Ad description
A marketer's own website www.nvppg.co.uk/scout-paramotor.asp selling paramotors included the claim "DTEC (Dynamic Torque Effect Compensation) is a unique technology patented by SCOUT. SCOUT is the only paramotor in the world to precisely compensate the torque effect throughout the whole power range. This ensures level flight without pilot input, perfect handling and a precise turning capability around pylons".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claim "DTEC (Dynamic Torque Effect Compensation) is a unique technology patented by SCOUT. SCOUT is the only paramotor in the world to precisely compensate the torque effect throughout the whole power range. This ensures level flight without pilot input, perfect handling and a precise turning capability around pylons" was misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
Nene Valley Paramotors said the Dynamic Torque Compensation used on SCOUT paramotors used airfoil-shaped profiles incorporated into the paramotor frame and that, during flight, airflow around those profiles created lift that compensated for the torque of the propeller. They said that if the propeller generated enough airflow to give lift to a pilot (with equipment and fuel) weighing 330lbs, it was reasonable to argue that it (the design of the paramotor frame) could also compensate for the propeller torque force, which was much smaller. They provided a video, which was also on their website, of the product being used under test conditions and provided further links to their website which explained the torque effect. They said that with more power and higher revolutions of the propeller, the torque increased and that at the same time with a higher propeller revolution per minute (RPM), the airflow increased and created more compensation lift on the airfoil profiles. They explained that with DTEC, the compensation increased in the same way as torque.
They believed that the video evidence demonstrated not only straight steady flight, but straight steady flight at full power, which was when the torque effect was the strongest. They reasoned that because there was no other torque compensation means on the SCOUT, the straight flight could be attributed to DTEC.
They said that were two ways of torque compensation besides DTEC which were commonly used with paramotors. They said that one was 'carabiner offset' and the second was 'diagonal strap' and provided details of how those alternate torque compensation methods worked. The information stated that the diagonal strap method did not work during take-off and that the carabiner offset method did not work when speeds were increased. They explained that SCOUT used neither of these and instead used symmetrical bars.
They said they held a patent (soon to be approved) on the scientific invention and that it provided full details of the patent application. Links to the applications were provided.
Assessment
Upheld
Whilst the ASA understood that the torque effect was a well-recognised force affecting paramotors that could adversely affect the flying experience because it tended to result in the paramotor pulling to one side (in the opposite direction of the propeller spin), we considered that robust evidence would need to be submitted to demonstrate that the DTEC design compensated for it, resulting in "level flight without pilot input, perfect handling and precise turning capability around pylons".
The submitted video showed a paramotor purportedly operating at varying speeds without manual pilot input. We considered that in principle straight (steady) flight could be partially supported by a video and could therefore be used as an illustration of the effect of torque compensation on flight. However, no independent evidence was provided to demonstrate the flight was straight and no further information, other than the images in the video itself, was supplied to demonstrate that straight flight was definitely being achieved in the featured video. Furthermore, no independent test evidence was provided to demonstrate that torque was being compensated for.
Furthermore, because independent evidence of the speeds being achieved in the video were not supplied, we considered the claimed effect throughout the entire power range had not been demonstrated. Finally on this point, we considered that the submitted evidence did not demonstrate that the straight flight allegedly shown in the video was as a result of torque compensation that had been achieved by the DTEC technology.
We therefore considered that the submitted evidence was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that torque could be compensated throughout the entire power range by the DTEC design.
Whilst the website explained that other paramotors used different anti-torque methods which did not work throughout the entire power range (one of which also required pilot input), we noted no comparative evidence was submitted to demonstrate that SCOUT was "the only paramotor in the world" that could precisely compensate torque throughout the entire power range.
Finally, whilst the documentation demonstrated that a patent for DTEC technology had been applied for, evidence was not submitted to demonstrate that it been granted. Furthermore, comparative evidence was not supplied to demonstrate that other paramotors were not using the same technology as used by DTEC.
We therefore considered that the claim "DTEC (Dynamic Torque Effect Compensation) is a unique technology patented by SCOUT. SCOUT is the only paramotor in the world to precisely compensate the torque effect throughout the whole power range. This ensures level flight without pilot input, perfect handling and a precise turning capability around pylons" had not been substantiated and concluded that the ad was misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. and 3.35 3.35 They must objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature of those products, which may include price. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad should not appear again in its current form. We told Nene Valley Paramotors to ensure it held robust evidence to substantiate claims for their paramotors.
