Motul Dist

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to say that I am a Motul Distributor. I have been reading on this forum for the past 10 months and I finally decieded to join. One of the main reasons i decieded to join is b/c i have access to a lot of documents, articles and chemists that have answers to a lot of questions that many people have. So, if you have any questions, fire away, and i will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge and if i can't i will find someone who can and get back to you as fast as i can. The thing is, there are a lot of people posting things they have no idea what they are writing about, just reiterating what other people have said or what they have seen on a website.....i'm sure many people can attest to this, but i just wanted to give Motul a leg to stand on..... seeya

In your opinion, is Motul 505.01 better than the corresponding Elf oil or are both really about the same, for all practical purposes?
Thanks.

505.01 is 505.01, The formula is bought from VW. The big differences are in the synthetics: 5w40, 5w30, 0w40, 0w30
when it comes to Motul, ELF, Castrol, Amsoil, etc. each are manufactured differently and use different additives and bases.

P1Performance said:

505.01 is 505.01, The formula is bought from VW. The big differences are in the synthetics: 5w40, 5w30, 0w40, 0w30
when it comes to Motul, ELF, Castrol, Amsoil, etc. each are manufactured differently and use different additives and bases.

Click to expand...

Welcome, P1.

I disagree with your point that "The formula is bought from VW".

VW defines the performance requirement the oil must meet, but they leave it to the oil company and/or the additive company to formulate the oil. I base this statement on a combination of info from an oil company that designs their own oil, conversations with reps from the world's two largest additive companies, and conversations with a VW-approved independent test lab manager.

Do you have any test data you can release comparing Motul to anyone else?

Andy

AndyH said:

Welcome, P1.

I disagree with your point that "The formula is bought from VW".

VW defines the performance requirement the oil must meet, but they leave it to the oil company and/or the additive company to formulate the oil. I base this statement on a combination of info from an oil company that designs their own oil, conversations with reps from the world's two largest additive companies, and conversations with a VW-approved independent test lab manager.

Do you have any test data you can release comparing Motul to anyone else?

Andy

Click to expand...

True, yet you must pay to be approved. Many oil companies can test for the additive package in the oil and figure out how to make it. This is why there is a 5-7 page list of approved VW Spec 505.01 oils.

Let me ask you this question: Why will Amsoil jeopordize the warranty of many of there loyal customers just b/c they do not want to pay for the approval? There is a very long list of approved oil companies, but i have yet to see Amsoil on it. Even if your oil conforms to the standards, problems can happen, and if you are not approved, warranty will be voided. Is Amsoil willing to stand behind their customer that uses your unapproved oil and pay their bill?

I do have some testing done with our 300V line of racing oils. Motul does not release the names of the oil companies they have tested against. They are only labled by the first letter in the name of the company....
M, T, R, C, E you can guess who they are

Everyday i ask for more testing done with our products.. and as soon as i get more of them i will surely share them.

P1Performance said:

Let me ask you this question: Why will Amsoil jeopordize the warranty of many of there loyal customers just b/c they do not want to pay for the approval? There is a very long list of approved oil companies, but i have yet to see Amsoil on it. Even if your oil conforms to the standards, problems can happen, and if you are not approved, warranty will be voided.

Click to expand...

Be very careful on two points. The first is that by Federal law, approval cannot be tied to warranty denial. The second is that you are mistaken when you suggest the company is jeopardizing 'there' (their) customers' warranty. Euro and VW specs are performance based and oil companies are required to be responsible for the performance of their products - whether they're on a list or not. If the oil fails, the oil company pays - whether it's a non-released AMSOIL product, or Motul, or the VW dealer's Castrol. AMSOIL's written product guarantee is in place right beside their written warranty, which is right beside their 33 year history and reputation without a failure of any type. AMSOIL makes it very clear that there is a second layer of warranty coverage when following their recommendations.

P1Performance said:

Is Amsoil willing to stand behind their customer that uses your unapproved oil and pay their bill?

