StonGard's response to the message board
05-20-2001, 07:13 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bellevue
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My name is Tim Heikell. I am the President and founder of StonGard.
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
I am very sorry to hear about Dr. Lieber's (SCS2k) lights but it is an issue that is covered under the manufacturer's warranty. I don't understand why he would point blame at our product when there is just one instance of this situation with S2000's and untold hundreds that have not had anything happen. That right there should indicate that StonGard is not the cause. I am surprised that a doctor would come to this assumption after zero testing by himself.
Many are talking about the extended warranty. People are posting excerpts from the warranty. The entire warranty needs to be noted. In a nutshell, there is a limited warranty that covers the product for as long as you own your car, it is included at no charge. There is also a extended warranty that replaces your light if it get broken by an impact through our product. Please read the entire warranty if you are interested, it is on our web site.
The extended warranty has no bearing here, which is for if an impact breaks the light through our product, there is no impact here. What we are talking about is product liability and if our product causes damage or harm to anyone or any thing, we would be responsible and take care of the situation. Our product did not cause the damage; it is nothing more than a defective light. Sometimes parts on cars are defective, they are not perfect, and that is what the manufactures warranty is for. I'm sure everyone has had at least one defective part on his or her car, right?
One reply I read suggested that heat might be a problem. That is good thinking however, in five years of R&D before bringing this product to the market, the largest heat increase we ever measured was 15 degrees F, not enough to damage a light unless the manufacturers specifications were pushed to the limits of the plastic, and they shouldn't push them that close.
Another reply suggested that the StonGard was bonded so tightly to the lens that it hindered the lights natural heat expansion. The adhesive used is 5 mils thick, very pliable and does not harden. Further, the vinyl can be stretched and compressed. StonGard does not cause any pressure changes to the lens.
Someone else mentioned installer error. We are merely applying a soft, durable film to a hard surface. Installing this product cannot cause damage to the lens unless the installer used a hammer.
There were a couple comments about chemical reaction the type of plastic that Honda's supplier used. This is interesting and possible; we will be looking into that theory. Although it still would not be associated with StonGard, I would like to warn our customers in our instructions not to use certain chemicals on their plastic lenses.
The bottom line is that this happens to a small percentage of lights that DO NOT have our product on them and it happens to a small percentage of lights that DO have our product on them. This doesn't just indicate that StonGard is not the cause, it proves StonGard is not the cause.
Again, I am sorry for Dr. Lieber's experience and I would have appreciated him doing his due diligence before slandering my company. Once he gets his lights replaced I would be happy to supply him with a free set of replacement covers. I would hope he would post a retraction but that is up to him.
StonGard has had this product on the market for almost 10 years and we sell thousands of sets each year. If our product was the cause of damage to lights I doubt we would still be in business with this product.
Thank you for your time.
Tim
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
I am very sorry to hear about Dr. Lieber's (SCS2k) lights but it is an issue that is covered under the manufacturer's warranty. I don't understand why he would point blame at our product when there is just one instance of this situation with S2000's and untold hundreds that have not had anything happen. That right there should indicate that StonGard is not the cause. I am surprised that a doctor would come to this assumption after zero testing by himself.
Many are talking about the extended warranty. People are posting excerpts from the warranty. The entire warranty needs to be noted. In a nutshell, there is a limited warranty that covers the product for as long as you own your car, it is included at no charge. There is also a extended warranty that replaces your light if it get broken by an impact through our product. Please read the entire warranty if you are interested, it is on our web site.
The extended warranty has no bearing here, which is for if an impact breaks the light through our product, there is no impact here. What we are talking about is product liability and if our product causes damage or harm to anyone or any thing, we would be responsible and take care of the situation. Our product did not cause the damage; it is nothing more than a defective light. Sometimes parts on cars are defective, they are not perfect, and that is what the manufactures warranty is for. I'm sure everyone has had at least one defective part on his or her car, right?
One reply I read suggested that heat might be a problem. That is good thinking however, in five years of R&D before bringing this product to the market, the largest heat increase we ever measured was 15 degrees F, not enough to damage a light unless the manufacturers specifications were pushed to the limits of the plastic, and they shouldn't push them that close.
Another reply suggested that the StonGard was bonded so tightly to the lens that it hindered the lights natural heat expansion. The adhesive used is 5 mils thick, very pliable and does not harden. Further, the vinyl can be stretched and compressed. StonGard does not cause any pressure changes to the lens.
