Tunze is being investigated by a law firm out of D.C.

[MitchReef]

I applaud Tunze for not entering into a spit-fight over this. I believe that they were as surprised about this as the rest of us, but again, they should have been able to better evaluate the stated pumps' output. After all, NONE of the other manufacturers were using such obviously broken data in their advertisement.

As for the "my reef is thriving" defense I will say this. My reef is thriving and flow is provided by an ancient noisy BlueLine return pump and an assortment of pumps and powerheads dating back to the 80's. That was when I started using them in reef aquariums.

Again, I admire Tunze, but this is just bad press for them. If I had the money I would certainly consider Tunze pumps among the top of my shopping list.

 

[lps1212]

This is crazy some people just have nothing better to do and on another note I have never had issues with my vortechs

 

[bct15]

And if I'm not mistaken, this test was effectively performed by an independent body. This was university research, sponsored by a manufacturer, but not unlike the sponsoring that virtually all research receives. Without a sponsor colleges would not be able to afford to do research. The independence of the research is as good as the scientist's word. Again, I feel confident in Sanjay et al.

"We would like to thank EcoTech Marine for providing the large aquarium and renting the equipment needed for the study. The work was performed under the technical guidance and consultation with Bill Straka and Sanjay Joshi of Penn State University. The data was collected by Mike Sandford during his summer internship at EcoTech Marine."

It clearly states at the end if this excerpt that the data was collected by an ecotech employee while working for ecotech. The data was interpreted and relort witten at a an independent university.

 

[AcroholicReefer]

One last point. The study may not be independant and could very well be funded intentionally by Ecotech. However Tunze has basically already shot themselves in the foot from ever arguing that point. In a matter of days they issued an apology and explanation to why thier research was wrong and explained in detail what they were going to do to remedy the situation. Consider your competion issuing a study about the company you own or work for that is innaccurate, slanted towards them or baseless. Your officially response wouldn't be an explanation of why you thought your product preformed better than it did and you certainly wouldn't give a layed out plan to remedy the problems that "don't exist". It would be a vehement denial pointing out the holes and conflict of interest contained. Also consider that this research was done and issued to all the companies involved months before it was publically available. Tunze as well as all the other manufacturers were given plenty of time to test and consider the research. Tunze has accepted it as correct and are moving forward to correct thier pumps issues.

Very interesting. I wonder if Tunze could state that duress from the publicity of the research made them make a public statement...

but then again, I don't know since I'm not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express

 

[MitchReef]

Again, I am proud of Tunze for accepting the research for what it was....research....and data is data....

Tunze seems more at ease to admit the problem than do the Tunze faithful here....

 

[nixer]

long before the test was done it was already reported by another source in germany as being under rated.
yet they didnt change the labeling on the box or the pump. the case isnt bs it does infact have merit.

 

[gnoles]

I like my tunze pumps... They have great customer support. I'll be in the market for a couple of 6205's as this spins out of control on the message boards. As for the lawsuit, I fully expect Tunze to make a good faith effort to reengineer the pumps to perform at the rates, or as close as possible. I expect them to provide the fix at no cost to their customer and if they get a fix to specs at no cost, MOST folks will be happy. Some never will... To them the aquarium is always half empty.

 

[AquaNerd1]

I wish people would quit putting their own spin on to what Tunze "agreed" to. First of all, they never agreed to the flow rates published in the original study. They only statement Tunze made was that they saw the same flow rates when using the same testing equipment and the same method. However, there is a big asterisk to that statement. Tunze later came out to doubt the accuracy of the test equipment and method used in the original study, stating that the equipment heavily favored pumps with more turbulent and less laminar flow. Because of this, they then set out to do a comparison of their pumps with their competitor's pumps in the video they released. The video successfully showed that Tunze Stream pumps pushed water farther while the competitor created more turbulence.