Click to expand...

Absolutely - that's why the company didn't recommend any of their products for 505.01 prior to the reformulation of their current product on 1 Jan 06. Every one of their recommendations is backed up with their written warranty - and they're very conservative with their recommendations.

P1Performance said:

I do have some testing done with our 300V line of racing oils. Motul does not release the names of the oil companies they have tested against. They are only labled by the first letter in the name of the company....
M, T, R, C, E you can guess who they are

Everyday i ask for more testing done with our products.. and as soon as i get more of them i will surely share them.

Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing the testing.

Andy

AndyH said:

Be very careful on two points. The first is that by Federal law, approval cannot be tied to warranty denial. The second is that you are mistaken when you suggest the company is jeopardizing 'there' (their) customers' warranty.

I look forward to seeing the testing.

Andy

Click to expand...

Your first point is not true.

The Sherman Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are key here. Principally it's provisions regarding what are known as "tie-in sales". (section 102(c) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 (15 United States Code section 2302(c)) and sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 United States Code sections 1 and 2).)

Here, and this is important. It's very clear, and it's the law:

Quote:
Originally "Posted" by US Supreme Court:
The essential characteristic of an invalid tying arrangement lies in the seller's exploitation of its control over the tying product to force the buyer into the purchase of a tied product that the buyer either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different terms. When such "forcing" is present, competition on the merits in the market is restrained and the Act is violated.

You'll find the rest of the opinion in the following US Supreme Court case: Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984).


Requiring component products and fluids to meet suitability standards is NOT a violation.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is widely considered to have the final say on American law. This then makes your second point untrue as it relies entirely on your twisted interpretation of Mag-Moss/Sherman.

As to your third point, yes there are a large number of people that want a bigger selection of truly approved 505.01 products for the PD motor.

jombl said:

interpation of Mag-Moss/Sherman.

Click to expand...

Always a pleasure, Jombl.

There's more to aftermarket law than Mag/Moss - like the work being done on the 'right to repair' front.

Bottom line with warranty: Vehicle owners with factory warranty are protected by laws instigated by SEMA and others that allow aftermarket parts and make it clear that automakers cannot deny warranty coverage if parts/fluids are used to meet the minimum standards specified by the automaker. This means that for a factory warranty, the lube quality level can be 'required', but viscosity and change intervals are only 'suggested'. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'tie-in' sales.

Extended warranties are private agreements between an insurer and the vehicle owner and these fall outside the aftermarket industry's legal protections. Extended warranty terms can specify that oil changes must be done every 25 miles - and they can legally terminate coverage if that OCI is not followed.

More Info:
-----
SEMA’s AFTERMARKET Bill of Rights

• 
  [*]You have the RIGHT to buy high-quality, reliable aftermarket accessory, performance and replacement parts – an affordable and convenient alternative to vehicle maker’s parts.
  
  [*]You have the RIGHT to use high-quality aftermarket parts and know that your new car warranty claims will be honored. In fact, your dealer may not reject warranty claims simply because an aftermarket part is present. A warranty denial in such circumstances may be proper only if an aftermarket part caused the failure being claimed.
  
  [*]You have the RIGHT to patronize independent retail stores for vehicle parts and installation. The U.S. aftermarket offers the world’s finest selection of performance and replacement parts, accessories and styling options. These aftermarket products satisfy the most discriminating customers seeking personalized vehicles for today’s lifestyle.
  

The foregoing message brought to you by SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association. If you would like further information on what to do or who to call if your new car warranty is denied, call the Federal Trade Commission at 202/236-3128. To receive expanded information on warranty denial, contact SEMA online at www.sema.org, or call 909/396-0289. Your rights are protected through the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC, 2302, and the Clean Air Act, 42 USC, 7541.
-----

Andy

As you agree that VW has the legal right to require a minimum standard for oil, and that this does not violate the Mag-Moss/Sherman in the case of the PD diesel and the requirement that VW 505.01 be used exclusively...

