Поиск по сайту

Тему эту поднял с целью получить таки официальные комментарии, от производителя или их представителей, так как другой возможности не вижу! Помимо все чаще появляющегося мусора под пленкой, который не всегда можно убрать... был выявлен за эти 2 года использования еще один минус пленки Orafol Oraguard 280 - это не съемный клей. Хотя изначально в технических характеристиках производитель уверяет об обратном, собственно говоря обманывает. Так что будьте осторожны, потому как может возникнуть ситуация, что через время приедет клиент с царапинами на пленке, которые невозможно будет убрать полировкой и попросит переклеить на более качественную пленку и будете очень мучаться с удалением клея, так как большинство растворителей с этим клеем не справляются. Наши запросы по этому факту сам производитель и его поставщики всячески игнорируют. Собственно у mazuta были эти проблемы уже не раз, и даже конфликты с клиентами по этому поводу... причем клей остается уже через полгода после эксплуатации пленки, чем больше эксплуатация, тем больше клея... удаление пленки осуществлялось и при температуре 20 градусов и под фен, разницы нет. Хуже дела наверно обстоят только у KPMF 82200 Собственно примеры:

Greetings; Our paint protection film business activity began in 2007 and since then we have used various suppliers. As installers, we are very often asked by other installers – “What type of film do you prefer in your work and what kind of film can you recommend to us?”. To determine what type of film is best suited for our work we decided to create a few topics, each of them accompanied by a small test. The reason why we posted these topics is because Internet has no reliable and independent information regarding these topics. We say the information is independent, because we didn’t give any preference to one or another manufacturer, and we are not an official representative, distributor or dealer of any manufacturer. We are installers, similar to many others. We have no specialized or precision laboratory-scale equipment and in our tests we are using locally available material. That’s why, please, do not pass judgment on us. In the first test, from the array of manufacturers we picked the paint protection film market leaders and made a few measurements: the thickness of the in-situ urethane paint protection film; thickness of the urethane paint protection film with glue lay and thickness of the whole product with underlay. In the second test we measured film durability and after that – film chemical resistance. The current test is related to film yellowing (blooming) in a natural environment. Virtually all manufacturers warrant that this will not happen for at least one year. We tested products of 5 manufacturers, unfortunately, without XPEL this time. 3М VentureShield Avery Dennison Nano Fusion KPMF PPF 82205-UV Orafol Oraguard 280 Sharpline DuraShield+ So we decided to do a pilot test of the film in the harsh climate of St. Petersburg. The test was conducted during winter, complete with dirt and chemical reagents... As test cars we chose 2 white cars – an Opel Astra and a Mazda 6. The films were applied to them the previous autumn, to be more accurate – in October and November respectively: 1. VentureShield – Opel Astra (fenders) 2. NanoFusion – Opel Astra (hood) 3. KPMF 82205UV - Mazda 6 (hood) 4. Oraguard 280 - Mazda 6 (fenders) 5. DuraShield+ - Mazda 6 (mirrors)

