EPDM Rubber Roofs Public Service Announcement
Dennis
Dear NewsReader,
This is a once-only Public Service Announcement. We will not
mail your Newsgroup again or try to sell you anything. Our goal is to
inform RV users about their EPDM rubber roofs. Thank you for your time
and patience.
THE TRUTH ABOUT EPDM RUBBER ROOFS
Approximately 75% of all Recreational Vehicles now manufactured have
EPDM Rubber Roofs. Because of the advent of 'rubber roof treatment'
products in the last few years, the tremendous amount of mis-information
and lack of understanding about this material and it's proper
maintenance, 303 Products, Inc. and Dicor Corporation (a leading
supplier of EPDM roofing material) have recently published a public
service announcement which details the facts...important information
RVers need to know.
RV RUBBER ROOFS
THE TRUTH ABOUT EPDM RUBBER ROOFS
* EPDM RUBBER: What it is and why it lasts so long.
* PROPER CARE: What manufacturers actually recommend.
* WATCH OUT! For RV products that can damage EPDM rubber and void your
warranty!
* How to keep your EPDM rubber roof clean and looking like new
Overview
EPDM is one of the most versatile and long lasting materials ever
manufactured for outdoor exposure. Most RV industry experts consider
EPDM rubber roofing membrane the most dependable, most cost effective
and easiest to maintain roofing material there is. Yet today's average
RVer is deluged with information, a great deal of it mis-information,
about rubber roofs. Consequently, RVers are spending millions on
unneeded products, many of which may be harmful to EPDM rubber roofs.
This Public Service Announcement details the truth about EPDM and
reprints manufacturer's guidelines on cleaning and maintaining the EPDM
rubber roofing membrane on your RV. If you have questions after
reviewing the material, please contact Dicor Corporation, the RV
industry's largest supplier of EPDM rubber roofing. Dicor's address and
phone numbers are provided.
Mis-Information, Mistakes & Money
EPDM stands for Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer. Engineering
specifications describe EPDM as "Ideal for outdoor applications because
of its excellent resistance to ultra-violet light, ozone, oxidants, and
severe weather conditions."
EPDM rubber roofing membrane is made to last 20 years or longer and has
a 10 to 12 year guarantee depending on the brand. The guarantee does not
require the use of any protective `roof treatment' or `roof protector'
product and recommends only cleaning. Unlike natural rubber (latex) or
rubber blends (tires & wiper blades), EPDM does not require periodic
applications of any product to protect it from ultra-violet light or
ozone.
The statement or implication that you should purchase and apply a
product to "protect" your rubber roofing from the elements is
mis-information. Buying and using such a product can be a mistake and
may even damage the EPDM membrane.
Petroleum distillates - Not For EPDM
Petroleum distillates are incompatible and should never be used on a
number of plastics...vinyl, most rubbers and particularly EPDM.
Engineering specifications for EPDM rate its solvent and oil resistance
as "POOR". DICOR's Care & Maintenance instructions warn: "CAUTION: DO
NOT use cleaners or conditioners containing petroleum solvents, harsh
abrasives, or citric based cleaners. You may cause irreparable damage
to your roof".
One of the mildest of solvents is mineral spirits, and DICOR even warns
against this: "DO NOT use mineral spirits in a large area or allow it
to soak into the membrane."
Laboratory tests conducted in July of 1996 evaluated the effect of a
leading RV "roof treatment" product on EPDM roofing membrane using
standard sunlamp and immersion testing procedures. The "roof treatment",
which contained petroleum distillates, caused a 63% mass change
(swelling). In the summary/recommendations portion of the lab test the
scientist noted they would not recommend the "roof treatment" and
perhaps more tellingly noted, "Per the MSDS, this product contains
petroleum distillates, a substance that is known to be incompatible
with....EPDM sheeting".
For your rubber roof, for the EPDM seals around slide-outs/ pop-ups,
in the baggage compartments or for the EPDM door and trunk seals in your
car, petroleum distillates are a huge "No No". And don't be fooled by
names such as "organic solvent", "hydrocarbon carrier", etc. Petroleum
distillates by any other name should NEVER be applied to EPDM. If you
aren't sure about a product, contact the manufacturer and have them send
you a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Look under the
section entitled "HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS". If it lists any petroleum
distillates, do not use it on EPDM.
The FAQ's:
Q: Is it necessary to protect my rubber roof against UV light?
A: No.
Q: What do I need to do to care for my rubber roof?
A: Periodic cleaning (See DICOR Care & Maintenance instructions).
Q: One manufacturer told me their roof treatment product had only a
minor percentage of petroleum distillates, something like 20 or 30
percent. Does the percentage matter?
A: Usually percentages given are based on weight. Since petroleum
distillates are significantly lighter than water, in reality 30
percent by weight might be 40% or more by volume. But it really doesn't
matter. THERE IS NO LEVEL OF PETROLEUM DISTILLATES THAT IS RECOMMENDED.
Q: If I use a roof treatment product containing petroleum distillates
on my rubber roof, can that void my warranty?
A: Yes.
Q: If I'm going to buy a used RV and it has a rubber roof, how can I
tell if the previous owner used petroleum distillates and damaged
the rubber roof? What would the damage look like?
A: Two things: First, swelling. Uneven thicknesses of material.
Second, loose areas. Petroleum distillates soak in and cause the
adhesive to loosen and the membrane to balloon. Then, when the swelling
goes down and the membrane flattens out again, it may never again
adhere properly or completely.
Q: Dicor's Care & Maintenance instructions says you can use mineral
spirits on stubborn stains. Isn't mineral spirits a petroleum
distillate?
A: Yes. But note the instructions say to use a cloth dampened with
mineral spirits and then only to remove a stubborn stain; to never use
a petroleum distillate (even a solvent as mild as mineral spirits)
directly on the membrane, in a large area or allow it to soak in. In
no way is "treating" the roof membrane with a product containing
petroleum distillates recommended or condoned.
Q: Oxidation: My roof seems to oxidize and run down the sides when it
rains. What's going on?
A: First, EPDM roofing membrane does oxidize slowly, it's supposed to.
In a dozen years it may oxidize 10% of its thickness. This is normal.
Cleaning as recommended will help greatly. At least four times a year,
more often if your local conditions and experience warrant.
Q: The rubber roofing wraps over slightly on both sides of my RV and
you can see it from the ground. It gets dirty and doesn't look good.
What can I do about this?
A: Clean the area and treat it with a product that will repel soiling
and is safe for EPDM. One product that performs and lasts well, is safe
for EPDM and is commonly available at RV stores is 303 Protectant™.
Dicor™ Corporation
Brite-Ply Roof Care and Maintenance
Proper care and maintenance of your recreational vehicle, including your
Brite-Ply roof is important for trouble-free performance. Normal
maintenance is simple, easy, and requires no special material.
(1) Keep your roof clean. Clean your roof at least four (4) times
annually.
For normal cleaning:
* Use RC100 or a mild laundry detergent. (See CAUTION below.)
* Rinse complete roof with clean water to remove any loose dirt or
debris.
* Using a medium bristle brush, along with the cleaner mixed with
water, scrub the entire roof. Rinse thoroughly with clean water to
avoid residue build-up on the roof or sidewalls of the vehicle.
* For more difficult stains, you may use RC100, mentioned above, in a
more concentrated mixture. For stubborn stains, use a cloth dampened
with mineral spirits. DO NOT use mineral spirits in a large area or
allow it to soak into the membrane. Household bleach can also be used
(fully concentrated) and allowed to soak in stubborn stain areas, then
scrubbed with a medium bristle brush or a cloth. Rinse thoroughly.
Recommended cleaner: RC100 Dicor Synthetic Roof & General Purpose
Cleaner.
Caution: DO NOT use cleaners or conditioners containing petroleum
solvents, harsh abrasives, or citric based cleaners. You may cause
irreparable damage to your roof.
Use caution when working on top of your vehicle.
The wet Brite-Ply membrane may be extremely slippery.
(2) Beware of areas where fruit or tree sap or harsh environmental
fall-out may stay on the roof for an extended period of time. These
conditions may result in unremovable stains. If you are in these
conditions, you may have to increase the frequency of your cleaning or
premature deterioration may occur.
COPYRIGHT 1997 by Dicor Corporation, Elkhart, Indiana 46515
This Public Service Announcement is provided as a public service by:
DICOR CORP. 303 PRODUCTS, INC.
PO Box 1806 PO Box 966
Elkhart, IN 46515 Palo Cedro, CA 96073
(219) 264-2699 (916) 549-5617 http://www.303-products.com
Jim Tromater
Dennis wrote:
>
> EPDM rubber roofing membrane is made to last 20 years or longer and has
> a 10 to 12 year guarantee depending on the brand. The guarantee does not
> require the use of any protective `roof treatment' or `roof protector'
I think my warranty is for defects in materials or workmanship, and does
not guarntee the longevity of the membrane.
