Engine tests (RIVAs ballistics) - Page 6

RIVA · 16 January 2006, 15:08

250 suzy will be re tested next week , now jono if you want to be there just ask , in the spirt of fairness

but sorry wont be reembersing loss of pay or travel expenses for the day

Cookee · 16 January 2006, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

It was the show in 2004 - BEFORE that wow boat of your was available!!!

So if you didn't see everyone how can you say you were treated better by him than anyone else there? People reading that might assume that ALL of the other exhibitors were rude to you! On the other hand you might have only met 3 other exhibiters?

Come to this years Ribex and you will get treated like I treat anyone - customer or not - just ask the 120 people who came out in the 2 BananaSharks at the Southampton show for free ...........

DM · 16 January 2006, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

when the first statment is your time and effort are not appricated

Where did I say that? You should be a journalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

no faith should be placed in the things gained from it

Yep. I did say that, because the article is riddled with inaccuracy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

all info was supplied by the manafacturer and not a dealer

The engine specs may have been, but the fuel stats were provided by the RI team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

they all had 250lt on board

The article clearly states 150litres. Is that another misprint?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmanning

the use of four different Floscan units

Yes, an incorrect assumption, (and I apologise for this,) but the point was, that, for accuracy, calibrated containers would have been more appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

250 suzy will be re tested next week

What about the ETEC figures? 36lph?

Finally, you seem to have taken my original post personally when its true aim was the inaccuracies in the article in RI. Like it or not, I pay good money for the magazine and if, as readers, we're expected to believe all we're told, they'd best dream on.

DM

Searider · 16 January 2006, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by moresauce

Dunc, is that because your tight as a duck's behind!!!!

Not quite - my 160 litre tank is not quite big enough to get to the Scillies and back without going dangerously close to empty.

A 10% improvement would make all the difference

gtflash · 17 January 2006, 03:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Smith

What was the testers verdict as i found it open ended there was no
This is our choice good or bad.
I was impressed with the Suzuki

exactly, funny how rib international and sports boat and rib mag seem to always give neutral reviews of everything now, the once never kind HMS has moved over for people who seem to love everything or have no balls!! best bit of rib mag was its honesty even if HMS aint popular for it!!

i also think review shoulda included oil consumption particularly for 2 stroke motor and compare to 4 strokes and oil change economy!!

Jimbob · 17 January 2006, 08:56

Mr RIVA

just a suggestion, but you may want to tell people how you intend to re-test, then you can gain agreement and thus whatever the figures are they are.

Alao the point about the 2 stroke oil is important, i am told the oil is doble the price i use in my Fitch

codprawn · 17 January 2006, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbob

Mr RIVA

just a suggestion, but you may want to tell people how you intend to re-test, then you can gain agreement and thus whatever the figures are they are.

Alao the point about the 2 stroke oil is important, i am told the oil is doble the price i use in my Fitch

If people allow themselves to be conned by the manufacturers into buying branded oil then it is a big factor - people forget Mercury and Evinrude don't have their own refineries!!!

If you buy an oil of the correct spec then you shouldn't have problems - and by law they can't refuse your guarantee!!!

Mark Halliday · 17 January 2006, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

If people allow themselves to be conned by the manufacturers into buying branded oil then it is a big factor - people forget Mercury and Evinrude don't have their own refineries!!!

Good grief, do you think the oil comes straight from the refineries?

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

If you buy an oil of the correct spec then you shouldn't have problems - and by law they can't refuse your guarantee!!!

Are you getting spec and grade mixed up?
Their spec will be a grade of oil with their blend of additives.

As to wether it is any better than a non branded oil is a different matter, probably better to leave that to your brief in the court case following your waranty claim.

ADS · 17 January 2006, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Halliday

As to wether it is any better than a non branded oil is a different matter, probably better to leave that to your brief in the court case following your waranty claim.

I would think Cod's warranty has run out by now anyway.

RIVA · 17 January 2006, 16:01

the test will be the same,

so that we dont have to take four boats out, again and another 3 days work for me.

hopefully prior to print , someone will check and proof read

Scary Des · 17 January 2006, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

.....hopefully prior to print , someone will check and proof read

Post the article

Codders will correct any errors

Des

codprawn · 17 January 2006, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Halliday

Good grief, do you think the oil comes straight from the refineries?

Are you getting spec and grade mixed up?
Their spec will be a grade of oil with their blend of additives.

As to wether it is any better than a non branded oil is a different matter, probably better to leave that to your brief in the court case following your waranty claim.

NO!

As long as you use oil to the specification they stipulate the warrenty will be valid under UK/EU law.

TCW3 etc is a SPECIFICATION not a grade!!!

Jono · 17 January 2006, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

......
hopefully prior to print , someone will check and proof read

Just a pity those responsible didn't do that last time.......

Poly · 17 January 2006, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

the test will be the same,

if you got unreliable results last time why do you think it will be any better this time...

...assuming you get a different result this time how do you know it is right?

At the very least you would be as well to measure the quantity of fuel required to completely refill the tank (having started with a full tank) and compare to the total fuel usage reported by floscan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

so that we dont have to take four boats out, again and another 3 days work for me.

I can understand your reluctance, but... if this gives you the same results again everyone will say you tested it wrong again... if you get different results it must call into question the validity of ALL the original results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

hopefully prior to print , someone will check and proof read

Proof reading is only useful for spotting typos. Since people are questioning the results it might be better to get the experimental design right in the first place.

NEIL

Rogue Wave · 17 January 2006, 20:18

I have some calibrated measuring tanks you can borrow if you want

RIVA · 18 January 2006, 09:44

thanks rouge , but its a calibrated fuel meter, there is no problem with the equipment. just relaying it on to the page is the problem

John Kennett · 18 January 2006, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

thanks rouge , but its a calibrated fuel meter, there is no problem with the equipment. just relaying it on to the page is the problem

So why do you need to redo the test then?

John

RIVA · 19 January 2006, 09:19

to give the confidance in the one engine figures

John Kennett · 19 January 2006, 20:21

So what were the correct figures for the Suzuki from the first test?

John

GED · 19 January 2006, 22:19

Over 4,500 Views On This Subject Thats More Than Reads Rib International !!!!!!!