ASA Adjudication on ProShift Technologies Ltd
ProShift Technologies Ltd
Date:
13 June 2012
Media:
Internet (OM 3rd party)
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-183908
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Ten issues were investigated, of which eight were Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad
A website and two leaflets for an electronic gear shift manufacturer.
a. Claims on the home page of the website, www.proshift.com, stated "Advantages of Electronic over Air Generally faster gearshifts (typical 20 mS) ... Compressing air creates water ... Water can create reliability problems ...".
Claims on the "Systems" page of the website stated “Uniquely utilising fully adjustable Proximity sensing ‘Magic Eyes’ to trigger the ‘Bump & Blip’ (TM) GCU this revolutionary operation method provides far faster more accurate gearshifts than other conventional methods without the need for commonly used gearbox damaging load cells".
Claims on the "Accessories" page stated "Remote Cable Operations Throttle Blipper this unique patented cable operated electrical device is specifically designed for car and superbike applications with limited available space".
On the "News" page text stated "PRO-SHIFT BUMP & BLIP (TM) NOW AVAILABLE ... One of the most impressive features of this unique patented System is that it utilises fully adjustable proximity sensing ‘Magic Eyes’ to trigger the Bump & Blip GCU. This enables far faster and more accurate gearshifts than those achieved by other more conventional methods ... PRO-SHIFT UNVEIL CLOSED LOOP+ (TM) ... The recently launched PS3 semi-automatic Gearshifting System is perfectly capable of the old style closed loop gearshifting which is now viewed as reliable but rather slow and dated so we decided to move things along. After years of development and intensive testing Closed Loop+ (TM) is the result and is now available with the PS3 making it what is believed to be the fastest commercially available Gearshifting solution. Benefits of this unique technology include significant gearshift speed increases of around 30% with no compromising of gearbox reliability ... PS3 LAUNCHED AT 2010 AUTOSPORT SHOW ... Stand alone closed loop technology, featuring linear feedback recognition A unique world's first making closed loop now possible on cars and bikes without rotary potentiometer feedback".
Claims on the "FAQ" page stated "Does Paddle-Shift change gear faster than manual shifting? Yes. The Pro-Shift System was fitted to a drag car and improved the 1/4 Mile time by over 1 second! That means a saving of over 1/5 of a second per shift".
The "Partners" page on the website included the logos of Quaife and Ricardo.
The "Gallery - Gearboxes" page of the website included a number of captioned images of gearboxes.
b. The first leaflet stated "The Pro-Shift PS3 ... The world leading PS3 system's features are ... Stand alone Closed Loop + Plus Technology, featuring liner feedback recognition, A World's First ... Max Torque Downshift Another Worlds [sic] First, providing gear specific automated max torque downshifting for guaranteed maximum acceleration after downshifts ... truly unique patented gearshifting system...".
c. The second leaflet stated "ProShift Bump & Blip Shifter (TM) ... [the Bump & Blip Shifter] provides far faster more accurate gearshifts than other conventional methods without the need for commonly used gearbox damaging load cells".
Issue
Geartronics Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Water can create reliability problems" in ad (a);
2. "Generally faster gearshifts (typical 20 mS)" in ad (a) and "faster" and "far faster more accurate gearshifts" in ads (a) and (c);
3. "... without the need for commonly used gearbox damaging loads cells" in ad (a);
4. "unique patented cable operated electrical device" in ad (a);
5. "[Closed Loop+] is believed to be the fastest commercially available Gearshifting solution" and "gearshift speed increases of around 30%" in ad (a);
6. the "world's first" claims in ads (a) and (b);
7. "The Pro Shift System was fitted to a drag car and improved the 1/4 Mile time by over 1 second! That means a saving of over 1/5 of a second per shift" in ad (a); and
8. "The world leading PS3 system" in ad (b).
Geartronics also challenged whether:
9. the Quaife and Ricardo logos in ad (a) misleadingly implied a partnership, which they understood did not exist; and
10. some of the gearbox images in ad (a) misleadingly implied that all the vehicles pictured were fitted with ProShift's products, which they believed was not the case.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. ProShift said said that water was created in air-operated gearshifting systems which they said was obviously detrimental to the reliability and internal parts of a gearbox and would cause problems in the long term as the gearbox was a sophisticated piece of mechanical engineering.
2. ProShift supplied us with a video which demonstrated a Honda CBR1000RR 2010 being tested on a dynamometer using the ProShift gear system, along with test results which showed that gearshifts of around 20 mS had been achieved.
3. ProShift said that load cells, a device used to convert a force into electrical signal were subject to 'ringing' when subjected to abrupt load changes and in order to measure the loads, they had to deform. They said that they had adopted a different system in their own products which they said eliminated any distortion or possible damage to a gearbox, due the fact that it was a non-contactable device and placed no physical contact whatsoever on the gearbox.
4. Proshift provided us with a reference number for a patent on a Cable Operation Throttle Blipper which was listed on the Intellectual Property Office website as of 5 November 2010.
5. ProShift said that their system was faster than those currently being run by top Superbike teams and they had met with some of these teams and demonstrated to them that their system changed gears faster. ProShift also suggested that the video they sent us in response to the complaint also helped to support these claims.
6. ProShift said that following extensive research, they believed that they were correct in making the "World's First" claims in their advertising and until proved otherwise, believe they were perfectly within their rights to state this as a fact.
