Ron's reality

Bud Quote:

Bill you admitting finally that it isn't everyone else picking on you, but are the problem.


This quote was written by you not me:

If I come across as arrogant it is not intended it is how others read what I say.
"The problem isn't me, it's everyone else!"

Yeah, Bud. Keep telling yourself that


The problem is you, but your arrogant attitude will not allow yourself to except the truth . Basically, you are full of crap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2012 06:37PM by billd55.

Quote from Bud:

You cite the tests that were done on some website, but they have no substantiation either, Just statements that "our product" tested better than all the others


From Bud's website:

DIAMOND SHINE PLUS Paint Sealant (1 gal)
Unquestioningly the finest and most carefully formulated paint sealant on the market. USC rated Diamond Shine Plus as the BEST wax and paint sealant on the market after being put up against 25 of the best waxes and paint sealants on the market! Factors to determine results included gloss, durability and corrosion resistance. Diamond Shine Plus was proven to: 1. Increase the gloss of the test area by 20% or more 2. Lose less than 2% of the gloss after the washings 3. Not lose any water beading during and after the 12 washings 4. Exhibit corrosion protection that was better than the unwaxed control panel.

I guess we should take what you say here the same way considering it has no substantiation either. Using the word
"Unquestioningly " only imply what you think why your product is better then others.

You want to see the test with the protocols used and the comparisons with other products revealed?

Let me know Bill happy to send you a copy

I could copy and send him the lab results from Chrysler's paint lab regarding various paint systems, the protocal, what documented test results show, how it is done, etc, etc.
but--why?
Don't roll around with the pigs, don't send documented, by labs, information.
He will just put off buying another roll of toilet paper.
He has his way of seeing things that fit his way, no matter what, just like he has his way of attempting to prove, without proper documenation, his agenda.

Bill-
So... you call one of us " Brain dead " and say another is " full of crap " and that's just on this thread. Stop and think about what you sound like to anyone reading this forum, please .

Quote from Doug:
Bill-
So... you call one of us " Brain dead " and say another is " full of crap " and that's just on this thread. Stop and think about what you sound like to anyone reading this forum, please .




Doug
Yes, I did say those things because they are true. I am not here to be in a club, or agree with certain members to gain approval
either. This not a social club, but a forum. It is not here for the sole purpose of what certain members deem accurate when it comes to detailing products, or procedures.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2012 05:21PM by billd55.

Quote from Ron:

I could copy and send him the lab results from Chrysler's paint lab regarding various paint systems, the protocal, what documented test results show, how it is done, etc, etc.


Ron

What would this info tell me exactly? The type of paint used by Chrysler, and how it was applied.

What does this have to do with protection of the paint after it leaves the factory? Really! What documented tests can you show me that apply to sealants used and how they protect the paint? I believe that is what I am talking about here, not how the car was painted?

As I have said before I am sure you are an expert in how paint is applied, the protocols used, and fixing flaws at the factory.
Although, WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT PROTECTING THE PAINT ITSELF? I would like to hear your answer?

Quote:

He has his way of seeing things that fit his way, no matter what, just like he has his way of attempting to prove, without proper documenation, his agenda.

Why not explain why I am wrong, Honestly, you have not presented one bit of evidence here to show my agenda as you call it it is wrong . Where is your documentation showing that what I say about wax and sealants is totally false? Put up,
shut up.

The test documents are comprised of 21 pages of technical data,
Included are the Request for Funding and Rational by Jose Lopes, MoPar Systems Engineer,
Purpose-to evaluate Master Shield Paint Sealant as supplied to Chrysler Corp by Automotive International. Inc.
The document then continues with the engineering approved test protocal.
Some highlights of test protocal (it's three pages long),
A. gloss and color reading
B. Use of 24 panels, divide into 2 of each for a total of 48 panels.
C. Paint systems to be used
1. Dupont 694-AB92/GEN 4-AW
2.BASF 192/Duraclear3
3.PPG HWB9517/CNCT X
4.PPG HWB9517/DCT 5555 (this material was at the time recommend refinish material for repairs)
D. Spot intitial-16 panels from each technology
Acid spot initial per LP-463PB-06-01

And it goes on and on, providing the acids and blends of such to use, duration cycles for each test or repeats of tests, the use of the Xenon Arc Weathering test per SAE J1960,2500Kj. the Crock Mar Resistance, Spot Weathering, Jacksonville, Florida 110 day UV testing, Water/Soap testing per SAE LP-463PB-08-01, Continuing glss readings,electronmicroscrope analysis, temperature variation for each phase of each test, on and on and on,.