AndyH said:

... that allow aftermarket parts and make it clear that automakers cannot deny warranty coverage if parts/fluids are used to meet the minimum standards specified by the automaker. This means that for a factory warranty, the lube quality level can be 'required', but viscosity and change intervals are only 'suggested'. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'tie-in' sales.

Andy

Click to expand...

Then what you seem to be implying is that VW has no right to define it's own standard as to what "is" VW 505.01. (There's that pesky Clintonian "is" again)

So we're down to what the meaning of "is" is.

I hold with those who know that VW 505.01 oil is oil that has been certified and independently tested on a continual basis by VW AG as having met the standards contained in the VW 505.01 specification.

To tell people that they are protected from warranty denial through the ongoing lobbying efforts of an industry trade group is disingenuous and looks like an attempt to take advantage of good people through fast talk, smoke/mirrors and slick huckstering.

The Supreme Court finding is clear, direct, and easily read and understood by anyone here.

Good response Jombl

It's as simple as this; If it's on VW's list then no problem. If it is non on VW's list then it is your problem to work out.

Definitions:
Of course, this assumes you have an oil related failure during the warranty period.

AndyH. I have a good friend who is an Amsoild dealer and he readily admits that for vehicles under warranty that there could be complications (read this as your time without a vehicle) while you fight it out between VW and Amsoil.

I hate to start a war, but the real issue is that for people who don't want to be concerned about warranty coverage then they should use an oil on VW's list. Period. Though they may be covered by oil supplier warranties, this will cause delays in getting their vehicle back on the road.

Amsoil is not the greatest product on earth and they don't have the solution to all the world's problems in regards to lubrication. If Amsoil was so good then why the pyramid scheme (oh yes, we call that direct marketing now).

AndyH said:

The U.S. aftermarket offers the world’s finest selection of performance and replacement parts, accessories and styling options. These aftermarket products satisfy the most discriminating customers seeking personalized vehicles for today’s lifestyle.


The foregoing message brought to you by SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association. If you would like further information on what to do or who to call if your new car warranty is denied, call the Federal Trade Commission at 202/236-3128. To receive expanded information on warranty denial, contact SEMA online at www.sema.org, or call 909/396-0289. Your rights are protected through the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC, 2302, and the Clean Air Act, 42 USC, 7541.
-----

Andy

Click to expand...

Not exactly true if the if the Aftermarket Part can not be sold in Germany for lack of TUeV Approval.

In short, if you can not sell it for "street use" in Germany it is simply not the best or the safest.

jombl said:

As you agree that VW has the legal right to require a minimum standard for oil, and that this does not violate the Mag-Moss/Sherman in the case of the PD diesel and the requirement that VW 505.01 be used exclusively...

Click to expand...

VW has the same right to require a minimum lube spec as any other manufacturer. (You might do some research on this forum for the past two years. If you did, you'd find that I'm the one that got the 505.01 spec and brought it here. You'd also find that I was one of the people saying that API oil isn't good enough for TDIs, likewise petroleum. I continue to suggest that the ACEA and Euro OEM system makes better lubes for Euro cars than the API system.)

jombl said:

Then what you seem to be implying is that VW has no right to define it's own standard as to what "is" VW 505.01. (There's that pesky Clintonian "is" again)

So we're down to what the meaning of "is" is.

Click to expand...

No, jombl, 'WE' are not - YOU are. I think my position is clear from the first paragraph in this post - and from my last as well.

jombl said:

I hold with those who know that VW 505.01 oil is oil that has been certified and independently tested on a continual basis by VW AG as having met the standards contained in the VW 505.01 specification.

Click to expand...

