Any Major Differences b/t these hybrid coatings?

[Chris Thomas]

How do you do paint/chip repair with a permanent coating on the paint?

The same instructions apply as if you had no coating with the exception of needing to scuff or abrade the coating that will have the touch up paint applied.

Yes, let me rephrase: How do you remove permanent coating to do paint/chip repair?

To remove the coating, you just abrade it, just like OEM clear. You do not need to fully remove it in order for another product to adhere, only to scuff it.

The surface area (minus the bottom since we don't want to coat that) of a 20 foot shipping container is roughly 600 square feet. a 2 micron film over that area is about 115 millilitres (cc) or just under 4 fluid oz.

Plus whatever evaporates upon application. No idea what the solvent ratio is for automotive paints or the products in question but it seems like it should be able to cover an average car with 20 cc.

Actually you can coat the average sized car with 10cc easily.

so by saying "There's no mistake" you are still maintaining that all coatings based on nanotechnology are the same? Because that's the only thing being said here. :dunno:

would also be very fascinated to see your data on thickness of film build as I don't see how 5ml of resin can build 2 microns of film. it just doesn't compute. Feed back please

Rob, I feel like you may need to re read your posts and recondsider whether this is the appropriate way to represent your company. IMO, you should tell the public about the merits your product has instead of trying to poke holes in my statements regarding my product.

I never said that coatings based on nanotechnology are the same, what I said is that they are not coatings like paint is a coating. They are more accurately: extended life sealants. You have conceeded this by the durability claims and attribute fall off YOU stated about your own product. Even the organic part of the hybrid that sounds so advanced will likely be non existant after exposure to certain chemicals, so it's little more than a built in topper.

Regarding OptiCoat thickness: We have two paint coatings OptiCoat and OptiCoat 2.0. OptiCoat (aka OptiGuard, OptiCoat Pro) is the product I was referencing in my first post. OptiCoat 2.0 is our consumer version and is less concentrated, but will still achieve a film thickness of .5 to 1 um easily...and while a thicker coating is not required to yield the benefits of the coating, it can easily be achieved by layering if so desired. I'm actually surprised that 30 ml (3x the amount of OptiCoat needed) of C1 only yields a .02 um thickness as that's no better than conventional products.

I think it's best to inform our customers of the merits of our products instead of making it an Optimum vs. GTechniq thing. They can decide if they want permanent or extended life...they can decide if they want to make one careful trip around the car or three quick ones...they can decide if they want to spend $69 for enough OptiCoat 2.0 to treat two vehicles or whatever your MSRP is for your repective "coatings".

 

[TrKent]

I think I'm with Rob on this one. I would like to see evidence and data supporting the .5-2 micron film thickness claim.

Edit: and also evidence of the hydrophobic functionality not diminishing over the lifetime of the product

 

[gtechrob]

The same instructions apply as if you had no coating with the exception of needing to scuff or abrade the coating that will have the touch up paint applied.



To remove the coating, you just abrade it, just like OEM clear. You do not need to fully remove it in order for another product to adhere, only to scuff it.



Actually you can coat the average sized car with 10cc easily.



Rob, I feel like you may need to re read your posts and recondsider whether this is the appropriate way to represent your company. IMO, you should tell the public about the merits your product has instead of trying to poke holes in my statements regarding my product.

I never said that coatings based on nanotechnology are the same, what I said is that they are not coatings like paint is a coating. They are more accurately: extended life sealants. You have conceeded this by the durability claims and attribute fall off YOU stated about your own product. Even the organic part of the hybrid that sounds so advanced will likely be non existant after exposure to certain chemicals, so it's little more than a built in topper.

Regarding OptiCoat thickness: We have two paint coatings OptiCoat and OptiCoat 2.0. OptiCoat (aka OptiGuard, OptiCoat Pro) is the product I was referencing in my first post. OptiCoat 2.0 is our consumer version and is less concentrated, but will still achieve a film thickness of .5 to 1 um easily...and while a thicker coating is not required to yield the benefits of the coating, it can easily be achieved by layering if so desired. I'm actually surprised that 30 ml (3x the amount of OptiCoat needed) of C1 only yields a .02 um thickness as that's no better than conventional products.

I think it's best to inform our customers of the merits of our products instead of making it an Optimum vs. GTechniq thing. They can decide if they want permanent or extended life...they can decide if they want to make one careful trip around the car or three quick ones...they can decide if they want to spend $69 for enough OptiCoat 2.0 to treat two vehicles or whatever your MSRP is for your repective "coatings".

chris - i have read my posts very carefully. I am not the person coming out with statements such as:

"while nano sealants are merely extended life sealants"

also thickness of film is a red herring. in fact if you want great swirl resistance you need thin and very hard coatings.

you may also want to re-read my posts. what i say is that the hydrophobic function will get diminished through over use of caustic cleaners. it will also get diminished through a variety of factors such as films of dirt/tree sap etc.

the actual sio2 base of exo and of c1 uses a covalent bond to actually become part of the surface of the paint which makes them "permanent". but I think it's naiive and misleading to tell customers that their car will look as good as it does leaving the detailing bay for the rest of its life.

that's my 2c on the matter and I would be very interested to see your test data on film build and not to get another statement like "Just because you don't understand how it happens, doesn't mean it doesn't/cant happen." - this kind of statement you will never get from Gtechniq.

 

[fenderpicks]

OC 2.0 IMO is the most affordable coating period.
Claims to be permanent, while CQ is about 2 years.
But honestly 2 years for me is more than enough.... because there are things i want to touch up on and before the 2 year mark im sure i'd have polish the car already.

But anyways, i currently have CQ on both of my cars.
And OC 2.0 on my trucks wheels.... And is been about 4-5 months now, and all i have to do is use soap and water. Nothing else.
TBS is only dust on my wheels... no dirt or anything at all.... they still look brand new like from day 1.

 

[FUNX650]

I think I'm with Rob on this one. I would like to see evidence and data supporting the .5-2 micron film thickness claim.

-The below link (>>>*<<<) is one type of evidence-gathering of: "film-build thickness-data"-measurement.
(It doe not involve either of the Opti-Coatings or GTech's-Coatings...But CQuartz' Finest-Coating.)

-Not saying this particular "film-build thickness-measurement" example is applicable to
Opti-Coatings, Gtech-Coatings; or, any of the vast array of other Coatings now available...

Rather...
Folks can: Garner/believe what they will.

I tend to believe Optimum's claim of their Coating's film-build thickness. (RE: Chris & Dr. G)

(>>>http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum...pics-thickness-gage-applying-coating-cqf.html<<<)


On another NOTE:
"Don't despise empirical truth. Lots of things work in practice for
which the laboratory has never found proof". ~ Martin H. Fischer




Bob

 

[TrKent]

Our "coating" is a coating like paint is a coating in that it will not delaminate or wear away over time with exposure to chemicals or the environment. Hydrophobic, dirt release and chemical resistant attributes remain intact indefinitely. And to be removed , one must use abrasives.

I don't understand this statement. It sounds similar to the way clear coats were original sold as a magical paint protectant. My understanding is that clear coats (or any car paints) do wear away over a very long period of time and become softer and weaker with exposure to chemicals and the environment.

I was very amused to see data on EXO that showed the water bead contact angle diminished from 110 degrees to about 80 degrees (iirc) over the advertised lifetime of the coating.

Are you saying that the contact angle of water beads on OptiCoat never diminishes? Even if the car sits under acid rain and bird droppings its entire life? And that the car will never get swirls?

 

[blake_jl]

I don't understand why you guys are trying to drill a product that has already more than proven itself. If a car sits under acid rain all its life....OK

GTechniq - you talk about "ie using a quality pure shampoo and not a caustic cleaner" why is it the beading is not effected on Opti-Coat when we use such chemicals but it effects your coating so much?

GTechniq - why is it that when a bird poos on my car coating in your C1 it etches, but when I used Opti-Coat on my car it does not?

I usually don't get involved in threads with so many trolls but as a user of both products I'd like you to answer these questions.

 

[ihaveacamaro]

oooh boy. Sit back, relax, and watch the fun. In case anyone was wondering, I got the popcorn.

 

[blake_jl]

LOL @ the popcorn

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire...

Reference the thickness of the coating, 0.002mm is the equivalent to 2 microns right?

So if we do the math 30% solid content of the Opti-Coat Pro, then (roughly) 3cc of coating should be able to provide 500 square cm of 2 micron film?

500 square cm equates to 0.5 square metres per 3cc, guessing the average car is about 7 square metres of painted surface, 21cc to coat the car.

So I guess 20cc at 2 microns is probably pretty close to the mark and a quote of 1-2 micron film is probably fair?

My math might be out as I did a lot of this in my head, but I'm pretty sure its not.

 

[blake_jl]

My math was slightly out as I missed a zero, but 3cc equals 0.5sqm

 

[PiPUK]

The thickness should be trivial to test. I work in research labs and one of my colleagues regularly does depth profiling and cross sectional microscopy. Here in the UK, £500 would be plenty to get such a test done - put that argument to bed. Likewise I would be interested in seeing some atomic force microscopy done on the 'nano' coatings to actually demonstrate the claimed characteristics (I have seen the difficulties people have in creating these structures under controlled lab conditions so I apologise for being sceptical about consumer goods achieving it so easily!).

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

Allow me to inject the forum rules here as I don't want to see this thread go south.


Forum Rules


1. No personal attacks toward members or non-members will be tolerated.

2. No arguing with Moderators or Administrators.

3. You are welcome to disagree but you must be polite.

4. No bashing any company or their products. No bashing other people. If you can't say anything nice about someone, then don't say anything at all, this also includes talking to others in a demeaning manner. REMEMBER this forum is here for those that are new to detailing and those that have been doing this for years. We expect that you treat everyone with respect no matter what their level of detailing is. We all had to start somewhere.

5. Forum Nicknames and Avatars must be family friendly, they cannot even hint towards anything raunchy, sleazy, sexual or inappropriate. When in doubt we will err on the side of caution and ask you to choose a different Avatar or Nickname.

6. E-mail addresses cannot be used as a forum nickname.

7. If any thread gets off topic it will be at the discretion of the moderator to close and/or move it to moderators corner.

8. Keep language "G Rated", this includes insinuations. If you wouldn't say it in front of your grandparents, your parents or your children, then you shouldn't probably be posting to the AutogeekOnline forum.

9. Self-promoting clickable links are not allowed in your posts.

10. Moderators have the right to move any thread that does not follow within the AGO rules to moderators corner.

11. Only one account per member! The only conceivable reason for multiple accounts would be for fraudulent activity. You will be banned for this action immediately.

12. Continuously breaking the rules to disrupt the online community will result in you being banned from the forum.

13. No Commercial sales or samples from competing companies. One post trying to promote and you will have banned yourself permanently.

14. All messages posted to AutogeekOnline become the property of Autogeek.net. and may not be deleted without first obtaining permission.




Exceptions:
We stand behind our Moderators, if our Moderators think you're causing problems for the online community they are empowered to take whatever action necessary to correct the problem.


Rule Infraction Enforcement
Everyone makes mistakes however; pushing the house rules to the limit will not be tolerated. Therefore, chronic and severe violators of AGO rules will be warned, put on a Queue (time-out), or completely banned based on the severity of the violation. We will apply rule enforcement as follows:

1st time offense- Warning: Minor rule infractions, you will be sent a PM or email by a moderator pointing out the infraction. There will be no action at this time outside of the warning.

2nd time offense- Queue: This will give you a 24 hour up to a two week forum break. This will occur after you have been warned previously or if you are involved with bashing of other members, being a hot-head, spamming, bad language, posting inappropriate materials.

3rd and last time- Banned: You will have effectively banned yourself if you are a repeat offender or if you are involved with any of the following....blatant spamming/selling, attacking forum moderators, pornography, racial/sexist/threatening posts, trolling, fraud, liable/slander, multiple accounts, shills.


Thank you ahead of time for reading the forum rules and abiding by them.

rops:

 

[Jomax]

If opti guard yields a thicker coat, how would one order it?


Sent from my iPhone using AG Online

 

[TrKent]

Thanks Mike

I'll take this time to reiterate what I would like to know.

#1
I would like to see some kind of evidence from OPT on their film thickness research. Not only for their product but also for the products they are comparing it to.

#2
I would like to see evidence of the permanence of their coating. Not just that it bonds permanently but also how the hydrophobic and dirt repellent effects last forever.


Rob does claim that his products do form a permanent bond but also informs us that, over time, the hydrophobia and dirt repellency will diminish even if there is still a film build of the nano-coating.

 

[2old2change]

If opti guard yields a thicker coat, how would one order it?


