Another boutique wax debate

[felixtibs]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

if meguiars ever offers a boutique wax im switching to Mothers! I like meguiars because they know cars but dont get caught up in this obsessive-compulsive detailing wackieness! I mean, we have all see that video of the guy massaging paint with his 6K dollar wax!

[RGP]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

As P.T. Barnum said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zIZHibe67A0

I may go $35 for P21S, but anything much beyond is pretty much smoke 'n mirrors...

It is a hobby for most however, so if it feels good; do it.

[dave_from_here]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Some folks have too much money.

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Just so we don't confuse people with misinformation, the test carried about by Dave KG had the same people polish the same panels on each car.

The same guy polished each hood, the same guy polished the same door, etc.

If guy A did all of the hoods and fenders, guy B did all of the doors, and guy C did the trunk and roof, how could you get more accurate results?

IF same guy did same panel on every car using same technique and same product then one could (mis)lead himself into thinking result could not be more accurate.

However:

1. I do not recollect that being said anywhere in his article. There is always a chance though I might be wrong, I am human after all and my track record of memory, accuracy and consistency does not have reputation of being on same level as yours, so if that is the case can you please help me correct myself by pointing out to me where exactly in his article it was stated that it was always same person working same panel with same tool and same product and how rest of the words and pictures in that article confirm that because way story was being told through words and pictures left me with impression that was not the case for at least one if not all three variables (person, tools, products)? It is always possible "ADD" kicked in, my focus shifted and I just glazed over that.

2. Even if that was the case, IIRC cars were not judged on per panel basis. IIRC they were judged based on overall impression, correct? If yes that assumes all persons judging them gave equal consideration to all panels under equal lighting condition for same panel across every car. What assured lighting was uniform for each and every panel on each and every car? What assured that with persons milling around some did not pay more attention to hood and some more attention to roof, etc? After all "worse" job on panel A than on panel B could easily skew results if more persons ended up for whatever reason checking out panel A than panel B and vice versa. What assured that person A was doing as good of a job at the end of that marathon as he did in the beginning because we all know how quality can sometimes drop off as exhaustion level goes up? Was glossometer employed to assure all hoods were polished to exactly same level of finish across each and every car? To my knowledge it was not.

That is why IMHO that effort can be praised for an effort but does not provide anything one can firmly hang the coat on except illustration that on surface all LSPs were judged very close to each other, which IMHO is not really a news worth multi-man-days of effort as many of detailers have been already saying that same thing for years.

However, I would say even if results did not end up absolutely accurate it is likely one could declare that test was a success from at least publicity for detailers involved standpoint.

[seth1066]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

I just went through the Day 1 thread of Dave's comparison test and found this:


The caption is: "some serious etching here"

How could the results could be viewed as objective? It is one heck of a variable. I stopped when I got to this picture, so maybe it gets worse.

[akimel]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

IF same guy did same panel on every car using same technique and same product then one could (mis)lead himself into thinking result could not be more accurate.

However:

1. I do not recollect that being said anywhere in his article. There is always a chance though I might be wrong, I am human after all and my track record of memory, accuracy and consistency does not have reputation of being on same level as yours, so if that is the case can you please help me correct myself by pointing out to me where exactly in his article it was stated that it was always same person working same panel with same tool and same product and how rest of the words and pictures in that article confirm that because way story was being told through words and pictures left me with impression that was not the case for at least one if not all three variables (person, tools, products)? It is always possible "ADD" kicked in, my focus shifted and I just glazed over that.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=984625&postcount=61

[CieraSL]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

The most expensive wax I have right now is P21s, which I got from Akimel. Still waiting for the right detail to use it on.

As far as me actually buying a wax, I just spent $30 at Autogeek for Collinite 915, which has been the most expensive wax I have purchased to date. I might look into Pinnacle Signature Series II someday. But I'll admit, good old #26 has been one tough cookie to beat! Looking forward to using #915 though. I got that and #845. Very exciting!

[Tuck91]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

I think I'll stick to M21, M20, or NXT....

[Calais]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

I think I'll stick to M21, M20, or NXT....

No actual "wax"? I guess you're no carnauba snob like myself.

[Kickin Griffin]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Just had this thread brought to my own attention by PM, thank you... as many will know I dont frequent this forum as much as I would like to owing to my own work commitments, completing a PhD takes its toll so sometimes I miss threads like this.

