On 9/5/2016 11:24 AM, William wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 09:03:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> While that is somewhat true, you can't rig the tests. Other shady
>> things was car seats for kids. When you claim they failed at 38 mph but
>> the actual test was done at 70 mph you lose your reputation, IMO.
>
> if there was deception on their part, I agree with you but if all the
> car seats were evaluated in the same manner and they described the
> ones that failed and the ones that survived...that is all we can ask
> for from them. If you think the test was too strenuous, then fewer of
> the tested products held up well.

If you report a product failed at a given speed but used a higher speed
you are deceiving. You assume from the results the product did not
perform when in fact it did.

In the case of the Suzuki SUV it performed properly 46 times, failed on
the 47th try. They did not report it that way, only the failure.

>
> If you go on their website, you can watch videos showing how they test
> products. I saw them testing washing machines to see how many times
> you could open and close the door before the door falls off.

That type of testing can be good.
>
> It has never been alledged that Consumer Reports has ever taken a
> bribe to lie about the quality of a product.

I don't doubt that, but you can still be biased in how you report
things. Did you hear about the race between the Russian Lada and the US
Corvette? The race results were reported truthfully, the Lada came in
second but the Corvette was next to last.

My Sister never wants to
> pay the annual subscription to Consumer Reports but she always wants
> me to tell her which product is rated highest...then she says it costs
> too much and buys lower rated product. You can lead a horse to
> water...but you can't make him drink!
>
> William

Cheap can be very expensive
>