Moving on, Tunze never lied or falsely advertised their flow rates. They used two methods to arrive at their flow rate numbers for their pumps. They started with theoretical calculations that relied on the shape of the propeller and the speed at which it was rotating (RPM). After calculating these numbers, they performed a bag test. This test involves attaching a bag to the pump and timing how low it takes the bag to fill. The results of the bag fill method and the theoretical calculations were within +/-10% of each other. Both of these test methods are accepted within the industry, at least up until this point.

As for the advertised flow rates, if you look on a Tunze box they actually provide a range of flow instead of just one number. So technically, even if the pumps are putting out less than what they are supposed to, they are still safe from an advertising standpoint. The box and literature for the 6105 has a range of 792 to 3,434 USgal./h. The data from the study had the Tunze at 2358.2 gph, well within the range given by Tunze. This is also seen in the 6205 and 6305. I'm not using these numbers to justify anything other than the fact that technically they should be safe from someone claiming they aren't hitting advertised flow rates.

The other thing I wanted to bring up is the fact that EcoTech Marine did sponsor this study. Yes, Sanjay was a technical consultant, but only a consultant. Mike Sandford collected the data and performed the tests while interning at EcoTech Marine. On top of that, EcoTech Marine rented the test equipment and provided the aquarium to do all of the tests. Because of this, the entire study is biased to the point that its results should be doubted and they will not hold up in any sort of legal case. Since so many people are jumping on car analogies, do you think a study conducted by Chevrolet showing Ford vehicles to have a far poorer fuel economy than advertised would be well accepted by the public, people within the automotive industry, or people in the legal system? Of course not. And let me ask you this, what if Sanjay's name wasn't attached to the study? Would we still accept the data at face value or would we have our doubts?

We would like to thank EcoTech Marine for providing the large aquarium and renting the equipment needed for the study. The work was performed under the technical guidance and consultation with Bill Straka and Sanjay Joshi of Penn State University. The data was collected by Mike Sandford during his summer internship at EcoTech Marine.

Wrapping it up, I'm so surprised to see so many people jumping all over the "Let's bash Tunze into the ground" bandwagon after just one published experiment. The test wasn't independent, and the equipment and methods have been doubted by many engineers, hobbyists, and people in the aquarium industry. Instead of bashing Tunze, let the results of a real scientific study come out that doesn't just measure flow in one way, but a multitude of ways.

 

[AquaNerd1]

And to further doubt the accuracy of the test, just take a look at the results of the Hydor Koralia 5, 6, and 7 pumps. These pumps all use the same body. Nothing changes from model to model other than the propeller and the amount of watts consumed. Testing these three pumps is actually a nice little experiment within itself, as it removes variables from the equation. The Koralia 5 was shown to perform significantly better than a Koralia 6 and almost as good as a Koralia 7. If the test were an accurate and acceptable method for determining the flow rates of propeller-based pumps, why then did the Koralia pumps show such unexpected results. Could it be possible that the Koralia 5 puts out a more turbulent flow than the Koralia 6? Or perhaps the tester was using the test equipment inappropriately. The authors of the study don't have a clue as to why they saw these results, as admitted in the published findings.

The Hydor 6, 7, and 8 were measured to within 2% of the manufacture specifications. The Hydor 5 and Vortech MP-10 both presented an anomaly in that they produced 55-60% more flow than claimed. In fact, the Koralia 5 that was tested produced significantly more flow than the Koralia 6, and almost matched the output of the Koralia 7. The reason for this difference in claimed and experimental flow measurements is unknown.

 

[MitchReef]

Actually Aquanerd, Tunze directly stated that they did NOT bag test the pumps of mention. Second, I guess ther discussion of the flow falling within the range of flowrates means that Ford could say my car gets between 10 and 1000 Miles per Gallon, and then advertise that. When I read Tunze's very own response I read that they said they were aggressively re-engineering the pumps to reach the flowrates published, not that they felt the data was incorrect. So why are you arguing with what Tunze is agreeing to? Are they bashing their own product???

