CarPro Reload as Standalone Sealant - 2 Massive Fails...Any thoughts?

[glfnaz]

Just my opinion, but I have problems applying SIO2 products unless I first use a PREP product like Gyeon Prep, McKees 37 coating prep, etc. The iron remover doesn't do a good job on existing sealants. It'll remove wax, but do a poor job on sealants. For kicks I tried Gyeon CanCoat on a small section of my wife's Scion XB that had WG sealant on it. I washed and did an IPA wipe, then applied CanCoat. Major failure. The next weekend I took Gyeon Prep to the same area, then used CanCoat. Perfect results. Then I used Gyeon Prep to the entire car and used CanCoat. Looks wonderful. My guess is you did not actually have bare paint. You just thought you did. Not looking for an argument, just offering my opinion based on what results I get.

For Sio2 sealants I prefer Cure, 22PLE VS1 FC, and also the new Blackfire SIO2 sealant over Reload. YMMV though....Kamikaze OverCoat may be the best, but it's expensive and I'm on a budget. I have some and love it, but the 22PLE VS1 FC will be my main product.

 

[glfnaz]

In fact, your best bet may be to go with Gyeon Prep and Gyeon CanCoat. Guys are getting a year from it and I can do 8-10 sedans from a single bottle. Just be sure to polish or use a good prep product first. CanCoat beading is "Oh my gosh". That would cost you 75 dollars and set you up for years.

 

[Route246]

You are not the first person who has had negative outcomes with this product. It sounds like the marketing department at CarPro overextended the original intent of the product.

Old thread: CarPro Reload - Yay or Nay

From the site: "Originally formulated to maintain the protection and finish quality of CQuartz coatings, Reload has also proven itself as a stand-alone sealant, where it can offer up to 4-months of protection on daily drivers. Reload’s easy to use waterborne formula can be applied to all vehicle surfaces, and even on damp surfaces, making it perfect for quickly topping up your vehicle’s protection and shine."

Almost seems like this marketing collateral was written by a new-grad MBA who has no clue about detailing.

With detailing products it is OK if something else is better or more well liked but the fails described in the thread I referenced are a death knell. The fact that the product has slip-streamed updates without clear versioning on the label is also a serious flaw. When you don't know which version you have or what changes were made to the version you have the resulting confusion increases FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and is all self-inflicted. Detailers in general are interested in ease of use, cost-effectiveness and great results. This product seems not to excel at any of those.

 

[MarkD51]

You are not the first person who has had negative outcomes with this product. It sounds like the marketing department at CarPro overextended the original intent of the product.

Old thread: CarPro Reload - Yay or Nay

From the site: "Originally formulated to maintain the protection and finish quality of CQuartz coatings, Reload has also proven itself as a stand-alone sealant, where it can offer up to 4-months of protection on daily drivers. Reload’s easy to use waterborne formula can be applied to all vehicle surfaces, and even on damp surfaces, making it perfect for quickly topping up your vehicle’s protection and shine."

Almost seems like this marketing collateral was written by a new-grad MBA who has no clue about detailing.

With detailing products it is OK if something else is better or more well liked but the fails described in the thread I referenced are a death knell. The fact that the product has slip-streamed updates without clear versioning on the label is also a serious flaw. When you don't know which version you have or what changes were made to the version you have the resulting confusion increases FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and is all self-inflicted. Detailers in general are interested in ease of use, cost-effectiveness and great results. This product seems not to excel at any of those.

While I am a huge Carpro fan, I might be inclined and believe the statements and observations you've made in your last paragraph.

 

[RippyD]

I've gotten 3 weeks of sheeting from it, 4 if I'm generous. I polished first and let it cure out of the weather overnight. So prep could be part of the issue. But it's really just not very long lasting in my experience. The slickness and shine are excellent, however.

