This property is mentioned in every coating description and/or review. Why is this so important that everybody talks about it? What are the advantages of a product having a lot of slickness? If I don`t plan on caressing the surface of my car, why should I care? Is it just about the application and wipe off?
slickness
- Thread starter DownSouth
- Start date
hawaiidude
Member
This probably can be answered better by others but from experience, the more "slick" the coating, the less stuff will be able to stay on it. Obviously it helps with keeping the paint clean but also helps with longevity of the coating because contaminants cannot stay on the paint.
I went off roading after ceramic coating my truck. The mud slicked right off. Didn`t look like I was in the mud at all...
I went off roading after ceramic coating my truck. The mud slicked right off. Didn`t look like I was in the mud at all...
Stokdgs
dansautodetailing.com
I believe it is a little of both - how "slick" does the paintwork feel after the product dries and cures, and of course, how much stuff sticks to it when it is back out in the real world for awhile..
And the best of the two will always be how much stuff "sticks" to the paintwork for me..
Years ago when Optimum had been out for a little while, I applied it to my personal black, Grand Cherokee; after curing, drove it through rain sleet, and snow, just to get out of the Pacific Northwest (1,000 miles), and then the next 2,000 miles to get to the part of Texas where my Parents and siblings lived..
When I got to the end of this 3,000 mile trip, my black Jeep looked perfect, it did not even really need a wash.. Except for the bugs that hit your windshield, etc..
Had a full front clearbra on it so the front was also very nice and clean and of course, the paint was and still is perfect underneath it..
Now That was some great "slickness" if there ever was !
Dan F
And the best of the two will always be how much stuff "sticks" to the paintwork for me..
Years ago when Optimum had been out for a little while, I applied it to my personal black, Grand Cherokee; after curing, drove it through rain sleet, and snow, just to get out of the Pacific Northwest (1,000 miles), and then the next 2,000 miles to get to the part of Texas where my Parents and siblings lived..
When I got to the end of this 3,000 mile trip, my black Jeep looked perfect, it did not even really need a wash.. Except for the bugs that hit your windshield, etc..
Had a full front clearbra on it so the front was also very nice and clean and of course, the paint was and still is perfect underneath it..
Now That was some great "slickness" if there ever was !
Dan F
Setec Astronomy
Well-known member
Honestly, I think a lot of the fascination with slickness is the transformation from taking an uncared for car, claying it, polishing it, and applying sealant or wax, and feeling the difference to the paint when you "caress" it. That was kind of the magic of finding a forum like this and learning a lot and applying that knowledge.
But on a practical level, as has been stated, there is the "self-cleaning" aspect and the knowledge that if your car still feels slick, your paint protection is still doing its job.
But on a practical level, as has been stated, there is the "self-cleaning" aspect and the knowledge that if your car still feels slick, your paint protection is still doing its job.
Self-cleaning for me. Slick paint is nice but not having stuff stick to the paint…priceless.
Take a popular coating such as CQuartz UK 3, it isn’t a very slick coating. But it is quite slick when you add a layer of SiC on top.
Now the question is, does that really translate to less stuff sticking to the paint? I don’t know that I’ve personally seen a long term test of that such as half the car one-way and the other half another. I have seen such a test with various toppers to see how dust sticks but not quite the same as how a slick coating improves things. Would be an interesting test.
Take a popular coating such as CQuartz UK 3, it isn’t a very slick coating. But it is quite slick when you add a layer of SiC on top.
Now the question is, does that really translate to less stuff sticking to the paint? I don’t know that I’ve personally seen a long term test of that such as half the car one-way and the other half another. I have seen such a test with various toppers to see how dust sticks but not quite the same as how a slick coating improves things. Would be an interesting test.
Coatings=crack
Active member
Yeah CQUK3 wasn’t very slick at all bit it jad great self cleaning so I don’t know if being slicker would make a difference more than SiC actually just having a different chemical composition.
I appreciate slickness but play no part in my buying decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I appreciate slickness but play no part in my buying decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting, I am not sure slickness actually has much to do with self cleaning. Sonax PNS and or BSD are not slick to the touch. They do feel smooth, but not slippery. Yet when hand washing, the soapy mitt glides over the paint, and it is probably the best self cleaning sealant on the market. Some coatings do not feel as slick as others, but are very self cleaning. I think it is has to do with how the LSP is able to level at the micro level, creating the most perfect surface.
Desertnate
Active member
Self-cleaning for me. Slick paint is nice but not having stuff stick to the paint…priceless.