Greetings; Our paint protection film business activity began in 2007 and since then we have used various suppliers. As installers, we are very often asked by other installers – “What type of film do you prefer in your work and what kind of film can you recommend to us?”. To determine what type of film is best suited for our work we decided to create a few topics, each of them accompanied by a small test. The reason why we posted these topics is because Internet has no reliable and independent information regarding these topics. We say the information is independent, because we didn’t give any preference to one or another manufacturer, and we are not an official representative, distributor or dealer of any manufacturer. We are installers, similar to many others. We have no specialized or precision laboratory-scale equipment and in our tests we are using locally available material. That’s why, please, do not pass judgment on us. In the first test, from the array of manufacturers we picked the paint protection film market leaders and made a few measurements: the thickness of the in-situ urethane paint protection film; thickness of the urethane paint protection film with glue lay and thickness of the whole product with underlay. Now we will measure film durability. Analogous to the previous tests, for this test we used the same 19 samples: 1. 3М VentureShield 2. Avery Dennison Nano Fusion 3. KPMF PPF 82205-UV 4. Orafol Oraguard 280 5. Xpel Xtreme 6. Xpel Ultimate 7. VentureShield 2007 YOM 8. Suntek PPF TC 9. Orafol Oraguard 283 10. KPMF PPF 82200 11. Hexis CarPro 150 12. Sharpline DuraShield+ 13. Premium Shield SPF Elite 14. Hexis CarPro 300 15. ISEE2 Total Protect PU 250 16. Premium Shield SPF 17. VITO Irmen SPT 1365 18. VITO Irmen SPT 1164 19. VITO Irmen SPT 1265 All samples were glued to a painted metal sheet with 1.2 mm thickness. For comparison, the thickness of sheet metal used in automobile bodies is normally 0.6-0.8 mm. In order to measure film durability we used a spring powered single-shot shotgun (IZH-53M model) with a grooved steel barrel. This shotgun is for practice shooting and uses 4.5 mm gauge lead bullets. IZH-53M specifications: Weight, kg: 1.2 kg Length, mm: 407 mm Barrel length, mm: 215 mm Width, mm: 50 mm Height, mm: 175 mm Gauge, mm: 4,5 mm Muzzle velocity, m/sec: 110 Accuracy range, m: 10 m Extreme range, m: 100 m According to the statistics, not every polyurethane can cope with protecting the paint cover. Moreover, that does not depend on the thickness and effort, as many installers and common people tend to believe. Honestly, I am very surprised as well... From the aesthetic point, not all films remained the same in appearance after the test.

Greetings; Our paint protection film business activity began in 2007 and since then we have used various suppliers. As installers, we are very often asked by other installers – “What type of film do you prefer in your work and what kind of film can you recommend to us?”. To determine what type of film is best suited for our work we decided to create a few topics, each of them accompanied by a small test. The reason why we posted these topics is because Internet has no reliable and independent information regarding these topics. We say the information is independent, because we didn’t give any preference to one or another manufacturer, and we are not an official representative, distributor or dealer of any manufacturer. We are installers, similar to many others. We have no specialized or precision laboratory-scale equipment and in our tests we are using locally available material. That’s why, please, do not pass judgment on us. In the first test, from the array of manufacturers we picked the paint protection film market leaders and made a few measurements: the thickness of the in-situ urethane paint protection film; thickness of the urethane paint protection film with glue lay and thickness of the whole product with underlay. In the second test we measured film durability. In our current test we will check film chemical resistance. It is quite interesting because all manufacturers claimed that their films are resistant to aggressive chemical environments. Analogous to the previous tests, for this test we used the same 19 samples: 1. 3М VentureShield 2. Avery Dennison Nano Fusion 3. KPMF PPF 82205-UV 4. Orafol Oraguard 280 5. Xpel Xtreme 6. Xpel Ultimate 7. VentureShield 2007 YOM 8. Suntek PPF TC 9. Orafol Oraguard 283 10. KPMF PPF 82200 11. Hexis CarPro 150 12. Sharpline DuraShield+ 13. Premium Shield SPF Elite 14. Hexis CarPro 300 15. ISEE2 Total Protect PU 250 16. Premium Shield SPF 17. VITO Irmen SPT 1365 18. VITO Irmen SPT 1164 19. VITO Irmen SPT 1265 All samples were marked with permanent marker and experience has shown that both acetone and “White spirit” are not able remove completely marks which were made by that marker. As an aggressive chemical we chose “646 Solvent”. Many of you probably will say that its way too strong, but for us it is does not matter – we want check it thoroughly because we should know for what we are plunking down our money. Summary table:

Greetings; Our paint protection film business activity began in 2007 and since then we have used various suppliers. As installers, we are very often asked by other installers – “What type of film do you prefer in your work and what kind of film can you recommend to us?”. To determine what type of film is best suited for our work we decided to create a few topics, each of them accompanied by a small test. The reason why we posted these topics is because Internet has no reliable and independent information regarding these topics. We say the information is independent, because we didn’t give any preference to one or another manufacturer, and we are not an official representative, distributor or dealer of any manufacturer. We are installers, similar to many others. We have no specialized or precision laboratory-scale equipment and in our tests we are using locally available material. That’s why, please, do not pass judgment on us. In the first test, from the array of manufacturers we picked the paint protection film market leaders and made a few measurements: the thickness of the in-situ urethane paint protection film; thickness of the urethane paint protection film with glue lay and thickness of the whole product with underlay. In our test we used 19 samples which in our opinion are worthy of attention: 1. 3М VentureShield 2. Avery Dennison Nano Fusion 3. KPMF PPF 82205-UV 4. Orafol Oraguard 280 5. Xpel Xtreme 6. Xpel Ultimate 7. VentureShield 2007 YOM 8. Suntek PPF TC 9. Orafol Oraguard 283 10. KPMF PPF 82200 11. Hexis CarPro 150 12. Sharpline DuraShield+ 13. Premium Shield SPF Elite 14. Hexis CarPro 300 15. ISEE2 Total Protect PU 250 16. Premium Shield SPF 17. VITO Irmen SPT 1365 18. VITO Irmen SPT 1164 19. VITO Irmen SPT 1265 * The reason why we used this sample is because we began our activity with this film and now many installers are complaining that this film has changed its features with time. So in order to assuage doubts and just for interest we decided to test it. Summary table:

Доброго времени суток. C 2007 года мы начали заниматься антигравийной пленкой и с того времени перепробовали многих производителей. Данную тему мы создали так как у нас часто спрашивают установщики как у установщиков - "какую вы пленку больше предпочитаете в работе, какую порекомендуете?". Это одна из нескольких тем которые мы опубликуем с небольшими тестами, с помощью которых мы отбираем для работы пленку и так как в сети интернет отсутствует достоверная и независимая информация по данной тематике, возможно она кому то поможет. Независимая потому как изначально мы не отдаем никакого предпочтения тому или иному производителю, мы не являемся никакого производителя официальным представителем, дистрибьютором или дилером. Изначально мы такие же установщики как и многие другие. У нас нет специального и точного лабораторного оборудования и в своих тестах мы используем подручные материалы, поэтому просим вас не судить по ним очень строго, скорее субъективно. В первом тесте мы измерили толщину самой полиуретановой пленки, собственно которая и осуществляет защиту лакокрасочного покрытия, толщина с клеем и всего продукта с подложкой. Теперь мы измерим прочность самой пленки. В нашем тесте также как и в прошлом тесте присутствует 19 образцов: 1. 3М VentureShield 2. Avery Dennison Nano Fusion 3. KPMF PPF 82205-UV 4. Orafol Oraguard 280 5. Xpel Xtreme 6. Xpel Ultimate 7. VentureShield 2007 года выпуcка 8. Suntek PPF TC 9. Orafol Oraguard 283 10. KPMF PPF 82200 11. Hexis CarPro 150 12. Sharpline DuraShield+ 13. Premium Shield SPF Elite 14. Hexis CarPro 300 15. ISEE2 Total Protect PU 250 16. Premium Shield SPF 17. VITO Irmen SPT 1365 18. VITO Irmen SPT 1164 19. VITO Irmen SPT 1265 Все образцы были наклеены на металлический покрашенный лист толщиной 1,2 мм. Для сравнения толщина металла у автомобилей, как правило, 0,6-0,8 мм. Для измерения прочности мы использовали однозарядный пружинно-поршневой пистолет модели ИЖ-53М, оснащенный нарезным стальным стволом. Пистолет предназначен для тренировочной стрельбы свинцовыми пулями калибра 4,5 мм. Характеристики ИЖ-53М: Масса, кг: 1,2 кг Длина, мм: 407 мм Длина ствола, мм: 215 мм Ширина, мм: 50 мм Высота, мм: 175 мм Калибр, мм: 4,5 мм Начальная скорость пули, м/c: 110 Прицельная дальность, м: 10 м Максимальная дальность, м: 100 м Общая таблица с результатами тестов. Сам ход тестов показан на фото ниже. Как показывает практика не каждый полиуретан справляется с защитой лакокрасочного покрытия и тут не важна даже толщина и усилие на разрыв, как думают многие установщики и обычные обыватели, если честно сам очень удивлен... также и эстетическая составляющая, не все пленки справились с сохранением своего внешнего вида после теста.