Huper Optik X3 Ceramic

TintJunkie · February 9, 2009

My hunch is that Madico's problem with ceramic film is that the buy-in is (was?) too high.
They wanted way too much money for ceramics and they're only marginally better than standard neutral films, if at all.

MAC is aweful. Ive installed a ton of it, and the cost of the film is not justified in MAC's performance #s. I cant think of any #'s off the top of my head, but I know know that MAC3000 has a TSER of 67%. It looks good, but has PS adhesive, and the film is relatively thin, so it makes reverse rolling somewhat of a circus act.

BTW, this is coming from an exclusive Madico dealer.

addicted to tint · February 9, 2009

Hype up the Big Hooper all you want, but at the end of the day it's just window film. I have occurences of Ceramic 50 doing no better than 50% neutrals in performance or appearance. Installs where Ceramic 30 snapped panes and you could fry an egg on interior surface in Mid-day sun. Drei installs that perform well but with a funky purplish exterior reflective sheen and typical nighttime interior iridesence - I don't care what generation, the film is overpiced/overhyped - and just film......

blade · February 9, 2009

wow....what a great post hoosier.

hoosierwindowtek · February 9, 2009

excellent post..

My hunch is that Madico's problem with ceramic film is that the buy-in is (was?) too high.
They wanted way too much money for ceramics and they're only marginally better than standard neutral films, if at all.

MAC is aweful. Ive installed a ton of it, and the cost of the film is not justified in MAC's performance #s. I cant think of any #'s off the top of my head, but I know know that MAC3000 has a TSER of 67%. It looks good, but has PS adhesive, and the film is relatively thin, so it makes reverse rolling somewhat of a circus act.

BTW, this is coming from an exclusive Madico dealer.

Hype up the Big Hooper all you want, but at the end of the day it's just window film. I have occurences of Ceramic 50 doing no better than 50% neutrals in performance or appearance. Installs where Ceramic 30 snapped panes and you could fry an egg on interior surface in Mid-day sun. Drei installs that perform well but with a funky purplish exterior reflective sheen and typical nighttime interior iridesence - I don't care what generation, the film is overpiced/overhyped - and just film......

wow....what a great post hoosier.

I appreciate the feedback. :lol

February 9, 2009

Okay, V, I finally figured out how to explain why I have gotten so impassioned about all of this. Please read it closely, and without bias, if possible, because I'm seriously trying to explain to you and everyone why I am concerned...

I hope I haven’t caused you to spend your entire weekend obsessing over this?

Yes, SHGC is a number that includes absorption. (Clearly I undertand that fact, which you failed to acknowledge even though I posted diagrams of the REAL issue.)

You said that it doesn’t account for cooler interior temps thus causing inward convection by which high SA will heat a room. I said no, it does account for that because “summer conditions” are factored into the measurement.

Do you want me to acknowledge that you have a grasp of convection? Sure, the Johnson illustrations you posted got the point across but it still doesn’t change that it is already factored into the SHGC. Plus there are so many other things to consider in determining how any given film and its SA will affect a room.

Yes, the clarity might be a little better and visible light reflectivity may be lower than Johnson Palisade.
I suggested Palisade because of 1 reason: price.

You know here’s my thing about price. Do you own the cheapest car on the market? If you say no, then why not? Value. HO cost more than Johnson but what do you get with it? Wider rolls, a better warranty, less reflectivity for those that are concerned about looks, a dealer network that is one of a kind, and some other services that may be lacking from the cheapest option. That is valuable to some so they choose based on value instead of price. Whether we admit it or not, we are all value based purchaser to some degree. Look at all the stuff you own, how much of it is the cheapest in its class?

There is so much banter about cheap pricing and how it relates to “hacks” especially in automotive around here. So if a retail shop can be accused of being a hack because they have a cheaper price, then why can’t a MFG? Where is the money saved in the manufacturing process to make a film so much less than others. MFG direct is not the reason, it is the components and the process utilized to assemble such components.

Can a company buy ceramic coated PET from another company that bought an old Southwall machine, convert it in house, then turn around and make it the cheapest ceramic on the market without using cheaper components? If so then why didn’t Madico do the same thing? Components, process, distribution, and margin all figure in but margin can only be so thin, then cut distribution but things won’t be as cheap as you would imagine. So that leaves components and process.

I'm pretty sure that even though I don't know the cost of Huper films, Palisade is probably less than half the price.

No, it is not less than half the price. It is not even half the price of HO. I have a JWF price list and samples.

It would make sense to pay twice as much or more for a film that offers twice the performance benefit, but that's simply not the case. Not only does C-30 not perform twice as good, it's even lower performing than some less expensive films on dual pane glass. And, I'm not talking about dark, highly reflective films, either. I'm talking about non-ceramic neutral metalized films.

Why do some people not buy metalized films for their cars? They usually reject more heat and perform better than most films, so why doesn’t everyone buy it? Because performance isn’t the only factor in decision making.

Huper doesn't publish SHGC numbers for anything other than single pane clear glass, so I'm glad you told me where to find them. According to the NFRC website, when installed on double pane glass, either tinted or untinted, Huper C-35 film has lower performance numbers than a considerably less expensive neutral film. That would be hard for me to feel good about selling to a customer who has dual pane windows. Even in cases where the Huper product is better performing, the difference is so slight that it would take years to recover the higher cost.

See I am helping, not hurting. :thumb

A considerably less expensive neutral film may contain dyes or have a warranty that does not cover glass replacement up to 2K per pane. It goes back to value. If C-35 doesn’t perform well-enough then there is DREI.

ROI’s on homes are different from commercial. You’d be surprised how you can get a low ROI on a more expensive film. :thumb

Because of the fact that Huper doesn't publish those numbers on it's website, it's potentially misleading to the customer because they don't have the numbers for their own windows unless they have windows made of 1/8" clear glass which isn't very common. Yes, I'm aware that Johnson doesn't publish dual pane numbers either. I can't find them on anyone's websites, but then again, Johnson's not trying to r*pe anyone with price.

Almost every MFG in the Film Industry posts single pane clear 1/8” specs. Part of it is for the marketing bang, part of it is so you can compare one film to the next on a spec card, and part of it is because that is the required testing setup for the NFRC Certification Process. Is Hüper being deceptive? If you say, “yes” then you better throw all of the others in with them including JWF.

I saw a HO Fusion spec card and they post both single and IG specs. Someone told me that it will be the same for the ceramics once they burn through all of their cards but I guess that will remain to be seen?

I was trying to be helpful to the original poster, but you seem bent on discrediting everything I say. if matuss, or anyone else will read all of this, they'll hopefully realize that the evidence being presented by Huper's websites is selectively forgetful at best but the way to still get the truth is from the NFRC website. I guess it is good that Huper got certified because that's the only way to get the full story.

I am not trying to discredit you. I took issue with some points you made about adhesive, SHGC/SA, reflectivity, and price. If I posted a comment about Hüper in a JWF thread or any other brand film’s thread, I would catch more crap than you ever have from me here. I get followed around for every post I make by people trying to discredit me in some way. If they would add some valid info like you have then it would be all good but for the most part they have nothing of any worth to add. So cudos to you for a well-researched debate.

I still think you need to understand that what is posted on Hüper’s website is no different from JWF, BSF, CPF, Solomatrix, or anyone else. It is all single pane 1/8” clear. You just have to interpret everything as you do with every brand out there. The NRFC #’s are a totally different setup and people need to know how to interpret that as well. You can’t compare those #’s to a spec card or a website even if such places have dual pane specs.

I know Huper has super low reflectivity numbers. I also know that few people would know how reflective a film is in their own home unless you install 2 or more types side by side. To put it another way, show a customer a sample of Huper ceramic and a sample of Johnson ceramic and a sample of Madico ceramic. Then, have them leave, and install one of them on all the windows. When they come back, I seriously doubt most people could tell you which one you installed.

