rocke_reef
New member
I am happy with my 6105 but I still like to get what I paid for.
Tunze - False Advertisement?
- Thread starter tkeracer619
- Start date
- Status
Rosscopeco
New member
I wonder what the test results would be like if the vortechs had those stupid sponges fitted. They are a standard part after all.
chadfarmer
Premium Member
well to be honest when i bought my 6105 victor from atb told me they werent as powerful as the older 6101 pumps
Tunze agreed to the conclusion of the study because it was a valid conclusion. If you can't create a wave in a 30G tank with a MP10 then you are doing something wrong.
NyReefNoob
skimmer freak
personally i will say this, roger has always been great to deal with, no questions asked. ive owned the majority of brands myself, none of the bigger tunze's, largest being the 6055's which dont really feel any more powerful then a modded 6025. i do feel tunze's are better for longer tanks then vortech's though as they seem to push the water farther, but the vortech gives a broader flow. i currently run a mp40 and mp 20 on my 3'x2'x22" tank and get the flow i feel i needed, as where 3 6055's didnt do what i needed. I do how ever feel that if it is advertised at x amount of flow. reguardless if your happy with them before knowing they dont put out the flow advertised they should correct all of their pumps to get the output advertised, without cost to the consumer. but i also feel this goes for more then the pumps, curious is all the return pumps output are what they are advertised at as well. from all brands. funny part is though that 99% of the skimmers out today have advertised rating and truelly curious as to how they come to thier conclusions
wonder if they tested the pumps at different depths in the tank also, as this would have an effect also.
getting a wave out of a mp10 in a 30g isnt hard to do, i can make a wave with one pass of my hand in the tank. add some rock or something to partially block the flow and that same mp10 wont make a wave
also someone commented on vehicles and mpg, huge differance as someone living in flat lands is going to get better mpg then someone like me living in the mountains.
wonder if they tested the pumps at different depths in the tank also, as this would have an effect also.
getting a wave out of a mp10 in a 30g isnt hard to do, i can make a wave with one pass of my hand in the tank. add some rock or something to partially block the flow and that same mp10 wont make a wave
also someone commented on vehicles and mpg, huge differance as someone living in flat lands is going to get better mpg then someone like me living in the mountains.
vivek
New member
I am always suspicious when a study comes out and is sponsored by a company. In my field of work it would be a clear red flag for a study like this. I am not bashing this study at all since I have no engineering background but would love to hear comments from people who do have a better understanding of the methodology used and whether it is the industry standard for flow measurement or is it a new method developed to measure flow? If the methodology is a gold standard that has existed for a while then I will have very little good things to say to defend the company in this regard.
No matter what the outcome is I will always defend the company for
1) bringing out quality products that have hardly ever failed on me for the five years I have been in this hobby. I have very few equipment i have used in this hobby that I can claim such reliability
2) the customer service they provide is the gold standard I use to compare other companies
No matter what the outcome is I will always defend the company for
1) bringing out quality products that have hardly ever failed on me for the five years I have been in this hobby. I have very few equipment i have used in this hobby that I can claim such reliability
2) the customer service they provide is the gold standard I use to compare other companies
I google translated it:
My goodness ... Garbage bag measurements ... I think not! ... as if you do not even premium car manufacturer for a € 1500 .- meter has left .... The Tunze values'm not surprised .. About 2 years ago Torsten Luther had visited us here once ..... who had a Aänometer with where to exactly calculate the flow propeller pumps, can. Torsten has to be our instrument with magnetic-inductive flow meters to measure and lo and behold ... to + / - 3 percent, voted in the values match exactly. On this occasion we have also measured various propellers and pumps, the hammer was a new, large propeller pump ..... instead of 30,000 liters of flow, came out only tepid 11 400 liters.
But pumps are totally sold on the market with souped-up values. We test it and yes even Mitbewerbemodelle not rare that the actual flow rates up to 60% less than the labeled values ...
Torsten Luther wrote in the forum to talk about the "tarted up" assets (including manufacturer's data) and related violent beatings for it. Nice that a Yank now confirmed what we knew long ago.
It has been mentioned that Tunze was shown the study and methodology before it went public and came to the conclusion the study was correct and their own published specs on their pumps underperformed. If you respect Tunze and Tunze agrees the results of the tests are accurate then you probably have to conclude the tests and methodology are reasonable. Tunze released a statement that they are going to try to rectify the situation and get their pumps to meet the advertised specs. If Tunze agrees the results are accurate I would guess they must be, why else would Tunze admit they were, if not they would have disputed the results.
