Have I been under a rock?

[roushstage2]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Would it be safer to classify Last Touch as a waterless wash product vs. a rinseless wash product?

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Would it be safer to classify Last Touch as a waterless wash product vs. a rinseless wash product?

Wouldn't that sort of depend on how you use it, and just how you define the terms? As a mist & wipe, which is what the product was designed to be, it would kind of fall into the category of waterless wash (not sure just how dirty you'd want the car to be when using it this way, of course). When you put a few ounces into a few gallons of water it would become more of a rinseless wash - there's definitely water there, but you don't need to use a separate rinse prior to drying.

Does that answer your question?

[Lasthope05]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

I currently have my car on a 3:1 rinseless wash to full wash cycle. Once a month, I give my car the traditional 2 bucket wash. The remaining three weeks I use ONR/Last Touch (sometimes twice in one week). It works out well for me, and my landlord is happy that I'm not jacking up the water bill.

The same goes for me. I use rinseless products the majority of the time and only use traditional washes on severely neglected finishes or when Im in the mood for playing with suds. I barely do traditional washes anymore.


I still stand by what I said about LT not being appropriate as a rinseless wash. You wouldnt use Megs Quik Detailer as a rinseless now would you? or uqd/m135/m34...etc I feel on only a dusty surface the amount of water used acts as a buffer. Even waterless washes have their limitations. Junkman explains the difference in dust and dirt and what a waterless wash product's limitations are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gVU4C_6wOE#t=7m40s

[ZoranC]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

I am concerned about the effect of this on environment. It doesn't sound more green to me at all, quite the opposite.

Sure, we use less water while doing it, but at the same time we release more _chemicals_ into the system then we would with traditional wash. Water is easily recyclable through the system, chemicals comtaminate everything in its' path.

So to me using gallons and gallons of chemical (detailer) to replace water seems counter productive, being harsher on environment instead of being gentler on it.

[roushstage2]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Wouldn't that sort of depend on how you use it, and just how you define the terms? As a mist & wipe, which is what the product was designed to be, it would kind of fall into the category of waterless wash (not sure just how dirty you'd want the car to be when using it this way, of course). When you put a few ounces into a few gallons of water it would become more of a rinseless wash - there's definitely water there, but you don't need to use a separate rinse prior to drying.

Does that answer your question?

I suppose. The way I have generally always seen a waterless wash defined is a QD (mist and wipe) with some extra lubrication that makes it safe to use in a bit dustier and even perhaps "dirtier" conditions. Some companies have a standard QD and a waterless wash as well. A bit of a beefed up standard QD I guess you could say. Of course, I'm just talking straight Last Touch as well; not trying to make an ONR rinseless wash equivalent with it.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

I still stand by what I said about LT not being appropriate as a rinseless wash. You wouldnt use Megs Quik Detailer as a rinseless now would you? or uqd/m135/m34...etc I feel on only a dusty surface the amount of water used acts as a buffer. Even waterless washes have their limitations. Junkman explains the difference in dust and dirt and what a waterless wash product's limitations are.

We aren't disagreeing with you with regard to using this method as your only washing regimen, but in a pinch (and on very light dirt) it does work. Last Touch is incredibly slippery, more so than QD, etc and that's why this particular product was chosen for this method and the others weren't.

So to me using gallons and gallons of chemical (detailer) to replace water seems counter productive, being harsher on environment instead of being gentler on it.

Nobody is using "gallons and gallons" of detailer, it's a couple of ounces in two gallons of water. Most people use far more soap than that, and certainly far, far more water. And looking at the MSDS for Last Touch, it's pretty darn innocent stuff even compared to most car shampoos.

[ZoranC]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Nobody is using "gallons and gallons" of detailer, it's a couple of ounces in two gallons of water.

When I said gallons and gallons I meant overall sum of product released into the system. (BTW, I was under impression that dilution ratios I have seen talked about around, not in the video, but among people, mention much bigger part of detailer than video does?).

And looking at the MSDS for Last Touch, it's pretty darn innocent stuff even compared to most car shampoos.

Thank you, that eases concern So what are chances this will become officialy Meguiar's endorsed method for washing?

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Thank you, that eases concern So what are chances this will become officialy Meguiar's endorsed method for washing?

Honestly, doubtful. If we decide to play in this market and go up against ONR and QEW we'll need to do develop something more suitable to heavy contamination removal. As it is, Last Touch does not really fit that bill.

[ZoranC]

Re: Have I been under a rock?

Honestly, doubtful. If we decide to play in this market and go up against ONR and QEW we'll need to do develop something more suitable to heavy contamination removal. As it is, Last Touch does not really fit that bill.

Thank you once again