> Laboratory tests conducted in July of 1996 evaluated the effect of a
> leading RV "roof treatment" product on EPDM roofing membrane using
> standard sunlamp and immersion testing procedures. The "roof treatment",
> which contained petroleum distillates, caused a 63% mass change
> (swelling). In the summary/recommendations portion of the lab test the
> scientist noted they would not recommend the "roof treatment" and
> perhaps more tellingly noted, "Per the MSDS, this product contains
> petroleum distillates, a substance that is known to be incompatible
> with....EPDM sheeting".
Hmmm! Why don't we have the name of the "leading RV 'roof treatment'"
If the test was truly valid there is are no grounds for libel and
including the name would be a truly "public service".
It would be nice to have someone, say the RV Consumer group, publish
independent tests on the EMDM material.
Jim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Jim Tromater ^^ Ph: 804-289-8131
^
^ Dept. of Psycholoygy ^^ Fax:
804-289-8943 ^
^ Univ. of Richmond, VA 23173 ^^ Email: jtro...@richmond.edu ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
mike...@netcom.com
In the annals of history it is recorded that on 10 Sep 1997 13:46:33 GMT
it was Jim Tromater who stated to rec.outdoors.rv-travel: : Dennis wrote:
: >
: > EPDM rubber roofing membrane is made to last 20 years or longer and has
: > a 10 to 12 year guarantee depending on the brand. The guarantee does not
: > require the use of any protective `roof treatment' or `roof protector'
: I think my warranty is for defects in materials or workmanship, and does
: not guarntee the longevity of the membrane.
: > Laboratory tests conducted in July of 1996 evaluated the effect of a
: > leading RV "roof treatment" product on EPDM roofing membrane using
: > standard sunlamp and immersion testing procedures. The "roof treatment",
: > which contained petroleum distillates, caused a 63% mass change
: > (swelling). In the summary/recommendations portion of the lab test the
: > scientist noted they would not recommend the "roof treatment" and
: > perhaps more tellingly noted, "Per the MSDS, this product contains
: > petroleum distillates, a substance that is known to be incompatible
: > with....EPDM sheeting".
: Hmmm! Why don't we have the name of the "leading RV 'roof treatment'"
: If the test was truly valid there is are no grounds for libel and
: including the name would be a truly "public service".
There's also no reason for them to invite trouble. Their motives are
fulfilled without naming names.
: It would be nice to have someone, say
the RV Consumer group, publish : independent tests on the EMDM material.
When the mfr. cautions me on how to take care of their product for best
performance, I listen closely and I'm inclined to trust that their
motives are in the best interest of their customers. It is a stretch to
believe that their motives are to sell more replacement roofs - but then
this is usenet and for all we know the aluminum roof people may have made
the post. I'm inclined to believe it is what it is represented to be.
You might want to balance this against a statement below made by Patrick
Huber to this newsgroup a while back. (From Dejanews) I don't know if his
company is the one being cited or not...
PS. I'm liking my aluminum roof better all the time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Subject: Re: Rubber Roof
From: Patrick Huber <path...@protectall.com>
Date: 1997/05/27
Message-Id: <338B6141...@protectall.com>
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel
[More Headers]
Hi, Margaret!
PMFJI, but we are familiar with the articles you mention and you are
correct, that is exactly what they recommend. The author of one of the
articles called us up and picked our brains for several hours about a
year ago now. Come to find out he was a better listener than an author
and that is unfortunate. An article written for a magazine does not
make one an expert. In this case I know because I can't begin to tell
you how many hours we spent on the phone with customer questions after
those articles appeared. I'd love to bill someone for that time.<G>
At least one of those articles raised MANY more questions than it
answered. We answered many of those questions and not just the ones on
petroleum distillates. The author basically copied down what you can
read in your rubber roof warranty. It says something to the effect of
"Don't use anything containing petroleum distillates on your roof...use
a solvent to spot clean your roof..." Is that a confusing statement or
what? <G> The author would have done a bigger service to you, the
RV'er, if he had tried to explain the manufacturer's rationale behind
that contradiction. Basically, what we feel it boils down to, is that
the roof manufacturer isn't going to be there to observe what you do to
your roof. So they issue a blanket statement "Don't use distillates."
What they should have said was something to the effect of "Please use
caution with distillates. Excess use may damage your roof and void your
warranty" or something to that effect. IOW, they should have said "Hey,
lunkhead! Don't dump a gallon of gasoline, or mineral spirits, or
turpentine, kerosene, etc., etc. on your roof!"
I can't speak for other chemical manufacturers, but we have a minimal
percentage of distillates in our Rubber Roof Treatment and in our
Protect All wax. Used correctly, neither product can damage your
vehicle in any way. Used incorrectly, virtually any & every product you
can find in the grocery store can cause a problem.
The Rubber Roof products are only a little over a year old but they have
a clean track record and I have heard from no one claiming damage to
their roof. Quite the contrary in fact. And our Protect All has been
around for about 23 years now with no blemishes either.
Reading manufacturer's directions will almost certainly give you the
benefit of a product. And most of us have a phone number or address on
the label so you may reach us with any questions you might have.
Semi-funny story: I spoke with a gentleman last fall who received a
half-bottle of our wax from his brother-in-law because "he didn't need
it anymore." His RV dealer told him the end-all/be-all of products to
use on his RV. After I told him how to use Protect All, I asked, "Why
doesn't your brother-in-law need it anymore? What did his dealer say to
use?" "Oh, well, his dealer told him to mix up a bucket of gasoline,
Tide and Coleman's white gas and just wash the RV down with that." <BG>
True story! After we stopped laughing in the office, about five
minutes later, I suggested he might want to call his brother-in-law to
remind him not to smoke when cleaning hs rig with that concoction. My
point is what do you think Coleman and Tide would say if you called them
and asked them if you could mix their products with gas and wash an RV
with it?<G>
PMFJI again but, as I said, we've been answering the petroleum
distillate question a lot over the last year.<G>
Best Regards,
Patrick Huber
Protect All, Inc.
www.protectall.com/ProtectAll/
Margaret Mioduszewski wrote:
>
> read two articles on the care of rubber roofs both did not recommend
> any
> thing with petroleum distillates protect all and the other cleaner has
> this
--
##############
Protected with spamgard(tm). Include the word "rabbit" in your subject line.
Michael
http://www.liferaft.com
EdJ
I just got back from walking for 2 days at the Harrisburg, Pa
RV show. This warning from the EPDM roof manufaturer
was mentioned in one of the seminars. The 303 product booth
was also handing out the printed folder containing the same
words that were posted here. When I asked them about it,
they said that there were two companies that manufacture the
EPDM material for roofing RV's. The one who printed up the
announcement consulted with their competition before
releasing the brochure. They agreed on the announcement.
So the Announcement posted here is legit.
At the moment though, I can't remember the names of the
companies and the brochure is buried in the 6 inch stack
of trailer info I picked up.
mike...@netcom.com wrote:
>
snip....
>
> When the mfr. cautions me on how to take care of their product for best
> performance, I listen closely and I'm inclined to trust that their
> motives are in the best interest of their customers. It is a stretch to
> believe that their motives are to sell more replacement roofs - but then
> this is usenet and for all we know the aluminum roof people may have made
> the post. I'm inclined to believe it is what it is represented to be.
>
snip....
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ed J e...@ibm.net
On my retirement adventure from the rolling hills of
the Southern Tier in New York State.....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Patrick Huber
Hi, Ed!
EdJ wrote:
> I just got back from walking for 2 days at the Harrisburg, Pa
> RV show. This warning from the EPDM roof manufaturer
> was mentioned in one of the seminars. The 303 product booth
> was also handing out the printed folder containing the same
> words that were posted here. When I asked them about it,
> they said that there were two companies that manufacture the
> EPDM material for roofing RV's. The one who printed up the
> announcement consulted with their competition before
> releasing the brochure. They agreed on the announcement.
> So the Announcement posted here is legit.
>
> At the moment though, I can't remember the names of the
> companies and the brochure is buried in the 6 inch stack
> of trailer info I picked up.
Dicor and Alpha are the manufacturers of the rubber roof material. One thing
to remember is that these seminars are usually given by the 303 guy. And their
main rally seminar giver used to work for us, espousingProtect All and
bad-mouthing 303 as vociferously as he does the opposite now. There is a
certain amount of sour grapes involved.<G>
> > When the mfr. cautions me on how to take care of their product for best
> > performance, I listen closely and I'm inclined to trust that their
> > motives are in the best interest of their customers. It is a stretch to
> > believe that their motives are to sell more replacement roofs - but then
> > this is usenet and for all we know the aluminum roof people may have made
> > the post. I'm inclined to believe it is what it is represented to be.
