Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bad, Bad Testing
12-22-2012, 02:54 PM
Post: #12
RE: Bad, Bad Testing
(12-22-2012 01:02 PM)CCR Wrote:  Just yesterday, I read the installation specs for a sheet flooring from a well known flooring manufaturer who actually stated in their literature to install based on the lower of the two test results Huh

What the heck are they thinking?? Well I know what they are thinking and it's a cop out... They want the sale, and they don't want to be seen as being too picky about where their product is installed, then when there is a failure, they will point at a number of problems and walk away.

Unfortunately that's the path many companies are taking. Even some big installation companies take the easy way out. When I used to use Tramex readers I had a heck of a time keeping flooring installers from installing on wet slabs. If I had 20 readings and 2 were acceptable, they'd want to install flooring. What about the 90% that busted the limits??? They didn't care, they saw a low number and they were ready to collect a paycheck.

I just sat in a meeting where the hospital was discussing the flooring they would use. 4 of the 10 people in the room didn't want to use rubber flooring from my favorite manufacturer because "they are too demanding about installation parameters" !!!!Exclamation

I had to stop them and explain the installation parameters were THE SAME as any other homogenous sheet product they were considering! Just that this ONE company makes sure the install is done as well as it can be and the client gets what they paid for. Yet this was being seen as being too demanding... Huh

I'm really tired of the 'slam it in and let someone else deal with it' crowd....

JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Technorati Digg MySpace Delicious

Messages In This Thread
Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-18-2012, 02:35 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 12-18-2012, 08:15 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-19-2012, 05:20 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 12-19-2012, 03:07 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-19-2012, 04:00 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 12-20-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-20-2012, 08:34 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 12-20-2012, 09:32 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - eaadams - 12-22-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-22-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - eaadams - 12-22-2012, 01:46 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 12-22-2012 02:54 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - eaadams - 12-23-2012, 11:50 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 12-23-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 12-29-2012, 04:43 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 12-29-2012, 10:26 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 12-30-2012, 06:30 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 12-30-2012, 06:45 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 01-03-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - jim decker - 03-21-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 03-21-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - jim decker - 03-21-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 03-21-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - jim decker - 03-21-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 03-21-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 03-21-2013, 06:58 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 03-21-2013, 07:47 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 03-22-2013, 03:28 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - hausenheimer - 03-24-2013, 06:06 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CCR - 03-24-2013, 06:40 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - Rubensgt40 - 03-24-2013, 04:13 PM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - CC Solutions - 03-25-2013, 05:43 AM
RE: Bad, Bad Testing - hausenheimer - 03-28-2013, 08:45 AM