What is the driving reason for people to fill those small spaces, rather than place a thermal break between those beams / columns and the van interior, and be done with it? :s

Noise; which sneaks in through small passages especially down low. Thermally, a thoroughly insulated van is going to perform better than one with incomplete insulation.

It's not a brain friendly, easy to visualize & solve, one-size-fits-all-areas analysis. The thermal/acoustical model and behavior is much more complex. The whole thing acts as a system and we have found that being thorough works very well. The incremental cost in material and effort is small.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Hein

 

Thanks for the reply.

I'm very happy after measuring an 8db-10db reduction in noise at various speeds on the same road after covering the large panels with one or two layers of Thinsulate CS150 along with Polyiso placed to isolate both the large panels and those structural channels on the walls from the interior space. (Polyiso isn't rated as well of an acoustic damper as Thinsulate)

This was achieved without having filled any of those channel spaces, only covering them. The before and after db numbers are in the Vanderloosed build thread. This reduction in noise was achieved without having installed insulation inside the doors, on the slider window cutout panel, rear window cutout panels, or over the cab. Though each of those large areas will be done eventually. This effect was easily measurable using the Android sound app specified in that thread.

My experience in applying this method was a significant improvement in comfort acoustically. It emphasized how placing the insulation between the source and the interior achieved remarkable results.

Placing more Thinsulate in the inner door panels, slider window panel, and cab overhead will bring that number down further, though I wouldn't expect these steps to be as significant as what has been achieved so far. I've likely reached a point of diminishing returns after addressing the most significant sources of thermal and acoustic transfer.

As with the thermal aspect outlined, based on surface area covered and these measurements, this indicates there may be very little advantage acoustically to filling those spaces. How much greater overall db reduction could be expected by doing so?

I would be interested to see measured results before and after filling the small voids to support such claims of benefit. Putting a layer of Thinsulate over the inner-facing side of the channels will likely provide better results in preventing sound resonance carried into the van through the metal of those channels than would filling the void. Same as it will with preventing thermal bridging in a way that filling those voids does not address.

With the goal being to block the thermal and acoustic transfer between the outside and the inside of the van, the channel itself offers a highly conductive path for both forms of energy around any insulation placed inside it. This path is the one that will need to be blocked, and placing insulation inside the channel will have but a tiny effect, if any at all, when compared to the effect of placing a layer between the channel and the van interior. At a guess I'd venture it provides less than a 1% improvement inside the channel, and significantly greater damping can be achieved by covering the channel side facing the van interior.

I'd be interested to read more about this complex behavior of the thermal/acoustic model, specifically in regard to any advantage gained by placing insulation inside small enclosed spaces attached to larger thermal/acoustic conductors, as opposed to placing a layer between the acoustic/thermal conductor and the area to be isolated.

Thanks for any more specific detail that might shed light on perceived benefits of this method and measurement of its actual effect regarding overall thermal/acoustic damping for a van application.

Best wishes for a wonderful holiday!

 

filling all of the cavities is the mark of a good salesman...

 

there's a sucker born every minute!

but this is partly understandable: most people want an east/west bed so they have room for a full camper build, but then they have to compromise on the insulation to try to make it all fit. so they stuff insulation in every nook and cranny not being used and hope it will be good enough.

i know this all too well myself with my no exposed steel, well insulated van with a north/south full queen sized bed, (60x80) the bed takes up 2/3 of the van! but i have managed to shoehorn a good sized refrigerator, a microwave and a heater into it, with a portable toilet and a portable propane stove/oven under the bed.

on the plus side: the cab (front) AC does a great job of cooling the entire van on the hottest of summer days!

 

Stuffing the channels won't do anything for thermal performance. This is easily proven by algebraic thermal loss calculations - no need for quantitative measurement. If maximizing space is an issue, 1/4" compression-resistant thermal strip may help. I like the look of HardieBreak http://www.jameshardie.com.au/products/thermal-break/hardiebreak-thermal-strip/
"available nationwide"...in Australia . Maybe there's an analog for N. America.

