Browsing the web this weekend, I saw a WICR, a competitor had finally put up their website...looking through, I saw they were a "Nevada Coating Systems" applicator...so I clicked the link to see what was there.
Nevada Coating Systems is an entity using an address down in Rancho Mirage, so I googled the phone/address and found that it is linked to Dave Krubinksi, a former Mer-Ko salesman and current Roof Consultant Institute member.
NCS is advertising their coatings for decks, liners, pools and many other areas that don't really interest me as I'm not in that line of work...they appear to have a Polyurea system, a 2 component system that is in heated tanks and is sprayed on using a gun that mixes the 2 parts as it's sprayed.
Polyureas have their place in many applications and their fast drying/curing makes a tough competitor for some other coating sytems for various applications...I'm just not convinced of it's use on decks as a long term solution...but that's just my opinion.
Despite an impressive array of testing done, the 2 most important tests for deck coatings at least, appear to be missing-Class A and One Hour Fire Testing. There is no that I can find at ICC-ES in Div 7 Traffic Coatings and so I would say that in my opinion, this product would not be a suitable candidate for decking where residential codes must be met. Ask about E109 and E119 testing when inquiring...
The stuck in my craw thing about NCS is their "sample warranty" which is more of a service contract, and the way it's written might be a Sherman Act or Magnuson Moss issue...at least in my opinion from reading through the FTC's website. Click here to read some interesting info on warranties and service contracts at the FTC website. I dunno, it's just a really stacked in the installers/mfg's favor warranty...the odds are far better for you to put it all on black in Vegas...
Attached is a picture of their warranty with my notes on it. We are publishing this under the Fair Use doctrine and have the right to publish, criticize, comment on and satirize it if we want, all protected by the doctrine of Fair Use. So despite the terms of use at their website...it's aconstitionaly protected use.
As of now, with the way this warranty is written, it's a bad deal for consumers in my opinion. It ties you to the original applicator for 10 years, giving them residual income for resealing your decks every 3 years...you get no choice as a consumer to have who you want service the decking. Imagine buying a Ford and you got the best deal at one dealer, but don't really like their service dept., but your warranty said you have to use that dealer, and that dealer only... pretty crappy terms.
This warranty is similar to the old Mer-Ko "warranty", whose terms were changed as soon as new Mer-Ko management could.
My opinion is to search elsewhere for other coating options due to the warranty restrictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment