What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Which Range Numbers are Real?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlanTN

Active Member
Van's says about the RV-12: "It is what we say it is and does what we say it does, and we have the test data to prove it!"
I have two questions that perhaps Scott can answer:
1. There seems to be a significant disagreement between the range numbers previously posted for the RV-12 with the 912ULS, (which are 555 miles at 7500 feet and 5500 rpm and 614 miles at 7500 feet and 5000 rpm) and the currently posted numbers, (which are 433 miles at 7500 feet and 5500 rpm and 435 miles at 7500 feet and 5000 rpm). Which set of numbers actually matches the test data?
2. The numbers for the RV-12 with the 912iS are listed as 630 miles at 7500 feet and 5500 rpm and 605 miles at 7500 feet and 5000 rpm. Is it reasonable that flying with a lower power setting would actually reduce the range, and is there test data to support these numbers?
My thoughts about all this are that the original numbers for the RV-12 are probably correct, and the actual numbers for the RV-12iS are probably substantially higher than shown on Van's website. Can someone from Van's throw some light on this?
 
For my 912ULS equipped RV-12 to get 555 miles, I'd need to be high enough I could glide the last hundred or so.
 
Yes, the new IS engine is actually about 25% MORE efficient at cruise power settings. There is even a detent on the throttle quadrant for the best economy position. At power settings less than that, it does become less fuel efficient than the UL engine.

Vic
 
I?ve never pushed it that far, but doing the math it looks like 450 is good with 3 gal remaining.

(17G/5GPH)130MPH = 442 Miles
 
Van's says about the RV-12: "It is what we say it is and does what we say it does, and we have the test data to prove it!"
I have two questions that perhaps Scott can answer:

Not ignoring you, but Scott has learned not to answer questions that are presented in this manor.......
 
Not ignoring you, but Scott has learned not to answer questions that are presented in this manor.......
Scott, I do not mean any disrespect to you or to Van's. I am a Mechanical Engineer with some training in aircraft design and experience running a high speed wind test facility. I like Van's. I have been to this forum and Van's website hundreds of times over the last several years. I think the RV-12iS is a brilliant design.
As a prospective builder of this aircraft I just would like to know how the original data was derived and what has changed. The reason I used the quote is that it suggests to me that I can count on the numbers, and now they are not the same. Can you help me through this?
 
The numbers listed in the POH (Rev 12) for the ULS are 482 nm at 7500'/5500rpm, and 534nm at 7500'/5000rpm. These equate to 555 and 614 statute miles respectively. It would be reasonable to expect the POH numbers to be correct.
 
Scott, I do not mean any disrespect to you or to Van's. I am a Mechanical Engineer with some training in aircraft design and experience running a high speed wind test facility. I like Van's. I have been to this forum and Van's website hundreds of times over the last several years. I think the RV-12iS is a brilliant design.
As a prospective builder of this aircraft I just would like to know how the original data was derived and what has changed. The reason I used the quote is that it suggests to me that I can count on the numbers, and now they are not the same. Can you help me through this?

My (limited, I admit) understanding of the written English language is that when quotation marks are used it implies that that exact phrase has been heard used.

Yes, Van's does say that all published data is valid to the highest accuracy possible with no embellishment. and backed up with test results (and to the best we can it is), but I don't think it has every been said the way you quoted it (I bit snarky but I may have read something into it that wasn't intended).

Anyway, to answer your questions....

A lot of flight testing was recently done. Some with the ULS and iS prototypes flying side by side (climb tests while ballasted to same weights, cross country, etc).
The performance values currently on the web site and in the brochures are based on that testing.
The reason for differences when comparing to the previously publish data for the ULS airplane can not be established. The person who developed that data no longer woks at Van's and the used are inconclusive to determine where the error was induced. I am certain it was not intentional.

The reported reduced range at a slower engine speed is based on the test data available at this time (proof it is not being manipulated, since it doesn't totally make sense).
The iS airplane is still rather new. As more experience is gained perhaps an understanding will develop that will explain it, but it is likely related to the control software mapping for the engine.

As has already been published, the iS airplane, with the propeller pitch setting currently being used (which is .4 degrees courser that the setting on the ULS) climbs 100 FPM faster at Vy compared to the ULS (and at a higher RPM), when at the same weight.
The two airplanes flew together for the entire trip to OSH and back. With the iS airplane at the max. eco mode throttle setting and the ULS throttled to right at 5480-5500 RPM, the TAS is matched at 120 Kts but at the final fuel stop headed to OSH, the ULS airplane had used 60 Gal for the trip and the iS airplane had used 45 Gal.

