New Megs hybrid ceramic wax.

I ordered a bottle of the hybrid wax from Amazon, it will be here Monday.

I am excited to try this after being let down by beadmaker

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
I wonder if there were any surfactants left over from the APC that inhibited beading/sheeting of his tested product?. If not that was a bad showing for the Adams Spray Coating. If he would have washed them with Reset would some beading reappeared? Chemical resistance is normally where coatings stand out.
Click to expand...

I agree I was surprised by the test. I do wonder how results would be after a wash with Reset? I also think they should use a separate cloth to wipe each area. In case a certain product is removed and moved around to another test area.
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
I wonder if there were any surfactants left over from the APC that inhibited beading/sheeting of his tested product?. If not that was a bad showing for the Adams Spray Coating. If he would have washed them with Reset would some beading reappeared? Chemical resistance is normally where coatings stand out.
Click to expand...

Even with the hype, it appears bead maker gives insane gloss. Some of the highest. Perhaps should be called Glossmaker. Would be a great product to use before a car show.
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
I wonder if there were any surfactants left over from the APC that inhibited beading/sheeting of his tested product?. If not that was a bad showing for the Adams Spray Coating. If he would have washed them with Reset would some beading reappeared? Chemical resistance is normally where coatings stand out.
Click to expand...

I would bet that all 3 where coming back if used a wash with carpro reset or another coating friendly car soap. And what I have heard from some is that the Megs D101 is one that mask the water behavior a lot. Is very hard to be rinsed off too and even with a PW. And needs some kind of aggitations to be cleaned off the paint.

And one more thing I don`t like with these torture test. Is to use a chemical product that the LSP is not claimed to be holding up to. And both Megs products here is very high ph levels. Which are known to be harsh on the coating and all other LSP. Would be interesting to see how many washes it stands up to and use a TFR prewash that don`t get over ph11 when diluted and a tar remover and iron remover. With some washes in between the chemical products. So you can see if they holds up to the claims from the manufactures. The test here in Pans video even with wash in between you would only get proved that it don`t holds up to the high alkaline products. Which is what they don`t do. On full blow coatings it`s ph11-ph13 they resist up to and not above it. So these tests I don`t read into so much of the resistant to chemicals or longevity. And to add it`s not just the ph level that is hard to LSP. It`s the chemical they have in it that is what some LSP can not stand up to. For an example Citrol 266 which is known for being harsh on LSP has a ph level of 9-10. And many solvents is ph neutral and can wear on some LSP very much.
 
I agree with you Tony. These “torture” tests are not worth doing. Pan (if he has any integrity) should delete his video. He didn’t think that one through at all. Normally if it is one on Pan’s videos I will skip it anyway. He is one of the least reliable sources for detailing information out there.

Someone on AG pointed out my point about washing after using an APC to see if there was a difference and Pan replied “good point”. When I do a test I try to make sure what I am doing makes sense. If Adams Spray Coating in fact did not hold up to that “abuse” then it is not a very good coating. If I was Adams I would think about some sort of litigation to have Pan remove the video.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I don’t thing these torture test show real life degradation. Don’t mean much to meBut slamming him like that ain’t fair. Jimbo does them, I believe even loach does. Their just performing tests that some people might want to see. These are their opinions and practices. Jimbo in his same test only used water and MF to clean. Some if not a lot of pans, jimbo and loaches videos are informative and taught me a lot. I’m not a fan of Obsessed garage. A lot of people appreciate his commentary and videos. Not for me at all But I’m not gonna watch his videos just to slam him.... I’m just not gonna tune in. Everybody has a right to their opinions about people who put out commentary in public forums. They have just as much right to put them out even if we don’t agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
I agree with you Tony. These “torture” tests are not worth doing. Pan (if he has any integrity) should delete his video. He didn’t think that one through at all. Normally if it is one on Pan’s videos I will skip it anyway. He is one of the least reliable sources for detailing information out there.

Someone on AG pointed out my point about washing after using an APC to see if there was a difference and Pan replied “good point”. When I do a test I try to make sure what I am doing makes sense. If Adams Spray Coating in fact did not hold up to that “abuse” then it is not a very good coating. If I was Adams I would think about some sort of litigation to have Pan remove the video.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why should Pan remove the video just because a product didn`t perform well? It looks like he treated all three products the same way in the video so not sure what the problem is here. What reason would Adam`s have to consider litigation against Pan exactly?
 
RZJZA80 said:
Why should Pan remove the video just because a product didn`t perform well? It looks like he treated all three products the same way in the video so not sure what the problem is here. What reason would Adam`s have to consider litigation against Pan exactly?
Click to expand...

To be fair there’s no way of knowing whether or not the product actually performed well or not.

Pans video wasn’t nearly methodical enough to be taken seriously. Even a pro grade coating can have its water behavior severely impacted by a product that leaves surfactants behind.

I honestly expected more attention to detail in his torture test video. But a lot of those types of videos are the same.

