 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Tony's Guide to Fuel saving gadgets |
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Case Study: BioPerformance(TM) Gas Pill The Gas Pill (usually known as BioPerformance or just BP) launched in a blaze of publicity at the end of 2005, with claims of 25% fuel economy improvement. Many sceptics criticised either technical aspects of the product, or the business methods of the company, but it still achieved tens of millions of dollars of sales in the first few months. On 17th May 2006 this came to a sudden halt when the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against BioPerformance and froze the company's assets. The Dallas Observer ran an excellent article on the subject, which makes for very interesting reading. Shortly before the expected trial date in February 2007, the state of Texas reached an out-of-court settlement with BioPerformance. This requires BP to pay $7 million to compensate deceived customers, and also bans them from claiming:
In other words, pretty much every marketing claim made by BioPerformance in early 2006 is now forbidden. In combination with the huge financial penalty, this represents a fairly resounding victory for the sceptics - while not as satisfying as an actual criminal conviction, it is probably the best that can be achieved in a field renowned for the difficulty of prosecuting offenders. After a "quiet period" of several months, BioPerformance has now resurfaced, under a new owner. The new site makes no numerical claims, merely stating that it reduces consumption and emissions. It seems that it will be left to individual distributors (IBOs) to make such claims - and the temptation is bound to exist for such distributors to quote very high numbers in order to attract more customers. On what basis do BP now claim that the product works? The main argument is a test report conducted at a certified laboratory using the FTP-75 and Highway test cycles. This type of test is exactly what sceptics such as myself have always demanded, and is very welcome. So does this prove BioPerformance gives a worthwhile economy benefit? Answer: no, it does not. The first problem is that the report says nothing about how many vehicles were tested, their specification or age. BP may have tried dozens of vehicles before finding a few old, technically unusual cars that responded well to the Gas Pill. But even assuming that the test vehicles were representative of the US fleet, the results are hardly stunning. The reduction in toxic emissions is around five percent - better than nothing, but a tiny fraction of the benefits claimed by BP supporters in the past (and about the same as the auto industry achieves every six months through improved vehicle design). Even more crucially, in terms of fuel economy improvement the report merely claims "a reasonable degree of confidence that the product causes a real improvement in fuel economy", with no mention at all of the figure. Thanks to the good repeatability of the FTP-75 and HFET tests, a gain of just one or two percent could produce "a reasonable degree of confidence". If the benefit really is larger than this, why have BioPerformance forbidden the test laboratory from releasing the figure? BP's web page also comments "News reports show that the EPA has previously tested more than 100 other fuel additives under its FTP and HFET protocols, with no demonstrable positive results." In fact this is misleading; of the products previously tested by the EPA, 10 gave measurable improvements in economy (those marked with a * in this list), but crucially, in all cases the benefit was so small that it was outweighed by the cost of the product. This is likely to be the problem with BioPerformance - an economy gain of at least five percent is needed to make it economically viable, but BP have failed to produce any evidence that the benefit is this large. The other argument used by BP to "prove" the product works is the testimonial evidence from apparently satisfied customers. The problem is that this type of evidence is often misleading - see this page - which is precisely why the FTC demand proper scientific evidence instead. If your are thinking of buying, or becoming a distributor for, the "new" BioPerformance, please keep these points in mind:
Bio Plus Fuel, by the way, appears to be closely related to - possibly the same as - BioPerformance.
Since launching in the US at the end of 2005 the Gas Pill has achieved huge sales - several million US$, apparently. This makes it especially interesting since the total "theft" involved if the Gas Pill does not do what it says is very large. A critical point to bear in mind with the Gas Pill is that is sold through Multi-Level Marketing, which immediately triggers warning bells among sceptics. Some perfectly good and effective products are sold through MLM, but it is also a common method employed by scammers and snake-oil salesmen to maximise revenue from ineffective products. (Commonly, the "early adopters" make much, if not most, of their money by recruiting lower-level sales people rather than directly through product sales.) This sales method also means that there is an army of thousands of bottom-level sales people, all with a financial stake in the success of the product, who will pop up whenever it is discussed on Forums and newsgroups and say how marvellous the Gas Pill is or write glowing "independent" reviews of it. Some, or even most, of these people do genuinely believe in the product, but their lack of financial independence means that any testimonials you see should be taken with an even larger pinch of salt than normal. (Before the conspiracy theorists start suggesting I am also not independent, let me assure readers that I have no financial interest at all in suppressing the Gas Pill, or any similar technology. I work in the car industry, but not the oil industry, and nobody in the car industry pays me a cent for running this site.)
As a scientist and engineer, the explanation given by BioPerformance does not make a lot of sense to me. So far as I can tell they are claiming a kind of catalytic action, leading to a faster and more complete burn. As I explain on this page, in general there is little reason to expect this to lead to an improvement in fuel economy. The burn on any modern engine is already 98 - 99% complete; that is to say, the energy of the unburnt and partially burnt fuel in the gas leaving the engine only represents about 1 - 2% of the energy in the input fuel (and so the potential for improvement is similarly limited). Making the burn faster, as explained here, can in theory give small improvements in economy, but since the engine is optimised (in terms of ignition timing etc) for the "normal" burn rate, in practice it is likely to make economy worse, if anything. (If you want to know what qualifies me to make these comments, please see my biography. I have yet to see evidence of the BioPerformance staff having similar scientific qualifications.)
