Tom Horvath Owner SYSTEM ONE

[Meghan]

Here is the deal, at Detail Fest we will make sure that we can get a few members to take a try with System One. This way we can have some hands on opinions on the product and its performance. Just like any other polish, this might not be your favorite but then again you might just like it.... Tom will be at Detail Fest to explain his system and I will make sure we have a vehicle to test it out on. For you new rotary users, it will not be my car!
I do appreciate all of the input and info given out in there thread, this is what this forum is here for... so thank you everyone that is contributing in a positive way!

 

[makdaddy626]

Here is the deal, at Detail Fest we will make sure that we can get a few members to take a try with System One. This way we can have some hands on opinions on the product and its performance. Just like any other polish, this might not be your favorite but then again you might just like it.... Tom will be at Detail Fest to explain his system and I will make sure we have a vehicle to test it out on. For you new rotary users, it will not be my car!
I do appreciate all of the input and info given out in there thread, this is what this forum is here for... so thank you everyone that is contributing in a positive way!

I agree (and hope no one is taking my post in a negative manner). I think most of the hard questions being presented, that are not the norm with a new product arise from the marketing claims of the product rather than doubt about how well the product will work in terms of producing a great finish. If the marketing only claimed that it was a great polish, I don't think we'd see the same kind of scrutiny. I think it's more about the claim that using anything else is more damaging.

 

[Brian_Brice]

Ok, now I'm getting confused...

Ultimately, I'll probably try the product (have plenty of polish right now) based on the user reviews I've seen from so many on this forum whose opinion I value, and if the product works, who cares about the marketing.

But, for me, to many of the answers seem to be evasive...

The question posed regarding the safety of the x3 vs diminishing abrasives is the most notable to me. The mention of a 1" thick clear coat was meant to illustrate the point that the amount of cc that has to removed to get rid of a scratch or swirl is a constant, determined by the depth of the scratch, regardless of the polish/compound used. The reply ignored this and instead focused on the fact the cc isn't 1" thick. I'm sure that x3 is safer and would remove less clear than a heavy compound such as Power Gloss with all other variables being the same, but I wouldn't pick up PG and a wool pad to get rid of light swirls. So the question is, how is x3 safer than the least aggressive diminishing abrasive cabable of doing the job?

Also, I have a similar issue with the illustration of rubbing an aggressive compound against the paint compared to x3... if you take x3 and a wool pad, you'd get some marring as well right? if not, why the need to follow up with a second or third pass with a lighter cut pad? It's hard to follow any logic that implies, x3 is less abrasive and therefore removes less cc but, at the same time is capable of removing the same defects as a compound.

Finally, the idea that polishing is what causes swirls is little annoying... everyone knows that compounding, or the use of an agressive polish, or the use of a light polish with an agressive pad, can leave marring that has to be corrected with a less agressive polish or pad, but the same seems to be true of x3, right? thus the 2 (or 3) step process. To say polishing causes swirls seems off the mark as it implies that if you didn't polish your vehicle would stay swirl free.

Spot on! Very happy to see another understanding the whole scheme of things. I didn't like the body shop talk either, why are the vast majority of body shops around the world getting swirl marks? Becuase they aren't detailers that's why, pretty simple. They are two entirely different genres of the industry, and in most cases the detailers are the forgotten link to the puzzle.

 

[Tom Horvath]

Your System One -polish,wool pad , foam pad, spray wax, sounds very similar to Autoint Fini system which also is - polish, wool pad, foam pad, spray wax. Are they similar, the same, or a idea that 2 people had at the same time?

Never tried the product you are talking about
but it sounds the same

 

[David Fermani]

. I didn't like the body shop talk either, why are the vast majority of body shops around the world getting swirl marks? Becuase they aren't detailers that's why, pretty simple. They are two entirely different genres of the industry, and in most cases the detailers are the forgotten link to the puzzle.

Ain't this the truth. I go to multiple body shops daily that do nice paint work, but horrible buffing & finishing. It's just not in their best interest to pacify this lack of knowledge. And to put fuel on fire, they advertise that they do "detailing".