7. ProShift did not provide us with any evidence of previous testing on a drag car but believed that the video they sent us which showed their system being demonstrated on a motorobike would support the claims.
8. ProShift said that the PS3 system was at the forefront of the Autosport marketplace with its advanced features and latest technology, most of which they said was newly available and therefore, world leading.
9. ProShift said that they had worked on many projects together with both Quaife and Ricardo over the years and therefore did not think it was misleading to show their logos on the 'Partners' page of their website.
10. ProShift said that all of the images shown on the site and specifically on the 'Galleries' page of the website featured vehicles which, at the time the photos were taken, were running ProShift systems. They said that in the last five years they had only received one request from a customer for an image to be removed from the website.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted ProShift's argument that air operated gearshifting systems created water which could have detrimental effects on the internal workings of a gearbox. However, we also noted that they had not provided us with any evidence to demonstrate that this water had a detrimental effect on a gearbox and created reliability problems. We therefore considered that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this point, the claim in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We noted the video sent by ProShift which demonstrated that gearshifts of 20 mS had been achieved when testing the system on a high-performance bike on a dynamometer. However, we were concerned that the video did not demonstrate "typical" conditions as outlined in the claim. We sought informal advice from a seller of dynamometers on the testing and they said that whilst dynamometers could give a general idea of a system's performance, they could not account for other factors such as weather conditions and terrain and in the case of motorbike testing, the position of the rider which could alternate frequently when a bike was ridden. We also noted that the bike being used in the testing was a high-performance model whereas we understood that ProShift's system was designed to be used in a number of different vehicles. We therefore did not consider that the manner in which the testing had been carried out demonstrated typical performance of the product. We also noted that ProShift had made broad comparative claims against air operated gearshifting systems, without providing a similarly broad spectrum of evidence to demonstrate that they had tested both systems in the same conditions, to demonstrate that electronic gearshifting systems were faster or more accurate than their air operated counterparts. Taking all of the above into account, we therefore concluded that the claims were misleading and had not been substantiated.
On this point, the claims in ad (a) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
3. Upheld
We noted ProShift's argument that load cells were likely to cause damage to a gearbox. However, we also noted that the complainant disputed this and that ProShift had not provided us with any evidence to demonstrate the effects of load cells on a gearbox. We therefore considered that the claim had not been substantiated and was therefore misleading.
On this point, the claim in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
4. Not upheld
We confirmed that the patent number supplied by ProShift for a "Remote Cable Operated Downshift Throttle Blipping Device" was genuine and was listed on the website of the Intellectual Property Office. We considered that this substantiated the claim and concluded that it was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the claim in ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
5. Upheld
We noted that ProShift believed their system was faster than systems being used by other Superbike teams. However, we considered that the claim was a superlative claim, capable of objective substantiation. We noted the video sent to us by ProShift which they believed demonstrated speed increases of around 30% but considered that, for the same reasons given in point 2 above, and because no testing was provided of other vehicles using alternative gearshifting systems, it was not possible to ascertain what speeds this claim related to. Because we had not received evidence to demonstrate that ProShift's technology was the fastest commercially available gearshfting system or that it could achieve speed increases of 30%, we considered the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claims in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
6. Upheld
We noted that ProShift had based the claim on their own research and believed they were correct in making the claim. However, we also understood that ProShift were not the only company in the gearshift market and they had sent no evidence to demonstrate that they were the first company to manufacture closed-loop technology with linear feedback recognition, which they had described as a 'World First'. We also noted that the complainant believed that they had been using this technology before ProShift. We considered that such claims were capable of robust substantiation and because ProShift did not provide this, we considered that the claims had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
On this point, the claims in ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
7. Upheld
We noted that ProShift believed that the video they sent us would demonstrate that their testing on a drag car had shown a saving of over 1/5 of a second per shift. However, we noted that the video showed testing on a motorbike, not a drag car which was carried out on a dynamometer. Because ProShift did not supply us with test results demonstrating the gear change on a drag car, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On this point, the claim in ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
8. Upheld
We considered that the claim was a leading claim capable of objective substantiation. We noted it was unqualified but considered that the claim in this context was likely to be interpreted to mean that the PS3 system was leading the market in terms of innovation. However, because ProShift did not send any evidence to support the claim in this context, we concluded that the claim was misleading.
On this point, the claim in ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
9. Upheld.
We noted that ProShift had previously worked with both Quaife and Ricardo on some previous projects and we confirmed this directly with them. However, we also noted that neither Quaife nor Ricardo had given their permission for their logos to be displayed on ProShift's website and neither organisation considered itself to be a 'partner' of ProShift. We therefore considered that to include their logos on the 'Partners' page of the ProShift website was misleading.
On this point, the use of the logos on ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.50 (Endorsements and Testimonials).
10. Not upheld
We noted from the complainant that some of the vehicles shown in images on ProShift's website were no longer fitted with ProShift systems. Whilst we noted that some of the images on the website showed vehicles which had subsequently stopped using ProShift systems, we did not consider that it was misleading to demonstrate that ProShift systems had once been installed in these vehicles. We therefore concluded that the images were not misleading.
We investigated the images on ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) but did not find them in breach.
Action
The claims must not appear again in their current form. We reminded ProShift to hold documentary evidence before making any claims that required robust substantiation.
