http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/7/aafeature
I have not read it yet, but it looks very thorough.
nice link, thanks for posting it!
Guess I can't link to them :( oh well.
WOW... Tunze takes a frigg'n beating on these tests... That's going to start some noise on the boards...
Insane how over-rated they are for this specific style of test.
Here is my executive summary... BTW I run Tunze :(
- The VorTech MP-60 had the widest and strongest flow compared to the Tunze 6305
o The Koralia 8 had stronger flow but it was very concentrated
- The Tunze generally produced less flow than claimed as much as 55% less, where as the VorTech's produced more flow than claimed as much as 56% more
- The VorTechs are much more energy efficient than the Tunze, almost in a different league and as much as twice as efficient
The kicker "Tunze conducted its own independent tests on the Tunze pumps and have confirmed our results".
The only down side "We would like to thank EcoTech Marine for providing the large aquarium and renting the equipment needed for the study". I believe the results but some won't ;-)
This article has awesome data in it... like AMAZING data and I believe collected in a very controlled and consistent manner. This is the kinda stuff which IMHO is absent from the entire aquarium industry.
Hydor for the win I guess, 1/3 the price of vortech mp60.
but wireless is wireless, tunze and hydor is not.
to be fair, you'd need to add the wavemaker/controller to the korlia... otherwise it's just a single-mode pump... with the largest in-tank foot-print of them all...
Here is Tunze' reply. A1 class response IMHO.
http://reefbuilders.com/2011/07/13/tunze-streamstatement/#more-44685
Very interesting thanks for sharing
Tunze always has been known for their customer service... This is just another outstanding example.
I was recently pricing their PHs glad I held off any purchases. BUT reading their reply and quick response really showed top notch accountability and service! This is a company I would deal with. Will wait for a few months before reconsidering their PHs now though. They will react quickly I am guessing b/c this will hurt at least their sales on PHs. You figure it will reenforce customer's of theirs as a vendor over all so "at the end of day" should help their sales bottom line really. On top of that conveniences me to look at them harder in the future so will likely have an impact to create a wider customer base? Very good PR!
Here is part 2 of what I suspect will be a many part series ;-)
http://reefbuilders.com/2011/08/08/tunze-video-response/
Quote from: RossW on August 08, 2011, 09:22:05 PM
Here is part 2 of what I suspect will be a many part series ;-)
http://reefbuilders.com/2011/08/08/tunze-video-response/
Why does the injection rate of the fluorescent dye differ during the side by side comparison of the Tunze and Vortech tanks.
In each test (6:00, 7:38 and 8:57), the rate of injection is slower in the Tunze tank. In the first and third tests it takes double the length of time (4 seconds vs 2) to inject the dye in the Tunze tank as opposed to the Vortech.
If I were a suspicious fellow (which I am), I would wonder if injecting at a faster rate creates a "cloud" of dye which takes more time to dissipate. I'm not suggesting this is done intentionally but it could be that the tester has a bias and takes more care when testing the Tunze tank.
I realize that this is only part of the test but in that it's visual it does have a greater impact. This is why I prefer independent testing because the slightest difference can rig the results one way or another.
interesting video... I'm not sure it helps though. Overall, the prior test demonstrates Tunze simply cannot out-put the flow that it claims. Tunze even responded saying that their method was to time how long it took to fill a bag with water which was a flawed method.
The dye/flow demonstrations are very interesting for sure. It would be very interesting to see the same tests done with rock-structures in the tank.
Also, can anyone do a price comparison on the MP40 vs the 6095 which are being compared at approx 6min? The flow pattern on the EcoTech looks very similar to the Tunze in this particular test, but not in the others @ 7min 40sec.
The Eco Tech first released the MP40... so possibly it just simply works differently than the MP10 and MP60...
BTW, I don't run either... and as I do no like the noise levels of the EcoTech FWIW... I'd likely go Tunze if I was doing powerheads even after seeing this video.
Oh.... More Tunze trouble...
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/law-firm-announces-investigation-on-tunze
Yeah I saw this thread too...
If tunze can get sued for this though then couldnt just about every skimmer manufacturer get sued for over rating their skimmers?
I own an air flow meter and I can guarentee that 95% of all skimmers dont come anywhere close to drawing the amount of air that they claim that they do!
Now as for over rating the size of a tank that a skimmer will clean, thats just too subjective to be sued for but the air flow rate is not....
I was going to call them ambulance chasers, but I think "sharks" is more appropriate.
not sure how I feel. Bottom line, Tunze pumps work, have worked and will work... they are elite pumps and get the job done... so for that, the lawsuit seems frivolous
However, to over-rate your flow by 80 and 120% is negligent. It is a very big thing when your competitors are + or - 15% of advertised ratings and your off by such a large margin... what if you bought a car that was advertised at 10L/100km and found out it was actually doing 18L/100km? Might be an awesome car, with amazing customer service even... but i know I'd be pretty upset. (not a great analogy for sure)