Best beading product?

[EddieVDetailing]

I’m not a Scott HD fan and i’m basing this on mine and most everyone here’s testing. From video Cancoat doesn’t look to perform any worse than The Megs. Not knocking the megs.... never said Cancoat was better. Said i’d be i’d impressed with Meg’s if it could keep up as alot of trusted people here vouch for CanCoat and it is proven.

I did say you get alot less applications from Megs and Scott’s video doesn’t change that statement

Easily performed well for 14+ months. Stopped watching Scott when he went all cry baby during his pan wars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point was the CanCoat section WAS performing worse. More water flattening out over the surface. Didn’t see that with some of the others included megs.

I’ve applied both CanCoat and HPC and HPC is way easier to apply. I can do a car in about half the time. It’s also way slicker.

 

[BudgetPlan1]

there’s not much more you could ask for when it comes to a large controlled test that exposes the products to the same variables. Same paint, same heat, same UV. It stands to reason that if something performs better relative to the other in this test, then it would very likely outperform it in the real world.

The problems arise with the fact thats it's a very singular data point that doesn't consider real world attacks on the surface outside of heat, rain and UV in that particular location. There's far more assaulting the finish in real world usage; oil, grease, the much ballyhooed 'road film' and if you live in a northern climate all of the slop they throw down in Winter.

Winter deicing chems in Ohio: https://budgetplan1.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ohio_snow_and_ice_control_treatments.pdf

Given the varying compositions of many products, I'm not quite convinced that something that does well with heat and rain will do equally well when the real world assaults are added to the mix. Some might, some might not...static panel testing is just one (relatively limited IMO) data point, just a small slice of the pie.

It's interesting for sure and the effort is certainly admirable but not quite the Final Word on longevity testing that many seem to trumpet.

All my opinion though, and I'm more often wrong than right so YMMV.

Edit: Full disclosure...I *love* CanCoat, one of the handiest products I've ever run across

 

[The Guz]

Always figrd if I needed a product to protect a car sitting on cinder blocks in Texas, I'd look further into his tests. Silly to think a car sloggin' around the Winter freeways in Cleveland would show the same results.

He did do a nice vid on the level of defects that PPF covers up so I'll give him that. The 'Geraldo Rivera' exposure vids were extraordinarily dumb though...bothy whiny and disingenuous. Not much of a fan of any YouTube 'testers' though, including Apex who many consider infallible. :shrug:

Exactly. You and I both know the true results from testing things in the real world rather than letting them sit on the hood outside. The results are different.

I unsubscribed to just about all of them these days.

Good point. Apex just throws high alkaline APC's at these products so it's definitely not indicative of real world performance. I've gotten different results than Apex has with some products. I don't agree with a lot of his outcomes and where he ranks some of these products. With that said though I do like that he appears to be unbiased in terms of brands and is not just saying every brand is good etc.

I don't think Apex is as unbiased as we think. At least that is me from just watching him from time to time. If you go in his facebook group you will see all of his followers brain washed that the Apex coating is the only thing and everything else doesn't hold up. He is white labeling the coating from ArtDeShine which he does push quite a bit. Well he has to since they are doing a service for him. Brian created a cult which is good for him. Lets not get into the whole turtle wax thing.

My point was the CanCoat section WAS performing worse. More water flattening out over the surface. Didn’t see that with some of the others included megs.

I’ve applied both CanCoat and HPC and HPC is way easier to apply. I can do a car in about half the time. It’s also way slicker.

As I mentioned Gyeon claims CanCoat to be up to 6 months. So it is performing exactly how it is supposed to. In reality that it exceeds that 6 months is even more impressive. It is also an older product where the Meguiar's products is leveraging off the hard work from coating manufactures so it better perform well. It is a shame that they could not figure out their actual coating.

The problems arise with the fact thats it's a very singular data point that doesn't consider real world attacks on the surface outside of heat, rain and UV in that particular location. There's far more assaulting the finish in real world usage; oil, grease, the much ballyhooed 'road film' and if you live in a northern climate all of the slop they throw down in Winter.

Winter deicing chems in Ohio: https://budgetplan1.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ohio_snow_and_ice_control_treatments.pdf

Given the varying compositions of many products, I'm not quite convinced that something that does well with heat and rain will do equally well when the real world assaults are added to the mix. Some might, some might not...static panel testing is just one (relatively limited IMO) data point, just a small slice of the pie.

It's interesting for sure and the effort is certainly admirable but not quite the Final Word on longevity testing that many seem to trumpet.

All my opinion though, and I'm more often wrong than right so YMMV.

Edit: Full disclosure...I *love* CanCoat, one of the handiest products I've ever run across

Exactly and well said. I love CanCoat as well. One of the best products on the market.

