think I or COILTEK or anyone associated with us pay Andy for these endorsements, we do not.
Andy has never received any compensation for field tests he does for us. What good is a field test if you are paying someone to do it ? Sort of unethical and a blatant conflict of interest if you ask me !
How is someone supposed to be objective when you are lining their pocket with cash. Andy doesn't work that way, and neither does COILTEK. And trust me, there have been some coils that Andy has told us, "Don't see that it does anything different, I don't see any improvement at all !"
He recently told us that about an experimental coil, and we just trashed the design. It wasn't a bad coil, it just wasn't one that did anything any better than any other coil.
We give him a product, and he tests it, and we take the results, good or bad !
If it is good, we plow ahead. If it is bad, we go back to the drawing board.
It is of no value to us to have a biased field test, that doesn't help us design better coils !
The only thing Andy ever receives is that we allow him to keep the prototype, to save him the expense of shipping it back. But if the prototype is crappy then he gets to keep a crappy protoype, WOW some reward !
COILTEK will not intoduce a ho hum coil to the market. It has to be a coil which has shown a significant improvement over coils currently available.
I have to be honest with you !
When Andy first got the coil, before he used it, he emailed me and said, "What niche is this supposed to fill? It's about the same size as the stock coil!"
I said, "Dam if I know, but the guys at COILTEK said it's a kickin' coil with great balance, light weight, a little better coverage than the stock coil, and easier to manuever. It's thinner, etc. etc. Oh yeah, and it's ORANGE, and we all know Orange coils go deeper !"
So Andy took it out and tested it, and if anything, given his prior remarks, I think he was very skeptical as to why anyone would bother with this coil.
So as you can see, his opinion about this coil before he used it seemed to have had a negative bias.
I'm delighted to see that the proof is in the pudding, or is it "in the digging?"
Thanks again Andy!
DOC