In no case is any portion of the test done just once, rather it is repeated through 3 cycles.

What does it all mean, it means that there are required and accepted test protcals/methods used by vehicle manufacturers to test and prove out everything they put into or on the vehicles they sell. Ford and GM use the same test protocal for their engineering groups.

Chrysler paid for, performed and published the results, not me, not AI.

Chrysler owns the test data, however, due to my over 20+ years of working with their engineers and AI being the supplier, I was given a set of the test results.

I realized I offered to provide you a set, however after talking with Paint/Body Technology Center in Auburn Hills today, they strongly suggested that I not do so. I was told I could release the basic protocals, etc and the final results.

The final results if obvious, as Automotive International continues to supply the MoPar product, as they have since 1984.

Ron



Quote:

What does it all mean, it means that there are required and accepted test protcals/methods used by vehicle manufacturers to test and prove out everything they put into or on the vehicles they sell. Ford and GM use the same test protocal for their engineering groups.

Big deal. It really does not answer the question I asked you. This is a sealant sold by Chrysler, and applied to their cars .
All it would tell me is how this product was tested, and the results. Although car manufactures do not test products they do not put on their cars. Example: waxes and sealants not sold by them , or applied by them.

Granted this may be a great sealant, but as you say here:

Chrysler paid for, performed and published the results, not me, not AI.

Chrysler owns the test data, however, due to my over 20+ years of working with their engineers and AI being the supplier, I was given a set of the test results.

Because an engineer gave you this test data does not make you an expert on protection. Since you cannot provide test results of this product than what good is all this stuff you typed here to me, or anyone else on what you know about protection of paint.

Here is a company that has done tests with protocols that are published for all to see:

[www.slideshare.net]

I have worked with this company . I applied AT-5 on 2-737 jets in 2005 that was used for their initial testing. They modified
AT-5 and renamed it , but it is still AT-5. Here are real tests that can be seen if you care to. This is the experience you do not have that I speak of.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 01:57AM by billd55.

Chrysler, Ford and GM do testing of these items due to potential damage from use of such. In Chrysler's case, their dealers sell the product under their MoPar Master Shield product line, which the dealer then sells, with a Chrysler warranty.
The other products in this catagory are Rust Inhibitor, Undercoating, Fabric Protector and Leather/Vinyl Protector.
All were put through the correct protocals as speced by SAE.
I will examine the test data you posted.
As I stated earlier, AT5 is a good product, however, to date it has not either been tested or in use by automotive manufacturers through their dealer network.
Years ago, AI did their own testing on a fleet of corporate jets using their sealant. This was conducted in Cincinnati on one of the largest consumer companies in the world.Tests were quite interesting.
1. The sealant held up much longer on a jet than a car. This was due to the planes not being subjected to as harsh of a daily enviorment as a car is.
2. Fuel consumption was decreased by 2 to 3 %, quite a saving for a jet.
3. When we analized the market felt it was not big enought to pursue, although over the years we did produce the product under private label for some small marketing companies who specialized in aircraft care.

Impressive Powerpoint.
The use of ASTM standards indicates a true concern to perform testing with approved protocals.
Testing that I referred to also had ASTM standards as well as the SAE standards.
One question, where is the "acid resistance" test results.
Vehicles are different than aircraft in regards to what they are exposed to, down time in certain enviormental conditions.
Vehicles in industrial areas, high population urban areas, etc are at the mercy of sulfurics, nitrics, etc, which according to the test results you presented, AT5 would be very effective in warding off most damages from them.
Jet fuel, even after over 60 years, still contains a small percentage of hydrazine, one bad acid.
In the mid 90's was sent by Ford with one of their paint engineers, Ron Otterman, to Atlanta plant.
The vehicles that set in the storage lot during the warm, humid months, were experiencing severe etching of a different pattern than normally produced by the normal acids in the air. After a few weeks and some examination with a scanning electron microscope, it was found that the hydrazine content in the jet fuel being spread over the storage areas as planes came in and out of Hartzfield was the culprit.
While sealants would reduce the damage, it was not cost effective to apply one at the assembly plant, so the paint supplier went to work to come up with a more resistant clearcoat.
Didn't work either, but now the plant is shut down, so that concern went away a few years ago.
Be it JP4, JP5 or as I have been informed, the newer fuels all still use this component.
The AT5, as stated by me many times, is a good sealant, with light polishing abilities, as we found at AI when we tested it.