Regarding the wax test, the articles on Detailing World detail what was carried out... The purpose of the test was to highlight and address a debate on UK forums, where it was said that waxes made more than just a very slight difference to the finish... Something which in my own personal detailing I believed not to be the case but in terms oy any form of art, which detailing could be referred to, it is very difficult to see if one's opinions are actually fact or whether there's something I and others just didn't see. So the wax test was born, out of a desire to see different LSPs performing on a car receiving the same (and we'll address that in just a second) preparation, and to see whether my own and suspicions of others were correct or whether or not there actually more to waxes or not.

Regarding the preparation stages, the keen reader will have noticed that five detailers were involved on the days - myself, Harley, Gaz W, blr123 and Drive & Shine. Each of the cars received the same preparation to the end of the same products being used. Each car was machine polishes using 3M Fast Cut Plus which on this paint here removed a notable, yet safe amount of paint, the purpose of this stage being to remove the surface etching (highlighted above and I fail to see the reason this would adversely affect the test when it has been removed from the completed car) and also to remove a hazyness to the paint finish that detracted for the overall beauty of the metallic black. Each car's paintwork was refined with the same finishing polish, on the same pad (Menzerna PO85RD Final Finish on a Meguiars W9006 finishing pad) with the exception of the bootlid where other tests were being carried out at the time by DA which were not covered in the wax test documentation as it is still a work in progress for me currently. The refining stage, which as many have pointed out, will have played one of the big roles to the end finish was carried out on the whole by myself but with the assisstance of Gaz W in places as well... Now, I can happily see why many will see an "uncontrolled variable" as we call them being introduced here, and this of course would be an aspect that would have to enter into consideration if the end results were showing anything other than a simple statistical fluctuation which pointed to there being no difference in looks at all... In other words, if no difference was being observed by the cars then the fact Gaz helped out towards the end of the refining stage also made no tenable difference to the looks, as did the waxes. The vast majority of the refining stage however, ie every panel on all but one of the cars, was carried out by myself and likewise the vast majority of the Fast Cut stage was carried out by Harely.

Analysis of an experimental results always comes down to how one interprets the statistics and interprets the "control" of the controlled variables - having defended my corner in my research work on many occasions now, I know how much "opinion" comes into things like this My intepreations of the results are well published and deliberately leave scope for discussion as that was the ultimate goal of the test - it would appear that it has succeeded as it is still being discussed 18 months on on forums across the globe, well worth the few days effort of a few detailers if you ask me, irrespective of other's opinions here If you think and look around, then I'm sure you could find lots of "holes" in this test which many people can elaborate on and use to affect their own opinions of the results - that is good, that is what an experiment is about. What is clear to me here, is that to the human eye we had produced visually identical cars with identical preparation work. The end results after the application of waxes did not show anything other than a statistical variation in the results as to what wax was seen to be the "best" (and of course, best is a loose term too as we get down to personal preference in terms of difference, who prefers a wet look, who prefers a reflective look, ya de ya dah...). When asked if folk could see notable differences between the cars parked around, and they were moved during the day and at one point put in the same position for water testing, the majority of those attending couldn't see any difference. Those who did see a difference, pointed out differences on opposite cars! For example, one would say car A looked wetter than car C, while another woud say the opposite!

Read into this what you will, read into the way the testing was conducted what you will - the results and methods are well discussed, and my opinions and my own conclusions also well published... Manyhave been saying waxes do not make a difference for some time before this test, but until this test I am yet to have seen a large scale test which has gone as far to addressing the question what differences waxes make. This is why the test was conducted - it was not a sole answering test, simply additional information to add weight to the discussion which in my opinion, it does very well.

[seth1066]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Expensive waxes or Meguiar's, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

My thought on the large bird dropping etched into the paint is simply for the argument on how the experiment was carried out. One would have to concluded that this particular panel on this car alone was flattened more than the others. In other words, less orange peel equals less scattered, and hence better, reflection.

[TH0001]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

IF same guy did same panel on every car using same technique and same product then one could (mis)lead himself into thinking result could not be more accurate.

Zoran, as posted by Alkimel and as written in the thread, the same people polished the same panels. Thus each car was prepared as equally as possible. Are you saying (by stating: mislead) this would not give a more accuarate result then having different people polish different cars? Really?

Perhaps I am just having difficulty reading your post.

While any test such as this can 1000s of variables that any wanna be lawyer (or anybody who reads John Grisham) can question, it becomes nothing more then diversion.

