I agree with all of the points that you Alan makes below. However, Scotchgard won't be around much longer because 3M has pulled it off of the market. Nonetheless, one must take the cautionary notices on product labels with a grain of salt. Some have been more heavily influenced by attorneys than toxicologists.
Peter: A hearty welcome to the list!
> Hi All,
> The fuzzy thinking about Frame Saver to me is that we all are preservationists here, and as such we ought to be interested in anything that will tip the balance in favor of the bicycles we love. If any of us were at the Cirque and saw a frame we coveted at a table and looked it over carefully and another was right beside it, identical in every way. . . But wait! What's that in the BB? That film of - could it be -Frame Saver? (That blackish hard waxy film characteristic only to FS.) Which of us would have to hesitate on that choice? Which of us would not actually pay more for it if the other frame left the all too common red-brown powder on the finger that probed the inch or two of the inside of the frame that can be inspected? What of the parts we can't see?
> This isn't about frames that have "holed" from the inside already, but about keeping it from happening in the first place! If a frame does not actually get a hole in it, does that make any internal rust O.K.? On old high wheelers the first thing you do is rap on the backbone. If it sounds dead it's a death nell, even if it looks perfect. And they are thick tubes. Yours arn't. You don't put Scotch Guard on after the stain or exposure has ruined the fabric, but to prevent it. Likewise with why you should use Frame Saver as prevention, but Frame Saver also has much MORE ability to slow or halt an existing condition (if it has been caught in time) than LPS-3, or used motor oil, or WD- 40, or what-have-you on frame innards, or than Scotch Guard on fabric. BTW, ever read the label on the Scotch Guard your wife uses? Read the label, it's NO DIFFERENT! Neither is silicon spray, or wood stain, or ... you name it. But an ounce of prevention keeps the frame from the landfill and makes the future a little brighter for our passion, and even increases your frame's value.
> The gas pump we all frequent (ever read the warning label on all gas pumps?), or the WD-40 we clean gunk off with, or the paint stripper Jim Cunningham uses, never mind the paint, are all WAY toxic. But Jim, or Brian, or Peter all use a primer or clear-coat based, not on its toxicity, but on its effectiveness. The environmental impact of Frame Saver is minute compared with the paint process even in these low VOC regulated days. And if it is your own exposure you worry about, do it outdoors. I'm sure there are many more constant sources you never question, like pumping gas, or burning it...all the time!
> Doing ONE application of Frame Saver will offset more potential damage or loss than any other use of a petroleum based product I can think of. It is a small dose of very high effectiveness. It is better because it is done once right.
> I've been talking to Peter Weigle about this discussion and am pleased that he will be joining us on the list. Lets all welcome one of the finest frame builders in the world, and a true preservationist, whose passion for restoration work led to the introduction of Frame Saver for people like us.
> Hope this helps more frames live longer,
> Alan Schaeffer
> Danielson, Ct
> From: "Alan Schaeffer" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:03:51 -0400
> Subject: [CR]Frame Saver...and the horses mouth
> Hi All,
> I use Frame Saver because it is NOT like the other stuff, and because I =
> prefer to do things right once rather than over and over. I think there =
> is some fuzzy thinking here, but, just to be clear, I've gone to the =
> horses mouth and asked Peter. My thoughts will follow.
> I'll keep you posted.
> Alan Schaeffer
> Danielson, CT
> From: "Douglas R. Brooks" <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR]Re:Framesaving gunk?
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris Beyer)
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> I'm going to go out on a limb here...
> I don't leave my bikes out in the rain and while I ride in
> the rain, it is with fenders and I get to bring the bike into
> the dry and wipe it off before I go inside. Now
> I think that with a proper fendered bike in rainy weather zones
> FrameSaver, etc, is not worth the toxicity
> and the mess. FrameSaver proper is VERY nasty stuff, very toxic.
> I think it's not good to be around. Other stuff may be less yucky
> but dang if it isn't messy too. I can tell you that Jim Cunningham
> doesn't use it and that other masterbuilders have told me the same
> thing, that it's not critical.
> I have several 25+ year old bikes, none are rusted, none from
> the inside out. ALL have seen crappy weather and bad days.
> So, my two cents is that I was on this wagon and now am
> happy to be off: experience suggests that the problem is not
> a problem for me and that the costs, environmentally (to MY environment)
> are not ones I want to accept.
> rust never sleeps, etc., but methinks this is
> not the issue some think it is, but of course you may
> have a very different experience and have bikes in MUCH wetter
> climes without being able to wipe them down, so to each his/her own,
> Douglas Brooks
> Canandaigua, NY
> > Warren:
> > Framesaver. Nothing else comes close as far as tenaciousness......
> > (I suspect that it's repackaged Waxoyl.....)
> > Chris Beyer
> > Bloomfield, NJ
> > Warren Young wrote:
> > > Whatt are you folks using to coat the inside of your frames? Motor
> > > oil...white grease...crisco? What's your favourite procedure?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > Warren Young