Tunze - False Advertisement?

[tkeracer619]

No he is saying he would not have purchsed them for x amount of money given they only produce half the rated flow.

Yes vortech underestimated thier flow. That is not false advertisement because they can absolutly meet the specs on the box. Tunze has benifited (until now) by having thier pumps rated roughly 2x the flow then they can produce regardless of the reasons. Ecotech and hydor can produce the rated flow, tunze cannot. This is why people are mad at tunze and not ecotech or hydor. One thing I find amusing is a k5 puts out more gph then a k6.

I'm not sure how you can claim the test bias when tunze has confirmed the results. Who cares who did it or paid for it. If the numbers are correct then they are correct.

Who runs their powerheads at 100%? Assuming of course that they are controllable.

I do everytime the pumps program goes to max setting and one day a week they all go full blast to get detritus into the sump for vacuuming.

 

[dzhuo]

Obviously you missed my point. I am not debating the fact that Tunze didn't meet what ratings they said their pumps would produce; you can say this all day and have reason to be upset (this is understandable). However, this is far from false advertisement. The example I cited with the fact that EchoTech seriously underestimate their ratings high lights the challenge with measuring flow. If there is a standard measuring technique but Tunze chose not to use it and intentionally use another method to over estimate their ratings then yes it's false advertisement. That's not the case here. Tunze and EchoTech both miscalculated their ratings; the only difference is Tunze over estimated and EchoTech under estimated. With both companies unable to correctly estimate their ratings, what makes you think that Tunze intentionally mis-guide anyone? Obviously, EchoTech not only meet but beat their own spec but that's not my point, my point is EchoTech is still unable to successfully calculate their ratings; this just tells you how difficult it's.

It's a huge challenge to measure flow correctly which both Tunze and EchoTech failed to do. It's a mistake for Tunze; that's for sure (that's why Tunze is doing everything it can to correct their own mistake) but it's not false advertisement as you insist it's.

 

[d0ughb0y]

I don't have proof nor I'm implying that they received money or anything in exchange for this, but I have to say everybody has a price. Using a person with a lot of expertise in a field is a very common marketing technique to endorse products.

true, so lets not go into further speculation.

I also have to say that it clearly states that Bill Straka and Sanjay Joshi were guiding and consulting, not performing this test. An intern of Ecotech was performing the test.

that means they are putting their credibility and reputation at stake. or are you saying just because Sanjay did not actually perform the test, then the ecotech intern is free to "fudge" the test results. ok, we are going into speculation again.

No he is saying he would not have purchsed them for x amount of money given they only produce half the rated flow.

Yes vortech underestimated thier flow. That is not false advertisement because they can absolutly meet the specs on the box. Tunze has benifited (until now) by having thier pumps rated roughly 2x the flow then they can produce regardless of the reasons...

that is correct. tunze made all these sales partly based on the specs. As I mentioned in my earlier post on tunze's options, when people comparison shop, one of the criteria used for comparison is the gph spec. and that is not a good thing.

 

[tkeracer619]

It does not need to be intentional to be false advertisement.

That fact aside here is thier site that has known false numbers still not corrected. They knowingly continue to benifit from incorrect data.
http://www.tunze.com/149.html?&L=1&C=US&user_tunzeprod_pi1[predid]=-infoxunter025

 

[SkullV]

Obviously you missed my point. I am not debating the fact that Tunze didn't meet what ratings they said their pumps would produce; you can say this all day and have reason to be upset (this is understandable). However, this is far from false advertisement. The example I cited with the fact that EchoTech seriously underestimate their ratings high lights the challenge with measuring flow. If there is a standard measuring technique but Tunze chose not to use it and intentionally use another method to over estimate their ratings then yes it's false advertisement. That's not the case here. Tunze and EchoTech both miscalculated their ratings; the only difference is Tunze over estimated and EchoTech under estimated. With both companies unable to correctly estimate their ratings, what makes you think that Tunze intentionally mis-guide anyone? Obviously, EchoTech not only meet but beat their own spec but that's not my point, my point is EchoTech is still unable to successfully calculate their ratings; this just tells you how difficult it's.

It's a huge challenge to measure flow correctly which both Tunze and EchoTech failed to do. It's a mistake for Tunze; that's for sure (that's why Tunze is doing everything it can to correct their own mistake) but it's not false advertisement as you insist it's.

