badluckmodel3

27 minutes ago, Tintguy1980 said:

The above 'strain' explanation may play role in the ghost squiggles seen in the OP's picture.

 

Window film expands under high heat of a heat gun used to shape the film to glass curvatures. It expands under the heat and as it cools, it shrinks back beyond its original start point. When a specific film is metalized through the sputter-coating process, sometime these ghost squiggles show up. Most of what I've experienced over my career in window film came from nickel-chromium metalizing, but some highly respected ceramic film products have been know to do the same ... more so when using the Wet-Shrink method. Someone mentioned a bunching of metal particles (microns in size) ... this may also play a role in ghosting.

 

Replace with a different product or ask that the film be shaped using the Dry-Shrink method on low heat.

I have seen this hazy/blurry effect (sometimes with very small squiggles) in the following films

- Llumar Stratos

- Llumar Pinnacle

- 3M Ceramic IR

- STEK NEX (antimony tin oxide, tungsten, carbon, graphene)

Is the benefit of dry shrink method to shrink a larger area at a time, since it is not bounded by water's surface tension? Thus reducing the thermal and mechanical stress in the film?

8 minutes ago, Tintguy1980 said:

STEK appears to be a new comer to the industry; at least since I retired in 2015. Most likely it is a wannabe film from Asia throwing around marketing hype that amounts to nothing AND in no way will ever compare or compete well to 3M or LLumar products. Those two names have been the standard-bearer for years in the industry.

 

Definitely residual adhesive at the bottom to the left of the blue marker. Mirror cuts are not normal. May I suggest another shop?

Yes I did change shop. The images you responded to were from previous 2 shops, with Llumar Stratos/Pinnacle and 3M Ceramic IR. They tried to brush these issues away as they are not in the middle of driver's view box, and that's when I realized they do not have good work ethics.

STEK was installed by the 3rd shop, and had the hazing issue shown in the 1st post in this thread, where you mentioned it could also be caused by "metalizing".

I don't believe the issue is the glass. Regarding paint, that's CA mandating all cars manufactured there must use eco paint.

I thought about this problem, and I believe this can be explained with mechanics of materials.

I hypothesize the issue we are experiencing is due to Tesla's exteme glass curvature, causing the tint process to strain the film beyond it's elastic regime and causing significant plastic deformation (strain means deformation of material, or stretching). This effect is called crazing. See here for a high level physics discussion.

This effect is seen when you stretch a clear plastic bag to the point where it becomes opaque, indicating the molecular chain realignment in plastic deformation regime is distorting the light transmission.

Evidence from both of our cases

- defects occurred near the edges of the film

- tint shrink process stretches the film starting from the middle, and strains the film outward toward edges and corners

- tint install squeegees the film outward toward edges and corners

- defects distort the light transmission, makng the film opaque and crazed

Now the question is does this happen during the heat shrink process outside the car, or during the squeegeeing process inside the car? I believe it is more likely that the shrink process outside the window is the origin of this crazing effect, because

- polymers are very sensitive to temperature, eg tints become "rubbery" immediately when exposed to heat gun used to shrink

- no scar marks are seen from squeegeeing

@Squigglylines

Looks like the same problem I'm having. Your image looks like a Tesla to me. I just had mine redone with STEK NEX 35% front as well, also with some streaks. The streaks weren't as bad as the Ceramic IR though

@Tintguy1980@highplains

Went back to the shop and re-tint with STEK NEX instead of 3M Ceramic IR at 35%. I observed the whole process. This time, the hazy streaks still exists but in different location. The haze are mostly at the bottom based on my eyes. Thus, we can rule out it being the adhesive. What other possible reasons can this be? Film being over-stretched during shrink?

Note: installer uses baby shampoo as slip solution

44 minutes ago, highplains said:

As has been previously stated those distorted areas appear to be residual adhesive from a previous installation. As far as adhesive removal goes it can be accomplished either by chemical or mechanical means, depends on the installer, the window in question,  and extent of the adhesive left behind. If you're otherwise happy with this film and installation, reach out to your installer and see what they recommend going forward. With every removal and reinstallation you increase your chances of having adverse issues such as scratches to the glass or water intrusion to the electronics. The model 3 has modules below each pillar that are notorious for having issues with water intrusion after tinting. Residual adhesive can be difficult to spot during the process because it's clear to start with and once wet all but disappears until it's too late. That said if it were my work I'd want to redo it just from a personal pride and quality standards standpoint, check with your installer. Also worth mentioning is that no installation is every going to be 100% perfect and after 7 rounds and still not being happy, windshield tint just may not be right for you on this vehicle. I say that with the caveat of not having seen any of the previous installations and given what I've seen come out of other shops I certainly can believe that they failed to meet even the most reasonable or loose standards for quality. Hope this helps @badluckmodel3

Thanks @highplains for the info. The installers are willing to reinstall with STEK NEX. I cannot find many reviews for this film, so I don't know what to expect regarding the quality comparing to 3M or Llumar. I only know it is similar to crystalline, but graphene is just one of those material science hypes that fail to live up to most of the expectations

Here are results of some of the re-tints, which in my non-expert opinion are not acceptable

On 7/24/2021 at 8:42 AM, pbalentine said:

Tinted 7 times and didnt fry the electronic module on the driver side of the windshield?? Damn thats lucky. Im glad I stopped tinting them. 