You have that right. I come from a number of different places (and none of this has anything to do with AMSOIL). I was in the USAF for 21 years and some of that time was involved in making projects happen. I've also been a network administrator and computer tech and worked with people that needed specialized skills. And I'm a pilot - where everything on the airplane and the mechanic putting them there must be certified. I know from experience that there are 'certified' parts that cannot do what they're designed to do, and there are 'certified' people that are in the same boat. Just as there are 'uncertified' parts and/or people that I'd put against anyone with a title or certificate. Bottom line, jombl, is that I'm not hung-up on a piece of paper.

jombl said:

To tell people that they are protected from warranty denial through the ongoing lobbying efforts of an industry trade group is disingenuous and looks like an attempt to take advantage of good people through fast talk, smoke/mirrors and slick huckstering.

The Supreme Court finding is clear, direct, and easily read and understood by anyone here.

Your attempt to bury and blur simple truths speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the industry trade groups such as SEMA, you wouldn't be able to buy a water pump from NAPA or Autozone - you'd have to get it from the dealer. I'm certainly distressed that you consider that to be smoke/mirrors. How legitimate is your use of a Supreme Court decision that upholds the tie-in provision of Mag/Moss (no surprise - it's already law, after all) to counter my position (which is NOT about tie-in sales)?!

You've obviously got your position. And it's a position with which I don't agree. I think we can leave it at that.

Andy

Stirer said:

It's as simple as this; If it's on VW's list then no problem. If it is non on VW's list then it is your problem to work out.

Click to expand...

Almost. If there's a failure and the oil's on the list (provided the dealer even knows there's a list...) there's still no guarantee there's no problem.

Stirer said:

Definitions:
it : your oil choice
list : VW's list of approved oils

Of course, this assumes you have an oil related failure during the warranty period.

Click to expand...

The most important part of this is your final statement - NONE of this is germane unless there's an oil related failure during the warranty period.

The only oil failure I’ve seen with my own eyes – and fixed with my tools and hands – was my 1988 Jetta 4cyl gasser - my first new car. I used API certified oil (Castrol and later M1), changed it religiously every 3000 miles. I had to drop the oil pan three different times to clean the gravel and sludge that was blocking the oil pump pickup. Keep in mind that this was NOT a turbo car. The car was dead at 130,000 miles and was traded. Compare that to my first TDI which I sold with 150,000 miles and is still running strong, and my current ride (B4V) with 337,000 miles on it.

Stirer said:

AndyH. I have a good friend who is an Amsoild dealer and he readily admits that for vehicles under warranty that there could be complications (read this as your time without a vehicle) while you fight it out between VW and Amsoil.

Click to expand...

I know from my own experience that this is untrue. I’ve been involved in two warranty claims. The latest of which was a 250HP Suzuki outboard run in commercial salt-water service. The engine is running AMSOIL oil and filter, fuel additives, gear lube, and rust-preventative products. We’re changing oil and filter at 3x Suzuki’s recommendation. When the engine failed, Suzuki quickly changed it under warranty – it took them about 2 hours to figure out that the hydrolock caused by breathing-in saltwater wasn’t a lube issue. (And the mechanics maintaining the boat are using AMSOIL now as well.) I'm part of one of the oldest groups in AMSOIL - going back to 1974 - with thousands of dealers across the US and Canada. We have monthly teleconferences where we exchange info. I've yet to hear of a single instance where anyone had to 'fight it out' with either a car dealership or with AMSOIL. What I would suggest to your friend is that they spend some time with their G700 business manual (which most dealers do NOT have) - where the warranty and tech support forms and guidance are printed. Then I would suggest they spend some time on the phone with tech services running some 'what-if' scenarios. If they did that - if they took some time to learn - they would be in a better position to advise their customers.

Stirer said:

I hate to start a war, but the real issue is that for people who don't want to be concerned about warranty coverage then they should use an oil on VW's list. Period. Though they may be covered by oil supplier warranties, this will cause delays in getting their vehicle back on the road.

Click to expand...

With this I agree. People have many different temperaments. Those that 'worry' are the folks that rely on the 'do it for me' process - they visit the dealer, the make sure everything is correct in the computer files for their car, and they sleep well at night. On the other side are those that only visit the dealer when they buy the car. And there are plenty of folks in between those two extremes.