OTOH, stuffing the channels will reduce sound resonance and conductance. But the extent is not easily calculated, acoustics being largely the realm of unresolved partial differential equations and voodoo. I doubt anyone here is going to test the hypothesis on two otherwise identical vans. In the overall picture of a project van, it seems worth the relatively small increment of cost and effort...if one keeps a healthy perspective regarding perfection .
http://www.jameshardie.com.au/products/thermal-break/hardiebreak-thermal-strip/

 

OTOH, stuffing the channels will reduce sound resonance and conductance. But the extent is not easily calculated, acoustics being largely the realm of unresolved partial differential equations and voodoo. I doubt anyone here is going to test the hypothesis on two otherwise identical vans. In the overall picture of a project van, it seems worth the relatively small increment of cost and effort...if one keeps a healthy perspective regarding perfection .

Your feedback is much appreciated.

As for empirical testing I was hoping someone might perform such measurements on one van. Before and after. No need for two identical vans. My guess is there would be no discernible difference in sound damping, regardless of whether the other surfaces had, or had not yet been covered before stuffing the channels. So long as everything else is the same for both test samples it should provide validation of whether or not such effort yields any result which could be noticed at all.

Whatever the cost in time and money, if it actually makes no difference this leads back to the question this thread raises, "Why?" and the answer seems to be more about voodoo and the pursuit of infinitesimally small increments toward perfection which may not ever be successfully achieved. Some people have time for that kind of malarkey, and I suppose also will have appreciation for whatever peace of mind such a placebo might bring. Which is fine, as most decisions along these lines will be based as much in emotion as they will be in any actual result. We should all strive to be happy.

Its one thing for an Audiophile to craft a home theater room and another for the same audiophile to try to achieve the same level of audio quality in a vehicle. That's a fool's errand as the vast number of other variables encountered in a vehicle installation will make it quite impractical to aim so high. This level of "insulation" falls into that category. There are too many other things, like windows, which will undermine any minute benefit stuffing the channels might provide. Presuming that the builder in their quest for perfection then also covers the interior metal with a thermal/acoustic insulator like CS150, Yoga mat, or Polyiso. Without which stuffing the channel is moot in regard to thermal and acoustic damping.

Perception is always a personal affair. Believing something is "better" makes us feel good, regardless of the fact that we can't actually tell whether it is, or isn't.

My healthy perspective regarding perfection was the impetus behind this thread. If there is no significant advantage, whatever effort expended could be better spent on completing some other more worthwhile aspect of a build. For me, part of "being thorough" is being able to tell when being too thorough is not much different than being wasteful.

 

this man has done a good job of documenting the many types of insulation, although his thinsulate links now appear to be broken when in the recent past they worked.

also he sometimes comments on this (transit) forum.

http://www.buildagreenrv.com/design-and-build-information-for-camper-vans/install-insulation/

 

Hi,
I fixed up the link for Thinsulate R value and added another from 3M for the SM600 material that a lot of people are using -- looks like about R3 per inch.

I'm not so sure that insulating the small cavities inside the box frames is not worthwhile from a thermal insulation point of view.
Its not like the box frame metal elements have an R value of zero -- the metal itself is near zero R value, but the still air layer that surrounds the metal has an R value of about 0.7. and there is also an air layer outside the van with an R value of about 0.3 to 0.7 depending on how still the air is. This is basically just like a window -- the glass has a near zero R value, but the air layers on each side of the glass pane result in a single pane window having an R value of about 1.0. So, the area you insulate inside the box frame goes from an R value of about 1 for the van skin airlayers to about R6 (depending on what kind of insulation you use. And, the heat loss from the frame webs that run perpendicular to the van skin is greatly reduced because it faces the insulation you put in the cavity rather than air. If you can get some insulation over the inside flanges of the box beams, than the box frame heat loss though the frames would be greatly reduced.