Sent from my iPhone using AG Online

OPT-Guard is not available to the general public. This is only sold to authorized OG installers and having it's name changed soon to OPT-Pro. OPT-Coat 2.0 is the consumer product.

 

[FUNX650]

Thanks Mike

I'll take this time to reiterate what I would like to know.

#1
I would like to see some kind of evidence from OPT on their film thickness research. Not only for their product but also for the products they are comparing it to.

#2
I would like to see evidence of the permanence of their coating. Not just that it bonds permanently but also how the hydrophobic and dirt repellent effects last forever.


Rob does claim that his products do form a permanent bond but also informs us that, over time, the hydrophobia and dirt repellency will diminish even if there is still a film build of the nano-coating.

I find your above requests to be very interesting, to say the least...

-I noticed you are asking Optimum to also include their comparison-data regarding their Coatings' film-builds along
with comparison-data from other, for brevity purposes: "LSP manufacturers".

-Dr. G, his Lab, and his fellow Chemists/Associates are no different than most other reputable car-care products manufacturers':
Labs/Chemists/Associates in their ability at aquiring each others' LSP's/chemical ingredients, for 'reverse-engineering'.

-And as Mr Megane referenced in his post:
1.) "The thickness should be trivial to test".
2.) Atomic Force Microscope

-Now...I personally would not leave out other types of car-care protection products
if I were to request film-builds.

IMO...Such products are:
-Waxes...said to be just a few millionths of an inch thick.
-Sealants...said to be a couple of extra millionths more thick than waxes.
-And...Then there's even what I consider the first-line of defense in "protection-products":
The paints being sprayed at OEM vehicle paint-kitchens...
The thin film-build of CC-paints included.

-Whom are the consumers to believe?
The above car-care protections' manufacturers probably will not allow just anyone to
"walk-in" and procure film-build data, or the divulgence of their formulae.

-I know better...I've tried!!
I've been employed where paint-coatings' Lab/Chemists have been on premises,
asked to see testing-results...To no avail.
"Propriatory! You're an 'Outsider', and all..."---Was the usual response.

Also:
Film-build also conjurs up layering/topping (and some rather interesting debates).

Once I even asked of Sal:
"How in the World is it possible to create additional film-build-thickness by layering a particular Z-product
upteen-times, when there has been no 'data' provided---Lab or Empirical...to prove that it is, indeed, doing so?"

The answer? You Guessed It!!!


Enough for the moment...
-More of my opinion/comments regarding this film-build subject to follow...



Bob

 

[PiPUK]

-And as Mr Megane referenced in his post:
1.) "The thickness should be trivial to test".
2.) Atomic Force Microscope

-Now...I personally would not leave out other types of car-care protection products
if I were to request film-builds.

IMO...Such products are:
-Waxes...said to be just a few millionths of an inch thick.
-Sealants...said to be a couple of extra millionths more thick than waxes.
-And...Then there's even what I consider the first-line of defense in "protection-products":
The paints being sprayed at OEM vehicle paint-kitchens...
The thin film-build of CC-paints included.

Unfortunately these tests are not necessarily trivial when extended to other things, part of the problem being many will actually 'boil' away if put under vacuum or exposed to the analytical methods. Whilst there are generally ways around this, such a study would end up being quite costly and with no real benefit beyond settling arguments like these. Even with the information, it may not be considered legally reasonable to post results quoting other manufacturers products due to the possibility of bias.

FYI this sort of thing will long since have been done on the paint systems themselves. My understanding is that the technology here is well ahead, as it would be when every last vehicle on the planet is painted!

 

[FUNX650]

-And as Mr Megane referenced in his post:
1.) "The thickness should be trivial to test".
2.) Atomic Force Microscope
-Now...I personally would not leave out other types of car-care protection products
if I were to request film-builds.

IMO...Such products are:
-Waxes...said to be just a few millionths of an inch thick.
-Sealants...said to be a couple of extra millionths more thick than waxes.
-And...Then there's even what I consider the first-line of defense in "protection-products":
The paints being sprayed at OEM vehicle paint-kitchens...
The thin film-build of CC-paints included.

-Whom are the consumers to believe?

The thickness should be trivial to test.

Unfortunately these tests are not necessarily trivial

RE: From your original posting...
-I was only referencing and agreeing with your assessment of: "thickness-test, and it's cost"...