What if the same guy polished all of the cars by himself. Well then we could question whether or not fatigue played a role in the outcome of all of the finishes. The last car may not have been polished to the same quality as the first.

What about slight manufacturing differences in pads/polishes/paints (even on the same color/year/model of car)? You could make a point about how each of these would make a difference in the final result. While no test is perfect, some tests provide more reasonable conclusions based on the quality of the test and the people conducting it.

By having the same people prep the same parts of each car by using the same processes we have ( unless you are trying to argue for the sake of hearing yourself type) had produced 6 cars with as close to equal finishes as reasonably possible. At the very least, close enough, in my opinion, that an EIGHT THOUSAND dollar wax is going to look significantly better then a THIRTY dollar wax, if it is really any better.

Pointing out all the variables aside from this, just because you can, is pointless. The same panels where polished by the same people, using the same products, on all of the cars.

1. I do not recollect that being said anywhere in his article. There is always a chance though I might be wrong, I am human after all and my track record of memory, accuracy and consistency does not have reputation of being on same level as yours, so if that is the case can you please help me correct myself by pointing out to me where exactly in his article it was stated that it was always same person working same panel with same tool and same product and how rest of the words and pictures in that article confirm that because way story was being told through words and pictures left me with impression that was not the case for at least one if not all three variables (person, tools, products)? It is always possible "ADD" kicked in, my focus shifted and I just glazed over that.

I am going to break this run-on up and handle it line by line.

I do not recollect that being said anywhere in his article. There is always a chance though I might be wrong, I am human after all and my track record of memory, accuracy and consistency does not have reputation of being on same level as yours,..

I am not sure why you make a reference about me and my supposed memory in your post. I am more then willing to discuss these issues with you, but making sarcastic comments is uncalled for and in reference to this discussion: Unnecassary.

There is always a chance that any of us could be wrong, it happens. Sometimes we quote other people in order to build a case only to have that same person show up on the thread and tell us we are wrong. If you remember when you debated me about my buddy Totoland and how he never had issues with System1? Only to have Totoland show up on the thread and tell you that you where wrong. It happens, no biggie. I do not have any expectations of your posts being useful.

I personally was JOYED to see you make the comment recently that you are only going to post to clean up "gross misinformation." I thought to myself, "If anybody has the time to shoulder the burden of truth and to prevent the gross inaccuracies of detailing forums it is Zoran Cvijetic.

But when you anoint yourself as the Knight of Detailing Truth, then we can agree that if the only time you post is to clear up misinformation, you have a respondsibitly not to post misinformation.

...so if that is the case can you please help me correct myself by pointing out to me where exactly in his article it was stated that it was always same person working same panel with same tool and same product and how rest of the words and pictures in that article confirm that because way story was being told through words and pictures left me with impression that was not the case for at least one if not all three variables...

Well I can tell that all people involved have typed the same thing, including Dave and the post that Alkimel linked. Are you suggesting that this was after the fact and done to cover up something up? Is that why you are asking me for "words and pictures" as well as finding documented int the write up?

I'm not sure your reasoning in the last part of your run-on other then suggesting that you need more proof because you don't believe their word. There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but the insinuation I draw about your reasoning for questioning these things is that you feel this 'ammendment' was added after the fact.


[QUOTE]2. Even if that was the case, IIRC cars were not judged on per panel basis. IIRC they were judged based on overall impression, correct? [QUOTE]

Correct... although we are talking about creating paint finishes on cars that are reasonably equal, not from panel to panel, but from car to car....

If yes that assumes all persons judging them gave equal consideration to all panels under equal lighting condition for same panel across every car. What assured lighting was uniform for each and every panel on each and every car?

Better yet, what assumes that the cars where all painted on the same day and didn't suffer from different paint thicknesses? That could really make a difference in not being able to see any significant differences between 30 dollar and 8000 dollar wax...

What assured that with persons milling around some did not pay more attention to hood and some more attention to roof, etc? After all "worse" job on panel A than on panel B could easily skew results if more persons ended up for whatever reason checking out panel A than panel B and vice versa.

I know!!! What if, and think about this Your Honor, the products themselves have tolerances! Imagine the drastic difference is being able to tell an expensive wax from a cheap wax if the rubbing compound has .00002% more abrasives!!!

What assured that person A was doing as good of a job at the end of that marathon as he did in the beginning because we all know how quality can sometimes drop off as exhaustion level goes up?