It would take a careful analysis with one of the 3D flow heat loss tools to really determine what the payoff for insulating the box frame spaces, but I'm inclined to think its not tiny. Maybe filling them up with Great Stuff would be easier than pulling Thinsulate into them?

Gary

 

Everyone has an opinion.
I commend Vanderloosed on his sound measurements. Wish I would have done that.
An early step in my conversion was about .5" of spray foam to cover the walls and ceiling. I filled the rest of the space, up to the level of the ribs / internal structure, with Thinsulate. Since it was easy at the time I filled many of the cavities with spray foam. I think this was a mistake.

I think the open cavities and channels are much more devastating to noise and heat than one would expect. For heat, they act like a chimney. As it warms, the air rises in the channel dragging in more air at the bottom. The thermal loss will be much greater than just the R values because of the air movement. Sound does the same thing, being channeled from the noisy floor to ear level. Filling the channel with foam stops both those effects but, for sound, since the foam I used is fairly rigid, it connected the outside skin to the inside of the van. So less noise from the floor but the same or more from the walls and frame. At least that is my assessment. If I would have loose filled the channel (with thinsulate or other material) I would have stopped the air and noise without making a firm connection to the outside wall and bringing in more noise.

I think loose fill of the small cavities is a good idea.

Ron

 

LOL! Thank you, RonR, for giving me better reasons for filling everything I could stuff polyester batting into, than "because I could" Or "because it was kind of fun", or even "so the electric cord wouldn't rattle around"

I used a piece of polyethylene rod used for plastic welding - it was about 3/16" thick, a foot long, firm but flexible. It let me stuff batting into 1/4" holes quite nicely.

 

Hi,
Agree that it would be really nice to get some actual before and after noise measurements on conversion vans.

I took some in my van and proposed a standard way to do the measurements -- details here: http://www.buildagreenrv.com/our-co....com/our-conversion/our-promaster-camper-van-conversion-measuring-noise-levels/

Its not a very well written page, but if you go down the the heading "Simplified Test" it gives a short description of a proposed standard procedure.
Any noise measurements are helpful, but if we can standardize on noise meter placement, type of highway surface, speed, ... the results will be more useful.

My van is a ProMaster, but I think that noise level reductions for a particular type of treatment would be similar for Transit, Sprinter and ProMaster.

Gary

 

thermal bridging.

 

Regarding conduction/thermal bridging...

Please recall that most van skins are bonded to the structure with reasonably thick beads of (foaming) adhesive. Those materials do act as thermal breaks between skin and interior structure. It's not going to keep the interior metal from getting chilled if your van is parked in the cold with no heat. But the adhesives will reduce conduction once you get it warm inside. Insulating the cavities will only add to the overall thermal efficiency. Certainly not reduce it.

Wood conducts too (although less than metal), but it would be silly to build a house and deliberately leave un-insulated pockets within the walls or roof. I can see similar visual effects (as photo above) of thermal bridging on our home in certain conditions.

The existence of thermal bridging does not mean you shouldn't insulate everywhere else.

 

I made a mistake when building the sold Sprinter conversion. The 80/20 aluminum cabinet structures were bolted directly to the van steel. Net result was the aluminum structures were close to the van steel temperature. Seems aluminum is a very good conductor. Just bypassed all the wall, floor and ceiling insulation.

In Transit build I isolated the aluminum structures from the van steel. Bolted the plywood floor to the van steel and then bolted the 80/20 to the wood floor to create a thermal break. The upper cabinet frames are hung from the ribs with plywood tabs between the roof rib and the extrusion. The plywood cabinet floor connects the bottom of the 80/20 face frame to the wall.

Where I bolted the structures to the van walls with plusnuts I used a plastic spacer between the connector and the wall and a plastic spacer under the bolt head. Did not want metal to metal contact.

Did bolt the structure to the van wall at one location to ground the structure to the van.

 

This describes best what I was trying to convey regarding how effective the metal that form these boxed channels can be for moving heat. (more so when you attach aluminum heat sinks to the metal van as Orton describes) The metal is exponentially more efficient at moving heat than might be done by passing from one metal side, radiated into the air inside the channel, then onto the other metal side. Any insulation done inside the cavities will have an inconsequential effect overall. Measurable? Sure. Just not of any significant effect overall. The metal is much more efficient at moving heat in or out (as temperature differential dictates) quickly and efficiently. The only effective way to stop this is to isolate that metal from the interior space with an insulation barrier.

Sure, stuffing insulation in the cavity will have "some" effect. Perhaps, only mitigating a few tenths of a percent of the total heat transfer from any given channel when compared to the rate of heat transfer through the metal.

This is what makes the process seem like an exercise in futility to me. I don't believe that the folks supporting this technique have a good working understanding of the minuscule effect their efforts will provide against the capacity of the metal to transfer heat right around whatever they put in there.

Likewise for mitigating noise. Sound needs to be prevented from vibrating the air in the living space that will conduct it to one's ear. That point will always be outside the channel, not inside it.

 

people do not want to know the science, People want other people to agree that their way is the right way whether they are right or wrong!

look a the popularity of Reflectix and EZ-Cool on this forum, both require an air gap to be effective and people just choose to ignore that fact.

 

There are places that Reflectix can be used that include the required air gap. My insulation in the deep pockets above and below the window indents has two 1" layers of closed cell foam with first layer glued to van steel and second layer glued to the first layer. The two layers are covered with Reflectix. There then is a 2" air gap between the Reflectix and the wall covering. Wall covering is 7/32" plywood with a 1/8" layer of closed cell foam between the plywood and the van inner steel.

The roof is covered with either 1" or 1 1/2" polyiso that is glued to the roof and glued together with Great Stuff spray foam. That is covered with Reflextix in the center portion of the van. The ceiling is a dropped ceiling that is level and does not conform to the curvature of the roof ribs. At the center there is 2 1/4" between the Reflectix and the top of the ceiling panel. The air space tapers down to 1/2" at the cabinet structures. There is 1/4" Thinsulate layer that is glued to the top of the twin wall polycarbonate ceiling material. The white Thinsulate helps make the white twin wall "more" white.

I also have Reflectix covering the polyiso wall insulation that is behind the refrigerator/shower cabinet where it is hidden from view. There is an air gap between the wall and the back of the cabinet.

So I think Reflectix is a viable product if it is installed with an air gap. I do not have any proof that Reflectix is or is not effective as I used it.

 

once again Hein has had a chance to back up his product with science and yet again he has chosen not to do so!

 

Who cares? Buy and use Thinsulate or buy and use something else or use nothing else at all?

Why do you have to be so combative with everyone?

 

To be clear,

I have quite a bit of respect for Hein's abilities as a fabricator and a van conversion veteran with a lot of wisdom to share. He offers some wonderful ways to tackle mechanical issues with the many products he has designed and graciously offers to van builders as products for sale. There is no doubt in my mind that he is creative and ingenious in these pursuits.

In this particular realm, the level of expertise may be less comprehensive than is shown in his mechanical design strengths.

My hopes for this discussion were that it could be conducted in a civil manner. A way to provide conclusive data from which to either support the claim of any benefit, or, demonstrate that the actual benefit may be so small as to be completely unnecessary.

It was never intended as a personal attack, nor meant to provoke such in response.

 

http://magazine.sae.org/17autp06/


P.S. You need to be a member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) to get/read the magazine.

 

http://magazine.sae.org/17autp06/

I don't see anything specific on the page this link turns up that would offer the detail requested.

The point of "referring" to something is to provide more detail, rather than less detail. See the link I provided for the Thermal Conductivity as an example of how this concept might be put into practice to support a claimed point of reference.

Often, publications will provide reference in their article to the material they are quoting. That might be a good place to look to find the Honda data.

Screenshot Attached

 

In the interest of full disclosure I did a little digging. Again, another four minutes of internet searching turned up this:

Honda's Study & Report on the Study Commissioned by NHTSA
“Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Model Years 2017-2025”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/4-thomas-honda_report.pdf
​

Going to Page 20 offers the screenshot below. It appears to show how use of aluminum plate instead of steel, along with Thinsulate insulation on the flat surfaces and "Hole sealing" were the methods used to reduce noise in 2017 and on Accords. This was released in 2013.

Is this what you are referring to? Looks like what we already knew. Those "open channels" in the doors will pass noise through to the cabin.

Please notice how I made an effort to find Public Domain accessible references on your behalf. Note also how I did not offer an arcane link that most interested in this won't be able to view.

If you have other data to share, rather than merely allude to, please do so.

 

Nice debate folks, let's keep it civil! I'm thankful for hearing multiple perspectives here as I'm about to tackle the wall and ceiling insulation work.

I was hoping to make some cubbies out of those upper cavities, maybe running one van-length strip of thinsulate that tucks into each cubby, and over/around each support, will waste less material while saving space and insulating the bridge at the same time. Things to think about.

 

I'm thinking along the same lines and gave some thought to adding a hardening layer between the thinsulate and the cabin, so objects placed there can't dent the outside sheet metal.

I have some left over plastic sheet (PVC maybe) that I found in 4x8 ft pieces at HomeDepot that I plan to use for this.

I'll cut to the length I can roll up and slide in through the access hole, wide enough that when unrolled it will make bottom, wall, and upper protection. Then another going the other way, overlapping the first. I'm thinking of stuffing some foam at the ends to keep things placed in those cubbies from sliding away into inaccessible spaces.

Hope this offers some ideas for you too.

 

a year ago Hein's main marketing ploy was to say thinsulate did not "out gas" like other insulation types.
well guess what: that new car smell is a product of out gassing. plywood out gasses heavily, remember all the **** that was raised about Fema trailers several years ago.
i guess back then Hein was telling us we should only buy used vans insulated with thinsulate with no other interior modifications because they might out gas.

Hein produces many well engineered and useful items, but in my mind it is wrong for an advertiser to lurk on the forums trying to sell his wares.
and worse yet he is unable to back up any of his claims with facts other then to say this is how he did his last van, or he read some story a couple of years ago.
that is poor salesmanship and he deserves to fail.

(actually if it had not been for this, i would probably would have bought everything in his catalog including the thinsulate!)

 

Hein has been very helpful to many on this forum with comments and developing items to sell for the DIY market. His information is generally sound advice. Do agree that he pushes a bit too much about Thinsulate but I think he is convinced. There are other alternates. Everyone here I think knows he is a supplier. He does not deserve to fail nor will he.

I have not bought from Hein and did not use Thinsulate for my insulation.

 

Travlin,
Sorry that I could not produce the actual article. I'll try to find the hard
copy and scan it. Please accept that I am not misquoting the information.

Michael,
I apologize that my activity on the forum has offended you.
I respect your decision to not support our company for that reason.

Dave,
Thank you for your honest words of support.

All,
I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to help folks with their van projects.
I have a passion for it and that sometimes that gets the better of me.

I have a meeting with our 3M rep this week and will ask if they have more
information relative to this discussion and whether they would be willing
to do some actual testing on a van.

All the best,
Hein
DIYvan.com

 

Summary of what has been determined:

Thermal Transfer:

1) The metal channel conducts heat in or out of the van about 2000 times more efficiently than does the air inside the channel. Filling the channel with insulation does nothing to mitigate this fact of thermodynamics.

2) Placing insulation in the channel will reduce the overall heat transfer through the channel by only 0.06 Percent. As it will only affect heat transfer in the air inside the channel. The balance of the heat will be carried around the airspace in the channel by the metal of the channel itself. (see "1" above)
​

This shows how filling the channel with Thinsulate is essentially useless for reducing thermal transfer.

Acoustic Transfer:

There are two primary ways that sound is carried through these channels:

1) Through the metal itself, which vibrates the interior air where it contacts.

