Preparing Shampoo.....Why Dont You Want Suds?

3

3browns

New member
I have read the excellent articles by Accumulator and Superbee on their tried and true "NO MARRING" wash methods and among other things they both agree that when you mix your shampoo and water that suds are a no-no. I have seen a couple of washing videos on Youtube and they stress this same point.



Why?



I used to use high suds as a criteria for picking a shampoo, thinking that the more suds the better.



Now with the advent of new technology (ONR) it seems that buzz words like "encapsulating" and "suspension" are the hot ticket.



Whats wrong with good old suds? :confused:



Michael
 
My suggestion is that you do some reading on surfactant chemistry if you want real answers.



Long story short, surfactants in solution tend to crowd the air/water interface. Seeing as suds/bubbles create a high surface area situation, more suds means less surfactant in solution.



I can't say this for certain as I don't know what surfactants are in them, but my guess is that ONR and the other "encapsulation" type washes probably utilize a subclass of surfactants known as dispersants. Dispersants are often block copolymer type surfactants and lend themselves more toward particle encapsulation than traditional anionic or cationic surfactants. These molecules are less prone to crowding the air water interface and thus tend to foam less.



In reality its very hard to equate whether the presence or absence of suds will equate to any performance increase. My guess is that people like how some of the less foamy products have performed for them and they've just come to equate the low foam levels with the high performance.
 
^^^WTF? I guess I should have listened in class....or school all together cause your post 87 just made my head hurt. LOL
 
I keep the suds down so I can get enough water in the bucket. I also like to see my wash water. I usually fill the bucket with water first, then add the shampoo and mix the water around in the bucket a little.
 
MobileJay said:
^^^WTF? I guess I should have listened in class....or school all together cause your post 87 just made my head hurt. LOL
Click to expand...





Sorry about that. I guess what I was trying to say is that when you have a lot of suds most of your shampoo ends up in those suds leaving less of it in your wash watter. So by having an excess of suds your depleting the amount of shampoo in your wash water which leads to less lubrication during washing and more scratching.
 
87ninefiveone said:
Sorry about that. I guess what I was trying to say is that when you have a lot of suds most of your shampoo ends up in those suds leaving less of it in your wash watter. So by having an excess of suds your depleting the amount of shampoo in your wash water which leads to less lubrication during washing and more scratching.
Click to expand...



This all makes sense when you start thinking about it. I guess I still think of car shampoo in the same terms I think of dish soap.



Thanks for the chemistry refresher!



I have some ONR on the way and this helps me understand how it does the voodoo it does!



Michael
 
Yeah....I don't even like much sudsing from my foamgun. I keep posting "foamgun output" instead of "foam" for this reason, though I'm not sure anybody takes note of it.



87ninefiveone- I liked that explanation :xyxthumbs
 
I can't stand sudsless soap. Drives me nuts. But hey, I've always been told that suds act like the Knapp of a terry cloth. Dirt is removed from the surface and carried away in the suds and not left on the surface to create marring.
 
mborner said:
I can't stand sudsless soap. Drives me nuts. But hey, I've always been told that suds act like the Knapp of a terry cloth. Dirt is removed from the surface and carried away in the suds and not left on the surface to create marring.
Click to expand...



And just like the idea that dirt travels up into the nap, I don't know if the suds contribute anything *real* when it comes right down to it.



I like nap/plushness in my wash media but not because of any migration the dirt might do up into said nap; I just don't believe that happens and I've never seen any evidence that it does to a significant extent. Rather, *IMO*, the nap provides voids into which the dirt might temporarily go as opposed to being constantly pressed against the paint. From those voids it can more easily be flushed away too. But I don't believe the dirt travels far from the surface of the paint.



Note that when I do my washes "right" (scare-quotes intentional as I mean "right for me"), dirt doesn't go up into my wash media. I can tell because my rinse bucket is almost completely free of dirt at the end of a wash, even when the vehicle was utterly filthy.



Your thinking that the suds make the dirt "ride up off the paint on the bubbles", right? I *think* that's more a matter of encapsulation and not really dependent on the sudsy bubbles....but I could be wrong.



Hmmm...I believe it was David B who posted something on this a while back, and I can *almost* remember him saying that the suds *did* provide some kind of benefit :think: Perhaps it's a matter of degree :nixweiss



And FWIW, *I* like seeing a bit of sudsing too :D A completely "flat" wash solution, or at least one that stayed that way 100% on the panels, would probably put me off too. Those bubbles *do* have a psychologically appealing aspect, whether or not they really do anything positive. Kinda like beading, huh?
 
Thanks to all for their take on this.



I kind of agree that some suds are psychologically reassuring. It would feel really weird to wash with "flat" water.



Its just like pouring Woolite into the soap dispenser on the front loader when I wash a load of MFs.



I know if I put in more than half a cap I am going to have to run 2 complete cycles to get all the foam out, even with a vinegar rinse; but, I just cant bring myself to put in that tiny bit of soap that will clean without foam because I just KNOW it cant possibly be enough to get them clean.



Probably some deep seated childhood psychosis brought on by being forced to eat lima beans. :sadpace:



Michael
 
Laundry detergents are a bit of a different situation from car washes. As noted people like seeing foam in cash wash shampoo's. On the other hand, foam is unnecessary and detrimental to performance in a washing machine. The reason that laundry detergents, or dish washing machine detergents for that matter, don't foam is because they've had an antifoam agent added to them.



Suds aren't necessary for cleaning. It's the attraction of the surfactant to both the water and the grime that allows dirt to be washed away. The suds are simply a side effect.
 
wannafbody said:
IMO nothing but in and of themselves they really don't do anything. Lubricity is key.
Click to expand...



Yeah, my feeling, too. However, I don't care for shampoos that are completely "flat" and without any sudsing. To some extent, I see the foam acting as a "tracer" to show that a panel has been completely covered. I sometimes have issues with this when using soaps that are foamless.



I try to draw a correlation between in this foam vs. no foam scenario in terms of lube oil in your engine: Is it desirable to have foamy engine oil :confused: Lubricity IS the key :)
 
There are 3 factors to cleaning

Time

Temperature

Agitation

Each of these factors improve cleaning efficiency when expanded

Foam will give the product more contact time Which results in better cleaning with out a lot of agitation & higher temperature.
 
Poordude said:
There are 3 factors to cleaning

Time

Temperature

Agitation

Each of these factors improve cleaning efficiency when expanded

Foam will give the product more contact time Which results in better cleaning with out a lot of agitation & higher temperature.
Click to expand...



This brings up another question I have been kicking around for a while.



Temperature.



I live on well water that is VERY cold. I will usually go into the house and fill my wash and rinse buckets with warm water in the tub, but sometimes when my back or shoulder are acting up I will simply fill from the hose in the driveway.



It seems to me that shampoo works better with warm water, or is that my imagination?
 
Suds or foam doesn't necessarily mean more cleaning power. Old traditional cleaners are associated with cleaning with foam, however today suds are meant more for indication of coverage of the cleaning solution. Also having a tremendous amount of suds isn't beneficial, if you are in a high sun environment rinsing such suds creates a problem.



Ditto on the benefit of dwell time according to Poordude's analysis.
 
Having a background in the factory food world the time, temperature, agitation information mentioned in previous posts is excellent and a standard for us.



We do have several types of cleaners some are foam specific to help lift loose materials off (similar to foaming a car before scrubbing) and other s that are aggressive cleaners that how little to no foam.



That being said I once had a part-time job at a touchless car wash and it was explained to me that low foam low pressure soaps were for cleaning and low and high pressure high foaming soaps were for customer visual satisfaction and to aid them if they do run a wash mitt over the surface of the car.



So I guess there can be a little of both in car shampoos and it is simply a matter of how it is designed to remove dirt.



Personally I like seeing some bubbles so I can track my movements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top