Maximum heat rejection clear films

[Fiveofeen]

Good High heat rejection Clear Films should be

- VLT above 70

- SC 0.5-0.6

- TSER 50-60%

- IR at 1000 to 2100nm above 90%

Eg. Solargard LX70

SC 0.52

TSER 55%

IR 95%

This is consolidated from my library for VLT 70 films:

Best SC (0.52) - Solargard LX70, VK70

Highest TSER (59-60%) - 3M, Japan

Highest IR (97-99%) - 3M, Korea

What 3M film offers that performance?

Nice thing about certain films that are offered for auto or flat is that you can review their NFRC data too. Which is third party tested and means there is zero chance of the numbers being inflated.

The testing method is different than what is used on standard specification sheets as its a framed (aluminum) window but its nice to know the numbers are 100% real as the supplier has no control over the results.

LX70 jumps up to 62% TSER on 1/8" clear glass. That is with 28% Solar Absorption by the way, no product can come close to that.

[Guest crossy67]

So in general would the likes of Air 80 and LX70 be suitable for flat ans automotive. Not Architecturally specified, more is I were to be asked for it by a customer?

[Fiveofeen]

So in general would the likes of Air 80 and LX70 be suitable for flat ans automotive. Not Architecturally specified, more is I were to be asked for it by a customer?

LX70 was and is originally intended for flat.

I do think AIR80 is offered through Vista, at least over here in the states.

[vquestfilms.com]

Nice thing about certain films that are offered for auto or flat is that you can review their NFRC data too. Which is third party tested and means there is zero chance of the numbers being inflated.

The testing method is different than what is used on standard specification sheets as its a framed (aluminum) window but its nice to know the numbers are 100% real as the supplier has no control over the results.

LX70 jumps up to 62% TSER on 1/8" clear glass. That is with 28% Solar Absorption by the way, no product can come close to that.

NFRC data has been a long needed verifier in our industry, however it is only as reliable as it is kept current. Case in point, a well-known manufacture of films described as ceramic is listed in the NFRC data base with some respectable performance numbers. If you were to go to their newly refurbished website, you will find those same films with substantially lower SHGC #'s and I mean substantially lower to where the window frames are not the factor in the difference. So one would have to question, which of the two is accurate? Could old performance data sit in the NFRC database? If so, then one would have to exercise caution in believing everything they read.

Everyone reports 1/8" glass specs, one of the reasons would be that you get optimal #'s but we all know that it is a rare day that you will actually install film on such glass.

[vquestfilms.com]

Good High heat rejection Clear Films should be

- VLT above 70

- SC 0.5-0.6

- TSER 50-60%

- IR at 1000 to 2100nm above 90%

Eg. Solargard LX70

SC 0.52

TSER 55%

IR 95%

This is consolidated from my library for VLT 70 films:

Best SC (0.52) - Solargard LX70, VK70

Highest TSER (59-60%) - 3M, Japan

Highest IR (97-99%) - 3M, Korea

IR percentages are so subjective to the wavelengths measured and everyone does that a little differently so it really shouldn't be an indicator of the best performing 70%vlt -imo. Not to mention the fact that IRR and IRC are not total performance measurements.

[TintWizard]

Air 80 has too much heat absorption for thermopane windows. Too bad

[Guest crossy67]

What sort of percentage would be good? What percentage does Air 80 absorb?

[Fiveofeen]

Nice thing about certain films that are offered for auto or flat is that you can review their NFRC data too. Which is third party tested and means there is zero chance of the numbers being inflated.

The testing method is different than what is used on standard specification sheets as its a framed (aluminum) window but its nice to know the numbers are 100% real as the supplier has no control over the results.

LX70 jumps up to 62% TSER on 1/8" clear glass. That is with 28% Solar Absorption by the way, no product can come close to that.

NFRC data has been a long needed verifier in our industry, however it is only as reliable as it is kept current. Case in point, a well-known manufacture of films described as ceramic is listed in the NFRC data base with some respectable performance numbers. If you were to go to their newly refurbished website, you will find those same films with substantially lower SHGC #'s and I mean substantially lower to where the window frames are not the factor in the difference. So one would have to question, which of the two is accurate? Could old performance data sit in the NFRC database? If so, then one would have to exercise caution in believing everything they read.

