The Stiftung Warentest (StiWa) and the ADAC are putting pressure on new materials to criticize their pedelec test. At a press conference in Berlin, the bicycle industry presented evidence that confirmed the considerable doubts about the results of the pedelec test by StiWa and ADAC in May this year. Bicycle manufacturers speak of faulty test designs, unrealistic load assumptions and irresponsible interpretation and media processing of the results by StiWa. The Press service bicycle familiarized himself with the complex topic for us. The result: the all-clear when it comes to pedelecs, but not for the "Consumption" the StiWa tests.
//Gritty headline - slippery terrain
"Electric bikes: the risk is on board" was the title of the pedelec test in test magazine, issue 06/2013. Nine out of 16 e-bikes were tested "inadequate" been evaluated, with broken frames and handlebars as well as electromagnetic radiation being responsible for the poor results. The public relations work of Stiftung Warentest for the start of sales of the test issue resulted in extensive media coverage of the dangers of pedelecs. "The test, including media coverage, unsettled customers and dealers alike, resulting in reluctance to buy and even the cancellation of pedelecs that had already been ordered and paid for", reports Albert Herresthal from the Verbund Service und Fahrrad (VSF), an association that has around 230 premium bicycle dealers among its members. In particular, the test result of the so-called "C-Flyer" by the Swiss e-bike manufacturer Biketec (Flyer) caused a stir in the professional world. The Flyer makers are not only regarded as pioneers of pedelecs, but also beyond the industry as thoroughly quality-oriented. Now Derby Cycle, Bosch and Biketec, three of the probably biggest players in the e-bike segment, together with the Zweirad-Industrie-Verband (ZIV) published materials at a press conference in Berlin, which cast considerable doubt on the test methods, results, -judgment and confirmed in the media processing.
//Immediate criticism from the industry is given a factual basis
Just a few days after the test was published, not only the supposed losers had expressed doubts about the correctness and usability of the results and their interpretation by StiWa. The ZIV wrote in a report: "The results of the StiWa are incomprehensible for the industry in many respects." VSF and the Verkehrs Club Deutschland (VCD) wrote reports with similar content. As e-bike lobbyist ExtraEnergy put it: "Unfortunately, the focus was on scaremongering instead of specific requirements for the products."
According to Gunnar Fehlau, director of Press service bicycle, on the one hand "The increased technical professionalism, but also the increased self-confidence of the bicycle industry. After all, it has sold more than a million e-vehicles in recent years.”
//Test with distorted perception of reality?
The main point of criticism is the lack of real damage images that correspond to the test results. Dirk Zedler, owner of the engineering and expert office for bicycle technology Zedler, stated in a VSF report: "Overall, there are no abnormalities in the number of expert opinions on pedelecs that would support the results of the StiWa test." According to Wolfram Hartmann, member of the board of the dealer association Feineräder e. V. also for trade: "Our dealers have now sold around 4.000 of the affected C-Flyer model, and there has never been a frame breakage."
The experts draw two conclusions from this: either the test was too hard or the structure was wrong. Hans-Heinrich Pardey, technology editor at the FAZ, commented on June 02nd: "But what the report describes as 'realistic' is open to debate... If it kept collapsing, word would have got around long ago." Marcus Schroeder from EFBE Prüftechnik takes the same line: “How good a product test is is not measured by how tough it is or how many test specimens it destroys. [...] The quality of a test is shown much more by the fact that it predicts relevant failure patterns in the consumer's hand - and thus protects the consumer - and reproduces actual failures of defective products. Stiftung Warentest failed miserably in this mission.” The ZIV was already more specific in its report of June 5th: “The component strength tests used by StiWa differ fundamentally from the requirements of the relevant European standards. For this reason, the results of the StiWa are incomprehensible for the industry in many respects.” When asked about this, Heike van Laak, head of the press department at Stiftung-Warentest, said Press service bicycle: "We have no reason for doubts of any kind. We stand by our test result."
//Transparency dilemma: dimwitted, diva-like or dictatorial ...
The traceability of test results is of crucial importance for the industry and thus for the consumer. Regardless of whether a test procedure is considered realistic or not, only when engineers can reproduce a fracture are they able to identify the source of the failure and then eliminate it. dr According to the VSF report, when the results were officially presented, Holger Brackemann, test manager at Stiftung Warentest, called on the manufacturers to "sufficient security checks" before selling the bikes. According to Gunnar Fehlau, however, there is a reversal of cause and effect here: "If the test procedures deviate from the standards, the obligation to bring and provide evidence does not lie with the producer, but with the tester", Fehlau is convinced. In the past, the industry repeatedly called for disclosure of the test procedures, while StiWa proclaimed sufficient transparency for itself. According to Biketec, for example, it only receives information from StiWa if "when she engages lawyers - and then only bit by bit", can be found on zeit.de. On the other hand, Heike van Laak claimed: “We can prove that all manufacturers have received the complete test program. The assertion that StiWa is non-transparent is clearly wrong.”
A panel discussion at the vivavelo industry congress in 2010 can be seen as indicative of the mood between StiWa and the bicycle industry. At that time Brackemann assured the bicycle expert Zedler information on the test arrangement of the StiWa bicycle tests. Loud zeit.de Zedler is still waiting for it today. "In terms of transparency, Stiftung Warentest and ADAC must improve", was the demand of the bicycle industry even back then, which ExtraEnergy repeated verbatim in a statement in June of this year.
In view of this tension between industry and StiWa, it almost seems a little ironic that the secure area of the StiWa website, via which StiWa makes information about the tests available to the manufacturers, is involved "partner.stiftung-warentest" starts.
//Biketec chooses the rocky road to truth
With clockwork precision, Biketec has been working its way up bit by bit since the test was published. Simulations were carried out on the computer to depict the StiWa damage pattern, and the same procedure was used on test benches. In addition, measurements were again taken in driving reality. In none of the three ways could the damage pattern "Crack on the left dropout" be simulated as the primary reason for failure. On the other hand, it became obvious that the test arrangement according to StiWa is not able to depict reality either qualitatively or quantitatively. What's more: The test arrangement according to StiWa led to massive additional loads on the dropouts, which did not exist in the field even under extreme conditions, such as a 120 kg rider. The Biketec conclusion is: "The clamping of the frame according to StiWa is completely unsuitable for gaining practice-relevant knowledge and the statements derived from the StiWa test (and thus also comparisons of products from different suppliers) are technically untenable." The openness of the manufacturer impresses industry insiders. The burden of proof seems overwhelming.
// Repeat offenders: StiWa or the bicycle industry?
This is not the first time that StiWa has published a test in the bicycle sector with seemingly dramatic consequences. For example, in 2010 children's carriers were attested to be at risk of breakage and excessive pollutant levels. The situation is similar to the pedelec test down to the last detail: no damage in reality, dramatic reporting, consumer uncertainty, well-founded protests from the experts and a sluggish flow of information from StiWa. The FAZ summarizes the research of the pressedienst- Fahrrad at that time in the supplement "Technology and Engine" summarized in their issue of 29.10.13/XNUMX/XNUMX as follows: "It turned out that on the one hand the Stiftung Warentest had adopted a limit value for the pollutants, as if the cover on a bicycle trailer were a pacifier. On the other hand, the foundation had not examined whether the pollutants could escape from the material and be absorbed by the body. A so-called migration test, carried out by TÜV Rheinland, showed that the alleged health hazard was 'almost impossible'."
//Roller test stand: What role does the StiWa play?
Due to the discrepancy between the self-portrayal of StiWa, which sets itself the goal of consumers "to provide independent and objective support through the comparative testing of goods and services" (test.de) and its diffuse information policy towards the affected economy, the foundation itself is put to the test. “If the testers want to live up to their claim, they must recognize and fulfill their obligation to provide information to consumers, companies, experts and interested groups. Especially if, as happened, the results are "different" or wrong afterwards," is demanded in the joint statement at the Berlin press conference.
In particular, the testing institutes in the bicycle industry are scrutinizing the situation very closely. Marcus Schroeder is quoted as follows on the industry portal velobiz.de: “One might suspect that the deficit generated by Stiftung Warentest for the first time in 2012 would increase selling pressure. In fact, however, this test is part of a decade-long tradition of 'bike bashing', without any significant resistance from the blamed industry ever having come up.”
This has now obviously formed. The press conference of three heavyweights from the bicycle industry and the ZIV shows an unprecedented concentration of forces. The ZIV confidently demands: “Each test must be reproducible and transparent. Obviously, however, these criteria were violated during the test.” Biketec Managing Director Kurt Schär is convinced: "Through subsequent tests, we have now been able to clearly refute the results of the Stiftung Warentest." Mathias Seidler, former Derby boss, adds: "Stiftung Warentest must be clear that it did not inform consumers, but rather unnecessarily unsettled and downright misled consumers with the media campaign it initiated. The consumer has a right to correction with equal media attention if the original claim turns out to be unfounded. That is exactly the case here.”
Because Derby and Bosch have already managed to get Stiftung Warentest and ADAC to partially correct their statements on the subject of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) on their websites. A process that is as rare as it is remarkable for the renowned testers.
However, the manufacturer Biketec has long since reacted not only in the development department, but also with the customer: the voluntary guarantee in the event of frame breakage has been doubled to ten years. And also retrospectively on all Flyer models already sold. Someone dares to do something! Biketec does not seem to expect many cases of broken frames and high costs. Rather, Biketec is currently examining possible claims for damages against StiWa: "Based on our findings, we reserve the right to sue for damages, since the test laboratory's actions, which we believe to be misguided, and the publication of the results caused by the unacceptable test setup by Stiftung Warentest and the commissioning ADAC have caused us damage in the millions, which our has endangered the existence of the company. The legal assessment and the further procedure are currently being clarified with our German lawyers.”
//Photos
Press service bicycle