2) By the air inside the channel, until sound waves contact the interior air which carries the sound wave to the ear of the occupant.
​

In each instance the most effective way to isolate the noise source from the interior air will be to place the Thinsulate to block the sound wave at the point of contact with the interior airspace.

This can be accomplished by:

• First, covering the metal that is facing the interior with Thinsulate or other acoustic damper, and,

• Second, by placing Thinsulate, or other acoustic damper into or over any uncovered holes in the channel where sound carried by the air inside the channel exits into the van interior.

This is usually an application for the thinner versions of Thinsulate rather than SM600L.

When a Boxed Channel is filled with insulation:

• The metal will carry the heat and the sound waves around the fill and transfer heat/vibrate the air the metal contacts in the interior.

• The fill will be considerably less effective in damping the heat transfer, or, in damping sound waves carried in the air column inside the channel, than would using Thinsulate as a barrier at the interface between Inside air space and the Channel.

Wrap Up:

The natural laws regarding thermodynamics and acoustical properties are in no way influenced by what we want, what we think might work, nor, good intentions in general.
​

And, no, I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

Now, THAT was a post!!

Wish my van would get here. Scheduled to be build this week with delivery estimated for Dec 27.

Dave in Wisconsin

 

I don't fault you or anyone else for wanting to learn more or for questioning some of the conventional wisdom on this forum. I just think you have to have realistic expectations.

Frankly, I doubt any RV manufacturer can fully justify the reasons they use the materials they use (in fact, I think many of us amateurs and hobbyists probably do a better, more thorough job than the commercial guys). I seriously doubt that have any robust scientific studies or research to that end.

Maybe some of us here could be a little more forthcoming and a little less... zealous... in our defense of why we promote certain strategies. Something as simple as "I drove the van around before filling the channels, then drove around after, and it seemed much more quiet" is probably as good as we can get, rather than asking if said person did any controlled analysis, data gathering, and considered every possible scientific angle before making such a bold proclamation. I mean... of course not. How deep into the weeds are we really going to get?

It reminds me somewhat of one of my other hobbies - audiophile sound. You want to talk about crazy... start following true audiophiles in search of obtaining the absolute best possible sound quality you can get.

 

That is all well and good for the builders. However, when someone selling a product makes statements indicating a "benefit" I will expect that they have some supporting information, rather than the run-of-the-mill things you have stated the rest of us most often use to explain our choices.

There is a marked difference between people stating an opinion when they have no dog in the hunt, and those stating one who do.

When someone selling a product repeatedly makes a statement about "the benefit being well worth the trouble," and, will sell more of their product in order to fill those cavities, they should be able to offer some supporting data. Regardless of whether the intent of the statement is profit-based, or, they're only trying to do right by their customer based upon their understanding, or possibly misunderstanding. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for more detail in such an instance.

When such questions have repeatedly been left only vaguely addressed across several threads, and I still want to know, I use the forum to ask a broader cross-section of people if they have anything to add.

More than a few of the folks who contribute here have done testing, found a better way, or somehow determined with a higher degree of accuracy than mere opinion on what does and does not work. This is a valuable resource of folks willing to share their experience and expertise with the rest of us. It seemed the right place to approach the matter in a way that would clear things up.

Which, in the long run, is what happened, but more because of the lack of supporting data than what I had hoped for.

Your comment about manufacturers is spot on. Most simply rely on time tested building principles, and there is no need to do a lot of R&D if they are using the same materials and techniques that have proven themselves over time.

This tack away from the usual methods is exactly what raised the question for me. Standard building methods indicate you insulate around thermal and acoustic bridges, not inside them.

When an answer is presented that alludes to there being some valid reason for doing something a certain way I will always presume there might be more to the story. Ask and you shall receive, right? It is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff and turn up any data that might be more useful than feel-good opinions. No, I don't "expect" everyone to have done testing, and yet, I'm never surprised when I find that someone has.