Are you referring to the specific module that had issues ridge after Model 3 launch? From my research that specific module seem to be properly epoxied now.

15 minutes ago, Tintguy1980 said:

The pics provide served well; it appears some specks are small particle contamination and the distorted areas appear to be light adhesive residue that didn't get cleaned away before film was applied.

 

It's a tricky situation removing film from windscreens because there is risk in glass breakage using the steam or sweat method to remove film. That leaves the old fashion removal method of simply peeling the film away, which will likely leave every bit of adhesive on the glass and requires much effort to remove every last bit of residue.

 

If you go for a redo, yet again, consider getting Crystalline. Why? Crystalline is very effective at reflecting the near-infrared (part of solar energy) rather than absorbing it, which occurs with ceramic products.

 

A friend of mine had his truck windscreen tinted with a light version of Stratos product and wound up having it removed because his front window became a radiator. Stratos is a hjgh solar absorptive product as is Pinnacle and other 'like' ceramic products.

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't notice the dust specks, and I'm fine with it. Regarding the adhesive residues, do you usually use acetone or other solvents to chemically remove the adhesives, or do you scrape it off mechanically with towels or razors?

Good point on your assessment in absorption of ceramics, contrary to reflection with graphene-based films. However this shop only has STEK NEX for graphene-based films, and very few reviews exist in the public forums. Part of the reason for going with 3M Ceramic IR is because my hands feel more heat from the heat lamp when comparing Crystalline versus Ceramic IR, despite the superior IR rejection metrics of crystalline. I suspect ceramics absorb wider range of wavelengths, whereas crystalline reflects narrower window of wavelengths and transmits more light (making them more "clear"?).

12 minutes ago, Melayeze said:

Tint is to be looked through. Not looked at. 7 times . maybe you need to be reasonable? Its just plastic on Windows put on by a living human.it not going to be perfect. You don't get dirt on the outside sometimes?  Does the sun go down can you see it when you sleep as well. More importantly what are those batteries going to do in ten years. J.J..

 

Obviously your response is solely based on the number of retints, and you did not consider any of the factors I provided that led to those retints.

For the current tint, the distortions are within the depths of field of me during driving, and they distract my focus points every time. Look at the video I provided, which represents the blurry effects across the windshield, then tell me if you think this is acceptable to see during driving.

While you're at the topic of batteries, energy storage decreases by 5% after 100,000 miles, and 20% after 400,000 miles. Maybe you need to be reasonable?

29 minutes ago, civicrice said:

looks like old glue from the previous dozen attempts. 

I suppose this won't go away with sunlight baking then. Is it terribly difficult to remove residual glue? Previous 3M Ceramic IR was left on the car for over 4 weeks.

Hi all,

I am in dire need for advises and opinions. I have spent countless hours tinting and re-tinting my front windshield in 3 shops, and in each shop weird things happen.

Previously I went to 2 different tint shops to get my Model 3 tinted for total of 7 times. Both shops had quality issues with the front tint---including numerous light gaps, deep scratches, creases, and weird adhesive distortions (that do not go away after 4 weeks of sun bake). I tried Llumar Stratos 40%, Pinnacle 40% and 3M Ceramic IR 35%, and all had unacceptable problems. Turns out the owners of the shop do not do tints themselves.

I went to the 3rd tint shop and installed 3M Ceramic IR 35%. The tint shop owner was also the tinter, and had no light gaps or deep cuts. However, there are multiple regions on the tint spread across the windshield with haze or blur to it.

• They are most visible near the bottom of the front windshield due to its acute angles. Some are within my view box, and I can see them when looking at lanes and vehicles ahead.
• I can feel the bumpy textures when I run my fingernails over them.
• They are shaped somewhat rectangular and sits horizontally, as if they align with the directions of the squeegees.

Questions

1. Do you think the blurry effects are due to adhesive curing? This tint is now 5 days old and was baked daily. Will this go away after a week or so?

2. Are the blurry effects due to ceramic materials inside the films? I cannot visibly see this in my other Honda vehicles with 3M Crystalline 40. If I change the tint to Crystalline or STEK NEX, will this issue go away?

Thanks!

A very tired tint shopper

Video of the hazy/blurry effect can be seen here https://i.imgur.com/EN6NCKc.mp4

Macro shots of the blurry regions are shown below