(People 'are' - not 'may' be covered by oil company warranties - whether Castrol or anyone else. Any type of failure can cause a delay getting their car back on the road - by definition. Nature of the beast. I’m nursing my TDI along right now with a seeping fuel pump – just got word from Kerma that my replacement is ready to ship.)

Stirer said:

Amsoil is not the greatest product on earth and they don't have the solution to all the world's problems in regards to lubrication. If Amsoil was so good then why the pyramid scheme (oh yes, we call that direct marketing now).

Click to expand...

Pyramid schemes are illegal and policed by the FTC. Look at how quickly a pyramid scheme is killed: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=139215 AMSOIL is clearly not a pyramid scheme. The company started with direct sales, then added multi-level marketing. About 17 years ago, they added traditional commissioned-sales accounts. In addition, in other MLM companies, any dealer is limited by his sponsor - the team can only grow when the upper folks grow. The AMSOIL opportunity allows any dealer to grow or not as they wish. Folks that work are paid, folks that don't, aren't - regardless of where they are in the network - the pros can 'bubble to the top'. This sales model has allowed for double-digit growth every year since the 1990s - when the petroleum industry has been shrinking, and the synthetic market as a whole has been growing at about 1% per year. AMSOIL's 2-cycle is the #1 selling synthetic in North America, and their 20W-50 M/C oil outsells HD's synthetic 3-1.

Actually, AMSOIL has some of the best products on the planet. Their air, oil, and bypass filters are the highest-efficiency, longest life products available for cars and lights trucks. The bypass filters are the only ones on the planet rated as a 'soot removal device'. They have the world's best (and currently only certified!) Maximum-Efficiency Hydraulic Fluid on the market. This fluid can save one garbage truck 246 gallons of fuel per year over the closest competitor. Their 2-cycle oils at 250:1 outperform the competition at 50:1. Their engine oils have the longest life and lowest rates of wear. Their quality control system is unmatched in the industry - they use only new containers, barrels, and totes - they have a 100% quality control of every container - every cap! - 100% quality control of every raw material item coming in (AMSOIL has told suppliers that they had a problem before the supplier knew their equipment had failed!). 100% of raw materials are lab-checked coming in, 100% of products are lab-checked after blending, 100% of products are lab-checked at bottling. 100% of packages are coded - every bottle can be traced back to batch, bottling run, and the operators that did the lab testing, blending, and bottling. All the products are made in one plant and are consistent and uniform. The industry norm? 10% spot-checks. AMSOIL doesn’t worry about the API or ACEA or VW spot-checking – they know how they build their oil and they know it’s built well in excess of minimum-requirements.

Who says the products are the best? Racers like Bobby Unser that set his Indy and Pikes Peak records with AMSOIL. People like Dale Earnhardt Jr. that called AMSOIL to BUY gear lube for the team's cars. People like Donaldson (who have only partnered with one lubricant company in their history) and Lubrizol – the largest oil additive supplier in the world. Oil comes into test labs in unmarked containers and the tests are run blind...when technicians at the labs finish testing AMSOIL, many of them find out what the oil was then switch their personal vehicles. I saw a retired VP of Mobil tell an auto parts store owner with both Mobil and AMSOIL on the shelf that the best oil he could use was AMSOIL. One of the two Lubrizol reps that spoke during last month’s school in Superior said that “the more advances the industry makes, the closer they get to what AMSOIL has been doing for 25 years.”

All the best,
Andy

AndyH said:

. I'm certainly distressed that you consider that to be smoke/mirrors.

Click to expand...

It is a textbook example of smoke and mirrors.
You just attempted to link VW's requirement that oil in the PD motor be certified VW505.01 with AutoZone’s right to sell a water pump.
This is like a funhouse mirror in which you attempt to distort the facts.

Your next line in which you try to further cast doubt on my post:

What appears to be 'smoke/mirrors' is your reference to some Supreme Court finding (as if there is only one?!) that

Click to expand...

