Corrosion protection comparison test



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

Thread: Corrosion protection comparison test

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Corrosion protection comparison test

    After getting my hands on ACF-50 for the first time (check http://www.corrosion-control.com/acf50.html and http://www.corrosionauthority.com for more details) I decided to put it to a test and see how it measures up compared to WD40 and S100 Corrosion Protectant.

    I used four pieces of iron extracted from a folder sleeve as test media. They were thoroughly cleaned with gasoline (lighter fuel) and washed with dish soap.

    One bar was left untreated as the control subject while others were thoroughly soaked in each of the protectants tested. They are now hung on my terrace fully exposed to elements. I additionally spray them with a mixture of salt and vinegar to speed up corrosion and emulate winter road conditions.



    The test is in progress and I'll post the results here in a few weeks. Relevant pictures will be posted here:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/vladpic/...ey=Ufx7C6v15NI
    Last edited by Vlad; 01-21-2008 at 03:48 PM. Reason: Pictures added

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Snow Valley
    Posts
    67

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Throw an extra piece of iron up there with some Krown on it

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Quote Originally Posted by Dober View Post
    Throw an extra piece of iron up there with some Krown on it
    Heavy duty corrosion protection like Krown is out of scope of this test. I am looking for something that will lubricate as well as protect and won't harm rubber/plastic or electrical contacts. Krown is like dipping the whole thing in sticky varnish that will never dry. I want protection that will not harm the looks or the functionality of the bike. In other words, I don't want to have to remove/wash the protectant in order to ride the bike.
    Last edited by Vlad; 12-22-2007 at 04:27 PM.

  4. #4

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    So what's the verdict so far? Is this working? Nothing going on?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Quote Originally Posted by pgagy View Post
    So what's the verdict so far? Is this working? Nothing going on?
    I've been spraying them with salt and vinegar every now and then and I'm happy to report that the control one is totally rusty .

    The last time I checked WD40 was also holding surprisingly well, being a little rusty only at the top.

    I did not see much difference between S100 and ACF-50 at the last check, but that may be due to the darkness on my balcony.

    I'm unfortunately quite sick at the moment and dare not venture to the balcony in this state. I will check the specimens as soon as possible and report the findings in more detail. The general idea is to wait for the difference between samples to be evident (if possible) before I close the experiment, take photographs, etc. Stay tuned.

  6. #6
    Akshun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    I am here ===>> X
    Posts
    514

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Do any of these leave a sticky messy residue??
    Or just thin oily type??
    Does sound like a great test.
    Dem man nah realize de way I do de technology way don't I identify dey oola dem idiot sound bwoy already ya nah rude bwoy

  7. #7

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    +1 for WD-40 (cheap and great all-around)

    Keep us posted...great idea,

    ~Paul.
    <.<.<. 2K FrankenGIXXER750 .>.>.>
    ________________________________________
    http://www.bikepics.com/members/blue22rom/
    ________________________________________
    "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are
    details"
    - A. Einstein

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Quote Originally Posted by blue22rom View Post
    +1 for WD-40 (cheap and great all-around)

    Keep us posted...great idea,

    ~Paul.
    One major minus for WD40 is what it does to some plastics, but it's not the only lubricant that has that problem - Jig-A-Loo can mess up a windshield, visor, speedometer glass pretty bad too. Don't ask how I know .

    Speaking of Jig-A-Loo, it's excellent for stuff you wouldn't even dream of using WD40 on, like jacket and other zippers, leathers, car door rubber edging, footwear... I didn't include it in this test because it doesn't claim to be a long lasting corrosion protectant. Maybe I should have used it instead of WD40, but that would deprive us of a commonly known reference. maybe in another test...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    I have decided the little iron bars have sustained enough abuse and ended the experiment. Please note that this was not a scientific test by any stretch of imagination although I find the methodology and the results relevant enough to decide what I'm going to use to protect anything I own from corrosion in the future. Please feel free to draw your own conclusions based on my observations or conduct your own test and publish the results.

    Here is what the subjects looked like at the end of the test:



    Control subject: Thoroughly corroded, especially on the forward facing side (the other side was somewhat shielded from the elements by the balcony glass). The rust is deeper, thicker and more advanced than any of the other subject's.

    WD40: Surprisingly little rust, practically all of it located at the top 3.5cm of the front side (about two square centimeters in all). The rest is clean metal.