Ron

Let's compare products here. Maybe this will show the difference between the two products better.

Here is a demo of Master Shield

[www.youtube.com]


Here is a demo of Logisti Seal or AT-5

[www.youtube.com]

The use of YouTube to demonstrate is nothing.
The internet, new camera's, etc can make anything look good or look bad.
I was not even aware that someone had put a video of the MasterShield on YouTube, that's how little attention I pay to B/S.

I did look at it.
That is a training video for Chrysler dealers sales people.
Was not aware that it was even made, however, since I have been retired from the company for 3 and a half year, not up to date on all the things that is going on.
The sales people have the buyer for the car in a buying mood, time to put the sugar on the bisquit, that's what it's about.
Never agreed with that sort of demo, very hokey.

Quote:

The AT5, as stated by me many times, is a good sealant, with light polishing abilities, as we found at AI when we tested it.

Sorry , but I must have missed it when you stated this in the past. Could you tell me when you tested AT-5.

Long time ago, first test probably in 96, second time was likely in 2003/ 2004.
If they are like AI, as new resins become available, updates of formulas take place. The AI sealant is I think generation 7.
Not sure as the majority of my notes, results etc were left at the company when I retired a few years back.

Quote:

The AT5, as stated by me many times, is a good sealant, with light polishing abilities.....

I've seen Bill constantly mentioning how much different AT-5 makes the paint look. Can I get more explaination about these "polishing abilities"? Are they considered cleaners and/or fillers?

Normal sealant chemistry has kaolin clay and at least one other rare earth in the formula.
They also have some sort of solvent system, in the past a stoddard solvent however the newer oxysol is in some.
The clays do some fine polishing, and therefore may create some filling as they are locked in by the curing polymer structure.
The carrier solvent also acts as a cleaner.

Ketch

Would agree. Our sealant has a measure of "abrasive" in it. The chemist says it is there so that when it hazes the user can see the areas that he might have missed.

But I would not say that our sealant offers much filling.

Regards
Bud ABraham

Quote:

I've seen Bill constantly mentioning how much different AT-5 makes the paint look. Can I get more explaination about these "polishing abilities"? Are they considered cleaners and/or fillers?

Pro-Techt

AT-5 is a 2 part system. The first step is a pre cleaner that uses diatomaceous earth in it . This will clean the the surface
of the paint, so the 2 step will bond properly to the clear coat. It will not remove, or repair damage to the paint. Correction
will be needed for that. As you mentioned in the blue benz video I did .

AT-5 does not fill, cover, or hide damage like a polish or a glaze. All it does is just bond a layer of acrylic to the clear coat
that provides shine and real protection for 5 years. The reason I say put it on new paint is because it prevents future damage.

It does not breakdown like waxes and poly sealant do from washing , heat, and other things. Sure it will wear down,
but it does not produce wash induced swirls marks. Also, you do not have to remove the product for reapplication either.
One other advantage to this product is that it can be removed with a wax remover if needed.

I think the reason you are confused here is because of using wax , and poly sealants. Polishing is needed to correction
minor swirl marks and other things. Over time things will stick( even with washing) to AT-5 that will slightly dull the shine, so that is why I reapply it . I usually just use a clay bar, or the pre cleaner to remove the buildup, and apply another coat.
This brings back the natural luster and shine back without the need for polishes ,compounds, and buffing pads.

bill I am no chemist although I am getting damn good at understanding the ingredients that go into all products in every industry

what I do know about diatomaceous earth is that its an abrasive used in low to mid grade finishing polishes.

Polishes - abrasive or not, decontamination liquids and many other products are needed for proper automotive surface care,
you cant just decontaminate and put AT5 or the very similar Acrylic "TOUGHSEAL" on every car and say its as good as the paint will ever be

Today scratch resistant coatings from Japan, Europe and other countries are the way to go along with Permanon Supershine, a quartz based spray coating.
Why use a wax or sealant, they are dinosaurs and no longer the way to go

Oh and Ive never met Ron or know that much about him but what I have seen and heard tells me to give the man plenty of respect, he has more experience than me so all kudos to him and even Bud. we may not see eye to eye all the time but hey he's done alot for this industry too

best thing to do is be humble, give respect and admiration to fellow pro's and everyone in general, you'll get the same back
I give you some as your a little like me in terms of not doing correction on every car every time which is great
there is a place for glass quartz based filler products that last quite some time and can be applied tons of times with no problems to fill in new marks by rotary, DA or orbital. just as there is a place for correction, though better if its done with todays far superior water based single polish systems as compounds are not the way to go anymore

These spray paint and sharpie tests are worthless. YouTube : Ugh !

