Corrosion protection comparison test



Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

Thread: Corrosion protection comparison test

  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 Akshun View Post
    Do any of these leave a sticky messy residue??
    Or just thin oily type??
    Does sound like a great test.
    None of them are particularly sticky, except that they are probably collecting dust a little bit. WD40 is definitely thinnest, S100 is not really a lubricant, but covers in thin film that does not leave any residue. ACF-50 is an order of magnitude thicker than WD40, but seems to stick better and longer. These are just preliminary observations that may change by the end of the experiment.

  9. #9
    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...

  10. #10
    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

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    North York
    Posts
    20

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Good to hear Vlad...and good job doing the experiment.

    I'm obviously happy with the results, having bought a whole case of the acf50 lol.

    I think one obvious advantage is that you dont have to apply the acf50 to the bike every time you wash it. According to the manufacturer, it can stay on and still be active on the bike for up to 6 months if I remember correctly.

    Since they also advertise that it even works wonders on metal that has already rusted, Im very curious as to what effects it will have on the control rod that is thoroughly rusted.

    For those interested, I still have some cans. For those who have contacted me initially, and have still not arranged a time and date to pick up your can, I will hang on to your cans for a little longer, but eventualy Ill have to give them to the people that pass by first.

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

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Thanks much Vlad for going to so much trouble for a lot of people that you don't even know.

    I got my can from Rainman and thanks to him too, for likewise going out of his way.
    *
    * It's about safety, stupid.

  15. #15
    djltoronto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Posh 'Shwa (AKA North Oshawa)
    Posts
    442

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Thanks VLAD, very useful info.

    Great write up.

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

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    You are welcome guys. I felt like playing a scientist and always liked to share my knowledge, so it wasn't much trouble. Feeling appreciated can only help though, so you can expect more in the future. Now, if I could only learn how to post Google album pictures here - posts that have them built in look much better and are easier to follow.

  17. #17

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Thanks for doing that Vlad. Very useful.

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

    Re: Corrosion protection comparison test

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    Good to hear Vlad...and good job doing the experiment.

    I'm obviously happy with the results, having bought a whole case of the acf50 lol.

    I think one obvious advantage is that you dont have to apply the acf50 to the bike every time you wash it. According to the manufacturer, it can stay on and still be active on the bike for up to 6 months if I remember correctly.

    Since they also advertise that it even works wonders on metal that has already rusted, Im very curious as to what effects it will have on the control rod that is thoroughly rusted.

    For those interested, I still have some cans. For those who have contacted me initially, and have still not arranged a time and date to pick up your can, I will hang on to your cans for a little longer, but eventualy Ill have to give them to the people that pass by first.
    Thanks for the kudos, that's all the stimulation I need to continue doing stuff like this. Thank you for introducing me to ACF-50 - the test would be much less interesting without it.

    I have applied one drop of ACF-50 to the rusted control subject to see what the effect is going to be. That single drop spread through 3/5 of the length of the rod (about 15cm) all by itself. I'll put the rod back outside and will subject it to some more torture (I'm thinking leaving it submerged in salt-vinegar solution for a while). I have not planned for this part of the experiment so the result's might not be as clear as if I was using two rods I'm hoping they will be indicative enough though. Stay tuned.

    I have not tested for durability of the coating either, but I'll put the wiped off ACF-50 treated rod back out too, just to see what will happen. I'm inclined to believe manufacturer's claims as ACF-50 is considerably thicker and stickier than WD40.

  19. #19
    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


  20. #20

    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.

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
  •