This.
The cars I`ve coated, with the exception of maybe CanCoat, were never as "slick" from a tactile standpoint as those I applied Collinite 845. 845 was so slick I couldn`t leave a buffing rag on the hood because it would slide right off. HOWEVER, when it comes to water beading, sheeting, self cleaning, the coatings blow it away by a significant margin.
This alone has lead me to not care much about how "slick" or "slippery" a surface might feel after a product is applied. I judge it on how it performs with water and handles the environment. Besides, feeling how "slick" a surface is just leads to fingerprints and smudges which have to be removed!
briarpatch
New member
Agree with Desertnate and dgage here. Slickness isn`t a good indication of protection. I`ve done a bunch of cars for people, using products (such as BeadMaker) which left the vehicle super slick, and they LOVED it, even though the overall protection would be short lived. I`ve also done several cars with Griots 3 in 1 Ceramic Wax, which in my experience is not very slick. Those folks were not nearly as impressed, even when I told them they could expect 6-9 months out of it.
Accumulator
Well-known member
That can indeed be true, at least sometimes. While I value slickness because with *most of* my LSPs it`s correlated to contamination not adhering, one of the slickest conventional LSPs I`ve ever used is the old UPP, and it didn`t provide *ANY* protection against etching, at least none that I could discern. Bugs/birds etched right through it in no time at all...which is why I won`t be using it again.
danlc95
Member
Exactly! Duragloss Fast Clean & Shine, and Optium Instant Detailer both leave really slick finishes, but none really protect.
I admit though. I love a slick feeling finish.
The first time I ever waxed a car, it was at my Grandma`s house on my Dad`s side. Warm summer afternoon, a wash of the 1986 white Buick Century. I was either 9 or 10. We waxed it with the Turtle Wax, and my pops did the towel trick, sending the towel across the hood onto the grass. That was my first lesson in paint slickness.
I don`t know WHY non-detailing vehicle owners get so hung up on slickness and hydrophobic (water beading) characteristics of waxes, sealants, and coatings, and now these 3-in-1 instant "coating" detail sprays, but they do. Must be a visible, physical appearance "test" to denote that whatever LSP has been applied, it is there "protecting" your vehicle`s surface, when, as any well-informed and knowledgeable Autopian knows, NOTHING could be further from the truth.
While the results are rather subjective in nature (IE, based on the judgment, opinion, evaluation, and/or emotions of the person rather than being objective by quantifiable measurements from such equipment, predefined standards or templates, and/or statistical data (IE, comparative measurements and numeric importance assigned to them). Even with an "objective" statistical evaluation, what characteristics of a coating spray are most important to the end user? Here are some of those coating spray characteristics that I am talking about, in no particular order:
1) Initial purchase price
2) Cost per application
3) Ease of application
4) Gloss or appearance
5) Hydroscopic water beading characteristics
6) Self-cleaning characteristics
7) Protection from environmental fallout and road traffic film (RTF)
8) Durability or longevity
9) Manufacturer`s product availability (OTC or boutique)
Each characteristic will carry a different weight or numeric value of importance to each end user of a coating for their vehicle. But at least it gives some relevance to evaluating a coating spray.
My question and I am sure other Autopians will ask is:
Which coating spray do you like best and why??
(YES, I copy-and-pasted this from my post in Guz`s review on his coating experience and "repurposed" it here to coating sprays. Always the plagiarizer, Captain Obvious... wait, is it plagiarizing if it`s your own work????... Hummmmmm!!)
While the results are rather subjective in nature (IE, based on the judgment, opinion, evaluation, and/or emotions of the person rather than being objective by quantifiable measurements from such equipment, predefined standards or templates, and/or statistical data (IE, comparative measurements and numeric importance assigned to them). Even with an "objective" statistical evaluation, what characteristics of a coating spray are most important to the end user? Here are some of those coating spray characteristics that I am talking about, in no particular order:
1) Initial purchase price
2) Cost per application
3) Ease of application
4) Gloss or appearance
5) Hydroscopic water beading characteristics
6) Self-cleaning characteristics
7) Protection from environmental fallout and road traffic film (RTF)
8) Durability or longevity
9) Manufacturer`s product availability (OTC or boutique)
Each characteristic will carry a different weight or numeric value of importance to each end user of a coating for their vehicle. But at least it gives some relevance to evaluating a coating spray.
My question and I am sure other Autopians will ask is:
Which coating spray do you like best and why??
(YES, I copy-and-pasted this from my post in Guz`s review on his coating experience and "repurposed" it here to coating sprays. Always the plagiarizer, Captain Obvious... wait, is it plagiarizing if it`s your own work????... Hummmmmm!!)
Len_nA
New member
I don`t plan on caressing my car, but I always appreciate how slick it feels. I just leased a new Ford Escape, and because my garage was just warm enough to let me, I brought out a can of Meguiar`s M16 and waxed it. Trust me - it always feels nice to feel how slick the paint is after.
danlc95
Member
There was an AMMO podcast with Jason Rose, where he explained that Meguiar`s (he was still with them at the time) was struggling internally over the whole water behavior thing.
He said thay what the public wanted wasn`t necessarily good for the finish.
I`ve given up on making beads a priority. The products I`ve gravitated to aren`t regarded as the best headers on the market and I couldn`t care less. Give me ease of use, and protection. I don`t really care how water looks on it at this point. That being said, they do produce a beading effect, but not the little tiny ones though.
"Slickness", technically speaking, is the measure of the co-efficient of friction. Less friction, more slickness. That`s true in engine oils, slides on product conveyors, or cooking pans; all things that desire or need less friction. How that is achieved and then measured or quantified can be done, but I doubt most detailers will conduct a physics experiment to prove that this wax, coating, sealant, or detailing spray has "this much slickness".
Hydroscopicity (no, there is no such word, but it sounds "scientific"), or water beading, is really a subject of water surface tension. There are even waxes that tout how much "angle" the water bead has, with a 120° angle between the flat surface and the roundness of bead being kind of the "Holy Grail" for this angle index. You all have seen posted pictures of the water beading characteristics of an LSP on a vehicle. Some are big "blobs", some are very small. It would seem the smaller the bead, the "better" the LSP.
I would prefer to have a LSP that sheets off water completely rather than beads on a surface because when that water evaporates, the dust or water contaminants in the water bead are left behind, leaving those unsightly "water spots" we are accustomed to on vehicles, especially those after a rain And maybe some coatings do that and have that sheeting characteristic. I don`t know.
But I go back to my original statement about water beading and the mis-perception that if someone sees water beading on a vehicle exterior surface, they assume that some form of surface protection must be present. This "mis-perception" has been perpetrated by the long-time practice of using of carnauba waxes on vehicles and the inherent water beading characteristics of such a wax. Once the beading was gone or diminished, it was time to re-apply the wax of choice. This visibly seeing the water beading on a vehicle surface and hence, the assumption of some amount of protection being present, is still used by product manufacturers in LSP development because it is so ingrained in vehicle owners` minds. Were an LSP just to sheet water off, it gives the illusion that the surface protection is not there. It`s a hard sell to have an LSP sheet water in a thin film.
I use an LSP for a glossy, shiny, glass-like reflection appearance purposes, but that is my opinion for a LSP priority, and I am sure I am in the minority. MOST vehicle owners want protection first, especially on daily driven vehicles, which is WHY most of them prefer a good liquid-applied ceramic/graphene coating that has excellent protection and self-cleaning characteristics. How it looks appearance-wise may be secondary . But chances are, it beads water very well but does not sheet water for reasons mentioned above.
I think Rejex sealant has the packaging slogan text "Nothing sticks to it but the shine."
Hydroscopicity (no, there is no such word, but it sounds "scientific"), or water beading, is really a subject of water surface tension. There are even waxes that tout how much "angle" the water bead has, with a 120° angle between the flat surface and the roundness of bead being kind of the "Holy Grail" for this angle index. You all have seen posted pictures of the water beading characteristics of an LSP on a vehicle. Some are big "blobs", some are very small. It would seem the smaller the bead, the "better" the LSP.
I would prefer to have a LSP that sheets off water completely rather than beads on a surface because when that water evaporates, the dust or water contaminants in the water bead are left behind, leaving those unsightly "water spots" we are accustomed to on vehicles, especially those after a rain And maybe some coatings do that and have that sheeting characteristic. I don`t know.
But I go back to my original statement about water beading and the mis-perception that if someone sees water beading on a vehicle exterior surface, they assume that some form of surface protection must be present. This "mis-perception" has been perpetrated by the long-time practice of using of carnauba waxes on vehicles and the inherent water beading characteristics of such a wax. Once the beading was gone or diminished, it was time to re-apply the wax of choice. This visibly seeing the water beading on a vehicle surface and hence, the assumption of some amount of protection being present, is still used by product manufacturers in LSP development because it is so ingrained in vehicle owners` minds. Were an LSP just to sheet water off, it gives the illusion that the surface protection is not there. It`s a hard sell to have an LSP sheet water in a thin film.
I use an LSP for a glossy, shiny, glass-like reflection appearance purposes, but that is my opinion for a LSP priority, and I am sure I am in the minority. MOST vehicle owners want protection first, especially on daily driven vehicles, which is WHY most of them prefer a good liquid-applied ceramic/graphene coating that has excellent protection and self-cleaning characteristics. How it looks appearance-wise may be secondary . But chances are, it beads water very well but does not sheet water for reasons mentioned above.
I think Rejex sealant has the packaging slogan text "Nothing sticks to it but the shine."
wannafbody
wannafbody
To bead or not to bead, that is the question. The general concept is that any change in water behavior after curing is a sign of degradation to some extent. I`m not sure that all of the latest rage coatings offer all that long of protection by themselves. It seems most who`ve used them follow up with SIO2 soap and SIO2 QD and then praise the product for lasting two years. I used McKees Sio2 soap by itself and got over a month out of it. Washing once a month, I`d never have to coat the car again. I used Zaino Z8 on fresh paint and got a couple months out of it.
I`ve seen, more correctly, felt vehicle surfaces that were not de-contaminated, where a wax was applied over embedded sap, iron rust, and tiny tar droplets. It was shiny and it was somewhat slick to the touch, but the surface obviously was not pre-cleaned or decontaminated prior to the wax application. It may be that the perception is the harder you rub as you apply the wax, the cleaner the surface becomes.This may work with abrasive All-In-One waxes or even cleaner waxes, but MOST good waxes are for appearance and protection. Again, (mis) perceptions developed from long-time practices using waxes.
I would hope that even novice detailers who peruse this forum understand the many steps (wash, decontaminate, correct, and polish, and prep wipe-down) required to PROPERLY prep a vehicle surface prior to a good LSP application, whatever type of LSP that may be.
My pet peeve about feeling vehicle surfaces for slickness is the jewelry worn on fingers or wrist or metal snaps or buttons on long-sleeve shirt cuffs or jackets that can lightly scratch a surface as the glassy-smooth tactile sensation is being engaged in with said finger tips by the "inspector". Hey, I know it looks inviting and you just want to reach out and feel how smooth it really appears to be.... BUT it`s hard to tell a customer feeling their own vehicle not to. Probably ANOTHER long-time practice perpetrated by waxes.
Totally off base from this discussion, but how many of you OCD Autopians have been told that even when your vehicle is dirty, it still looks "clean". I think that is a real testament to those of you who use coatings that tend to be self-cleaning. Don`t know if that applies to de-icing road-salt residue and debris. Mine looks pretty ermine-white like the rest of the vehicles driven here in a Wisconsin after a snowfall when salt is (always) put down. What is even worse is the sub-zero temperature cold spells after snowfalls that prevent using automated tunnel touch-less car washes and having to wait for slightly warmer temps. And when that happens, you wait an hour or so in queue at the car wash because EVERYONE wants to use it for a clean vehicle.
I would hope that even novice detailers who peruse this forum understand the many steps (wash, decontaminate, correct, and polish, and prep wipe-down) required to PROPERLY prep a vehicle surface prior to a good LSP application, whatever type of LSP that may be.
My pet peeve about feeling vehicle surfaces for slickness is the jewelry worn on fingers or wrist or metal snaps or buttons on long-sleeve shirt cuffs or jackets that can lightly scratch a surface as the glassy-smooth tactile sensation is being engaged in with said finger tips by the "inspector". Hey, I know it looks inviting and you just want to reach out and feel how smooth it really appears to be.... BUT it`s hard to tell a customer feeling their own vehicle not to. Probably ANOTHER long-time practice perpetrated by waxes.
Totally off base from this discussion, but how many of you OCD Autopians have been told that even when your vehicle is dirty, it still looks "clean". I think that is a real testament to those of you who use coatings that tend to be self-cleaning. Don`t know if that applies to de-icing road-salt residue and debris. Mine looks pretty ermine-white like the rest of the vehicles driven here in a Wisconsin after a snowfall when salt is (always) put down. What is even worse is the sub-zero temperature cold spells after snowfalls that prevent using automated tunnel touch-less car washes and having to wait for slightly warmer temps. And when that happens, you wait an hour or so in queue at the car wash because EVERYONE wants to use it for a clean vehicle.
I remember those days.