Any Experience with Bond's "One TIME" (100% solids & 7 yr. warranty) ???

[celtwheel 14]

Never heard of this product or technology until today. I did a search on "All Forums" and found nothing.

They offer a 7 year warranty!

The present knowledge I've found on this site seems to agree the best you can guarentee is 2 years on the horizontal and 3-4 on the verticals. Is that right?

Here's their pitch:

Bond's One TIME Outdoor Wood Treatment

For Maximum Penetration, Maximum Coverage and Maximum Protection of Outdoor Wood Guaranteed for 7 Years.

One TIME® WOOD protector is a unique exterior wood protection formula that uses a proprietary acrylate resin blend to provide long-term protection from deteriorating elements. (note: Iso Bornyl Acrylate, a UV activated polymer used in the coatings industry)

At our testing site, an application of One TIME® on cedar is still performing after 8 years of exposure to outdoor weather.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

We have never investigated it. But typically, when it sounds too good to be true.....

Also is that a horizontal or vertical longevity claim.

Beth

[bigchaz 157]

Still "performing" after 8 years. Doesn't mean it still looks good. Customers want aesthetics as well as wood protection. Words like "Acrylate" and "Polymer" make me cringe and I'd prefer they be no where near a deck

[PetersonDecks 14]

i wonder if it is similar to Sealmax, i have looked at a couple of those decks after a year and it looks awful, and unable to strip.

[celtwheel 14]

First, a disclaimer: Once again, I just discovered this product, and have nothing to do with it in any way. I'm a rental property owner and small contractor who has recently become a bit deck crazy because of a large "hell deck" I'm working on, and want to find the best low maintenance solution. Since these were no responses on TGS from One TIME users, I thought I would share what I found.

I talked to a restoration contractor who prefers One Time. Deck Monsters, in Glenmore, PA has used the product for over 5 years. I'm going to look at some of his decks, but he certainly sounds like a skilled and knowledgeable person. He has also used Ready Seal and Armstrong-Clark recently, so he definitely has the ability to make intelligent performance comparisons to those popular Grime Scene products..

The technology was patented in 1998, and has been available since 1999.

"One TIME penetrates deep into the wood's cellular structure and cures in the natural sunlight. It can NOT evaporate or wash away like other products that simply coat the wood surface." (from web site)

The 7 year warranty is on all wood, horizontal and vertical. Like any product it must be applied properly (prep, etc.) for the warranty to hold.

The One TIME is expensive, retail $75 / gal. The manufacturers selling point is the life span of the product.

Feedback:

Pros:

> Best product he's ever used, both performance and appearance

> Pentrates wood better than any product he's used

> Still looks good after 5 years on decks he's done

> Over life cycle of product, cost is less than any other product

Cons

> High initial investment

> More temperature sensitive than oils for proper penetration

I did a bit of research and found the patent:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KKXH6hyvV3kJ:www.freepatentsonline.com/6583195.html+isobornyl+acrylate+wood+OR+preservation+OR+sealer+OR+protection&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

A lot of technical speak - but some of it is in common language. Below are excerpts from the patent:

Intro: A substantially 100% solids sealer composition for use with wood and, in particular, weathered wood surfaces and other porous surfaces is prepared from a mixture of UV curable acrylates and a photoinitiator blend. The composition may further include fillers, fungicides, insect repellents, animal repellents, UV light absorbers, pigments, dyes, and the like. The photoinitiator blend is used at relatively low levels to controll the degree of polymerization.

Benefit: As is known to those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains, the average homeowner spends thousands of dollars installing and maintaining exterior structures, such as wooden decks, wooden siding, wooden roofs, wooden doors, wooden windows, and the like, and, thereafter, watch their investment deteriorate from lack of sufficient protection from the environment and/or insects. Present day film forming exterior finishes and treatments such as paints, stains, sealers and the like simply lack significant service life for the protection of exterior surfaces, such as those enumerated above, from weathering and/or attack by biological factors.