-Along with alluding to AFM's---with the muted-understanding:
Very expensive pieces of testing-equipment---quite suitable for nanoscientists/nanotechnicians...

...Not any of the additional "tests...or their expenses", of what you have now posted.

Unfortunately these tests are not necessarily trivial when extended to other things, part of the problem being many will actually 'boil' away if put under vacuum or exposed to the analytical methods. Whilst there are generally ways around this, such a study would end up being quite costly and with no real benefit beyond settling arguments like these. Even with the information, it may not be considered legally reasonable to post results quoting other manufacturers products due to the possibility of bias.

FYI this sort of thing will long since have been done on the paint systems themselves.

-I more than understand the correlation between OEM vehicle manufacturers,
their 'Paint Engineers', and 'Paint-Manufacturers Vendors".

-I was solely using the: Stated thinness of CC paint as a "whom do you believe"...
without data being supplied to an interested consumer...reference.

My understanding is that the technology here is well ahead, as it would be when every last vehicle on the planet is painted!

I actually could interpret your stating: "My understanding"...

As being just another example of folks asking to be:
Receptive and acceptive of more unscientific, no-data-being-supplied...'Information'.

But I won't.
I don't want to, perhaps, be guilty of taking things out of context. As such:
I do not desire to put, forthwith, what may be yet another conundrum.



Bob

NOTE: I am enjoying your thought-provoking posts...Mr Megane!!

 

[Chris Thomas]

First, let me say that I am providing this information as a service to our customers and potential customers. I realize it is as always best to focus on our product(s) rather than to comment on products others offer since it could be seen as a threat to their marketing and sales. So, while I make my point about SiO based coatings, I only mean to provide general information as a comparison to our SiC based coating. For those who are unfamiliar with these compounds, it is a very interesting read even on Wikipedia to see what Silicon Oxide and Silicon Carbide are used for.

My statement regarding the coating thickness of 2 micron is based on spray application of the coating and using a paint thickness gauge on more than one occasion in our private testing. Any installer can verify the thickness of his application with a PTG to verify what his application yields. Wiping on and other variables may reduce "some" thickness, but my statement of 1-2 um is dead on.

More important to this discussion is the nature of covalent bonds. OptiCoat forms permanent carbon-oxygen bonds and are not broken with caustic or inorganic acids. On the ther hand, SiO forms weak hydrogen bonds which are reversible and break with exposure to caustic solutions. That is why OptiCoat is not affected by detergents or degreasers. Besides polishing, the only way OptiCoat is removed is by using paint removers. So basically, anything that removes aliphatic urethanes or other OEM clear coats, can remove opti-coat. In the past four years after tens of thousands of Opti-Coat applications, the handful of cases where Opti-Coat did not bond properly was shown to be due to having residual waxes or polishing oils on the surface. So like I have stated, OptiCoat is a "coating", like paint is a coating...not merely covering the surface, but becoming the surface. Our most recent independant test on hardness and chemical exposure for our Austrailian distributor can be read here.

SiO bonds, on the other hand, will most likely be diminished or removed with strong detergents, caustic solutions, or degreasers. Whether this happens over time or with exposure is irrelevant. Any product that requires reapplication over time or needs a booster/topper can not be considered permanent. As we stated earlier, Opti-Coat Pro now carries an available life-time warranty for those getting it professionally applied through our program and the only thing that voids the warranty is using abrasive products e.g. polishing!

Rob pointed out that I should not lump all nano sealants together, but I don't see the harm in calling them nano sealants or extended life sealants instead of "coatings". Especially when comparing the main components of SiO based products with our SiC based product. There are many different nano sealants and while there can be quite a large variation in the chemistries of these sealants, the bonding mechanisms are very similar and limited by the same attributes.

As far as the requests for our testing documentation, we choose to not provide research to our competitors. You may purchase our product and conduct testing of your own. Customers, however, may rest assured that our product performs as advertised. This is evident from endless testimonials and is backed by our satisfaction guarantee...and now also backed by a soon to be available life-time guarantee on new car applications by authorized installers.

 

[TrKent]

I think I am satisfied with this answer and have been educated by Mr Megane and Bob's posts. Maybe one day I can get some Opti-Coat and try it out for myself but currently I am more curious & convinced about Gtechniq, CQuartz and 22PLE.

I would like to know if there is any difference between SiO and SiO2 based coatings.