HD-80 Extreme Solutions

Steven-

You don't have to send me the results. I ran titration tests when we were developing the neutralizer. I just wanted to see the last results so I could understand where you were getting your figures.

I am not concerned by which product is more caustic. My only concern was with the accuracy of your statement.

I do want everyone to understand, you were speaking the truth as you knew it based on the results of the titration test you were reading. It was not as if you were intentionally trying to mislead anyone.

Best of Luck

Russell
 
Might I suggest that in the future when manufacturers/distributors are performing comparitive studies that they work off line? This thread has not done much to make me feel confident about anybody's product. On the other hand, documentation of an agreed upon protocol and test results would have made me be a lot more confident.
 
Bill,
I personally think this is very educational. I hope others are paying attention also. There are many lessons in the above messages.

For example: Russell points out a very important fact about mixing powders. I tried to point out a similar mistake to someone else that was giving advice to people on how he mixes his own chemicals. He had 3 ingredients of 80-10-10 composition that he was mixing by volume then spooning from that large mix to make his small batches of working solution rather than mixing by weight and going to liquid, then proportioning out his working batch.

Beth,
Not trying to take any sides but it seem to me that you have close attachments to HD-80 and some people MAY think that there MIGHT be some bias there. Besides, why not buy a gallon of it - even if it's only half as good as the HD-80 you'll be able to put it to use and not have wasted your money.

Unbiased opinion.

Regards,
 
Hi Paul,
I see your point, but I can honestly say that we would indeed be unbiased. When Russ was developing his product and sent us samples to try, we tried them and gave him honest feedback. The end result was improvement in the product.

We are all for making the job of the contractor easier and more profitable. With that in mind I'll say that if the results were in fact in favor of the other product, then that would be the bottom line. If both performed but we found differences in the end result then we would report that way.

Beth:cool:

p.s. I'm attaching a photo of a job we finished yesterday. Cedar deck, HEAVILY coated with Sikkens, some areas of the horizontals (floors) had as many as 7 layers of product. HD -80 was used in multiple applications in some spots. Sanding was needed due to fuzzies, but as you can see the wood looked great afterwards.

I'll put up another photo that shows the faint remnants of the deepest layers of Sikkens where we sanded.
 
after sanding.....
 

Attachments

  • prior sikkens2.gif
    prior sikkens2.gif
    56.5 KB · Views: 205
Close up of remnants of last layer of Sikkens.
 

Attachments

  • halfhalfclose.gif
    halfhalfclose.gif
    82.7 KB · Views: 200
Here is an example of fuzzing after removing 7 layers....prior to sanding, of course. :)
 

Attachments

  • fuzzing2.gif
    fuzzing2.gif
    45.4 KB · Views: 197
Beth,

Believe it or not, you are already biased.
When I read your posts on 10/4 7:56am and 10/5 9:04am they showed bias to me. You're a parent to HD-80 (you can't help it) and HD-80 works for you (it would be like trying to unseat a heavywight boxing champion - unless it's a knockout it would at best be objective).

Steven would have nothing to gain by what you are asking him to do. As a marketing specialist I think you can understand that.
However, anything that you would do in a test would give HD-80 a boost.

As for testing you can still do it if you really want to by purchasing some of his product. I'm sure Steven could do the same thing with HD-80 if he wanted to (he may already have).

Anything short of a scientific blind test by independent source would be biased.


MY HONEST OPINION.

(Still unbiased on the products.)

P.S.:
As a marketing specialist if my product was that good, I would submit it to Consumer Report (or similar media) for consideration.

Regards,
 
Paul,
Nothing personal, but you are dead wrong. You see, while I might speak up about HD-80 now, it's becuase we have not found anything better out there. We believe in it.

Once upon a time Russ had a product that clogged sprayers, slowed us down, and made us miserable. (it's not the case today) You think we sugar coated it? Nope. I would do that for ANY product in the the name of product improvement.

As a marketer (and certainly you can understand this) the bottom line is about generating revenue. In a competitive market, that means product improvement. If Steven has a superior product we ALL want to know about it, our company included. I would be the first one to sing it's praises and Russ knows it. As a matter of fact, he would too. Then he would look for ways to improve the products out there once again. That, is what marketing is about. It's the process of the evolution of a product from infancy to maturity, and it includes the introduction of compeditive products to the market at any given point in the life cycle of the product. This is a natural an normal part of any product's life.

I will agree with you that I am extremely enthusiastic about Russ's products, but if you look at threads on other boards too you will see enthusiams about other things such as Ready Seal, and Menco products, neither of which we sell, but both of which we use, and believe in. You will also see that I don't bash products. I just promote the ones we believe in. I try very hard to refrain from being too negative about any product out there by name.

Steve and I have spoken in the past, and have no issues between us. My offer to him is genuine, just as it is when I offer to do things for anyone. It's there out of respect for a colleague. It's that simple.

Beth

:)
 
I have not swayed on my opinion - I'm correct about the impression "you presented me with" via your posts (call me paranoid, dysfunctional, anal or just misguided). I do mean "impression" nothing else.

I hope you don’t sell any products you don’t believe in.
Tell me you were not selling HD-80 “By the way, if you are cleaning shingles or shake why do you need something stronger than HD-80 anyway?”
or selling EFC-38 “Why not go with a percarb cleaner ....like EFC-38?????”.
(You are definitely underselling your assets on the marketing side if you can’t get someone to need your services for $100K++.) - Compliment!

About the comment:
“Then he (Russell) would look for ways to improve the products out there once again. That, is what marketing is about. It's the process of the evolution of a product from infancy to maturity, and it includes the introduction of compeditive products to the market at any given point in the life cycle of the product.”
I would only agree partially with the above comment to the degree that you need dwell time in your product cycle. You can’t keep reinventing the product without having an impact on profitability.

By asking Steven for “free” sample it makes it sound like his product may be inferior if he does not comply with you request. As a competitor if you want to try it, you should buy it!

The only claim I’ve seen Steven make so far is that his product has a higher Sodium Hydroxide content than HD-80. I believe Russell and Steven are working thru that.

Bias is not necessarily a bad feature but is a fact of life.
I am biased about both you and Steven (That's good!).
I do not have any major negative comment about either one of you.
What I was most concerned about was incorrect representations and claims (be it with without intent).

As for testing - A test would only be meaningful to me if I knew that a full test plan was developed first and the results were documented signed and shared. The conclusion should include not only the findings but how these findings fare against the seller’s claims. Test would include but would not be limited to: identical conditions, 3 different substrates, 3 different coatings (identical) along with costs of solution and shipping, dilutions used, dwell times, condition of substrate after stripping, dry time, minimum materials required for brightening, rinse time and ease, minimum rinse pressures, photos, etc., etc. Also a disclaimer to the effect that the tester sells one of the products but not the other - if that's the case. As with any testing, you should let the numbers speak for themselves.

Again, you could do the test without Stevens “free” sample if you want to search for the best product for yourself and others using your own criterion (unless you think you’ve already found it).

I can't argue about the products since I'm unbiased on both (never have used either).
I am just as interested in knowing what the most cost effective products are as any professional would be. When it comes time for me to make final judgment, I will purchase one or both and test it for myself. I do rely on (reliable people’s) input like yours and Stevens as I find both of you credible – you are folks who can help narrow my search on products. However, after having spent time in Missouri I can’t seem to shake their motto: “Show Me!”.

Please don’t shoot at the Messenger / Potential Customer / Idiot!

Respectfully and with Regards,
 
Paul,
You are certainly no idiot and have alot of respect from the membership online.

With regards to product life cycle, I'm not speaking about dwell time when work in in the field. I should clarify my comment there.

Product life cycle begins at the introduction of a new product or service to the market, and ends when a product is no longer useful to the market, not when one unit of it is simply used up. In other words....

Let's say you have a machine that plays tapes. Let's call them Betamax. Along comes a new tape player and type. It's called VHS. For a while both are sold but one can't compete after a while and so it is phased out. Downthe road, DVD's are introduced and VHS become older technology.... The point is, that as new products are introduced the older ones are either improved, upgraded, or phased out unless they are a "staple" of sorts.

My point is that we may see further improvements in the coming year as a result of new formulas being introduced to the market. That would be my opinion, based on what I see in the market we work in today.

Well, no more caffeine for me ...today. :) Time to watch a movie!

Beth:cool:

p.s. yes, we believe in Russ's products. I would not sell ANYTHING I don't believe in, but I am also a fair person who will try other products and sing their praises too. It's just....the marketer in me! :)
 
You all have reinforced my opinion that this could have been handled off line to insure professionalism. Paul, your comment about a blind (or double blind) test by a third party is exactly what I was alluding to. I have grown to have a great deal of respect for all parties involved. If I had been a new comer, I am not sure I would have felt the same.
 
Beth,

I do understand product life cycle. When I mentioned DWELL time, I was referring to allowing a good product to absorb all potential profits before another feature or upgrade is introduced. At times the competition impacts overall profits less (in the negative direction) than the company itself when introducing an upgrade or parallel product that ends up competing with itself and confuses the consumer, etc. etc..

But that's even a longer subject.


"em - eye - see - kay - ee - why - - - em - a - arr - ke - tier"
(or should it be Minney M.)

Regards,
 
I'm really starting to regret bringing this subject up again. SORRY!
Bob Warfield
Restoration Specialties
 
Paul,
Ah, yes. I see your point. Thanks for that clarification. :)
Bob, I'm sorry you regret bringing it up. Actually, this could be about anything else as far as I'm concerend. The discussion about marketing in general is interesting to me, and I have enjoyed reading what Paul has shared on the subject.

Of course, it's a subject I am rather fond of.

Beth;)
 
I've learned a lot also.

It's hard to know much or anyone with one liners.

I think the major thing that keeps people from learning is the lack of interest. I've also learned over the past that people tend to skim when they read and respond to what they think they read vs. what was written. I see a lot of responses on these BB's that do not address the questions being asked.

Bill3752,
"Double blind test" (I know what it means) I don't hear that phrase on the street too often. No spelling errors, elequent grammar. Seems like you've skirted with corporate America in your past. Management, marketing, product development or R&D?

I respect education, educators, educated people or people without fromal education who try to educate themselves.
 
Put a thickening agent on any of these strippers keep it moist and they all work the same. Come On!

If you look at store bought stuff it's 15 to 20 percent concentrate or better. The most important thing is the service and knowledge from your supplier.

A lot of these chemical supplier people open up shop daily. Again I would go with someone with knowledge and good support.

The choice would have to be a decision you will have to make on your own through research.

I can remember so many of them come and go over the years. One day they’re asking how to clean a deck and a year later they are the best and most knowledgeable chemical suppliers around with this incredible safe product.

I personally have no knowledge about either of these chemicals in this post.

But I think mud slinging regardless of how well and how hidden it is. Has nothing to do with the results.
 
I'm sorry, I’m not a deck guy. Someone explain in simpler language what exactly is wrong with what Steven found in Russell’s product? Please,,, why is this a negative thing?

I’m not a deck guy and I’m not sure what the testing proved if anything.

I also would like to ad I have some respect for both party’s, (they are both Gentleman)


NOW, I could test both products not knowing anything about decks and after a few hours I could make the results come out anyway I wanted. So what does testing really matter?

Don’t get me wrong I like this approach Steve Has taken. (Its got Ball’s) on the other hand Russell has shown me to handle himself perfect when under fire. (I realize that these guys don’t feel that way, just kidding)


Beth: I think you have done a beautiful Job getting your point across on this one. I also think it’s beautiful that you do not say negative things about products. I think saying nothing when someone asks you about a product tell the story.
 
OK, I’ll bite…

If all the strippers work the same why do you need knowledge support and service?
Just walk into the store, pick up the container, pay and leave.
(Personally, I prefer someone that can engage in intellectual intercourse, give me financial tips on the market, maybe tell a good joke or laugh at mine and give me a cash kickback under the table – call me insecure.)

I can’t create knowledgeable sales people but I can get most local places to provide me with better than average service. Most people are capable of being motivated – just have to find out what it takes (one of my worse first encounters is now one of my best friends). I enjoy making people smile and laugh and I share my hand rolled Ybor City cigars (I don’t smoke). I shop for gifts for my local suppliers when I travel - call me a manipulator.


If the methods you described work well for you then that’s all that matters.


Regards,
 
Back
Top