For Sealants that are easy to apply like Reload I'd look at Sonax PNS or Dodo Future Armour. I got 27 and 11 weeks out of these, respectively. There are plenty of other more durable sealants as well that aren't spray-and-wipe. DG 111, any of the Collinite sealants, Finish Kare 1000, and others. Lots of other options for more durable sealants.

 

[PaulMys]

You are not the first person who has had negative outcomes with this product. It sounds like the marketing department at CarPro overextended the original intent of the product.

Old thread: CarPro Reload - Yay or Nay

From the site: "Originally formulated to maintain the protection and finish quality of CQuartz coatings, Reload has also proven itself as a stand-alone sealant, where it can offer up to 4-months of protection on daily drivers. Reload’s easy to use waterborne formula can be applied to all vehicle surfaces, and even on damp surfaces, making it perfect for quickly topping up your vehicle’s protection and shine."

Almost seems like this marketing collateral was written by a new-grad MBA who has no clue about detailing.

With detailing products it is OK if something else is better or more well liked but the fails described in the thread I referenced are a death knell. The fact that the product has slip-streamed updates without clear versioning on the label is also a serious flaw. When you don't know which version you have or what changes were made to the version you have the resulting confusion increases FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and is all self-inflicted. Detailers in general are interested in ease of use, cost-effectiveness and great results. This product seems not to excel at any of those.

Incredibly spot-on post. VERY true. :xyxthumbs:

 

[Loach]

I did a 2.5 month clean durability test with Reload before I removed it.

Prep was M205, IPA wipedown. Only garaged for the first 24 hours, then it sat outside the whole time and was regularly driven.

It held up, no where near the performance in the short term but you should absolutely be getting more than a week out of it. I believe the version I tested is still the latest formula.

 

[RippyD]

Just watched. Nice video. Will be watching your other product tests as well. And fwiw, I agree on Reload. A week seems too short.

Q for OP: did you dilute it? If so, what ratio. How soon after application did it get rained on?

 

[DetailKitty]

I was under the impression Reload is more of a "topper" than a stand alone and I've only used it that way.

 

[MarkD51]

Regardless of longevity, I think I'll always retain Reload in my arsenal provided I'm gong to stay with and use Carpro's Ceramic Coatings.

While after some time has passed after an application of CQuartz, I might monkey and experiment with other sealants and topper products which I can hopefully determine is safe to use,

But I think I'll always still stick with Reload as the very first topper product immediately after CQuartz applications.

I still sort of hold by that theory of at east initially "keeping it in the family", and not play mad scientist and then possibly fubar such an application.

 

[Avi@CarPro]

I linked the video in my original post but basically a few sprays of Reload into a MF applicator, apply in a 2x2 area, cross hatching, let it haze a bit and buff with a premium towel.

Try spraying on the surface as well beside the mf only,only on the mf is very thin coverage, Reload now is safe and more coverage will help to last longer, 1 mf for applying and another dry one for wiping off. work it fast on and fast wipe off after, no waiting or flashing time.

 

[Ochnob]

I had the same issue one time. I applied per mfg instructions and it failed twice. The 3rd time I use a straight alcohol prep and it worked. I took it off not long after because I didn't trust it. I just use it with Ech2o as a drying aid. Not confident as a stand alone.

Sent from my XT1650 using Autogeekonline mobile app

 

[itsgn]

The gloss was amazing and the paint was crazy slick immediately afterwards. I parked it and drove it a few days later. It started raining and I noticed there was very little paint beading. I then washed it that weekend and noticed even when just rinsing down there was ZERO beading, the water stuck to the paint and the surface wasn't slick at all, it was completely naked there was no protection on that paint.

Did you use it on a perfect paint, with no scratches or marring whatsoever? If you didn't, don't be surprised by the results, as Reload does not have fillers and does no filling, but is just a very thin sealant; and all the scratches and defects in your paint are a perfect place for all the dust and minerals from the rain (or even just sitting) to settle there, and prevent the water from beading and sheeting properly.

