Show car shine vs paint protection film?

h8dirtycars said:
I don't know how to measure a gloss unit, but mine is glossy enough for me, as well knowing that I'm protected against chips.
Click to expand...

If it is good enough for you, that is all that matters. And to be candid, it may be good for me also.

Still... I would like to know why people considered to be the best in the business aren't using PPF on their show cars. AMMO NYC's video specifically discusses him taking a clear bra off a car for a show and then putting it back on after the show. (If you detail a $12 million Ferrari, I assume you know what you are doing) He didn't do all of that work for no reason whatsoever. AMMO NYC's video generally give LOTS of details but he never said why he removed the PPF for the car show. He must assume that his viewers already know why. I don't.
 
h8dirtycars said:
I don't know how to measure a gloss unit, but mine is glossy enough for me, as well knowing that I'm protected against chips.

These pics aren't as good as FunX's but I think you can tell. Also you can compare to a dark silver vehicle. Don't know why they didn't insert in right direction.

View attachment 56231View attachment 56232View attachment 56233
Click to expand...

That does look nice!

As to the direction of your photos: just dealt with this issue this very morning with Mike! So, our smart phones are smart enough to turn our pictures the proper way. I am assuming that is what you use. BUT the coding in the image's data file tells the computer what orientation they were actually taken in, and that is the orientation that they are displayed after uploading here.

So, best option is to open and edit your images on your PC, rotate them in any photo editor you have, then save and upload them. Little PITA I know for those of us who prefer our mobile devices. I for one cannot make the "edit photo" option within V-bulletin (this forum's framework) work. Hope this helps. Should I start a new thread on this?
 
GeekGWCT said:
Still... I would like to know why people
considered to be the best in the business
aren't using PPF on their show cars.

AMMO NYC...never said why he removed
the PPF for the car show. He must assume
that his viewers already know why.

I don't.
Click to expand...
•I've seen Transit Film being used/reused
on garage queens driven to Car Shows.

*************************************

•Protection is the only reason
behind installing PPF.

************************************


•Different Car Shows, most often, have
different criteria upon which their judging
of "Show Cars" is based. Some are geared
more to the "Purists'" side of the ledger.
(In cases like that: PPF may be deemed
to be "unpure".)

-What is the definition of an
unadulterated "Show Car"?
-Best to find out the particulars
before paying an entry fee, IMO.



Bob
 
Thanks Funx650
FUNX650 said:
•Protection is the only reason behind installing PPF.
Click to expand...

Understood... but it appears that the "gurus" feel that there are overriding reasons not to install it. AMMO NYC (even when it wasn't in the car show) used PPF on only the bumper of a $12mm car... and I haven't seen an example of Mike Phillips using any PPF even outside of a car show. (I am not saying Mike has never used PPF. I just haven't found an example of him using it).

FUNX650 said:
•Different Car Shows, most often, have different criteria upon which their judging of "Show Cars" is based. Some are geared more to the "Purists'" side of the ledger. (In cases like that: PPF may be deemed to be "unpure".)
Click to expand...
I was thinking that might be the reason why AMMO NYC removed the clear bra on the $12mm Ferrari prior to the show; however, when the car wasn't at a show, he choose to use PPF on only a small portion of the car. Why wasn't more of the $12mm car protected (when other far less valuable cars have much more PPF)? I suspect the answer is not because of budget reasons.
FUNX650 said:
-What is the definition of an unadulterated "Show Car"?
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the person entering the competition. Or perhaps more accurately the person that won the competition.

Thanks again. And again... beautiful car.
 
Just use a sealant if you are so worried about the carrier solvents in waxes. PPF is pretty expensive. If you aren't concerned about the protection, I personally would not spend the money to have it installed.

I personally think that paint finishes look better without PPF if that is what you are getting at.
 
DBAILEY said:
Just use a sealant if you are so worried about the carrier solvents in waxes. PPF is pretty expensive. If you aren't concerned about the protection, I personally would not spend the money to have it installed.

