Welcome!
» Log In
» Create A New Profile
Home
>
Auto Detailing: Secrets of the Experts
>
Topic
Meguiar's NXT Wax Test
Posted by Doug Delmont
|
Meguiar's NXT Wax Test August 06, 2004 04:27AM |
<HTML> Some past posts noted that NXT didn't last very long although it shines well, fills scratches, cleans a little and is easy to apply and wipe. Correct.
I tested NXT alongside Malm's liquid and Griot's Best Of Show Wax on car hoods. NXT lasted about half as long as the other boutique waxes.
This is eapecially disappointing since Meguiar's touts NXT as their " long lasting wax ".
In the past, I tested Meguiar's Deep Crystal Carnauba Step #3 wax against Duragloss Swirl Mark Remover wax. The Duragloss equalled the shine and outlasted Meguiar's about two to one.
Liquid #26 also lost recently to Malm's and Griot's in a durability test. No great difference in shine was noted.
Durability matters. Customers who hear ads for Nu Finish, the " once a year car polish " aren't going to like it if a professional detailer uses a wax that is gone in 1.5 months. ( Note: I found Nu Finish produced less shine and badly stained vinyl trim if you accidentally smeared it on and it did not seem to last anywhere near a year ).</HTML>
I tested NXT alongside Malm's liquid and Griot's Best Of Show Wax on car hoods. NXT lasted about half as long as the other boutique waxes.
This is eapecially disappointing since Meguiar's touts NXT as their " long lasting wax ".
In the past, I tested Meguiar's Deep Crystal Carnauba Step #3 wax against Duragloss Swirl Mark Remover wax. The Duragloss equalled the shine and outlasted Meguiar's about two to one.
Liquid #26 also lost recently to Malm's and Griot's in a durability test. No great difference in shine was noted.
Durability matters. Customers who hear ads for Nu Finish, the " once a year car polish " aren't going to like it if a professional detailer uses a wax that is gone in 1.5 months. ( Note: I found Nu Finish produced less shine and badly stained vinyl trim if you accidentally smeared it on and it did not seem to last anywhere near a year ).</HTML>
|
Re: Meguiar's NXT Wax Test August 06, 2004 04:38AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 499 |
|
LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 04:47AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>If you want an objective test of 25 of the more popular paint sealants and waxes used by detailers in the USA and Canada we have such a report that test these products objectively for the following:
1. Increase in gloss using a Glossmeter
2. Retention of gloss after 12 washings using a Glossmeter
3. Resistence to salt water measuring how much rust appeared on an unpainted metal panel on which the product was applied.
The results are interesting. Some that scored well in the gloss increase part did poorly in the salt water resistence part.
You can obtain this report by contacting adriana@detailplus.com
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
1. Increase in gloss using a Glossmeter
2. Retention of gloss after 12 washings using a Glossmeter
3. Resistence to salt water measuring how much rust appeared on an unpainted metal panel on which the product was applied.
The results are interesting. Some that scored well in the gloss increase part did poorly in the salt water resistence part.
You can obtain this report by contacting adriana@detailplus.com
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 06:24AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 1,838 |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 09:03AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 443 |
<HTML>You may also want to look at the Guru Report- "The Wax Test", tested 46 waxes & sealants, good info...,
Here is a link to a mini-test
[bimmer.roadfly.org];
"The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."
www.waynestowels.com
Here is a link to a mini-test
[bimmer.roadfly.org];
"The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."
www.waynestowels.com
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 09:45AM |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 11:44AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Brian:
There were 2 Collinite products in the test:
#845
#885 Fleet Wax
RANKINGS:
Increase in Gloss
#845 was 8th out of 25
#885 was 21st out of 25
Retention of Gloss After 12 Washings
#885 was 7th out of 25
#845 was 25th out of 25
Resistence to Salt Water Corrosion
#885 was one of three in the #1 catagory----"Excellent, little or no rust
#845 was one of four in the #3 catagory --- "Fair, sommme rust
Hope that is what you were looking for.
Regards
Bud Abraham
PS: The entire test results are available by contacting adriana@detailplus.com</HTML>
buda
There were 2 Collinite products in the test:
#845
#885 Fleet Wax
RANKINGS:
Increase in Gloss
#845 was 8th out of 25
#885 was 21st out of 25
Retention of Gloss After 12 Washings
#885 was 7th out of 25
#845 was 25th out of 25
Resistence to Salt Water Corrosion
#885 was one of three in the #1 catagory----"Excellent, little or no rust
#845 was one of four in the #3 catagory --- "Fair, sommme rust
Hope that is what you were looking for.
Regards
Bud Abraham
PS: The entire test results are available by contacting adriana@detailplus.com</HTML>
buda
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 12:12PM |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 01:06PM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 89 |
<HTML>Brian,
In response to Bud's reply on the Collinite, #845 is the Insulator wax and #885 is the Paste Fleetwax. So both were tested.
And #885 is the same as #476 Super Double Coat. Collinite rebadges the 476 as an Automotive Wax (smaller can) and #885 as a marine wax (larger can).
I love the stuff, in fact the only 2 products I have used for the last 2 years has been Collinite and Detail Plus.</HTML>
David
In response to Bud's reply on the Collinite, #845 is the Insulator wax and #885 is the Paste Fleetwax. So both were tested.
And #885 is the same as #476 Super Double Coat. Collinite rebadges the 476 as an Automotive Wax (smaller can) and #885 as a marine wax (larger can).
I love the stuff, in fact the only 2 products I have used for the last 2 years has been Collinite and Detail Plus.</HTML>
David
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 06, 2004 04:48PM |
<HTML> Scott: I judged the NXT to be worn out when it not only failed to bead but the paint felt less slippery and more squeaky. If you do not accept this methodology as valid, we differ. I've read advice by respected people that when the beads get bigger, there's less wax and when the beads are gone, so is the wax. My experience seems to confirm this. I have also heard that factory-smooth paint can bead water without wax but don't know if it is true.
Waynetowels : Thanks. I have a copy of the Guru Reports test ( the first one, that is ). Their results in no way influenced my tests ( I think their work is good but my judgements and methods are my own ).
Frank: The only reason I criticised Nu Finish was to make it clear that I wasn't endorsing the " once-a-year " claim they make. I don't see any double-talk in my post but if this clarifies it any : The public often expects a pro's wax to last so durability is important even if you are a detailer who hopes to redo the customer's car every two months. My tests on some Meguiar's waxes indicate they are inferior to some others in durability.
If you guys wish to conduct your own tests, this is how I did it : Strip the surfaceof the hood clean, polish each side with a polish made by the same wax company whose wax will be tested on that side. Wax, using the maker's instructions, laying it on equally thick.
New Again: I disagree that my post constitutes only an opinion. I may be wrong in my conclusions or methods but wax durability is an issue of fact.
NXT did bead water beautifully at the beginning of the test. Your experience may differ for some reason.
If I thought I'd been unfair to any company I'd apologize right now. I'm one guy and anyone else is welcome to run a test to see if it disproves mine. Also note that my test vehicles were parked outdoors without covers.
Waxes last much longer in garages.</HTML>
Waynetowels : Thanks. I have a copy of the Guru Reports test ( the first one, that is ). Their results in no way influenced my tests ( I think their work is good but my judgements and methods are my own ).
Frank: The only reason I criticised Nu Finish was to make it clear that I wasn't endorsing the " once-a-year " claim they make. I don't see any double-talk in my post but if this clarifies it any : The public often expects a pro's wax to last so durability is important even if you are a detailer who hopes to redo the customer's car every two months. My tests on some Meguiar's waxes indicate they are inferior to some others in durability.
If you guys wish to conduct your own tests, this is how I did it : Strip the surfaceof the hood clean, polish each side with a polish made by the same wax company whose wax will be tested on that side. Wax, using the maker's instructions, laying it on equally thick.
New Again: I disagree that my post constitutes only an opinion. I may be wrong in my conclusions or methods but wax durability is an issue of fact.
NXT did bead water beautifully at the beginning of the test. Your experience may differ for some reason.
If I thought I'd been unfair to any company I'd apologize right now. I'm one guy and anyone else is welcome to run a test to see if it disproves mine. Also note that my test vehicles were parked outdoors without covers.
Waxes last much longer in garages.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 12:31AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 27 |
<HTML>Fresh paint will bead water as well if not better than just about any waxed ( painted ) surface. Beading isnt about the wax necessarilly its about surface tension. Just because a product doesnt bead doesnt mean its not protecting the surface. Some protection products are designed NOT to bead but to SHEET water from the surface reducing the chance of spotting or acid rain dammage tec.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 12:45AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 443 |
<HTML>If a surface does not bead water...,
then, there is a product applied that causes the surface to bead...,
what caused the surface to bead water?
The applied product?
When the surface is no longer beading is the product "gone"?
If not, what is it about "the product" that magically changes mid stream and goes from beading to sheeting?
How does it chemically alter itself?
How does it know when to "change"?
How does it know what time period to change from beading to sheeting?
Just curious about that one...</HTML>
"The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."
www.waynestowels.com
then, there is a product applied that causes the surface to bead...,
what caused the surface to bead water?
The applied product?
When the surface is no longer beading is the product "gone"?
If not, what is it about "the product" that magically changes mid stream and goes from beading to sheeting?
How does it chemically alter itself?
How does it know when to "change"?
How does it know what time period to change from beading to sheeting?
Just curious about that one...</HTML>
"The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."
www.waynestowels.com
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 01:46AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Oil, solvent or wax will cause water to bead.
But, in general, the ingredients in a sealant or wax that create protection do not necessarily cause the water to bead.
Conversely, the ingredients that cause water to bead do not necessarily provide protection over the long term.
The problem detailers have is they think they can accurately test a product's ability to protect in the field. You objectively cannot do this as you have no way to test that.
The test that our lab did was objective. Take unpainted panels of metal and apply the sealant and wax product. Mist the panel with salt water for a period of time (same for all panels) and when done measure the amount of rust that is on the panel.
This allows you to measure the sealant/wax product's ability to protect against something very corrosive.
As for shine, you can subjectively say a product shines, but without a Glossmeter to accurately measure reflective gloss you are only guessing.
That is the beauty of clear coats, they will shine even if they have no sealant or wax on them and they will appear to be protected. That is why they were developed.
All you can do is try to find objective information and then trust the chemical suppliers you deal with. There are not many who can, and will talk with you as straight forward as Ron Ketcham does. Use that as a guage to judge the competency of your supplier. Most will just give you double talk about this chemical or that chemical. And drop a few "buzz"words on your like "amino functional silicones" "space-age polymers" maybe even "dimeythel silicone" or "siloxane" but few even know what these mean.
There are really no magic products out there. Some are great; some are ok and some are bad. Some offer great shine and no durablity and some offer durabilty and not as good a shine.
The Test we had commissioned is a start as well as the Guru Reports to let you have some basis for your choices rather than guessing.
Regards
Bud abraham</HTML>
buda
But, in general, the ingredients in a sealant or wax that create protection do not necessarily cause the water to bead.
Conversely, the ingredients that cause water to bead do not necessarily provide protection over the long term.
The problem detailers have is they think they can accurately test a product's ability to protect in the field. You objectively cannot do this as you have no way to test that.
The test that our lab did was objective. Take unpainted panels of metal and apply the sealant and wax product. Mist the panel with salt water for a period of time (same for all panels) and when done measure the amount of rust that is on the panel.
This allows you to measure the sealant/wax product's ability to protect against something very corrosive.
As for shine, you can subjectively say a product shines, but without a Glossmeter to accurately measure reflective gloss you are only guessing.
That is the beauty of clear coats, they will shine even if they have no sealant or wax on them and they will appear to be protected. That is why they were developed.
All you can do is try to find objective information and then trust the chemical suppliers you deal with. There are not many who can, and will talk with you as straight forward as Ron Ketcham does. Use that as a guage to judge the competency of your supplier. Most will just give you double talk about this chemical or that chemical. And drop a few "buzz"words on your like "amino functional silicones" "space-age polymers" maybe even "dimeythel silicone" or "siloxane" but few even know what these mean.
There are really no magic products out there. Some are great; some are ok and some are bad. Some offer great shine and no durablity and some offer durabilty and not as good a shine.
The Test we had commissioned is a start as well as the Guru Reports to let you have some basis for your choices rather than guessing.
Regards
Bud abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 02:47AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 27 |
<HTML>Its not that the product changes its more like the part of the product that makes water bead is gone. The part that protects is still there. The fact is people believe their paint is protected because it beads and not protected if it doesnt.
Here is an example,
I have a client that has a burgany Escalade it gets washed every week but only waxed about every 6 months or so. But because its always kept clean the surface tension remains and therefore the water beads. I am the only one who ever touches this vehicle and I have put a few different waxes on this vehicle with exactly the same results.
There is no real world way to definatly say "there is no wax left" or "this paint has enough wax on it" Its one of those things where preventitive maintenance comes in.
_________________________________________________________
If a surface does not bead water...,
then, there is a product applied that causes the surface to bead...,
what caused the surface to bead water?
____________________________________________________________
Actually that is a good argument,
The water beading is caused by surface tension created by the product applied but again it depends what the product was designed to do.
I am no chemist or product rep by any means, and that is about as far as my technical knowledge of ternsion goes so I will leave it at that. If someone can elaborate on surface tension and beading etc further please take the podium.
:-)</HTML>
Here is an example,
I have a client that has a burgany Escalade it gets washed every week but only waxed about every 6 months or so. But because its always kept clean the surface tension remains and therefore the water beads. I am the only one who ever touches this vehicle and I have put a few different waxes on this vehicle with exactly the same results.
There is no real world way to definatly say "there is no wax left" or "this paint has enough wax on it" Its one of those things where preventitive maintenance comes in.
_________________________________________________________
If a surface does not bead water...,
then, there is a product applied that causes the surface to bead...,
what caused the surface to bead water?
____________________________________________________________
Actually that is a good argument,
The water beading is caused by surface tension created by the product applied but again it depends what the product was designed to do.
I am no chemist or product rep by any means, and that is about as far as my technical knowledge of ternsion goes so I will leave it at that. If someone can elaborate on surface tension and beading etc further please take the podium.
:-)</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 02:59AM |
<HTML>Doug,
Your reply about how 'the public often expects a pro's wax to last so durability is important even if you are a detailer who hopes to redo the customer's car every two months' sounds like more double-talk.
Why not stop and think about what you are saying. Try asking yourself the following question: If the public expected a pro's wax to last, then why would a detailer be re-doing the customer's car every two months?
It is clear that the results of your wax test are based on nothing more than your own opinions.</HTML>
Your reply about how 'the public often expects a pro's wax to last so durability is important even if you are a detailer who hopes to redo the customer's car every two months' sounds like more double-talk.
Why not stop and think about what you are saying. Try asking yourself the following question: If the public expected a pro's wax to last, then why would a detailer be re-doing the customer's car every two months?
It is clear that the results of your wax test are based on nothing more than your own opinions.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 03:42AM |
<HTML> Gentlemen: Okay. there may be some doubt raised here about my test methods. Bud : If you are right and protection could still exists even though the finish no longer beads water and no longer feels slippery, then my tests are no good -but...I'm not so sure you are right.
Also, Bud, you praise the Guru Reports Tests even though they were done in a similar manner to mine ( Quote from p.23 of Guru Report on Meguiar's Gold Class Paste Wax : " Week 6 : On the downward spiral. Almost completely dead for beading, optics starting to hurt, panel looking chalky. "
So why are the Guru Reports useful and my tests worthless when both depend on real world beading and observation ?
Game ! Set ! Match ! Checkmate !
Seriously though, I have the greatest respect for you, Bud, and look forward to seeing your laboratory tests. Nothing personal here and in disagreeing with you occasionally, I do not intend to imply that I am as qualified as you.
Mr. Canna : I know you are a devotee of Meguiar's and I wonder if part of your annoyance with my test is because NXT lost in durability to the two other gourmet waxes. I frankly wonder if you'd be attacking my supposed doubletalk if NXT had won. To clarify one more time, here's a story that illustrates the point about durability mattering to the customer : A friend had her car detailed and the wax was gone in about a month ( Okay guys , at least it seemed gone ) so she returned to the detail shop and asked that the car be rewaxed free. She felt a pro-quality wax should last at least as long as store-bought.
Now I AM doing double the talking.....I close by reminding you guys that you are not God ( except for Bud ) and that I have a right not to agree with you.
Doug</HTML>
Also, Bud, you praise the Guru Reports Tests even though they were done in a similar manner to mine ( Quote from p.23 of Guru Report on Meguiar's Gold Class Paste Wax : " Week 6 : On the downward spiral. Almost completely dead for beading, optics starting to hurt, panel looking chalky. "
So why are the Guru Reports useful and my tests worthless when both depend on real world beading and observation ?
Game ! Set ! Match ! Checkmate !
Seriously though, I have the greatest respect for you, Bud, and look forward to seeing your laboratory tests. Nothing personal here and in disagreeing with you occasionally, I do not intend to imply that I am as qualified as you.
Mr. Canna : I know you are a devotee of Meguiar's and I wonder if part of your annoyance with my test is because NXT lost in durability to the two other gourmet waxes. I frankly wonder if you'd be attacking my supposed doubletalk if NXT had won. To clarify one more time, here's a story that illustrates the point about durability mattering to the customer : A friend had her car detailed and the wax was gone in about a month ( Okay guys , at least it seemed gone ) so she returned to the detail shop and asked that the car be rewaxed free. She felt a pro-quality wax should last at least as long as store-bought.
Now I AM doing double the talking.....I close by reminding you guys that you are not God ( except for Bud ) and that I have a right not to agree with you.
Doug</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 04:33AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 751 |
<HTML>2rotorz, your right on the mark with the surface tension stuff. Here is some info I found on another site about Soaps and detergents.
"Water, the liquid commonly used for cleaning, has a property called surface tension. In the body of the water, each molecule is surrounded and attracted by other water molecules. However, at the surface, those molecules are surrounded by other water molecules only on the water side. A tension is created as the water molecules at the surface are pulled into the body of the water. This tension causes water to bead up on surfaces (glass, fabric), which slows wetting of the surface and inhibits the cleaning process. You can see surface tension at work by placing a drop of water onto a counter top. The drop will hold its shape and will not spread. "
Jim.</HTML>
"Water, the liquid commonly used for cleaning, has a property called surface tension. In the body of the water, each molecule is surrounded and attracted by other water molecules. However, at the surface, those molecules are surrounded by other water molecules only on the water side. A tension is created as the water molecules at the surface are pulled into the body of the water. This tension causes water to bead up on surfaces (glass, fabric), which slows wetting of the surface and inhibits the cleaning process. You can see surface tension at work by placing a drop of water onto a counter top. The drop will hold its shape and will not spread. "
Jim.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 04:41AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 751 |
<HTML>Just to turn this in to one of those "if a tree falls in the woods " kinda things ..
"In the cleaning process, surface tension must be reduced so water can spread and wet surfaces. Chemicals that are able to do this effectively are called surface active agents, or surfactants. They are said to make water "wetter."
Surfactants perform other important functions in cleaning, such as loosening, emulsifying (dispersing in water) and holding soil in suspension until it can be rinsed away. Surfactants can also provide alkalinity, which is useful in removing acidic soils. "
So, if my thinking is correct , if you wash a car that has been waxed/sealed with a detergent that has a high number of surfactants in it , it wont bead .
Doug, not arguing, just trying to figure it all out !</HTML>
"In the cleaning process, surface tension must be reduced so water can spread and wet surfaces. Chemicals that are able to do this effectively are called surface active agents, or surfactants. They are said to make water "wetter."
Surfactants perform other important functions in cleaning, such as loosening, emulsifying (dispersing in water) and holding soil in suspension until it can be rinsed away. Surfactants can also provide alkalinity, which is useful in removing acidic soils. "
So, if my thinking is correct , if you wash a car that has been waxed/sealed with a detergent that has a high number of surfactants in it , it wont bead .
Doug, not arguing, just trying to figure it all out !</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 05:37AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Doug:
Did I say that your testing methods were wrong? I do not believe that my comments were directly to you. My comments were made in general. If your testing methods were as intensive as Guru Reports then I would assume they have some validity.
Although I am aware that the Guru Reports were not certainly as scientific as the independent test we had done.
Again, no offense intended to your comments, everyone is entitled.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
Did I say that your testing methods were wrong? I do not believe that my comments were directly to you. My comments were made in general. If your testing methods were as intensive as Guru Reports then I would assume they have some validity.
Although I am aware that the Guru Reports were not certainly as scientific as the independent test we had done.
Again, no offense intended to your comments, everyone is entitled.
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 06:03AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 1,838 |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 09:48AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 266 |
<HTML>BUD'S test is sterile, it tells what happens under perfectly controled conditions, but it cannot take into account the thousands of variables that are in the 'real world' such as what soap is being used to wash the car, the mineral content of the wash/rinse water the types of fallout that land on a car's paint (which varies wildly depending on your location).
BUT.........It DOES give a decent indication of which product HAS THE POTENTIAL for lasting the longest "in the field" with no preventative maintenance.
GURU'S test attempts to do a lab study in the field. They try to control the conditions as much as possible AND STILL ALLOW the wild variables of the 'real world' to have a hand in the results, giving the teat a more 'human' side. No sterile numbers or machines telling us the results, it LET'S us decide for ourselves WHAT PRODUCT GIVES THE RESULTS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
BOTH TESTS ARE VALID AND BOTH TESTS ARE FLAWED.
This is not mathematics, there is no hard and fast one right answer. One wax may be the do-all, end-all in one part of the country, yet fail in a different part of the country because the ' field conditions' are 180 degrees different.
Take all the buzz words, acid tests, fire on the car and laser beams from the infomercials away and all you have left is WAX...that's all we're talking about...wax
To quote Mike Phillips, who quotes another: "Find a product you like, and use it...often."</HTML>
-ghost of a past detailer
BUT.........It DOES give a decent indication of which product HAS THE POTENTIAL for lasting the longest "in the field" with no preventative maintenance.
GURU'S test attempts to do a lab study in the field. They try to control the conditions as much as possible AND STILL ALLOW the wild variables of the 'real world' to have a hand in the results, giving the teat a more 'human' side. No sterile numbers or machines telling us the results, it LET'S us decide for ourselves WHAT PRODUCT GIVES THE RESULTS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
BOTH TESTS ARE VALID AND BOTH TESTS ARE FLAWED.
This is not mathematics, there is no hard and fast one right answer. One wax may be the do-all, end-all in one part of the country, yet fail in a different part of the country because the ' field conditions' are 180 degrees different.
Take all the buzz words, acid tests, fire on the car and laser beams from the infomercials away and all you have left is WAX...that's all we're talking about...wax
To quote Mike Phillips, who quotes another: "Find a product you like, and use it...often."</HTML>
-ghost of a past detailer
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 07, 2004 11:04AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 443 |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 08, 2004 12:27AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 505 |
<HTML>Mike is right and for one reason if no other.
Don't go arguing with those who have their opinion or preference, cause it turns into trouble.
The simple facts are that Bud is right, Jim is right, as they do present scientific facts, not the sort of "voo-doo" that the "wax guru's" do.
Most have not one single clue of what "protocal testing" is about.
Most have no idea of what paint companies, vehicle manufactuers, require for testing protocals.
How about pages and pages of "protocal" before the test ever has a chance to undertaken?
How about an average cost per "product test" of in excess of $4,000 to $5,000, per protocal, per test and it usually requires a minimum of 3 to 6 months to finish the "protocal approved tests".
These tests must be done by an outside independant lab, plus ran at the same time, same protocal, by the manufacturer, be it the paint company or the vehicle manufacturer.
What a "person" may see as "failure" or "sucess" of their tests, only has meaning to "that person", no one else, as it is not an accepted and valid, protocal proven test.
Ketch</HTML>
Do it right or don't do it all!
Don't go arguing with those who have their opinion or preference, cause it turns into trouble.
The simple facts are that Bud is right, Jim is right, as they do present scientific facts, not the sort of "voo-doo" that the "wax guru's" do.
Most have not one single clue of what "protocal testing" is about.
Most have no idea of what paint companies, vehicle manufactuers, require for testing protocals.
How about pages and pages of "protocal" before the test ever has a chance to undertaken?
How about an average cost per "product test" of in excess of $4,000 to $5,000, per protocal, per test and it usually requires a minimum of 3 to 6 months to finish the "protocal approved tests".
These tests must be done by an outside independant lab, plus ran at the same time, same protocal, by the manufacturer, be it the paint company or the vehicle manufacturer.
What a "person" may see as "failure" or "sucess" of their tests, only has meaning to "that person", no one else, as it is not an accepted and valid, protocal proven test.
Ketch</HTML>
Do it right or don't do it all!
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 08, 2004 02:53AM |
<HTML> Ketch : I'll agree that expert testing should prove more reliable than what I'm doing but I'm still confident in my tests. If Bud's laboratory testing results contradict mine, I'll be surprised and concerned.
If Meguiar's has conducted any of the expert tests you speak of and if their waxes won in durability, I hope they'll post their data.
I've explained what I did and some forum folks think it is undependable. The important thing is that everyone has the information necessary to evaluate the tests.
You made some good points about the difference between expert scientific testing and amateur attempts at such. That said, " The Wright brothers were amateurs . The F-111 and the Osprey were the work of professionals ".
Doug
" A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step but so does a fall down a flight of stairs ".</HTML>
If Meguiar's has conducted any of the expert tests you speak of and if their waxes won in durability, I hope they'll post their data.
