Lumar film

Does anyone else hate lumar film? Here are the problems that I have found with Lumar. It seems to have the melting point of a Tootsie Roll, the glue does not seem to be nearly as aggressive as other films, and the back of it is just way to tacky. I have used almost every film on the market, and I have more trouble with Lumar, then any other brand.

HAs anyone else noticed these problems?

I was trained by Llumar and have found all there films to be 'the best' but too expensive. I now use Suntek, shrinks the same, the glue is as aggressive and I like the colour
You will get a different opinion from everyone on this Forum, what ever works for you is the right film, it's what you get used to

Same here

I just think its too expensive.

i just think they need to put it on the rolls the right way

too much $$$$$$$$$

I can grab Suntek, Johnsons, Solargard, Madico, Global, Solar zone, 3M, and shrink em and have no problems. I grab the Llumar and it is melt city on the edge. It also melts when I am trying to use heat to knock down a finger easier. Hell Sometimes it even leave clear streaks if I use too much heat, and No other film has done that for me!


Do you dry shrink? Because perhaps it Is just a film that cant take the heat from a pocket shrink

As far as there film bing the best, I dont see that at all. I remember a car coming in a year and a half after it was done, and asking when was this thing tinted. Because it looked like it was a five year old job! Hell even Johnsons Holds up better then that.

Our installers like it. No issues.

i mainly use they're uv control films. nothing else. someflat glass film on rare occasion.

it also gets very ridged after shrinking and its still too much $$$$$$

Just stop right there, no need to use any other film









U sure

llumar has always performed well for me

Pocket shrink? what do you mean by that?

No problems with it here !! just like TT already said , its just what you get used too .. Ones get used to it you can do some great things with it. Only bad thing i can say about it is that the liner doesn't come off as smooth as most others .

Maybe you should turn the flame down on your blow torch.....
What line are you using???

I have very little problem shrinking LLulu, I prefer the way it handles over the others I have tried.... I use the ATR line....

I used to use it about 10 yrs ago, everything we tinted with it started turning purple after a year so we stopped using it. Hopefully it's better now

It is a wet shrink, where you take big fingers, and blow some heat into the finger. Then you seal the edge of the film to lay it flat against the glass( this is where the Llumar melts on me) This creates the pocket. Then you go over the pocket with your heat gun to spread it out more, then you just smooth it down with your hand.



This statement answers me question for me in a sence. Because I can grab any other film, and install it with out any issues. They all shrink, and install the same for me, but the Llumar is definatley in a class by itself!

It seems that everyone who is saying that they notice no problems with it, are also people who have mostly only used Llumar. If this is the case you will not notice the difference in the films, and you will not have the melting issues, because your used to using Llumar film. I am hoping someone who has switched to Llumar will post on here, but it seems that will be unlikely. Because who is going to switch to them, at thier prices

advantage rocks!!

pierce, I switched to ATR Llumar from a popular brand in the same league as the ATR (apples to apples) about 6 yrs ago and have no regrets. I found it "different to work with at the beginning, but with the right soap mixture I like the way the adhesive "tacks" for me. As far as shrinking goes, I've had no issues with that line of Llumar. Price doesn't bother me when you break it down per car , I charge $5 more a car when I switched to it and therefore the cost difference was irrelevant and I had confidence in a film that wasn't having film failure. I'm one of the few that actually prepare the liner the way it is for when loading in a bg, I like the fact that the film would prefer to want to roll itself towards the window rather than away from it to pick up debris and felt. (not saying I really had much of an issue with that but Idon't think it's really a concern which way it's wrapped on the roll) . As far as shrinking goes, I've pretty much done any window with that film in one piece (unless I don't think the window should be done in 1) without issue. A higher heagun does burn the film I found, that's why I use 2 milwaukee's strapped together for a lower heat, faster shrink (again I know I'm a minority on that issue as well) .

Summery : I like the film and will continue to use it , as with all films there's always a learning curve to accommodate to ..hope this helps

I guess the question is: Does llumar provide your customers with a better job and product. like any skilled industry its the tinter and what he's comfortable with. If a carpenter likes a certain kind of wood that he can make look beautiful and another wood kicks his arse then he would obviously stick with the wood he's good at using. just because say a suntek or johnson film that is non metal and lifetime is half the price of llumar's doesn't mean its low quality. I see more llumar adds in car magazines than almost any other product period. you have to know your paying for that. I chose the film I use based on the fact that I'm good with it. I can handle it well and it sticks and shrinks really well. so unless llumar does that for you specifically.... I'd tell you to save some money and go with a film you are good with. Every manufacturer will have a lifetime film that will hold up. Unless we are talking some ebay junk film. Now on the other hand by carrying llumar you are getting the advantage of having that name which is flashy and well known. So I decided to not really emphasize the kind of film I have but rather the kind of tinter I am. The company can pay to advertise itself. So stick with a film you can work the best, a company that won't screw you on a warranty and something that you can feel comfortable sending you customer home with. I feel just as confident sending sombody home with suntek carbon as I do 3m color stable. So why not increase your profit margins and put a quality job out there. If you can work llumar and get llumar money then do it more power to ya. llumar is a respected name and will prolly pull you a job over another company if it came down to the consumer asking "what film do you use?".


I did however have somebody go with my suntek carbon one time over a competitor's llumar lifetime job. I was more exspensive too. She said she liked suntek's website better. ha!

I am using ATR I don't plan on switching any time soon. They have been good to me for customer service and the film has been great to work with. Every one has the film they like and the film they hate. Good luck!

pierce you made a comment that everyone commenting on llumar, was using llumar. I just wanted to let you know. I am not a llumar dealer. I install solar gard. I was just giving you my opinion.

We use other brands too. You adjust your methods to accommodate for each brand's idiosyncrasies.




Nice post. A lot of truth there.

my opinion is that
1. too expensice.
2. shrinks "ok" not great.
3. looks too "pale" just looks like "tint" to me. it doesnt have any good
looking qualities.

Sounds like you need to learn dry shrinking. Wet shrinking a back glass will be more prone to creasing or melting like you are experiencing.

I never picked up on that.. dry shrinking for sure

I want to comment but I will be good

never used a blow torch before, maybe I'm always getting the old crap
I've used the AT and ATR serie's , But mostly use Solar Gard now

I think dry shrinking is a very good technique , but I believe in several techniques for diffirent cinds of windows , so each cind of window has his own best way to shrink. A threu master knows them all

Pierce, Call this biased if you want. I visit a lot of shops. Tinters who buy other films and my own customers. Here are the comments that are made.

1. I love the way the film shrinks.

2. It's is great, but expensive.

3. Once its on, It's on. The glue is a little agressive. Sometimes a little too agressive.

Tinters, let me hear your thoughts.

You should be passionate about the company who strokes you a check. But, there are many great products that work as well for a fraction of the price.

[quote name='TintWizard' date='Oct 8 2007, 06:51 AM' post='551929']
pierce, I switched to ATR Llumar from a popular brand in the same league as the ATR (apples to apples) about 6 yrs ago and have no regrets. I found it "different to work with at the beginning, but with the right soap mixture I like the way the adhesive "tacks" for me.

This is sort of what I was trying to find out. Have other tinters noticed that is different then other films. As I have said I can grab anyother brand of film, and install it with out a hitch, but Llumar on the other hand. I have had to adjust my technique in order to install it. Personaly after 11 yrs of tinting I dont want to change my technique, esp for a film that I find to be no better then the rest, yet much more expensive then the most!

[quote name='rcjello' date='Oct 8 2007, 09:02 AM' post='551944']
I guess the question is: Does llumar provide your customers with a better job and product. like any skilled industry its the tinter and what he's comfortable with. If a carpenter likes a certain kind of wood that he can make look beautiful and another wood kicks his arse then he would obviously stick with the wood he's good at using. [quote name='micro-edge' date='Oct 8 2007, 01:29 PM' post='551988']

I am fully aware of this and agree that you should stick with what you know and like. it is just weird that all other brands give me no trouble, but Llumar is just such a huge headache for me!


Sounds like you need to learn dry shrinking. Wet shrinking a back glass will be more prone to creasing or melting like you are experiencing.
[/quote]


I know how to dry shrink, and I dry shrink the realy hard cars, but for an average car I prefer to pocket shrink, for a few reasons. 1 I find it to be a faster shrink, because there is no time waiting for anything to dry, and there is also no slippery residue on the back side when I am installing, also nothing to clean off the window. I have also noticed that it leaves less peanuts then a dry shrink. Not just by me, but I have noticed that even great dry shrinkers leave more peanuts then my pocket shrink.

[quote name='green one' date='Oct 8 2007, 02:00 PM' post='552001']
I think dry shrinking is a very good technique , but I believe in several techniques for diffirent cinds of windows , so each cind of window has his own best way to shrink. A threu master knows them all
[/quote]


Again I know how to dry, just prefer not to do it, if I dont have to

I have been using LLmar for 21 yrs now ..tried them all ....expensive maybe alittle but the quality of them film is worth it to me have maybe 5 redo a year for adhesive failure and thats on cars that have it 7-10 yrs. So i am happy with it..never had any field failure in res or comm. Have houses that I hung 20 yrs ago still looks great with N10series..

I agrees -she tinter.