I personally think that paint finishes look better without PPF if that is what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The sealants and quick detailers shine it up pretty good, as evidenced in the two photo examples.

And GeekGWCT, if that's what you think as well, and it bothers you that much, don't do it. Like you mentioned earlier, you have to accept a trade off.
I thought it wouldn't feel slick, it does, with the sealant and detailer. I thought I would loose a lot more gloss. I didn't, but it's not a dark car.
 
FlyinLow said:
That does look nice!

As to the direction of your photos: just dealt with this issue this very morning with Mike! So, our smart phones are smart enough to turn our pictures the proper way. I am assuming that is what you use. BUT the coding in the image's data file tells the computer what orientation they were actually taken in, and that is the orientation that they are displayed after uploading here.

So, best option is to open and edit your images on your PC, rotate them in any photo editor you have, then save and upload them. Little PITA I know for those of us who prefer our mobile devices. I for one cannot make the "edit photo" option within V-bulletin (this forum's framework) work. Hope this helps. Should I start a new thread on this?
Click to expand...

Thanks, about it looking nice.

And I use a MacBook, and the photos in the computer are the right way. And yes, smart phone. AND the best one I wanted to use, taken with the phone, won't even upload.
 
h8dirtycars said:
Thanks, about it looking nice.

And I use a MacBook, and the photos in the computer are the right way. And yes, smart phone. AND the best one I wanted to use, taken with the phone, won't even upload.
Click to expand...

Bummer on the orientation. I've had similar trouble in the past with an image that I could NOT get to stay in the proper orientation when I transferred it elsewhere. Perhaps our Apple products are doing "too much" of the work for us behind the scenes, then unfortunately that work does not transfer to other platforms. Anyone have a fix for this? There must be some setting that you can undo that will let you see the unadjusted image.

I think the uploading trouble has to do with the size of the image file. I don't know what the limit is, but I had to reduce photos that would not upload... Once smaller (< about 2 MB) they uploaded just fine.
 
FlyinLow said:
Really want to see your best shot!
Click to expand...

Bang! You were right, the file was to big. I learned something today, so it's a good day. (In addition to all I'm learning just from AGO).

View attachment 56249

So, GeekGWCT, If you don't have a show car, or a museum car, and that's not glossy enough, or slick enough, which mine is, and just don't think it's pure, AND want to gamble with rock chips, then forgo the film.
Don't know what else there is to say.
 
FlyinLow said:
Really want to see your best shot!
h8dirtycars said:
Bang! You were right,
the file was to big.
I learned something today,
so it's a good day.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Looks great!

IMG_26091.JPG



Bob
 
Perhaps I have watched too much college football but the "gloss" discussion reminds me of that sport. For years you watch players and make judgements about how fast they are by simply watching them. But then the professionals come in (i.e. the NFL combine) and don't just watch them... they measure them... in decimal places.

I personally have never timed a college football player in the 40 yard dash and I have personally never measured the gloss units of different car products. However, the automotive industry has professionals that do just that. Precisely that.

If I want to know the 40 yard dash time of a NFL prospect, I can get it in seconds. I can see that John Ross runs that 40 yard dash 0.2 seconds faster than Quincy Adeboyejo.
If I want to know how the gloss of car product X compares to car product Y, I can get no objective measures. We are stuck with Quincy is "fast" (which he is) or Quincy is "fast enough for me". However, there is no doubt (after the NFL combine) that John Ross is faster (but also lighter and shorter).

The automotive industry has their equivalent professionals that measure gloss. (In fact, the entire manufacturing industry has professionals that measure gloss. I am sure that the manufacturer that made the keyboard I am using measures the gloss of its products.)
 
h8dirtycars said:
Like you mentioned earlier, you have to accept a trade off.
Click to expand...

Maybe you do have to accept a trade off.

FUNX650 said:
I beg to differ: I have PPF and I really don't see the "trade off" you're talking about
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't have to accept a trade off.

Is John Ross faster than Quincy Adeboyejo? Absolutely. No one would say otherwise.
Is PPF less glossy than no PPF? This question can be answered scientifically in decimal places just as the "Is John Ross faster than Quincy Adeboyejo?' can be answered. However, while the NFL Combine publishes results, the manufacturers of PPF do not.

I suspect that the gurus of shine own gloss meters just as the gurus of the NFL Combine own stopwatches. However, I may be wrong.
 
{Just thinking aloud...What if the subject
of "gloss trade-off" (if any) were to be
broached in the following manner?}

I.
•Have any of the vehicle manufacturers
published (and made readily available)
the gloss-levels of their OEM factory
SS and BC/CC paint systems?

II.
•Nowadays...
The half dozen, or so, manufacturers of
the industry's higher quality PPFs actually
do design their clear PPFs to match the
gloss-levels of today’s modern OEM's
factory SS and BC/CC paint systems.

III.
•If that be the case:
-Should there be any "gloss trade-offs"
if the higher quality PPF is installed?

-[RE: my earlier posted before/after PPF
install photo...None that I see.]


IV.
Of course YMMV.



Bob
 
Funx650...
I think those are good questions. I believe that the most critical aspect is that the answer requires objective measuring.
Currently, Autogeek is selling 1,319 products related to "gloss". How many of those products have provided scientifically objective measurements of gloss? I suspect zero.
Not meaning to pick on Autogeek. I think it is just the state of the industry. Manfacturers can sell their product based on saying it is "fast" without providing any objective information on "how fast".

Still... I am thinking "shine gurus" would own a stopwatch and measure the products. Maybe they don't.

Personally, I would like to see some data to help me evaluate Autogeek's 1,319 gloss related products... and the person that provides that is my new "shine guru." (Before Moneyball, the best baseballs scouts weren't into quantifiable measurements. After Moneyball, those guys have either changed or been pushed out). I think the automotive "gloss" industry is overdue for some objective measurements.
Results for gloss - Search
 
Tell ya what… PPF looks a hell of a lot better than stone chips!

Quality PPF is not noticeable unless not maintained.
 
FlyinLow said:
Tell ya what… PPF looks a hell of a lot better than stone chips!

Quality PPF is not noticeable unless not maintained.
Click to expand...

With respect... that sounds a little like saying that if a wide receiver can't catch a ball, it doesn't matter how fast they are.
That is true.
But it doesn't mean fast isn't a critically important function of a quality wide receiver.
 
FUNX650 said:
GeeziePete...You're all over the board!
When I click on the above link I get 1,329 results for gloss related goods.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... my point is that gloss is an extremely pervasive topic throughout Autogeek (this isn't just limited to PPF) and there are (I believe) literally zero metrics.
Take just the topic of tire shine alone. Some prefer glossy. Some do not. (To my knowledge) there is zero objective information available to the consumer to inform buying decisions. Why not tell us the gloss units? Surely the manufacturer knows.

Having said that... I (through trial and error) have already made my tire shine decision (although objective data would have saved me time and money).

A PPF decision (with professional installation) is a more expensive decision than tire shine. Before making it, I was hoping to get answers to the 3 questions in my original post.

"My question(s)...
If you elect to have paint protection film on your car, are you also making a decision to forgo the "show car shine"?
If you can't get "show car shine" with a paint protection film, what is the next best shine alternative with paint protection film... and how much of a step down in shine in this/are their gloss meter comparisons?
If you want "show car shine" and can't get it with paint protection film, is there another way to "fully" protect against rock chips and still use wax?"
 
Using your stopwatch anology, the NFL pays to send scouts and gather the info you can get in seconds. I agree a hard number is considered proof or documented then becomes fact, this whole thread your asking to gather information about gloss and seem dumbfounded that there's no hard numbers. Before the NFL signs anyone to a long term contract they have all the facts and included subjective opinions on things that can't be measured, so I suggest you become the scout and accumulate your own hard numbers. We have enough marketing in this industry already without coming up with a standardized UL type rating system for a $20-100 can of wax.
I think your putting too much time in something that has no need to be quantified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top