Action: Given the near total absence of water and solvents in the composition of the present invention, it is able to permeate through wood without triggering liquid transport controlling or impeding structures. Thus, the composition of the present invention provides deeper penetration and correspondingly deeper protection especially when function specific adjuvants, i.e. fungicide and insect repellents, which are able to penetrate wood deeper than compositions containing solvents and/or water are incorporated herewith.

[celtwheel 14]

Seal Maxx Wood Sealant is a 2 part process that begins with a chemical that is rinsed into the wood with water, then sets up. After that, the deck needs to be sanded, and a silicone based moisture barrier is applied.

Sounds complicated. Never saw it, just heard about it. I'm not sure what the first chemical is, but it sounds like it must be some acrlic, or acrylic/alkyd hybrid, since its water soluble.

The One TIME is 100% solids acrylate (different from acrylic) that cures from sunlight. It penetrates the wood, and does not rely on some form of surface barrier. It also has no solvents in the chemistry, either organic or water.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

....good luck with that.....

Beth

[celtwheel 14]

While I can fully understand strong skepticism about product claims that seem counter to present experience, I find it disconcerting that the owners of this web site would cast off a potential breakthrough product without any technical support of their opinion.

I joined these boards in hopes that there would be free discourse, not sarcastic commentary without structured agrument. It makes me suspicious of both the openmindedness in your board participants, as well as possible product prejudice since you obviously adverstise both Armstrong-Clark products and their major East coast distributer at the head of your forum main page.

I realize these comments are sharp, but what do expect? If your years of practical experience allow you to discount a new product don't you think you have the responsibility to communicate that position with a factual basis?

Otherwise, these boards become a fraternity - not a vibrant discussion.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

While I can fully understand strong skepticism about product claims that seem counter to present experience, I find it disconcerting that the owners of this web site would cast off a potential breakthrough product without any technical support of their opinion.

I joined these boards in hopes that there would be free discourse, not sarcastic commentary without structured agrument. It makes me suspicious of both the openmindedness in your board participants, as well as possible product prejudice since you obviously adverstise both Armstrong-Clark products and their major East coast distributer at the head of your forum main page.

I realize these comments are sharp, but what do expect? If your years of practical experience allow you to discount a new product don't you think you have the responsibility to communicate that position with a factual basis?

Otherwise, these boards become a fraternity - not a vibrant discussion.

Kevin,

I am every bit as entitled to my opinion as any other professional on here. I'm willing to bet that I (regardless of gender) may very well have more hands on wood care experience than you do. (3 grit sanding is typically done on an interior wood surface or for fine wood prep, not on decks; one grit is sufficient)

You don't like my responses via PM or on the forums, you are taking pot shots about me (and Rod for that matter), and you don't even know me. That kind of reaction from you again will be considered bashing and will earn you an infraction. I have the respect of my peers throughout the industry and I don't need you lecturing me about how to post.

Hopefully, this is the last of that....

Beth

Edited October 9, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[Rick2 42]

Kevin, Google these words "See Dirt Run" then come back and tell us what you think of Beth's opinion.

[Scott Stone 604]

Yep, not smart to make attacks on someone that has probably done more wood in the past month then you have in your current wood craziness.

[celtwheel 14]

I apologize if my post was offensive.

I readily admit, and fully respect, your extensive experience, and in no way am positioning myself as some kind of expert. I disclosed my general background, and made no attempts to pass myself off as a wood restoration / deck specialist. I came to these boards seeking the technical knowledge of expert professionals in a vey confusing product market. My questions and commentary were a sincere effort to find the best possible solution for my needs.

Mostly, I certainly am not prejudiced by gender. I could see how in a male dominated field you could be sensitive to that idea. Rest assured, I was taught well by an older sister about women's rights and equality; respect for the individual is a fundamental tenet of my individual philosophy.

With that said, I see no need to criticize my deck prep technique. I'm sure there might have been a better way to do my "hell deck" but a one day job turned into a week and I did what seemed necessary. By the way I did start with 60 grit and it did not work - the remnant stain and uneveness of the boards dictated my starting grit. And yes, I have a lot of experience with indoor floors - decks are a field I never spent much time in - that's why I'm so uncertain about which products are best for appearance and performance.

