Is blackfire sealant abrasive? [tried search]

I

imported_carnut00

New member
Thats alllll I want to know.



When I detailed my car i did



3M SMR

Blackfire Polish

Blackfire Sealant

Blitz Wax (multiple passes)



and recently I did 1 coat of Blackfire sealant over the Blitz. I was happy with the results but just want to know if it will be removing some blitz? I will goahead and continue adding more layers of blitz or blackfire... but just wanted to know for sure.
 
in ur pal geekysteve's tests, he found BF paint sealant to be more abrasive than a swirl remover (meguiars #9 2.0 which is mild imo).
 
First of all you can not apply BF protectant over any carnuaba. It will not bond properly. You should either de-wax or use the BF polish first.

Second BF protectant is not abrasive in my experience with it as a topper over Zaino. I also tested it on one of my classics ( non clearcoats finish) in a hidden spot to see if it would discolor the applicator (true sign of car paint abrasiveness). No color was detected or surface marring which tells me that it is not abrasive ( results identical to my previous test of Z2 and Z5). The BF polish, which I did not need, probably and should be abrasive since it is a surface prep product.

DO YOUR OWN TEST. Find something in the house that has cured paint or go to the junk yard and purchase a panel and perform this test ( this can be your test bed for future products that you may purchase also). From a test done last year Zaino was completely trashed. Why? Bad product? False claims? No, user errors. The product was tested improperly. The test system did not follow directions. On purpose, of course not, but the mis-information spread like wildfire. After re-testing using Zaino properly the results reflected the hype. Best of the rest. :xyxthumbs

Personal experiece negates any agendas, faulty testing procedures and biases that may be presented from unknown ( internet, magazines, TV, etc) sources. :wavey
 
Are you saying that you did not have an agenda when you wrote your comments?



Come on, everyone has an "agenda" for doing anything. Personal experience negates nothing if the testing is not done with a level of experience and knowledge. Anyone can evaluate a product using any methods they want but all that does is provide for yet another result. It proves nothing if it was not done using some kind of emperical method.
 
AlBoston said:
in ur pal geekysteve's tests, he found BF paint sealant to be more abrasive than a swirl remover (meguiars #9 2.0 which is mild imo).
Click to expand...



Where's it say that? I doesn't talk about that in the Blackfire section.
 
I think the "test" that Al is talking about is this one, which I posted on Autopia earlier this week: here



BlkZ28 - I'm the guy who founded thewaxtest.com, which is the site that had the initial problems with Zaino. We learned from our mistakes and wholey and completely owned-up to the mistakes.



I have no agendas other than to figure out which products work best for me & the Wax Test crew. When I first published the website in October of 2001 & mentioned it at roadfly.com, the next thing I knew, 90,000+ people were visiting our site and treating the test as gospel. Despite the disclaimers and all of the notes that we put up, people kept referring to us as "the authorities". We still get dozens of e-mails per day from people wanting to know which product to use on their cars...my answer is: "Use what you like. Take our test for what it's worth, and experiment on your own."



I did the abrasive test on BF because I was curious as to why BF beads at first, then sheets, and then clings water. My theory proved correct (imo). As you know, pure, fresh paint will bead water like crazy - without any wax. As it is abraded and degraded, the beads grow larger and eventually the water starts to sheet & cling.



Once we break even on our Wax Test report we'll be sending numerous products to a lab for composition analysis. We'll include this info in our next report -- I think everyone will be surprised at what is in the "non-abrasive" products...
 
geekysteve said:
Once we break even on our Wax Test report we'll be sending numerous products to a lab for composition analysis. We'll include this info in our next report -- I think everyone will be surprised at what is in the "non-abrasive" products...
Click to expand...



Will the next report be free or do need to shell out some money to get the results. Sorry it jusy sounds like a sales pitch.:nixweiss
 
It will cost money, but we're trying to do everything we can to get the price down. You would not believe how expensive it is to print a magazine - I don't want to go into the details, and I know we should have done an e-book, but that's beyond my control...publisher wanted to do print, so that's what they went with. :)
 
Andre' said:




Will the next report be free or do need to shell out some money to get the results. Sorry it jusy sounds like a sales pitch.:nixweiss
Click to expand...



actually u have it backwards, if it was free it would be a sales pitch. Then u know the companies would be funding the test making it biased. Think about it.
 
bretfraz said:
Are you saying that you did not have an agenda when you wrote your comments?



Come on, everyone has an "agenda" for doing anything. Personal experience negates nothing if the testing is not done with a level of experience and knowledge. Anyone can evaluate a product using any methods they want but all that does is provide for yet another result. It proves nothing if it was not done using some kind of emperical method.
Click to expand...



Bretfraz, So true.

Here is my agenda for spending time here at Autopia.

To learn.. Period.

Not to ridicule a bad product, but state its faults.

Not to over hype a good product, but state its benefits.

Not to re-state hear-say or parrot some opinion I read.

Not to ridicule someone stepping outside the lines of normal protocol.

And the most important agenda is to enjoy this venture for the ultimate detailed car(s) and discussions concerning such.

:wavey



In terms of car detailing experimentation, empirical testing is only meaningful if it applies to the question involved. A good example of this is the testing of a product abrasiveness on CD's. A product that claims to be non-abrasive but abrases a CD. This same product causes no abrasions to a car's finish. Conclusion, this product has abrasives. Could it be we are using the literal definition of abrasiveness verses the implied meaning for the product and its proper usage. Which is that the product is non-abrasive to a car's finish. IMO this CD test is improper usage and testing of the product in question, which results in a erroneous conclusions and fuels ideas about the quality and truthfulness of Product X. This empirical testing unfairly demonizes Product X. I may be wrong but absolute non-abrasiveness is not the question but abrasiveness to a car finish is.:nixweiss
 
good point. my experience is in electronics. let's just say that there are only so many manufacturing plants that make VCR's (even fewer lately). there are a lot more silk screening plants than that. there are also entities that purposefully invest in R&D then contract with a manufacturer in a successful effort to reduce per unit costs. it would not be in the designer/manufacturers' best interest to publicize this either. but, it does pass the savings on to the consumer on a product that might never had come to market to be enjoyed. they might be a little bit different so that there is a difference. but, the brain and organs are all the same.



another example is cables. those machines are very expensive. a designer does the R&D & places order to manufacturer. there are only so many ways that these machines can extrude metals. so, no matter what crazy design is thought up, it must be able to be mass produced.



1.these are only EXAMPLES of what is reality in another industry. it does not mean this applies here. but, the possibility exists. a lot of you have already figured out the deal with MF's.



2.this does not mean it is a bad thing and there is valid cause for them to compete. competition promotes more R&D and better products. (hey, what happened to the good Coke formula anyway?)



3.i was just reading all of the platinum tests and reviews and thought i was reading BF reviews. that's what's on my truck. no biggie to me. if it is the same thing now i have two sources to purchase from. example: P100 & P21S. there more than one way to think outside the box, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top