Customer Question - XPEL XR Black vs. FormulaOne Pinnacle

mistergoober · March 1, 2023

Thought i'd ask the experts here on any opinions between these two films. I'm a believer that the installer is the biggest differentiator and am only looking at what i'd consider the top 2 shops in my area. Two of those stores flipped to XPEL in the last few years since i've used them (both carried Wincos previously). No experience with XPEL and how it compares to Llumar/Formula One stuff. Mainly looking for great heat rejection as well as what's going to hold up well for several years in the southern US (HOT).

XPEL shops both quoted their film as having 88% heat rejection, but looking at TSER that looks like BS. Comparing a 30% VLT, looks like 57% XPEL, 56% Pinnacle, so no real difference.

Anything else I should look at at the same price point with better heat rejection? Any reason to pick XPEL Black over Pinnacle? Reason i'm asking here is to see if one product is much easier for the installer to work with, maybe more durable against scratches, or easier to remove in several years.

I've used both shops before, I *KNOW* the FormulaOne shop has one of the best installers, XPEL shop is very well-known and known for good results as well. Price-wise, they're similar, they're first-rate shops and I know i'm going to get garbage results regardless of the film if I go with a cheap cut-rate install.

Tintguy1980 · March 1, 2023

Xpel came to the market with paint protection film within the last couple decades or so and only started selling window film inside the last decade. I am unsure if Xpel equates to the manufacturing history of this next candidate.

Pinnacle is a film made by a manufacturer who is one member of the industry's genesis group of 4 or five and has been known for the quality of their automotive film products since the late 80's to early 90's. Never mind they've changed hands several times and are now a division of Eastman Chemical.

88% heat rejection IS a misleading statement. It relies on a number taken from a small portion of the near infrared (NIR) energy of the sun, which makes up only 48 +% of the sun's electromagnetic energy --- combine that with visible light 49 +% and ultraviolet light 2 +/-% adding up to 100%. All of these percentages are responsible for 'heat' and is why TSER is the true measure of every films' performance capability.

NIR, visible and ultraviolet light are not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. Once it strikes, and is absorbed by, a surface it converts to far infrared radiating off said surface. Far infrared IS defined as heat.

Shop selling Pinnacle is a win win; best installer and best film.

mistergoober · March 1, 2023

Thanks, seals the deal for me, booking an appointment with the FormulaOne shop. Every now and then something new comes to the market and is a game changer, wasn't sure if XPEL was something special, but since the specs are comparable, going to go with Pinnacle and the better installer.

highplains · March 2, 2023

18 hours ago, mistergoober said:

Mainly looking for great heat rejection as well as what's going to hold up well

XPEL shops both quoted their film as having 88% heat rejection, but looking at TSER that looks like BS. Comparing a 30% VLT, looks like 57% XPEL, 56% Pinnacle, so no real difference.

The 88% number is the IR rejection measurement, while not total BS it does start to set an unreasonable expectation and is definitely not the number I would sell it off of.

In terms of advantages to the Xpel film it does offer a more robust scratch resistant coating than many other films I've used. I made the switch to them as an installer more than three years ago and have been extremely happy with the quality and performance of their film. I can't speak to the FormulaOne film as I haven't tried it myself.

DynamicATL · March 4, 2023

Both great films, Formula One will have the more accurate IR rejection numbers since they measure across the whole 780-2500nm spectrum. XPEL only measures at a singular wavelength, 1025nm. So across the whole spectrum, that number is much lower; otherwise, they would advertise it.

On a side note, it is funny how many people on here used to trip about 3M rating their IR rejection from 900-1000nm but I don't see any posts complaining about XPEL or Global only metering at 1025nm. 🤣

highplains · March 10, 2023

On 3/4/2023 at 3:26 PM, DynamicATL said:

Both great films, Formula One will have the more accurate IR rejection numbers since they measure across the whole 780-2500nm spectrum. XPEL only measures at a singular wavelength, 1025nm. So across the whole spectrum, that number is much lower; otherwise, they would advertise it.

On a side note, it is funny how many people on here used to trip about 3M rating their IR rejection from 900-1000nm but I don't see any posts complaining about XPEL or Global only metering at 1025nm. 🤣

Hey @DynamicATL :waving long time no see. Hope everything is going well. The Xpel spec sheet I've got lists IR Rejection across 780-1700nm range as well as the narrower 900-1000nm range, never seen any documentation specific to 1025nm.

DynamicATL · March 14, 2023

On 3/10/2023 at 12:17 PM, highplains said:

Hey @DynamicATL long time no see. Hope everything is going well. The Xpel spec sheet I've got lists IR Rejection across 780-1700nm range as well as the narrower 900-1000nm range, never seen any documentation specific to 1025nm.

👋 I guess they updated it at some point...Global is the same. Maybe it is a Garware thing. You can go to their website below and click on the specifications sheet or select the specs below. It is in the fine print.

https://www.xpel.com/products/window-film/automotive-window-tint

https://www.xpel.com/web-assets/downloads/XPEL-PRIME-Spec-Sheet-USA-V2-1.pdf

Edited March 14, 2023 by DynamicATL

Tintguy1980 · March 14, 2023

On 3/10/2023 at 12:17 PM, highplains said:

Hey @DynamicATL long time no see. Hope everything is going well. The Xpel spec sheet I've got lists IR Rejection across 780-1700nm range as well as the narrower 900-1000nm range, never seen any documentation specific to 1025nm.

Just for shiggles and recharge my memory of,

The chart attached shows electromagnetic radiation range in terms of Visible 48+%, Ultraviolet <2%, and Near infrared (NIR) 49+/-% light (using the red line). Publishing one wavelength/nanometer number really does not give the big picture.

Let's compare 3M's published single wavelength in NIR is at 950nm (nanometers) to Xpel's at 1025nm: you will see by the linear charting that there's a pronounced dip (bottoming out) at 950 and a peak at the 1025 position.

The peaks and valleys are representative of the 'intensity' of the NIR radiation. A dip is low intensity, a peak is high intensity. Neither of these two numbers fall within the most intense NIR radiation found between the 780 and 1000nm range. So, if someone were to publish an 800nm range (a high peak in intensity), it stands to reason 800 will be a better published performance number to that of 950 or 1025.

That said, the entire NIR range (considered to be 780-2500nm) is already accounted for in each films' published TSER (including visible and UV light radiation).

Hopefully this should point out the 'why' it's not reliable to state a single wavelength as any films' performance capability.

Edit for the sake of Joe Public reading this: the entire electromagnetic radiation range of the sun (UV, NIR, Visible light) is responsible for 'heat', however, only after it strikes, is absorbed by a surface and is re-radiate off that surface as far-infrared (FIR). FIR IS known as heat.

The reason behind any use of NIR wavelength(s) is because the human body senses NIR conversion to FIR much quicker than UV or Visible light energy. NIR travels beneath the skin closer to nerve endings, which is where water, being highly absorptive of NIR, heats up.

Now, if a reported 88% NIR rejection at 1025nm is brought into perspective by using NIR's 49% of 100% of the sun's radiation, in reality it's such a minuscule number when accounting all wavelengths from the sun, combined. Sure sounds good to say 88%, but the (TSER) big picture tells the truth in film performance values. And, it makes stating 88% heat rejection misleading at best.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Tintguy1980

StarMan · April 19, 2023

Figured i'd ask here since it's an XPEL XR Black vs Pinnicle question as well.

My last car had FormulaOne Pinnacle 25% and loved it due to it's "neutral" color (I had this on a Toyota Supra and Miata).

However now i'm getting another vehicle (Toyota Tacoma) and my local shop also recently switched from FormulaOne to XPEL. I know the XR Plus appears to have a blue hue, but does the XPEL XR Black (20%) have a color to it, or is it as neutral as the Pinnacle?

FYI: I had 3M CIR 25%, that film has a noticeable blue hue [that was a BMW though, so i think their glass has a blue hue to start], but I didn't mind it as it was on a blue car. I also seriously dislike Suntek CIR (had this on my Miata), extremely noticeable turquoise color to it; hated it so much I took it off and it was the first time I swapped over to FormulaOne way back then.

Edited April 19, 2023 by StarMan

no ma'am · April 20, 2023

If you didn’t like the look of suntek, you’ll probably be happier with the black xpel, the plus performs well but I’m not sure you’ll like the inside looking out. I wasn’t a fan. I stick F1 I’d sell you pinnacle over stratos if this was a concern. You gotta trade off some low angle haze for ir rejection in this regard.