On damaged paint paste waxes and other, thicker sealant work better, because they not only coat the paint, but also fill up the scratches (at least to some level), and then create a more even and flush surface, which leaves less place for contaminant to settle, and results in better water behavior. It doesn't mean they also protect your paint better, and honestly, water behavior is not (or at least should not be) the only thing by what you can judge how good a sealant works or what it does for your paint. There's far more to them than this, and even though water beading behavior is the easiest to test for, it's also probably the least important property of a sealant or coating, at least from a practical standpoint.

Also, did you clean the surface thoroughly prior to application (so Reload could actually bind to the paint) and did you spread out Reload properly with for ex. a microfiber or foam applicator, to ensure even and full coverage? Or did you just spritz some of it here and there, and then wiped over with a microfiber towel - which in no way did ensure you actually covered the area with the product in a meaningful way. In which case you obviously can't expect great results. Again, some other coating might work better here because they might have a thicker formula or might be more visible, and because of that they might spread better or you might see better whether you achieved a full coverage with them.

Now, I'm not saying Reload is perfect, or that you definitely got sub par results with it, because of that. But prep and application definitely affect, and actually are the major determining factors for what results you can expect from a specific sealant to achieve.

 

[rlmccarty2000]

Reload is a good product. You just have to dial back your expectations for it. I don’t expect to get a month out of it on a DD, but I do expect more than a week even without proper prep. It’s cheap enough to use every week if necessary. It should be marketed more as a shine enhancer that full blown stand alone sealant.

 

[Finick]

honestly, water behavior is not (or at least should not be) the only thing by what you can judge how good a sealant works or what it does for your paint. There's far more to them than this, and even though water beading behavior is the easiest to test for, it's also probably the least important property of a sealant or coating, at least from a practical standpoint.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I’m genuinely curious; how can any other quality be objectively measured?

If we assume that the presence of a freshly laid down wax or sealant comes with a certain water behavior - say Collinite 845s aggressive water beading, and we see it suddenly stop beading after a week, would it not be reasonable to think the protection failed somehow?

Or if we had applied a fresh layer of 845, and over the weekly maintenance washes notice degradation of the water behavior - would it not also be logical to think the protection is wearing down? Whether it be through exposure to the elements or abrasion from weekly washing.

I don’t disagree that some LSPs protect more robustly from big/bird poop etching, but I just don’t see how it can be objectively argued that protection is still on the paint if the behavior has changed so drastically.

In the case of a coating, they can become contaminated and you can decon them heavily and sometimes revive their performance, but I haven’t ever seen that be the case with a wax or sealant.

I also feel like the water behavior of an LSP is one of the biggest practical benefits of any LSP. Isn’t that the reason coatings are so popular? Because of the longevity and self cleaning properties?

I know if I were to put a sealant or wax on and the water suddenly stopped beading, and I was told by the manufacturer to trust that it was still there, id simply move on from that company, because I’d likely not enjoy washing and drying a car that behaves like an unprotected one (no matter if the LSP is still there or not.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[itsgn]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I’m genuinely curious; how can any other quality be objectively measured?

You mean like gloss, chemical resistance or durability? Easily. There are gloss meters, and you can drop different stuff on coated and non-coated surfaces, and check how easily they can be removed. And durability you can check by monitoring the change in these properties over time.

If we assume that the presence of a freshly laid down wax or sealant comes with a certain water behavior - say Collinite 845s aggressive water beading, and we see it suddenly stop beading after a week, would it not be reasonable to think the protection failed somehow?

No, because as I explained, water behavior depends heavily on the surface you're applying to coating to. If it's uneven (meaning it's full of major or minor scratches), a thin sealant like Reload won't be able to compensate for that, which in turn will result in not so great water behavior. However, it might still enhance the gloss or the chemical resistance of the surface better, and last a longer time, than a different sealant or coating, that seems to provide better beading, but is not as much chemically resistant, or will degrade faster over time, than said product.

Or if we had applied a fresh layer of 845, and over the weekly maintenance washes notice degradation of the water behavior - would it not also be logical to think the protection is wearing down?

No, because water behavior and chemical/physical protection are affected by very different things. And the degradation or even initial low performance of one doesn't necessarily mean degradation or low performance in the other area. If anything, gloss is what could be relevant to water behavior (because they both depend on the surface being perfectly even, at least on the micron level) - but even that is just partially true (because differences at the nano level might result in very different water behavior) .

I don’t disagree that some LSPs protect more robustly from big/bird poop etching, but I just don’t see how it can be objectively argued that protection is still on the paint if the behavior has changed so drastically.

I didn't argue for the protection being definitely on the paint even if beading is not present. What I said was, that even if beading is not present, there still might be protection there. Which are very different things.

I also feel like the water behavior of an LSP is one of the biggest practical benefits of any LSP. Isn’t that the reason coatings are so popular? Because of the longevity and self cleaning properties?

Again: longevity is not related to water behavior or self-cleaning properties. There are protections that provide virtually no visible "edge" in these areas over regular paint (or might even perform worse), yet provide immense protection against both chemical and physical impacts, and even provide more shine. Like clear bras.

I know if I were to put a sealant or wax on and the water suddenly stopped beading, and I was told by the manufacturer to trust that it was still there, id simply move on from that company

Well, that's your choice, and you're obviously free or judge a product any way you want. But really, just because beading stops, doesn't mean anything about the sealant being there. For ex. if you've pollen contamination settled on the surface (even if just one hour or one day after application), you'll experience terrible beading, even though the sealant will be obviously fully in tact on the surface - just below the contamination, that will ultimately affect water behavior.

because I’d likely not enjoy washing and drying a car that behaves like an unprotected one (no matter if the LSP is still there or not.)

Again, this is your prerogative, and it might even be a valid point for evaluation or preference amongst different sealants and products. Meaning, it's just as valid to buy or like a product for the water behavior it provides, than for liking it for the chemical or physical resistance, shine, or any other property it might provide. However, it makes no point trying to make claims about one property of a product, while assessing or observing actually a different property of it - ie. claim that it's not durable or doesn't provide protection, just because it doesn't bead water the way you like it.

That was really the only point I was making. And everyone is free to use whatever product they like anyway. I'm not here to convince anyone to use for ex. Reload if they are not convinced by it. I'm just merely point out practical flaws in the conclusions some people claim to have arrived at by observing this or that.

 

[Franko07]

as a note on reload i alcohol wiped my large bathroom mirror, used carpro eraser then put reload on it.... the results the first week were pretty good, no fog or dirty mirror, the 2nd week half the mirror is foggy.....

not sure why half of the mirror is foggy i did the whole thing at the same time, and the side that isn't foggy is closest to the shower.

that was my first encounter with reload... i will have to see if it works on something else.

 

[RippyD]

No, because as I explained, water behavior depends heavily on the surface you're applying to coating to. If it's uneven (meaning it's full of major or minor scratches), a thin sealant like Reload won't be able to compensate for that, which in turn will result in not so great water behavior. However, it might still enhance the gloss or the chemical resistance of the surface better, and last a longer time, than a different sealant or coating, that seems to provide better beading, but is not as much chemically resistant, or will degrade faster over time, than said product.

These are significant claims. You seem to be saying that sealants behave differently on polished vs. non-polished surfaces, and that thicker sealants act as fillers and repel water better than thinner sealants. Interesting.

Having tested quite a few sealants I can say the 3-4 longest lasting all seem to be thicker. Beyond that I don't see an obvious correlation between product viscosity and sheeting action or longevity. (Note that I have done analysis - this is best guess.) I'd have to look at each product, eyeball (or measure) the viscosity, and then see how that trends relative to sheeting duration. But I can also say that several thicker (paste-like) products I've used have far less longevity than many thin ones. So I suspect chemistry may be a bigger factor than viscosity. I could be wrong.

Consider this thought experiment: Take a sealant that has low viscosity. Now add an inert thickener to it. Is your theory that the thicker one will outlast the thinner one, everything else being equal?

I haven't done any testing across polished vs. non-polished paint so no idea if longevity changes on a smoother surface.

 

[itsgn]

as a note on reload i alcohol wiped my large bathroom mirror, used carpro eraser then put reload on it.... the results the first week were pretty good, no fog or dirty mirror, the 2nd week half the mirror is foggy.....

It should have been foggy from the beginning, because Reload is the wrong product to achieve that. Fog is nothing else than a massive amount of tiny water droplets, that scatter the light all around - and that's why the surface appears white and reflections/lights blurred. By making the surface hydrophobic (by using products like Reload), you're not actually hindering from, but rather promoting the surface to fog up. Because now, instead of forming larger drops and spreading out on the surface, you're forcing water to form very tiny drops with a sharp contact angle, which - as said - scatters the light around randomly.

If you want to prevent the surface from fogging up, you actually have to do the opposite: you've to make the surface hydrophilic, which will prevent the forming of water droplets, and instead will help water to spread out on the surface evenly and with very low contact angles. This way water will still condensate on the surface (you can't prevent that, only by heating the surface above ambient temperatures), but light scattering will be minimized, and you will not see the surface fogging up. (If anything, you'll see small "rivers" of water flowing down on the surface, very thin, and very much spread out.)

CarPro also has a product just for that: it's called Fog Fight, and works very well even on bathroom mirrors. It lasts here for me about 2-3 months - but, as always, your mileage might vary.

PS: If you want to apply Fog Fight on a surface previously treated with Reload, make sure to lightly polish it first, because otherwise the product will just not stick/bind to the surface, and you will see no (or barely any) change in water behavior. It also doesn't hurt to polish the surface even then when no product was applied previously to it, because that will help with the removal of any contaminants on the surface, and will make the glass smoother, which is essential both for proper binding of any coating, and also for making the surface as hydrophilic as possible and to help the water spread out as much as it just can.

 

[Franko07]

It should have been foggy from the beginning, because Reload is the wrong product to achieve that. Fog is nothing else than a massive amount of tiny water droplets, that scatter the light all around - and that's why the surface appears white and reflections/lights blurred. By making the surface hydrophobic (by using products like Reload), you're not actually hindering from, but rather promoting the surface to fog up. Because now, instead of forming larger drops and spreading out on the surface, you're forcing water to form very tiny drops with a sharp contact angle, which - as said - scatters the light around randomly.

If you want to prevent the surface from fogging up, you actually have to do the opposite: you've to make the surface hydrophilic, which will prevent the forming of water droplets, and instead will help water to spread out on the surface evenly and with very low contact angles. This way water will still condensate on the surface (you can't prevent that, only by heating the surface above ambient temperatures), but light scattering will be minimized, and you will not see the surface fogging up. (If anything, you'll see small "rivers" of water flowing down on the surface, very thin, and very much spread out.)

CarPro also has a product just for that: it's called Fog Fight, and works very well even on bathroom mirrors. It lasts here for me about 2-3 months - but, as always, your mileage might vary.

PS: If you want to apply Fog Fight on a surface previously treated with Reload, make sure to lightly polish it first, because otherwise the product will just not stick/bind to the surface, and you will see no (or barely any) change in water behavior. It also doesn't hurt to polish the surface even then when no product was applied previously to it, because that will help with the removal of any contaminants on the surface, and will make the glass smoother, which is essential both for proper binding of any coating, and also for making the surface as hydrophilic as possible and to help the water spread out as much as it just can.

I was not looking to rid it of fog, it was an observation that it that way.

I just wanted the mirror to be easy to wipe off and that achieved that