Coverage?

Except that a lot of these claims are written using that strange new-fangled "word", upto. Especially when see instore.

They paint a non-porous surface as thinly as humanly possible. You are unlikely to be able to reproduce that coverage outside a laboratory.

Colin Bignell

What's this new-fangled word "instore"?

Like poxy ADSL "upto 8 Meg" provided broadband;(..

About time the ASA or Ofcock did something about that!..

Ah yes, the problem is the up to of course. the same can be said of broadband, where up to seems to be a prerequisite in almost every speed category.

I see the EU is making all car manufacturers say that the mpl figure may not be attainable in normal use. To me this seems to be completely daft, as if they are all done under the best possible conditions, where is the point of quoting it at all?

Brian

well they are allegedly.

But the art of being a media man is to create an impression without (usually*) actually lying.

It's to allow you to compare one car to another. It isn't possible to say what an individual car will do MPG wise as it depends on the way it is driven, traffic and weather conditions, etc.

I had my car fail an MOT from a Garage which had just been bought by Halfords. Failed because the headlights weren't bright enough and easily solved.

But 3 months earlier I had just changed the bulbs for Halford's "super Brilliance" 72% more brilliant bulbs. They offered a range of "extra brilliance", "super brilliance", "ultra brilliance". I thought that maybe the ultra might dazzle other drivers. Turns out that halfords own standards fail their own bulbs.

Moral of the story is this new fangled word "brilliance" it has no scientific meaning and says nothing. "brightness" on the other hand can be proven and the vendor sued if the claims are not accurate.

Ever wondered how chicken and mushroom "flavour" pot noodle is suitable for vegetarians?

To give you a comparison between measurements made under consistent condition.

MBQ

You mean the same tin will only cover one wall when applied by brush, but 3 walls, the floor and the cat when it's dropped from a ladder?

Owain

As far as I know, the intensity isn't tested. Only the beam setting and pattern to make sure they don't dazzle. However, a faulty bulb or reflector can cause the pattern to be wrong resulting in a fail.

On 19/04/2013 11:29, hewhowalksamongus wrote: ...

No reason to wonder if you know that 'X flavour' on a foodstuff simply means it tastes like X, whereas 'X flavoured' means that it must contain X.

Colin Bignell

But the comparison is only valid in respect of the test. That would not matter if the test was a valid proxy for real world conditions. But the manufacturer optimises the performance for the test even though that may result in a worse performance outside of test conditions.

Commercial pressures mean that they more or less *have* to go all out to optimise for the test as set (well, depending in the market they're aiming at). To not try would hurt their sales when buyers inevitably end up comparing carbon emissions, road tax etc.

Tim

If they all do that, it still makes for a valid comparison. Or at least between similar cars.

That one really winds me up! A 'survey' of less that 150 people - who were probably pre chosen - and asked leading questions.

Grrrrrr!

My ISP have changed the claims in their adverts, supposedly to comply with the new rules, something like if they say "up to X mbps" then Y% of customers have to be able to get Z% of the quoted figure, can't remember what X and Y are set at though ...

These samples quoted on (normally) beauty / shampoo / cosmetics ads are piss poor really, especially when you realise that they are taken from replies to questionaires in beauty magazines....only those hoping to win something are likely to reply and have probably never even tried half the products mentioned but tick 'brilliant' to everything, the ones who have actually tried it and ticked 's**te' say far more than the rest