Saturday, Nov 05, 2005 at 22:45
The Post of Ian W (NSW) (Follow-up:390536) needs some clarification as certain coments are inaccurate I am doing this because his remarks immediately follow the publication of a section of a covering letter that I forward out to those Victorians who enquire about the Fitch Fuel Catalyst (FFC). The extract represents about 1% of some very helpful info. The small pack of 18 pages if calmly considered would enable most readers and commentators on these Fuel discussion forums to act less emotionally negative towards B.S And also make fewer implied negative remarks about others involved in assisting towards clearer exhausts from the existing vehicle fleets along with other worthwhile benefits from modified fuels.
Firstly the nature of the claims made by FFC
Australia on its website. To assist; here is a larger part of the quote from the website legal
disclaimer "However, due to the various differences in engine configuration, fuel type and the way the engine is used, fuel saving, emission reduction and engine longevity figures stated in the site may not match the results achieved by you. The figures and data provided were achieved under certain conditions and you acknowledge that the performance of Fitch® Fuel Catalyst may differ significantly in other applications. Fitch® Fuel Catalyst
Australia Pty. Ltd. makes no warranty, assurance or guarantee as to the extent of fuel savings and / or emission reductions in any use of Fitch® Fuel Catalyst."
You will note that in the critical section above the key words are "to the extent of". Reasons for this have been set forth earlier. As most reasonable people know there are a lot of variables when individuals try to evaluate what is the FFC doing. Hence the makers of FFC are regularly is involved with independent 3rd party labs for controlled testing of engine and fuel efficiencies in mechanically sound vehicles. .
These included in 2004 the testing on modern diesel truck engines involving the independent properly qualified testing companies of "Ocean Air Environmental LLC of California "&"Vehicle and Engine Emission Testing Services "of NY State. The outcomes,which can be viewed on various FFC websites are similar to what is being had with competently driven on road units.
It may be of considrable interest forreaders of this
forum to read first hand what is on the bottom of the home page of the FFC site.re"The Fitch Fuel Catalyst Warranty".
An essential key point to understand what the FFC does? The FFC's laboraory tested claim is that it favourably changes the structure of certain parts of the fuel mix, for tank stored fuel without leaching or doing anything negative. As to how this improved fuel benefits the vehicle operator depends on factors out of control of the FFC since the FFC is not a mechanic in a can nor a driving instructor nor a properly qualified engine tuner.
Now to second matter commented on Ian W ( NSW). About who collected the data for the Vipac Report.
First who is Vipac ? Vicpac is a
Melbourne based vehicle emission testing lab approved by the Commonwealth Department of Transport for vehicle compliance testing under the Australian Road Board documents 79,31,81.having approvals 9ARO.0125 and DOT.4009. The test engineer was a R Davies, who when interviewed by Ch9 confirmed his Surprise at the unexpected improvement and made no suggestion that the driving or the collection of exhaust samples had not been satisfactorily conducted under his supervision in the Vipac testing cell.The script of this Ch9 "Current Affair" of 16th October 02 can be seen on the FFC website.
It would help if the 1st 2 Paragraphs of the Vipac report are quoted since R.Davies authourised them;"The following report details the results achieved when a Toyota Landcruiser 80 vehicle was run through a single comparative test program utilising the Composite Urban Emission Drive Cycle (CUEDC) for category NA vehicles, by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Vehicle Emission Test facility at Altona T4009.The testing was carried out in accordance with the Composite Urban Emission Drive Cycle (CUEDC) drive cycle for NA class vehicles (vehicles with a GVM <4.5 tonnes). The CUEDC series of drive cycles were developed from data collected during actual driving conditions around
Sydney, and take the form of a single drive-cycle (1794 seconds) broken up into four distinct phases; Congested, Residential / Minor, Arterial, Freeway / Highway. The two tests were driven by Mr. Bill Sheather (Fitch Fuel Catalyst
Australia Pty. Ltd.), and were run using regular pump grade diesel fuel as agreed between Vipac Engineers and Scientists and the customer."
Further reading of the report details the equipment that the Vipac scientists used to collect the exhaust gas samples as Bill Sheather drove the Series 80 within strict requirements of the CUEDC drive cycle. This drive cycle does not allow for funny business being done in the lab as some have suggested. Prior to the 2 reported tests B.S was required to fully demonstrate his ability to drive the full CUEDC drive cycle consistently within accepted experimental tolerances, just like Vipac's especially approved test driver, who happened not to be available.
In some other future posts I will endeavour to address some other misconceptions that been aired on this current thread.
FollowupID:
391623