I'm also sorry you thought I was taking pot shots at you and Rod. I was being honest with my concerns. They were meant to be an objective response. I asked about a product nobody had heard of, much less had any experience with, and expected some form of technical explanation as to its negatives &/or positives. I was excited and curious about the One Time product and was seeking some guiding input.

You are certainly correct about having the right to post any way you wish - just because you are the owners of this forum I had no place expecting a certtain kind of response. So I apologize for that as well. I'm not trying to create trouble. I just want to finish my deck.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I guess you could say I am sensitive, but it's more like after this many years I don't take **** from anyone. I'm big enough to admit I absolutely do NOT know everything, and I freely admit when I do not have an answer so I can learn. Life is about learning. But I also am open to hearing about other products and opportunities, although I am a hard sell having seen some really bad product failures and some really poorly executed projects.

One of the biggest mistakes we see when someone is new to deck stripping is impatience. The very best advice I can give you is:

1. match the chemical you strip with to the finish you are removing, and stay away from box store products if you can...
   
2. never skip neutralizing
   
3. lower the PSI at the tip (not the machine)
   
4. No yellow or red tips...green is ok, white is your friend
   
5. No turbo nozzles
   
6. buff the deck when dry before sealing it, sand if you have to instead, 80 grit, do the whole board not part of it.
   

Beth

p.s. mask the house, tarp around the deck....it should be the only thing you seal.

[celtwheel 14]

To those who think I attacked Beth, Rod, and See Dirt Run - I did nothing of the sort. I've seen their web site and have the utmost respect for their business and their initiative to start, and maintain, a web site.

I posted a very thorough, technical description of a product, including professional feedback, and a link to its patent. I expected some form of "in kind" response, with factual support.

I offered my apologies for my presumptiveness realted to expected reactions to my post.

I still welcome fact based input to my post.

I realize that anything related in any way to "plastic" is like a skull and cross bones to most members of these boards. That's why I included contractor input and a patent with my post. This product is unlike any "Acrylic" on the market. It does not work through surface film formation, and does not have solvent. I looked at some PT decks today that were sealed with Natural One Time about 4 1/2 years ago and they looked great.

While I understand the skepticism - I thought it might be balanced with curious objective inquiry.

[bigchaz 157]

Kevin, you sound completely sold on the product already so why even bother checking with us? I could care less what their website and technical information sheet says about the stain...what matters is RESULTS...in the field, from other contractors, from customers, etc. I have long held to the traditional standard of oil based stains with ample solvents...and in the very short time period I've been doing decks I've seen dozens of products claim miracles and deliver failure (Behr Premium, Cabot SPF, ANY solid stain). You ask for recommendations in other threads and like previously mentioned II have landed on Armstrong Clark thanks to the ability to provide the type of product (oil based, dry and nondrying oils, natural pigments, etc) I want on my customers decks and still deal with the VOC laws that are slowly destroying all thats good. As long as I possibly can I have no intention or desire to apply a water-based, acrylic based, or anything other than good ole oil stain to a deck that bears my companies name.

This website (TGS) has thousands of members...none of whom have talked about and mentioned this Bond product. While I'm willing to accept that maybe we are all somehow missing something, the more obvious answer is that its not viable or widely accepted to risk trying on one of my valuable customers.

I dont sell snake oil, and the quality of client that we market to is not stupid. With minimal education they know that most decks need maintenance between 2 and three years. The list of miracle products is a mile long...Seal Maxx, Perma Coat, SuperSeal etc. If you track any of them back youll find half of them are forced out of business for their claims and pop up under a new name.

Also that warranty is a load of crap used for marketing only....you're out of your mind if you expect any kind of compensation from the company if the deck doesn't hold up 7 years. The interpretation of what is considered acceptable coating performance will be so arbitrary you'll have no leg to stand on. No way the warrenty covers UV degradation.