    S100: Although not totally corroded, about 70% of the front is evenly covered with superficial to advanced rust. Back fares a little better, with only about 5%, still evenly distributed.

    ACF-50: 4-5 spots, about 1-2mm in diameter on the first 2cm of the front side. The rest of the surface does not show any trace of corrosion.

    Conclusion:

    ACF-50 is a definite winner. Based on what I've seen so far I think it's safe to extrapolate and conclude that it would beat the others even in a longer and more rigorous experiment. It's not cheap at $15 a can (bought in bulk by 12 cans) but it's not expensive either considering the performance.

    WD40 is a very pleasant surprise. Considering it's price and availability it's a closer contender for the first place then I would ever expect. Good job!

    Whatever I would say about the performance of S100 Corrosion Protectant might be considered libel by their lawyers.

    Top end only rusting on WD40 and ACF-50 subjects was a little confusing. It might be attributed to the fact that the tops are painted. I may have also missed some when I was spraying them with their respective protestants (I certainly did not when I sprayed them with salt and vinegar).

    Recommendation:

    WD40 if price and availability is important to you. You may, however, need to apply it more often as it may not stay on as long.

    ACF-50 (that is not MIL-spec and used by US military to protect planes on aircraft carriers for no reason) if you value that extra protection and versatility. Also if you don't mind buying a stock that will last you a lifetime in Canada or looking for it in obscure aircraft maintenance stores and airports in the US.
    Last edited by Vlad; 01-21-2008 at 03:51 PM. Reason: Added pictures

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    P.S. After thorough visual examination I decided to wipe the test subjects off with a soft cleenex and see how they will feel and look before I throw them away.



    - The little rust that was on ACF-50 piece wiped off with the first swipe! Only some barely visible dark gray spots remain, and the area they cover is negligible. I presume this means that little corrosion that "bled" from few tiny spots did not manage to spread and contaminate the rest of the specimen due to ACF-50 action.

    - S100 felt much stickier to wipe off. About 30% of it was left covered with rust that could not be wiped off. The distribution remained even.

    - WD40 remained mostly the same with the rust coverage slightly reduced.

    - The control subject remained the same. I just managed to wipe off some superficial rust only changing color of the remaining deep corrosion under it
    .
    It appears ACF-50 lived up to the expectations again. It does not only protect well, but it somehow makes the little rust that manages to appear less aggressive and easier to remove. Much easier.

    This also confirmed that I sprayed the protectants evenly and thoroughly. If I didn't, the rust at the top end of treated specimens would behave just like rust on the control rod - it wouldn't be removable by cleenex at all.

    I think I'm going to treat the totally rusty control rod with ACF-50 to see if it's going to improve the situation, i.e. stop corrosion and/or make it easier to remove.
    Last edited by Vlad; 01-21-2008 at 03:52 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Pictures posted. They turned out better than expected:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/vladpic/...ey=Ufx7C6v15NI

    Comments are welcome.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    What S100 had to say

    I wrote to S100 to express my disappointment with their product's performance in this test and give them a chance to respond. Here is my message and their response, you draw your own conclusions:

    In a message dated 1/6/2008 2:36:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Vlad writes:

    Hi,

    I'm just writing to say how disappointed I am with the S100 Corrosion Protectant. I don't know what kind of "salt spray test" you did at Daytona Beach but my simple comparison test puts S100 well behind even the plain old WD40. Feel free to read about it here (links to pictures are also provided):

    http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...d.php?p=513749

    BTW, i use a few of your other products and, except for the price, am generally very satisfied with most of them. I won't make a mistake of buying your "Corrosion Protectant" again though.

    Regards,
    Vlad



    S100broimpATYouKnowWhatOnline.com
    dateJan 8, 2008 11:22 AMsubjectRe: Corrosion protecttion test


    Dear Vlad,
    Thank you for your mail. We also want you to know that we appreciate your purchase of our S100 Products. Since you have chosen to share your test results and web comments with us, we assume you will not object to our commenting on your findings and web postings.

    1. The testing we have done over the years has been on actual motorcycle parts and bikes. In those tests, our S100 Corrosion Protectant comes off very well. We have also tested the other products you tested. In some tests, these fared well, in others somewhat less well vs.our S100 CP. Such tests must be run very carefully. One must exactly control for the amount of corrosion inhibitor applied and for the exact amount of salt spray to which each is exposed. The use of an acid (vinegar) is questionable. Office product parts such as you used also do an inexact job of replicating the surfaces found on today's motorcycles. Finally,even if (non motorcycle) test strips are to be used, these must be produced using identical manufacturing tolerances and undergo identical post manufacturing and testing handling and exposure. In testing with steel or aluminum strips, reliable results can even then only be achieved using 5-6 identically manufactured and stored strips for each test product and examining and evaluating each product's result on its 5-6 strips collectively.

