are we being left in the dark?

[ShinyMopar]

Maybe I'm just too scientific and always want to see hard numbers but it seems to me with add many people detailing, companies testing products, etc that we could start getting some hard scientific numbers.

How does something get released to the market without knowing what it can do? If you use compound x, with this pad, this machine, this length of time, and this pressure, on this car, from this year, with this paint, it removes x amount of clear. I know it sounds like a lot but scientists in physics and engineering answer harder questions every day.

Same goes for waxes. First off they could tell how much of this and that go into a product. They have to make the stuff the same everyone. If applied this way, it will give you this thick of protection that will last this long if not in, wind, Sun, weather, etc. It's not hard when you make the variables the same. Science uses clean rooms and vacuum chambers to test things all the time. With the technology we have you can't measure the protection of a product directly? They have microscopes that can magnify millions of times.

Whew, my rant for the day : )

Not applying to this company but all companies are this way. At least in this segment. What they do tell is vague and tweaked to make them appear better. 100 percent carnauba wax. I agree the only wax in it is nuba but what makes up the fillers?

I know how long the milk in my fridge is suppose to be good for.

[Detailing by M]

Who cares?
Read the label, put it on the car, collect the money.

[Blueline]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Why is the sky blue, Mommy.?

[ca2kjet]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Why is the sky blue, Mommy.?

Because Bob Ross decided to paint it that way. With some happy little clouds thrown in.

[ShinyMopar]

Who cares?
Read the label, put it on the car, collect the money.

I don't do this for money. The couple that I have got paid for were because friends approached me. This is for my own personal cars and close family who let me enjoy my hobby and get a clean car back.

As for most people they don't care about the science of it. Science has always interested me. I like the reason why something is not just the answer that it is.

And the sky is blue because its wavelengths are shorter and thus can be scattered more. 6th grade science.

[wifpd4]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

The answer I would put forth to your query is this:

Yes, scientists can give you answers to questions if they have finite variables to deal with, but there is no control over the variables in automotive detailing. Start with the car and it's paint job. Is the paint (clear coat) applied in the exact same thickness, using the exact same product, by the exact same robot (or person, people themselves would introduce daily or even hourly variables) on every single car produced. NO. Take a for example a Lexus RX350, some are made in Canada, some are made in Japan. Would they be exactly the same? NO.

Now two RX350's were produced in Japan, one shipped to California and sits in a garage every night and the other went to Iowa and sits outdoors every day and night. In California, it sees no snow, just sunshine and salt spray from the ocean and the Iowa car sits in snow every winter. Can these two apparently same clear coats now be the same? NO

Fred sets out to detail the RX350 sitting in the garage in California and he uses Ultimate Compound and a NEW, yellow Meguiar's foam pad and a five year old Porter Cable DA buffer. David sets out to detail the Iowa snowbound RX350 using Ultimate Compound and an OLD, yellow Meguiar's foam pad and a NEW Porter Cable DA buffer. Both Fred and David apply Ultimate Compound on their pads as recommended, but David likes to use a bit more UC than Fred. They both apply what they believe to be 5 pounds of downward pressure. They both use what they believe to be slow arm speed. The both set their buffers to speed 5. Okay lets look at the variables that might appear to be the same, but are not. The clear coats even if identical (which they aren't), were aged differently. One in the sun of California, the other in the snow of Iowa. The amount of compound used is different, the textures of the identical pads (two pads, if used, will never be the identical again), the speed of 5 on an old buffer is different than speed 5 on a new buffer. Fred's arm speed will never match David's. Fred is 10 years younger and moves much more quicker, even when going slow.

Not one single variable matched, even though it's the seemingly the same car, seemly the same clear coat, seeming the same age, seeming the same weathering, seemly the same product used, seemly the same pad used, seemly the same buffer at seemly the same speed at seemly the same arm speed, and seemly done correctly by two people. There is no way to make this combination remove the same amount of clear coat.

A scientist or chemist working in a lab environment, working on ONE car, using ONE pad, using ONE buffer, using ONE calibrated test bench performing the SAME task MAY get repeatable results, if and only if the car was painted uniformly by a robot using the same product over the entire car.

More than likely, a scientist or chemist, will use two flat pieces of metal prepared as identically as possible using identical testing procedures to give an approximation of material removed under those controlled methods. That is a controlled environment, we live in the real world, NOTHING we do is CONTROLLED.

Cars, clear coat, pads, buffers and people are like snow flakes, they are all different. While a manufacturer can give you a range in the thickness of clear coat that will be removed in a given process. It's almost meaningless as he speaks the words or types the results. I don't even think he can say. "Generally speaking you remove X amount of clear coat" as there is NO GENERALLY.