Back to your project...you spent hours and hours stripping an old stain off, washing, sanding, etc. You know how difficult that can be. Now go ahead and put a silicone enhanced proprietary (aka bullsh**) acrylate resin product on your deck without anything more than one guy claiming it works and once picture of a deck that looks decent after 4 years. But be warned...once you put that nasty glue of a product on your deck YOU CAN NEVER GET IT OFF. It cannot be stripped, it cannot be sanded, it cannot be recoated with another product. The color cannot be changed. Also if you can't disclose whats in your product why should I bother trusting the company. I like to know what I'm using.

So with all that said Kevin, honestly if you want to play guinea pig on yourself thats one thing....but the remainder of us running full time deck restoration companies cannot risk reputation, training of employees, years of documented results, thousands of successful deck jobs to mess around with something like OneTime Deck.

So....good luck with that....

Edited October 6, 2010 by bigchaz

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Charlie,

You're on point.

Beth

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Here is our criteria for a deck finish/coating/sealer etc.;

1. Does it color shift with UV exposure? (become darker with exposure)

2. Does it flake, peel or fade with age?

3. Does it accept itself as a maintenance coating is required?

4. Does it have a stripper to remove it should the H.O./ subsequent buyer wish to change it?

5. Adhesion/absorption is one thing, does it provide for any moisturization of the wood while the coating is in place? Question being from the basis of an old dried out substrate can become more so with age as the natural moisture leaches out either through a permeable coating or other exposed segments of the wood.

6. Is this product meant to be left alone for the duration of it's 'life expectancy' or does it require cleaning and if so, what product is to be used and how often and what consequences are possible if the wrong cleaner is used?

-Reason being that the premise of "lasts _ years" is a regimen of neglect resulting in the need for intensive and expensive remedies upon failure. This most of all is a hot point for our clients who don't want to have to spent a tremendous amount of money each time this work is done.

As anyone can see, these questions formulate the basis for choosing a product to offer a client if they do not already have a preference or a coating that can be maintained.

Now as far as debate or conversation regarding this product, you will find that it is relatively unknown to many here and as such there is not much to respond to and nor will you find anyone in their right business mind who will accept long term finishes/coatings/sealers etc.

They know the pitfalls of such products and only provide ones that will make their job as easy as possible in order to keep the costs to the consumer low. Companies who suggest such products have not yet developed the foresight to understand what they may be in for when the time comes to perform any type of maintenance on it. Most product data sheets do not give much insight as to when or why the product will need attention nor do they give much indications for the inexperienced eye of a consumer in most cases to decide when it is time either.

So, with that said, with the exception of solid based stains, anything with less opacity will become a scrutinized prospect under the criteria mentioned above and understood by those who have learned the hard way what to avoid.

...this sounds like one of them.

Rod!~

[One Tough Pressure 580]

Kevin,

My perception is that You are convinced that this is a good product and now want others to investigate it, so that you have some support in your belief.

This bbs started in 2003, and if there are no search results for a product that has been around since 1999, that should explain a lot.

[celtwheel 14]

First, thanks for:

1. Making the first objective comments I've heard (at the end of your post). That's all I was looking for.

2. These statements were great: YOU CAN NEVER GET IT OFF. It cannot be stripped, it cannot be sanded, it cannot be recoated with another product. The color cannot be changed. (This is excatly the kind of issues I was wondering about)

Now, the other stuff:

1. "No one on TGS has heard of One Time": a few years ago Armstrong Cark was not mentioned on these boards - now it seems to be a product of choice - with a banner ad to boot. Doesn't that imply that products have a right to evolve in the market place?

2. I'm not sold on the product at all - if I was, I wouldn't be asking questions. I found out about it, and put it on the forum expecting some experienced responses. I could care less about the "One Time' company - I'm just trying to learn about deck sealers.

3. I linked to the patent for the product, that had every ingredient down to the thousandth of a gram. I've never seen this on any MSDS for any product, but you said, "Also if you can't disclose whats in your product why should I bother trusting the company. I like to know what I'm using."

4. The product I brought up does not have silicone in it.

5. The main things I learned from these forums are that most mass marketed products are bleep (which I philosophically believed already) and that warranty claims on deck surfaces over 2 years are basically bleep.

6. That's why I thought TGS members would be interested in this product, and why I offered what I thought were some factual references to the product.

7. While my tone might have been wrong, and I apologized for that, I did think I would receive fact based response. The response to me seemed sarcastic, flippant, and opinionated - not a direct response to the product discussed.

8. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is...What about the probably? Unlike most fly by night products this one has published long term tests and support from the US Forest Service. I know that can't replace real world contractor experience but is is more than those other products could ever offer.

9. I looked at some decks today and they looked great - better than ones done by the same contractor with Armstrong Clark. I realize this is an infintesimally small sample of work - but are you going to crucify me for looking and wondering?

10. It seems the "One Time" is marketed poorly - that doesn't necessarily means its bad.

It looks like I hit a nerve here - I didn't mean to get controversial - Oil is king here - and it sounds like for good reason.

All I asked for was some simple reasons - I finally got some - but only after I was made out to be some kind of jerk for even bringing it up.

This was the best source of experienced, professional knowledge I had found on Wood /Deck Restoration. I thought folks would be thoughtful.

I'll keep my questions out of your posts - obviously, if the topics aren't to your liking, you just get slammed.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I looked at some decks today and they looked great - better than ones done by the same contractor with Armstrong Clark. I realize this is an infintesimally small sample of work

Unless you have tests done on the same deck or wood, same age, same species, same exposure, applied the same time, then you are not making a fair comparison.

Can you tell me specifically about the decks you went to? Which had what product, what age was the wood, when was the product applied, what was the orientation of the deck, what is the species? Because if you can't your claim has no basis....and I would be interested if you had the facts to back it up. As I said before, we test things side by side here so we know what we are looking at.

Beth

[Scott Paul 164]

My personal experience with One time is that it turns dark in color after 2-3 years. We have stripped numerous decks that have had One time on it using a NaOH stripper. All came off rather easy. None of the customers went back to using it as they felt that it lasted no different then other available stains for 1/2 the price.

[Adrian 155]

First, thanks for:

1. Making the first objective comments I've heard (at the end of your post). That's all I was looking for.

2. These statements were great: YOU CAN NEVER GET IT OFF. It cannot be stripped, it cannot be sanded, it cannot be recoated with another product. The color cannot be changed. (This is excatly the kind of issues I was wondering about)

Now, the other stuff:

1. "No one on TGS has heard of One Time": a few years ago Armstrong Cark was not mentioned on these boards - now it seems to be a product of choice - with a banner ad to boot. Doesn't that imply that products have a right to evolve in the market place?

2. I'm not sold on the product at all - if I was, I wouldn't be asking questions. I found out about it, and put it on the forum expecting some experienced responses. I could care less about the "One Time' company - I'm just trying to learn about deck sealers.

3. I linked to the patent for the product, that had every ingredient down to the thousandth of a gram. I've never seen this on any MSDS for any product, but you said, "Also if you can't disclose whats in your product why should I bother trusting the company. I like to know what I'm using."

4. The product I brought up does not have silicone in it.

5. The main things I learned from these forums are that most mass marketed products are bleep (which I philosophically believed already) and that warranty claims on deck surfaces over 2 years are basically bleep.

6. That's why I thought TGS members would be interested in this product, and why I offered what I thought were some factual references to the product.

7. While my tone might have been wrong, and I apologized for that, I did think I would receive fact based response. The response to me seemed sarcastic, flippant, and opinionated - not a direct response to the product discussed.

8. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is...What about the probably? Unlike most fly by night products this one has published long term tests and support from the US Forest Service. I know that can't replace real world contractor experience but is is more than those other products could ever offer.

9. I looked at some decks today and they looked great - better than ones done by the same contractor with Armstrong Clark. I realize this is an infintesimally small sample of work - but are you going to crucify me for looking and wondering?

10. It seems the "One Time" is marketed poorly - that doesn't necessarily means its bad.

It looks like I hit a nerve here - I didn't mean to get controversial - Oil is king here - and it sounds like for good reason.

All I asked for was some simple reasons - I finally got some - but only after I was made out to be some kind of jerk for even bringing it up.

This was the best source of experienced, professional knowledge I had found on Wood /Deck Restoration. I thought folks would be thoughtful.

