Another worthless test from FFI?

"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.

Moderator: wserra

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:16 pm

Well, let's see. Many other "very positive" results have been reported by FFi, which have turned out on closer examination to prove very liitle.

Any news about the Millbrook test yet? :roll:

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6310
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Tuv testing

Postby wserra » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:20 pm

john 10 wrote: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.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Man, that's a good one.

fuelsaving wrote:Any news about the Millbrook test yet? :roll:


Or Canada's Competition Bureau?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

john 10

Postby john 10 » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:40 pm

I know nothing about the Canada's Competition Bureau or
the millbrook test.
I understand that these tests may be important for distributors
in north america. As i am an european distributor the TUV test
is the only one important in my region.
TUV approval stands for "Good Product".
As european customers and companies genarally dont believe
what a company tells them but do believe what TUV tells them about the product, the test once published means an explosion of my clients and downline.
As soon as i can put my hands on the report, i will try to be the first to post it here.

john 10

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:49 pm

john 10 wrote:I know nothing about the Canada's Competition Bureau or
the millbrook test.
I understand that these tests may be important for distributors
in north america. As i am an european distributor the TUV test
is the only one important in my region.
TUV approval stands for "Good Product".
As european customers and companies genarally dont believe
what a company tells them but do believe what TUV tells them about the product, the test once published means an explosion of my clients and downline.
As soon as i can put my hands on the report, i will try to be the first to post it here.

john 10


You know nothing about the real history and all the false claims that FFI and it's gullible pushers have put forward. :wink:

And "soon" is a word that have been used many times in most pyramid-scams. Also by FFI. But no proof at all have been seen on any claims. :lol: :lol: :lol:

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:18 pm

TheBest wrote:
Well, I guess TÜV is good enough.

/TheBest


http://www.home.no/ffi/tuv.pdf

http://www.home.no/ffi/bosch.pdf

Here are the so called tests. So let's see what Tony will say. I dont think he will be impressed. :shock:

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:43 pm

PonziKiller wrote:Here are the so called tests. So let's see what Tony will say. I dont think he will be impressed.

Well, what do you know - I'm not impressed :)

- Neither tests have any A-B-A or repeat testing, so the "improvements" seen could just be random fluctuations

- There's no proper testing of fuel economy at all, just emissions (isn't Fuel Freedom International supposed to have something to do with saving fuel?). The fuel economy part of the second test is just the guy measuring his fuel consumption on the road in a totally uncontrolled way

- At least in the case of the first test (diesel smoke), the test vehicle is pretty old (130 000 km = approx 80 000 miles)

So all we have here is some testing showing the emissions measured on one date are lower than those on an earlier date. This may or may not be due to the MPG-Caps, but the tests provide no proof either way. In any case, the tests say nothing about fuel economy.


Is this really the best FFi can do? 8)

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:06 am

PonziKiller wrote:Here are the so called tests. So let's see what Tony will say. I dont think he will be impressed.

Actually, to be fair to FFi, I don't think these are "the TÜV tests" referred to by john10. Just some other tests with a little TÜV involvement. So we still need to wait and see what the flaws are with the "real" TÜV tests.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:25 am

fuelsaving wrote:
PonziKiller wrote:Here are the so called tests. So let's see what Tony will say. I dont think he will be impressed.

Actually, to be fair to FFi, I don't think these are "the TÜV tests" referred to by john10. Just some other tests with a little TÜV involvement. So we still need to wait and see what the flaws are with the "real" TÜV tests.


You are right, Tony. The test above is just an emmissions test, done by a customer. The "real" TÜV is still ongoing, now with some road tests. Don´t know for how long they will be driving, but hopefully they are soon ready.

And the Bosch test are also a customer test.

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:06 pm

TheBest wrote:
You are right, Tony. The test above is just an emmissions test, done by a customer. The "real" TÜV is still ongoing, now with some road tests. Don´t know for how long they will be driving, but hopefully they are soon ready.

And the Bosch test are also a customer test.

/TheBest


Why does some FFI pushers bragging about that this is THE tests that's going to prove that the pills are saving fuel? :?

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:39 pm

PonziKiller wrote:
TheBest wrote:
You are right, Tony. The test above is just an emmissions test, done by a customer. The "real" TÜV is still ongoing, now with some road tests. Don´t know for how long they will be driving, but hopefully they are soon ready.

And the Bosch test are also a customer test.

/TheBest


Why does some FFI pushers bragging about that this is THE tests that's going to prove that the pills are saving fuel? :?


Well, maybe they don´t know better, or they just want to provoke you. :lol:

TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:52 pm

TheBest wrote:Well, maybe they don´t know better, or they just want to provoke you. :lol:

TheBest


Or just lure as many gullible pyramidiots as possible... :wink:

Nikki

Postby Nikki » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:10 pm

TheBest wrote:You are right, Tony. The test above is just an emmissions test, done by a customer. The "real" TÜV is still ongoing, now with some road tests. Don´t know for how long they will be driving, but hopefully they are soon ready.

And the Bosch test are also a customer test.

/TheBest


Neither of which operate under controlled conditions to eliminate variables other than the mothballs.

Why don't they just run a couple of simple dynamometer tests which are accurate, controlled, and reliable?

Oh, I forgot -- the accurate tests won't give them the answers they want.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:35 pm

Nikki wrote:
Neither of which operate under controlled conditions to eliminate variables other than the mothballs.

Why don't they just run a couple of simple dynamometer tests which are accurate, controlled, and reliable?

