Another boutique wax debate

[CieraSL]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Wow, talk about making mountains out of molehills. You know, TH0001 and Kickin' Griffin, you two should write a book about detailing. I'm sure it would be one thick book, and I for one would love to read it. Oh the knowledge that could be garnered! But seriously, I think (and far be it from me to have any final say - after all I am a newbie) the question as to whether an $8000 wax is better than, say, Meguiar's Cleaner Wax is the question that cannot be answered. This must be the case, as indicated by all the posts here. Obviously, some waxes must be better than others, at least in my mind, because there are such variances in quality, ingredients, etc. and so on and so forth, blah blah blah. In my opinion (for what it's worth), it all boils down to personal preference. Like Mike Phillips says, "Find something you like and use it often." Not find something everybody agrees on is the best, because there obviously is no such thing, but find something you like. If you like Deep Crystal Carnauba Wax the best, then use it. If you like Zymol Royale the best, then use it. If you're a professional, then it's probably best to have different waxes (or LSP's, if you prefer) to suit various needs. But most customers aren't going to know the difference between Zymol Royale and Big Mama's Carnauba Nuba Wonder Wax, so the difference is subjective. In the end, this thread won't matter, because we'll all still have our own opinions and we'll still all be using the wax that we like best. Well, that's all I have to say. Thank you for letting me throw my two cents in!

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Todd as your post is two subjects intertwined I will seperate my reply in two parts:

Part 1. Human part getting in the way of accuracy

Perhaps I am just having difficulty reading your post.

No, I don't think you have a problem reading my posts, I think you have a problem understanding them because your posts like this:

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

leave impression you start replying before you even finish reading with your opinion already preformed before you even had a chance to think it all through.

I am going to break this quote up and handled it line by line, but will be difficult based on the fact that it is a repeating and lonnnngggg run-on sentence.

Sorry about run on sentences but oh well, I personally never let stuff like that, or spelling errors and Fraudian slips, stop me from trying to _understand_ what was _actually_ said before I form an opinion).

I am not sure why you make a reference about me and my supposed memory in your post.

I am making a reference about _my_ memory because I am only human after all but and am always open to possibility I might be wrong so unless I am absolutely positive in something I don't make firm statements.

So with that in mind...

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.

Actually Todd Helme, it was exactly opposite, you claimed publicly that Toto said something negative privately to you about SystemOne just to have Toto publicly say to you he did not say that to you. Too bad that thread/posts got deleted by mods as refreshing of public and your memory would be helpful to end "spreading of gross inaccuracy" you are engaging in here. I still might have PMs from Toto saved somewhere though but even though some do not mind making private conversations public without permission I do. I will not have a problem asking for his permission if you continue spreading this inaccuracy about me.

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, ...

There is a difference between saying I like correcting gross inaccuracies and "I am Knight of Detailing Truth" so I would say first one is not making any claims on such "title" while somebody that calls themselves TruthInDetaling (dot com) clearly does. Therefore burden and eyes should not be on me but on you, as admin of that site, at least accuracy wise. And when somebody keeps inaccurately claiming what Toto did / did not say even after Toto publicly corrected him (in an effort to discredit me, I presume) then I see a huge question mark.

Part 2. Technical

Are you saying (by stating mislead) that having the same people polish the same panels would not give a more accuarate result then having different people polish different cars? Really?

Yes, that is exactly what I said, it is obvious from rest of my post.

While any test such as this can 1000 variables that any keen lawyer (or anybody who reads John Grisham) can question, it becomes nothing more then fluff.

Trying to keep consistency on only by panel basis and then not judging the car by panel but as whole car is IMHO not a fluff but a huge question mark.

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. Certaintely the last car may not have been polished to the same quality as the first.

Yes, exactly, it would be. That is why test that does _not_ take inconsistency of human(s) across period of time is introducing variable that can skew final result and raises a question mark over final result.

By having the same people prep the same parts of the car by using the same processes we have (no doubt 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.

That's a gross assumption. I have already explained why.

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?

Correct... but so what?

So what? It can easily skew "judging" big time and that is "so what" to you?

To me and 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 up to 36 hours with out more then normal 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 where getting to the point of fatigue.

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 ocassional head clearning walk.

To my knowledge you were not one polishing them, you were not there, you do not have first hand experience working long polishing sessions (or any sessions for that matter) with people that did that test, so I am inclined to conclude you are making gross assumptions. Scientific tests do not allow assumptions, especially not such huge ones that can alter/invalidate results of whole test.

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

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 ...

Dave, as person with some basic training in technical disciplines I am very curious how exactly you measured thickness of soft film layer that is on nanometer scale. Could you please explain it to me?

[TH0001]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Zoran, you are not only wrong (as by your admission you are prone to) but I feel you are distorting the truth in regards to Toto. I spoke to him at the mobile tech expo two years in depth about System One as we both attended a conference on it.

He also posted and stated that he could get a better finish using 3M Ultrafina and that he occasionally had dusting issues, both of which you denied. Do not twist the facts to suite your arguement.

leave impression you start replying before you even finish reading with your opinion already preformed before you even had a chance to think it all through.

By using the word the impression I am assuming that you are making an assumption. As for the rest of your abomination of a sentence... que?

Actually Todd Helme, it was exactly opposite, you claimed publicly that Toto said something negative privately to you about SystemOne just to have Toto publicly say to you he did not say that to you. Too bad that thread/posts got deleted by mods as refreshing of public and your memory would be helpful to end "spreading of gross inaccuracy" you are engaging in here. I still might have PMs from Toto saved somewhere though but even though some do not mind making private conversations public without permission I do. I will not have a problem asking for his permission if you continue spreading this inaccuracy about me.

This is completely untrue. You said that Toto never had dusting issues and that he could get the same quality of finish from System One. He refuted you, and if you remember correctly, I quoted him.

There is a difference between saying I like correcting gross inaccuracies and "I am Knight of Detailing Truth" so I would say first one is not making any claims on such "title" while somebody that calls themselves TruthInDetaling (dot com) clearly does. Therefore burden and eyes should not be on me but on you, as admin of that site, at least accuracy wise. And when somebody keeps inaccurately claiming what Toto did / did not say even after Toto publicly corrected him (in an effort to discredit me, I presume) then I see a huge question mark.

Stop making things up. You tried to use Totoland to counteract my points and Toto counteracted yours. Thats all.

That's a gross assumption. I have already explained why.

No you didn't explain anything Zoran. You simply brought up obvious questions. The fact remains that YOU said the cars where not prepped equally and you where wrong. The rest of your post was a semi-coherent babble about everything else that could invalidate the test.

Trying to keep consistency on only by panel basis and then not judging the car by panel but as whole car is IMHO not a fluff but a huge question mark.

The fact remains that these cars where prepared equally to any reasonable standard and you where wrong about that. If the canvases are equal then the differences are going to be equal. The only reason it is a question mark is because it is something you can try to make a point about, no matter how moot.

Yes, exactly, it would be. That is why test that does _not_ take inconsistency of human(s) across period of time is introducing variable that can skew final result and raises a question mark over final result

It depends on the end result we are looking for. If it is to see if there is a noticable difference in the appearance of wax then we must set both a reasonable standard and a statistical difference. No test is perfect and there is always going to be some variable, the goal is to keep the variable small so that the answer is clearer. That is why pointing out the 1000s of things that could be changed is nothing more then you enjoying the sound of your fingers punching the keyboard.

I think the test was handled brilliantly, but if you have any ideas on how to do a better one, I'm sure the forums would appreciate it. I mean it is easy to tell everybody they are wrong, it is hard to show them.

To my knowledge you were not one polishing them, you were not there, you do not have first hand experience working long polishing sessions (or any sessions for that matter) with people that did that test, so I am inclined to conclude you are making gross assumptions. Scientific tests do not allow assumptions, especially not such huge ones that can alter/invalidate results of whole test.

Actually all tests are formed on assumptions Zoran, and variables that can be eliminated reasonably are. Seriously...

As far as you questioning the people doing the test, this wouldn't be the first time you attempted to discredit well know detailers to prove a point. Don't you remember stating that I would never disclose three names of people that PM'd concerning filling with Menzerna?

Do you remember when I posted names like Pat McCall (a Federal Agent) and Rick Nelson (Rickrack).

Instead of even acknowledging that I completed took you up on your challenge and named 5 people, you questioned the credibility of those I mentioned. You questioned whether an FBI agent was telling the truth, you bashed a 15 year old kid.

I mean seriously questioning somebody of the caliber of Rickrack?!?!? Besides trying to play lawyer on the internet, what have you contributed to the detailing community?

If you are going to post how you will only post to correct misinformation then you have a responsibility not to post it yourself.

There is a difference between saying I like correcting gross inaccuracies and "I am Knight of Detailing Truth" so I would say first one is not making any claims on such "title" while somebody that calls themselves TruthInDetaling (dot com) clearly does. Therefore burden and eyes should not be on me but on you, as admin of that site, at least accuracy wise. And when somebody keeps inaccurately claiming what Toto did / did not say even after Toto publicly corrected him (in an effort to discredit me, I presume) then I see a huge question mark.

Please stop with your misinformation. Truth In Detailing is not MY site nor am I the administrator. You are failing in your new found job. As far as Toto, again, the only thing that I misquoted him on was saying he often got holograms in the finish. Everything else he agreed with me on. Again more misinformation.

But in the end, instead of typing so much, why don't you just show us. Why don't you do the test and draw your own conclusions? How about showing us a car you detailed? How about contributing anything more then drama?

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Guys, let's ease up a bit here. There's some very good discussion going on here, but let's not have a couple of you start dredging up old discussions.

The fact is that no matter how anybody does a test of various waxes, somebody is going to find flaws whether real or not. Somebody is going to be offended by the results, or simply not believe them. That's simply because the bulk of these results are based on purely subjective analysis. Yes, things like reflectivity, gloss, darkening, etc CAN be empirically measured, but only by very expensive equipment. But even then, even in the best double blind testing, someone's subjective results are going to fly in the face of someone elses.

Wax debates can (and, unfortunately, probably will) rage on for eternity, but that simple truth can never be escaped. We don't all visually see things exactly the same way, nor do we all like the same things. Because of this, there can be no right or wrong answer to the question.

But what is wrong is taking the discussion far off point and clouding it with this back and forth he said/she said stuff.

How 'bout we all back away from the keyboard for a bit so we don't have to shut this one down.

[Kickin Griffin]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Dave, as person with some basic training in technical disciplines I am very curious how exactly you measured thickness of soft film layer that is on nanometer scale. Could you please explain it to me?

The technique used for the tests was ellipsometry, and in a very basic sense it relies on a film's ability to change the polarisation state of incident light... so shine on linearly polarised light and (I'm being very basic here) analyse the effects of the film.

There exists an article on Wikipedia of good accuracy describing the technique in more detail if you are interested rather than me cobbling together a thread of diagrams and equations

Note also my earlier post that these tests were not conducted by myself (all my lab equipment is microwave and millimetre wave as this is where my research is based), but by another forum member at another university in Scotland.

[Kickin Griffin]

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.

In my experience, large scale orange peel does not remove by compounding, as this lowers the whole paint level too consistently and results in (simply speaking) a simple lowering of the whole "rippled" surface. I prefer to wetflat if I am to remove orange peel (which I rarely recommend owing to the amount of paint that needs to be removed in many cases) as this does a better job of knocking back the peaks while ignoring the troughs in the paint.

Further each car here was compounded using Fast Cut Plus over the cars for correction of hazyness in the paint finish. So it was not just local correction of small areas with Fast Cut, but rather each car across the car being treated. So the consistency would be kept in this respect in the test as far as consistencies of the machine sets can be reasonably controlled (which would take me back to the post I put up about the Cress seed experiment and the importance of variable control and understanding of variable effects).