Apex Detail neglects to cleanse surfactants off the surface as well to truly assess performance. You can see it happen in a few of his sealant videos - he’ll hit the panel with some degreasers and then claim he’s using IPA to remove the LSP further, only to remove the surfactants and restore some of the beading.

I think Waxmode is the only channel who actively mentions surfactants potentially clogging the paint, everyone else just ignores it.

I think legal action is a bit of a stretch for sure, but it’s definitely not a video I would be proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
finick said:
To be fair there’s no way of knowing whether or not the product actually performed well or not.

Pans video wasn’t nearly methodical enough to be taken seriously. Even a pro grade coating can have its water behavior severely impacted by a product that leaves surfactants behind.

I honestly expected more attention to detail in his torture test video. But a lot of those types of videos are the same.

Apex Detail neglects to cleanse surfactants off the surface as well to truly assess performance. You can see it happen in a few of his sealant videos - he’ll hit the panel with some degreasers and then claim he’s using IPA to remove the LSP further, only to remove the surfactants and restore some of the beading.

I think Waxmode is the only channel who actively mentions surfactants potentially clogging the paint, everyone else just ignores it.

I think legal action is a bit of a stretch for sure, but it’s definitely not a video I would be proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Believe me I`m no Pan fanboy, but my point was why litigation is brought up when he reviews a product and it doesn`t perform well, regardless of why it doesn`t perform well?
 
I am about to test this product (hybrid wax) in the middle of a Chicago winter. I feel that this will be a much better real world test in worst case conditions than any APC test would be.

I have been using P&S bead maker during the 1st half of this winter and not impressed at all with the protection and durability. The gloss and slickness right after application are great though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
RZJZA80 said:
Believe me I`m no Pan fanboy, but my point was why litigation is brought up when he reviews a product and it doesn`t perform well, regardless of why it doesn`t perform well?
Click to expand...

I’m totally with you on that, no doubt.

Was just kind of thinking out loud about my thoughts on torture tests in general lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
finick said:
...[the tester says]..he’s using IPA to remove the LSP further, only to remove the surfactants and restore some of the beading..
Click to expand...
I`d be surprised if IPA did much to strip any LSP and/but I`ve been told that it can "refresh" various LSPs that were compromised by something else. Somebody here (oh [snap] forget his username...he`s in the UK) once challenged me to drop a bit of wax into IPA and report back about how it didn`t dissolve/etc. He was 100% confident that IPA wouldn`t hurt it any, saying he`d run that test countless times with the same "no effect" result.

Back to you people who know from/care about coatings...just wanted to mention that.
 
Was that PipUK? IPA and wax/sealant removal is just stuck in people`s minds. A true panel wipe is the only chemical stripper that works to remove LSP`s and that could take multiple wipe downs depending on the LSP and how fresh it is.
 
EKhatch said:
Anybody seen Scott from DPC`s newest videos where it appears had has MSDS sheets with no mention of SIO2 listed in the product (for the US version)?

https://youtu.be/lfVMwLQTA_w

https://youtu.be/5snAL30uiAI
Click to expand...
Sensationalist drivel. Is he now the FTC, tasked with policing truth in advertising violations?

Woulda rather he stuck to a video of how the product works (or doesn`t). And doesn`t he sell/market his own product line, one of which is a SiO2 sealant?

If a product works for me, what its chemical makeup is strikes me as irrelevant.
 
BudgetPlan1 said:
Sensationalist drivel. Is he now the FTC, tasked with policing truth in advertising violations?

Woulda rather he stuck to a video of how the product works (or doesn`t). And doesn`t he sell/market his own product line, one of which is a SiO2 sealant?

If a product works for me, what its chemical makeup is strikes me as irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A rep from Megs already stated that he was looking at the wrong sheet anyway and that Megs would respond accordingly. Having a sheet that only reads water should tip you off though since they`re supposed to label anything that may be toxic.
 
I`ve been waiting for better weather to try some out but I agree. If it works for me that I don`t really care. It just struck me as odd that he would even go looking to call a company out like that. I have mixed feelings about him/his reviews of stuff.

I kind of screwed myself by buying a gallon each of some other products I need to burn through before getting even more stuff to try. lol
 
I think this product is aimed more at the casual spray and rinse user. I think the Mothers CMX is a better stand alone product.

I think Scott does make a valid point. If Megs is climing the product is such and such then it should have such and such in it. And he`s also right in that a lot of youtube and other testing methods are flawed.
 
Well I jumped on the “ceramic” band wagon last weekend. I did half my work truck in PB EX that I have been using for 15 years and the other in MHC. The only pros so far is applying the MHC to accessories is so much easier then EX. Used a rag to wipe it on my Ranchand bumpers and steps and it made that powder coating look great. I had a little rain shower yesterday. After it stopped when I hopped on the road the MHC side of my hood was water free at 40mph. The EX side didn’t blow off until 50-55mph.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top