I didn't know you actually brought this up when I made my remark earlier.

We don't know this, obviously, but that is why we trust the credibility of the people doing the testing. Are we now calling into question the skills of these people doing the test?

In my experience, fatigue resistance and endurance are huge attributes when it comes to detailing. I have worked with several high level detailers and we have polished 36 hours with nothing more then occasional and brief breaks. If I did not feel 100% comfortable in being able to detail at the highest level and provide results then I would not have done it. In fact at the end of the 36 hours of straight polishing, the reason we left is because we felt we could no longer perform at the highest level; not because we where done.

Why did I post that? Because I have worked with other high end detailers and one thing that always stands out is that these guys can polish for 24-30 hours straight with out sleeping, barely eating, and taking the brief head clearing walk.

It is my opinion that paint polishing can become very 'Zen' like. You get into the grove sometimes and the hours just melt away and nothing else matters but the paint inches form your face. To me it is almost like mediating, and very easy to loose track of time. It may sound weird but every other detailer I speak with has the same experience.

Since I would not question the skills of the people conducting the test, and from personal experience of working around detailers of their caliber previously, I would never suggest your point in all seriousness. Again, if you don't have that much experience polishing paint then I can see why you might even bring this point up.

Was glossometer employed to assure all hoods were polished to exactly same level of finish across each and every car? To my knowledge it was not.

While it seems obvious to me that you are questioning the skill of the people involved in the polishing, I would trust their opinion (as skilled professionals) that the cars where prepped equally because we are talking about some of the highest qualified detailers in the planet. Are you really questioning whether somebody like Dave KG can tell if a hood is prepped equally to another? We aren't talking about hacks here, we are talking about people like Dave KG...

No refraction meter wasn't used to my knowledge, nor where three dimensional computer layouts of layer thicknesses, nor where the polishes spun in a centrifuge to ensure 100% uniformity, nor where the pads inspected by microscope. I am not sure how closely they monitored external environmental conditions as well.

What I am sure of is that several highly skilled detailers prepared reasonably (equal makes/models/paint colors) similar cars. These cars where obviously not identical and I am sure that laser guided mapping of the bodies would show some slight differences in tolerances that could ultimately change the way objects reflect in the paint visually from a certain vantage point...

I am sure that once these cars where at a reasonable standard of prep, as verfied by several highly skilled detailers whose qualifications should be beyond reproach, that they where treated with various waxes.

I am also certain that the results, which procured no significant winner, are as reasonably accurate as possible. Reasonable being the key word. We are not physicists trying to fracture an atom, we are detailers wondering if there is a noticeable visual difference between waxes that cost 30 to 8000 dollars.

That is why IMHO that effort can be praised for an effort but does not provide anything one can firmly hang the coat on except illustration that on surface all LSPs were judged very close to each other, which IMHO is not really a news worth multi-man-days of effort as many of detailers have been already saying that same thing for years.

I think this test reasonably proves that most people cannot tell the difference between cheap wax and wax made from things that don't even exist in most cases. Is it conclusive? Can we even define conclusive?

But... the question is... what does this have anything to do with the fact you stated that the panels where not prepared equally and you where wrong in your statement. The panels, as verified by the people doing the testing, where prepared in the most equal manner possible. Questioning the credibility of the test does nothing to change this fact.

However, I would say even if results did not end up absolutely accurate it is likely one could declare that test was a success from at least publicity for detailers involved standpoint.

Well I feel the results where reasonably accurate and I personally appreciate the effort, time, and dedication to doing such an involved test for the good of the detailing public.

Also you entire response is interesting because it dealt very little with what I said in my post (that you responded to). You said the prep wasn't equal and I corrected your statement. As the proclaimed 'corrector of misinformation' I thought you would appreciate my efforts. I think we should work together to keep the misinformation to a minimum.

[TH0001]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Sorry about the double post, I went back to re read what I posted and it wouldn't let me edit the post.

[Kickin Griffin]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

If I may add a small scientifc experiment anecdote to this to highlight the importance, or cased lack thereof, of total variable control... remember, things like this and all experiments are what people will read into them, and how people will read into them. A lawyer will look at a test such as this and happily find every hole, perceived, and point them out and a good lawyer seems to do so with as much flowery language as possible - whether these holes are largely relevant is up to any other individual to decide based on their understanding of the test being carried out.

Take an experiment I set up with one of the students I mentor - to look at the effects of water on the germination and growth of cress seeds. 10 seeds each were placed in 10 pots, with as similar as is physically possible growing medium (layer speak for, shall we say, "dirt" ). They were placed along a windowsill, and each pot received a daily watering of a slightly different amount of water. Variables were controlled as far as reasonably possible within the bounds of the experiment - that is, 10 seeds in each pot for the same time, same lighting conditions, same heat. Naturally, one can now look for the variables not fully controlled (outwith experimental reason) - the growing medium is one, how can we ensure this is fully identical? Each pot was slightly differently positioned on the windowsill, so slightly different lighting... of course, one can argue here that we could have put them under a sun lamp in a dark box for better consistency. However, what overall effect would this have on the results - its a variable, it is not fully controlled, but those with an understanding of the test being carried out will understand why it was allowed to be controlled in a looser way. The statistician here will like to add a degree of freedom to the results - effect on the overall trend observed that there is a peak water consumption ideal for cress germination: nill. We could have, of course, made sure the seeds were exactly positioned in the pots as well, same in each pot - but would this be relevant? Consider for a moment this experiment.

Now, let us return to the wax test... as pointed out above, one can very eaily now find a lot of looser controlled variables in the test... each car came down the line at different times, so paint is different, each car will have unique thicknesses. This will vary over a single panel too, so if one is to introduce this as a consideration, then it must be introduced to the single panel tests as well (thickness rather than line difference). Differences in prep - as pointed out above, fatigue of one single user may come into play here, different ambient conditions between the days polishing was carried out will affect polish break down, slightly different sets (don't tell me every other detailer is a robot that does identical sets every time :lol. There are lots of variables, and we could add a degree of freedom for each as we cannot control each, in terms of an experiment it is impossible. However, what is of key importance is understanding of the true effects of these uncontrolled variables. Rather like the lighting for the cress seeds above, does a small inconsistency affect a general observed trend? The trend observed was not critical, it is highly unlikely a small variable would affect it. Does my personal variation in machine finishing across cars affect the result we see in the wax test - well given there was nothing other than a radom variation observed at the end, it can be concluded that overall the cars looked no different. The waxes made no difference, neither did what can easily be described as comparitively small differences in the prep. As one would easily expect.

The key when analysing any experiment and its results in the quest to determine trends (not facts, no scientist claims "facts", we model and trend) is to carefully analyse all data - results, and variables controlled and uncontrolled. An understanding of the effects of uncontrolled variables is required - this leaves open room for the experiment to be called into question, and if I wanted, I would call the cress seed experiment into question.... no biologist in their right minds would however, as they would appreciate the irrelevance of the tiny lighting variations. Now, we can call intro question variances in the prep here and on the face of it, with everyone saying it is "all in the prep", tiny differences here could affect the results? Perhaps - but this did not come through in the results and I find it very hard to beleive that different waxes were the cause of identical looking cars on slightly differing prep and it would be a brave man to suggest otherwise here! So, one can lead that small variations in the prep, variations on the level present on this test, also bear no effect on the end looks of the car - more reasonably, I would suggest that it bears no effect to the human eye. One must exercise a degree of sense and understanding above the rather naieve and black and white simplicity of highlighting controlled and uncontrolled variables. One must understand their effects, as relevant to the tests which are conducted. Naturally this will be open to personal opinion, it is not black and white, and will require those reading it to form their own thougths based on their interpretation.

As I always say - read into any test what you will, and discuss at leisure - this is what these tests are about, they are not meant to present hard facts and I state this in bold at the start of my threads. They are however meant to give information to the community, simply add informtation for people to debate and use to their own purpose.

[Kickin Griffin]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

And here's a further more amusing experimental test that was more recently carried out by a member on another forum for us...

I often read about the effects of layering waxes - with many claiming that the look improves with two, three layers... I used to think that this could be the case, but recent testing I was left a bit cold by layering waxes - one layer seemed to be as good as ten (and all numbers in between). But many discuss the looks effect of two layers over one... yet, in experimental test, it shows that irrespective of the number of layers of wax added to a panel, the end result thickness remains the same - between 10 and 20nm. If the film layer remains the same in thickness and also refractive index (which can loosely be linked to layer density), then how can there be a looks difference? Is it simply a phsychological one, and from this can one further extend that the differences observed between different waxes are no more than simply "in the eye of the beholder"?

There are a lot of unanswered questions, tests simply look to add information to the melting pot.