Side note - All of the published range figures on the web site are absolute range (the point that you would run out of fuel).
It is taken for granted that pilots are (should be) capable of planning their own reserves with the FAA requirements.
 
Last edited:
Scott, I copied and pasted the quote in question from the 3rd paragraph under the general information tab for the RV-12. It has been there for most, if not all of the time that the RV-12 has existed. I only used it because it speaks of 'test data' which support what the RV-12 is and does. And, obviously, the new numbers are dramatically different from those in the POH. Of course you don't know me, and written communications are always subject to misinterpretation, so I understand.

I am not totally sure what you are saying in the paragraph where the word 'differences' is used. If you could check what you said, perhaps it could be clearer. (I will edit this out)

It sounds like you are saying that the data in the Cruise Performance table in the POH based upon Van's flight tests of the RV-12 are not documented in writing in Van's records with dates, conditions and methods used. Is there adequate engineering documentation for all the other numbers supplied in the POH?
 
Is there adequate engineering documentation for all the other numbers supplied in the POH?

Yes there is.

You obviously have a different viewpoint regarding this than I do.

If I discovered that a manufacturer (doesn't even have to be aviation related) changed some of their publicly declared technical data in such a way that it indicated a lower level of performance, I wouldn't find it necessary to publicly call them out and say "so which is correct?
It kind of seems obvious... to me anyway.
Why would a company change performance values in a way that downgraded their claimed performance if it wasn't correct?
If your reason for doing so is because you now question whether any of the performance claims are valid, that is your prerogative and there is probably nothing anyone at Van's could say to change that.

The best I can recommend is you ask Van's Aircraft customers.
You will probably find that the major majority of them will say at the very least their airplane meets all of performance specifications and, and many will say they actually exceed them.

Good luck in your research.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the new IS engine is actually about 25% MORE efficient at cruise power settings. There is even a detent on the throttle quadrant for the best economy position. At power settings less than that, it does become less fuel efficient than the UL engine.

Vic

Vic it was my impression from reading the Rotax webpage that anything less than 97% power on the 912iS was economy mode. Also it looks like the throttle detent is not just one position, but has a finite length of perhaps 2 times the lever length. In normal cruise does that correspond to 5500 and 5000 rpm?

And a technicality: 45 gallons IS 25% less than 60 gallons, but that is not how you calculate fuel economy. Fuel economy is based upon miles PER gallon. So if you used 60 gallons to go 1500 miles that would be 1500/60=25mpg. Likewise if you used 45 gallons to go the same1500 miles that would be 1500/45=33.3mpg. 33.3mpg/25mpg=1.33 which is a 33% increase in fuel economy. That is a big improvement! :)

Are there actual measurements showing that at any setting the 912iS is LESS efficient than the 912ULS? I have not heard that anywhere else before.
 
Last edited:
If the current range values in the POH are overly optimistic for whatever reason, then I assume they will be amended. I don't mind what the values are as long as they are reliable. Knowing Van's they will be probably tend to understate rather than overstate the performance anyway.
 
Yes there is.

You obviously have a different viewpoint regarding this than I do.

If I discovered that a manufacturer (doesn't even have to be aviation related) changed some of their publicly declared technical data in such a way that it indicated a lower level of performance, I wouldn't find it necessary to publicly call them out and say "so which is correct?
It kind of seems obvious... to me anyway.
Why would a company change performance values in a way that downgraded their claimed performance if it wasn't correct?
If your reason for doing so is because you now question whether any of the performance claims are valid, that is your prerogative and there is probably nothing anyone at Van's could say to change that.

The best I can recommend is you ask Van's Aircraft customers.
You will probably find that the major majority of them will say at the very least their airplane meets all of performance specifications and, and many will say they actually exceed them.

Good luck in your research.

Both of the RV's I have built were right on the money according to Van's claims.
 
Yes there is.

You obviously have a different viewpoint regarding this than I do.

If I discovered that a manufacturer (doesn't even have to be aviation related) changed some of their publicly declared technical data in such a way that it indicated a lower level of performance, I wouldn't find it necessary to publicly call them out and say "so which is correct?
It kind of seems obvious... to me anyway.
Why would a company change performance values in a way that downgraded their claimed performance if it wasn't correct?