 

[Tom Horvath]

Wow
I know it’s hard to believe
Moreover, I’m not asking you to believe me
I do very expensive paint jobs in my shop SYSTEM ONE products.com in excess of $100,000.00
I’ve co authored a book in the Auto Body trade were the discussion of polishing paint is discussed Amazon.com: Pro Paint/body Hp1394: Books: Jim Richardson
So there is a method to my madness

The body shops have struggled with the issue of polishing just like the detailers I talk to every day
And I agree I’m making bold statements that I make directly to Ford GM Toyota and prove the fact with every scientific procedure.

So that said I’m not asking you to believe me I love to polish paint and I love absolutely perfect results.

I do believe from the questioned asked here that you do also love absolutely perfect results
And it is very refreshing for me to find such passion in a trade
Try it, the finish after a wipe down will not be beat!

 

[Brian_Brice]

Ain't this the truth. I go to multiple body shops daily that do nice paint work, but horrible buffing & finishing. It's just not in their best interest to pacify this lack of knowledge. And to put fuel on fire, they advertise that they do "detailing".

Very true David, most body shops I have worked with (mostly sanding down their paint and polishing it out) feel like their prices have to be so competitive it's not even close to their best interest to learn and spend the time properly preparing their paint jobs. It is what it is and for the most part I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

 

[Derrick]

Tom,
does system one use Aluminum oxide as the cutting agent? I used it about a week ago and the dust got to be too much. Maybe I'll add a oil based lubricant to it next time I use it. I don't want to add a wax because it will hide the defects. What type of oil do you recommend?

Derrick

 

[Tom Horvath]

Tom,
does system one use Aluminum oxide as the cutting agent? I used it about a week ago and the dust got to be too much. Maybe I'll add a oil based lubricant to it next time I use it. I don't want to add a wax because it will hide the defects. What type of oil do you recommend?

Derrick

Hi Derrick yes to Aluminum oxide
and only use water to dilute the product if you not not looking for covering agents
Because SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish is a true nano-product the water works to dilute and lubricate the surface.

 

[jaredpointer]

Hi Derrick yes to Aluminum oxide
and only use water to dilute the product if you not not looking for covering agents
Because SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish is a true nano-product the water works to dilute and lubricate the surface.

Isn't aluminum oxide also referred to as a diminishing abrasive? BTW, I'm no chemist - I just have an interest in the whole discussion here.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Ok, now I'm getting confused...



Finally, the idea that polishing is what causes swirls is little annoying... everyone knows that compounding, or the use of an agressive polish, or the use of a light polish with an agressive pad, can leave marring that has to be corrected with a less agressive polish or pad, but the same seems to be true of x3, right? thus the 2 (or 3) step process. To say polishing causes swirls seems off the mark as it implies that if you didn't polish your vehicle would stay swirl free.

One thing I did notice is that at the seminar, Tom did refer to compounding and glazing to which the majority of the room shook there heads in agreement. Most of us avoid "glazes" at all costs. One of the conclusions I drew at the seminar is that this product is based more towards body shops who don't know how to polish vs. detailers of autogeek/autopia standards who have been finishing paints out perfectly using high speed buffers and wiping the surface with prep-sol or alcohol.

As stated, most swirl marks I deal with are wash induced marring, which seems to go against the premise of System One, which seems to play on the fact that buffing creates swirls. Aggresive polishing and compounding causes swirls the same as using System One with a wool pad does. It is the nature of the beast.

It seems a lot of the testing has done vs. compounds which is fine, but I am more curious to the abrasion level of X3 vs. P085D or 106ff or 3M 3000 UF SE. Each of these polishes (specifically PO85D and UF) are safe to use by hand and will not cause marring on most paints by hand, the same as X3 will not. However, since each of the these features abrasives that break down and reduce from very little cut to none, it seems they are safer then a product that continues to cut and cut (such as System One), if that is how we are defining safe.

 

[Sa//|XP]

Guys - I honestly think that we need to keep in mind that "non-diminishing" doesn't necessarily mean zero reduction in particle size. It simply infers that the particle size is designed to remain mostly constant relative to diminishing abrasives.
Obviously, a particle made of soft metal like Al2O3 is going to diminish in size somehwat.