Surely Ecotech Marine had an idea their Vortech series was better than the specs they advertised and Tunze's were subpar but that is Tunze's problem for putting out a pump that couldn't come close to advertised specs.
vivek
New member
I have to agree based on the circumstantial evidence tunze is guilty of either not using standard testing (as used in the this study) or deliberately hiding info that they were well aware of. Otherwise why would they so quickly come out with a statement like that? But to prove someone guilty is just not what you and me think based on what we know. The legal system is way to messed up to prove someone guilty lol!!
dlp211
New member
There was no standard for testing. That is why AA did this test. And they weren't hiding anything, the test that they used for their other pumps wouldn't work with the 6105+. So they used the theoretical number through mathematical analysis.
The reason that they responded so quickly is because AA gave Tunze time to verify the study before they went to print.
And I will point out again. Everyone was happy with their Tunze. The Tunze 6105 vs the MP40 is a staple argument here at RC. I have not ever seen a thread where anyone suspected that the Tunze was not delivering for them and the general consensus was if you want better in tank visuals go with the MP40, if you want lower noise go with the Tunze.
This is absolutely ridiculous that people are coming out of the woodwork to attack Tunze and their product. They have been nothing but upstanding as a company goes, and are doing way more than most companies would do in the same situation. People make mistakes, including engineers.
The test is not based on standard test.
The test is not based on standard test.
The test is not based on a standard test since there is no standard to measure flowrates. If you read the article the authors simply suggest that manufacturers use their method to provide flowrates given that it is based on more technically advanced way. It is just one idea or suggestion rather than the only way to measure the flowrates. I am sure the results will vary depending on the size of the tank used to measure the flowrates, the distance between the test equipment and pump itself, depth of pump placement, etc. For example, if I recall correctly the distance used was 1 meter. What if someone used 2 meters or 3 meters, and so on???
The results would be different.
What Tunze agreed was not that their test is standard way to measure. Rather they agreed that the flowrates will come out as stated in the article if flowrates is measured the way that was tested by the authors in the article.
The test is not based on standard test.
The test is not based on a standard test since there is no standard to measure flowrates. If you read the article the authors simply suggest that manufacturers use their method to provide flowrates given that it is based on more technically advanced way. It is just one idea or suggestion rather than the only way to measure the flowrates. I am sure the results will vary depending on the size of the tank used to measure the flowrates, the distance between the test equipment and pump itself, depth of pump placement, etc. For example, if I recall correctly the distance used was 1 meter. What if someone used 2 meters or 3 meters, and so on???
The results would be different.
What Tunze agreed was not that their test is standard way to measure. Rather they agreed that the flowrates will come out as stated in the article if flowrates is measured the way that was tested by the authors in the article.
until they read on the study that is, they start making noise.
they attack tunze so they might get something for free.
you know the deal, bash a company in the internet and hope you get free stuff so you'll shut up.
there's plenty in the vendor feedback...it has become the MOdus Operandi in getting free stuff.
i got all tunze equipment,
2x 6045
2x 6055
1x 7096
1x 1073.40
1x tunze osmolator
and i'm not looking for free stuff, i dont care if they upgrade or not, i'm happy and contented before this study by "vortech" showed up and i'm still happy now.
dlp211
New member
It makes me so mad. And all these people are short sighted. You got your tank dialed in for flow, what is going to happen when you double it? I will give you a hint: ReAquascaping and/or dead corals and/or sandstorms.
Nothing about the Tunze pump changed, it didn't magically lose flow overnight, if it has been working for you, great, don't change anything because you feel entitled. You received the product that they built. their cost to build the product did not go down because their theoretical limits weren't the real world limits. The only thing that has changed is your perception of the pump, but it shouldn't change because as I will state again, it has worked for you.
There are a million and one factors that go into what makes a reef tanks successful, and within those factors there are multiple solutions. This leads me to believe though that flow rate is not as important as some people make it out to be. What is probably more important is flow type and effective use of that flow type.
You're missing the point. People are upset because they paid a premium for a product that was not as advertised. Obviously the Tunze's in question work. Obviously they work well. Obviously the company is still a good company. The fact of the matter is, people paid for a product they did not receive.
I have no problem with Tunze at all, but no one can deny they did not put out the product they advertised. That's all there is to this discussion. It's obvious the pumps in question aren't a detriment to anyone's tanks and I doubt anyone is claiming they lost livestock because the numbers on the box aren't correct.
When someone pays money for something (especially paying a premium), you better damn well believe most of them are going to want to get what they paid for.
I see a little attacking but not anything ridiculous. I think Tunze is handling the whole thing OK, with the possible exception of not changing the advertised specs which obviously are not being reached in the real world. I don't think Tunze deserves over the top kudos for doing the right thing here either. Any way you slice it they put out a product that fell short of what they sold it to be by a significant margin.
I see a lot of posts that say something to the effect that "people were happy with the flow before they knew the truth" and while there is a certain logic to it we do have to depend an awful lot on what manufacturers tell us on many products and if that trust is lost the customer is put in a bad position. The flip side to this argument is that without accurate empirical data human beings make horrible flow meters. With that said the more high tech these pumps get the more dependent we are going to be on tests to figure out what suits our needs best.