Everyone reports 1/8" glass specs, one of the reasons would be that you get optimal #'s but we all know that it is a rare day that you will actually install film on such glass.

The reasons the numbers are lower is because you are looking at two different types of testing methods. AIMCAL vs. NFRC.

NFRC specifications are done every four years, you can see certain products with older specifications are tested on glass with different performance. The SHGC on 1/8" clear glass goes from a .73 SHGC to .75 on newer tests. Some products (some of mine and yours) benefit from this.

I would hands down put more weight on NFRC results than ANYTHING posted on a manufacturers website. Here are a few reasons why.

1. It is third party testing, we have ZERO influence on the outcome and cannot alter the results.

2. They test on six different types of glass to ensure you compare your product properly against the competition on the right type of glass. Some suppliers use 1/4" glass since it gives better results in some cases for high VLT films.

3. NFRC testing is done on framed glass, this is a much better real world example of how film is used versus plate glass that is used in AIMCAL style tests.

Few realize the power of NFRC restults, no specification sheet shows film on 1/4" Grey glass for example. You would be amazed what products will compete with each other on glass like that only to be not even close on 1/8" clear. It is nice to know when using those NFRC numbers the end user is getting REAL performance and not inflated numbers because we show how a film performs on 1/8" clear glass instead of what it is actually going on.

I'm still surprised Huper has not yet gotten Ceramic 60 or 70 NFRC certified...

[vquestfilms.com]

The reasons the numbers are lower is because you are looking at two different types of testing methods. AIMCAL vs. NFRC.

NFRC specifications are done every four years, you can see certain products with older specifications are tested on glass with different performance. The SHGC on 1/8" clear glass goes from a .73 SHGC to .75 on newer tests. Some products (some of mine and yours) benefit from this.

I would hands down put more weight on NFRC results than ANYTHING posted on a manufacturers website. Here are a few reasons why.

1. It is third party testing, we have ZERO influence on the outcome and cannot alter the results.

2. They test on six different types of glass to ensure you compare your product properly against the competition on the right type of glass. Some suppliers use 1/4" glass since it gives better results in some cases for high VLT films.

3. NFRC testing is done on framed glass, this is a much better real world example of how film is used versus plate glass that is used in AIMCAL style tests.

Few realize the power of NFRC restults, no specification sheet shows film on 1/4" Grey glass for example. You would be amazed what products will compete with each other on glass like that only to be not even close on 1/8" clear. It is nice to know when using those NFRC numbers the end user is getting REAL performance and not inflated numbers because we show how a film performs on 1/8" clear glass instead of what it is actually going on.

I'm still surprised Huper has not yet gotten Ceramic 60 or 70 NFRC certified...

Tim,

I'm aware of the variations between NFRC and AIMCAL and the reasons for them. There is no doubt that NFRC testing has benefits. Like you, I am an advocate of such testing. What I am saying though, is that it appears to be possible to get a product tested and certified and then change the material (for whatever reason) in some way so that it no longer performs as stated in the NFRC record.

For example take a particular 30% vlt film and you can look this up yourself:

Film ABC (NFRC 1/8" clear SP)

SHGC= .36

Film ABC (Advertised performance data on MFG website 1/8" clear SP)

SHGC= .43

Is the almost 20% difference due to the frame? If not, then what explains the massive discrepency?

Don't get me wrong, I think NFRC Certification numbers are reliable for the most part. And if it was in my power, I would certify every film I sell but just like it is not in your power to buy the machine that will produce Hilite 70 in 72" widths, it is not in my power to pull the trigger and get C-60 and C-70 certified. I would like too, but you know how it all works internally no need for me to say anyting further there. I'm sure they will certify those films before the CA building code changes for window film...

[Fiveofeen]

Rob,

Yes, the frame can make that much of a difference.

There are two testing methods used right now and you do bring up a very valid point about how can we really trust what is going on.

Thankfully we have the NFRC and their uniform testing methods that are done by a third party to the EXACT same standard as every other film they test on the EXACT same glass where its performance prior to film being applied is published too. Personally I think this shows we should be much more concerned with factory published performance values considereing they do not one of the three things NFRC does to keep things equal and honest.

My money is on NFRC every time. No supplier has any influence on the results posted. To cast doubt into that makes no sense at all.