This time was an outlier for me. It didn't result in any feedback that demonstrated a benefit based in function. Usually queries will quickly result in a valid reason for doing something a certain way and we move along.

This thread was most remarkable to me in how that didn't happen.

 

Meh. I've always viewed Hein as an van enthusiast with loads of experience who builds some pretty niche and cool things, and sells Thinsulate on the side. His "information" being the product of his own research and experience, and not as some industry snake oil salesperson making a killing on us poor gullible amateur van consumers. I just never took it that seriously. Of course he wants to sell Thinsulate; I seriously doubt he's making enough from it to justify misrepresenting the effects of the stuff. I still don't see what the big deal is here.

When I was looking at insulating my van, I made a list of the materials I could use to insulate, came up with a list of reasonable expectations and a budget, and did my own research significantly based on the experience of other van users, all the while realizing that given the situation, the differences between the different materials are probably pretty small and trivial. I liked that Thinsulate is purportedly more "hydrophobic" than some materials, easier to work with than other materials, and generally less toxic than yet some others.

It never bothered me that Hein was peddling the stuff, nor did his representations influence my decision to buy Thinsulate from him more than what common sense and an open mind to the discussions on this forum in that regard would provide. I found most of what he said about it and insulation in general to be coming from a genuine interest in trying to figure out better practices and methods with the community rather than pecuniary motivation. Ultimately, we all just want to go camp a bit more comfortably, and not waste a bunch of time and money doing so.

I think its great that other people question these practices and try new and different things; it does no good for this forum to be an echo chamber on how to build a van. I don't even mind wanting more substantial data if its out there and others have read it. I just think your expectations are a big exaggerated. But if it matters to you that much maybe you should conduct your own (objective) research and you can put your and these questions to rest.

Meanwhile, I just back from a great week in Moab with my partially insulated (and no wall-coverings) van and we didn't absolutely freeze. Just kind of.

 

I just think your expectations are a big exaggerated. But if it matters to you that much maybe you should conduct your own (objective) research and you can put your and these questions to rest.

The reference to "expectations" leaves me scratching my head. I "expected" to find that I had overlooked something.

Someone said there were benefits and I asked what the benefits are. Basic logic indicated to me that the answers didn't fit the parameters involved, and, they kept being repeated without further explanation. I just wanted to clear up things by addressing the known facts and see if my logic was sound.

My own research on acoustic damping for the Transit Cargo Van, covered in my build thread, did play a part in both raising and putting these questions to rest.

 

I think it's flippin fantastic Hein is selling the SM600L. Where else are you going to get it?

There are tradeoffs to everything but I know for dang sure I didn't want to breathe fiberglass particulate 100% of my van life. I loved removing that stuff! It made me feel great. And I know the fiberglass will do great in my static garage environment and provide great comfort for my renters when I go full time van.

 

I know for dang sure I didn't want to breathe fiberglass particulate 100% of my van life.

This is one thing that is known with data to back it up. Don't use fiberglass. It was known 25 years ago in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1012147/ You may say you are not a fiberglass factory worker and not exposed as much as they are. But the study used chest xrays to determine if the workers got pneumoconiosis. Chest x-rays are at least 10-100 times (pulling numbers out of my ass) less sensitive than a CT scan so if they had used CT scans, their results could have been that 80% of workers had lung abnormalities.

Not being able to breathe is not a good way to die. Not to mention all of this increases your risk for lung/pleural cancers.

I was very surprised to see that one picture someone posted recently of an upfitter (Quigley?) using fiberglass.

 

lots of luck, it is not even rated for thermal applications:

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company...products/~/3M-Thinsulate-Acoustic-Insulation-SM600L?N=5002385+3292659035&rt=rud

 

Last June I contacted 3M directly and asked if there is a calculated R-value measure of thermal resistance for 3M Thinsulate SM600L. A Senior Application Engineer from their Automotive and Aerospace Solutions Division replied stating, "The R value of SM600L is 5.2 ft2hr˚F/BTU."