What a lot of posts "discussing" the results of the test and their validity are missing is that if the preparation was different on the cars and this had the ability to call into the question completely the validity of the results, why were consistent differences in the end results not observed? If claimed inconsistency existed in the prep, then this would surely show through by differences being seen in the end results? Of course. But no consistent differences were observed. One could explain this, as I alluded to before, by the waxes all offering suitably different looks to alter the varying prep and coincidentally this resulted in the cars all looking the same. I find this hypothesis highly improbable (so much so, I rather had to laugh when I typed it).

As I have explained in different threads also, the reason for not simply taking a panel and putting waxes side by side is that many have claimed that to see the full effects of the wax, to observe the "subtle nuances" requires one to see the car as a whole... side by side tests are carried out all the time, I do them for fun a lot on my tuiton days on "equally prepped" single panels and the results are always the same - no difference observed. This test was designed to add more information, not simply redo a test that had been carried out before. Whether or not is succeeds is up to the reader, but it is good to see it still provokes discussion 18 months on

[RGP]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

I agree. Big Mama's Carnauba Nuba Wonder Wax totally rocks!

[CieraSL]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

I agree. Big Mama's Carnauba Nuba Wonder Wax totally rocks!

Oh, you like that, huh? Doesn't that sound like something Billy Mays might advertise? "Hi, Billy Mays here with Big Mama's Carnauba Nuba Wonder Wax, the only wax you'll ever need!" LOL!

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Zoran, you are not only wrong (as by your admission you are prone to) but I feel you are distorting the truth in regards to Toto. I spoke to him at the mobile tech expo two years in depth about System One as we both attended a conference on it.

He also posted and stated that he could get a better finish using 3M Ultrafina and that he occasionally had dusting issues, both of which you denied. Do not twist the facts to suite your arguement.


By using the word the impression I am assuming that you are making an assumption. As for the rest of your abomination of a sentence... que?



This is completely untrue. You said that Toto never had dusting issues and that he could get the same quality of finish from System One. He refuted you, and if you remember correctly, I quoted him.



Stop making things up. You tried to use Totoland to counteract my points and Toto counteracted yours. Thats all.


No you didn't explain anything Zoran. You simply brought up obvious questions. The fact remains that YOU said the cars where not prepped equally and you where wrong. The rest of your post was a semi-coherent babble about everything else that could invalidate the test.



The fact remains that these cars where prepared equally to any reasonable standard and you where wrong about that. If the canvases are equal then the differences are going to be equal. The only reason it is a question mark is because it is something you can try to make a point about, no matter how moot.


It depends on the end result we are looking for. If it is to see if there is a noticable difference in the appearance of wax then we must set both a reasonable standard and a statistical difference. No test is perfect and there is always going to be some variable, the goal is to keep the variable small so that the answer is clearer. That is why pointing out the 1000s of things that could be changed is nothing more then you enjoying the sound of your fingers punching the keyboard.

I think the test was handled brilliantly, but if you have any ideas on how to do a better one, I'm sure the forums would appreciate it. I mean it is easy to tell everybody they are wrong, it is hard to show them.


Actually all tests are formed on assumptions Zoran, and variables that can be eliminated reasonably are. Seriously...

As far as you questioning the people doing the test, this wouldn't be the first time you attempted to discredit well know detailers to prove a point. Don't you remember stating that I would never disclose three names of people that PM'd concerning filling with Menzerna?

Do you remember when I posted names like Pat McCall (a Federal Agent) and Rick Nelson (Rickrack).

Instead of even acknowledging that I completed took you up on your challenge and named 5 people, you questioned the credibility of those I mentioned. You questioned whether an FBI agent was telling the truth, you bashed a 15 year old kid.

I mean seriously questioning somebody of the caliber of Rickrack?!?!? Besides trying to play lawyer on the internet, what have you contributed to the detailing community?

If you are going to post how you will only post to correct misinformation then you have a responsibility not to post it yourself.