I've explained what I did and some forum folks think it is undependable. The important thing is that everyone has the information necessary to evaluate the tests.
You made some good points about the difference between expert scientific testing and amateur attempts at such. That said, " The Wright brothers were amateurs . The F-111 and the Osprey were the work of professionals ".
Doug
" A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step but so does a fall down a flight of stairs ".</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 08, 2004 05:31AM |
<HTML> 2Rotorz : If you guys can prove that beading is no indication of protection, please let Consumer Reports know. Their June 1994 issue included a test of 39 waxes. They wrote, " Check the finish for beads of water. If the beads are bigger than a quarter or if the water forms sheets, it's time to wax. "
( From CR Jun. 94, P. 411, lower right )
This has given me an idea : If a customer says his wax is gone, a detailer only has to explain that the beads are gone but the protection is still there. You can't see it or feel it and the rain won't bead but who are you going to trust, the un-named chemists or your lyin' eyes. The wax is there, only it's hiding.</HTML>
( From CR Jun. 94, P. 411, lower right )
This has given me an idea : If a customer says his wax is gone, a detailer only has to explain that the beads are gone but the protection is still there. You can't see it or feel it and the rain won't bead but who are you going to trust, the un-named chemists or your lyin' eyes. The wax is there, only it's hiding.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 08, 2004 06:12AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 3,550 |
<HTML>Doug:
There is nothing laboratory about a Glossmeter. This is a very expensive, scientific instrument used by auto manufacturers; paint companies; chemical companies to definitively measure reflective gloss off the finish of a paint surface.
Without one of these there is no objective way you can tell how much more a wax or sealant makes a paint finish after application.
And, there is no way that you can tell how much gloss is lost after so many washings.
How do you measure gloss? With your eye? That is certainly not a good field test. It is the most subjective approach to measuring gloss that you could think of.
Also, how can you measure a product's ability to resist corrosion?
These tests are far from "sterile."
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
There is nothing laboratory about a Glossmeter. This is a very expensive, scientific instrument used by auto manufacturers; paint companies; chemical companies to definitively measure reflective gloss off the finish of a paint surface.
Without one of these there is no objective way you can tell how much more a wax or sealant makes a paint finish after application.
And, there is no way that you can tell how much gloss is lost after so many washings.
How do you measure gloss? With your eye? That is certainly not a good field test. It is the most subjective approach to measuring gloss that you could think of.
Also, how can you measure a product's ability to resist corrosion?
These tests are far from "sterile."
Regards
Bud Abraham</HTML>
buda
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 08, 2004 11:25AM |
Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 499 |
<HTML>Doug I don't want to start a big flame war here but if you are holding "consumer reports" as a recognized expert in the field of detailing or knowing anything about the application or use of detailing products I have some very attractive real estate you may be interested in in the swamp. Not to mention the "testing" took place 10 years ago and paint technology is completely different now then it was at that time. You can't have it both ways - either the testing process is scientific or it isn't. Also, use whatever products YOU like to use and feel give your customers the best value. It doesn't matter what anyone else uses here. It's all about preference.
P.S. I do not and never have used Meguiars products at my shop.</HTML>
P.S. I do not and never have used Meguiars products at my shop.</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 10, 2004 12:28AM |
<HTML> Gentlemen: Meguiar's supports Bud's position that beading water or failing to is not an indicator of wax durability. They recommend the squeak test : Ball up a towel and press it against the paint and turn it. If it squeaks, the wax is gone. In light of this, my testing should be held in doubt for now. We must strive to be careful about evaluations that could affect the reputation of someone's product.
Consumer Reports, Malm's and Guru Reports consider water beading a valid indicator so this issue is not ( in my mind, at least ) settled.
Doug</HTML>
Consumer Reports, Malm's and Guru Reports consider water beading a valid indicator so this issue is not ( in my mind, at least ) settled.
Doug</HTML>
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 10, 2004 12:37AM |
|
Re: LABORATORY TEST August 10, 2004 12:50AM |
<HTML>I was a bit shocked here when I emailed adriana at detail plus for the wax report she is asking for your credit card so she can charge you $7.95 for the report. At no time Bud do you mention that there is a cost for this, a tad misleading. I have shared more information over the years and at no time did I ever ask for a dime. Everything isn't always about $$$$$$$$.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.