Some commentators have suggested from the smell and other properties of BioPerformance that it may be based on Naphthalene, traditionally the main consituent of mothballs. In the past Naphthalene has been used as an octane enhancer, giving some benefits in performance (and perhaps economy), but the effect on modern gasoline is likely to be small or even negative. Section 6.20 of the Gasoline FAQ discusses this further. BioPerformance, of course, deny this - though as the saying goes, "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?", and neither the letter nor the data sheet actually prove anything since they are both written by BP themselves or their agents. This site also has an interesting lab report on BioPerformance, though I can't certify its accuracy.
Since the Gas Pill needs to be added to the fuel every time you fill up, there is an ongoing cost associated with its use. While quoted prices vary, typically it seems that one pill, costing about $1, treats up to 8 gallons of fuel. So if fuel is $2.50 per gallon, that means $1 of product treats at most $20 of fuel, and so you need at least a five percent improvement in economy for it to save money overall. From a theoretical point of view, such a large improvement seems to me to be unlikely.
As with most fuel "saving" products, the primary evidence in favour is uncontrolled on-road testing, where people compare their economy with and without the Gas Pill. As explained here, it is very easy to get false results from this sort of testing since fuel economy is very strongly affected by traffic, driving style, weather, etc. Espcially significant is the "placebo effect" - anyone who has invested in the Gas Pill, and wants to see it work, will naturally (if unconsciously) adopt a more economical driving style. (Also, do not forget the "MLM effect" mentioned at the top of the page.) Similarly, claims of improved performance are almost entirely restricted to comments along the lines of "my car feels quicker now", which could very easily just be wishful thinking. There is a long history with fuel "saving" products of glowing testimonial evidence followed by scientific testing proving that the product/device has only a tiny effect (for example, the Ecotek CB-26B. Because of this, governments and other regulatory bodies generally say that testimonial evidence on its own is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product. (See for example the advice from the Federal Trade Commission.) Those who market and support the Gas Pill, as with other fuel "saving" devices, always condemn those who criticise it without trying for themselves. "If you haven't tried it in your car, you can't comment on it", they say. But the point is this: the sceptics know very well that any testing they could do would prove absolutely nothing, due to the natural fluctuations in fuel consumption. Maybe they would see an improvement, maybe they wouldn't. Either way it would not demonstrate conclusively whether the product works or not. Only rigorous scientific testing, as described below, can do this (and such testing costs far more than any independent individual such as myself can afford).
There are clearly defined and well understood test procedures for proving the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product beyond doubt. The cost of such testing is a few tens of thousands of dollars, but of course this is a miniscule fraction of the profits to be made from any successful product. (BioPerformance can pay for their top salesman to buy a boat, so they should be able to afford some scientific tests!) The central point about the "scientific" testing is that it is carried out on a rolling road (chassis dynamometer), where the load and speed conditions can be very precisely and repeatably controlled. This then eliminates the effect of changing road and traffic conditions on the results. Do BioPerformance have any suitably rigorous data for the Gas Pill? The only such data I can find is their so-called "ISO 9000 Lab test". In principle this seems to be the right sort of test procedure, but there are some strange aspects to the testing that make me concerned about its value:
The BioPerformance tests give just three results, as follows (converted to US mpg for convenience): So it appears that the difference between two nominally identical tests is significantly larger than the improvement, which to a statistican implies that the benefit seen is quite likely to be simply a random fluke and not proof of effectiveness. It's also odd that there is a three-month gap between the Baseline and Test 1 results - what else might have changed on the vehicle in this time, so introducing an additional "noise factor"? Overall, these tests fall well short of what is normally regarded as "scientifically rigorous". In particular they clearly do not meet the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency for proving the effectiveness of such products. And that isn't just my view. On May 10th the Better Business Bureau of Dallas issued a report on BioPerformance Especially interesting are the comments regarding the "ISO 9000 tests", which are discusses half way down the page. Here are the BBB's findings, in full (my emphasis): On May 10, 2006, the company provided a summary of a test done in Mexico at the company's request at the Vehicular Emissions Laboratory of the DGCENICA, the Head Office of the National Center for Environmental Research and Training of Mexico. The summary shows that only one vehicle was evaluated, a 1985 Volkwagen with standard transmission. The first evaluation showed the starting measurements. The second evaluation, three months later, showed the measurements after the product was added, with no significant increase of the "yield in fuel". At the request of the company, a third evaluation was done the same day, and according to the summary, showed "a 25% increase in fuel yield". However, the laboratory states, "... the tests performed are not sufficient to provide results with regards to the performance of the product called Bio Plus Fuel. We recommend performing additional tests by first establishing a statistical plan in order to confirm the product's effectiveness." Among other recommendations, the laboratory recommended testing "at least 50 vehicles, different makes and models, and up to 10 years old, selected at random .." The information provided by BioPerformance, Inc., does not substantiate the product claims and the company continues to make the product claims. So BioPerformance knew all along that the lab results were inconclusive, yet for months and months they have been claiming that these "ISO 9000 tests" are absolutely indisputable proof of the effectiveness of the Gas Pill. Every attempt to point out shortcomings in the product was met with "ISO 9000 proves it works". Now we know why BioPerformance never made the full report public, instead just showing the few parts of it that supported their claims. In my opinion this constitues deliberate fraud, and is sufficient reason not to trust the product or the company. If BioPerformance really believe their product works, my advice to them is to carry out some much better testing as a matter of some urgency (as recommended by the lab). The sceptics such as myself cannot afford such testing ($20 - 30 000), but to BioPerformance this would be a vanishingly small fraction of their profits - yet positive results would silence the sceptics once and for all and greatly increase sales. If they refuse to do such tests, you have to ask why not - is it because they know it would prove the Gas Pill doesn't work?