    2. Bikers riding or trailering their bikes in the winter and spring encounter salty road situations. We have had many, many bikers tell us stories of group-ridden and trailered bikes where one bike was treated with our S100 CP, the others not. The non treated bikes needed significant polishing work, the S100 CP treated bikes did not. We value these comments as they are from the real world and not influenced by us in any way. Folks go our of their way to praise our S100 Corrosion Protectant for its efficacy.

    3. Ocean beachfront riding stories have also reached us over 2 decades we have sold this product. The S100 CP treated bikes have held up fine, the others in many cases experienced severe tarnishing.


    You are certainly within your rights to test and report your findings, though we believe in the current case your testing falls short scientifically both in terms of its surface relevance to bikes and its methodology as noted above.
    We do strongly object, however, to having our product libeled to the riding public. There is huge difference between a statement that says "based on my crude backyard test on one office product strip, this product fared better" and statements that warn bikers to "stay clear" of our product and that it represents a "false promise". Such statements represent product libel and are not protected under free speech in your country or ours. In the present case, those statements are also not supported by testing on a scrap piece of office product! We respectfully suggest that you refrain from this kind of talk in future postings, be it for our products or even those of other manufacturers.

    Kind regards,
    S100 Cycle Care Products
    Customer Service


  13. #13

    Re: What S100 had to say

    That last part is standard lawyer speak. It also, unfortunately, reflects very poorly on the company with the implied threats of civil legal action.
    You can bet that they wouldn't have included a similar 'friendly warning' had your review been positive towards their product, and negatice towards other products.
    While thier comments about rigorous scientific processes are true in a technical sense (I'm an engineer and do a lot of substantiation testing on aircraft, with much higher standards than required for any motor vehicle), nothing about what you did was so uncontrolled as to indicate that a controlled test would make a siginificant difference.
    There are a few specific instances that might generate different results (like dissimilar metal testing Aluminum/Steel would be a good example), the tests you did are valid enough.
    I will see if I can find a local distributor for the ACF-50 in this part of the country. I never really had to worry about that when I lived in Arozona.
    Cheers.

  14. #14
    johnp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    513

    Re: What S100 had to say

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    ...........I will see if I can find a local distributor for the ACF-50 in this part of the country. I never really had to worry about that when I lived in Arozona.
    Cheers.
    local distributor courtesy of Rainman

    http://www.corrosionauthority.com/

    and welcome. I also saw your Intro post../J

  15. #15
    obr44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    10

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Thanks Vlad for the info.

    I have been using Nano Polish purchased from Crappy Tire. It seems to work well for me..

    Have you heard anything about this product?


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Quote Originally Posted by obr44 View Post
    Thanks Vlad for the info.

    I have been using Nano Polish purchased from Crappy Tire. It seems to work well for me..

    Have you heard anything about this product?
    Nano Polish sounds serious enough , but I haven't had a pleasure. I think that polish is not really good for corrosion protection, let alone lubrication, because it cannot get into every nook and cranny that needs to be protected. Therefore it can (and probably will) significantly improve resistance to corrosion only on parts that are treated.

    Personally I have pretty much given up polishing at all. Too much work and my Bandit doesn't look/run/last any better polished . I do spray it all with 50% ArmorAll after almost every wash. I find it prevents bugs and dust from sticking and protects rubber/vinyl parts very well. Just don't spray it on your tires (and seat for some people).

    There have used many polishing solutions over the years as my previous bikes were too ugly when dirty (just check zephyr.xxc.cc and imagine it covered in dust, mud, etc.). They rere also ridden less and looked at more often . Now I can barely force myself to wash the bike twice a year or so - takes too much from my riding time .

    Anyway, one of the best polishing producs I used is S100 carnauba wax (give credit when credit's due). It's easy to apply and buff off and really gives it a good shine. My experience with polishes is by no means extensive, so there's most probably an even better product out there. For aluminum (check the Zephyr again) I used Boms Away (http://bikecleaner.com/). It needs some elbow grease to, though.