As for bashing, if you are addressing me I suggest you actually read my posts, as I have stated the utmost respect for Tunze and have also stated that if I had the funds I would probably be using Tunze pumps in all of my tanks. Outstanding products, famous support, incredible longevity of their equipment. NOT bashing, just recognizing the need to clarify. I mean >50% is a pretty healthy discrepancy. And really, don't try to muddy the waters by bringing up Koralias, I don't think Hydor is even part of the suit.

Now, how about a deep cleansing breath....Tunze seems cool with the study, maybe they know their products better than you do.....

 

[AquaNerd1]

Actually Aquanerd, Tunze directly stated that they did NOT bag test the pumps of mention. Second, I guess ther discussion of the flow falling within the range of flowrates means that Ford could say my car gets between 10 and 1000 Miles per Gallon, and then advertise that. When I read Tunze's very own response I read that they said they were aggressively re-engineering the pumps to reach the flowrates published, not that they felt the data was incorrect. So why are you arguing with what Tunze is agreeing to? Are they bashing their own product???

As for bashing, if you are addressing me I suggest you actually read my posts, as I have stated the utmost respect for Tunze and have also stated that if I had the funds I would probably be using Tunze pumps in all of my tanks. Outstanding products, famous support, incredible longevity of their equipment. NOT bashing, just recognizing the need to clarify. I mean >50% is a pretty healthy discrepancy. And really, don't try to muddy the waters by bringing up Koralias, I don't think Hydor is even part of the suit.

Now, how about a deep cleansing breath....Tunze seems cool with the study, maybe they know their products better than you do.....

Mitch, I was never referring to anything you ever said. I was just referring to the opinions of a few people in general, but obviously I'm responding to you now.

Regarding the bag tests, Tunze has stated that they bag tested every pump up to and including the 6105. They also stated that because of limitations of the bag test, they were not able to test the 6205 and 6305 because the bags fill up too quickly to get an accurate measurement of time. Instead, they relied on theoretical numbers because the bag test results from smaller pumps were all within 10% of the theoretical calculations.

As for my statement of the flow rate range, this was merely me being a smart butt. Since Tunze has provided a range of flow that their controllable pumps are capable to hitting (either actual or theoretical), the study doesn't show Tunze lying at all. Instead, the data shows that the Tunze pumps emitted water flow at a speed that Tunze already stated on their boxes and in literature. The only way anyone could claim that Tunze was outright lying and make any kind of legal case was if the study looked at non-controllable pumps and showed those pumps to under perform significantly. But the study looked only at controllable pumps and the pumps' output fell within the advertised range.

Looking at the timeline of events, Tunze made the wrong move out of the gate in my opinion. From what I gather, the flow study was conducted and then the results were sent to Tunze. Tunze then conducted an identical test, with a few differences I'm sure, and agreed to the original results. They then went on to state that they would make improvements to the pumps in order to arrive at the advertised flow rates. Many people applauded Tunze for taking this stance, but in reality Tunze was beginning to doubt the entire study. Tunze then began looking at the testing equipment and methods, eventually stating that the original test was flawed because the equipment was highly influenced by turbulence. Roger's response is all over ReefCentral if you don't believe me. They then conducted their own flow study showing how much more turbulent EcoTech Marine pumps were. Again, I think this was a misstep by Tunze, and they should have expressed doubts from the get go.

As for the Hydor pumps, I think it's crucial to keep these in mind when looking at the data from the Advanced Aquarist flow study. It shows potential errors in the testing equipment that we all need to be weary of.

 

[Yerboy]

As for the advertised flow rates, if you look on a Tunze box they actually provide a range of flow instead of just one number. So technically, even if the pumps are putting out less than what they are supposed to, they are still safe from an advertising standpoint. The box and literature for the 6105 has a range of 792 to 3,434 USgal./h. The data from the study had the Tunze at 2358.2 gph, well within the range given by Tunze. This is also seen in the 6205 and 6305. I'm not using these numbers to justify anything other than the fact that technically they should be safe from someone claiming they aren't hitting advertised flow rates.