We have seen the Dicor/303 brochure and find it amusing. In it they say they
tested a "roof treatment" using sunlamps and immersion testing. Well, the only
"treatment" is Protect All's Rubber Roof Treatment. So we have to assume it is
our product they are talking about.<G> Our problem with the brochure is
IMMERSION testing. How many of you out there are willing to buy several
hundred gallons of our product, dig a motorhome-sized trench, fill it with
Rubber Roof Treatment, hire a crane and then pick your rig up, turning it over
and dropping it into the trench on it's roof?
Misusing any product has the potential to cause problems. Following the
manufacturer's directions virtually guarantees you won't have any problems.
Gary - KJ6Q
Patrick Huber <path...@protectall.com> wrote:
>Dicor and Alpha are the manufacturers of the rubber roof material. One thing
>to remember is that these seminars are usually given by the 303 guy. And their
>main rally seminar giver used to work for us, espousingProtect All and
>bad-mouthing 303 as vociferously as he does the opposite now. There is a
>certain amount of sour grapes involved.<G>
HMMMMm, you mean the guy was upright and truthful while he worked FOR
you, but is deeply misguided now...<G> Yeah, SOME folks are like
that, guided by circumstantial ethics, and anything for a buck...<G>
Exactly what is it that YOU sell...? <G>
> Our problem with the brochure is
>IMMERSION testing. How many of you out there are willing to buy several
>hundred gallons of our product, dig a motorhome-sized trench, fill it with
>Rubber Roof Treatment, hire a crane and then pick your rig up, turning it over
>and dropping it into the trench on it's roof?
>
Well golly, Pat <G> perhaps you've never been out on a rainy night, and
noticed that the water tends to pretty well cover and saturate things,
like roofs, sidewalks and the ground - AMAZING thing, all that stuff
gets that wet WITHOUT any cranes or trenches being used <G>, Maybe you
ALSO missed the newscasts of some of the flooding scenes in various parts
of the country, where a LOT of things got covered by water <G>. Of
course, if RVs were never subjected to any of those winter conditions, we
wouldn't even NEED a roof, would we <G>? And, before YOU spend a lot of
dough buying a fleet of RVs to do product testing by immersion, perhaps
you should investigate the concept of using *SMALL PIECES* of what you
are testing, instead of an entire vehicle <G>! Think of how much you
could reduce your R&D budget! (Research & Development - figured I had
better be more specific...)
>Misusing any product has the potential to cause problems. Following the
>manufacturer's directions virtually guarantees you won't have any problems.
>
Yeah, that's what *I* thought when I used that last bottle of hair
restorer.... Are you trying to tell us that if it sez it on the bottle,
or in an advertisement, it MUST be true...? <G>
>Best Regards,
>
>Patrick Huber
>Protect All, Inc.
>
>
YEAH, Pat yer right - I'm giving you a bad time because you're back again
plugging yer stuff <G>, Many here use and like it - I even have a jug of
it out in the garage, and guess it's OK, (I've had it for about 6 years,
used about half - if that gives you a clue!) but certainly NO miracle
product - "manufacturer's directions" or otherwise <G>.
--
Gary..KJ6Q... Yer humble servant...
=====================================================================
No claims as to accuracy of any statements above, only that I *MEAN*
well! If all I wanted was a fight, I'd go to a bar, or my wife.. :^)
=====================================================================
HOWEVER, I *AM* fully willing and able to defend myself, if required!
===== the choice is yours, proceed with caution! ====================
Jim Tromater
> Dicor and Alpha are the manufacturers of the rubber roof material. One thing
> to remember is that these seminars are usually given by the 303 guy. And their
> main rally seminar giver used to work for us, espousingProtect All and
> bad-mouthing 303 as vociferously as he does the opposite now. There is a
> certain amount of sour grapes involved.<G>
> Protect All, Inc.
So here we are again.
>
> > > When the mfr. cautions me on how to take care of their product for best
> > > performance, I listen closely and I'm inclined to trust that their
> > > motives are in the best interest of their customers.
Of course one would expect the manufacturer to provide information on
how to take care of their product. It's also not beyond belief that
someone else can not improve on that. Here we have three positions.
One, the manufacturers that suggest all you need to a good scrubbing.
Another says their product (303, made by a manufacturer right?) is
better than soap & water to use and doesn't damage the roof. The third
says their product (Protect all) is better yet and doesn't damage the
roof, may even extend it's life.
Tbe be cynical (my natural state) do I believe the manufacturer trying
to dodge a warranty claim worth serveral hundred or more bucks or the
treatment folks trying to sell me serveral hundred buck of magic goo
over the life of the roof.
This makes me wish for a CU type investigation of this material. Heck,
let's take up a collection and pay CU to do the testing.
Jim
--
Patrick Huber
Hi, Jim!
Jim Tromater wrote:
> One, the manufacturers that suggest all you need to a good scrubbing.
> Another says their product (303, made by a manufacturer right?) is
> better than soap & water to use and doesn't damage the roof. The third
> says their product (Protect all) is better yet and doesn't damage the
> roof, may even extend it's life.
>
> Tbe be cynical (my natural state) do I believe the manufacturer trying
> to dodge a warranty claim worth serveral hundred or more bucks or the
> treatment folks trying to sell me serveral hundred buck of magic goo
> over the life of the roof.
>
> This makes me wish for a CU type investigation of this material. Heck,
> let's take up a collection and pay CU to do the testing.
We would love to participate in a test of this nature. Where do we send the product?<G>
I can give you an example. Michelin tested Protect All and sent us a letter saying they did not recommend
Protect All on their tires. The owner of the business, my Father, became worried and got on the phone,
finally talking to the lab tech who ran the test. He ran an "immersion" test. Like the EPDM test, a
misapplication of the product. We asked them to run the test again, this time following the directions on the
label. We have not heard from them.
Further, we have run Michelin tires on the old Winnebago since we got it, and every other RV we've had. Who's
RV do you suppose has been the test bed for Protect All products?<G> No tire failures ever.
Patrick Huber
Hi, Gary!
My chops HAVE been busted!<G>
Gary - KJ6Q wrote:
> Patrick Huber <path...@protectall.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a certain amount of sour grapes involved.<G>
>
> HMMMMm, you mean the guy was upright and truthful while he worked FOR
> you, but is deeply misguided now...<G> Yeah, SOME folks are like
> that, guided by circumstantial ethics, and anything for a buck...<G>
> Exactly what is it that YOU sell...? <G>
No, actually part of the reason he no longer works for us is the way he sells
product. We try to be low key and NOT bad mouth other products. We got tired of
hearing things about him we didn't like.
> > Our problem with the brochure is IMMERSION testing
> >
>
> Well golly, Pat <G> perhaps you've never been out on a rainy night, and
> noticed that the water tends to pretty well cover and saturate things,
> like roofs, sidewalks and the ground - AMAZING thing,
No, immersion testing refers to taking those small pieces of EPDM, dropping them
into a container and covering them with a product--NOT water. If water swells the
EPDM than it's Dicor and Alpha who have MAJOR problems, not us!<G>
> perhaps you should investigate the concept of using *SMALL PIECES* of what you
> are testing, instead of an entire vehicle <G>!
Is 30+ feet enough?<G> How about several 30 foot pieces? Along with our Sales
Manager's Father-In-Law's RV? That's his pictures in our ads.
> Yeah, that's what *I* thought when I used that last bottle of hair
> restorer.... Are you trying to tell us that if it sez it on the bottle,
> or in an advertisement, it MUST be true...? <G>
No, more like trust me until I prove myself a fool. Guess it's kind of like that
old saying: It's better to keep your maouth shut and be thought the fool, than to
open your mouth and prove it. We have an 800 number on the bottles and the ads.
Many people realize they can just call and ask questions.
> YEAH, Pat yer right - I'm giving you a bad time because you're back again
> plugging yer stuff <G>, Many here use and like it - I even have a jug of
> it out in the garage, and guess it's OK, (I've had it for about 6 years,
> used about half - if that gives you a clue!) but certainly NO miracle
> product - "manufacturer's directions" or otherwise <G>.
I hope we were the first ones to tell you Protect All is no miracle product.<G> If
you've had a problem with Protect All, and one half a gallon in 6 years indicates an
unsatisfied customer, I hope you took a few minutes at some point to call us and ask
questions about your use of the product. If not, please do--that's why we have an
800 number.
Erich Coiner
Patrick Huber wrote:
>
>
>
> I can give you an example. Michelin tested Protect All and sent us a letter saying they did not recommend
> Protect All on their tires. The owner of the business, my Father, became worried and got on the phone,
> finally talking to the lab tech who ran the test. He ran an "immersion" test. Like the EPDM test, a
> misapplication of the product. We asked them to run the test again, this time following the directions on the
> label. We have not heard from them.
