Diver0001 once bubbled...
I"m making the somewhat dubious assumption that there are some agreements made as to what gets reviewed and when.
My point exactly. That's why they should not do this if in fact these agreements are in place. In earlier posts, I as well as others support the process of test what's available on the street from local retailer so comparisons are made on equipment any end user might end up purchasing. If there happens to be a problem with the unit then this is no different than you our I having the same problem.
What probably happens is that Rodales contacts the manufacturers with a date to submit items for review for an upcoming issue. Setting a deadline for submissions has two functions. First of all manufacturers can't change what they submit after a certain date.
For someone who has such an opinion on this subject you are making way too many assumptions. You start making assumptions on something like this and you can create ANY reality you desire. Quit comparing the scuba industry to the computer industry unless you have FACTS. IMO it does not belong
This ensures that the test team has enough time to finish the job. The other function that a deadline has is to cover Rodales against dubious claims from manufactuerers who feel they've been unjustly disadvantaged by a test when they were about to bring out something even better.
So what. The testing facility is testing what is available at the time of testing. That is the point...........here's what available in the marketplace. If they wait for something to become available from the mfg more than likely it's not available to the general public at that same time. If they are submitting new or test mules then that's not a typcial retail product and should not be allowed to be compared to over the counter products that are submitted by other mfg's.
In other words, the deadline keeps the moaners from moaning by giving them the chance to negotiate a deadline for submissions. So....if your testlab is setting deadlines for submissions, then the manufacturer has defacto the option of not making a submission. Probably (at least what I would expect) is that this "defacto" non-submission is formalised in some sort of agreement or contract.
If Rodales were to then buy something retail and review it then they could find themselves in the soup. Not only for the deadline thing but if they gave something a bad review then the manufacturer would automatically object, make the claim that the unit wasn't tested/tuned/packaged/etc etc etc by the manufacturer's staff and as such "something" must have been done to the unit by a third party to make it give those results.
Why are they "in the soup?" As mentinoned earlier, if they get a bad piece of equipment then that is no different from any retail customer having the same issue. The mfg. can object all they want. What do mfg. do if you purchase something in the open market and it's bad. They have a warranty. Short of that the mfg. does nothing. In this particular case they might not be too thrilled with their equipment producing a bad showing but all the testing facility has to do is show that it was acquired from a retail shop and they don't really have a leg to stand on. There is no liability issue here........none what so ever. If the unit was not tuned property then that's the mfg's problem with quality control. It's no one's fault but their own if tainted products gets to retail stock. See, again, all your comments when you get specific really are addressing only reg's. What about all the other equipment SP mfg's?
If you're reading between the lines you're already smelling the liability issues and I think you can fill in the rest from there.
I am reading between the lines and there is no liability issue here if they can produce documentation as to how they acquired the products
At least this is how it works in the PC computer industry with the extra complication that if a testlab were to buy something retail for testing that the manufacturer would automatically sue because *they* would have never submitted *that* configuration (no matter what it was) for review..... In scuba the products are less complex so you might be able to get away with it but you still need to be careful that the manufacturer is totally and singularly responsible for the thing that you're reviewing.
Again with the computer/scuba comparison. IMO it does not belong. The computer industry is much more complicated and has many more variables hardware/software combinations etc.. Why do we need to "be more careful that the manufacturer is totally and singularly responsible for the thing that you're reviewing". YES, they are responsible, its their product. That's why they purchase product liability insurance but that's a completely different issue. If they mfg a product then they are completely responsible so where does this CONCERN you have come from?
As for your second question, I have no idea why SP would be in a snit., As you said Rodales only gives positive reviews (rare exceptions notwithstanding). The only thing I can think of is that Scubapro is pushing for yet another layer of icing on the cake.
Again with another assumption. You should really quit doing that:boom:
R..
ut: 