Oh, I forgot -- the accurate tests won't give them the answers they want.


Exactly the right conclusion Nikki. :)

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:50 pm

Well, according to PonziKiller and Tony isn´t a dynamometer test good enough. In fact, no tests are good enough in here.
And who cares? At least, I don´t.

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:53 pm

TheBest wrote:Well, according to PonziKiller and Tony isn´t a dynamometer test good enough. In fact, no tests are good enough in here.

Total rubbish. We have always said that if you tested according to the EPA's guidelines (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/b00003.pdf) then that would be sufficient.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6310
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:36 pm

john 10 wrote:As soon as i can put my hands on the report, i will try to be the first to post it here.


Your hands must be quite busy. Coming up on three weeks, and still nothing. Wouldn't you think that, if they really had EPA-compliant tests that showed fuel economy gains, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops rather than hiding it?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

artessa

Postby artessa » Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:20 pm

When a car manufacture makes testing of the fuel consumption that we can find specified in our car owner’s manual how do they perform these tests?
I’m just curious because the values that I have obtained out of real life driving do not correspond to those stated in the manual. I believe that most of us could agree to that and that most of us would admit that it is difficult to achieve those stated values. I have always obtained values slightly higher then those.
Could it be that they are obtained on dynamometers and therefore we normally get higher values on the highway.
Now, anyone is welcome to se for themselves what my results are, if you happen to pass by southern Spain. I have done 2 things to my car that is not original.
First I have added this metal conditioner witch in the case of FFi is called MPG Extreme. This is a lub oil additive that is available in many different brands but I suppose they are all more or less the same. Then I have used the MPG boost witch is the liquid form of MPG Caps. The owner’s manual states that driving this car at 120km/h should consume 8.3 litres/100 km.
Now I have obtained readings as low as 7.2litres but also readings as high as7.6
on this same highway journey.
Now I think that this has got 3 possible explanations.
1. I am lying because it is should be impossible to lower a fuel consumption beyond that reading stated in the manual.
2. There actually exist some benefit from these products and you could all congratulate me for this result.
3. BMW does not know how to measure a fuel consumption under realistic circumstances and presents values to high so that they can rest assure that no one will claim that their car has got an over consumption regarding the data in the manual.


For the interested one I would like to show another worthless document that in any case shows that the environment has benefited from the use of MPG.
It is not likely that this engine is performing worse now then before but rather likely better. Don’t you think?

http://picasaweb.google.es/muchomasener ... 7260422146

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:46 pm

artessa wrote:When a car manufacture makes testing of the fuel consumption that we can find specified in our car owner’s manual how do they perform these tests?
I’m just curious because the values that I have obtained out of real life driving do not correspond to those stated in the manual. I believe that most of us could agree to that and that most of us would admit that it is difficult to achieve those stated values. I have always obtained values slightly higher then those.
Could it be that they are obtained on dynamometers and therefore we normally get higher values on the highway.
<snip>
The owner’s manual states that driving this car at 120km/h should consume 8.3 litres/100 km.
Now I have obtained readings as low as 7.2litres but also readings as high as7.6
on this same highway journey.
Now I think that this has got 3 possible explanations.
1. I am lying because it is should be impossible to lower a fuel consumption beyond that reading stated in the manual.
2. There actually exist some benefit from these products and you could all congratulate me for this result.
3. BMW does not know how to measure a fuel consumption under realistic circumstances and presents values to high so that they can rest assure that no one will claim that their car has got an over consumption regarding the data in the manual.

Yes, "official" fuel consumption figures are exclusively based on dynamometer testing. Only this way can standardised test conditions be achieved.

Nowadays the official figures are based not on driving a single steady speed, but on a simulated "drive cycle" involving varying speeds as per real driving. But the economy you personally get may very well be somewhat higher or lower than this, depending on your personal driving style and what type of journey you make (mostly steady speed on the highway, mostly city driving, etc).

I am surprised that your manual quotes a "constant 120km/h" economy - are you sure this is not actually based on an "extra-urban" or "suburban" drive cycle that goes up to 120km/h (as that is the current European standard). If the latter, then it is no wonder you can get better by driving at 120km/h for a long period of time. If BMW's figure really is quoted at 120km/h and you are doing better, one obvious reason is that your speedometer reads too high (as all car speedos do) and so your 120km/h drive is actually at a much more economical 110km/h (air resistance increases with the square of speed).

What are the details of your car (age, engine size, transmission, etc)?

Also, how are you determining your 7.2 - 7.6 litres/100km figure? By actually measuring the fuel bought and dividing by the distance driven, or from the trip computer readings? The trip computer can often be over-optimistic (over 10% in the case of my car)

artessa

Postby artessa » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:46 pm

I´ll copy the page from the manuel later. Any way consumption is specified att diferent constant driving speeds, 70, 90 and 120. The speedmeter if, found faulty should in that case show a lower speed than shown. I was find speeding when I´m positive I was not.

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:55 pm

artessa wrote:The speedmeter if, found faulty should in that case show a lower speed than shown. I was find speeding when I´m positive I was not.

It's not a question of it being faulty. There is always some tolerance on speedos due to things like variations in tyre size, but because a speedo that reads too low could lead to problems such as inadavertent speeding, the speedo is biased high - so the tolerance is (eg) not +/-5%, but +10/-0%.


Return to “MLM Scams Forum (as if any of them aren't)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brandwatch [Bot] and 1 guest