>
> Further, we have run Michelin tires on the old Winnebago since we got it, and every other RV we've had. Who's
> RV do you suppose has been the test bed for Protect All products?<G> No tire failures ever.
>
>
> Patrick Huber
> Protect All, Inc.
Patrick,
You are correct that immersion testing is not a realistic use of your
product, HOWEVER, it is a valid method of finding out what the
compatibility of your product is with the rubber. If the rubber swells,
cracks, changes hardness, or loses tensile strength when immersed in
Protectall it says that something in Protect all is attacking the
rubber. Now a gentle wipe with this product may cause no significant
deterioration to the rubber, it is hard to tout your product as a
protector of the rubber if it attacks the rubber in an immersion test.
Using a solvent to remove a spot of tree sap is an example where using a
product that makes the rubber fail in an immersion test is appropriate.
The momentary wipe of the product does not degrade the rubber and it
does remove the stain. Again the solvent is not being touted for its
preservative properties it is being touted for its ability to remove
grease or tar and if used carefully will not damage the roof.
For your product to have value it must do more than just not damage the
roof.
Erich remove NOSPAM to reply
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34214D...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com>,
<Erich_Coi...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com> writes:
> You are correct that immersion testing is not a realistic use
>of your product, HOWEVER, it is a valid method of finding out
>what the compatibility of your product is with the rubber. . .
<snippiong for sake of brevity> Now a gentle wipe with this
>product may cause no significant deterioration to the rubber,
>[but] it is hard to tout your product as a protector of the
>rubber if it attacks the rubber in an immersion test.
The forgoing is, IMO, an excellent example of how bogus claims
should be exposed. I notice there was no personal rancor - just
simple explanation of the facts.
You "done good", Erich.
IF we could get the same level of factual exchange on other
miracle products, we'd all appreciate it!
Will KD3XR
Erich Coiner
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> The forgoing is, IMO, an excellent example of how bogus claims
> should be exposed. I notice there was no personal rancor - just
> simple explanation of the facts.
>
> You "done good", Erich.
>
> IF we could get the same level of factual exchange on other
> miracle products, we'd all appreciate it!
>
> Will KD3XR
Will,
Welcome back. As you can see I took being the Temporary Resident
Curmudgeon as a serious duty. Being the TRC was hard work and I
gratefully return the mantle to you. I hope you can still see some of
the posts that are crying out for your special brand of advice. There
was one post wher the first reply went something like "this must be like
blood in the water to Will" Sorry you were not available to "take the
bait".
wi...@epix.net
In Article<3421C0...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com>,
<Erich_Coi...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com> writes:
> Will,
>
> Welcome back. As you can see I took being the Temporary
>Resident Curmudgeon as a serious duty. Being the TRC was hard
>work and I gratefully return the mantle to you. I hope you can
>still see some of the posts that are crying out for your
>special brand of advice. There was one post wher the first
>reply went something like "this must be like blood in the
>water to Will" Sorry you were not available to "take the
>bait".
Thanks, Erich. I have several private messages suggesting
you've done well. One dang fool even said you were more polite
than I!!! Imagine that! 8-)
I can't say I am sorry to have missed 'em all...I trashed
well over 1200 msgs without reading them, on the assumption that
several of the intelligent regulars would already have made
short work of the miracle product hucksters. Seems I was right!
Speaking of blood in the water, the real tragedy is that some of
the posts that APPEAR to be mere shark bait are the product of
terminally ignorant buyers who actually BELIEVE the pablum
dispensed by the sales geeks at shows. A pox on them.
Will KD3XR
wi...@epix.net
In Article<5vsfsd$9...@snews3.zippo.com>, <te...@thereporter.com>
writes:
> Glad to see you're back, rest assured Erich and I have done
>our best to keep all the usual people thoroughly irritated and
>antagonized - but we're NO match for the master! NOW, *I* will
>be gone next week (no applause, please) so YOU will have to try
>a bit harder to fill the gap yerself! :^)
>
> Hope you had a good time...
Gary, we had a GOOD time and thanx. I understand from my
private mail (300+ msgs!) that those left behind have done well
despite some rancorous nastiness. We really oughta have a bylaw
that assures there is always SOMEONE on duty to cut the snake
oil hucksters off at the knees.
But forgive me for saying so, when it somes to keeping the Pats*
"thoroughly irritated and antagonized", that seems to be childs'
play. Some of them start bleeding profusely and yelping in pain
the moment you puncture one of their trial balloons.
*Pats - one definition would be People Angrily
Telling Stories. Others may occur to y'all.
Speaking of which, the rhetoric and promises at the Harrisburg
(PA) rv show would have floated away the entire show -
buildings, pavement and all - if the gaseous emissions from
sales geeks were pure helium instead of mere vapor!
I am sincerely sorry I was not able to record my conversation
with a curvaceous and gracious female ornament (thinly disguised
as a sales geek) at the Banks display. If the truth were known I
was so swept away by her offer of a Special Deal (was it only
$488???) on a hopelessly complex bit of monitoring equipment
that I forgot to ask her about this week's claims for mileage
AND power for the shiny smoke pipes!
Nope, I did not buy the monitor deal either. Looked like I would
have to learn to program another VCR.
Enjoy your trip.
Will KD3XR
Gary - KJ6Q
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
>In Article<34214D...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com>,
><Erich_Coi...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com> writes:
>
>
>> You are correct that immersion testing is not a realistic use
>>of your product, HOWEVER, it is a valid method of finding out
>>what the compatibility of your product is with the rubber. . .
><snippiong for sake of brevity> Now a gentle wipe with this
>>product may cause no significant deterioration to the rubber,
>>[but] it is hard to tout your product as a protector of the
>>rubber if it attacks the rubber in an immersion test.
>
>should be exposed. I notice there was no personal rancor - just
>simple explanation of the facts.
>
>You "done good", Erich.
>
>IF we could get the same level of factual exchange on other
>miracle products, we'd all appreciate it!
>
>Will KD3XR
>
Glad to see you're back, rest assured Erich and I have done our best to
keep all the usual people thoroughly irritated and antagonized - but
we're NO match for the master! NOW, *I* will be gone next week (no
applause, please) so YOU will have to try a bit harder to fill the gap
yerself! :^)
Hope you had a good time...
--
Gary - KJ6Q
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>I am sincerely sorry I was not able to record my conversation
>with a curvaceous and gracious female ornament (thinly disguised
>as a sales geek) at the Banks display. If the truth were known I
>was so swept away by her offer of a Special Deal (was it only
>$488???)
MORE to the point, was it *RV* related?
> on a hopelessly complex bit of monitoring equipment
OH!, OK... Forget the above...
>that I forgot to ask her about this week's claims for mileage
>AND power for the shiny smoke pipes!
>
>Nope, I did not buy the monitor deal either. Looked like I would
>have to learn to program another VCR.
>
>Enjoy your trip.
>
>Will KD3XR
>
Patrick Huber
Hi, Will!
will@epix
> The forgoing is, IMO, an excellent example of how bogus claims
> should be exposed. I notice there was no personal rancor - just
> simple explanation of the facts.
> IF we could get the same level of factual exchange on other
> miracle products, we'd all appreciate it!
Pardon me, but are you saying Protect All, Inc. is making bogus claims
about our products? To my knowledge, Protect All has one of the best
reputations in any industry we are involved in for NOT making miraculous
claims about our products. We usualy get chewed out for understating
what our products can do.
I'm sorry if you think we are just another fly-by-night operation. We
have an 800 number on all of our containers for people to call with
questions, complaints, and comments. And all of our products have a
full money back guarantee.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<3422E338...@protectall.com>,
<path...@protectall.com> writes a bright and cheery:
> Hi, Will!
followed soon after with:
> Pardon me, but are you saying Protect All, Inc. is making
>bogus claims about our products?
Pat, you may rest assured that if I thought so, you and other
readers would know that, even as they know what I think about
other exaggerated claims.
All I noted in this case is that Erich did a fine job of
explaining why immersion test results DO have significance.
And I felt it DID blow a hole in your protest that immersion
tests weren't significant. That may or may not rise to the
level of a "bogus claim" on your part, but if I were selling
your stuff I would be VERY careful not to claim it "protects"
rubber products!
Will KD3XR
James Summers
In article <NEWTNews.87463...@epix.net>, wi...@epix.net says...
>
>
>In Article<3421C0...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com>,
><Erich_Coi...@hp-sandiego-om2.om.hp.com> writes:
>
>> Will,
>>
>> Welcome back. As you can see I took being the Temporary
>>Resident Curmudgeon as a serious duty. Being the TRC was hard
>>work and I gratefully return the mantle to you. I hope you can
>>still see some of the posts that are crying out for your
>>special brand of advice. There was one post wher the first
>>reply went something like "this must be like blood in the
>>water to Will" Sorry you were not available to "take the
>>bait".
>
>Thanks, Erich. I have several private messages suggesting
>you've done well. One dang fool even said you were more polite
>than I!!! Imagine that! 8-)
>Will KD3XR
>
Ah, but then Erich hasn't had as much experience with curmudgeoning as some of
us. By the time he promotes up to "Senior Resident Curmudgeon", he won't
think it's hard, it'll just come naturally. A co-worker called me a "lovable
curmudgeon" at my 25th anniversary luncheon at IBM. My wife didn't quite know
what to think of that - she always thought I was just a grouch.
--
James Summers
"The Resident Curmudgeon on Flint Rock", Round Rock, TX
Patrick Huber
Hi, Will!
> And I felt it DID blow a hole in your protest that immersion
> tests weren't significant. That may or may not rise to the
> level of a "bogus claim" on your part, but if I were selling
> your stuff I would be VERY careful not to claim it "protects"
> rubber products!
Protect All and Rubber Roof Treatment are wax coatings with UV blockers
that aid in preventing external elements from attaching to the surfaces
on your rig. As such, they do perform a protective function. It's not
like paint, a protective coating for metal that minimizes rust &
corrosion. However, they can minimize how much time you will spend
cleaning your rig.
Immersion is not how we suggest the products be applied. In our own
testing, we found there was a small percentage of swell. At the same
time we realized that that was not the way anyone should apply the
product. If applied properly, they work to protect the surface against
the elements. In the case of the Rubber Roof Treatment, it also helps
slow the unsightly chalking that comes from that material.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<342968D0...@protectall.com>,
<path...@protectall.com> writes, once again beginning with a
cheery:
> Hi, Will!
> Protect All and Rubber Roof Treatment are wax coatings with UV
>blockers that aid in preventing external elements from
>attaching to the surfaces on your rig. As such, they do
>perform a protective function. <snip>
> Immersion is not how we suggest the products be applied. In
>our own testing, we found there was a small percentage of
>swell. At the same time we realized that that was not the way
>anyone should apply the product. If applied properly, they
>work to protect the surface against the elements. In the case
>of the Rubber Roof Treatment, it also helps slow the unsightly
>chalking that comes from that material.
> Patrick Huber
> Protect All, Inc.
Without facts, I can only ask rhetorical questions on THIS
topic:
a) Since you acknowledge that yer product causes some
swelling ("small percentage" is totally unquantified!)
how can it be said to "protect"?
b) What role does "proper application" have in
determining whether the stuff prolongs or shortens the
life of the roof?
c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
I use it at all?
If you were not persistently promoting your product in these
NG's I would not bother to say this, but it's a fact that the
sample quantity of your stuff that you sent me has failed to
hold up as well as ordinary cheap car wax applied at the same
time to an adjacent area of my MH. It quickly lost it's shine
and was inferior to the wax when it came time to remove bugs.
I do not PRETEND to have run a complete scientifically
repeatable test, but I did enough to satisfy ME that I am as
well off with Brand X car wax.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it from here.
Will KD3XR
Roger L. Adams
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> the sample quantity of your stuff that you sent me has failed to
> hold up as well as ordinary cheap car wax applied at the same
> time to an adjacent area of my MH. It quickly lost it's shine
> and was inferior to the wax when it came time to remove bugs.
> I do not PRETEND to have run a complete scientifically
> repeatable test, but I did enough to satisfy ME that I am as
> well off with Brand X car wax.
>
> Sorry, but that's the way I see it from here.
>
> Will KD3XR
Will,
Ever think this might be another Ford, Chevy, Dodge issue? I have found
ProtectAll to work much better than 303 on my MH and I have friends who
have had just the opposite results. It is obvious that everyone doesn't
like the same product or there wouldn't be 100's of different
polishes/waxes on the market. Pat has offered his opinion on this
newsgroup much like the rest of us and if his opinion is a bit biased,
he is again, much like the rest of us. I don't believe that someone
should be banned from the newsgoup just because they are a vendor. I
welcome comments (not sales pitches) from everyone as long as they are
honest about where they are coming from.
Roger
wi...@epix.net
In Article<342A5C...@uiuc.edu>, <rog...@uiuc.edu> writes:
> Will,
> Ever think this might be another Ford, Chevy, Dodge issue? I
> have found ProtectAll to work much better than . . . .
Fine, I have no objection whatever to your posting
your own contrary findings. I won't even argue with
you, even though there are some fairly objective
tests that will show substantial and verifiable
differences in performance between various so-
called protective finishes. (See CU's ratings of
auto polishes)
> I don't believe that someone should be banned from the
> newsgoup just because they are a vendor. I welcome comments
> (not sales pitches) from everyone as long as they are
> honest about where they are coming from.
Roger, I didn't call for Pat to be barred from the NG.
I agree his posts are not pure huckstering... but I
think its practically impossible for him to present a
balanced POV, and readers should be as open to hear
negative aspects of the product as to read his
carefully-worded praise.
Will KD3XR
Ron Haas
From article <342A5C...@uiuc.edu>, by "Roger L. Adams" <rog...@uiuc.edu>:
> wi...@epix.net wrote:
>>
>> the sample quantity of your stuff that you sent me has failed to
>> hold up as well as ordinary cheap car wax applied at the same
>> time to an adjacent area of my MH. It quickly lost it's shine
>> and was inferior to the wax when it came time to remove bugs.
>> I do not PRETEND to have run a complete scientifically
>> repeatable test, but I did enough to satisfy ME that I am as
>> well off with Brand X car wax.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's the way I see it from here.
>>
>> Will KD3XR
>
> Ever think this might be another Ford, Chevy, Dodge issue? I have found
> have had just the opposite results. It is obvious that everyone doesn't
> like the same product or there wouldn't be 100's of different
> polishes/waxes on the market. Pat has offered his opinion on this
> newsgroup much like the rest of us and if his opinion is a bit biased,
> should be banned from the newsgoup just because they are a vendor. I
> welcome comments (not sales pitches) from everyone as long as they are
> honest about where they are coming from.
>
> Roger
Amen! Well put! Keep all views coming. We will decide what is best
for our own needs. We appreciate your oppinions too Will and will
digest them in with all the others for what they are- oppinions.
Ron
Patrick Huber
Sir, since you do not like me politely greeting you to start off my
correspondence, I will not.
> Without facts, I can only ask rhetorical questions on THIS
> topic:
>
> a) Since you acknowledge that yer product causes some
> swelling ("small percentage" is totally unquantified!)
> how can it be said to "protect"?
Because when applied correctly, it does what it is designed to do:
Place a wax coating over the rubber roof to slow chalking and slow dirt
accumulation; UV inhibitors block the sun's rays from attacking the
rubber. That's what we refer to as protection.
> b) What role does "proper application" have in
> determining whether the stuff prolongs or shortens the
> life of the roof?
As Dicor/303 found, gross mis-application of the product can allow the
petroleum distillate to soak into the rubber, causing swelling. The
percentage of swelling, as mentioned above, depends on many variables.
I have heard from "a slight raising on the surface" to a gentleman five
years ago who actually had the rubber bubble up when a bottle of Protect
All was spilled unnoticed on his roof. We told him how to take care of
it and have not heard from him since, legally or otherwise.
Proper application consists of spraying lightly, spreading evenly and
drying the surface to remove excess wax and any un-evaporated petroleum
distillate. Frequency of application and storage of the vehicle have a
great deal to do with the overall life of the vehicle, including the
roof.
As far as shortening the life of the roof, there is no proof that we
know of. I have one customer who defiantly upended his gallon of rubber
roof treatment over his roof after we specifically told him not to. He
loves it. He experienced no swelling whatsoever. He said he let it sit
over night and buffed it off the next day.
> c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
> I use it at all?
As above, even a gross mis-application may have no effect. Blanket
statements alluding that one application will destroy the rubber roof
are unfounded. The product is proving beneficial to tens of thousands
of RV'ers all across the country. The product has been out over 1.5
years and I have yet to touch a $2 million dollar insurance policy to
repair or replace someone's roof. So you might want to use it if you
want to slow the chalking from the roof and keep it cleaner longer.
> If you were not persistently promoting your product in these
> NG's I would not bother to say this, but it's a fact that the
> sample quantity of your stuff that you sent me has failed to
> hold up as well as ordinary cheap car wax applied at the same
> time to an adjacent area of my MH. It quickly lost it's shine
> and was inferior to the wax when it came time to remove bugs.
> I do not PRETEND to have run a complete scientifically
> repeatable test, but I did enough to satisfy ME that I am as
> well off with Brand X car wax.
