Dodo Juice Supernatural

[Mike Phillips]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Orca...

The below is not written in reply to you but to everyone that will read this thread into the future, (members and lurkers alike), to get them to think about this topic as I see the WOWO method brought up on other forums but I never see any of their community members challenge the idea, just accept it.

With that said, everyone should please feel encouraged to read the below and think about the ideas presented and then make up their own mind if it makes sense, if it does, the post you agree, if it doesn't then make the case of how wiping a substance off immediately can leave any substantial amount of said substance behind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With Meguiar's waxes, you want them to fully dry because it's through the drying process that the protection ingredients bond to the finish and remain behind.

Any time I see someone post that a wax or protection product of any kind should be wiped on and then wiped off, (This is the WOWO method), a red flag goes up and I have to wonder what's wrong with the product.

My experience is that usually it's because if the product is allowed to dry it becomes difficult or extremely difficult to wipe off. (Which can be indicator of the ability of the chemist that created the formula).

Besides that, common sense tells you that if you wipe a wax or paint sealant on, and then immediately wipe it off.... (WOWO method), then the question is... how can you be leaving any substantial amount of product behind on the surface?

Seriously, if you wipe a wax or paint sealant on, and then immediately wipe it off... aren't you wiping most/all the supposed protection ingredients off the paint? (You are wiping the paint with a cloth and in the case of microfiber they are known for their ability to wipe substances off better than cotton, as in thoroughly wiping a substance off the surface, especially if it's wet).

Isn't the idea behind applying a wax or paint sealant, (anything that is supposed to leave itself behind as a film or layer on the paint), to hopefully leave something behind on the surface to protect that surface into the future? (A layer of nothing can't protect anything)

Again, every time I see someone on another forum telling people that brand x is a WOWO product, just wipe it on and then wipe it off, a red flag goes up and I have to wonder... what's wrong with this product?

Would love to have someone explain in detail how a wax or paint sealant can leave maximum protection ingredients behind on the surface when it's being wiped off immediately? (And without drying). I mean so many people on all these detailing discussion forums are always so concerned with how long a product lasts but when I see someone post this topic I've never seen ANYONE on these other forums bring up this specific point? It's just accepted? Doesn't allowing a wax or paint sealant fully dry before removing sound at it's basic core as though this method would leave more protection ingredients on the surface, not less?




Of course,


"Find something you like and use it often"

If you like it, then you obviously like how it applies and removes and it looks good in your eyes, if you use it often your car's paint will always look new because it's only when paint is neglected that it goes down hill.

[Orca]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

'aye ... I read exactly those comments from you in reply to Pinnacle Souveran; a product which for me delivered a fantastic result (if not the best I have seen) on my car, but didn't last more than a couple of weeks. That was a wipe on ... wipe off product in the way that you describe here.

I understand you've made this point here because the matter has come up and I'm replying to this point and not to the fact that you've replied in reference to a phrase that I brought up earlier ... if you see what I mean; that you've said initially it is for all does not preclude my reply now.

Anyway ... one must equally be wary of products that set so hard you can't get them off with a chisel and end up marring the paint and running your QD stocks out trying to get the damn stuff off! I think the point is to read the instructions and to go with the spirit of the instructions - we're all good at developing a sixth sense for rooting out genuinely poor products, but the rest of the market is made up of good companies that produce what they believe to be great products. Again, read the instructions and go with them - if you find you like the products, great ... carry on ... if not, don't use them, but I would encourage people to keep hold of them and try them again periodically. You never know ... it might just click and you find it indispensable.

I'm going to stick my neck out a little here. I know this is Meguiars' forums and I know that they have a loyal following and I know that content here really ought to be how to use and develop a better technique with these products, but all too often I read posts about other manufacturers and despite having a ruling not to talk badly of other products, the opening sentences are already doing them down and making (somtimes) inappropriate comparisons to Meguiars products. I like Megauirs Mirror Glaze range - I really get on with it, not so much the commercial range, but I don't see the need to defend Meguiars' products in every thread that mentions another manufacturer. You don't see that kind of culture on the Dodo Juice forums, for example.

I don't know ... maybe I've developed an air of someone who is critical of some Meguiars products and turns up here now and again to talk about other products. I can tell you, that is certainly not why I joined up here - it just gets at me a bit when I see good products being put down very quickly without good and proper consideration. I think the "what other products do you use" and "have you always used Meguiars" threads really show up what a fantastic following this company has, but equally that people who largely use other products and enjoy a (smaller) number of Meguiars products can be sidelined all too quickly by the "Woo! Yay! Meguiars!" kind of posts. I suppose I have a tendency to champion the underdog at that point - it's not intentional, just kind of happens LOL.

Back to Mike's post - certainly one for some strong consideration.

[Mike Phillips]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Agreed about the comment on products being difficult to wipe off when they dry if they dry real hard.

We don't make any products like that. Some people will post M16 is hard to wipe-off when it fully dries and it is hard to wipe-off if you apply too thick of a coating which is usually the case for first time users or people that believer more is better.

Even with a thin coating it can be more difficult than our modern waxes but keep in mind the M16 formula at the time of this post is 57 years old and our chemists take care to make sure our modern formulas are easy to wipe off when the right wax is applied to the right condition surface using a thin coat as it should be.

So as for other products wiping off hard after they dry that would be a question and issue for the company that makes those products.

Again, everyone is encouraged to read what I wrote about the idea behind wiping a product on and immediately wiping it off and decide for themselves how much of the product can be left behind using this recommendation and if it's important to them to leave as much product behind when their goal is to apply a product with the idea of protecting the paint.

That's a decision each person needs to decide for themselves... my goal was to point out some issues involved that should be considered as again, on other forums I see this topic brought up, but I never see anyone ever challenge it, just accept it. (That's the WOWO method).

On this forum because Meguiar's waxes at this time are supposed to dry before removing them that method, (The WOWO Method), would not maximize the performance of the product.

If another manufacture states that the WOWO method, or if some forum personality states that the WOWO method will maximize the performance of any wax or paint sealant, then it's up to each person reading those statements and using those products to think about the ideas presented in this thread and again, make up their own mind if the WOWO method really makes good sense.

Personally, I don't buy it. I don't believe the WOWO method can maximize the amount of protection ingredients left on the surface by any wax or paint sealant and so far no one has ever made the case in written word, at least that I've read.

I would love to see someone try to make the case and I don't mean a fluff statement like,

"I use the WOWO method with brand x and I think it works", or "I use the WOWO method and it make the paint look good".

The topic at hand is how wiping a wax or paint sealant off immediately can leave behind maximum protection, (not whether it can it make paint look good).

Someone that promotes the WOWO method needs to explain in detail how the WOWO method makes sense, how wiping a product off immediately maximizes the protection left behind by the protection ingredients.


If no one can, that's okay too, everyone is free to use whatever product they like and apply it and wipe it off however they like, (See my signature line), but it shouldn't be assumed that wiping a product off immediately leaves the maximum protection behind on the surface if and the goal of the process is to leave the maximum protection behind on the surface.

If the goal is just to make paint look good then sure, use the WOWO method if that works for you and your product of choice. That's called personal preference.

[3Fitty]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Sounds like another wax you need a Phd to put on your car. Admitedly, I'm too dumb.

[RaskyR1]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

So here is a couple of pics after the second coat. The car does look amazing, but it always does, and I still don't think it looks any better than M26 or any other Meguiars wax for that matter. It does go on and off easy but I just can't see how anyone can justify the cost. If there is a difference that I'm not seeing I still can't imagine how someone can think it's worth the high price tag.

That being said, I plan to hold onto it and use it as an up sell to any customers who may buy into the cost. It does give you a weird feeling knowing that you have a $200 wax on your car though!

Rasky

[ZoranC]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Would love to have someone explain in detail how a wax or paint sealant can leave maximum protection ingredients behind on the surface when it's being wiped off immediately? (And without drying). I mean so many people on all these detailing discussion forums are always so concerned with how long a product lasts but when I see someone post this topic I've never seen ANYONE on these other forums bring up this specific point? It's just accepted?

Don't question it, just believe in magic, it is super natural.

[RaskyR1]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Don't question it, just believe in magic, it is super natural.

[CarbonBlack]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Thanks for buying it and giving them your money, That way we don't have to.

-nick

[ZoranC]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Thanks for buying it and giving them your money, That way we don't have to.

Number of guys on other forums that did same were not impressed either.