FWIW, I felt that the finish was nearly LSP ready after using S1X3 with a light cut wool pad. Very little marring, if any. I was skeptical that it would do very much correction, but it definitely surprised me.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Guys - I honestly think that we need to keep in mind that "non-diminishing" doesn't necessarily mean zero reduction in particle size. It simply infers that the particle size is designed to remain mostly constant relative to diminishing abrasives.
Obviously, a particle made of soft metal like Al2O3 is going to diminish in size somehwat.

FWIW, I felt that the finish was nearly LSP ready after using S1X3 with a light cut wool pad. Very little marring, if any. I was skeptical that it would do very much correction, but it definitely surprised me.

I am assuming you mean nearly LSP ready, minus the wool marring correct?

 

[Tom Horvath]

Yes there are many different kinds of material used as a cutting agent and I’ve heard formulators claim that there Aluminum Oxide is Diminishing.

 

[Sa//|XP]

I am assuming you mean nearly LSP ready, minus the wool marring correct?

Quite honestly, I'm starting to wonder if wool mars at all. I'm wondering if wool causes conventional diminishing abrasives to mar. Because I started to notice reduced marring with other nanopolishes and now it is virtually nonexistent. I wish I understood more about the vehicle that actually cuts the surface. I've always assumed, like most, that both the pad and the compound cut. Perhaps the wool acts more like a carrier in this case?
Just speculating. Tom can elaborate. This stuff is very different than what I'm used to, though.

 

[Derrick]

Tom,
Do you think a good dust mask will keep system one's nano powders out or are the particles to small for the mask to be effective? I hear that aluminum oxide dust can destroy the lungs. I know I was hurting after using the product and I thought I kept the surface wet.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Quite honestly, I'm starting to wonder if wool mars at all. I'm wondering if wool causes conventional diminishing abrasives to mar. Because I started to notice reduced marring with other nanopolishes and now it is virtually nonexistent. I wish I understood more about the vehicle that actually cuts the surface. I've always assumed, like most, that both the pad and the compound cut. Perhaps the wool acts more like a carrier in this case?
Just speculating. Tom can elaborate. This stuff is very different than what I'm used to, though.

My conclusion is that wool does cause marring, only because wiping it across the surface will induce marring on the paint. I have had many detailers telling me they finishing with wool and there was no marring, but when I looked at the paint, I always saw marring... I don't know, but its an interesting topic.

 

[danponjican]

My conclusion is that wool does cause marring, only because wiping it across the surface will induce marring on the paint. I have had many detailers telling me they finishing with wool and there was no marring, but when I looked at the paint, I always saw marring... I don't know, but its an interesting topic.

Have you ever tried finishing grades of wool like Edge blue wool? I noticed you use the purple foamed wool from Lake Country. I think the blue Edge wool is even finer and finishes down LSP ready easily.

 

[flaco]

Guys - I honestly think that we need to keep in mind that "non-diminishing" doesn't necessarily mean zero reduction in particle size. It simply infers that the particle size is designed to remain mostly constant relative to diminishing abrasives.
Obviously, a particle made of soft metal like Al2O3 is going to diminish in size somehwat.

Excellent point.

 

[Sa//|XP]

Re: marring

My conclusion is that wool does cause marring, only because wiping it across the surface will induce marring on the paint. I have had many detailers telling me they finishing with wool and there was no marring, but when I looked at the paint, I always saw marring... I don't know, but its an interesting topic.

Yeah, I'm definitely still at the point where I am always going to follow up a wool pad with a finishing pad, no matter how light a cut the wool pad has. But I am interested in minimizing the amount of cut, while achieving the correction I am after. Leaves more room for the customer to return again and again!
But you bring up an interesting experiment I'd like to try. Wiping wool across a surface might induce marring. But what if I applied a carrier lubricant, with no abrasives in it, and then repeated that experiment? Even a mild water-based carrier as found in S1X3. Would it be sufficient to reduce/eliminate marring?