That's fine. We don't make miracle products and they certainly are not
for everyone. That's why there are so many wax companies. And if you
think I am persistently promoting my products blatantly and without
regard to newsgroup etiquette, then I apologize. Up until now, I have
received no complaints about the way I handle my correspondence. In
fact, I have been complimented many times for the neutrality of my
messages and the genuine attempts to help and give advice to RV'ers with
surface care questions. If you prefer not to read my messages, add me
to your idiot filter list and you won't have to see the words "Protect
All" ever again.
When you found our sample did not perform as expected, I wish you would
have called our 800 number to bitch us out. We get wonderful feedback
from our users and have found it invaluable over the years. The vast
majority of complaints linked to our products have been due to misuse or
too high an expectation for a coach that really needs more attention.
RVin5
>Dicor and Alpha are the manufacturers of the rubber roof material. One thing
>to remember is that these seminars are usually given by the 303 guy. And
>their
>main rally seminar giver used to work for us, espousingProtect All and
>certain amount of sour grapes involved.<G>
>
>> > performance, I listen closely and I'm inclined to trust that their
>> > believe that their motives are to sell more replacement roofs - but then
>> > this is usenet and for all we know the aluminum roof people may have made
>> > the post. I'm inclined to believe it is what it is represented to be.
>
>We have seen the Dicor/303 brochure and find it amusing. In it they say they
>tested a "roof treatment" using sunlamps and immersion testing. Well, the
>only
>"treatment" is Protect All's Rubber Roof Treatment. So we have to assume it
>is
>IMMERSION testing. How many of you out there are willing to buy several
>hundred gallons of our product, dig a motorhome-sized trench, fill it with
>Rubber Roof Treatment, hire a crane and then pick your rig up, turning it
>over
>and dropping it into the trench on it's roof?
>
>manufacturer's directions virtually guarantees you won't have any problems.
>
>
>Patrick Huber
>Protect All, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My 1991 Cruise Master had been parked outside for all of it's 4 year life
when we bought it. The rubber roof was dried out and chalking when I first
checked it. I use Protect All on it every second time I wash the unit.
(every other weekend) The roof has been restored to a soft flexible
membrane. Protect All is a fantastic product IMHO.
Lon VanOstran RV...@aol.com
Williamston, Mi.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<342AC65E...@protectall.com>,
<path...@protectall.com> responds to my questions as follows:
Will:
>> a) Since you acknowledge that yer product causes some
>> swelling ("small percentage" is totally unquantified!)
>> how can it be said to "protect"?
Pat:
> Because when applied correctly, it does what it is designed to
> do: Place a wax coating over the rubber roof to slow chalking
> and slow dirt accumulation; UV inhibitors block the sun's
> rays from attacking the rubber. That's what we refer to as
> protection.
That seems reasonable enough. Is there independent verification
by a recognized lab, comparing it with nothing - or others? If
so, what are the numbers?
Will:
>> b) What role does "proper application" have in
>> determining whether the stuff prolongs or shortens the
>> life of the roof?
Pat:
> As Dicor/303 found, gross mis-application of the product can
> allow the petroleum distillate to soak into the rubber,
> causing swelling. The percentage of swelling, as mentioned
> above, depends on many variables. I have heard from "a slight
> raising on the surface" to a gentleman five years ago who
> actually had the rubber bubble up when a bottle of Protect
> All was spilled unnoticed on his roof. We told him how to
> take care of it and have not heard from him since, legally or
> otherwise.
>
> Proper application consists of spraying lightly, spreading
> evenly and drying the surface to remove excess wax and any
> un-evaporated petroleum distillate. Frequency of application
> and storage of the vehicle have a great deal to do with the
> overall life of the vehicle, including the roof.
Sounds great but you fail to quantify the problem. <snipsnip>
Will:
>> c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
>> I use it at all?
Pat:
> As above, even a gross mis-application may have no effect.
> Blanket statements alluding that one application will destroy
> the rubber roof are unfounded.
Let the record show that I made or implied no such claim. I
merely asked some leading questions.
Pat:
>The product is proving beneficial to tens of thousands
> of RV'ers all across the country. The product has been out
>over 1.5 years and I have yet to touch a $2 million dollar
>insurance policy to repair or replace someone's roof. So you
>might want to use it if you want to slow the chalking from the
>roof and keep it cleaner longer.
This is interesting but the absence of insurance claims hardly
substitutes for objective, independent test results.
Pat, you seem to feel you've been attacked... note the following
defensive prose:
> . . . if you think I am persistently promoting my products
> blatantly and without regard to newsgroup etiquette, then I
> apologize. Up until now, I have received no complaints about
> the way I handle my correspondence. In fact, I have been
> complimented many times for the neutrality of my messages and
> the genuine attempts to help and give advice to RV'ers with
> surface care questions. If you prefer not to read my
> messages, add me to your idiot filter list and you won't have
> to see the words "Protect All" ever again.
Pat, you've kinda gone off scale here and been careless with the
truth. You have indeed been complimented for factual responses
in the past. I am one of the people who complimented you... but
that was then and this is now. Also, you have a short memory_
you've been blasted as well. But none of that is relevant
except as an indicator of whether you're perceived as using this
NG to advertise your product. Your unsupported claims and
selected testimonials no longer quite measure up to the standard
I'd personally like to see here.
Pat:
> When you found our sample did not perform as expected, I wish
>you would have called our 800 number to bitch us out.
Several reasons, Pat: I didn't keep the little plastic packet
which (presumably) had your number on it. I don't "bitch" about
free samples... I try 'em and decide what the stuff is worth to
me. Like the clear majority of people, I simply didn't care
enough to bother... particularly when I discovered that a far
less costly and widely available product performed better. And I
would not have mentioned it at all except that IMO you have
begun to cross the line between help and selling.
>We get wonderful feedback from our users and have found it
>invaluable over the years. The vast majority of complaints
>linked to our products have been due to misuse or too high an
>expectation for a coach that really needs more attention.
Pat, the preceding sentences are hype. You may be as sincere
as the day is long, but it is coming across as huckstering.
When you get the hard questions, you are well advised to avoid
ducking them with more hype.
Will KD3XR
Patrick Huber
wi...@epix.net wrote:
> That seems reasonable enough. Is there independent verification
> by a recognized lab, comparing it with nothing - or others? If
> so, what are the numbers?
From our chemist: " This isn't aerospace...this isn't General Motors.
If we were producing Tide and planned to sell millions of boxes, we
would be justified in contacting a lab and incurring costs that could
run into the millions of dollars. Were we, and other companies that
sell to the RV market, to go to independent labs and have all of our
products tested, it would greatly raise the price of products to the
consumer. We have the talent, facilities and experience to run our own
tests to confirm OR deny our expectations for the products."
> Sounds great but you fail to quantify the problem. <snipsnip>
I'm sorry. Perhaps you can help us out then. As an RV owner and a
consumer, what sort of testing would you like to see?
> Will:
> >> c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
> >> I use it at all?
From our chemist: "A little salt tastes good but a lot will kill you.
Should you give up salt?"
> Pat:
> >The product has been out over 1.5 years and I have yet to touch a $2
> million dollar
> >insurance policy to repair or replace someone's roof.
>
> This is interesting but the absence of insurance claims hardly
> substitutes for objective, independent test results.
From our chemist: "Not so! With the courts, and others, field use FAR
OUTWEIGHS lab tests. We perform our own very careful tests. We have
EVERYTHING to lose if we put out an inferior product. We are not
producing pharmaceuticals, and no one I know is spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars to go to outside labs. We trust ourselves."
If I can answer any further questions for you, please call our 800
number: 322-4491.
And Ken, our National Sales Manager, says if you'll call him, he will
set you up with some rubber and our products so that you may run your
own tests.
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34315616...@protectall.com>,
<path...@protectall.com> writes in response to my questions.
Will asks:
>> Is there independent verification by a recognized lab,
>>comparing it with nothing - or others? If so, what are the
>>numbers?
Pat:
> From our chemist: " This isn't aerospace...this isn't General
>Motors. If we were producing Tide and planned to sell millions
>of boxes, we would be justified in contacting a lab and
>incurring costs that could run into the millions of dollars.
>Were we, and other companies that sell to the RV market, to go
>to independent labs and have all of our products tested, it
>would greatly raise the price of products to the consumer. We
>have the talent, facilities and experience to run our own
>tests to confirm OR deny our expectations for the products."
Will's plain English translation:
No, Protectall claims are not verified by independent
labs.
Editorial comment: It does NOT cost "millions of
dollars" to have your stuff evaluated by independent
experts. Looks like your chemist wants a raise.
Will
>> Sounds great but you fail to quantify the problem. <snipsnip>
Pat:
> I'm sorry. Perhaps you can help us out then. As an RV owner
>and a consumer, what sort of testing would you like to see?