I just ask which looks best to them, that’s what matters. I want a customer to have what they looks nice so I give choices and let them decide.

I myself didn't even know all these issues until I started doing the research in the last couple of days. The only reason I did that was because you acted like I'm an idiot when you're the one who misread my initial post. Either way, I'm glad I did the research because now I see through the hype of ceramics.

I am sorry that you interpreted it that way, I don’t think you are an idiot. Glad you feel empowered now. :hmmm

I also don't understand why you're defending the Huper product so adamantly, because as far as I can tell, you're not even in the running to get the job. Maybe it's just so you can sleep at night. Just because someone asked about a specific product doesn't mean you can't recommend an alternative. If someone asked me what I thought of crack for headache relief, I'd feel obligated to suggest he try Ibuprophen instead.

Remember, we are in a Huper thread.

I don’t defend the product, I defend facts. If JWF was less reflective, if dry adhesive was the best, if SHGC did not account for SA in a conditioned environment, I would stand up for all of that too. I’ve taken issue with Hüper’s traditional film line, it has always been bad. I take issue with other films that I sell to but I mainly gravitate towards the facts.

If I was a pumper, I think there would be 100’s of threads started by me pumping Hüper like other members here have all kinds of threads that they have initiated pumping their brand du jour. I doubt you will find anything remotely close with me. I mostly jump into the issues after someone else starts them.

Put simply, matuss, save your money and go with an equal or better performing less expensive film.

Go with value. Cheap is not always the best solution for everyone. :lol2

Filmhandler · February 9, 2009

wamatt,
I want to mention another concern with any brand of "ceramic" film...

the darker versions tend to absorb a lot of solar energy. what I mean by a lot is more than 50%, up to nearly 60%

What that means is that the film and glass surface heat up when the sun shines on it. Typically, for a given light transmission, a lower reflectivity absorbs more energy.

Here's the rub; a given film might look nice, reduce glare, and "block" heat, but the ones that absorb a lot of heat will leave you with windows that are uncomfortable to be next to because they're radiating heat INTO the room, making you feel the heat when you're right next to them. They also can get very hot to the touch, such that you wouldn't want a small child to touch the windows if the sun is shining on them. This is especially true if you have dual-pane windows.

For that reason, it's important to look at the Solar Energy Absorbed spec. AKA Total solar absorption. It's also the reason I would suggest a ceramic that blocks only around 40% of visible light or less.

You may want to read this thread: http://www.tintdude.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=48203

H

I attest to that. Reflectivity is the effective way of controlling the sun.

February 9, 2009

Hype up the Big Hooper all you want, but at the end of the day it's just window film. I have occurences of Ceramic 50 doing no better than 50% neutrals in performance or appearance. Installs where Ceramic 30 snapped panes and you could fry an egg on interior surface in Mid-day sun. Drei installs that perform well but with a funky purplish exterior reflective sheen and typical nighttime interior iridesence - I don't care what generation, the film is overpiced/overhyped - and just film......

So why don't you just sell some Gila then? :thumb

hoosierwindowtek · February 9, 2009

These posts are becoming a 1/4 mile long, but I'm still interested. Here goes...

You said that it doesn’t account for cooler interior temps thus causing inward convection by which high SA will heat a room.

please show me where I said this. I can't find that statement, but what I did try to say is that SHGC numbers based on 1/8" clear single pane won't take into consideration the effect of putting the film on dual pane glass.

Plus there are so many other things to consider in determining how any given film and its SA will affect a room.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

You know here’s my thing about price. Do you own the cheapest car on the market?

I drive a 2006 Kia Sedona, the cheapest vehicle in it's class.

HO cost more than Johnson but what do you get with it? Wider rolls, a better warranty, less reflectivity for those that are concerned about looks, a dealer network that is one of a kind, and some other services that may be lacking from the cheapest option. That is valuable to some so they choose based on value instead of price. Whether we admit it or not, we are all value based purchaser to some degree. Look at all the stuff you own, how much of it is the cheapest in its class?

