Detailing products broken down (Third Party)

The issue here burlyq is where the value is added by the vendor.



If the vendor adds the formula design, often using his own chemist, and therefore impacts the application, quality, gloss, reflectivity, etc. then I think he has done well. Poorboys and Zaino to name 2 examples fall into this category.



If the vendor takes existing product and resells it under a new brand, then I don't think much value has been added.



The implication that every detail vendor rebrands is simply factually incorrect and takes away from a meaningful discussion on the quality of products.
 
Burlyq said:
Anyhow, for those interested I came across this link breaking down some myths about detailing products. I make no claims about the valadity, just thought the article was interesting.



http://www.moderncarcare.com/Articles/331deta1.html
Click to expand...



Nice article, but it didn't really get into enough specifics to be more than general knowledge. In fact , IMO this article may have set off a kind of time-bomb. This article also is strangely eclectic in its organization structure... it mixes fact on Carnauba wax with sealant facts. It will lead the reader to be confused over what qualities of what TYPE product is being discussed/analyzed. What is not said is what chemicals are or are not used in specific product group/types.... to be really useful, there should have been a chart detailing uses or potential usage in different applications, IMHO. Another glaring omission is the fact that a system of products can and does utilize different emphasis on differing aspects of chemical properties in a "synergistic manner". :xyxthumbs



In other words the sum of all the products (each with a different emphasis) might equal the maximum array of qualities possible in a particular chemical category. The article although simple and "straightforward", might be a little too simple to be more than misleading. :xyxthumbs



There is great room in "simple" chemistry to innovate, and innovation is evident in many products offered today. (do not forget that todays complex computer programs are based on simple "on/off" binary code, combinations are endlessly possible) The Zaino system is one that certainly defies the oversimplification and "snake oil sales pitchman-ship" insinuations of the author IMHO. It mentioned amino-functional silicones, but never did more than glance over the subject.... with all the debates over product, I wonder if this is a real service to the reader/detailer/enthusiast? In the end, this "break down" may just wind up feeding confusion.:nixweiss
 
SilverLexus said:
The implication that every detail vendor rebrands is simply factually incorrect and takes away from a meaningful discussion on the quality of products.
Click to expand...

Nice post Lee. I have always gotten discernable perofrmances between all of the different compounds, polishes, and sealants that I have tried.
 
that was an interesting read-I've always suspected that most swirl removers are pretty much the same thing- as for LSP's if the article is correct the more amino functional silicones(resins?) the better?
 
SilverLexus said:
...If the vendor adds the formula design, often using his own chemist, and therefore impacts the application, quality, gloss, reflectivity, etc. then I think he has done well. Poorboys and Zaino to name 2 examples fall into this category.
Click to expand...



What exactly are you trying to infer? Zaino resells someone else's formula, only they modify it? Do you know something we don't?
 
the review biography for Blackfire lists a chemical company in germany that makes aproximately 3000 polymers. in essance only a handful of companies manufacture the base polymer products and the final product is mixed either by a large chemical company or a smaller micro-specialty-manufacturer. very few specialty wax lines have the resources to build their own manufacturing plants(and those that do probably private label for someone else as well). so 2 similar products can come out of the same plant with slightly different formulas and private labels.
 
wannafbody said:
the review biography for Blackfire lists a chemical company in germany that makes aproximately 3000 polymers. in essance only a handful of companies manufacture the base polymer products and the final product is mixed either by a large chemical company or a smaller micro-specialty-manufacturer. very few specialty wax lines have the resources to build their own manufacturing plants(and those that do probably private label for someone else as well). so 2 similar products can come out of the same plant with slightly different formulas and private labels.
Click to expand...



The only flaw to this type of thinking is this: An Example: If I go to a supermarket, and buy a variety of spices, the chance that I will wind up with a similar tasting dish as someone else who has purchased the same spices is staggeringly small. Just as in consumer electronics, the investment for new innovations is very high, much capital is needed to develop a device. As you stated correctly. There is within each chemical family, a wide variance of characteristics. That being said, there is a wide choice as to how to apply these substances with different qualities. The expertise of a company in organizing these properties is the value added to these products.



Many "micro" or, "boutique" companies employ thier own chemists to tweak these compounds. Does this use of primary ingredients invalidate or make hype the development of a new combination of chemicals, NO ! Whether one cooks on the atomic level or on the molecular level, the chemistry employed can make a huge difference in the characteristics of a product. In this world today, there are few products which are not controlled by licensing, or patent, or even cost. Yes, it is possible that 2 companies might make a similar product, but where is the competitive edge then? :nixweiss
 
This was posted by Steve on the other detailing forum:

"Yesterday we unloaded the shipment and it looks like EX ..it smells like EX: but it's definitely a little thinner in consistantcy and a litle lighter in color....

We began shipping today and distributors will have it within a few days"



It sounds to me like Steve is involved very little in his product development. You would think that he would have at a minimum received samples in advance and would know the characteristics of the changes well in advance before the product was unloaded by him or his employees.
 
