| Author |
Message |
    
Buck
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 03:31 pm: | 
|
Is there anybody that would actually believe that that product does anything besides make money for the manufacturer? Aaron, did you really pay $50 for that?
Buck |
X1glider
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 03:34 pm: |
|
I've read the mumbo jumbo they wrote before and the idea sounds cool and believable. Almost makes sense. I seem to remember that the catalyst needed to be "broken in." Something like 500 miles before the catalyst actually starts working. Sounds odd that it wouldn't work immediately. But I'm no chemical engineer either.
Even though the tests didn't confirm any power gain, what wasn't tested was range. Ride the S1 on a specific route paying attention to riding habits and see what kind of mpg you get.
The money is already spent Aaron. Why not drop them into your gas tank, ride around for a couple months and report back? Unfortunately the weather will be getting colder and even unrideable soon. And the results will be skewed by weather conditions effecting driveability. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Bob: this test was done over a year ago. It was done specifically to prove or disprove the claims of power gains, nothing more. There was absolutely nothing in the literature about needing to ride it 500 miles before it took effect.
Doing a test over a period of time like that will introduce error. You'd be dynoing on different days, with a different amount of engine wear, with different gasoline, etc. I've seen tests done that way and personally I think they're meaningless.
I *did* drop the things in my daily rider (my S2T), and in fact they're still in there (the fishing line broke). The range of fuel mileage numbers I got for the rest of the summer stayed the same. But that's not a controlled test IMO, and I wouldn't draw a strong conclusion from it.
I also put them in my M2 for awile. I had made some exhaust system changes and I was getting a touch of pinging under very specific circumstances. They did nothing for it. But again, we're not talking about a controlled test. I really think I did the only controlled test within the limits of my resources.
My personal opinion: snake oil |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 04:26 pm: |
|
Cool! I corresponded vigorously with the Fitch people on a few different occasions. They NEVER satisfactorilly answered any of my questions. I came to the conclusion that their fuel catalyst is a total scam and that the chemistry is a sham. Unfortunately, even our government has fallen for the ruse!
The following excerpted from http://www.house.gov/nancyjohnson/pr_defenseapprops.htm
Quote:December 21, 2001
Johnson Gets Millions for CT in Defense Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. Nancy Johnson announced Thursday that millions were provided to defense-related projects at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Lakeville's Advanced Power Systems (APS), and the Ensign-Bickford Company in Simsbury as part of the FY 2002 Department of Defense conference report. The legislation passed the U.S. House Thursday with a vote of 408 - 6. The bill now moves to the Senate for final approval before it is signed into law by the President.
.
.
.
Advanced Power Systems of Lakeville received $500,000 for research and evaluation of the Fitch Fuel Catalyst, which refines gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels immediately before combustion in an engine, thereby increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions in Department of Defense vehicles and aircraft. "Estimates indicate that the Fitch Fuel Catalyst will yield a 5 - 12 percent increase in fuel efficiency, and emissions will be reduced by 15 - 25 percent. If the catalyst were installed on every hydrocarbon engine in the military, it could save the Defense Department as much as $180 million annually," Johnson said.
Unbelievable. Give the hucksters big money to more completely pad and develop their con. |
Timbo
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 04:08 pm: |
|
Sad thing is, I bet the politicians could probably care less if it really works or not. It's great ammo on the campaign trail. IE: so and so introduced and fought for legislation that has made our military vehicles 5-12% more efficient and reduced emissions by up to 25% saving you the taxpayer up to $180 million annually.
Sounds good huh? And they would back up their claims with the data provided by Fitch. 
Timbo
72 XLCH |
Dawg
| | Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2002 - 11:53 pm: |
|
My findings with the product are not dyno based but everyone that I know who put them in indeed increased their mileage by an average of 5mpg. A friend of mine running 11.7:1 compression put them in and put an end to his pinging. Everyone I have talked to say they have noticed a positive difference after putting them in. Is it going to give you 20 hp and 100 mpg? no but from what I have seen it does work. Thats my 2 cents on the stuff and yes I have it in both of my bikes and no I do not work for Fitch. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 01:53 am: |
|
Dawg,
What kind of fuel mileage do you get with your fitched Buell?
Everyone you've spoken to noticed a positive difference? I suggest that a placebo effect is responsible.
I've done some more research on this subject. Here are the basics of what I've discovered...
If these things had ANY validity, wouldn't automobile manufacturers and retail fuel vendors be using them everywhere in everything that burns liquid hydrocarbon fuel? I mean automobile manufacturers are required to meet certain fuel efficiencies to avoid the federally mandated "gas guzzler" taxes. Don't you think they would be killing to get a device that performs as the FFC claims? When I asked Fitch about this, they had no answer.
