Octopiston
New member
- Mar 31, 2016
- 287
- 0
Well think about it, the coating is supposedly impervious to swirls and scratches... [I'll include scratches as most people can easily be lead to believe that]
Impervious to swirls is a pretty bold statement. I'd say that's a far bolder claim than simply protecting from bonded contaminants, wouldn't you agree? If given a choice I'd let them have their swirl protection x2 for just protection from bonded contaminants x1. Because I'm not gonna swirl my paint up anyways.
I also think of it like this: Lets say you apply your solid choice of sealant after you've prepped the paint.. How confident would you be that in 1 weeks time you can come back after a bucket wash and baggie test it and it'll still feel smooth as glass. Sounds about right? Why? Because the layer of protection is still working.
Now same should apply to a coating, should it not? So unless they've re defined the meaning of protection, then what's up? I say that if a coating allows contaminants to bond within it's stated claims of its longevity, then it pretty much lost its claim of protection the moment it began to allow the surface to get rough. Or does a person have to realistically keep in mind that in just 1 weeks time, under worst possible conditions* he may just need to clay the same car he coated just 1 week ago? If the answer is "no way",I ask why not? I'm thinking the reply would be, "well you just applied the coating 7 days ago, of course it's going to protect for more than a measly 7 days."
But try and hold it to it's bold statement of 2yrs or whatever and suddenly I'm asking for the world.... Protection is protection. They should put an askterik on their definition of paint protection. Especially in 2016. How could we not expect more from it?
Resistant does not equal proof.
I ran into this when I worked in an optical. People would buy the scratch resistant coating, then come back pissed because it wasn't scratch proof. Had one patient actually use a brillo pad on his plastic lenses.
You are also stuck on the 2 yr claim. It is UP TO 2 years. They can't guarantee a customer isn't going to use a brillo pad on their paint. So sealants don't have an UP TO. Does that make them better? That way if they only last a couple weeks they are free and clear. They made no claim. How long would a sealant pass a baggy test? I would think that would be based on environment and how the car is driven. If you drive though a sand storm, even within a week it probably won't feel smooth anymore. I'd wager cars that see more city highway milage will get imbedded particles before someone who stays on low speed city streets. Here is where the protection is, the contaminant is not in the paint. I'm sorry if that doesn't matter to you, but that is a logical answer. Expecting a product to be everything to everyone and not get what amounts to projectiles stuck in it just isn't going to happen reguarless of this being 2016. Sure you could spray something like cerkote on the car, but it isn't clear, isn't quite diy-able, and won't be cheap.
Look at garage floor coatings. None last forever. They all wear based on usage. Some are more resistant to chems than other, and you pay for it. But hey its 2016, they should all be diy, cheap and impervious for 10 years no matter how they are used.