 

[EddieVDetailing]

The problems arise with the fact thats it's a very singular data point that doesn't consider real world attacks on the surface outside of heat, rain and UV in that particular location. There's far more assaulting the finish in real world usage; oil, grease, the much ballyhooed 'road film' and if you live in a northern climate all of the slop they throw down in Winter.

Winter deicing chems in Ohio: https://budgetplan1.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/ohio_snow_and_ice_control_treatments.pdf

Given the varying compositions of many products, I'm not quite convinced that something that does well with heat and rain will do equally well when the real world assaults are added to the mix. Some might, some might not...static panel testing is just one (relatively limited IMO) data point, just a small slice of the pie.

It's interesting for sure and the effort is certainly admirable but not quite the Final Word on longevity testing that many seem to trumpet.

All my opinion though, and I'm more often wrong than right so YMMV.

Edit: Full disclosure...I *love* CanCoat, one of the handiest products I've ever run across

so I still don’t get how you don’t think Scott’s tests are relevant or representative. You’re saying there are tougher conditions than just a resting hood in the sun. Granted, Scott’s test should be the MINIMUM requirement for a product to last. If Ammo Reflex Pro or Chemical Guys Hydroslick can’t make it past 6 months from just sitting in the sun, then for sure it won’t last on an actual driven car. Scott’s tests for me screen out the bad products. There are no true “5 year coatings” if they can’t even last a year on a panel sitting outside.

I really don’t get why people are so dismissive of the testing.

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

there’s not much more you could ask for when it comes to a large controlled test that exposes the products to the same variables. Same paint, same heat, same UV. It stands to reason that if something performs better relative to the other in this test, then it would very likely outperform it in the real world. It sure is a “data point” that is better than any other data point that exists. Anecdotal evidence does not count.

in general I’ve noticed people become dismissive of the test when the outcome doesn’t meet their expectations or perceptions. Unfortunate but this is a reality. Many installers overpromising their customers when the product just isn’t that good.

That test doesn’t take in to account all the rain and fallout in it that I face in WA. Also where products sit on a vertical panel can affect durability.

Lastly they way he applies could be “not proper”

His “delta points” don’t work for my conditions.

And not just bashing him. Most us here probably started at one point watching some type of Internet personality.

We’ve just evolved to the point we realized these test don’t work for our real world conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

My point was the CanCoat section WAS performing worse. More water flattening out over the surface. Didn’t see that with some of the others included megs.

I’ve applied both CanCoat and HPC and HPC is way easier to apply. I can do a car in about half the time. It’s also way slicker.

They both wipe on with a microfiber applicator and wipe right off.... same process so I don’t get why it would take twice as long.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

so I still don’t get how you don’t think Scott’s tests are relevant or representative. You’re saying there are tougher conditions than just a resting hood in the sun. Granted, Scott’s test should be the MINIMUM requirement for a product to last. If Ammo Reflex Pro or Chemical Guys Hydroslick can’t make it past 6 months from just sitting in the sun, then for sure it won’t last on an actual driven car. Scott’s tests for me screen out the bad products. There are no true “5 year coatings” if they can’t even last a year on a panel sitting outside.

I really don’t get why people are so dismissive of the testing.

Because MHPC might be great against UV rays and soap but not against the traffic film i face in my environment.

It might even wash off with one APC wash but last over a year in my environment.

And maybe the reason for most here are dismissive is we’ve probably had product we’ve use that tested well with an internet influencer but failed for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkr

 

[EddieVDetailing]

They both wipe on with a microfiber applicator and wipe right off.... same process so I don’t get why it would take twice as long.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CanCoat wipes off grabby and can get high spots. Still have yet to get a high spot with HPC.

as far as APC resistance, HPC was jimbos last torture test. Unfazed by apc.

all I can say is it is literally irrelevant if a coating can stand up to road film etc if it can’t be in the sun for a couple of months. What’s the point? UV is one element all products are exposed to and if it fails at sitting in the sun, then it doesn’t matter if it holds up to road film because the UV will kill it before it even matters..

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

CanCoat wipes off grabby and can get high spots. Still have yet to get a high spot with HPC.

as far as APC resistance, HPC was jimbos last torture test. Unfazed by apc.

all I can say is it is literally irrelevant if a coating can stand up to road film etc if it can’t be in the sun for a couple of months. What’s the point? UV is one element all products are exposed to and if it fails at sitting in the sun, then it doesn’t matter if it holds up to road film because the UV will kill it before it even matters..

I just don’t think UV is a good indicator for northern climates.... never had issues with high spots or it being grabby (CanCoat) but again or environments may very (temp, humidity)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Guz]

as far as APC resistance, HPC was jimbos last torture test. Unfazed by apc.

This is one guy I would not consider or reference for any detailing advice.