I think the range comes from the fact that this pump is controllable. Also if the rage goes up to 3434 then i would expect the pump to deliver results at or very near 3434 gph, not max out some 1k gph lower.

 

[AquaNerd1]

I think the range comes from the fact that this pump is controllable. Also if the rage goes up to 3434 then i would expect the pump to deliver results at or very near 3434 gph, not max out some 1k gph lower.

Yes, the given range of flow is because they are controllable and have adjustable flow settings. I was merely making a stupid point that if anyone wanted to claim Tunze was falsely advertising their flow numbers, the study actually proved their pumps performed well within the advertised ranges. I also followed that up by saying that if the flow study was conducted on non-controllable pumps, then perhaps a disgruntled customer could have something to be peeved about.

 

[sreefer]

-^- just another tunze user.

 

[bct15]

I am with ya aquanerd, but it seems many people don't understand the significance of experimental replication or the degree of difficulty in calculating flow rate. Infact, it appears that some people on here actually think that flow rate is measured directly. They also edit the reports like a reality show producer, only quoting the parts that seems to make their opinion the closest to correct. I have seen some of the worst interpretation of reports ever and feel that is why research papers should be left only in scientific journals until there is sufficient data to back up the claims, otherwise gross premature assumptions are made by the mass public.

 

[sreefer]

-^- just another tunze user.

 

[VegasRick]

-^- just another tunze user.

So have you ever used a Tunze? or are you just a hater on general principle

 

[AquaNerd1]

-^- just another tunze user.

actually, i currently own three vortechs, three tunzes, and have previously owned multiple koralia pumps, taam pumps, and so on. my current pump list includes one tunze 6105, two tunze 6055, two ecotech marine mp40w and one ecotech marine mp10w ES. but i know none of this matters to you and that you'll remain closed minded about all of this because you've latched onto the results of a single test because it denigrates a product you admit that you've never even used. and you know, the funny thing about owning so many of these products at the same time is you can do a side-by-side comparison of them actually running. but again, you will never own one because you are so closed minded to the product before you've ever used it.

If the product you are selling cost that much they better pass my expectation of quality, durability and performance. I never use any Tunze product and I will never will. They are also highly overrated. This is completely misrepresentation of their product. There are so many good products out there that is Made in USA, why not "Go USA". I just don't understand some of reefer's comments here still defending and supporting this company. I don't want to hear any excuses from Tunze my verdict is "You Fail".

and honestly, out of all of the pumps that i've ever owned, the tunze pumps perform far better. they are dead silent, run continuously without needing any maintenance, and move a ton of water. if i had to pick a runner up, i would go with hydor koralia. dollar for dollar, they are one of the best pumps on the market

 

[bct15]

-^- just another tunze user.

Actually I don't own a single tunze product buddy...

 

[Yerboy]

I am with ya aquanerd, but it seems many people don't understand the significance of experimental replication or the degree of difficulty in calculating flow rate. Infact, it appears that some people on here actually think that flow rate is measured directly. They also edit the reports like a reality show producer, only quoting the parts that seems to make their opinion the closest to correct. I have seen some of the worst interpretation of reports ever and feel that is why research papers should be left only in scientific journals until there is sufficient data to back up the claims, otherwise gross premature assumptions are made by the mass public.

I agree that measuring flow may be a complicated procedure, however i do feel that if the other brands who we all know are not known for there superb quality like that of tunze can get their numbers correct they why can't tunze? Does tunze not have access to the same level of engineering that koralia or maxi-jet have? I dont think anyone here is refuting the quality and customer support received with a tunze product, the problem lies in that there advertised numbers according to the test conducted are very very inaccurate.

What i find comical is that this test shows that a MP-10 produces 56% more flow then advertised and tunze 6305 produces 54% less that advertised. The 6305 is $744 according to marine depot and produces results that equal the Vortech MP-40 that cost $300 less. I wonder does the 6305 come with a controller that offers the type of settings that an MP-40ES does?