The Final Word On Durability With Products

J

jerry@robs

New member
For most Autopians, we've tried countless of finishing products (waxes and sealants) and most of us are looking for looks over anything else.



Durability isn't much of a factor for a lot of Autopians since most of us reapply products often anyway. Not that I'm saying it's not important, but for us, we tend to review products based on how it looks more than anything else.



It has been accepted that durability isn't (and shouldn't) be measured with how well a surface beads or sheets water, right?



If so, how in the world can we tell whether a coat of anything is still there?



Let's have a definitive (at least in this board) definition of durability and how we DETERMINE a products ability to hold it's protective claims.



For me, i don't believe in beading = protection since everytime I rinse a car that I've just compounded (lots of dust) beads like crazy. I don't believe in slickness = protection as well since waterbased products are usually less slick than petroleum based ones. Neither do I see the effect of sheeting as a form of protection since it's presumption is quite similar to beading, which is surface tension.



So what is it? How can you tell if something is gone or is still on the paint?



Chime in here guys... I think this'll be a long discussion hehe.
 
If we can reach a definitive answer on this one, we can make definitive conclusions of about 90% of the products on the market.



Good luck in getting answers. Some of this stuff is very complex chemistry and is probably above the heads of most community members. Add to that those who couldn't care less about this topic but will still chime in, trying to take it off course with their complaints. Throw in some InstantDeference* to employees of car care products mfr's and you have the perfect recipe for the next Autopia Drama.





* = InstantDeference and TotalGarbage are registered trademarks of BretFraz, Inc. and cannot be used without permission. All rights reserved.
 
theveed said:
So what is it? How can you tell if something is gone or is still on the paint?
Click to expand...



When you re-apply either a wax or sealant you should begin to see a change in surface texture. This change in surface texture is an indication that previously applied waxes and sealants are being removed.
 
blkZ28Conv said:
A good indicator of lack of protectant is the inability to apply a QD effortlessly. :wavey
Click to expand...



Yep agree. Related to this is how easy the car is to clean........specifically whether stuff washes off easily or takes some effort.
 
I use still use Pinnacle Bodywork Shampoo and it does react differently on a car who's wax is struggling than a car that still has wax in tact. The conditioners in the shampoo (similar to a QD) don't "take" well when the wax is wearing.
 
I posted this a while ago and think you might want to check it out:



_____________________________________



Originally posted by Greg

Perhaps I should have interjected that durability is subjective to the eye, as well as the conditions present. This is nothing that hasn't been to death here lately though.



Bret- the main reason I said it was so subjective because as I'm sure we've all read that and I can't confirm the validity of these claims:

1. Beading isn't a sign of protection- just suface tension- this is true

2. Slickness isn't a sign of protection

3. The best "protection" doesn't bead- from limited Zaino testing, Zaino beads like crazy and is considered the forerunner of durability and protection

4. Some products sheet water on some cars, others bead (ie Accumulator said his SG is beading like crazy, on the car I had SG on for an extended period of time- it was virtually dry after a rain)



While I am probably forgetting some, our first instinct is to associate protection with beading and slickness, while in reality I can put canola oil on my car and it will be slick and bead.



I totally agree that to figure out this puzzle, one must first understand what consitutes "protection" and what things are going on with the ingredients and the cross-linking, then maybe durability will become objective once and for all! [/B]
Click to expand...
Originally posted by big pompous know it all

I think we all can agree that both durability and appearance of car care products are subjective. It's a matter of degree but it is difficult to be objective about the results we see and experience. A primary reason it's so difficult is that we don't know *why* a product is providing the results it is. So we turn in different directions looking for answers.



I know lots of things can bead water but within the context of car waxes I think it means there is something on our cars. Whether that's a protective ingredient of some sort cannot be determined if looked at but with some detective work I think we can narrow it down. Really the only people that know for sure what causes beading are the product mfr's and almost all of them aren't talking or are saying very little.



We've got to keep digging thru this if we're going to learn anything.
Click to expand...



I see what both of you mean. My thoughts...



'Protection' is difficult to test, but the 'durability' of a product's shine, clarity, depth, beading, and slickness isn't, especially from a comparative standpoint (side by side comparison!) While I realize the durability of a product's enhancement and the protection from the elements are two different things, the latter seems less important. The clearcoat will provide more protection than any wax will, and as Edwin pointed out, paint maintenance should be stressed instead.



Originally posted by blkz28conv

Do not get caught up too much with the durability idealogy in term of longevity but be more concern with the idea of paint maintenance.
Click to expand...



Um, longevity *is* important, because most of us wax to make our cars look good (not necessarily protect) for a given amount of time and to reduce labor later on. Or we can just glaze...



Greg, in regards to 'beading,' I agree. Beading is not a good indicator for telling whether a product is on or not. But again, with side by side comparisons, I do feel that if a product is still alive, it should in one way or another affect how the water reacts. Take SG for example. It doesn't create perfect beads and therefore has less surface tension, but if you compare it to a panel with nothing on it, one can clearly tell it's there by comparing how it affects the water. (Relativeness = imperative in testing) Perhaps we should all use 'Water-Affecting-Factor' instead of beading - (if Mike has LSP, then I'll have WAF, OK?) Tight beads are cool looking and are an easy way to check a product's existence though... and, does anyone become suspicious when a product beads profusely the first week and stops the third week?





_____________________________________



From that, I want to reiterate a few things. Side-by-side comparisons with a control are great. If the water reacts like the unwaxed section, and has no slickness, gloss, clarity, or depth improvement, then you know the durability of the product is gone.
 
Do you guys know of the test that Bud A. from Detailplus had done using 25 popular sealants and waxes?



If not, he sells the results for about $6.00. The test studied durability and gloss over 12 washes (I think that's correct).



R Regan
 
WCD said:
Do you guys know of the test that Bud A. from Detailplus had done using 25 popular sealants and waxes?



If not, he sells the results for about $6.00. The test studied durability and gloss over 12 washes (I think that's correct).



R Regan
Click to expand...



I have that report and its nothing earth shattering but it is interesting for those who are curious. He tested many products directed at pros. Wanna guess how well Fire Glaze performed?
 
Gonzo said:
This ???



http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2031203.001/page/2/mercedes-benz/1.html
Click to expand...



Just to chime in here,



As a normal course of business, we are sent sample panels from a number of different paint companies for testing purposes. Paint manufactures after developing a new paint system then want to know if it can be repaired. By repaired, I don't me refinishing repairs, (Body shop stuff), I mean if marred, scuffed, sanded, scratched, swirled, etched, etc, can the paint be restored using the products and procedures common to the industry.



If it cannot be repaired, that poses problems. The problem so far with paints like the one above is that the harder you make the paint, (so that it resists scratching), the harder you make it to remove defects out of for the same reason, it’s hard paint. It's a trade-off.



Have you ever seen someone post the question,



How do I get a scratch, (or scratches), out of glass? (Car windows)



What's the usual answer? I send people to the Eastwood Company, and they admit that their scratch removal system cannot remove a scratch if you fingernail catches in it. Glass is very hard, and very hard to remove defects out of.



In all my clinics, I always address paint hardness and then relate it to what can and what cannot be done by hand. (Everyone wants to remove swirls and scratches by hand)



The harder the paint is, the harder it will be to remove small particles of the paint itself, in a controlled effort to level or flatten out the surface. Hard paint is durable, it's just not as easy to rub-out like old fashioned solvent-borne lacquers and enamels.



Mike
 
Mike,



My train of thought was along the lines you mention - if it is hard to start with, then it will resist marring from the git-go. You may end up only getting scratches, but none of the swirls and spider webbing, which seem to be the bane of most on this board. Dealing with actual scratches I dunno what products may be out there to attack them, other that fine sand papers and wool pads with agressive compounds and buckets of time to work the problem area.



Since you may have a line into PPG, what are their recommended methods for defect repair for this product?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top