I just don’t think UV is a good indicator for northern climates.... never had issues with high spots or it being grabby (CanCoat) but again or environments may very (temp, humidity)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right. Most of these products don't do anything for UV. Dimitry's Garage actually has a decent way to measure UV and there is nothing impressive on any product he's tested. He is the only one that I know of that is doing anything like this.

Other than whack APC torture tests and gloss meters.

 

[EddieVDetailing]

I just don’t think UV is a good indicator for northern climates.... never had issues with high spots or it being grabby (CanCoat) but again or environments may very (temp, humidity)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. Even when cloudy, UV gets through. All paint is exposed to UV. The only instance where what you’re telling me matters is where somebody babies their car, parks in a garage and drives at night in oily and salty roads.

 

[EddieVDetailing]

This is one guy I would not consider or reference for any detailing advice.



You're right. Most of these products don't do anything for UV. Dimitry's Garage actually has a decent way to measure UV and there is nothing impressive on any product he's tested. He is the only one that I know of that is doing anything like this.

Other than whack APC torture tests and gloss meters.

You misunderstand what I said. Everyone knows coatings are too thin to block UV rays. I would guess that your clearcoat is still getting damaged by UV rays and depending on the coating, the coating may also get damaged as the clear itself changes. All cars are exposed to UV/sun/heat. Just because a coating can withstand salty roads doesn’t mean it is any better… it just gives a very short illusion that it is. If it fails just due to sun exposure, that is a big fail in my book.

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

Disagree. Even when cloudy, UV gets through. All paint is exposed to UV. The only instance where what you’re telling me matters is where somebody babies their car, parks in a garage and drives at night in oily and salty roads.

Hardly ever see overly oxidized cars in northwest.... you do see rust....

The only instance these video’s you seem to think are gospel matter are if i park my car out in a back yard and never drive it and only dust and uv’s are affecting it.

It’s weird you choose this soap box to stand on. Also people on here who have a been here a while and contribute alot here don’t see it the way you see it.

You make 20 posts touting Megs HPC and how theres nothing like it (tons of polysiloxane products, Kamikaze OverCoat....). and disagree with everyone and don’t get why people don’t agree with you.

There’s been tons of discussions about The testing of YouTube influencers (including your boy Scotty) and what the overall consensus is.

People have already form there grown folks opinions and you poppin on with your opinions aint going to change there.



Again noone has a problem with the Megs paint coating.... you seem to have issues with people not agreeing it is the best ever or that Scott’s tests are Gospel....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

Lastly you base your finding on CanCoat on one Scott HD video. You have a ton of people who have had real world experience with CanCoat.

Those include The Guz and BudgetPlan1. Both are highly respected in the Detailing community and have gave glowing reviews of CanCoat.

There opinions are going to hold WAY more weight than any video’s, testing or opinions from ScottHD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EddieVDetailing]

Lastly you base your finding on CanCoat on one Scott HD video. You have a ton of people who have had real world experience with CanCoat.

Those include The Guz and BudgetPlan1. Both are highly respected in the Detailing community and have gave glowing reviews of CanCoat.

There opinions are going to hold WAY more weight than any video’s, testing or opinions from ScottHD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never said it was gospel. I just trust actual documented evidence over opinions based on anecdotal evidence.

detailers have no control over how their customers treat and use their cars. No insight to how it’s driven, how often it’s washed, where it’s driven. To make assumptions as a detailer based on what they see…. It’s all up for interpretation.

 

[BudgetPlan1]

so I still don’t get how you don’t think Scott’s tests are relevant or representative. You’re saying there are tougher conditions than just a resting hood in the sun. Granted, Scott’s test should be the MINIMUM requirement for a product to last. If Ammo Reflex Pro or Chemical Guys Hydroslick can’t make it past 6 months from just sitting in the sun, then for sure it won’t last on an actual driven car. Scott’s tests for me screen out the bad products. There are no true “5 year coatings” if they can’t even last a year on a panel sitting outside.

I really don’t get why people are so dismissive of the testing.

I dunno, I think my dismissal of the practical value of these tests lies in the presentation and 'marketing' of them as the universal overall judgement of product value based on the singular situation they did or didn't do well in.

Many cite this test (and others) as validation of 'this is a great product' because it did well within the limited scope of a static test in a specific climate (which is not necesarily the same as 'this is better than that', an unfortunate side effect of putting many products next to each other).

Maybe they should come with a disclaimer of "Results of this test may or may not be an indication of actual overall performance". It's not really a flaw in the testing itself but rather the perception of it being a complete and accurate judgement of actual long term results in the real world.

Interesting discussion regardless of differing viewpoints; variety is the spice of life and what this whole ball 'o wax does show is that different users, different situations sometimes leads to different results.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

Never said it was gospel. I just trust actual documented evidence over opinions based on anecdotal evidence.

detailers have no control over how their customers treat and use their cars. No insight to how it’s driven, how often it’s washed, where it’s driven. To make assumptions as a detailer based on what they see…. It’s all up for interpretation.

