologically-advanced country - Uganda! And what BS are they feeding the locals? Well, after touting how much it will save these poor folks (what do they average - US $8.75 per month for a family of four?), they claim:

the product is fully EPA registered, implying that it’s not only safe for vehicles, but for the environment.

Now we know that this is completely false, and that the EPA specifically disclaims any form of endorsement resulting from just registration. But what do some ignorant Ugandans know?

Nice guys, FFI.

Well well, it’s been quite a while since I have passed by this site and I believe it is time I tell something. I have long ago made the conclusion that it is no idea to try to convince someone that the pill might save fuel if he is determined it is not possible and since I don’t have any 100% proof for my opinion I choose not to argue about this.
By the way, I have got another indirect method of getting an indicator of certain efficiency from the pill by a pleased costumer. He knew the top speed of his car before the pill and after it had increased with 20km/h. I do not know how many percent increase that was but it is another indicator that clearly shows that something happens to the engine when you use the pill . Rather then indicators I chose to use proof of change and the only thing I can actually proof is that remarkable changes occurs in the composition of the exhaust gases. This is easy to proof and to most people it seems logical that if the engine burns fuel better it would be likely that consumption has gone down. These people that bother with what they contribute to pollution/global warming are satisfied with this and they have a paper that proves it.

By the way, it is a sad story that rumours about presentation dates of supposed test are flourishing, they make more harm than good but I have a vague idea that the reason for this is that cars reacts so widely different to the pills so it becomes difficult to make a single report. I do believe that there are some cars that actually does not produce a saving better then 5% and I also know that there are others that achieves figures above the 14% level.

Annotations courtesy of the Handy-Dandy MLM Distributor Translator (tm).

artessa wrote:Well well, it’s been quite a while since I have passed by this site and I believe it is time I tell something.

"I really have nothing to say, but we've been getting too many negative comments here without some kind of non-response. So here goes."

I have long ago made the conclusion that it is no idea to try to convince someone that the pill might save fuel if he is determined it is not possible and since I don’t have any 100% proof for my opinion I choose not to argue about this.

"I know that I have no proof at all that this snake oil works. SO STOP ASKING, WILL YA? Proof, shmoof. SEND ME MONEY."

By the way, I have got another indirect method of getting an indicator of certain efficiency from the pill by a pleased costumer.

"So instead of proof, how about another meaningless anecdote?"
[Snip meaningless anecdote.]

By the way, it is a sad story that rumours about presentation dates of supposed test are flourishing,

"Yeah, it really is a shame that folks like this bozo 'artessa' write things like 'it could be interesting to inform that The Canadian Competition Bureau is about to carry out official testing before approving this business', on this very forum, six months ago, then nothing ever happens. But, if we didn't write this stuff, we couldn't write anything at all. Except, of course, what counts most - 'SEND ME MONEY.'"

they make more harm than good but I have a vague idea that the reason for this is that cars reacts so widely different to the pills so it becomes difficult to make a single report.

"The idiots we hire don't even know what an 'average' is."

I do believe that there are some cars that actually does not produce a saving better then 5% and I also know that there are others that achieves figures above the 14% level.

"And, since I believe it, SEND ME MONEY."

...but I have a vague idea that the reason for this is that cars reacts so widely different to the pills so it becomes difficult to make a single report.

That's funny! I have a vague idea you've been watching reruns of The Love Bug.

Sounds like you're giving a car human traits. If it doesn't like the taste of the additive, then it gives poorer mileage.

If we were talking about nutrition, and you said the reason why one diet doesn't work for everybody is because we all react so widely different to different foods, then I'd tend to agree.

But we're talking about machinery here. And I'd say engines from a manufacturer all perform identically within a narrow range of variance.

So, no, I don't buy that it's difficult to make a single report

artessa wrote:Rather then indicators I chose to use proof of change and the only thing I can actually proof is that remarkable changes occurs in the composition of the exhaust gases. This is easy to proof and to most people it seems logical that if the engine burns fuel better it would be likely that consumption has gone down.

Logical, but totally wrong. Only if the pollutant gasses (CO, HC, NOx) are very high is there any correlation with economy. And anyway, levels of these pollutants vary enormously from test to test depending on factors such as how hot the catalyst is.

artessa wrote:By the way, it is a sad story that rumours about presentation dates of supposed test are flourishing, they make more harm than good...

Quite so. Maybe FFi should not have boasted about these tests before actually carrying them out!

artessa wrote:...but I have a vague idea that the reason for this is that cars reacts so widely different to the pills so it becomes difficult to make a single report. I do believe that there are some cars that actually does not produce a saving better then 5% and I also know that there are others that achieves figures above the 14% level.

The EPA have had no issues with this. According to their guidelines, all you need to do is test three vehicles representative of the "typical" vehicle in the market, and report the results. In general you would expect something that works on such a "fundamental" level as FFi claims would have similar effects on most engines.

FFI just gave an official statement about the tuv test.

The tekst was posted by ffi-europe to all european distributors.

TUV Testing

In Spring 2007, FFi initiated testing of the MPG-CAPSTM at the TUV testing site in Austria. TUV has reported on their initial testing, which confirmed several significant improvements. These included:

Increase in engine performance
Increase in power
These are great findings! There are also some findings that have confused both TUV and FFi. Jerry Lang, FFi's technical expert, analysed the raw data that confirmed the above and an increase in fuel economy. Subsequent independent testing by Jerry discovered a flaw in the software algorithm used by the manufacturers of Dynamometers. We are now working to correct this so our data and results are accurate worldwide. We will advise you as this evolves. Once these corrections are made we will confirm the accurate TUV test results!

TUV has respectfully requested that none of our Distributors contact them directly, as it is taking up valuable time for them and they will comment on final results with FFi Corporate Staff directly. We must ask all Distributors to please wait until this process is completed and FFi has reported on the findings.

john 10

I regret, the fact that i still dont have the exact data of the test. However, if the test actually never took place or in case the test is not good enough for FFI, they would not talk about it.
So, i think we will see a very positive test result.

John 10

(ffi distributor)