I'm not saying that 2 products are the exact same but rather that the base product is very similar between many of these products- EXAMPLE- both Mobil 1 and Amsoil use (from what I've read) the same synthetic base stock for their oils but each has their own proprietary formula of additives. as a result one oil consistantly scores higher for heat resistance, length of service and wear.
 
OK, I buy that ! As long as we can agree that using a common base does not mean there is no innovation occurring in the industry, which is the basic argument of the article. The sheer number of potential combinations of chemical components alone reveals the inherent error involved. I think the article was lacking, objectively speaking (IMHO). Our choices and qualities of sealants have come a long way over the years, and the improvements continue presently.... The oversimplification of the issue of obtaining increasing quality by professional selection and mixing/tweaking of component chemicals is mind boggling. Then there is the issue of "synergistic-ally" combining products systemically which is another argument altogether that shows much more is possible ....:xyxthumbs



EDIT: Another thing that I meant to mention is that certain cleaner/degreasers incorporate a molecular approach to cleaning that induce repulsion between particles producing a colloidal suspension as a cleaning method... nothing is as simple as the article implies... there are many advanced products which were not categorized within this piece.:nixweiss
 
SilverLexus said:
The issue here burlyq is where the value is added by the vendor.

The implication that every detail vendor rebrands is simply factually incorrect and takes away from a meaningful discussion on the quality of products.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intention to stir the pot, I just thought of this article as a general statement about detailing products. I didn't think anyone would translate this article into some of the recent arguments about companies and products. Not every one of my posts is about rebranding, and I didn't want to imply anything by posting that article. I didn't even read the article that closely, maybe I should have, it seams to imply something I didn't see.:shocked
 
It was a nice article and explained the basic chemistry behind the types of products, but there is much more involved than mixing component A, B and C. Many products may contain the same type of component, but there are many variables in the quality of the components that can make one finished product better than an other. :)
 
94Blkstang said:
Many products may contain the same type of component, but there are many variables in the quality of the components that can make one finished product better than an other. :)
Click to expand...



That was what the article should have said ! I think the article was good until conclusions were drawn.... The stuff about "Hype" really bothers me because I remember that not so long ago, polymers were not so advanced. If the article had said that "much further product development could still be accomplished", I would not be concerned.:xyxthumbs
 
RIC said:
This was posted by Steve on the other detailing forum:

"Yesterday we unloaded the shipment and it looks like EX ..it smells like EX: but it's definitely a little thinner in consistantcy and a litle lighter in color....

We began shipping today and distributors will have it within a few days"
Click to expand...



What comes after the ...?



I have a feeling he already knew how it looked and smelled and was just letting others know what to expect. Do you have a link so I can see the context it was mentioned in?
 
"It sounds to me like Steve is involved very little in his product development."



This is not true based on my experience. Steve works very closely with his chemist to create the product.
 
Are confusing terms here....



Private labeling vs toll processing....



Private labeling involves using someone elses recipe and resources to manufacture a product. Yes you can have input for tweaking color, fragrance, and other things, but the more you change from the "standard offering" the more money it will cost, especially if the quanitities are not large.



Toll Processing is when you have your own formulation but don't have the means to manufacture so another company does this for you. Brewery's are a prime example.....the large american brewerys actually brew a lot of the microbrews that you see out there, but these are unique recipe's for a particular brand. All the manufacturer is doing is making the product so the customers specifications. Oh and it is typical even for manufactuers to purchase ingredients from other companys or suppliers. Relating this to the detailing industry......come on now, no one makes their own polymers....they are purchased from Chemical companys and added to a formulation.....



Developing a new product from scratch takes a lot of time and money. The easy way out is to just private label and one can have a dozen products under there belt very quickly if they are new to the game. If you noticed there are a lot of new players in the game recently.





As for Zaino, it was first developed back in the 80's and the only offering was the sealant. Yrs after the other products were developed one by one and added to the offering. T he last few new products added (Z8, ZFX,etc) were yrs in the making and testing. Rumors were out on ZFX over 2-3 yrs ago when a small group of testers were working with Sal to perfect the product. What makes me think that Zaino is a unique product, is because I have not found anything else that works the same...have you?
 
"Toll Processing is when you have your own formulation but don't have the means to manufacture so another company does this for you."



My point all along has been that I don't care if Steve at Poorboy's uses some else to manufacture, as long as we are getting a good "formula" from his chemist we will have a great product. Zaino is a bit bigger so they may make their own.



I just think it is insidious to assume that vendors/designers are not adding value.



"Developing a new product from scratch takes a lot of time and money."



Steve told me that Spray & Wipe went through 23 iterations. It shows in the quality of that product. ExP+, Wheel Sealant, and SSR2.5 all went through multiple testing. Todd and I and others here tested an early sample of Wheel Sealant. It works better than AIO on alloys in my experience.



I also wonder about the Chemical Guys involvement...how do we know that they make all the polymers for everyone? Aren't there other polymer mfrs?



"What makes me think that Zaino is a unique product, is because I have not found anything else that works the same...have you?"



No, but I have not found anything like Nattys, Souveran, EXP, P21S, etc. either. It is clear to me that there are discernible and unique differences in most of the boutique products.
 
I am by no means an expert but don't most polymers come from crude oil? so the largest manufactures would be the large oil refiners?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top