About Scotchgard...

Hack Attack

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
2,888
Location
further south than you
Name
Dan
I push protector on every microfibre couch I come across... but still does my noodle in when you come across that trashed greasy couch and the customer is worried my cleaning will remove their protector 🤔

I talk customers out of carpet protection, just schedule me in for 8 months time đź‘Ť
 
  • Like
Reactions: sassyotto

Tom Forsythe

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
339
For those of you who do not believe protector works I suggest a new add-on. Ask your customers if they want to strip all of the "evil and worthless" protector from the mill off of their carpets. Since it is so "evil and worthless" you can probably add another 5 to 10 cents a square foot. Let me know if have any takers.

For some situations more frequent cleanings can be a better option in terms of soiling, but not if there are a lot of stains in that household.
 

sOOper hero

Number 5
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,012
Location
North East Ohio
Name
Larry Capitoni
Don’t get stoopit now, Tom
We’ve all seen the benefits of MILL APPLIED
Not so much on field application


Most of us know it
And I suspect you know it too

..L.T.A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy P and randy

Tom Forsythe

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
339
So do we have an agreement that mill protector works? Do we agree that over time this mill protection is removed through friction and cleaning? So if we have a good nylon carpet that has lost 20% of its original protection after 2 years of use, then why would we not want to replenish this protection with an application of the same protector? (We use the same base that is used for mill protection.) Why would carpet mills suggest periodic application of protector to their carpet when there is no financial advantage to them? Could it be that they know it is good for the carpet and will make the carpet last longer and increase the product satisfaction of the person who bought said carpet.
 

sOOper hero

Number 5
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,012
Location
North East Ohio
Name
Larry Capitoni
I'm curious how much A/B testing you did Larry?

I don't know .
more than a few times in different places both com and res
including my own home

Of the water base;
Scotchguard, Prochem Fourguard(?), Maxim and Maxim Woopty-doo are the specific ones I can recall

solvent base, none on carpet I can recall




..L.T.A.
 

Tom Forsythe

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
339
Which mills, and what timeline and product do they spec?

thanks

..L.T.A.
My general recollection was the 18 month to 2 year time frame. They want water-based fluorochemical (no brand specifications)products, not solvent based and not silicone water repellants.

Scott Warrington would know the mills specifically. Scott's memory of details is unworldly. Maybe he will respond on his next visit. I miss him.
 

sOOper hero

Number 5
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,012
Location
North East Ohio
Name
Larry Capitoni
thanks Tom
My recollection was every other cleaning

and no brand specified ....which meant we can dump any cheap bathtub gin crap on it ....and "feel good about ourselves"


..L.T.A.
 

billyeadon

Supportive Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Indianapolis
Name
Bill Yeadon
I have tested protectors hundreds of times over the last 20 years. One thing to remember, mill protection uses the same fluorochemicals that we use. However, it is applied with high heat which provides better bonding. Directions for secondary market protectors are designed to replenish this mill protection. We instruct a much heavier application for our Maxim Advanced for wool since wool oriental rugs are not protected after construction and sporadically protected after sale.

Whenever I do a lab test, I use untreated nylon carpet squares. I gave up spraying protectors on carpet squares years ago because I doubted the results based on the probability of unequal protecting. Today, I mix up the protector at 1 to 4 and drop the carpet squares into the beaker for a few seconds to assure equal protection. My presupposition is that this level of application replicates mill level protection with any secondary market protectors. This way I can more confidently compare performance of different protectors.

It is also important to remember that virtually all protectors have had to change from a C8 to C6 chain in the last decade. In many cases the transition has resulted in different levels of performance to brand products. The transition for solvent protectors is the last group to transition from C8 to C6. Our industry is in the midst of this change. Our Maxim Fine Fabric made the change in raw material last spring.

Also protectors do 4 things: stain resistance, soil resistance, oil repellency and water repellency. No protector does all 4 things. The fiber or fabric should determine the protector used.
For example, Maxim Advanced and Advanced Protector provide excellent soil resistance which keeps carpet clean longer. Maxim Advanced does not provide surface repellency for water or oil, while Advanced Protector does provide excellent surface repellency. A test I did a few years ago, I treated samples for 2 protectors. One of them kept a drop of oil on the surface for all of 5 minutes and the Advance Protector kept that drop of oil on top for weeks in my lab. Oil immediately penetrates the surface for Maxim Advanced. However, the oil slides down the fiber and does not penetrate the fiber. Others provide a wet look as they penetrate the fiber. Maxim Advanced shines in stain resistance as it contains an acid dye resistor which fills open dye sites in nylon and wool. This limits stains as there is no place in the fiber to stain. Advanced Protector has good surface repellency against stains, however, the material will penetrate when a glass of koolaid falling from 3 feet will penetrate at the focus of impact but sit on the surface as drops spread.

The performance of protector degrades over time. Friction from foot traffic and beater bar vacuums will remove any protector over time. Cleaning also removes some protector in the process. This is why manufacturers of carpet suggest the reapplication of protector after cleaning. If protector did not work, carpet mills would not apply protectors to the carpet. Even Triexta manufacturers finally added mill protection. One brand calls it Everlast. Triexta fiber did not stain, but oil loved to bond to the fibers. They need the protector to limit this bonding of oils.
A wonderful reply from Tom as usual.
 

billyeadon

Supportive Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Indianapolis
Name
Bill Yeadon
Well if the market continues the way it is going we won't have any carpet to apply fluorochemicals to. Shaw now makes more hard surfaces than soft surfaces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Condog and Mikey P

CJ-FL

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
387
Location
Florida
Name
CK-FL
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the product is not the weak link, it’s the ability to apply the product, in the field, in a way that is going to get “mill results”.

it’s simply not possible to reproduce the initial application in the field. With that being said, is applying protector to carpet better than not applying protector to carpet. Absolutely! But it comes down to value. Is the customers benefit equal to their expense?

Thats directly related to what you’re charging for the application of protection. I am in a position that I get protection EXTREMELY CHEAP in comparison with most name brands that are available at Jon Don, Interlink Supply, etc... because of this I am able to offer carpet protection to my customers for $15 per area (up to 300 sq. ft). With this in mind, I think they are receiving a value equal to their expense.
 

Cleanworks

Supportive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,997
Location
New Westminster,BC
Name
Ron Marriott
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the product is not the weak link, it’s the ability to apply the product, in the field, in a way that is going to get “mill results”.

it’s simply not possible to reproduce the initial application in the field. With that being said, is applying protector to carpet better than not applying protector to carpet. Absolutely! But it comes down to value. Is the customers benefit equal to their expense?

Thats directly related to what you’re charging for the application of protection. I am in a position that I get protection EXTREMELY CHEAP in comparison with most name brands that are available at Jon Don, Interlink Supply, etc... because of this I am able to offer carpet protection to my customers for $15 per area (up to 300 sq. ft). With this in mind, I think they are receiving a value equal to their expense.
As long as it's not a solvent based ready to use protector.
 

Cleanworks

Supportive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
14,997
Location
New Westminster,BC
Name
Ron Marriott
Steemer’s is water based.
We had a lot of large companies here using solvent based products because it was easier for their employees to use. Didn't have to mix it and it was always consistent. It was also toxic and could impact the integrity of the carpet backing. I know it's a pain to mix and apply onsite but if done properly you will get good results. Even a water based product should require wearing a respirator. You really don't want to be inhaling Teflon. It will protect your lungs. From breathing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee Stockwell

randy

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,289
Location
USA
Name
Randy Royer
Well if the market continues the way it is going we won't have any carpet to apply fluorochemicals to. Shaw now makes more hard surfaces than soft surfaces.
That's the bigger concern I'm seeing. Things are changing and super fast. Most of the carpet within the pentagon is gone. A chain of restaurants I did for years has gone tile (that looks like real wood) and is maintained with wet mopping. Even some of my daycares are now this foam padding tile that looks almost like the padding they throw down in commercial kitchens where chefs are standing for a long period cooking. It too is wet mopped.

If I had a buck for every home I have been to for dryer vent cleaning and noticed the carpet is all gone. It's like " that's why they haven't called for carpet cleaning lately". I honestly didn't see this coming to this extent, this fast.

Maybe I should buy a rotowash, or sell them to my former customers.
 

Matt Wood

MLPW
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
6,934
Location
Georgia
Has there ever been a test in the lab on how well the protector holds up after it's vacuumed the first time with a beater bar?
 

sOOper hero

Number 5
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,012
Location
North East Ohio
Name
Larry Capitoni
Has there ever been a test in the lab on how well the protector holds up after it's vacuumed the first time with a beater bar?

Tony Wheelwright had the test results from Mikefest
Bawb's sources confirmed the Protectant Cartel broke into his office and destroyed them .
then beat his bloody baboon with a carpet rake as a warning to keep quiet



































1572785730608.png



..L.T.A.
 

The Great Oz

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
4,013
Location
seattle
Name
bryan
I've cleaned a lot of carpet over the years and I've done many real-world tests of carpet protector in commercial settings. I used commercial settings for testing because the cleanings are more frequent and test results faster. It's also a great way to show a tech that the product does have value. In EVERY case, (nylon, wool, hotel lobby, office or restaurant) the protected carpet looked better at the next scheduled cleaning and cleaned up far more easily than the carpet that relied on what was left of the mill application.

When the heaviest soil and grease laden carpet no longer needs pre-scrubbing or rotary extraction, applying protectant is a huge time and labor saver. Today the cost of protectant application is built into every one of our "heavy soil" jobs.

Will it help make a carpet clean up easier in a residential setting? Of course it does. Do some things still stain carpet that's protected? Of course they do. Is an application of value to the customer? That depends on how "active" the home is and how much you charge for an application.
 

Tom Forsythe

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
339
Years ago we had worked with Dupont on using the HydroForce sprayer to apply protector. I was not involved with these discussions. I just talked to Gordon Hanks on his cell phone, on a Palms Springs golf course, and he confirmed that Dupont liked the use of the HydroForce sprayer as it applied the protector at a higher temperature. This corresponds with the use of heat to get better bonding at the carpet mill. If I remember correctly, they are applying in the 250 degree F range at the mill, while the HydroForce is in the 175 degree F range. This is why we still bottle Maxim Advanced and Advanced Protector with Teflon in the HydroForce bottles. I also believe Scothgard is package in these type of bottles. Protectors are somewhat sensitive so your line will need to be purged of pre-spray and your pressure reduced before using the HydroForce application. The principle acknowledges that heat impacts the bonding of the protector to the fiber. I guess I need to do some performance testing between protector being applied with both hot water and with tap water.
The reasons that I had for using HydroForce related to automatic dilution and consistent application. Over time, the dilutions went from 1 to 4 to 1 to 2 to accelerate drying. It looks like we had lost heat as one factor to improve performance of protectors.
 

The Great Oz

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
4,013
Location
seattle
Name
bryan
Heat allows better penetration by dye or protectant, so there may be something to the hot application idea.

It's the "baking" heat of the drying oven that makes the polymer tough enough to withstand abrasion though. Anyone remember the Kenadian that proposed blower exhaust heat pushed through a rotary to speed-dry installed carpet after cleaning? That could work to provide a more abrasion resistant reapplication of protectant, if you had customers willing to pay for the effort.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom