Suntek Carbon38 Anomaly

[Guest Vigilant]

I was checking out the specs on carbon and noticed this:

Product, LT, SER, VLR-I, VLR-E, UVR

Carbon35 35% 42% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon38 42% 35% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon45 43% 40% 5% 5% 99%

Alright, so it looks like they're playing it safe with the name to avoid !llegal tints in 35% net states. But what's up with the solar energy rejected? It makes me think Suntek has been less than honest with their very high heat rejection numbers in the past. Although it's possible that Carbon38 is a lesser-quality product or the SER is a typo.

I got the specs on 38 when I called Suntek last week since they're not posted online yet. They confirmed the specs on 35 and 45 when we talked.

[Guest Bulldog]

I was checking out the specs on carbon and noticed this:

Product, LT, SER, VLR-I, VLR-E, UVR

Carbon35 35% 42% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon38 42% 35% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon45 43% 40% 5% 5% 99%

Alright, so it looks like they're playing it safe with the name to avoid !llegal tints in 35% net states. But what's up with the solar energy rejected? It makes me think Suntek has been less than honest with their very high heat rejection numbers in the past. Although it's possible that Carbon38 is a lesser-quality product or the SER is a typo.

I got the specs on 38 when I called Suntek last week since they're not posted online yet. They confirmed the specs on 35 and 45 when we talked.

Thats just the thing...there are no independant testing of the manu.'s claims of performance. The numbers can be manipulated to read whatever they need them to. (See Prestige IR method of measurement)

Trust no one's word as absolute. Sell what YOU like!!!

[Guest vclimber]

I was checking out the specs on carbon and noticed this:

Product, LT, SER, VLR-I, VLR-E, UVR

Carbon35 35% 42% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon38 42% 35% 5% 5% 99%

Carbon45 43% 40% 5% 5% 99%

Alright, so it looks like they're playing it safe with the name to avoid !llegal tints in 35% net states. But what's up with the solar energy rejected? It makes me think Suntek has been less than honest with their very high heat rejection numbers in the past. Although it's possible that Carbon38 is a lesser-quality product or the SER is a typo.

I got the specs on 38 when I called Suntek last week since they're not posted online yet. They confirmed the specs on 35 and 45 when we talked.

Thats just the thing...there are no independant testing of the manu.'s claims of performance. The numbers can be manipulated to read whatever they need them to. (See Prestige IR method of measurement)

Trust no one's word as absolute. Sell what YOU like!!!

Or complain to your MFG to get their films independently certified by the NFRC. That is the only non-profit 3rd party independent agency. I guess they could do auto films too while they are at it?