Someone else mentioned installer error. We are merely applying a soft, durable film to a hard surface. Installing this product cannot cause damage to the lens unless the installer used a hammer.
There were a couple comments about chemical reaction the type of plastic that Honda's supplier used. This is interesting and possible; we will be looking into that theory. Although it still would not be associated with StonGard, I would like to warn our customers in our instructions not to use certain chemicals on their plastic lenses.
The bottom line is that this happens to a small percentage of lights that DO NOT have our product on them and it happens to a small percentage of lights that DO have our product on them. This doesn't just indicate that StonGard is not the cause, it proves StonGard is not the cause.
Again, I am sorry for Dr. Lieber's experience and I would have appreciated him doing his due diligence before slandering my company. Once he gets his lights replaced I would be happy to supply him with a free set of replacement covers. I would hope he would post a retraction but that is up to him.
StonGard has had this product on the market for almost 10 years and we sell thousands of sets each year. If our product was the cause of damage to lights I doubt we would still be in business with this product.
Thank you for your time.
Tim
05-20-2001, 07:36 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Portola Valley
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim:
From a statistical point of view, I think your explanation totally fails due to one unmentioned detail.
This happened to both lights on both sides. These are left-hand and right-hand moldings that were certainly made of different batches of plastic in different injection molding machines at different times. The probablity of this being Honda's fault thus converges on zero.. especially given that we have yet to hear of this problem without stongard. Whats the chance that the only two failures happened on one car?
The only common denominator between the two lenses was stongard.. and the commonality was 100%.
It appears that you are chosing to not see the obvious. Perhaps the customer has irritated you at this point, and inclined you against resolving his situation, but I would say that your explanation is the worst slander I've seen against your company.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake is not resolving this case for your customer... and two sheets of film when the damages are $900 housings is a bit hollow.
Dan
From a statistical point of view, I think your explanation totally fails due to one unmentioned detail.
This happened to both lights on both sides. These are left-hand and right-hand moldings that were certainly made of different batches of plastic in different injection molding machines at different times. The probablity of this being Honda's fault thus converges on zero.. especially given that we have yet to hear of this problem without stongard. Whats the chance that the only two failures happened on one car?
The only common denominator between the two lenses was stongard.. and the commonality was 100%.
It appears that you are chosing to not see the obvious. Perhaps the customer has irritated you at this point, and inclined you against resolving his situation, but I would say that your explanation is the worst slander I've seen against your company.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake is not resolving this case for your customer... and two sheets of film when the damages are $900 housings is a bit hollow.
Dan
05-20-2001, 07:51 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by stongard
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
Originally posted by stongard
I am surprised that a doctor would come to this assumption after zero testing by himself.
I am surprised that a doctor would come to this assumption after zero testing by himself.
05-20-2001, 08:08 AM
#4
Registered User
Skarv, there is another point to consider too: perhaps SCS2K, unbeknownst even to him, used a product on the lenses that was detrimental to the glass?
From both Honda AND Stongard's product reliability standpoints, it's unlikely that Honda OR Stongard is responsible for this, from what I'm seeing. I definitely buy the theory that the lenses were made at different times and in different batches. I also buy the theory that if it were Stongard's fault, other lights would have done the same thing. There is another factor here, an unknown, that is factoring into this, and I would be very curious to see what it is.
From both Honda AND Stongard's product reliability standpoints, it's unlikely that Honda OR Stongard is responsible for this, from what I'm seeing. I definitely buy the theory that the lenses were made at different times and in different batches. I also buy the theory that if it were Stongard's fault, other lights would have done the same thing. There is another factor here, an unknown, that is factoring into this, and I would be very curious to see what it is.
05-20-2001, 08:25 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arundel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by stongard
My name is Tim Heikell. I am the President and founder of StonGard.
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
My name is Tim Heikell. I am the President and founder of StonGard.
The first time we saw this happen to a head light we did extensive research to find out why. What we discovered is that this is something that happens to plastic lenses from time to time, regardless of whether or not there was anything applied to the lens. We have seen it with our product on and we have seen it without. We don't know why this happens but StonGard is not the common denominator. The dealers we have talked to can't tell us why but say they see it from time to time. When we looked into the problem with Audi, we were told that Audi's acceptable failure rate was 1 in 500. That means a lot of lights will fail and some will happen to have StonGard on them. Does that mean that StonGard was the cause of the failure?
Lets look at the facts:
- 2 lenses
- same failure
- same car
- same time
- right after StonGard was applied
From the facts both lenses were definitely created by a different mold and quite possibly different batches of plastic. I am sorry the only commonalities are:
1) StonGard
2) The delear
3) The owner
Now provided the owner is not some sort of psycho with nothing better to do with his time, I think we can rule him out. All that leaves is the dealer and the product.
What I hear from your explanation is:
" Oh no...not another customer seeing this problem. Invent some story quick, base it on baseless stats. Hopefully, the customers and 2000+ members of the forum will buy the story. This problem could put this product out of business if we have to replace all the lenses we have destroyed..."
As far as SCS2K I think he provided us with some usefull facts none of which were invented or slander. From the known facts that you do not deny all of us have concluded that StonGard is at fault.
You have now lost much more money in lost sales then you would have lost by doing the right thing.
I for one will not be placing your defective product on my car.
Trending Topics
05-20-2001, 08:36 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know... I for one am all for trying new products, and hell, I even understand if some of them don't work out for me (or someone else). But, I'm in this S2K "thing" for fun, to meet nice people, and generally to have a good time.
As far as that goes, and our community, I don't know if Stonegard, or the installer, or Honda was at fault.
I'm sure there are many happy folks out there with Stonegard, and some who are unhappy.
My concern with Stonegard, personally, is quite simple: Customer service, Customer satifaction, and Customer care AFTER the sale.
Even if Stonegard isn't at fault, I believe that because their product was implicated as "possibly" having caused this problem, that IF they have reacted in a pro-active, positive manner to help the customer (regardless of who's fault), that they would have had another sale, namely mine.
I didn't care for the way the customer was treated-- EVEN if the customer is 110% dead-wrong. Infact, the customer went so-far as to make a statement that it might not even be Stonegards fault...
Do I care? Nope.
But the CEO's hard-ass reply really cheeses me off as a consumer. In reality the CEO helped me make my Stonegard decision.
-- Aaron
[Edited by amartin on 05-20-2001 at 09:44 AM]
As far as that goes, and our community, I don't know if Stonegard, or the installer, or Honda was at fault.
I'm sure there are many happy folks out there with Stonegard, and some who are unhappy.
My concern with Stonegard, personally, is quite simple: Customer service, Customer satifaction, and Customer care AFTER the sale.
Even if Stonegard isn't at fault, I believe that because their product was implicated as "possibly" having caused this problem, that IF they have reacted in a pro-active, positive manner to help the customer (regardless of who's fault), that they would have had another sale, namely mine.
I didn't care for the way the customer was treated-- EVEN if the customer is 110% dead-wrong. Infact, the customer went so-far as to make a statement that it might not even be Stonegards fault...
Do I care? Nope.
But the CEO's hard-ass reply really cheeses me off as a consumer. In reality the CEO helped me make my Stonegard decision.
-- Aaron
[Edited by amartin on 05-20-2001 at 09:44 AM]
05-20-2001, 08:43 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skarv, there is another point to consider too: perhaps SCS2K, unbeknownst even to him, used a product on the lenses that was detrimental to the glass?
Of course SCS2K is not going to be a sponsor anytime soon so let's blame him right Sondra? Let's not piss off the potential and actual sponsors.
If this forum is going to be used for the benefit of the sponsors by promoting their products to the "S2000 Community" it is also going to be used by the S2000 Community to report on bad experiences with said products and or vendors. It is a sword that cuts both ways.
Unless of course you guys change the rules and we are not allowed to say anything negative about our experiences.
Perhaps this should be the new theme song?
Sung to the tune of "Home On The Range"
Home home on the board
where the sponsors and vendors all pay
where seldom is heard
a discouraging word
and people sell modifications all day
05-20-2001, 08:52 AM
#10
Bieg - you are funny... in a funny way (good and bad)..hehe
anyway.... Does seem odd (like people already posted) that both of the lenses were a problem.... unless (like people already posted) the installer or SCs2k did something odd to the lenses before hand.......
I think that guy claiming to be the Stoneguard president was actually.....THE LOCKNESS MONSTER...Bullshit or not Amazon women on the moon
Scot
anyway.... Does seem odd (like people already posted) that both of the lenses were a problem.... unless (like people already posted) the installer or SCs2k did something odd to the lenses before hand.......
I think that guy claiming to be the Stoneguard president was actually.....THE LOCKNESS MONSTER...Bullshit or not Amazon women on the moon
Scot