Please stop with your misinformation. Truth In Detailing is not MY site nor am I the administrator. You are failing in your new found job. As far as Toto, again, the only thing that I misquoted him on was saying he often got holograms in the finish. Everything else he agreed with me on. Again more misinformation.

But in the end, instead of typing so much, why don't you just show us. Why don't you do the test and draw your own conclusions? How about showing us a car you detailed? How about contributing anything more then drama?

Todd, I will not be following you down this road nor going into debunking your sentences one by one further here as that would not only make me disrespect Stoops' request (and I don't want to disrespect his request) but also because I don't want to do what you just did in it, which is breach of rules of MOL.

Instead I will just say this:

1. Your asking what I have contributed to detailing community shows it is very likely you have either conveniently very selective or very short memory. Since you are publicly asking anyway (in what seems to be an attempt to put down the person) here is an reminder for you and info for those that read what you say but don't know better:

a) Flex XC 3401 VRG. That was not done by you, it was done by me. Until I found it, researched it, got one of first copies in States, and started posting about it, it was unknown to detailing community. So you can say I contributed to improvement of work/life of every single detailer that uses it.

b) Kept correcting myth that DA can not produce top notch paint polishing. BTW, I was doing that for years prior to you hearing about "Kevin Brown" method and you were refusing to open your eyes even when I was pointing it to you in more than one discussion.

c) Even though it is not publicly acknowledged I have contributed with one method that changed/improved how some detailers polish paint.

So go ahead, keep trying to put me down if that is what will make you feel better when you remember guy that is not pro detailer contributed to community what it's most visible members did not but fact will remain it was _me_, _not_ you, that contributed to community what they did not have before, and fact will remain that is something no amount of clicks & brags can do, click & brags contribute to person's own bottom line, not community.

2. You made a public statement about me. After I said you were not correct you continued making it. You should know how justice system in this country works so burden of proof of public statement is on person making the statement. On you as you are the one that made it about me. Therefore I strongly suggest you cease & dessist because if you don't you will have to prove it elsewhere. "He said she said" will not work for that and if you push me to have to invest an effort to subpoena forums to restore all threads and PMs etc I won't go through all of that effort just for nothing, when I invest an effort I do it to get hard results.

P.S. You are correct that your are not admin on TruthInDetailing.com. Your official title is moderator (at least that's what it says on your profile) and to my knowledge you are an employee of that site's owner. It is also my understanding you are one of people that were involved in starting of that forum. That's why I felt it is not me that is aspiring for title of Knight of Truth in Detailing.

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

What a lot of posts "discussing" the results of the test and their validity are missing is that if the preparation was different on the cars and this had the ability to call into the question completely the validity of the results, why were consistent differences in the end results not observed? If claimed inconsistency existed in the prep, then this would surely show through by differences being seen in the end results? Of course. But no consistent differences were observed.

Dave, please allow me to suggest that something was observed that should have raised a question mark.

You just totaled your scores and that was it. But to my knowledge you did not do variance / standard deviation analysis to confirm there was enough info to declare results valid. I did not plug in figures myself either but when I did look at them they were leaving me impression of classical spread that would then indicate either:

a) all cars looked equally good/bad (whether due to prep or wax or both)

or

b) test did not result in quality data and current data was as good as eenie-meenie-miney-moe.

[ZoranC]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

The technique used for the tests was ellipsometry, and in a very basic sense it relies on a film's ability to change the polarisation state of incident light... so shine on linearly polarised light and (I'm being very basic here) analyse the effects of the film.

There exists an article on Wikipedia of good accuracy describing the technique in more detail if you are interested rather than me cobbling together a thread of diagrams and equations

Note also my earlier post that these tests were not conducted by myself (all my lab equipment is microwave and millimetre wave as this is where my research is based), but by another forum member at another university in Scotland.

Thank you! I need to read up more on that.

[Kickin Griffin]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

Dave, please allow me to suggest that something was observed that should have raised a question mark.

