Hmm...
- Thread starter ZaneO
- Start date
G35stilez
Ari Gold
ZaneO said:
Thank you.
The main reason I use whatever LSP I choose is for protection. I am a firm believer in 90% prep, 10% LSP.
I've felt this way for a long time to a certain degree, but with mulitple products on the same surface at the same time, it becomes much more evident. I know some people won't find anything revolutionary about this thought, but at the same time, there are other people who should put much more consideration into this idea.
Personally, I'd say 95%-97% prep and 3%-5% LSP.
Personally, I'd say 95%-97% prep and 3%-5% LSP.
G35stilez
Ari Gold
ZaneO said:
I can agree with that to a certain extent...mainly on certain paint colors.
On black or red, I notice a little more enhancement.
There can be significant differences between lsps in terms of appearance, and not necessarily between carnauba based products vs. synthetics. I once was under the illusion that all waxes and/or all synthetics would yeild similar results.
You will need to do comparisons between lsps (granted I am assuming that you didn't layer one lsp on top of another....if you did then you may not actually see a clear difference) under varying lighting situations, and see what the different responses will be in terms of range of reflection, color sharpness and clarity.
I've observed some waxes (or toppers) that seemed very glossy and wet, but shallow in terms of the range and clearness of depth of reflection. On the other hand, there have been some lsp's that may not have been the wettest in terms of gloss (grease, fat, plastic wrappings...etc), but the sharpness and range of reflection would literally make the paint animated. There are also some lsps that seem to be excellent in promoting vibrant color and metallic flake, as opposed to other lsps.
The differences between lsps are there, but it takes more than a point blank glance to notice it.
Prep is the foundation, of course, to a good finish. An outstanding lsp can, however, make a significant difference between itself and other competing lsps. It isn't IMO a 90 to 10 percent ratio as I've seen it. It can be more like a 60 to 40 (I'll even concede 70 to 30 percent; some paint finishes are outstanding right out of the box!) difference with the right methods and lsp.
You will need to do comparisons between lsps (granted I am assuming that you didn't layer one lsp on top of another....if you did then you may not actually see a clear difference) under varying lighting situations, and see what the different responses will be in terms of range of reflection, color sharpness and clarity.
I've observed some waxes (or toppers) that seemed very glossy and wet, but shallow in terms of the range and clearness of depth of reflection. On the other hand, there have been some lsp's that may not have been the wettest in terms of gloss (grease, fat, plastic wrappings...etc), but the sharpness and range of reflection would literally make the paint animated. There are also some lsps that seem to be excellent in promoting vibrant color and metallic flake, as opposed to other lsps.
The differences between lsps are there, but it takes more than a point blank glance to notice it.
Prep is the foundation, of course, to a good finish. An outstanding lsp can, however, make a significant difference between itself and other competing lsps. It isn't IMO a 90 to 10 percent ratio as I've seen it. It can be more like a 60 to 40 (I'll even concede 70 to 30 percent; some paint finishes are outstanding right out of the box!) difference with the right methods and lsp.
lbls1 said:
How did I know you'd chime in :bubba
I'm glad your eyes see what they do and that you're happy with what you do with your finish. Unfortunately, I must not have that gift, and I think it would take an extremely trained eye to locate the different areas on my car.
I have looked at the finish under halogens, flourescents, sunlight (at different times of day), etc. The differences are minimal.
That may be the case if you are telling me that this was the result in terms of your car. But I definitely would not generalize that case for all lsp's, because I have experienced differences in finish results between competing waxes and synthetic lsps.
It has nothing to do with the trained eye. You do have to examine and record the finishes under different settings, to get a feel of the results.
Bright lights and close range shots, as I've seen it, won't really bring you as much of a comparision as opposed to natural lighting and outdoor long range reflective angles.
It has nothing to do with the trained eye. You do have to examine and record the finishes under different settings, to get a feel of the results.
Bright lights and close range shots, as I've seen it, won't really bring you as much of a comparision as opposed to natural lighting and outdoor long range reflective angles.
SVR
Dream Machines
G35stilez said:
Well until I found Jeffs stuff that's how I was
Sure the sealers protect but I want them to add something to the finish as well which prime acrylic and A jett trigger do so brilliantly
Heck.......I don't think some of us put enough emphasis on lsp's in terms of importance....but of course I'm biased on this subject.
But I do think that it is equally important to properly maintain your finish with good methodology and proven products. There are a lot of differences, besides appearance, between lsp's. However, it is also important to use products that bring the results that you expect. Once you achieve your expected results, then the differences may not matter (but they do exist if you really examine the results).
But I do think that it is equally important to properly maintain your finish with good methodology and proven products. There are a lot of differences, besides appearance, between lsp's. However, it is also important to use products that bring the results that you expect. Once you achieve your expected results, then the differences may not matter (but they do exist if you really examine the results).
wannafbody
wannafbody
On my navy blue bettallic I can see slight differences between products. The same products on pewter look identicle. I was surprised when I viewed my car from above today and the differences between 2 different products on it were almost nonexistant. The point is that the difference between 2 different products can be almost imperceivable unless you are comparing 2 different products directly to each other. In those cases one might make metal flake pop more and another might have more depth.
harry444
New member
I can see a difference on my red car between LSP different products just give it a different look I am using PB NB right now and once in a while I will put just regular Natty's on and I can see the difference right away.
cwcad
New Normal
Having spent the last winter doing tests of different products on my Black truck I can honestly say that the appearance of the paint in my eyes was only slightly noticeably different in just one test. That particular product made just a slightly noticeable darkening of my paint.
A well prepped paint surface will afford fine results to almost any LSP that I have used.
Now if we were to take to task other properties such as slickness, ease of use, or durability I would definitely have other opinions.
A well prepped paint surface will afford fine results to almost any LSP that I have used.
Now if we were to take to task other properties such as slickness, ease of use, or durability I would definitely have other opinions.
mgm2003
New member
"Now if we were to take to task other properties such as slickness, ease of use, or durability I would definitely have other opinions."
Well said CW. I agree.:yay :yay :yay
I didn't realize a visual "to the eye" difference in LSP, until I started looking at photo archives.
Granted, the pictures aren't taken on the same day, same sun, etc.
BUT.....
I can see a noticeable difference many of the rides that I've prepped in similar fashion.
Regardless,
I think you get the most bang for your buck in prep -no doubt about that.
Well said CW. I agree.:yay :yay :yay
I didn't realize a visual "to the eye" difference in LSP, until I started looking at photo archives.
Granted, the pictures aren't taken on the same day, same sun, etc.
BUT.....
I can see a noticeable difference many of the rides that I've prepped in similar fashion.
Regardless,
I think you get the most bang for your buck in prep -no doubt about that.
wannafbody
wannafbody
mgm2003 said:
Looking a photos and trying to determine differences is not accurate IMO. Different lighting conditions, camera settings, etc. can skew the results. The only accurate way to compare the looks of products is to visually compare them side by side. Even vehicle curves from panel to panel and paint variances (fbody plastic vs steel panels) can somewhat skew results. Also it helps to view your test panels from various angles.
G35stilez
Ari Gold
wannafbody said:
Plastic vs. steel? Please do explain.
You can use photos WITH live comparisons to determine different results, because (unless you really have a "trained eye" like some connoisseurs...that hard to spell word again.... or Pebble Beach judges), differences in reflective range can be hard to judge at a first glance. It is better to observe waxes & lsps on sizeable panels (not swatches or little boxes...ridiculous) to see the lsp characteristics. Live comparisons will give you the true feel of the wax, and you should know which wax does it for you in person. Long range reflections can get vividly recorded with excellent digital photos, and it will back up your first impression that you witnessed live.
Also, be careful if your car's body panels are made of a combination of materials (like yours truly...plastic vs. steel), because different materials will have varying finish characteristics. Try to make sure that the lsps will go on adjacent panels. Side by side hood comparisons are good, but its harder to judge range looking at it from point blank, so the hood and fender vs. its mirroring side would be better.
Also, be careful if your car's body panels are made of a combination of materials (like yours truly...plastic vs. steel), because different materials will have varying finish characteristics. Try to make sure that the lsps will go on adjacent panels. Side by side hood comparisons are good, but its harder to judge range looking at it from point blank, so the hood and fender vs. its mirroring side would be better.
G35stilez
Ari Gold
lbls1 said:
Plastic vs. steel, please explain how these bases that have primer, paint, and clear on them can still look different (minus OP).
G35stilez said:
Steel panels (at least on fbodies) will have a smoother texture that can give a clearer reflection, whereas the composite panel tends to have a more rough texture, much more of an orange peel effect. When you observe angled shots of a car that has a sheetmetal rear quarter and a composite door, you can see that the sheetmetal will appear to have a smoother reflection. Primer and paint covers the color, but not the inherent texture of the material, and when you have clear paint (especially in black) you will see the texture of the material translate into the paint surface.
Now not so fast............sometimes shapes will also make paint textures look different. The front fenders of 4th gen fbodies are also composite, yet their texture is smoother than the doors. It is still different than the rear quarters, but the difference can be seen.
And just when you've figured things out, here comes the plastic hood (Super Sport, WS6, Firehawk, aftermarket knock-offs), which can have its own texture that looks different than the composite panels. My hood, for example, is much smoother in appearance than the doors. The hood, however, is made of fiberglass, as opposed to the composite plastic material of the fenders and doors.
