Test Results
What 1,000 hours of UV actually proves
We tested every material in the range, not just the best one. Here is what came back - including the one we now recommend against for long-cycle plates.
A licence plate that has faded cannot be read, and a plate that cannot be read cannot be checked. Everything else about a licensing scheme depends on that one thing continuing to work for the full term.
So we sent 49 product samples to an independent testing facility accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 and asked them to find out how long our materials last. Not the flagship - all of them.
The test
1,000 consecutive hours, with no dark hours
Standard
SAE J2527
Drawn from automotive and aerospace weathering practice
Exposure
1,000 hours
Continuous xenon arc, 190–2,500nm: UV-A, UV-B and UV-C
Conditions
70°C
Heat and moisture cycling throughout
Assessment
ISO 105-A02
Grey scale, 5 for no perceptible change down to 1 for severe
Continuous exposure of that length is taken to represent roughly five years of outdoor service. It is a harsher regime than real weather, because nothing outdoors gets ultraviolet light without interruption - there are no dark hours and no cooler recovery periods. Real-world durability is more likely to exceed these figures than fall short of them.
The results
49 samples, one batch, one laboratory
| Material | Grey scale | Indicated life | What it means in service |
|---|---|---|---|
| White and clear VIPOL® | 4-5 | 5+ years | Almost no perceptible fading across the full exposure |
| VIPOL®-protected card and LPR | 4-5 | 5+ years | Colour held across multiple layers |
| LPR substrate | 4 | 5+ years | Printed data remained clear and legible throughout |
| Premium holograms under VIPOL® topcoat | 4 | Multi-year | Security feature stayed visible and verifiable |
| Secure cable ties | 4 | Multi-year | Colour held well enough to identify a secure fastening at a glance |
| Standard market foils | 4 at 250 hours, 1 at 1,000 |
Up to 1 year | Holds for a year, then degrades severely |
Sample numbers and individual scores are recorded in the full report, available to account holders. All three of our protective overlays were tested in the same batch and to the same standard: whichever suits your budget, you are choosing between tested options rather than one tested option and two assumptions.
The finding worth dwelling on
Standard foils failed
Unprotected foil elements scored 4 at 250 hours - the equivalent of about a year - and 1 at the full 1,000. That is severe degradation, not a marginal drop.
We publish it because it changes what we recommend rather than what we sell. Standard foils are entirely suitable for annual validation discs and short-cycle licensing, where a year is the whole working life of the item. They are not suitable for a five-year plate, and we specify them accordingly.
What the grey scale test doesn't tell you
A test result quoted beyond its scope is worse than no test result
ISO 105-A02 measures one thing: change in colour. It is the right instrument for asking whether a plate will still be readable in five years, and the wrong one for several other questions worth asking.
It does not measure cracking, embrittlement or delamination. Those are separate observations and should be reported separately, not inferred from a colour score.
It does not measure adhesion. A material can hold its colour perfectly and still lift at the edges.
It does not measure abrasion. Car washes, brushes and cleaning are a different kind of wear from sunlight.
It is an accelerated test. Five years of condensed exposure is not five years on a vehicle, which also involves dirt, thermal cycling, impact and handling.
If a supplier offers you a grey scale figure as evidence that a plate will not crack, they are quoting the wrong instrument.
Writing a specification
Five questions to put to any supplier, including us
- Which materials were tested - not whether testing was done. A supplier who tested only their premium option has told you nothing about the one you can afford.
- The standard and the duration. “UV tested” without SAE J2527 and 1,000 hours attached is not a claim you can compare against anything.
- Who did it. ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation is what separates an independent result from an in-house one.
- The scores, by material. A range across a product family tells you where the compromises are; a single headline figure hides them.
- What the test does not cover. Any supplier who cannot answer that has not read their own report.
The full report, with sample numbers and scores.
Available to account holders, and supplied to support a specification or tender submission.
Talk to our team