You just totaled your scores and that was it. But to my knowledge you did not do variance / standard deviation analysis to confirm there was enough info to declare results valid. I did not plug in figures myself either but when I did look at them they were leaving me impression of classical spread that would then indicate either:

a) all cars looked equally good/bad (whether due to prep or wax or both)

or

b) test did not result in quality data and current data was as good as eenie-meenie-miney-moe.

I've copied across what I believe are the numbers you are referring too...

A: 3rd, 2nd, 6th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 3rd, 5th, 4th, 5th, 4th = 46pts

B: 5th, 3rd, 1st, 6th, 5th, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 6th, 3rd, 5th = 48pts

C: 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st = 61pts

D: 4th, 4th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 3rd, 1st, 3rd = 47pts

E: 6th, 6th, 4th, 2nd, 6th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 4th, 6th = 42pts

F: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 6th, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, 6th, 2nd = 56pts


Now, as stated in the thread first of all, not everyone attending on the day ranked the cars according to what they believed to be the "best" looking (which we will address just shortly) as some could not see any difference at all. Add this into the melting pot as well, as it is a highly relevant consideration.

What I have long said, and continue to highlight matches your suggestion at a), that the cars were all so similar looking (one might say, too identical looking) that there was no tenable difference between them in terms of the looks. This was further highlighted when those attending the meet were asked to discuss (good luck putting numbers on discussions ) the looks which they saw. With some people claiming one car looked perhaps, maybe, possibly wetter than another, and the next person saying the exact opposite. The numbers alone above show nothing other than a classical spread - now one could interpret this as you have described in b), that the test did not result in quality data - this is very much down to the person reading the data based on how the test was conducted to decide whether the data is representative of anything or not. Obviously, one can draw from my posts what I believe - that the fact nothing more than a random spread was seen in the results points to the fact that there were no tenable differences to the looks. I've linked data observed to a hypothesis and drawn my own conclusions, the purpose of the test Others can also draw their conclusions.

So - what would you say is the link that would lead to b) above? Away from a simple mathematical argument of numbers, specifically to the test? Well - I will venture, as any experimentalist can always do, an alternate hypothesis. A major variable that is often discussed that we have no control over and that is people's interpretation of what is "best". This will vary from person to person... so rather the test should examine "differences" observed rather than a list of best and worst, a different way to analyse the same data (firstly) and the cars in front of those there. The report forms were designed for this, so people could rank perceived qualities they saw in each finish such as "depth", "wettness", "reflection" - the vast majority of people on the day decided that there were not enough differences in the looks of the cars to be able to separate individual look appearances on a scale. This to me adds further weight to there being no differences in the looks (for whatever reason, the reader may interpret) but naturally this is again open to how one will choose to read the results. As of course, any experiment of this nature is. Luckily for my real-world work, I don't have to consider the phychologies of people, which ultimately will affect a test of this style also.

Ultimately - the wax test that is discussed was carried out as described and the data analysed as described for those to draw conclusions from. The test itself was not designed to deliver a hard and fast answer on its own and should not be used for this purpose - it was done to further stimulate debate, to add information to the melting pot, to give people something else to consider. Oh, and it as done for enjoyment as well

[Mikejl]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

ZoranC,

Will you document the process and procedure to perform the perfect 6 car wax test and post it in this thread?

The more detail the better.

Believe me when I say, I would like nothing better than to see a wax test that proves higher cost waxes look better.

Note: The tests would have to be humanly possible to actually perform.

Thank you,
Mike

[CieraSL]

Re: Another boutique wax debate

ZoranC,

Will you document the process and procedure to perform the perfect 6 car wax test and post it in this thread?

The more detail the better.

Believe me when I say, I would like nothing better than to see a wax test that proves higher cost waxes look better.

Note: The tests would have to be humanly possible to actually perform.

ZoranC, if KickinGriffin's test was so bad and proved nothing, will you do a test that will give accurate and indisputable results, if there is indeed such a test? Because I for one would like to see the perfect test. Thanks!

Shane