Now this I highly disagree with. Just a month or two ago I seen a car roll in that was tinted only a yr an a half ago, and the film did not look good at all. adhesive failure is one thing, but the stability of the films look is a whole other story! I can honestly say that when I seen this car, my first comment was how long ago was this thing tinted. Because it really looked bad! I was shocked to hear it was only a yr and ahalf ago. That is very, very sad for such a high priced film, here in Pa's sun.

5 redos a year is a pretty high rate since most people are out of thier cars in 3-4 yrs

I've had no film failure with ATR 6 yr and counting with cars I still track after install 6 yrs ago by owners that do not park in a garage and my weather would be comparable to PA weather . If there is film failure..perhaps it was a bad install job , improper mixtures , bad water, I can only guess

Did you use llumar in the mid and late 80's
If you did and you only had 5 redo's a year off that Im movning to your climate.

Other wise I havent used llullu since the early 90's so I cant speak of there product now

If you knew how to dry shrink, we wouldn't be having this conversation

Late 80's were bad times with Llumar automotive film.

Horrible
But she said 21 years with no problems

Ive got sales managers that have been at the dealerships that long and wont even think about using it again

She didnt say"no problems" she said 5 or so warrantees a year. But youre right late 80s was dyed film....and it sucked!

And I said if she claiming only 5 redos a year from that time frame then she was only doing 6 cars a year

i learned how to shrink with sun gard and found it very easy, but there was always something to heat out once i installed it.

then i started to work for the shop where i am now, and we use llumar AT, and ATR, and find them both easy to shrink and i also get a more complete shrink. no fingers poping up after installation. we also use 3m CS and huper optik ceramic. i find huper the hardest to shrink, followed by 3m.

at home for friends i use suntek carbon and hp. same shrinking technique, and also easy to shrink.

by the way i use the dry shrinking method, and shrink all the films in the same manner except for huper. huper takes a whole different approch to get a good shrink.

pierce,

I don't know if you mean baby powder or the "Mdog" soap method when you "dry" shrink, but with the soap method, I get a lot less peanuts than I ever did with either baby powder or wet shrinking...

I didnt do the job, so I cant say! All I can can go by is what I have seen from that one particular vehicle, and it wasnt pretty. Who knows it may have just been a bad roll, but when I look at that and hear all the stories about the 80's film. I cant help but believe that it wont hold up. It may infact hold up very well, but I doubt that it is such a superior product to the rest to justify the price difference!



If you read each of my posts you would not have made that comment! As I said earlier I prefer to pocket shrink, because I feel it is a better shrink the dry, and it is faster then dry. Because I dont have to spend any time putting a product on the window, waiting for it to dry, and then cleaning it off the window. I also dont like the back of the film bieng slippery! I also stated that I do infact use a dry shrink on hte really hard cars! Again I dont wish to change my technique for a product that I dont feel is better then most of it's competition!

Now as Wilcax stated Films like huper require a whole different technique, and they do. I have no problem switching up on a film such as that, because it is a superior product!



I am only talking about baby powder and dryer sheet. I have never done, nor have I seen the soap method performed, so I cant comment on them. I can say however that when I pocket shrink I rarely get any peanuts. Even on a lexus I may only get one or two.



The bottom line of this thread, was to see if it was just me who noticed the difference in Llumar as oppsed to other films, and I have seen that I am not the only one who has. I am aware that I could get used to using this film, but I choose not to do so. I am making that choice not because I dont feel that I can. Because I know I can get used to it in a matter of time, but I dont think I should waste my time training myself on a film that is not only too expensive, but also not any better in my eyes then other brands that I can install with my eyes closed. If I felt it was the best out there, and worth the time to figure out the best way to work with this film. Then I would definatley go ahead and put my time in on this film, but I dont think it is the best, so I wont. I will also use another film that is less expensive, and increase my profit margin, while still giving my customers a comparible, if not superior product!

I am also not at all concerned with name recognition. Since I have had many customers over the years ask if we carry Llumar, or 3m, and I have explained to them the bottom line of film, and how each of the major film companys have a comparible product, and that the end result will be the same with any of those film. I also explain to them that the only thing that they really need to concern themselves with is the actual install of the product. After I give them my little spiel about all of this, I get from them. Whn can you do it?

pierce,

a couple of comments:

It doesn't bother me if you don't want to use Llumar. I want to say, though, that the car you saw with the 1 1/2 year installation might not have had Llumar film on it. It's highly possible that the person who sold the job to the customer lied to them and put another brand on it. Unless you can tell by looking what manufacturer a film is, I'd be skeptical.

Also, you don't need to see the soap shrink to learn it. Just read the explanation a few times, and try it.

You'll wish you did sooner, at least on the really hard cars.

If you never try it, at least you've got things under control from the sound of it.