  17. #17
    Mig21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vaughan
    Posts
    77

    Re: What S100 had to say

    Thanks for the work Vlad, very informative.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnp View Post
    local distributor courtesy of Rainman

    http://www.corrosionauthority.com/

    and welcome. I also saw your Intro post../J
    I guess I have to go to their store to buy it? They don't even have the address on the website

    Will they even sell a small can?

    Is the ACF50 a spray, or what? Can I apply it without needing a special tool?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: What S100 had to say

    Quote Originally Posted by Mig21 View Post
    I guess I have to go to their store to buy it? They don't even have the address on the website
    You have to buy it in cases of 12 cans. I don't think there's a retail store in Canada that sells it, and even in US it's only in specialized marine/aircraft stores. The price is about $15 per can, including taxes.

    The only Canadian distributor is (AFAIK) The Corrosion Authority. Here is the order page:

    http://www.corrosionauthority.com/Ac...er%20Page.html

    Here are some online retailers I found, have no experience with any of them though:

    http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/acf50.php
    http://www.skygeek.com/10013.html

    It's a paradox that ACF-50 was first developed in Canada and it's production eventually migrated to US along with engineers that made it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mig21 View Post
    Is the ACF50 a spray, or what? Can I apply it without needing a special tool?
    It comes in several different packages, but it's the same chemical in all of them. Aerosol can has a straw just like WD40. It's considerably thicker than WD40 though, and appears to expand a little after it's sprayed so it takes some practice to apply and a rug to clean the over-spray. No special tools needed.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High Park
    Posts
    812

    Re: What S100 had to say

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    That last part is standard lawyer speak. It also, unfortunately, reflects very poorly on the company with the implied threats of civil legal action.
    You can bet that they wouldn't have included a similar 'friendly warning' had your review been positive towards their product, and negatice towards other products.
    While thier comments about rigorous scientific processes are true in a technical sense (I'm an engineer and do a lot of substantiation testing on aircraft, with much higher standards than required for any motor vehicle), nothing about what you did was so uncontrolled as to indicate that a controlled test would make a siginificant difference.
    There are a few specific instances that might generate different results (like dissimilar metal testing Aluminum/Steel would be a good example), the tests you did are valid enough.
    I will see if I can find a local distributor for the ACF-50 in this part of the country. I never really had to worry about that when I lived in Arozona.
    Cheers.
    Thank you for your support and vote of confidence. That is what would be called "peer review" if we were both scientists in the same field . Although I never intended it to be a full blown scientific experiment I did implement the basic principles I know of and certainly wasn't prejudicial against any product tested. After all, my results are falsifiable.

    As for the lawyer talk, I did not find it specially threatening, but I will remove unnecessary remarks from my previous posts and try not to offend their sensibilities in the future. That does not mean I won't tell it as it is. I just don't need to add qualifications - the test speaks for itself.

    I'm probably covered for the whole season with my stash of ACF-50 (Thanks a bunch Vahid!), but it might be a good idea to start a thread for a group buy. Four people per case is three cans per person at $15 or so a can, and the price is comparable to other products in the category.

    Cheers,
    Vlad
    Last edited by Vlad; 01-08-2008 at 04:03 PM.

  20. #20

    Re: What S100 had to say

    Interesting!!
    I understand both sides of the issue.
    A backyard test done with good intent and letting his buddies know what he observed and felt.... No harm done ????
    A company offended by his findings since this was not under controlled materials and a controlled environment. Hell !! .. I would be mad if this was my product that I manufactured and some guy snubs it on the net!

    Although I strongly feel that items 2 and 3 as described in the letter given to you are EXACTLY the same as what you did. Uncontrolled tests reported by bikers.
    I would rather the company come back and prove S100 CP against the other competitors products in a salt spray booth with 3 identical motorcycles

    If you want controlled tested products certified to a Military Specification (MIL-PRF-16173) you can easily purchase them. (LPS,RUSTVETO,AV30 etc)

    Personally.... I am an engineer working on aircraft and would use aircraft grade corrosion protection when required. But on my bike and lungs FORGET IT!!! Especially when you can coat your bike in WD-40 for $2.00 worth and its good for the winter in an unheated damp garage!! That stuff is harmless to everything.!! Hell... Arthritic people apply it to their joints and claim it works LOL

    Excellent reading about all this !! PS Vlad, do the test again with one more test specimen coated in diesel fuel!! Lets see who wins!
    Cheers
    Paul
    Last edited by Paulhemi; 06-24-2011 at 03:11 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •