Steve posts final results on wax test at RoadFly...

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO Steve's testing needs to be viewed with scepticism-he regularly praises products that advertise on the Roadfly site and dismisses other companies products who don't- FWIW
 
wannafbody said:
IMO Steve's testing needs to be viewed with scepticism-he regularly praises products that advertise on the Roadfly site and dismisses other companies products who don't- FWIW
Click to expand...



What did I just say about casting stones and insults? :rolleyes:



Take the high road, or beat it! (maybe that should be my new signature)
 
wannafbody said:
IMO Steve's testing needs to be viewed with scepticism-he regularly praises products that advertise on the Roadfly site and dismisses other companies products who don't- FWIW
Click to expand...



Edited by moderator
 
"Many people here do things such as waxing the shower doors, polishing the dryer and many others that would look ridiculous to many other people. Someone went as crazy as melting #16 and P21S waxes"



All those things seem ridiculous to me also. Hopefully, the people that do those things are not the ones here criticizing Steve's methods/evaluations.
 
RIC said:
"Many people here do things such as waxing the shower doors, polishing the dryer and many others that would look ridiculous to many other people. Someone went as crazy as melting #16 and P21S waxes"



All those things seem ridiculous to me also. Hopefully, the people that do those things are not the ones here criticizing Steve's methods/evaluations.
Click to expand...



Why not? As long the criticism has BASE, whatever crazy stuff you do in addition to LSP application to car doesn't matter. If I am crazy about melting waxes or doing the finger test, this doesn't mean that I cannot critizice someone that tells that product X lasts way more that product Y when my observations or those from others based on OBJECTIVE evaluations differ.



As long as the criticism is based on FACTS expressed explicitly in a thread, whatever other crazy stuff you do outside of that thread doesn't matter. That is why MY criticism of mr. geeky Lischter is TOTALLY VALID, as I pointed LOGICAL FACTS based only on the data posted in that thread. The finger test HAD nothing to do with his test, but I don't know what kind of obsession you got with it that you had to bring it into this thread. So, please tell EXACTLY how my criticism of his review based on what I have posted in this thread is not valid.



" any product that is finicky when you apply it not very thin, has a long flashing (drying) time on the paint and smears / streaks because you removed it too soon IS NOT a 10 for application / removal, period."

How is this one not valid?



" am I the only one to notice that more than one of those "ugly ducky" products outperformed the winner in initial appearance? One of them, made by one of the most bashed companies here NEVER scored lower than 8 in the beauty categories, while the winner got two sevens and one six. If you keep in mind that this same product that scored the highest in initial appearance is also the highest rated in application / removal the product doesn't look like an ugly ducky that bad..... .... it takes 15 minutes to re-wax a car with that product!!!"

This one is even backed by that review, the numbers don't lie!!!



You brought the finger test only to instigate, and now you can't sustain your claim. I have not seen where I reviewed a product and used the finger test as part of the formal procedure..... :rolleyes:





Alex
 
mochamanz said:
I thought this was a dead thread :angry Kill it please before the infection spreads !:angry
Click to expand...



Sadly, it became that way when the never absent zealots made the appearance. One of them even posted pictures of Cindy Crawfor and his wife as analogy to the products. He just labeled them reversed (the ones who got better marks for intial appearance look better, so they should be Cindy, shouldn't they? Also, poor durability means applications more often, so that should mean "high maintenance", again, they are Cindy. ) I am not inventing this, just check the numbers :D



PS. Yes, I am guilty, I am the instigator in this post.
 
Sigh ! I sincerely thought this ugly A** thread was being killed. Sorry I commented. So sad, Like the man said , its only car wax !:nono
 
"You brought the finger test only to instigate, and now you can't sustain your claim."



What "claim" did I make? Please be sure to quote directly from some post that I made.
 
ZaneO said:
Why don't you all calm down and not add to the fire ;)
Click to expand...



I even tried being funny about the finger test, and I even attempet at smoothing the situation by calling another autopian "bro". You saw what I got, so now you know what finger test he will get. This guy had a big mouth, he should have better have b@ll$ to be back and bring proof that I have given formal reviews of products using the finger test as official indicator..... He brought a subject that had nothing to do with the thread!!
 
RIC said:
"You brought the finger test only to instigate, and now you can't sustain your claim."



What "claim" did I make? Please be sure to quote directly from some post that I made.
Click to expand...



That my comments about the review or results were not valid because I like to touch products with my finger. That had nothing to do with the thread!!!!
 
AlexRuiz said:
Sadly, it became that way when the never absent zealots made the appearance. One of them even posted pictures of Cindy Crawfor and his wife as analogy to the products.
Click to expand...

That was funny as h*ll. A dude just trying to make light of the situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top