You are correct, heat resistance or adhesion are not the
main reason people buy these products. But consider this, if the product tends to melt and/or fall off your vehicle's panels on hot summer days, how much deadedning do you think it will then accomplish?
The reason I say this (and the reason for this portion of his test) is that many of the cheaper deadening products on the market (and most of the hardware store bought products) have had some problems with heat resistance (either melting, degrading or simply falling off). Hence heat resistance becomes a pretty big issue with this type of product.
Adhesion is also another huge factor in the performance of sound deadening mats. One of the main purposes of these mats is as a mass loader. By coupling these materials to thin sheet metal panels, we in effect increase the weight/mass of the panel, changing what frequency and amplitude it resonates at (lower freq and quieter). But, this mass loading only works well when the product sticks to the panel thoroughly. Simply put, the better it sticks, the better it works. So tests to show the differences in performance between the different brand's adhesion capability give a good view into how well it will perform as a mass loader.
The final reasons to use deadening mats: as a noise barrier and sound absorber can be more easily identified in a laboratory. Butyl rubber has been shown to be more effective at absorbing sound waves (and dissipating them in the form of heat) than is the asphalt types. But, as I believe I said above, I also performed my own test. I split one panel in my truck down the middle. One side was asphalt based mat, the other was rubber based. Tapping tests revealed the thinner rubber based mat provided a duller, quieter thud. Other people I had here trying it also concurred (was pretty obvious). Also, in coating this truck (first gen S-10 Blazer) with one layer of SS Damp Pro (not even competely done yet) its already easily as quiet as my old S-10 Blazer (same model etc) that had 2-4 layers of asphalt mat throughout it. Seriously, Im not trying to blow sunshine up your skirt, Ive been down this road, researched it, read tests, done my own tests, used both product types extensively at this point, and there is a clear-cut winner. If I hadn't spent so much time over the past 10 years (or so) learning this stuff, or if the difference wasn't so obvious, I wouldn't be here (and a few other boards) typing all this out.
Yes, it was in fact the actual asphalt layer of material that was melting on those products. Well, melting and/or degrading. I dont remember the extent to which the author of the test goes into detail about the heat tests in the second version on the test, but in version one he described placing the materials in the over, and how some literally burned up. It was not just the glue melting. But even if it had been, the test was to simulate extreme heat conditions that may occur under certain conditions inside a vehicle, and if it had been the glue that had melted, it would have rendered the material ineffective either way. Basically, alot of people have been complaining about their mat either melting (puddling at the base of the panel etc) or literally falling off due to heat (from a roof or trunk lid usually), so the tester decided to prove once and for all which brands and materials held up best.
The reason this test sent some companies scrambling for a rubber based mat is two fold: 1) it clearly shows the superiority of rubber mats within the testing criteria (heat resistance and adhesion, two sore spots for many asphalt users), and 2) it showed eD's "rubber" based mat was in fact just another asphalt mat with basically the same properties (and shortcomings) as any other generic asphalt mat (basically it proved eD was lying.... or bending the truth). The author of the test has in fact since made such comments public and voiced his outrage at eD's tactics of bending the truth to mislead customers. Before I read this test (v.1) id found myself on eD's website trying to decipher if their mat was truely butyl rubber based or not, as the wording was ambiguous. I had suspected eD was implying an untruth, the test proved it. Hence eD has since been scrambling to provide a true rubber based mat to 'live up to their customers high expetations".
Basically, this test was the final nail in the coffin for asphalt deadener mats. No question rubber based mats perform better, now its been proven they are also more durable and last longer. The test showed consumers asphalt is on its way out, and butyl rubber is here to stay. Unfotunately, a few manufacturers needed to see this same handwriting on the wall before they got it too. Or, before they realized their smoke and mirrors trick was over (eD).
I will provide you some highlights from the author, and Chris Schempp and Ben Milne's (of eD) conversation. "Rudeboy", as quoted in the following, is the author if the sounddeadener showdown test. Here is the conversation:
mandos said:
...In reference to the "developing" post that you've since edited for some reason, it's developed, we just wanted to know if it's something our customers wanted.
When the original V1SE was introduced, it was exactly what our customers asked for, a thicker version of eDead V1. That's what they wanted, that's what we gave them.
We thought we'd see how people would feel now about a product, not quite as thick as SE, but completely butyl based. Obviously it's something that they wanted so we'll be going ahead with it. We're still going to try to keep the price very similar to the current price of V1SE, but it would be only 60 mils thick and no asphalt involved...
Chris Schempp
Elemental Designs
Rudeboy said:
It isn't clear to me why they would change the formula to improve aspects that they have insisted were adequate all along.
I just read a thread on their forum in which they claim to have duplicated my
Sound Deadener Showdown heat tests. They have not. Time is important. I can stand in a 350°F industrial oven for 20 seconds. You can't extrapolate from that that I can stand there for 1 hour. If you look at the tests I did, each temperature was maintained for at least one hour, most for several. There is a tremendous difference.
To claim equivalent results from different methodologies is misleading at best.
mandos said:
Quite honestly, after your test, people have started requesting a butyl based deadener rather than asphalt, we're just doing what our customers asked.
As far as your heat tests, I am very sorry. I didn't see the times listed in the methodology of your tests, the same as fugyaself, so it probably isn't uncommon that people didn't realize there were hours involved. I didn't read the conclusion at the bottom which stated that the times were in hours, ours were at each temperature only 5-10 minutes before we opened the oven.
We just tried to replicate your tests through the angle of the material and temperatures, unfortunately there isn't time over lunch to sit for 8 hours...
second skin rep said:
If you knew everything that The_spacemonkey pointed out then you knew that your testing was flawed. But you still chose to post the reults of this flawed method.. Why did you post your own results with inferior testing methods if you knew it made no difference? Playing on the ignorance of the customers?
ANT
(SecondSkin rep)
mandos said:
Well, the results of our test do clearly show the superiority of the new product to the current SE regarding heat. That's what we wanted to demonstrate and I'm pretty sure that you'd agree the small test we did showed that the new product beats SE in heat tolerance.
It may not be equal to the sound deadener showdown testing methods(which would be the "flaw" in the testing), but it definitely shows that old SE vs. our new product, the new product is far superior with regards to heat. I mean, the old SE did slide straight off the thing and create a giant pool of liquid asphalt, some of which spilled into the oven
We are not trying to prey on anyone, or call anyone ignorant. We just did a brief test that showed what people wanted to see...in the time that SE slides right off a piece of metal, which seems to be the number one complaint about our current deadeners and is something I see pointed out often on CAF, the new product sticks to the metal...
Rudeboy said:
What bothers me here is not the implication, intended or not, that your test was an extension of mine. It is your open admission that SDS was the impetus for you bringing a new product to market, or more accurately that customer reaction to SDS was the impetus. That fact that you seem to find it amusing that the current product melts into puddles of goo is very distressing since that very characteristic has caused significant loss, damage and wasted hours to some of your customers.
When I started this project, I was trying to sort these products out, initially for my own understanding. As other people expressed interest, I went ahead and posted my results. In just over 2 months, more than 3,000 people have read it and I have gotten literally hundreds of e-mails in response.
One thread that ran through at least a dozen of these was: “Thanks for doing this. I installed eDead and had it fall off (substitute melt for two e-mails). When I contacted the company they insisted that it was user error and tried to sell me more. I was really careful with my installation and felt stupid. At least now I know why and am ready to try a different product”.
Another thing that has really disturbed me is the level of marketing hype that, with a few notable exceptions, permeates the sound deadening business. While I can’t say that the statements made on the eD Web site are the worst, they are none the less a big part of the problem. Starting with claims of “high heat resistance” – totally meaningless and deceptive in this context. “Self adhesive glue” – OK. But far worse, publishing measurements that are not even close to reality. Of all of the products I looked at, eD exaggerated the density of their mats the most. Many sellers actually understate them, just to be safe. Add to that, members of eD stating on forums that the existing products are in fact butyl based, taking the Web vagary to a different level.
I don’t have time to test products that are not for sale. I really don’t have time to test products that are. This is especially true when it looks like an improvement is being made to deal with a truth that it has been more profitable to ignore.
Finally, let me say that there is no imperative stating that every company must sell deadening products.
mandos said:
Ok, so apparently I lied.
The scale won't give me the same weight twice right now, so none of the weighing today. I'll have to get a better non-digital scale. The same roll went from 8 pounds to 12 pounds to 10 pounds so I'm thinking the scale is suspect.
- (uhm, this is an eD representative speaking on their quality-control testing methods
... anyone intending to buy an eD product should read this)
Rudeboy said:
And here I was worrying that my scale wasn't accurate enough. Your manufacturer uses equipment that is set to a particular thickness for each run. They offer several different adhesive formulations. You pick the adhesive that suits your needs and specify the thickness.
Each shipment should be checked in several places for at least proper thickness and density. This is the only way you can even begin to know if your product meets spec. Since you have been using the weigh a roll once during lunch QA procedure, you may not be aware that your particular manufacturer has severe consistency issues. I feel like I have seen too much of the sausage factory..
etc etc etc...
The thread goes on from there, but I think you guys are getting the picture (anyone still interested enough to still be reading this lol). I will post a link at the bottom of this post for anyone interested in reading the whole thing. But as you can see, eD clearly admits several things here: 1) their old mat was in fact not butyl rubber based in any way even though their wording implied otherwise, 2) their old mat which they previously sold as 'high heat resistance' was in fact very poor at heat resistance, 3) they have virtually no quality-control testing procedures in place for products they advertise with specific specs, and 4) they out and out lied about the mass/thickness/density of their original mat (unless we are to believe they are so stupid as to rely on a broken scale, while also weighing the backing material AND roll center core, to determine the material specified density). Ive been suspect of eD and their business practices after the issues over their flat cones 15A subwoofer problems. But after reading this and seeing what lying bozo's are at eD, I'll be sure to let anyone know who doesn't already. There are so many good quality companies out there without these... questions... flying around them, why t ake chances buying from a suspect company?
Yes, SecondSkin is a small company originally with one guy (Anthony). But I believe he has expanded quite a bit in the past couple years, and now offers one of the most wide ranges of sound deaden/absorbing product lines of anyone in the inducstry. Look at his website, read all the stuff he sells. In doing so you'll learn alot about what's out there to use (materials) and the methods behind them. Also, Anthony is quite excited about now being the sole deadener company represented on "Pimp My Ride". The show is meh, but it has a large consumer base, and he's expecting big things. SS is not a fly by night company if that's your concern. They are new, but they are up and coming. Again though, not trying to sound like a SS salesman, just stating what I consider facts when I say they offer the best mat on the market currently (made of the thickest layer in the industry of the best material, with the thickest alum foil layer... hard to argue that
). I also highly recommend Raamat, as its not as thick as SS's damp pro, but its butyl rubber based and considerably cheaper (not much more than the average asphalt mat). If I were on a tight budget Id definitely be buying the Raamat.
Hope I helped, and didn't bore anyone to death.
Here's that link...
http://www.caraudioforum.com/vbb3/showthread.php?t=229139&page=1&pp=15&highlight=showdown
