The tester appeared to have no knowledge of the fundamental principles behind this type of device and failed to realise that a static test will give meaningless results.
The results are wildly innacurate, with some devices being given a braking power 50 times that of others which both theory and practice tell us is not the case.
The results contradict the findings of other highly regarded tests by qualified, independant testing authorities such as the German TÃ?V .

The test as it stands is completely wrong in almost every respect, gives a false picture of the relative effectiveness of an essential piece of safety equpment and has no place in climbing-related literature.

I am an English engineer, living in Germany and owner of Bolt Products manufacturing rock anchors (bolts) for climbers. I have no commercial interest in any of the manufacturers concerned, do not produce any similar article to those tested and have no connection with the author of the test.
I have however over the years done some work on the theory and testing of belay devices and in my profesional opinion the test is completely worthless.

(I have an unpublished paper on belay devices which includes all the required information and basic theory if you would like to confirm this for yourself or obtain a third party opinion)

Yours
Jim

Probably the better phrasing would have been “not rigorous” because by definition they did use the scientific method thus making it scientific.

Post has been edited and thanks for calling that to my attention!

All things considered it’s a worthwhile start at objective performance testing and comparison for a complex category of devices and certainly not worthy of being derided as unscientific.