So the thoughts and recommendations of people who have actually used products for months on real cars that get driven are anecdotal evidence? Been documented on this forum.

Some guy puts it on a hood sittin in his back yard in Texas is documented evidence...... guess well just agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EddieVDetailing]

So the thoughts and recommendations of people who have actually used products for months on real cars that get driven are anecdotal evidence? Been documented on this forum.

Some guy puts it on a hood sittin in his back yard in Texas is documented evidence...... guess well just agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely anecdotal evidence. Do you know what anecdotal means? What if every single car you put a coating on are garage queens, driven 5 miles a week? You see those car a year later, and they all look just as good as they did day 1? Obviously you know why. Someone who is willing to spend money on a good ceramic coating obviously will baby their car for the most part. At least with Scott’s tests you have multiple data points on a relatively controlled and trackable environment.

Saying you have a bunch of experience with a coating literally means nothing because you aren’t controlling or documenting the major variables that can mess up a coating.

 

[Coatingsarecrack]

Definitely anecdotal evidence. Do you know what anecdotal means? What if every single car you put a coating on are garage queens, driven 5 miles a week? You see those car a year later, and they all look just as good as they did day 1? Obviously you know why. Someone who is willing to spend money on a good ceramic coating obviously will baby their car for the most part. At least with Scott’s tests you have multiple data points on a relatively controlled and trackable environment.

Saying you have a bunch of experience with a coating literally means nothing because you aren’t controlling or documenting the major variables that can mess up a coating.

You give a bunch of what ifs….. what if Scott doesn’t use the actual product. What if he applies it wrong what if racoons pee on it everynight.

Scott doesn’t get payed from the manufacturer but gets paid from his viewers and YouTube. Would it not benefit for him to find the latest and greatest to keep viewers interested.

So maybe he reapply’s product nightly in order to get diamond in the rough and the new latest and greatest?


We get check ins every couple if months without knowing whats going in with the hood? Sounds “anecdotal” with pictures to me.

The people here give there actual reviews. Most when they do are using the product alot of times post reviews and use on there video’s

I think you are just sad/frustrated because you say this product is so amazing with no actual review or pics. (anecdotal? You didn’t bring Scott into it till you got push back) and got luke warm reception.

Then you bring Scotts video (anecdotal) which probably has less validity then your anecdote on this site.

The thing is as a Scott Fan you believe in his words and trust what he does behind the sceens more than the folks on AG. I and most here do not.

Scott makes money from his video’s and the people here do not. I trust in that. He “outted” Pan…. Why? To get more interest in his “honest testing”. Sounds like a snake oil sales pitch to

. I’m not trying to change your views as I understand that I can’t. So again I’ll leave it at we’ll agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EddieVDetailing]

You give a bunch of what ifs….. what if Scott doesn’t use the actual product. What if he applies it wrong what if racoons pee on it everynight.

Scott doesn’t get payed from the manufacturer but gets paid from his viewers and YouTube. Would it not benefit for him to find the latest and greatest to keep viewers interested.

So maybe he reapply’s product nightly in order to get diamond in the rough and the new latest and greatest?


We get check ins every couple if months without knowing whats going in with the hood? Sounds “anecdotal” with pictures to me.

The people here give there actual reviews. Most when they do are using the product alot of times post reviews and use on there video’s

I think you are just sad/frustrated because you say this product is so amazing with no actual review or pics. (anecdotal? You didn’t bring Scott into it till you got push back) and got luke warm reception.

Then you bring Scotts video (anecdotal) which probably has less validity then your anecdote on this site.

The thing is as a Scott Fan you believe in his words and trust what he does behind the sceens more than the folks on AG. I and most here do not.

Scott makes money from his video’s and the people here do not. I trust in that. He “outted” Pan…. Why? To get more interest in his “honest testing”. Sounds like a snake oil sales pitch to

. I’m not trying to change your views as I understand that I can’t. So again I’ll leave it at we’ll agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we’ve gone way past the “hybrid paint coating” is a good product discussion and have gone into conspiracy territory. I get it. People have been pushing X product to last X years based on everyone’s “experience” with it. It really sucks to find out the product can’t even last in the sun for a few months, so of course everyone is going to try and discredit a test. Honestly don’t really care about the Meguiar’s product because at the end of the day, people end up reading a label and make up their minds based on if the package says X years and XH hardness.

my opinion is anecdotal as is yours. But I can see many people struggle with the definition of objective vs subjective. To me personally, Scott is doing a good job especially when people go out of their way to discredit what looks to be the most objective side-by-side on YouTube.