[Orca]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

The topic at hand is how wiping a wax or paint sealant off immediately can leave behind maximum protection, (not whether it can it make paint look good).

Someone that promotes the WOWO method needs to explain in detail how the WOWO method makes sense, how wiping a product off immediately maximizes the protection left behind by the protection ingredients.

Not being argumentative, but equally, someone who promotes allowing a product to sit should explain how that works. Without empirical evidence, who can say which method works best?

Some musings ...

We are talking about a nano-level layer of protection that bonds to the surface, or to the product used beforehand. When allowing a product to sit, we are only assuming that the microns actually touching the paint are adhering any better than if we were to wipe off (most of) the product straight away. Indeed, the cured product that is wiped off after allowing a product to sit is surplus product and not offering any protection once it has been wiped off, just as wiping off a product straight away, WOWO-style will leave behind some product ... and presumably the same amount of product as is left behind by the "sit and wipe off surplus cured product" technique.

Again, Without empirical evidence, who can say which method works best? and which is providing maximum protection. Consider also a product that has sat, cured and is then removed might well actually remove more of the microns that have adhered to the surface by virtue of the dried product being bonded to those microns that we presume have adhered to the surface. Who knows?

Leaving behind a nano-thin layer of product, by the WOWO method, to cure without surplus product on top may well glean exactly the same results as leaving it to cure and then removing the (dried) surplus. The same extremely thin layer of product is still there.

Furthermore, how do we establish durability? We often hear that one product is more durable than another, but how many have actually used a microscope capable of viewing nano-thick layers on paint after a few weeks. We have anecdotal evidence, that the initial beading pattern is no longer present after a period of time but no empirical evidence that the product is not still there.

What we do know is that the chemists that formulate a product will test exactly this and produce some guidelines for the technique of application. If one manufacturer has developed a significantly different product to another (within the same general arena), there is no reason to think that application methods should be the same; quite the opposite in fact. While WOWO is not recommended for Meguiars waxes does not preclude that method for working with other products - when we're talking about Meguiars waxes, that's fine advice and exactly why people come to this forum, but when discussing other manufacturers, it is pure conjecture.

[Setec Astronomy]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

If WOWO doesn't work, someone needs to explain Meguiar's Ultimate Quick Detailer to me, which is clearly a WOWO product, and according to the bottle "Beads relentlessly--wash after wash!". I actually wouldn't call the beading I got from it "relentless", but clearly it has to leave something on the paint to do that "wash after wash".

Since we are talking about a "nano" layer of product, and since it's been established here at MOL that you can't layer products, we're talking about an unmeasurable layer, perhaps only one molecule thick. How does that layer attach itself to the paint? Perhaps in the case of a pure wax (with no polymers) like #16 and perhaps DoDo Juice, by molecular attraction? How long does that take to happen? I would expect that to be almost instantaneous.

The attachment method might be different for a polymer product, and it might require curing to work properly. Probably best, as has been said, to follow the manufacturer's directions.

As has been mentioned, I tend to wipe off heavy waxes like #16 after a few minutes, and seem to have no ill effects from that, but if you go back and hit a spot you missed and wipe it right off, it doesn't seem any different than the areas that dried for a few minutes. On the other hand, someone I respect and trust has stated that Souveran worked better for him when Mike Phillips talked him out of WOWO with that product; of course, Souveran may not have extinct bird juice in it, but it may have some polymers.

[TimG]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Just to chime in on the nano layers issue, would'nt a spectrum image analyzer can pickup the uniformity of products being applied onto a surface (auto. paint in this case) and therefore able to audit presence of products after the wipe off step?

I mean, with that machine, we can gauge whether the WOWO method bears any significant benefits on different types of products and also shed some gratifying light on the issue of curing time for waxes/sealants

Just my honest opinion though



Tim

[3Fitty]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

Without empirical evidence, who can say which method works best?

This is a great question, however, not one without (at least) a partial response.

Human beings are supposed to be reasonable and rational creatures. We have the ability to discern "a" from "b". We are not always correct in the way we evaluate a situation, but certainly logical or even circumstantial assumptions can help us to a correct response.

In this example, we have two basic ideas. One, is WOWO, the other is WO, let dry and remove.

So, if we examine both premises logically (or even circumstantially) we can ask ourselves which makes more sense? Do we come to a definitive, irrefutable conclusion? Absolutely not, however I think logic dictates that the WOWO method is LESS likely to leave behind protection than the Wax on, let dry and remove method.

The notion of applying something topically, allowing it to dry and possibly "bond" to the paint, seems like the more logical choice in getting some measure of protection to remain on the paint. It might be that certain WOWO products are more technologically advanced than a traditional wax, which allows for immediate bonding, however, in order to believe so, you have to start stretching at your logic.

While paint is not fabric, think of it as your kid eating a jelly sandwhich. When he inevitably gets some on his shirt, if you get to the jelly before it can "set", then you are less likely to have a stain. If you leave it, let it soak in, throw the shirt in the hamper for a week, it will be a lot harder to removed the stain.

Now, we all know that paint is not nearly as pourous as fabric, so the analogy is not perfect, but the logic still holds the same.

Heck, in our (American) Criminal Courts, we convict people (all the time) without a SHRED of direct evidence, relying solely on circumstantial facts.

[Mike Phillips]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

If WOWO doesn't work, someone needs to explain Meguiar's Ultimate Quick Detailer to me, which is clearly a WOWO product,

If you go back and read what I wrote, I specifically included the words waxes and paint sealants in every sentence on this topic. All quick detailers are mist and wipe-off products.

I knew someone would bring this up that's why if you re-read EVERYTHING I wrote, I specifically included the words wax and paint sealant in every sentence as it applies to this topic.

Check it out...

Again, if you want to wipe a wax or paint sealant on and then immediately wipe it off that's perfectly okay, I was just asking in anyone could define in detail how this method would maximize how this process would leave the most amount of protection ingredients on the surface and so far no one has.

[Orca]

Re: Dodo Juice Supernatural

So, if we examine both premises logically (or even circumstantially) we can ask ourselves which makes more sense? Do we come to a definitive, irrefutable conclusion? Absolutely not, however I think logic dictates that the WOWO method is LESS likely to leave behind protection than the Wax on, let dry and remove method.

You might well think that, but on the other hand I might not follow that logic and that's exactly what I was questioning in my musings above. When it is actually looked at logically, rather than with the presupposition that to WOWO will leave the product less likely to provide protection I think it is plausible that both methods could leave the same amount protection.

You either wipe on an amount of product, then wipe off, say, 99.9% of the product straight away then that leaves 0.1% of the application that has a chance to bond. Likewise, if you apply an amount of product and allow it to set ... and then remove 99.9% of the product once it has dried then the same amount of product is left on the surface. It is only the nano-thin layer that actually bonds to the paint and the rest is surplus, whether it is removed straight away or removed once dry - I don't find it at all logical that 0.1% of a product has any less chance of bonding at a nano level just because it is without a 99.9% sized dry layer sitting on top ... for any amount of time. In fact, logically, quite the opposite is plausable; that the cake of dry product might remove that final 0.1% thin layer in parts.

The fact of the matter is, Meguiars do not recommend a WOWO approach with their products because presumably their chemists have watched the action of the product and know it does not bond immediately and benefits from having the product sit ... and maybe have observed that a WOWO approach leaves patches bereft of product due to the nature of the product. The application method matches the behaviour of the product.

Again, how would we know what protection the product application has offered? By how long it lasts, maybe? By how big an object can be propelled at the paint without damaging it, perhaps? Or with what force? Again, how do we know how long protection lasts since we have not defined what we mean by "protection" and have not defined what we mean by the product offering said protection? We rely upon the rather unscientific approaches of beauty in the eye of the beholder, the feel of the paint, the "slickness" (whatever that is), how it beads, whether it has dulled ... against what baseline?

It is absolutely subjective, utterly unproven and in most cases you'll reapply a wax/sealant long before it is actually gone because you like to do so, or you have decided that one of your very subjective criteria for doing so has been met.

If you subscribe to the belief that there is more chance that more (surplus) product will be removed by WOWO than by allowing it to sit and then remove the dry surplus, then you will that will lead you to presuppose that WOWO is less effective at providing the best chances of condition where the final amount of product will bond and offer protection. If you don't not subscribe to that, then it is easy to believe that neither method has a better chance, but both provide an equal but different chance of providing that ideal condition. This leads us to conclusion that this game is far more an art than a science and one in which intangible variables, such as experience and skill come into play as equally as the competence of the product.