...is just incomplete. I cannot believe you would even consider questioning something so utterly precise, it is the law of the land.

The rest of your post is smoke and obscures the issues being discussed. It is devoid of any pertinent content.

Additionally if you really are, as you state, flying around the country in a plane in which you are installing parts that are not FAA certified I pray for the innocent people in your flight path. It would be grossly negligent and morally irresponsible to risk the lives of innocent families and children to support your position that you know better than any expert body setting minimum standards.


My claim is clear and well supported, simply put I state that VW has the legal right to mandate the use of VW505.01 in it's warranted PD motors.


(PS I was curious about your claim that Dale Earnhardt Jr. was personally calling to buy amsoil, I did find a mention that the current chief mechanic at DEI Inc has "chosen" AMSOIL gear lubes, but no mention is made anywhere of Dale running amsoil in any way in any vehicle whatsoever. Do you have a better Link to Dale and amsoil than I found?)

jombl,

We've gottan waaaay off the point of this thread. I'd certainly like to sit and have coffee with you because I'd like to understand where you're coming from and why we're so clearly missing each other.

I think you've jumped to some pretty amazing conclusions in your last post. I spoke of certification and being a pilot, and you jumped to suggest that I'm flying around with uncertified parts in an airplane and threatening people on the ground? How in the world did you get there? (For reference, however - please review the 'experimental/amateur built' portion of the FAA regs. In some parts of the country, there are more 'homebuilt' aircraft above the population than 'certified' aircraft - and the overall experimental/amateur built accident rate is lower than the certificated general aviation fleet. Just another instance where an uncertified but skilled enthusiast can sometimes do a job better than someone with a minimum-standard 'certification'.)

I've already told you in this and other threads that I agree with your highlighted point - that VW has the right to create a lube spec and mandate it's use - so I really don't understand how/why there's any room for further comment on that point.

I've also already told you with my comments on the aftermarket industry and how I understand the requirements and limitations on US car warranty that the point of any 505.01 discussion, and especially a 505.01 'meets/exceeds' discussion, has nothing to do with Mag/Moss tie-in sales - but simply with the right in the US to use a product that doesn't have a VW stamp of approval on it. Therefore, I think the SEMA/waterpump/aftermarket sales comment is appropriate to the discussion. This also suggests to me that your comment about the Supreme Court UPHOLDING the tie-in provision of Mag/Moss in a case that has nothing to do with the auto industry has no bearing on our discussion. Therefore, I don't believe there's any room for us to argue about Mag/Moss and/or tie-in sales or associated guidance.

IF we can agree that the purpose of any OEM spec is to either confirm the current state of the art, or raise the bar to a higher minimum standard, then I simply submit these as additional background information:

http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/Highest_Quality_medium.wmv
http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/first_in_synthetics_medium.wmv


Hopefully back on task - I enjoy getting into the specifics of lubricants - and I enjoy learning how the different formulation choices affect the performace of a lube. It is at least for that reason that I welcome whatever tech info P1 can bring to the community.

Andy

PS: RE: Jr's Car: You've at least partially confirmed the 'inside information' I passed on to you - congratulations! AMSOIL isn't paying the $$$$s required for sponsorship, therefore you won't see the company's logo on the car, or a product endorsement on their website. So - unless you have a tie to either the folks at AMSOIL that sold the products and advised the chief mechanic, or with the race team, the information will remain 'uncertified'. That doesn't make it any less true, however -- and this is the main gist of my position in our discussions. As I understand it, the race team kept losing differentials in races and the products provided by sponsors, and those purchased by the team, were failing them. I don't know what the previous products were. One of the mechanics on the team working on the race cars is an AMSOIL dealer and understood that the company's Severe Gear lubes offer about 8X the protection of any other gear lube in the world. That led to the team purchasing - not being sponsored by and receiving free product - but buying SVG for use in the race cars. The approximate timeframe is/was fall of 2004. I expect it's working well for them - as it's predacessor - the Series 2000 gear lubes - were formulated specifically for Bobby Unser and his Pike's Peak hill-climb differentials. More info: http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/Unser_Indy_medium.wmv and http://www.zamslube.com/images/video/PikesPeak.wmv

AndyH said:

I think you've jumped to some pretty amazing conclusions in your last post. I spoke of certification and being a pilot, and you jumped to suggest that I'm flying around with uncertified parts in an airplane and threatening people on the ground? How in the world did you get there?