I'll keep my questions out of your posts - obviously, if the topics aren't to your liking, you just get slammed.

Whoa!!!!!! Slow down Kevin. Nobody thinks you are a jerk. Nobody is slamming you.

( so far, you have seen everyone's good side. Let's keep that "side" rolling)

I'm a simple guy, so , here goes.

You did come to one of the bbs that has alot of experienced "woodies".

We know our products. We trust our products because that is what works for us.

Through trial and error we have found that "particular" helps us maintain our professionalism.

Imagine if you walked into a dentist' office with your "new brand" of toothbrush and said " I don't need your services anymore Dr., I have this new toothbrush".

The dentist will most certainly not agree with you. Because of maintainance issues. I.E. root canals, fillings, crowns yadda.

Just having the toothbrush does not make you ( or new product ) an oral surgeon.

My point is that all of these contractors (myself included) have racked our brains finding the perfect processes to apply the right stain for the applicable job.

There is even a contractor on this site that has been doing comparrison experiments ( ongoing for a few years now) on how a particular product he uses vs. others hold up over the years. And he did not just use one or two products. He used a bunch.

It's sort of hard for me ( or us ) to put 100% belief in a product we have never used or seen before.

Like mentioned earlier in the thread, if it is a worthy product, it will have been mention and used here.

This could very well be your chance to prove your product.

Start a timed experiment such as our other contractors have. Let us know the outcome.

Post pictures and videos of the product.

Let's try not to be so defensive ( or as some may view it offensive.)

Let's holster our sidearms and step back and re-approach your delivery of this product.

Give us some proof of your claims. Over time, with pictures, and videos or anything to back up your product.

We will be happy to give it the "once over"

Most here, Kevin, are sure of the products they use. That's what helps them stay in business year after year. Or even decades.

This product may actually be the "new wave" of stains, but, right now, I doubt it. Because there is no proof or time documentation to back it up.

Let's not go into the science lab and tell Mr. Hawking (Beth) that the moon is made of cheese until we can prove it.

Oh..... by the way. Welcome to TGS.

[James 625]

Very simply it takes time to understand wood care. Until you get a chance to actually go back and maintain what you put down and observe what has happened and do that many times ( about 5 years) can you form an opinion and be objective. Horizontal surfaces are a very difficult thing to maintain and have so many variables to contend with it doesn't seem logical to go with a product that will last seven years. Before you understand finishes , you have to understand the wood, building practices, your climate, weathering and how they affect a finish. You can clean a cedar deck every year and it will last 20 years without a finish. You also have to ask yourself do I want to deal with a product that gives a 7 year warranty ? You need to ask yourself many questions ? People change , opinions change after being in the wood care Biz at the 5 year point.

KISS-keep it simple stupid

[acegot 14]

I used "Bond's One Time" about 7-8 years ago, holds color for a long time,( it also smells weird) you would still need to wash deck periodicly, as you would wash your car to look its best. The problem with One Time is acrylates are blended to create plastics as I understand. One Time coats the wood fibers with a thin "plastic" type coating that really cant really be removed without sanding deep enough to remove the treated wood. I played with it alot back then, re. sanding off the finish etc. to see what I would be getting into. Its not a contractor friendly product, for many reasons. The problem is removal of product for change if not liked. I fact that it holds the color so long is pretty amazing but just not the product for a professional wood restorer.

[acegot 14]

Here are some pics of One Time.

First pic- 12 yr old deck never sealed, sanded then OT applied, summer 2002(clear with a touch of the clove brown pigment added, back the the pigment was added separately) not dry yet, dark areas are water damage to the redwood from not being protected for so long.

Second pic is OT after 4.5 years of not being touched. fall 2006(no cleaning at all, Clove brown color)

Edited October 7, 2010 by acegot
added

[tattwd 14]

I have used this on 3 homes over 6 years ago, homes are still original color and no growth at all, however I burnt up 3 gracos and one spraytech using it. This year I burnt up another graco using it on very large project. Best stuff I have ever seen but probably wont use it again because its way to hard on equiptment. Owner says sprayers are not what they used to be, unfortunately, I disagree and wont use it again.