Titebond III Does not Perform

Page 2 of 5  


determine
hypothetical
well
that
Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure

page
glue
Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves erode coastlines

Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what temp), type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer

Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive. Need better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might switch. Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends! If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out last the previous ones :)

translates
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well yeah...that is reasonable but what do you do in the mean time? You have to go with the test results available and what Franklyn "actualy uses" as the definition of Water Proof.

erode
Yes... so you have to compare the two glues and see which has the most strength in those type aplications involving water. Common knoledge defines Water Proof as not being affected by water. From the "get go" the TiteBond label is misleading to a majority of woodworkers. You and I no longer fall within that group as we now know that the TiteBonds Water Proof label is not defined by the common knowledge definition.

temp),
That's right. You cannot use the common definition of Water Proof to back up you decision of which one to use.

I agree, but so far the TB2 has shown to be better than TB3 in at least one test. ;~) The information at Titebonds site certainly does not back up TB3 as being superior to TB2.

last
Its a tough choice. Consider this. You know how a higher priced same brand item is usually equated as better. I bet Franklin is betting most people will equate this the same way also. If the TB3 glue was the same price as TB2, would you think it was superior to TB2 knowing that it is truely not water proof? I think we are witnessing a way for Franklin to market a product with about the same qualities for a higher price.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

drying
The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a bogus test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20 setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and editors of Wood magazine. Ed snipped-for-privacy@snet.net http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best regardless.
It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims. You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
Rich
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Excellent point! 'Waterproof' claims are far different than merely 'water resistant'. A submersion test seems legitimate. I doubt Franklin can pursue any legal recourse against the magazine.
RKON wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FWIW I glued up four 3 inch fir strips using Gorilla glue to make a panel for a bird feeder 3 years ago. No battens or nails. It hangs outside year around. Its never been submerged but I doubt "water resistant" would have done as well. BTW Its for suet so its pretty greasy in the summertime too. Jack

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wood
a
On the label of the glue it reads: Passes ANSI/HPVA Type 1 Water Resistance
I'll agree that water proof and water resistance are different according to the dictionary. Given that though, the label gives a specification so testing should be done in compliance with the intended use.
The following was found in a forum on http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/porch/msg0612195230912.html
What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II water-resistance specification? Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the specimens while they are wet. Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3" specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet, and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to pass the Type I specification.
Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5" specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification.

Looks like a 4 hour test is OK, not a 24 hour test.

unglued
I recently bought some for a couple of outdoor furniture projects. I used TB II the last time and it is holding up well, so this time I tried the TB III. I expect it will take the exposure typical of outdoor furniture, but I have no plans to use in in anything submersed. I'd use epoxy for that. I don't think the 24 hour test if fair to any adhesive. OK, you may want to try it just for the fun of it, but I'd not make poor performance claims for something not made to endure the particular test. Ed
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is how they cover their dupa's:
Found at the bottom of their web page: http://titebond.com/IntroPageTB.ASP?UserType=1&ProdSel=ProductCategoryTB.asp?prodcat=1
Important Notice: Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product are based on tests believed to be reliable. Since the use of this product is beyond the control of the manufacturer, no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to such use or effects incidental to such use, handling or possession or the results to be obtained, whether in accordance with the directions or claimed so to be. The manufacturer expressly disclaims responsibility therefore. Furthermore, nothing contained herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with existing laws and/or patents covering any material or use.
1.) Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product are based on tests believed to be reliable. - *** Translates to we tested it looks okay by our standards..
2.) Since the use of this product is beyond the control of the manufacturer, no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to such use or effects incidental to such use, handling or possession or the results to be obtained, whether in accordance with the directions or claimed so to be. ***They don't stand behind their product because it doesn't work as their marketing says.
3.) The manufacturer expressly disclaims responsibility therefore. Furthermore, nothing contained herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with existing laws and/or patents covering any material or use. *** If it doesn't work and you followed the directions to the letter you are SOL and they are covered.
They are scamming you with their marketing. The tests by Wood prove that they are not the " The Best Wood Glue Ever". Their Glue probably works very well for most glue-ups. I love the article because it exposes them for what they are worth. Next Months issue will probably have some half ass clarification and the Titebond ad will be still on the back page.
Rich
wrote in message

Glue
making
to
the
wet,
best
I
for
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
The front label on TB III says WATER PROOF.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wood
Exactly.!
Actually it appears that Franklin is using the a different definition for WATER PROOF than what the average or common wood worker would define as Water Proof. The Type 1 rating apparently is what defines Water Proof on the TB 3 label.
ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically all of its strength when "occasionally"subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).
That does not mean Water Proof to me. I believe that Franklin should have qualified on the front of the label what their definition of Water Proof is.

unglued
Ah.... an acurate observation IMHO.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Minor nit--it was Dateline that set the GM trucks on fire--20-20 blew up Ford sedans about 20 years previously. Same guy though--the simple fact that he had a job after 20-20 speaks volumes about the integrity of the network news establishment.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net (Leon) claims: I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost 60% more and was out performed by TBII.
Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted, epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain without paint? Not too many.
If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out - for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the saturated wood just peeled off.
And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e., paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying about it holding..
Details, more details.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Leon)

Again regardless of the condidtion, the better glue performed worse than the lessor glue in the area that the better glue should have stood out as being better.

Apparently you have not read the article. I was not going to reprint the article here, just giving the results of the article where the TB III water proof glue should have done better than the non water proof glues. Again, the joint on TB III did not fail, it simply was out performed by TBIII.
And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was

READ the article. The joints were clamped for the time recomended by the maker and allowed to cure for 72 hours.
I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never

The same for me. But after reading the article, I probably never would TB III at all. If I need water proof I'll stick with Poly.

READ THE ARTICLE
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 5:35pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net (Leon) says: <snip> READ THE ARTICLE
I'm not buying a magazine, just to read it.
I just checked Titebond.com. It does say Titebond III is waterproof. Then it also says: Limitations Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline.
I've seen glues saying they were waterproof too, and weren't even water resistant. Ad people. Probably in conjnction with Clinton's lawyers, to make claims like that.
Now, if they'd made some chairs, and left them outside for a year or two, and they pulled apart pretty easily, then I'd say they might have a real-life test. But, just drowning them in water, I don't think so. Maybe if they'd let the glue cure for a month or two before they tried it. Or, did they? I haven't read the article.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on an 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period. The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I would. Ed snipped-for-privacy@snet.net http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and separated by measured force.)
Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged. And why did T2 fare better?
JP ************** T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jay Pique wrote:

I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point than "not for continuous submersion".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters. They would almost certainly be continuously damp. Now I don't know what to buy.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Jones writes:

Resorcinol.
Charlie Self "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.