I would like to see the results of a side-by-side
evaluation of your product against competitive brands
of products claiming to have protective properties.
Buy a copy of Consumers Report to see how its done.
Will:
>> c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
>> I use it at all?
Pat:
> From our chemist: "A little salt tastes good but a lot will
> kill you. Should you give up salt?"
Clever and valid answer. Does my roof NEED salt?
Will (responding to Pat's claim that "The product has been out
over 1.5 years and I have yet to touch a $2 million dollar
insurance policy to repair or replace someone's roof):
>>This is interesting but the absence of insurance claims hardly
>> substitutes for objective, independent test results.
Pat:
> From our chemist: "Not so! With the courts, and others,
>field use FAR OUTWEIGHS lab tests. We perform our own very
>careful tests. We have EVERYTHING to lose if we put out an
>inferior product. We are not producing pharmaceuticals, and no
>one I know is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to go
>to outside labs. We trust ourselves."
Let's get the record straight here. I have not claimed
you guys are defrauding anyone, and I am not suggesting
you go broke hiring lab work - though I notice the price
has come down the second time!
What I am saying is that your in-house testing and the
absence of lawsuits doesn't equate to proof of your
claims. Period. Virtually EVERY manufacturer claims
their products are the greatest. And many believe it.
But you need to understand that us consumers are a
skeptical lot.... we have been burned time and again by
people with wonderful claims and a raft of testimonials.
Only to discover when actual objective measurement were
made that there was a lot of hyperbole in the maker's
claims. "Field use" by consumers may indeed fail to
generate lawsuits, but neither does it provide the
desired information: Is the product ACTUALLY superior
to brand X?
Pat:
> If I can answer any further questions for you, please call our
>800 number: 322-4491.
Thanx, but I think this is an excellent forum to debate
the question of how we can KNOW that your product line
is worth it's cost to rv'ers. I am sure you are
sincere, but I urge you to realize that a private
conversation with me is of no help to readers.
> And Ken, our National Sales Manager, says if you'll call him,
>he will set you up with some rubber and our products so that
>you may run your own tests.
Nice try, but I have already conducted a test that
satisfied my own need for data. I simply did not
find any clear advantage to using your product.
Please don't mistake me for your enemy, Pat. I'm
telling you you're on shaky ground. Firms that
are afraid/unwilling to submit their stuff to
independent tests raise more questions than a
protest from their chemist can answer.
I don't doubt for a minute that you have many customers
who like your product. But in all candor, EVERY firm
who is successful selling stuff can make that claim
until the day they close the doors. It means nothing
of substance to those who want to know the DIFFERENCE
between snake oil and true technical excellence. The
fact that you sell a lot doesn't equate to quality.
Your product MAY be as good as you claim. Do you really
expect us to just believe you?
Will KD3XR
Roger L. Adams
wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
>
> Your product MAY be as good as you claim. Do you really
> expect us to just believe you?
>
> Will KD3XR
Will,
I have used ProtectAll and like many other people I like it and I think
it does a better job than others I have tried. You on the other hand
have tried it and like many others didn't like it or didn't feel that it
did as good as some other product. I think that is the only necessary
proof of a products effectivness. I don't put much faith in Consumer
Reports and will not use a product of anykind based on their testing. I
have my own experiences to guide me on product purchases. Yes, I have
been stung a few times but life is not certain. Has Ford, GM, or
Chrysler done testing that proves their product is best? They can't all
be the best for everyone. ProtectAll is nothing more and nothing less
than any other product on the market it appeals to those who like it.
Roger
Jim Tromater
Roger L. Adams wrote:
> Will,
> I have used ProtectAll and like many other people I like it and I think
> it does a better job than others I have tried. You on the other hand
> have tried it and like many others didn't like it or didn't feel that it
> did as good as some other product. I think that is the only necessary
> proof of a products effectivness. I don't put much faith in Consumer
> Reports and will not use a product of anykind based on their testing. I
> have my own experiences to guide me on product purchases. Yes, I have
> been stung a few times but life is not certain. Has Ford, GM, or
> Chrysler done testing that proves their product is best? They can't all
> be the best for everyone. ProtectAll is nothing more and nothing less
> than any other product on the market it appeals to those who like it.
>
> Roger
I think Roger makes a good point here but I still have concern about
ProtectAll. We know when it is grossly misused it damages the EPDM roof
material. If not used at all, there is no damage. If used as directed
there does not appeaar to be any anecdotal evidence of damage. Pat has
indicated that it has been on the market for about 1.5 years, so in 3 to
7 years we'll have more experience and maybe some more data to look at.
I guess each of us has to make a decision to be one of the subjects in
the study or not. Problem is no one is collecting the data in any
systematic fashion, so we may have to always wing it.
C.J.A.
Pat: I have been sitting in the background for some time now. My 2 cents
worth about your product and rubber roofs. I did buy your cleaner and
treatment for my MH roof but after all this I will take it back, not
only due to the fact I do not think you should be in this topic where
you sell the product. To defend it one thing but you are going to far.
#2 I called the factory that makes the roof on my MH and talked to them
about their 12 year warranty and the roof. They stated that they DO NOT
recommed any treatment of their roof, only wash and cleaning with
househoild products, I ask about protect-all and 303 and they said NO NO
I must go by what they say, they made the rubber roof. One more thing
you and Will seem to have something going here but you are the one who
will come out on the bottom as I for one after all this will NOT buy
your product, sorry.
Patrick Huber wrote:
>
> wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> > That seems reasonable enough. Is there independent verification
> > by a recognized lab, comparing it with nothing - or others? If
> > so, what are the numbers?
>
> From our chemist: " This isn't aerospace...this isn't General Motors.
> If we were producing Tide and planned to sell millions of boxes, we
> would be justified in contacting a lab and incurring costs that could
> run into the millions of dollars. Were we, and other companies that
> sell to the RV market, to go to independent labs and have all of our
> products tested, it would greatly raise the price of products to the
> consumer. We have the talent, facilities and experience to run our own
> tests to confirm OR deny our expectations for the products."
>
> > Sounds great but you fail to quantify the problem. <snipsnip>
>
> I'm sorry. Perhaps you can help us out then. As an RV owner and a
> consumer, what sort of testing would you like to see?
>
> > Will:
> > >> c) If *improper* application ruins the roof, why should
> > >> I use it at all?
>
> From our chemist: "A little salt tastes good but a lot will kill you.
> Should you give up salt?"
>
> > Pat:
> > >The product has been out over 1.5 years and I have yet to touch a $2
> > million dollar
> > >insurance policy to repair or replace someone's roof.
> >
> > This is interesting but the absence of insurance claims hardly
> > substitutes for objective, independent test results.
>
> From our chemist: "Not so! With the courts, and others, field use FAR
> OUTWEIGHS lab tests. We perform our own very careful tests. We have
> EVERYTHING to lose if we put out an inferior product. We are not
> producing pharmaceuticals, and no one I know is spending hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to go to outside labs. We trust ourselves."
>
> If I can answer any further questions for you, please call our 800
> number: 322-4491.
>
> And Ken, our National Sales Manager, says if you'll call him, he will
> set you up with some rubber and our products so that you may run your
> own tests.
>
Patrick Huber
wi...@epix.net wrote:
<SNIP>
> Your product MAY be as good as you claim. Do you really
> expect us to just believe you?
>
Gee, sorry, Will! So many people do, I guess I just kind of expected
you to also. I must be better on the phone.
Another group participant was kind enough to email me and point out that
I will not win this debate. So, since I was not on the high school
debate team, I withdraw from the discussion.
Let it be said that independent testing does indeed cost a lot of
money. I can throw around "millions" and "hundreds of thousands" but
the true cost is not known. What is known is that the cost of that
independent testing gets passed along to the consumer, you guys who
already tell me my products are too expensive.
Bob Livingston just had the prime opportunity to perform the tests you
would like to see. He just had an article published in HIGHWAYS, Oct.
'97 issue. But instead of testing the products and comparing them for
true their value vs. harm, he just makes his statement about products
with petroleum ditillates, along with the usual "the manufacturer
claims" types of statements.
Best REgards,
TicTak
Patrick Huber wrote to our esteemed Will
|
[snip]
| Bob Livingston just had the prime opportunity to perform the tests you
| would like to see. He just had an article published in HIGHWAYS, Oct.
| '97 issue
|
One shouldn't let the fact that Bob Livingston published something in
HIGHWAYS impress them too overmuch. In an RV insight article on page 16 of
the same issue Mr Livingston goes on about using "amperes per hour" and
"amperes per day". He is obviously confusing a rate [amperes, a measure of
electrons per second] with an amount [ampere-hours] - equivalent to
confusing "miles" with "miles/hour". If his grasp of rubber roofs is as
firm as his grasp of basic electricity, one should take what he says about
rubber roofs with large amounts of salt.