Not that I think ANY legal action should be pursued here, but:

Your assessment of false advertisement is not correct. This is not a criminal matter and in a civil case there are plenty of pathways where intent does not need to be shown in order to have a successful claim. When Tunze offered their products at a specific price with specific ratings regardless of the intention they created a contract with the consumer that purchased those pumps. The fact that the pumps do not live up to their expectations is a simple breach of contract and could give rise to a tort claim.

P.S. no this not just what I think, it is taken straight from case law and statutory analysis.

 

[d0ughb0y]

Obviously you missed my point. I am not debating the fact that Tunze didn't meet what ratings they said their pumps would produce; you can say this all day and have reason to be upset (this is understandable). However, this is far from false advertisement. The example I cited with the fact that EchoTech seriously underestimate their ratings high lights the challenge with measuring flow. If there is a standard measuring technique but Tunze chose not to use it and intentionally use another method to over estimate their ratings then yes it's false advertisement. That's not the case here. Tunze and EchoTech both miscalculated their ratings; the only difference is Tunze over estimated and EchoTech under estimated. With both companies unable to correctly estimate their ratings, what makes you think that Tunze intentionally mis-guide anyone? Obviously, EchoTech not only meet but beat their own spec but that's not my point, my point is EchoTech is still unable to successfully calculate their ratings; this just tells you how difficult it's.

It's a huge challenge to measure flow correctly which both Tunze and EchoTech failed to do. It's a mistake for Tunze; that's for sure (that's why Tunze is doing everything it can to correct their own mistake) but it's not false advertisement as you insist it's.

I think you have to look at it this way.

Say there is a straight A student from a rich neighborhood school, and a straight A student from a depressed neighborhood school. They both take the SAT (a standardized test). The college taking the application will look and put more weight on the "standardized" test result so the comparison is equal. There is no flaw in itself in the grading system of either school (perhaps they grade on the curve), but you cannot compare the grade of the two students directly by themselves. You must use a "standardized" criteria for comparison.

That is why tunze is saying the rating is correct for the method used. just that when using the standardized method to compare, they fell way below the rest.

 

[dzhuo]

P.S. no this not just what I think, it is taken straight from case law and statutory analysis.

Yup. I am pretty sure it won't be long before someone copy and paste something similar to such message or from Wikipedia. However, it doesn't change my view on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of equipement we use in this hobby has no standard reference point or strict regulation or testing metrics like in the auto, food, or medicine industry. If there is such a standard and Tunze chose not to use it or intentionally use another favorable measure, then Tunze is evil. Debating whether Tunze could have done better at this point is useless because it's a fact that Tunze didn't meet their spec. The bigger issue I have is whether Tunze intentionally mis-guide anyone as some users insist Tunze has. I am not convince that's the case here. There is no reason for me to believe a company with the reputation like Tunze would hide such a mis-step for so long putting its brand as risk and hoping no one catch it.

 

[dzhuo]

Say there is a straight A student from a rich neighborhood school, and a straight A student from a depressed neighborhood school. They both take the SAT (a standardized test). The college taking the application will look and put more weight on the "standardized" test result so the comparison is equal. There is no flaw in itself in the grading system of either school (perhaps they grade on the curve), but you cannot compare the grade of the two students directly by themselves. You must use a "standardized" criteria for comparison.

I read this message twice and I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Can you clarify?

 

[SkullV]

Yup. I am pretty sure it won't be long before someone copy and paste something similar to such message or from Wikipedia. However, it doesn't change my view on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of equipement we use in this hobby has no standard reference point or strict regulation or testing metrics like in the auto, food, or medicine industry. If there is such a standard and Tunze chose not to use it or intentionally use another favorable measure, then Tunze is evil. Debating whether Tunze could have done better at this point is useless because it's a fact that Tunze didn't meet their spec. The bigger issue I have is whether Tunze intentionally mis-guide anyone as some users insist Tunze has. I am not convince that's the case here. There is no reason for me to believe a company with the reputation like Tunze would hide such a mis-step for so long putting its brand as risk and hoping no one catch it.

The information I posted is not from Wikipedia. It is from long hard hours spent in Law School. In any case, I am waiting to see what Tunze will do. I already sold my Tunze pump that would fall under this retrofit if it does indeed happen. I can only hope that the person I sold it to is a forum reader so they can get what they paid for.

 

[rtparty]

I have stayed out of this nonsense because that is all it is, nonsense.

I completely agree with both sides. Tunze knew of the problem before we did. Let's look at a time table here.

1) Sanjay does the test and finds out the results.
2) He sends those results to Tunze.
3) Tunze studies the entire method and finds the results are correct. (I am going to assume this took longer then 20 minutes. I bet they had the info for a day or two at least.)
4)Tunze then goes out and buys all new testing equipment. (I am pretty sure this is equipment that has to be specially ordered in. It isn't like they ran to Wal-Mart and bought this stuff. I would bet it took at least a week to get in the gear and get it all set up.)
5) Tunze then tests all of the "bad" pumps and finds the study is dead on. (Again, you think they did all of this in a day???)

I bet from the time Sanjay sent them the info and the time he released the study was at least a week but probably more. Do you know how long it would take to put all of those charts together and edit that whole mess??? They have to make sure everything is right on so people don't find any flaws in the testing method. I am not a scientist, but I am pretty sure that is no small task.

To say that Tunze only knew about the issue for a day or two before we did is ludicrous! They knew exactly what was going on and did NOTHING about it. I can see where the False Advertisement comes in at that point.

However, I don't think Tunze knew about this issue for months and months. I bet they had 2 weeks or so to issue some kind of statement but chose not to. Why?

To those that think the study is biased, how do you explain that Tunze got the exact same results? There is no bias in that. If Tunze set the test up themselves and got drastically different numbers, then there is bias somewhere.

If Vortech knew about this issue and that is why they funded the test, all the more power to them! They found a major hole in one of their competitors and exploited it. That is called BUSINESS 101.

Yes, I am a Vortech owner and user. I have never owned a Tunze but have been looking into them quite heavily for my next tank. This whole thing hasn't changed my mind one bit. I will still probably go with Tunze pumps if they fit my application.

The one thing that has REALLY ticked me off is this statement from Tunze: "We believe pump volume alone does not equal effective flow, the ability to direct that flow is also important. In much the same way as the light available from a bulb means little if it cannot be properly directed into the aquarium."

Sounds like a Geisemann answer to me, total BS. Comparing a pump to a light is as far fetched as it gets. A light is completely OUT of the water, a pump is completely IN the water. I don't care what direction you point that pump, there is flow in the aquarium.

The whole directional thing is a cop out on Tunze's part. Anyone that has ever used a Vortech knows they don't need to be "directed". If you want to direct it, move it on the glass to a better spot. Pretty simple really.

BTW who here has seen Tommy Boy??? This whole "it's not on the BOX" reminds me of that scene in Tommy Boy. Who cares what the box says? Look at your freaking tank and see if there is enough flow. My Vortech MP10 can run anywhere from 200-1700gph or something like that. I don't give a rat's behind how much flow it can produce. I turn it up to where I need it for my tank and leave it be. I have no idea if I am running at 300gph or 500gph. I don't need to know that number; I need to know that my tank has enough flow and it does.

The end.

 

[Mindflux]

Broad same speed flow across an entire column isn't always desirable, don't discount directional pointing. It's no cop out.

 

[rtparty]

Broad same speed flow across an entire column isn't always desirable, don't discount directional pointing. It's no cop out.

I have used many directional powerheads in my day. I find no benefit to its' usage.

Plus, why would anyone EVER use same speed flow with a Vortech? Totally defeats the purpose.

PS - Doesn't the ocean use "broad same speed flow across an entire column?" Just saying

 

[Mindflux]

I have used many directional powerheads in my day. I find no benefit to its' usage.

Plus, why would anyone EVER use same speed flow with a Vortech? Totally defeats the purpose.

PS - Doesn't the ocean use "broad same speed flow across an entire column?" Just saying

No the ocean most certainly does not. There are pockets of high flow and low flow and everything in between. In a tank without any adjustable pumping direction you pretty much move the whole column at the same speed (even as the pump varies speed the whole column moves at that flow rate). Maybe that's desirable for some.

 

[dzhuo]

I can only hope that the person I sold it to is a forum reader so they can get what they paid for.

Why? So you think Tunze openly acknowledge their pumps ratings are inaccurate and then secretly hoping that no one reads forums? You don't happen to think Tunze would take a more proactive correction measurement to ensure existing users are fully aware of this issue when a resolution has been provided? You don't happen to think Tunze wouldn't be able build this reputation with a great satisfactory policy for decades staying in this business?

 

[gasman059]

There's severl things in this hobby you don't touch with a ten foot pole.

1-TUNZES
2-GEO
3-PROCAL
4-Proline

Thier customer service quality of craftmanship and excellent track record will never ever be equal.

My two cents

Their service

 

[DoubleM 10]

I was reading this thread and I find it very interesting. I have the korelias and aqueons. Very satisfied with both. Like people say. Happy before the results and happy after

On to my second point. We can not compare the test results to horsepower on a car. This is because u see horsepower advertised from the crank. The actual horsepower that makes the ground is less that advertised cause of headloss in the trans and the rest of the drivetrain.

Nobody complains that their car has an advertised horsepower of 274(like mine. Honda accord v6) and only has 208 horsepower at the wheel. Does that suck? Yes. Can I complain? No because I was happy with the car before I knew that. So cars are not a valid conparison

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[dzhuo]

To say that Tunze only knew about the issue for a day or two before we did is ludicrous! They knew exactly what was going on and did NOTHING about it. I can see where the False Advertisement comes in at that point.

I don't think you really understand the underlaying issue. It's a challenge to do correct and precise flow measurement. This isn't 1 + 1 = 2 which will probably be true a million year from now. Testing of flow and the measurement and acceptable technique used could have evolved. For example, what's acceptable as a safety standard in automobile 5 or 10 years ago could have been obsolete by today's standard. This doesn't mean 5 or 10 years ago all automobile makers were performing false advertisements. It just means what they thought as safe was wrong and need to be corrected. Similarly here, Tunze performed the test using a method is now clear isn't correct. And they say they are going to correct it. What makes you think this is false advertisement?

 

[tkeracer619]

On to my second point. We can not compare the test results to horsepower on a car. This is because u see horsepower advertised from the crank. The actual horsepower that makes the ground is less that advertised cause of headloss in the trans and the rest of the drivetrain.

Nobody complains that their car has an advertised horsepower of 274(like mine. Honda accord v6) and only has 208 horsepower at the wheel. Does that suck? Yes. Can I complain? No because I was happy with the car before I knew that. So cars are not a valid conparison

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

Sure you can. Your honda has 274hp without a doubt. That is what they advertise. In fact it has more. You however only have 208 bhp dending on the correction numbers they used. Bhp and hp are different. gph and gph are not.

 

[Spaced Cowboy]

Just curious why "X to Y" GPH is not acceptable if inaccurate, but estimated MPG on cars by the EPA that never meet those estimations is perfectly acceptable?

My wifes new Jetta TDI says it'll get me 40+ MPG highway and we're getting something like 35. I'm not on the horn with VW calling them bold faced liars... I know that's a "potential" that can be reached, but not a guarantee.

I'm not saying that Tunze can mislead it's customers or anything.

Not to derail, but we've got one of those Jetta TDI's (the "sportwagen" variant). My wife drives ~100 miles per day (most of it on freeway) and she *averages* ~45mpg. She's hit 50 before now.

Normally I'd not bother with an anecdote like that, but since Tunze seem to be getting in so much hot water when they clearly didn't intend to defraud, I just thought I'd mention it - we really like our VW [grin].

Simon

 

[bluereefs]

Acording to Klaus Jansen and if I translate his text OK they come to the same conclusion 2 years ago when they measure tunze pumps, they also published that on German forums 2 years ago, here is the link : http://www.meerwasserforum.com/thread.php?threadid=53711&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=2

text in German Language

Meine Güte... Müllsackmessungen...ich glaubs ja nicht !!! ... wenn man als Premiumhersteller nicht mal 1500.- Euro für ein Messgerät übrig hat.... Die Tunze-Werte überraschen mich nicht.. Vor ca. 2 Jahren hatte Torsten Luther uns hier mal besucht..... der hatte eine Aänometer mit, wo man sehr genau den Flow von Propellerpumpen, berechnen kann. Torsten hat sein Meßgerät mit unseren Magnetisch-Induktiven Durchflussmengenmessern gegengemessen und siehe da : ... auf +/- 3 Prozent, stimmten die Werte exakt überein. Bei der Gelegenheit haben wir auch diverse Propellerpumpen vermessen und der Hammer war eine neue, große Propellerpumpe..... anstatt 30.000 Liter Flow, kamen nur laue 11.400 Liter raus.
Aber auch Förderpumpen werden im Markt mit total nach oben frisierten Werten verkauft. Wir testen ja auch Mitbewerbemodelle und es nicht selten, dass die tatsächlichen Förderleistungen, bis zu 60 % unter den gelabelten Werten liegen...
Torsten Luther hat mal hier im Forum über die "geschönten" Werte geschrieben ( incl. Herstellerangaben) und heftig Prügel dafür bezogen. Schön, dass ein Ami das jetzt bestätigt, was wir schon lange wussten.

Grüße ...Klaus