Malms's site debunks hokey stunts involving setting lighter fluid on fire and exposing products to hydrochloric acid and ammonia.

Reputable companies such as Meguiar's and AutoMagic don't pull stunts .

Meguiar's and AM are used by pro detailers. Griot's and Zaino win car shows . Many other fine products are sold by solid reputation and not gimmickry . I've never seen Bud use stunts to hype his sealants either .

Doug

meguiars and AM are good products but not the best. Same goes for griots and zaino

Quote from SVR:

Polishes - abrasive or not, decontamination liquids and many other products are needed for proper automotive surface care,
you cant just decontaminate and put AT5 or the very similar Acrylic "TOUGHSEAL" on every car and say its as good as the paint will ever be


My response:

Why not? If At-5 is applied on a new vehicle than I do not get your point. The paint is protected from damage, and the need
for constant polishing. Sure things can stick to it, but they can be removed without abrasives,decontamination fluids, and polishing. Normally, a clay bar will be all that is needed.Now certainly even AT-5 will not prevent scratches from someone keying a paint surface for example, and correction with filling may be needed in that case.

You think that clay bars do not marr paint? Think again and don't make assumptions.

Quote:

You think that clay bars do not marr paint? Think again and don't make assumptions.

I will not. Thanks for the advice.

Bill, take a deep breath and a some time off to be a less bit on the edge.
Just be nice, don't be so on the attack all the time, as it is unbecoming.
Grumpy

Ron

Being nice is a two way street as far as I'm concerned. I am not attacking anyone here personally. I am trying to open people's eyes and minds to a better way. Let me show you some of the comments I got from my Blue Benz video:

you call yourself a detailer?

seriously?

i bet you detail a lot of? cocks


People actually pay you to ruin the paint on their cars? The car looks like crap and needs major work done to it? to fix the damage you have done to it.

Holy god. I would never let you? touch one of my cars. Jesus fucking christ.


You may be "puzzled why people can not see what wax does to cars," but I'm moderately puzzled why YOU can't see the rather obvious swirls and buffer? trails in that car.

from 0:00 to 0:13 you? can see major swirls on the back of the trunk lid. Get your eyes checked and use some. This car shows no swirl marks or buffer trails? Uh, yeah, you do need to get your eyes checked. Snake oil.


I see TONS of swirl marks still on the car. You are? a major HACK.


I agree with mike. This car is hacked. It's not the wax...It's the waxee? that destroys the finish.....

Man you need to check yourself... I see buffer trails and swirls all over that thing!!! Maybe it's? your washing routine that's causing all the swirls and fine scratches


Let me talk about making ASSUMPTIONS. My mistake here was not my better explaining what the difference is between
a actual scratch, and one caused by washing. Although, see how nice these people from another forum were to me.
I actually went on this forum to explain what I meant , and I was banned. Also, they deleted the whole post when people started to show interest in what I was saying.

Bill, you have just jumped over the edge, again.
You are showing some sort of "quotes", which are not related to me, nor ever actually quoted/posted by me on this site.
I mean, with all sincerty, that you take a few days off and look deep into your pysch, as to what is your true motivation to continue to act and post as you have been.
Either you have a very insecure home/business/personal life, or life in general, or you are in need of serious professional help.
These posts of your's are going more and more "over the edge", and can only point towards a very serious conditon that only you can seek help to heal.
Bill, it is OK to be one who recognizes that they need help, so please obtain it.
If you chose to continue in the manner in which you have been demonstrating in the past few months, I will find to do as others who have been or are regular vistor's to Paul forum.

"That is to personally request that he ban you from future participation in the forum."
And, my I add, many of the regular's will support me in this action.

This is not a forum that is "all about you", or what you perceive to be correct.
Your continued addressing in such as the manner as you have in this thread is not in the best interest of the forum or others who come here.
Grumpy

Ron

You do what you have to do, and this forum is not all about you either.