About roll size: Okay, I know you and a few other guys just can't live without 72" rolls. Personally, I've been in the flat glass window film business for 12 years and can count on 1 hand the number of times that was an issue. Maybe it's related to region, and maybe it's related to preference, but even with 72" rolls there are still windows you can't do in 1 piece.

About warranty; I could offer a glass warranty 4 times higher in value too if I charged 4 times more for my price. Customers might be wowed by a 2000 dollar warranty but if they knew how often that warranty was actually needed, they'd realize it's hype just like an automotive lifetime warranty. How many 2000 dollar windows have you replaced? and, does Huper have any restrictions in place to reduce the likelihood of making good on a 2000 dollar window replacement? If they tell you not to put their film on windows that cost that much by restricting window size requirements then the maximum value of the warranty is meaningless.

About reflectivity: As mentioned earlier, the low reflectivity of the ceramic films actually causes an overall reduction in performance. If I'm not concerned with the true performance of a film in real-life conditions, then I might as well offer a non-reflective auto film and sell it for premium price.

About the one of a kind dealer network: I alluded to this earlier, too, but more specifially, I'm going to relate a story. The HO distributor in my area sent a postcard to me a few years ago. When I called to inquire about the products, the guy told me they had a dealer in a town of around 5000 people 25 minutes south of me and that he's really emphasizing flat glass films. Well, I know the guy, and his work and in my humble opinion, he's nothing special. I'm confident that if he still sells HO films, his customers are getting zero added benefit from him being their dealer compared to the other few dealers around here.

There is so much banter about cheap pricing and how it relates to “hacks” especially in automotive around here. So if a retail shop can be accused of being a hack because they have a cheaper price, then why can’t a MFG? Where is the money saved in the manufacturing process to make a film so much less than others. MFG direct is not the reason, it is the components and the process utilized to assemble such components.

About price: It's my understanding that there is tremendous profit in window film. It's my belief that many products are overpriced AND overhyped. HO gets higher pricing partly because of the "german engineering" image. Well, German cars are great, I wouldn't mind owning one too much, but given a set budget, I'm gonna buy a Japanese or Korean car because I feel I'm getting more for my money. It's my belief that there are "hack" manufacturers, but I don't think Johnson is one. I would REALLY REALLY REALLY love to know what the manufacturing cost differences are with Southwall films, because my suspicion is that the price difference is artificial. FWIW, I'm the BEST auto tinter in my area. I DON'T charge the most. Sometimes businesses believe in treating people right and serving people with limited budgets while still offering top quality.

Now, here's the real issue anyway; based on the facts presented in this discussion, my assertion would be that a ceramic film is the wrong film choice for most situations AT ANY PRICE. What I meant when I said that I only recommended Palisade because of price was that if he's set on going with a ceramic film he might as well save some money because he's gaining nothing in terms of performance.

No, it is not less than half the price. It is not even half the price of HO.

The two phrases mean the same thing. Less than half the price, not even half the price mean the same thing. Again, I think you're misreading

Why do some people not buy metalized films for their cars? They usually reject more heat and perform better than most films, so why doesn’t everyone buy it? Because performance isn’t the only factor in decision making.

That sentence seriously makes me want to come to your town and sell non-reflective auto film to the people you sell HO to. The ONLY reason to buy HO film is because of claimed performance benefits. Otherwise, people who want film that just "looks good" would go with clear film. The precept of HO films is that for a given level of performance you get a better look or for a given look you get better performance. Otherwise, there is no reason to use anything other than what we've had for 15 or more years.

A considerably less expensive neutral film may contain dyes or have a warranty that does not cover glass replacement up to 2K per pane. It goes back to value. If C-35 doesn’t perform well-enough then there is DREI.

Yeah, Decorator Neutral from SunGard had dyes, but I think you know deep down that I'm not referring to that type of film. I'm talking about a stainless steel/nichrome/inconel/neutral type film.