A catalyst by strict scientific definition is "a substance that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process." Fitch claims that their device is a special catalyst material. If that is so, exactly what reaction is the fitch catalyst augmenting? |
Kcbill
| | Posted on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 11:38 pm: |
|
My two cents. I had a ping that would not go away. They helped alot. More than any thing else I tried. How much they work for you depends on the quality of gas you actually get at the pump. You may not see any improvement based on that quality. This is the same thing the refineries use in fuel storage tanks but much larger. I talked to a guy that used to be in that industry. It is also a fuel stabilizer. I did see mileage improvement, but that would very. It for me helped but I can say I don't always see it in every tank. I agree with Aaron on the test. I was told that they need to be in there a week to see the improvement. I was cautious not to buy into the placebo thing. I say this, at the time it helped more than anything with the ping. It did not totally do away with it. It was a noticeable difference. Aaron you know what the full cure was. I did try every thing and spent a good bit of time testing and tuning. That was the next to the last thing I did. The top end was removed and squish was changed. I figured I will leave them in for fuel storage stabilization now. I talked to Fitch three times about the use of their product, to try to understand what it is designed to do. They said if you see an improvement on the dyno it is only because it is burning the fuel more efficiently, depending on the actual quality at that time, day, how much bacteria, moisture in the fuel, it chemically helps to burn all the crap better. So thats my two cents worth. I now am more interested in the fuel stability. I asked if it would boost octane. They said that depends again on the quality at the pump. I did get a figure of 2 to 3 points. You can see how much more in depth the test would have to be to see what it is that it does and the kind of testing on the quality of gas you get to get a base line on what it is doing. So I guess my question is maybe the quality of gas in my area is not as good as Aarons and the bottom line I think is Quality of fuel. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 11:31 pm: |
|
KCBill,
Would you please provide a proper reference for your "guy that used to be in that industry" that advised you that the "(Fitch Fuel Catalyst) is the same thing the refineries use in fuel storage tanks."
Funny how even Fitch fails to mention that fact. I'm sure if it were true they would. I don't believe it for a second.
Sorry, if the thing has to be in the tank for a week before it works, it isn't worth anything to me. All your anecdotal evidence is interesting too, but I'm skeptical of any real meaning. You say you were "cautious not to buy into the placebo thing." and that "...at the time it helped more than anything with the ping."
How were you careful to avoid the placebo effect or other causes of erroneous conclusions?
So the Fitch Fuel Catalyst was more effective than "anything" at preventing pinging in your S3? Funny, even my higher than stock compression Nallinized 100+ rwhp Cyclone doesn't ping, not even at the track on a hot Texas summer day. I run straight pump gas. Did you try rejetting and timing your bike? Check for intake leaks? Or are you possibly lugging it at low rpm when it pings? Whatever the cause, if your engine pings, you had better get it fixed asap. To ignore it is to invite catastrophe.
I remain skeptical. |
Buelliedan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 12:31 am: |
|
I too am VERY skeptical. I remember at Homecoming 2000 during Hals Dyno shootout there was a vendor there who had Torqd test one. He did a dyno run, then put the Fitch in and went for a very long ride(like 100 miles) Came back and ran another dyno run only to see zero change!!
SNAKE OIL!! Might as well waste your money on Slick 50!! You sure don't see any ads for that anymore do you!!! |
Buelliedan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 12:33 am: |
|
BTW,
Look at the package for the Fitch. The first claim they make is more HP and Torque. Obviously this has been proven to be a bunch of bull. Why would I believe it would do anything else? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 03:43 am: |
|
"I had a ping that would not go away. They helped alot. More than any thing else I tried."
Then later...
"...at the time it helped more than anything with the ping. It did not totally do away with it." 
"I talked to Fitch three times about the use of their product, to try to understand what it is designed to do. They said if you see an improvement on the dyno it is only because it is burning the fuel more efficiently, depending on the actual quality at that time, day, how much bacteria, moisture in the fuel, it chemically helps to burn all the crap better."
BAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! So now the FFC helps burn bacteria????!!!!! BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
KC, I'm not meaning to make you feel badly. Please do not. I too was once compelled to buy into the FFC claims. Luckily I had already learned the hard way that "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and was in peak skeptic mode. I corresponded at length with the FFC technical representatives. They never once provided answers to my questions. "How does it work?" I asked. "That is proprietary." they say.
I even talked to the lab that performed one of their tests. The engineer in charge confirmed what I had already suspected, that the testing sample size of one was wholly insufficient to allow ANY conclusions to be drawn from the results. Of course that did not stop the FFC marketeers from using such meaningless results to promote their snake oil.
I asked "What reaction is the FFC helping to catalyze?" Answer... "It conditions fuel to contain a higher percentage of molecules with higher energy content."  Ya, right. |
Roadrunr
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:55 am: |
|
Was it also fitch that sold an apparatus that went on your fuel line to somehow align the molecules in the fuel to give improved performance and HP ? Heck, between that and the magic catalyst, Fitch could put Nallin out of biz..... |
Buelliedan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:59 am: |
|
Don't forget the Tornado insert that you put into your air cleaner which will give you a 20% increase in power!!! Its true, I just saw the infomercial on TV!!  |
Court
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 08:08 am: |
|
Takes me back to the childhood joke about the guy who added fuel saving devices to his car unitl the sum of the savings was 110% and he had to stop every 28th mile and drain fuel.
Some of this stuff just defies the "if it seems to good to be true" test....
Court (who is installing magnetic braclets on the front forks of a Buell) |
Kcbill
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 07:40 pm: |
|
Well Blake Nallin built my motor. Talk to him. Every thing you suggest I check and do I did. Why I even took it to Aaron Wilson to see if the state tune was correct. It helped more than any thing. You see I was really trying to not have to take it back to Brian. Lets see if I did all that could be done. When I took it to Aaron all that he could find to do was adjust timing 2 degrees. The air fuel ratio was right on. That was all seat of the pants tuning. I was surprised at how close it was. I drove all the way to Denver from KC. After returning home that is when I tried the Fitch. What I experienced was I could go harder in to the throttle before it would ping. After satisfying Brians concerns about it's state of tune I had to return the bike to him. Now thats all the way from KC. I did not use them because I believed they would do any thing for my horse power, I used them to see if I had a fuel quality problem. I did not make up that I talked to some guy. He has a name and I didn't want to put it on the net. My understanding of the product was just quality at the pump. If you think I believe it is more than that it isn't. If you want to talk to Brian about it do so. |
Dawg
| | Posted on Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 12:52 am: |
|
Blake and all others concerned,
I did not post the info to prove anyone else wrong. I simply posted my first hand experience with the product and how it has performed. My boss drives a 2002 FLHT and before Fitch he got 44.5 mpg after Fitch he gets 49 mpg on average, He also has a 98 S1W with the Pro Series race kit he gets 57 mpg on that bike. Granted he does not ride the Buell as hard as most of us ride ours. I average 48-52 mpg on my 99 X-1 with Pro Series race kit Woods 2.75" air filter, SE High Perf Cams and Power Commander. I ride the hell out of mine. Average 60miles a day highway and 15 in town highway allways involves speeds in excess of 100 mph and in town involves multiple wheelies with mini light to light drag races. Basically I ride hard and fast with no concern of fuel mileage. The least amount of mpg improvement I have heard is 3mpg so it must be doing something. Is it because we have bad gas in the state of New Mexico? Maybe, but if so it still works for us. I dont care if anyone else uses the product or thinks its snake, oil I use it and I know it works for me and everyone here that has used it. I can't give any HP or TRQ number increases did i notice any gains there? No, not by seat of the pants. So for all who read this understand that I am not trying to get you to use it, I am simply giving another point of reference. Decide for yourself where to spend your money and what you think you will get for it. |
Hans
| | Posted on Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 09:15 am: |
|
Dawg, long rant so you became emotionally involved. There was a time I could have slabbed those indifferent, careless, people in the face, who did not even consider or listen to my "proof" of the evident qualities of Slick 50. But at last I had to lift the anchors of my firm belief.
Just keep watching.
And what else? There are some people who`s numbers of average miles/gallon I do trust. They have always or average "averages", or exceptional lower numbers.
BTW: What to do with that half bottle of Slick 50, since long kept on safe place, meant to use it for the first time in my M2 at next oil change ?
Hans |
Buelldriver
| | Posted on Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 02:44 pm: |
|
Blake, I have seen KCbill's S3, and I have had the chance to ride his bike. I believe that it's well over the minor 100+ rwhp that you are putting out, perhaps your not fully utilizing the capabilities of your motor, or possibly the bike as a whole, and that may why you are not dealing with a ping issue. Perhaps a bit more rwhp is in order for your bike. |
Dino
| | Posted on Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 03:47 pm: |
|
One of the print moto mags did a controlled test of this product a couple years ago. As I recall they ran a bike on a dyno to get repeatable loading and measured fuel before and after with a graduated cylinder. Found no significant difference in mileage. |
Dawg
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 01:37 am: |
|
Hans,
I am not concerned with people who do not listen to my "proof", I just like to ensure the info is avail from both positive and negative points of view. My fuel mileage info comes from various people that I recieved mileage info from before fitch was an issue and now after. I am certain of the reliability of this info. As I stated maybe its because we have a lesser quality of fuel here but it works for us.
Dawg |
Hans
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 11:10 am: |
|
Dawg, what you did gives food for the easy conclusion: There are apparently pros and cons so the truth will be somewhere in between. And so are scams be able to continue bringing worthless stuff on the market.
Seldom, within the big lot of black magic, is hidden a real miracle: I works, with or without a false explanation. The medical world has interesting examples.
It is there, where tests are validated when done: “Double blind, cross over”. Nor the patient nor the observing doctor has to know if the medicine is the real stuff or an placebo. And then it is still tricky when the patient becomes aware of a minor side effect of the administrated drug and he knows more, than he ought to know, for clean test results.
Sincere and honest believers in their own products maybe forgiven easily, but scams have to be nailed and jailed and THAT seldom happens. The way people become misleaded is what concerns me.
Dangerous examples: “Natural” Chinese tea against rheumatism: It worked fabulously. Of course it did: One of the contents was an highly potent corticosteroid with the most dangerous side effects. Same with Chinese dieting tea: Was mixed with thyroid hormone. Dieting pills with the head of a tapeworm included is a classical one. These things did work.
If things don`t work: It is because:
Time was too short.
Have patience.
More time is needed as this is apparently a serious case.
The dose was too low, take more.
Take more for a longer period.
It is normal that things go worse first before it becomes better: That is proof that something is happening.
Read the testimonies of these most reliable and trustworthy persons.
Would be pity to break off the cure halfway, when you have already paid so much and without good results, which maybe are just around the corner..
No pay back but it works in 99.99 %, and..
Well, I hope to find ever some cheap miracle doohicky that cuts gas costs, but I will never believe mileage numbers given by users who paid 50 $$ for the thing and did not well controlled tests.
As soon as you control your mileage, your unconscious part of the brains influences your throttle hand. If that is the way it works for you: Well, then it does and you have profit.
Still I will give it a minimal chance, it is possible that there are some timed reactions within the complex mixture of gas, which maybe are catalysed by that thingy: Whine ripes with age, and gas gums with age. The signs that it works are all absolute negative: The strange time limit after which it is “activated”, Aaron`s test, the test in the magazine, the weird info Blake got and above all the fact that it is NOT new but there were more magic balls and doohickies to put in your tank to ameliorate mileage. And scams are seldom creative and they are using variations of old tricks: They have an extraordinary charisma and they can sell things and be trusted because they are not slowed down by any consideration of honesty or insecurity. They are not in the least insecure because they know for sure it is humbug. That`s why frauds are believed so easily. Abuse of trust is a very low crime in my views. I AM concerned.
Hans |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 01:29 pm: |
|
VERY extremely most well put. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 01:57 pm: |
|
Quote:He has a name and I didn't want to put it on the net.
That sounds a lot like most of the non-answers that I got from the FFC hucksters.
Here's another interesting fact. The FFC con refers to an EPA "Certification" as evidence backing its claims. If you actually take the time to read it, you find that all the EPA "Certification" says is that the FFC does not cause increased pollution and is therefore approved for use in restricted emissions vehicles. In other words, the EPA found that the FFC did nothing to adversely effect exhaust emissions of modern vehicles. LOL! Using that wholy irrelevent material as evidence to back their claims is the type of snake oil sales tactic that exposes the FFC for what it really is.
If the FFC is valid, shouldn't there be a relevent patent on it? Wouldn't that patent need to explain what the FFC is and how it works? Shouldn't we be able to tell if that is valid?
Note: The fact that a patent exists does not in any way validate a concept. You wouldn't believe some of the bunk that is patented. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 03:19 pm: |
|
One more thing to consider... simple logic...
How can an engine through fuel conditioning alone achieve significantly improved fuel efficiency without ANY improvement in power? The answer is, it cannot.
Here's the proof in simple mathematical terms...
If F>G and T1*G=T2*F then T1>T2
and
T3*F>T3*G
In words...
Regardless of how much fuel consumption is required, it takes a set amount of power to maintain a certain speed on the road. Improved fuel efficiency is simply a result of burning less fuel to maintain a certain speed/power output. Burning less fuel means on average using less throttle. So in the same engine under identical conditions if a lesser quantity (T2) of FFC'd fuel (F) is producing the same power as a greater quantity (T1) of untreated gas (G) then it follows without doubt that the FFC'd fuel (F) will produce more power when compared to an equal quantity (T3) of non-FFC'd gas (G).
Once again, Aaron's Theorem is upheld, if the dyno doesn't show it, it ain't there.
Now, to be 100% fair, maybe we can get Aaron to try the dyno testing again, but this time he'd let the gasoline age for an extended period letting it degrade into undesirable "old/stale gasoline." The dyno results will not change, I'm sure of that, but it is a step required to finally expose the FFC as a complete and utter hoax. |
Hans
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 03:23 pm: |
|
Bwoahhhhhaaaaa, my half bottle of Slick 50, so safely hidden, became a nearly full bottle. Deep black oil with the smell of gas: Old engine oil.
I still dare not to say what the reason is that my son had to buy a Supertrapp full exhaust system to replace his rotten, normally indestructible, Honda Hawk midden muffler...
Oh,,,,, maybe I forgot that I offered that expensive Slick to him myself.....Nah, in any case he must have been happy with it then, as we were both firm believers..
Hans. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 03:53 pm: |
|
Buelldriver,
You may be right. Or not. My engine still has the stock CV40 carburetor and uses cams cut for low end. The exhaust is good, stock headers and a Borla slip-on, but not optimum. With different cams, a bigger carb, and a Force exhaust I'd expect 110 rwhp. But peak HP is not what I wanted.
I guess a fair measure of combustion chamber stress/pressure in two differently configured Buell engines would be to compare peak torque per square inch of piston area, or since our engine's strokes are the same, we can simply compare peak torque per cubic inch displacement.
My 76 CI engine makes 89 FT-LB or 1.17 FT-LB/CI. Bill's 88 CI engine makes I think 103 FT-LB or 1.17 FT-LB/CI. How about that. They are the same.
As to how I use mine. I race on the track often and ride it on the street too. Rev limiter is set to 7K rpm and does get utilized.
I'm sorry if you were offended by my post. I did mistakenly assume the lowest common denominator when formulating my post, no offense was intended. Good of you to speak up on behalf of your friend. I am glad to learn that Bill has done his homework and gone to great lengths to ensure the health of his engine.
I'm not sure it is reasonable however, to expect to run an 11:1 compression ratio air cooled Buell engine on pump gas. Through direct email, Bill gave me a great description of his engine. He said he had the combustion chamber face, and valve faces ceramic coated and felt that had something to do with his detonation problem. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 07:09 pm: |
|
Further to what Hans said...
Here's my rebuttal to acecdotal claims wrt the FFC improving fuel efficiency and/or helping to mitigate detonation/pinging.
Unless one takes VERY careful and detailed steps to fully characterize and adequately document pertinent observations, there is simply no way a person can know what, if anything, really helped improve fuel efficiency or to mitigate detonation in an engine. For instance...
1. What were the effects of atmospheric conditions before and after installation of the FFC? Higher temperatures would exacerbate detonation; lower temperatures would hinder it. Higher humidity would hinder detonation. Lower barometric pressure would hinder detonation. Lower barometric pressure would improve gas mileage.
2. A variation in the quality of the pump gas used would affect octane and thus detonation and could also affect gas mileage.
3. The break-in and subsequent loosening up of the new top end can effect an engine's propensity for detonation as well as gas mileage. During break-in the engine is tight; as a result combustion chamber temperatures and oil temperatures are elevated compared to post break-in; higher engine/oil temperatures exacerbate detonation. As the engine breaks-in and begins to loosen it's tendency to detonate is reduced and fuel efficiency improves.
4. Even the type/grade of motor oil used can effect detonation. Higher quality oils can help an engine, especially a new engine, run less hot. A cooler engine hinders detonation. Less viscous oil would improve fuel efficiency. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 07:22 pm: |
|
OK, I'm confused. I thought the ceramic coatings were supposed to HELP, not HURT. |
Buelldriver
| | Posted on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 08:51 pm: |
|
Blake, I wasn't offended, I just wasn't sure if the detail of Bill's engine were known. At the moment, I'm happy to run my 1999 S3 fairly stock, the only changes that I know of are a Westec muffler and the racing module and they were on the bike when I bought it. Even on the fuel injection system, my bike will "ping" from time to time when I step into it fairly hard. I suspect it's a quality of gas issue here in KC. Next year I'm planning on putting the bike on a dyno and see where it baselines. Once I have that, I'll decide what if any changes peek my interest. |
|
»
Dyno Test Results - Fitch Fuel Catalyst »
Archive through November 30, 2002