If you want to know, buy an expensive thickness gauge, measure it before, during and after a process to know what the tools you are using, the process you are using and the product you are using and determine what amount of clear coat you are removing on that specific car. Just know if the process recommended by the manufacturer is followed, you will remove some clear coat attempting to remove scratches, swirls or other defects.


Yes, there are shades of blue in the sky and variables determine the shades. Much like variables determine the amount of clear coat removed and most of those variables the manufacturer has no control over. Plus his/her attorney probably advises him/her not to be too specific.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

We have all manner of testing equipment in our R&D labs here in Irvine, CA. We can read wax thickness, gloss levels, flatness of paint, depth of defects, etc. We can then also compare two or more products to each other under lab controlled conditions. That will tell us if we're on the right track when aiming for a specific target (durability of a wax, cut of a compound or pad, etc) but there is no way in the world to deliver a definitive message to the end users stating something like, in your words, "If you use compound x, with this pad, this machine, this length of time, and this pressure, on this car, from this year, with this paint, it removes x amount of clear". Even just isolating this one product there are so many variables - what's the ambient temp and humidity?; what's the age of the pad?; is the machine calibrated so we know it's spinning at the speed you think it is?; how do you know if you're applying 6lbs of pressure or 7lbs?; has the paint on an older car been babied over the years or neglected?

The above even assumes that everyone works the same way, and they don't. That's why you'll often see one person stating that they always get a great finish with Product A but can't do the same with Product B, while another person has just the opposite experience. Really good detailers know that different products work differently and will adapt their technique based on that (ie finishing polishes with SMAT and DAT abrasives should not be worked in an identical fashion).

All the same variables apply to waxes and sealants. Define "heavy rain" for example. Is that 3" a day for 3 days, or 1" a day for a week or more? Is it a cold rain like Detroit in March or a warm rain like Houston in August? And trying to specify how thick a layer of wax you've applied would only lead companies to formulate products that leave a thicker layer behind, even though that layer of product may not be very durable. People love to latch onto a single specification of a product and use that to determine whether it's better than another product. For example, we get calls all the time asking about the PPI (pores per inch) of our pads. But PPI is only a single spec and won't, in and of itself, tell you all that much. Yes, in theory, the higher the PPI number the softer the pad, but even that can change. We've used 100 PPI pads that did not finish as nice a specific 80 PPI pad due to other specs. And it may even be that in some situations, with certain tools or on certain paint. the opposite could be true.

At the end of the day, what's really important is that the product performs to your expectations and demands. Is it easy to use? Does it provide the finish I'm looking for? Can I repeat those results with it? All the minutia just creates even more confusion, and there's plenty of that already in this game!! You can build to any spec, but in the real world that doesn't necessarily translate to results.

[davey g-force]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Great post!

[Chicago Tommy]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Here is my .02. I feel the OP's frustration. While I recognize that providing that depth of information for every paint system ever would be impractical, and nearly impossible, I still think we should have a standardized scale.

[Blueline]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Here is my .02. I feel the OP's frustration. While I recognize that providing that depth of information for every paint system ever would be impractical, and nearly impossible, I still think we should have a standardized scale.

Get the Democrats to legislate ALL of the car manufacturers and ALL car care product manufactures to have a standardize paint and wax compatibility scale. We could call it ObamaCARcare. LOL

[Chicago Tommy]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Get the Democrats to legislate ALL of the car manufacturers and ALL car care product manufactures to have a standardize paint and wax compatibility scale. We could call it ObamaCARcare. LOL

Ha. Too funny. I meant a standardized scale for aftermarket products conducted by a third party like UL. The system now is just rudimentary. X product cuts more than Y. Ok, how much more? It's impossible to get answers from most manufacturers. Most of the "internet" brands don't even employ a chemist, and rely on marketing. "Check out the new Joe Blow wax, now infused with real bits of unicorn!!!!!!". Hyperbole sells products to the average washer/waxer, but some of us like to know the real details.

[Stephan]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

Get the Democrats to legislate ALL of the car manufacturers and ALL car care product manufactures to have a standardize paint and wax compatibility scale. We could call it ObamaCARcare. LOL

Be careful what you wish for...

[davey g-force]

Re: are we being left in the dark?

X product cuts more than Y. Ok, how much more? It's impossible to get answers from most manufacturers.

That's because it's impossible to answer a question like that. There are so many variables involved.

I prefer to stick to the Mike Phillips philosophy of "Find something you like and use it often."

...And if for some reason that isn't working, then experiment with something else, based on other peoples' reviews and experiences.