ETA - I think the engineers at Tunze are good, this smells of the marketing department wanting a target gph and saw theoretical and liked that number and slapped it on the box because they knew they needed a certain gph to justify a certain price.
Last edited:
dlp211
New member
Technically, they don't have to change the advertising as their numbers are mathematically provable in a court of law. And it's not just in this thread, but perhaps its just my perception and a few loud mouths.
The point is that no one got ripped off. No one, including Tunze knew what the actual flow of the 6105+. Tunze has admitted the mistake and everyone needs to just let them fix it. There was at least one person that said he wanted half his money back. I just don't understand what everyone thinks doubling their flow in their already existing tanks is going to accomplish?
The point is that no one got ripped off. No one, including Tunze knew what the actual flow of the 6105+. Tunze has admitted the mistake and everyone needs to just let them fix it. There was at least one person that said he wanted half his money back. I just don't understand what everyone thinks doubling their flow in their already existing tanks is going to accomplish?
vivek
New member
This is exactly what I have been trying to figure out. If there has been no standardized way of testing flow why is everyone so bent out of shape about what happened here. I am surprised that Tunze did not add something that " though we agree with how the test were conducted we were not aware of any standardized testing that measures flow in the industry and would be eager to find out if this test does meet the criteria for being used as the standardized testing for flow rates in the future". In my opinion if it is not a standardized test then it is subject to the same criticism of all such one off test designed to measure something i.e. Garbage in= garbage out. Unless this way of testing flow is accepted by the industry experts ( which means studying the test with multiple studies under many different conditions) you can call me a skeptic especially when the sponsor of the test happens to be a competitor. In the medical field that I work in this study will never ever get published in a reputable journal.
rtparty
Raise The Reef!
I will just say this again....
GPH IS TOTALLY USELESS IN REAL WORLD APPLICATION!
I am not on Tunze's side at all in this. I am not on either side.
I saw a guy here locally running a pretty decent 120 gallon tank. I asked him all about his setup and my jaw hit the ground. He had no sump, no skimmer and no external filter of any kind. He did NOT use Vortech or Tunze or Koralia. He was using TWO stream line pumps that were comparable to the MJ 1200s. He had them set up to create a gyre effect throughout the tank.
His setup provided all the flow he ever needed for his tank. The tank was happy and healthy and in great shape. He somehow did all of this without all the high price, fancy equipment we all love to buy.
I again repeat that Gallons Per Hour is a totally pointless and useless claim.
I really want to know what all you Tunze people are going to do when your STREAMLINE pump puts out twice the amount of flow and you have no controller to throttle it back. Are you going to upgrade tanks? Get rid of some pumps? Or will you all start complaining that the mod is useless and you are going back to the old style pumps?
In all of this bickering and arguing I have learned one thing --- you can NOT compare a Tunze to a Vortech any longer. Not because one is better than the other but because they are two TOTALLY different pumps. They both move water, but do so in different ways.
Start comparing the Tunze pumps to the Koralia pumps. They have a TON more in common at this point.
GPH IS TOTALLY USELESS IN REAL WORLD APPLICATION!
I am not on Tunze's side at all in this. I am not on either side.
I saw a guy here locally running a pretty decent 120 gallon tank. I asked him all about his setup and my jaw hit the ground. He had no sump, no skimmer and no external filter of any kind. He did NOT use Vortech or Tunze or Koralia. He was using TWO stream line pumps that were comparable to the MJ 1200s. He had them set up to create a gyre effect throughout the tank.
His setup provided all the flow he ever needed for his tank. The tank was happy and healthy and in great shape. He somehow did all of this without all the high price, fancy equipment we all love to buy.
I again repeat that Gallons Per Hour is a totally pointless and useless claim.
I really want to know what all you Tunze people are going to do when your STREAMLINE pump puts out twice the amount of flow and you have no controller to throttle it back. Are you going to upgrade tanks? Get rid of some pumps? Or will you all start complaining that the mod is useless and you are going back to the old style pumps?
In all of this bickering and arguing I have learned one thing --- you can NOT compare a Tunze to a Vortech any longer. Not because one is better than the other but because they are two TOTALLY different pumps. They both move water, but do so in different ways.
Start comparing the Tunze pumps to the Koralia pumps. They have a TON more in common at this point.
I agree people blow specs way out of proportion in just about every thing; pumps, cars, computers etc. etc. etc. but how are you supposed to buy things with any hope of fitting your needs? I think you are right that comparisons between Tunze and Vortech are comparing Apples and Oranges but they occupy a similar niche as high end pumps. Koralias are decidedly more budget pumps and even Tunze probably would rather be compared to a Vortech.
I agree with Vivek,
The problem is that there is some misunderstanding that the result is the only way to measure the flowrates. And some people believe suddenly the test conducted is the standard method, which is not.
- Status
Similar threads