Click to expand...

Well, that's what you said:

AndyH said:

And I'm a pilot - where everything on the airplane and the mechanic putting them there must be certified. I know from experience that there are 'certified' parts that cannot do what they're designed to do, and there are 'certified' people that are in the same boat. Just as there are 'uncertified' parts and/or people that I'd put against anyone with a title or certificate.

Click to expand...

If you say "as a pilot you know from experience that there are uncertified parts that you'd put up against anything," then that's where I got it.

AndyH said:

(For reference, however - please review the 'experimental/amateur built' portion of the FAA regs....the overall experimental/amateur built accident rate is lower than the certificated general aviation fleet. Just another instance where an uncertified but skilled enthusiast can sometimes do a job better than someone with a minimum-standard 'certification'.)

Click to expand...

Absolutely the opposite of the truth. Here is what the National Transportation Safety Review Board had to say in their most recent yearly report published in Feb, 2006 using data from 2001:

In 2001, the per-aircraft accident rate for all aircraft types was 6.87 accidents and 1.29 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown...
Amateur-built aircraft had the highest accident rate in 2001 with 26.76 accidents and 6.88 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Click to expand...

In total accidents alone fully 210 of all 1749 accidents were due to experimental aircraft, aircraft which make up only a tiny, tiny portion of all the 100's of 1,000's of planes in this country.

AndyH said:

your comment about the Supreme Court UPHOLDING the tie-in provision of Mag/Moss in a case that has nothing to do with the auto industry has no bearing on our discussion. Therefore, I don't believe there's any room for us to argue about Mag/Moss and/or tie-in sales or associated guidance.

Click to expand...

1st. It has everything to do with the auto industry, you can't really be trying to put more smoke in the room by saying a Supreme Court ruling only applies to the people mentioned in the case.
2nd. It did not UPHOLD the tie-in provision of Mag-Moss:

The Supreme Court eased the antitrust barriers to ''tying arrangements'' that require consumers who want a particular product or service to also buy a second, related product.
The Court unanimously overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court that a Louisiana hospital's exclusive contract with a group of anesthesiologists violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
For many years, the Federal courts have regarded tying arrangements, like price-fixing, as ''illegal per se,'' or automatically illegal. The Court said that the per se analysis of tying arrangements has ''generated more confusion than coherent law'' and that ''the time has therefore come to abandon the per se label.''

Click to expand...

And finally, as to your last comment, and I loved the line, "That doesn't make it any less true, however -- and this is the main gist of my position in our discussions."

AndyH said:

So - unless you have a tie to either the folks at AMSOIL that sold the products and advised the chief mechanic, or with the race team, the information will remain 'uncertified'. That doesn't make it any less true, however -- and this is the main gist of my position in our discussions.

Click to expand...

I can only say I'm shocked, you're asking us to trust you, you just can't prove it's true. On the specific point you show as evidence a paid endorser claiming he was lying back in the day. So I'm left with trying to figure out if the paid celebrity endorser is lying now about having lied then.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that he's a liar.

Don't say things that are not true and people won't feel the need to correct the record. It's a forum, not your personal pulpit.

The hero of my tale --- whom I love with all the power of my soul, whom I have tried to portray in all his beauty, who has been, is and will be beautiful --- is Truth.
-- Tolstoy

Click to expand...

I have no idea why this thread went where it did, but I do know where it's going...

Jombl, your posts violate every rule except using Godwin's Law cited in the Amsoil posting rules thread. People who engage in this type of posting can expect some time-out time, regardless of the subject matter.