--
Curt Tack, retired in eastern NC
better a haz-bin than a never-wuz ;-)
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34354DB9...@protectall.com>,
<path...@protectall.com> writes:
> Gee, sorry, Will! So many people do, I guess I just kind of
>expected you to also. I must be better on the phone.
Pat, sarcasm does not help your already tarnished image. People
who make a living selling stuff need to come to this forum with
something more than propaganda... words and ideas crafted to
create a favorable impression. You have done that but in so
doing seem to have crossed the line between simply providing
information in response to inquiries and using this forum to try
to persuade people to buy.
> Another group participant was kind enough to email me and
>point out that I will not win this debate. So, since I was not
>on the high school debate team, I withdraw from the discussion.
You may regard it as a high school debate you lost if you like.
I prefer to think your claims have been exposed as unsupported.
You may well have a good product. Indeed, some readers seem to
like it. But you have failed to offer convincing reasons why
those of us who are OK with normal protective finishes should
start buying your very expensive product. Its really that
simple.
> Let it be said that independent testing does indeed cost a lot
>of money. I can throw around "millions" and "hundreds of
>thousands" but the true cost is not known. What is known is
>that the cost of that independent testing gets passed along to
>the consumer, you guys who already tell me my products are too
>expensive.
Business 101, Pat: Advertising costs money. You are the one who
quoted these ridiculous cost figures which cost you a lot of
credibility. Proving that your product is comparatively better
than Brand X is part of the cost of product development and/or
advertising. If it is not proven (and it certainly seems not to
have been) you are asking people to take your word that your
stuff is better.
One poster suggested you join CU and submit your stuff for
testing. Makes no difference to me whether you do or not, but
when you show up here using usenet as a free platform to sell
your wagonload of potions, expect to get asked some hard
questions. You may have meant well - and even done well - at
first, but you've kinda wore out your welcome now that it's
obvious what you're trying to do.
> Bob Livingston just had the prime opportunity to perform the
>tests you would like to see. He just had an article published
>in HIGHWAYS, Oct. '97 issue. But instead of testing the
>products and comparing them for true their value vs. harm, he
>just makes his statement about products with petroleum
>ditillates, along with the usual "the manufacturer
> claims" types of statements.
What's your point, Pat? That Livingston didn't present facts?
Anybody who is reasonably literate can get articles published,
and opinions are like noses - everybody has one. I've had
articles published in RV pubs too, and I know the crucial
difference between testimonials (opinions) and scientifically
valid testing.
I think it's significant that your very company name is part of
image-making <Protect All, Inc.>.
There once was a chemist named Patrick
Who invented a potion so slick -
He founded a firm
Whose name was its' claim
But Protect All didn't cover all tricks.
OK, so I am no poet, and you didn't invent the stuff,
but a name like that is just a LITTLE too grand to not get
twitted about it.
Will KD3XR
RVin5
>Why is it Will that almost every thread I read has you weighing in,
>sooner or later, as the expert- Mr. Know-it-all. And they all go the
>same way and end the same way with your loud keyboard trying to
>silence anyone who might appear to know more than you do. You
>offer a good "OPINION" Will but in most cases that's all it is.
>I for one am getting sick of seeing your sarcasm sprayed all over
>this NG.
>
>I would miss your opinion but I would never miss your relentless
>harassing, egotistical, know-it-all assaults that seem to go on
>for ever and ever.
>
>Give it a rest Will
>
>
>
>
I second that motion. I use and, swear by, Protect All. The unnecessary abuse
Pat Huber and Protect All have been taking is starting to look like a
vendetta.
RV...@aol.com
Ron Haas
From article <NEWTNews.87591...@epix.net>, by wi...@epix.net:
>
> In Article<34354DB9...@protectall.com>,
> <path...@protectall.com> writes:
>
>> Gee, sorry, Will! So many people do, I guess I just kind of
>>expected you to also. I must be better on the phone.
>
> Pat, sarcasm does not help your already tarnished image. People
> who make a living selling stuff need to come to this forum with
> something more than propaganda... words and ideas crafted to
> create a favorable impression. You have done that but in so
> doing seem to have crossed the line between simply providing
> information in response to inquiries and using this forum to try
> to persuade people to buy.
>
>
> There once was a chemist named Patrick
> Who invented a potion so slick -
> He founded a firm
> Whose name was its' claim
> But Protect All didn't cover all tricks.
>
> OK, so I am no poet, and you didn't invent the stuff,
> but a name like that is just a LITTLE too grand to not get
> twitted about it.
>
> Will KD3XR
>
Why is it Will that almost every thread I read has you weighing in,
David Harmon
On Fri, 03 Oct 97 17:10:41 edt, wi...@epix.net wrote:
>One poster suggested you join CU and submit your stuff for
>testing.
No, Will, I suggested that YOU join CU and request that they test
whatever it is that you want them to test. Let Patrick do whatever
testing is necessary for his engineering purposes, and you do whatever
you feel is necessary for your consumer purposes. Don't try to con
him in to building the cost of testing that YOU want, and other people
may not want to pay for, into the cost of his products. That way, and
only that way, YOU know that the tests were independently and fairly
conducted. That's what I suggested.
Harry Everhart
> Please don't assume I am "attacking" Pat Huber or his product.
> It happens that I didn't find the sample I tested to be equal to
> common car wax, but the real problem is that Pat has begun using
> this newgroup (contrary to the charter IMO) as a means of
> selling his products. When he made statements purporting to be
> factual information and was challenged to offer proof of his
> performance claims, he became argumentive and admitted he had no
> proof.
I have to agree with Will. I believe it is wrong for people to get on this
newsgroup and hype products they are trying to sell. It is one thing for
me to come on and say a product is good, but it is wrong if I am going to
make money doing it.
Stop selling on here - it is the same as SPAMING.
Will was just trying to graciously point that out. He is a gentleman - but
sometimes you have to be blunt with people - STOP SELLING YOUR SNAKE OIL
HERE.
Harry
wi...@epix.net
In Article<34491744....@10.0.2.1>, <sou...@netcom.com>
writes:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 97 17:10:41 edt, wi...@epix.net wrote:
>
> >One poster suggested you join CU and submit your stuff for
> >testing.
> No, Will, I suggested that YOU join CU and request that they
>test whatever it is that you want them to test.
Sorry, I obviously did not correctly understand your point.
Also I was not aware that CU felt any obligation to test
whatever a member suggests. It was my impression (perhaps I am
wrong on this too) that CU makes it's own judgment about what
products and brands to test.
Please don't assume I am "attacking" Pat Huber or his product.
It happens that I didn't find the sample I tested to be equal to
common car wax, but the real problem is that Pat has begun using
this newgroup (contrary to the charter IMO) as a means of
selling his products. When he made statements purporting to be
factual information and was challenged to offer proof of his
performance claims, he became argumentive and admitted he had no
proof.
That doesn't make him a bad guy or make his products snake
oil... but IMO it casts doubt on his recommendations and leaves
us in a position where the only "data" we have is the occasional
glowing testimonial and Huber's claims. Those who think that's
enough information with which to judge the guy's product need
not feel obliged to attack those of us who remain skeptical.
Will KD3XR
Zilbandy
ha...@argus.cem.msu.edu (Ron Haas) wrote:
>I would miss your opinion but I would never miss your relentless
>harassing, egotistical, know-it-all assaults that seem to go on
>for ever and ever.
>
>Give it a rest Will
>
Will is being honest and straight forward. After all, he
refers to himself as a curmudgeon: a bad-tempered,
difficult, cantanderous person. (Random House Webster's
Electronic Dictionary and Thesaurus v. 1.20) Keep those
comments coming, Will. There are many of us that put a lot
of stock in what you say. I don't always agree with you, but
your opinions cause me to rethink a situation before I make
my final decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Burnett (Zilbandy) z...@azstarnet.com
Tucson, Arizona USA
The Dead Suburban's Home Page
http://www.azstarnet.com/~zil/suburb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jose F. Pereira
Patrick Huber wrote:
>
> Let it be said that independent testing does indeed cost a lot of
> money. I can throw around "millions" and "hundreds of thousands" but
> the true cost is not known. What is known is that the cost of that
> independent testing gets passed along to the consumer, you guys who
> already tell me my products are too expensive.
>
Pat,
I don't buy the above statement, and I do side with Will on this one. I
bought your products in the past. But with this kind of attitude, I am
considering someone who will listen better to consumers.
How much are your annual sales? Don't you think that a small investment
in independent testing would help your products, if in fact they perform
as you claim? Or is it that you're afraid of the outcome of those
tests?
Peace,
Jose