A frequent claim made by BioPerformance supporters is that their product "has achieved ISO 9000 compliance", "has been tested by ISO", "is certified to ISO 9000", etc. The implication is that ISO 9000 is an international standard for certifiying the effectiveness of fuel saving products, and the Gas Pill meets this standard. In fact, that is completely false. ISO 9000 is not a standard for testing fuel saving products; rather it is simply a quality management standard, which indicates that an organisation has defined procedures in place for their work, and follows these procedures. It says absolutely nothing about the technical capabilities of the test equipment used, nor indeed that the test procedures are suitable for this type of testing - merely that there is a procedure, and it is carefully followed. There are relatively few recognised standards for testing fuel saving products, but probably the most comprehensive is that of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Unquestionably BioPerformance have not presented any test data that even comes close to meeting the requirements of this test - as discussed above. Another frequently quoted piece of information is that "BioPerformance is registered with the EPA under 40-CFR 79.23 NO. 1932-0001", as if this indicated certification by the EPA of the Gas Pill's fuel saving properties. In fact, registration under 40-CFR 79.23 just involves "providing a chemical description of the product and certain technical, marketing and health-effects information". That's it! Under the Small Business Provisions, there is no need for BioPerformance to offer any additional test data or information to achieve EPA registration. Registration does not prove effectiveness, or non-toxicity (plenty of toxic products are approved as additives). Indeed, as BioPerformance themselves admit, "Registration of this product does not constitute endorsement, certification, or approval by any agency of the United States." The final supporting document often cited is the Material Safety Data Sheet. The important thing to remember here is that this is written by the manufacturers of the Gas Pill and so does not represent independent proof of any of its properties.
Some people have asked if the Gas Pills might actually be harmful. As a general principle I am wary of adding any unapproved additive to a modern gasoline or diesel engine, since changes in fuel properties can easily damage the precision components in the fuel system. However, I have no specific reason to think there is anything harmful in the Gas Pill.
On 4th May, WESH-TV ran an interesting story on the BioPerformance Gas Pill. In general I am wary of media reports on fuel "saving" devices, since many are little more than uncontrolled testimonials, but in this case the reporter has made a fair attempt at ensuring controlled test conditions. As expected, no improvement in fuel consumption was found. Perhaps more significantly, the story strongly supported the theory mentioned above that the Gas Pill is predominantly naphthalene. BioPerformance strongly refute the story, of course, and several distributors have attacked the report. I understand that WESH-TV and the chemistry lab are standing by their claims, and it will be interesting to see if a legal case results. The rebuttal by BioPerformance does in any case contain plenty of flaws of its own, for example the repeat of the myth described above that ISO 9000 is a testing standard for fuel saving devices. It's also interesting that they claim "We have ISO 9000 tests from 1989, 1995, ...", when ISO 9000 did not even exist until 1994! A later story from WESH-TV confirms their original findings, and notes that the Florida Attorney General is also investigating the company.
There are many "gas-saving" fuel additives on the market, and they seem to be engaging in some particularly vicious attacks on eath other. For example, around 9th May 2006, various BioPerformance representatives copied my page on the Ethos Fuel Reformulator, almost completely, and posted it on their sites (for example here) - without asking my permission, or even quoting me as the source. While I am no supporter of Ethos, I feel this is extremely underhand behaviour by BioPerformance, and it makes me wonder about their business ethics in general.
From a theoretical point of view, I cannot see any reason to expect an economy improvement large enough to justify the cost of the Gas Pill. I am sceptical of the testimonial evidence, since (even with the best will in the world) it is easy to get apparently positive results from useless products during uncontrolled on-road testing, and the laboratory test data falls (to my mind) well short of what is commonly regarded as proof of effectiveness. Given this, and the fact that 99% of "miracle" fuel-saving products sold in the past have turned out to be worthless, I am doubtful that the Gas Pill really delivers savings large enough to justify its purchase price. I would however be extremely interested in evaluating any more rigorous test data BioPerformance can obtain, and indeed would be pleased to advise them on suitable test methods.
| ||||||||||||||||