c903

BowElkFreak:

You need to peruse all that I have said regarding the "claims," and show me where I have indicated that I know for a fact that the "claims" are erroneous, based on personal use. I do not recall having said that no person should use the product because the "claims" are indisputably false. I do not recall having directly criticized anyone whom uses the product or intends to purchase and use the product.

Being an engineer, you should know that not everyone involved in the innovation, the design, the speculative level of evaluation of proposed performance, the fabrication, etc, are ALL involved in the final testing. Therefore, I would assume that you would NOT totally discount the applied theories and input from all those NOT involved in the testing. However, conversely, you are saying that I must be involved in the testing in order for my dispute of some of the claims vs. cost to have any credibility.

As an engineer, are you willing to state that the short-term and undocumented tests by an individual, including your short-term experience with the product, satisfies all the requirements of "regressive and conformance testing?" That you, or any other person or retailer can say with certainty that the Quikspin vane does "Maximize accuracy and produces tighter arrow groups like you’ve never thought possible," and that the "Quikspin" vane does have a "Flatter trajectory compared to conventional vanes," and therefore the cost and the use are absolutely justified?

According to your synopsis of your test, you are not ready to say with certainty that the product lives or does not live up to all claims and that the vane is superior. Therefore, if you have not yet performed all the aspects of proper testing, and are yet convinced that your test results validate or invalidate all or some of the performance claims, how can you already discredit any reasonable hypothesis?

So far, it appears that the "Quikspin" simply falls within the category as many other products do; that the product does, so far, seem to perform reasonably well, but not so superior as to make all other similar products inferior or outmoded, and that the product might work sufficiently well for some people, but cannot be guaranteed to work the same for all?

As I said previously, if a person has the money and wants to try the product, and is not concerned about being disappointed for having spent $20.00 for 36 "Quikspin" vanes when it costs about $10.00 for 100 vanes of a different but popular brand, that is the person's right of choice. However, I still have not seen any long-term evidence that indisputably justifies the cost or demonstrates that the performance is so greatly superior that a person should sell some family heirlooms and purchase the vanes for bowhunting purpose.

I will pass on the testing of the vane, because my fletch has performed exceptionally well for 40 years and I have yet to read anything that convinces me that the "Quikspin" is superior. If I ever was convinced, then I might give them a try.