Scott, I think you are misjudging me.

When I first posted this question in another thread during Oshkosh it was because I had a high regard for the integrity of Van's test data. Although I thought the original range numbers might be a little optimistic, there were enough people on this forum that had achieved results that were close enough that I thought the range numbers were reasonably accurate, given the test conditions.

I assumed that the new numbers might have been posted in haste before Oshkosh, without time for them to be thoroughly vetted. I was trying to alert someone to the problem so they could correct the inaccurate range numbers. I expected them to be higher, and I still do!

Parasitic drag at 131mph (5500 rpm) is nearly 28% higher than at 116mph (5000 rpm). It does not seem reasonable, and it is counter to the experiences of many people posting here, that the range at these two different power settings should be less than 1/2% different. The 912ULS is not computer controlled so that can't be the reason in this case.

Another reason I question the new numbers is that the range at 5500 rpm is listed as 630 miles for the 912iS and as 433 for the 912ULS. That represents more than a 45% increase in fuel economy. I don't think that is too likely. I think it is much more likely that he 433 mile range for the 912ULS is too low.

If your reason for doing so is because you now question whether any of the performance claims are valid, that is your prerogative and there is probably nothing anyone at Van's could say to change that.

If the company website indicates the range numbers in the POH are up to 41% too high, (which I don't believe), and you, also, state that they were not accurate, don't you think for safety reasons it would be prudent to ask if there might have been similar problems in the calculation of weight and balance, climb rate at density altitude, etc?

The best I can recommend is you ask Van's Aircraft customers.
You will probably find that the major majority of them will say at the very least their airplane meets all of performance specifications and, and many will say they actually exceed them.

Scott, how can you suggest that the majority of customers will say that their airplane meets all performance specifications if you yourself think the range numbers in the POH are 28 to 41% too high? Is that reasonable?

Please ask someone in engineering to carefully review the new range numbers, I am fairly certain there are some problems, and it is to the advantage of Van's to get them corrected as soon as possible.

Regards, Alan Bishop
 
Not sure why people are beating up Van's Aircraft for different performance numbers with a different engine on a revised airframe.

Van's designs airframes around engines that are proven power plants. In the past everyone believes the numbers that Van's have published and have had little trouble duplicating them.

Rotax updates their engine and Van's Aircraft modifies their airframe to accommodate it. The performance is different in a good way and people complain.

I believe Van's numbers but until one does some Rotax research, it sounds too good to be true when seeing this large of an improvement.

4-years ago, the General Aviation News reported on the fuel economy improvement of Rotax 911 iS engine being better than predicted. Quoting the article: "26-36% lower consumption"

The above linked article is over 4-years old and supports the improvement numbers that Van's Aircraft published with the revised airframe and new engine combination.

Please stop complaining about Van's Aircraft numbers and start thanking Van's Aircraft for the updated powerplant and airframe.
 
Please stop complaining about Van's Aircraft numbers and start thanking Van's Aircraft for the updated powerplant and airframe.

That seems a bit harsh. I don't see anyone here who doesn't think that Van's have done a great job in improving the RV-12. The 912iS is a welcome upgrade to an already great design, and the improved performance numbers bear this out. It seems to me that the discussion is more about clarifying how far the current RV-12 will theoretically fly on a tank of fuel. Most of us with RV-12's will have worked this out already.
 
Alan,
Good luck in your quest to find a suitable airplane for you. It is obvious that the RV-12 is NOT........

Scott, I have read many of your posts to this forum over the past several years and thought the vast majority of them were very helpful.

But it is obvious that you must have some kind of mental block here, because it appears you are not reading what I have written with an open mind and thinking about what I am saying.

I have said I am a prospective RV12iS builder. I have said I think the design is brilliant. I think all of the new changes are positive. I really like the move to the fuel injected Rotax. I have said that in the flight out to Oshkosh it appears to be 33% more fuel efficient than the RV-12. What more can I say?

Why can't you look at the obvious inconsistencies in the current numbers and agree that it makes sense to take a closer look at them? It will only help Van's to get the numbers right!
 
Scott, I have read many of your posts to this forum over the past several years and thought the vast majority of them were very helpful.

But it is obvious that you must have some kind of mental block here, because it appears you are not reading what I have written with an open mind and thinking about what I am saying.

I have said I am a prospective RV12iS builder. I have said I think the design is brilliant. I think all of the new changes are positive. I really like the move to the fuel injected Rotax. I have said that in the flight out to Oshkosh it appears to be 33% more fuel efficient than the RV-12. What more can I say?

Why can't you look at the obvious inconsistencies in the current numbers and agree that it makes sense to take a closer look at them? It will only help Van's to get the numbers right!

Allen:

It is very clear you are not reading other posts and not doing any research on the Rotax engines.

See this: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1193194&postcount=16

Follow the link in that post to a 4-year old article where someone else reports "consumption averaged 32.6% less (in a range of 26-36% lower consumption) burning an average 3.25 gph." with the new 912 iS engine.

Scott is correct, the RV-12 is not an aircraft for you.

Gary
 
I'm not sure why this thread has taken the direction it has.

AlanTN
I can not see anywhere in your posts that would indicate an RV-12 in either form (ULS or iS) is not for you.
I also have been wondering what the current Van's company promotional material range figures were for the original RV-12, and if they have intentionally changed he quoted range figure in their promotional material.

I also really value RVbuilder2002's support of builders and owners, and his contribution in this forum superbly valuable.
 
Last edited:
AlanTN
I can not see anywhere in your posts that would indicate an RV-12 in either form (ULS or iS) is not for you.
I also have been wondering what the current Van's company promotional material range figures were for the original RV-12, and if they have intentionally changed he quoted range figure in their promotional material.

OK for the sake of discussion I have a RV-12 brochure dated 10/05/12 and here is what it says:
Top Speed: 135 mph
Cruise Speed: 131 mph
Cruise Speed: 116 mph
Stall Speed: 52 mph
Takeoff Distance: 700 ft.
Landing Distance: 525 ft.
Rate of Climb: 900 fpm
Ceiling: 13,000 ft.
Range (7500' @ 5500 rpm): 482 miles
Range (7500" @ 5000 rpm): 530 miles

I'm assuming this is without wheel pants since the picture in the brochure of N912VA doesn't have wheel pants.

I'm also assuming, as Scott had indicated in an earlier post, that the range indicated is the distance where one would expect to run out of fuel. I personally believe that that is an important baseline figure to work from. Then we, as prudent pilots, need to factor in FAA regulations and our own personal minimums for fuel remaining, which are certainly different for everyone.

Jim
 
OK for the sake of discussion I have a RV-12 brochure
Range (7500' @ 5500 rpm): 482 miles
Range (7500" @ 5000 rpm): 530 miles

Jim

Jim the current POH under the same conditions lists 482 NM and 534 NM
Does your brochure really say MILES?
 
Jim the current POH under the same conditions lists 482 NM and 534 NM
Does your brochure really say MILES?

Yes is does. Well actually is says "miles" not 'MILES". I tried to post exactly what it said and then noted MY two personal assumptions at the end.



Jim
 
I'm suprised also with the direction of this thread. My interpretation of the op is that it seems odd that 5500 rpm is more efficient than 5000 . One would think max cruise would not be your max range setting . Just like any other aircraft on the planet . I do not think the op was bashing the rv 12 in any way . It's just plain wrong that so many jumped all over him so quickly imo.
 
Why not just everyone back way off of this thread and if someone is interested in squeaking the last few minutes of flight out of a tank of fuel they should feel free to do so. If they land successfully at an approved airport then all the better. Personally, my bladder fills faster than the tank empties so not much concern for me?
 
OK for the sake of discussion I have a RV-12 brochure dated 10/05/12 and here is what it says:
Top Speed: 135 mph
Cruise Speed: 131 mph
Cruise Speed: 116 mph
Stall Speed: 52 mph
Takeoff Distance: 700 ft.
Landing Distance: 525 ft.
Rate of Climb: 900 fpm
Ceiling: 13,000 ft.
Range (7500' @ 5500 rpm): 482 miles
Range (7500" @ 5000 rpm): 530 miles

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanTN
Jim the current POH under the same conditions lists 482 NM and 534 NM
Does your brochure really say MILES?

Yes is does. Well actually is says "miles" not 'MILES". I tried to post exactly what it said and then noted MY two personal assumptions at the end.
Jim

Jim, I don't have the proof of this, but I have long suspected that someone took numbers that were originally in miles and assuming they were NM multiplied them by 1.15 producing the 555 and 614 range numbers. Your brochure from 2012 is one piece of evidence that supports my theory.

On 11/11/11 I started a thread titled 'Max Endurance Fuel Burn?' to try to get a handle on this. Later that day, I typed the following in part:

What I was really looking for is the Maximum Range (Vbr) fuel consumption. According to the specs on Van's web site the Max Range is 614 miles.

They use 5000 RPM for the Max Range.

This tells me at as early as November 2011 the website was using 614 miles at 5000 rpm for maximum range.

If that is what happened, then the POH should show 482 and 534 'Miles' rather than 'NM.' And those should have been the max range numbers on the Performance page for the RV-12.

Its just a theory, but it could partially explain the current discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
I'm suprised also with the direction of this thread. My interpretation of the op is that it seems odd that 5500 rpm is more efficient than 5000 . One would think max cruise would not be your max range setting . Just like any other aircraft on the planet . I do not think the op was bashing the rv 12 in any way . It's just plain wrong that so many jumped all over him so quickly imo.

Just because something seems to contradict what we know, does not automatically mean it is wrong.
The specifications you are questioning were established with actual flight testing (more than just one flight and fill at a gas pump) within the past month.
People are free to believe it or not if they want, but just because they don't believe it doesn't make it false.
When someone starts implying that because there were already mistakes made publishing specifications, that all data is then suspect. At that point there is know way fwd (what can be said in words to convince them it is correct?) other than that person doing their own tests.
 
Just because something seems to contradict what we know, does not automatically mean it is wrong.
The specifications you are questioning were established with actual flight testing (more than just one flight and fill at a gas pump) within the past month.
People are free to believe it or not if they want, but just because they don't believe it doesn't make it false.
When someone starts implying that because there were already mistakes made publishing specifications, that all data is then suspect. At that point there is know way fwd (what can be said in words to convince them it is correct?) other than that person doing their own tests.

I don't think it's that people don't believe it ,just that the data appears like an anomaly which is why it got questioned . You confirm the numbers ,great . It's really exciting actually because running max cruise while getting best range is the best of both worlds .
 
. . . "running max cruise while getting best range is the best of both worlds."
While flying military aircraft, I encountered that several times.
Hard to comprehend, but for some aircraft, the concept is true.
The thing that suffers is fuel endurance and probably engine life.
 
Last edited:
If that is what happened, then the POH should show 482 and 534 'Miles' rather than 'NM.' And those should have been the max range numbers on the Performance page for the RV-12

Sounds plausible to me, and would be an easy mistake to make. A Mars probe was lost for a similar conversion error. If that's what happened in this case, I would see it as a one-off and certainly wouldn't be assuming that all other data immediately becomes suspect. I'm an engineer myself and these things can occasionally happen. If recent real world testing has modified those early numbers again, then well and good, even if they sound theoretically anomalous. All credit to Vans for on-going product development in my view.
 
Agreed

I'm suprised also with the direction of this thread. My interpretation of the op is that it seems odd that 5500 rpm is more efficient than 5000 . One would think max cruise would not be your max range setting . Just like any other aircraft on the planet . I do not think the op was bashing the rv 12 in any way . It's just plain wrong that so many jumped all over him so quickly imo.

As a fellow engineer (Aero type), I appreciate Alan's healthy dose of skepticism when published numbers show inconsistencies. What I don't like is how one is unable to question anything Van's does or publishes without being pilloried by some on this forum. Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with Alan's approach, tone or questions. I can't say the same about some of the responses he received.

So Alan, kudos to you for asking appropriate questions and I hope you will continue to do so despite the bashing you took.
 
Last edited:
As a fellow engineer (Aero type), I appreciate Alan's healthy dose of skepticism when published numbers show inconsistencies. What I don't like is how one is unable to question anything Van's does or publishes without being pilloried by some on this forum. Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with Alan's approach, tone or questions. I can't say the same about some of the responses he received.

So Alan, kudos to you for asking appropriate questions and I hope you will continue to do so despite the bashing you took.

Thanks, Krea.
 
As a fellow engineer (Aero type), I appreciate Alan's healthy dose of skepticism when published numbers show inconsistencies. What I don't like is how one is unable to question anything Van's does or publishes without being pilloried by some on this forum. Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with Alan's approach, tone or questions. I can't say the same about some of the responses he received.

So Alan, kudos to you for asking appropriate questions and I hope you will continue to do so despite the bashing you took.

Thanks, Krea. What I would like to see is their protocol for the Range Tests. Did they have a reliable way of accurately measuring the fuel consumption for the takeoff, climb, descent and return to base and subtracting it from the overall fuel consumption? Did they do the tests under the same conditions? Turbulence can effect efficiency. Did they adjust to standard atmospheric conditions? Did they do at least three tests for at each profile, and were the results within one to three percentage points of each other?

As an engineer I was trained to look at how the data was derived before I accepted it, and especially so when the results were anomalous or disagreed with previous tests.

I have learned that it is wise to question everything because people do make mistakes, and in the world in general, for various reasons, there is much we are being told that is simply not true.

I am convinced that Van's is honest, and their aircraft are solid designs, but in certain cases I still feel obligated to ask questions.
 
Last edited:
I am convinced that Van's is honest, and their aircraft are solid designs, but in certain cases I still feel obligated to ask questions.
Perhaps the solution is to consider how the questions were asked, and in what venue. When I saw your post, I imagined anyone at Van's thinking of this scene from Star Wars...
itsatrap.jpg
 
I appreciate Alan's attempts to find the correct spec data, and inform the rest of us via the forum.

Our Van's employee posters' snark is not welcomed, although that seems to be what we have to put up with to obtain some pearls of wisdom.

-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH
 
Really?

What I would like to see is their protocol for the Range Tests. Did they have a reliable way of accurately measuring the fuel consumption for the takeoff, climb, descent and return to base and subtracting it from the overall fuel consumption? Did they do the tests under the same conditions? Turbulence can effect efficiency. Did they adjust to standard atmospheric conditions? Did they do at least three tests for at each profile, and were the results within one to three percentage points of each other?

Origionally didn't you just want Vans to review their data for a possible error? Now you want to audit all their flight test data and methods? I can see the FAA asking that of a certified aircraft manufacturer, but don't you think that is a stretch for an unknown yet potential customer of an experimental aircraft kit manufacturer?
 
Wow, this is taking an acrimonious turn.

Honestly, I don't really expect precise testing for things like this on a kit airplane. I wouldn't want them to subtract the fuel used for takeoff, climb, etc; those are a part of every flight. I expect that a manufacturer's claimed range numbers are going to have a certain degree of uncertainty around them, and that my airplane is probably going to vary some. And we're talking about a kit airplane produced by a relatively small company, not Boeing or Cessna. You really can't expect to see ISO900x documentation of the entire flight testing program published in response to a pre-sale question on a web forum, especially not one the company doesn't run. If you have detailed questions to ask, you really should ask them directly through the company's normal channels. VAF is a valuable resource, but it's NOT the official source of information on Van's airplanes.

As for RV-12 specs... Maybe at some point someone mistakenly multiplied a number that was already in NM by 1.15. I don't know, but mistakes happen. The current POH and web site look correct. Errors creep into published material and get corrected from time to time. However, anyone with an RV-12 will tell you that the performance numbers as currently published (for the 912 ULS at least) are pretty much spot on.

As for Scott's responses... he's gotten dragged into some pretty contentious discussions in the past. I can understand his reluctance to get dragged into another one. Hes not here to be a one-man proxy for all of Van's tech support, engineering and sales staff when we just don't feel like picking up the phone or emailing Van's directly. Give the guy a break.
 
There are a few people on this forum whose posts I value above all others. Scott's at the top of that list. If I disagreed with him about something I'd never call him out publicly out of sheer respect and appreciation for what he's contributing here.

Jerre
 
I am disappointed in the tone of some of the replies on this thread. I am not going to make any judgement other than to say that Van's has shown themselves to be one of the highest integrity kit provider's in the entire industry. I wouldn't even associate myself with them if I didn't believe that. We need Kit Manufacturer people like Scott on these forums throughout the industry, and if we don't treat them respectfully, they will quit contributing, and we all lose.
I know inflection can get lost in the written word, but there are better ways to ask questions than to assume the dark side.

I am going to close this thread in the hopes that IF one gets restarted regarding performance numbers, we can stick to it in a meaningful manner.

This is all supposed to be for fun, remember? :)

Vic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top