And, again, a 2000 dollar warranty doesn't mean bologna on a 300 dollar window. It's hype.

Almost every MFG in the Film Industry posts single pane clear 1/8” specs. Part of it is for the marketing bang, part of it is so you can compare one film to the next on a spec card, and part of it is because that is the required testing setup for the NFRC Certification Process. Is Hüper being deceptive? If you say, “yes” then you better throw all of the others in with them including JWF.

Again, that's exactly what I said, but at least JWF doesn't overprice and overhype the product.

I still think you need to understand that what is posted on Hüper’s website is no different from JWF, BSF, CPF, Solomatrix, or anyone else. It is all single pane 1/8” clear. You just have to interpret everything as you do with every brand out there.

I do understand that. That's why I feel this discussion is so important because if we dealers don't honestly and accurately explain this stuff to the customer, they're gonna get taken by it. It's our job to be ethical and honest, not just pass along info with passive agreement.

I just ask which looks best to them, that’s what matters. I want a customer to have what they looks nice so I give choices and let them decide.

I had a VERY brief discussion with an idiot car salesman a few months ago (he is an idiot, not all car salesmen). It was at a dealership I do a few cars a month for. He said he had a customer who wanted their car tinted by a local franchise shop that does work so bad that sometimes it looks like they literally don't clean the window before putting film on. I said, "you know they do terrible work, right?" He said, "I don't care. The customer gets what the customer wants."

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The ethical salesperson's job is to educate the customer properly and help them make the right decision.

Remember, we are in a Huper thread.
I don’t defend the product, I defend facts. If JWF was less reflective, if dry adhesive was the best, if SHGC did not account for SA in a conditioned environment, I would stand up for all of that too.

Okay, the facts are:

HO C-30 has higher solar heat gain on dual pane glass than a 35% neutral film. It IS less reflective, but so is a dyed auto film. Dry adhesive wouldn't even be made if it didn't serve a purpose...what could that be? oh, that it lasts longer. I hope you can re-think your position on these matters. I know it might possibly mean giving up a reason to charge more money, but that's the ethical thing to do if the customer is only paying more because they think they're getting more.

Go with value. Cheap is not always the best solution for everyone.

I couldn't agree more. I also must insist that highest price is not always the best either.

Well, it's been real and it's been fun. Maybe even real fun. I've got to go to bed. type to you later.

H

February 9, 2009

good posts guys ( hoosier and vclimber.).nice and clean discussion.

TintJunkie · February 9, 2009

You know here’s my thing about price. Do you own the cheapest car on the market? If you say no, then why not? Value. HO cost more than Johnson but what do you get with it? Wider rolls, a better warranty, less reflectivity for those that are concerned about looks, a dealer network that is one of a kind, and some other services that may be lacking from the cheapest option. That is valuable to some so they choose based on value instead of price. Whether we admit it or not, we are all value based purchaser to some degree. Look at all the stuff you own, how much of it is the cheapest in its class?

Precieved Value. Same reason someone would buy a Benz over a Ford, or even closer...a Lexus over a Toyota Camry. The problem is, one isnt neccssarily better than the other, its how the consumer views the value. Im not disagreeing with the above statement.

Why do some people not buy metalized films for their cars? They usually reject more heat and perform better than most films, so why doesn’t everyone buy it? Because performance isn’t the only factor in decision making.

This is true. There was a discussion on film specs, I think for Valutint, and we were talking about customers asking about (or never asking) the specs on auto film. I dont do a lot of automotive so I only carry Madico Charcool, which is a dyed color stable film...no metalized films for auto. I think I argued about custy's wanting to know about specs, but most of the time they dont. I carry CH b/c it works with cars with the antenna in the rear glass, and carries the same metalized film warranty, which I think we can all agree are a joke. They are just put in place to make a custy feel warm and fuzzy. Sorry for the rant...

BTW, I think this is the best duel Ive seen with V....and I AM one of those that follows his posts! :thumb