3M

[Tint Eastwood]

Reminds me a lot of middle school. It's all about the brand.....

You guys should be glad there is such a well known "inferior" product that makes your sales pitch so much easier because customers can small the 3M labelled BS from a mile away. Atleast that's what you guys are saying, and I've seen I said, inferred and implied countless times on these threads.

If it is soooooo easy to sell against it then why are you guys complaining about it.....

Those that are successfully selling against it, it is because you are taking the focus off of the BRAND name and putting it on the personal touches of your business. By making those personal connections you are instilling a trust that allows your customer to see past the brand names stamped on the box. They feel confident with YOU and in turn are confident with whatever product you carry. Just this business that the customer knows better is ridiculous. They know ONLY what you tell them.

I sold a lot of 3M in the past, but I no longer sell the film. My take.....it's an ok film with a great name . I never sold it as the BEST film on the market, I sold it as A film on the market and still had good results. Never found the need to bash another company or film manufacturer just to win a bid. Just like anybody else, they have their good products and they have their bad products.

[gosurfing85]

I sold a lot of 3M in the past, but I no longer sell the film. My take.....it's an ok film with a great name . I never sold it as the BEST film on the market, I sold it as A film on the market and still had good results. Never found the need to bash another company or film manufacturer just to win a bid. Just like anybody else, they have their good products and they have their bad products.

Exactly! We also sale Sungard/Madico dyed as a cheaper film and cxp cheaper than crystalline. I never said 3M was the best. Every film company has there good and bads about it. I like the way CS sticks to dot matrix and I like the way suntek 25% matches most factory so well.

[gosurfing85]

I sold a lot of 3M in the past, but I no longer sell the film. My take.....it's an ok film with a great name . I never sold it as the BEST film on the market, I sold it as A film on the market and still had good results. Never found the need to bash another company or film manufacturer just to win a bid. Just like anybody else, they have their good products and they have their bad products.

Exactly! We also sale Sungard/Madico dyed as a cheaper film and cxp cheaper than crystalline. I never said 3M was the best. Every film company has there good and bads about it. I like the way CS sticks to dot matrix and I like the way suntek 25% matches most factory so well.

**Suntek CARBON 25

[Tintguy1980]

No this topic started with me giving advice on using crystalline. But yes it is true there is no ceramic in it. It's actually a step above ceramic per rep, it blocks pretty much all IR rays when ceramic blocks about 78% It does have so carbon in it for color but besides that its the layers that bend and stop the heat from coming in

Yes it is not a ceramic and it does block pretty much all the IR at 950 nm, which is one of the least intense wavelengths in the infrared range (between 780 and 2500 nm). If you were to truly calculate for reporting total IR performance values the film you tout, it would fall closer to 66%.

[gosurfing85]

66%? not 65% or 70%? Did you calculate that number yourself? Because you put it in your own words as if it were common knowledge.

[vquestfilms.com]

66%? not 65% or 70%? Did you calculate that number yourself? Because you put it in your own words as if it were common knowledge.

It has been averaged out and it is far below 97%... He has a reliable source for that info, if he's referencing what I think he is referencing, it is correct.

[gosurfing85]

That just made it sound so dumb. So now it's between 66 - 97%... That's pretty broad. Which reference? Where is this formula your using to come up with these random numbers?

[gosurfing85]

[vquestfilms.com]

This is what I remember:

We have calculated that a product whose solar transmission curve is shown in Figure 5 has a total direct IR transmission of about 13.4%, not the claimed 3%.

-CPF Tech Updates 7/2008 Issue 10

So based on this figure it would be 86.6% IRR. And they used a Spectrophotometer to figure this stuff out, they cost $80.-120.K

[gosurfing85]

which is still a step up from ceramic. I rest my case