Gloss Enhancing v. Non-Gloss Enhancing Shampoos

[PiPUK]

No one seems to have paid any notice to my last post

Most gloss enhancers are not low grade waxes - contrary to the marketing spiel above. If a product has wax in it, it will almost always be marketed as a wash and wax. As addition to that, a wax containing product will (should) give modified water behaviour. A gloss enhancer which does not do this, is not a wax, rather a surfactant, as I detailed previously.

Filling agents - beats the life out of me what they are talking about. In liquid products there is one ubiquitous filling agent - water. I will bet my life that G-wash, like every other equivalent product, has a healthy water 'filling agent' content!

Another note for you is that waxes in emulsion (which is really the only way you can do a wax in a wash type product, unless the wax is water soluble) tend to be of a certain particle size. It is actually quite common for this characteristic to be used to give a dull matte finish, a result of the large particles reflecting light in a non-uniform way. This is the opposite theory to why sealants look so wet and reflective, the sealant adhere evenly to a smooth surface and gives a very uniform reflection.

 

[vegas911gts]

I prefer non gloss enhancing shampoos. I just got af lather and hope that this will become my regular go to shampoo. It's gotten great reviews so I feel confident that I will not need to keep trying new brands.

CG CW&G by the gallon will always be there for me when I want to strip all or most lsp away.

I am looking for a snow foam shampoo that does not strip away lsp and doesn't provide gloss to be used. I want it do this since a foam gun will not be looked upon too kindly in my neighborhood. Just using a hose alone to rinse the car and to wash the wheels has gotten me dirty looks in vegas. And the water police is real if someone reports you. I just don't want to use up a ton of soap in a foam gun and use up too much water. So if I can find a good snow foam soap to use in the venus sprayer I would definitely go that route. I wish af avalanche was sold here. That's what I would use.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx0lXg2qt4]Pianownica Kwazar Snow Foam 30 ml/1l - YouTube[/video]

 

[WRXINXS]

I prefer non gloss enhancing shampoos. I just got af lather and hope that this will become my regular go to shampoo. It's gotten great reviews so I feel confident that I will not need to keep trying new brands.

CG CW&G by the gallon will always be there for me when I want to strip all or most lsp away.

I am looking for a snow foam shampoo that does not strip away lsp and doesn't provide gloss to be used. I want it do this since a foam gun will not be looked upon too kindly in my neighborhood. Just using a hose alone to rinse the car and to wash the wheels has gotten me dirty looks in vegas. And the water police is real if someone reports you. I just don't want to use up a ton of soap in a foam gun and use up too much water. So if I can find a good snow foam soap to use in the venus sprayer I would definitely go that route. I wish af avalanche was sold here. That's what I would use.

Pianownica Kwazar Snow Foam 30 ml/1l - YouTube

How do you know that AF Lather does not contain gloss enhancing agents?

 

[Setec Astronomy]

No one seems to have paid any notice to my last post
There is a lot of marketing here (to be honest, where is there not?). Gloss enhancers - what is your gloss enhancer? Typically it is just another surfactant, but one which tends to leave a higher shine either by leaving a film or something or ensuring that any other film that is left is more uniform.

It's funny, a few weeks ago I had a conversation with someone who went to chemical engineering school a long time ago and was actually around/involved when the term "surfactant" was coined. I asked how does a product like ONR, which has no "soapy surfactants" emulsify dirt, with its "substantive polymers".

The answer I got, similar to another post of yours, was that polymer is a vague term, and that an emulisifier is a type of surfactant, so ONR may not have "soapy" surfactants, but it has surfactants just the same. It's kind of the same marketing message as "contains no harmful silicones" which is interpreted by the layman as the product contains no silicone, when in fact it does contain silicone, just not ones that the mfr. deems "harmful". (That's not to take away anyting from ONR or Optimum, Dr. G is clearly a polymer and surfactant master, "soapy" or not.)

Filling agents - beats the life out of me what they are talking about. In liquid products there is one ubiquitous filling agent - water. I will bet my life that G-wash, like every other equivalent product, has a healthy water 'filling agent' content!

In our context, a filling agent is something that fills/hides swirls, like a heavy carnauba wax can, and like oils or kaolin clay are used in some products.

 

[FUNX650]

No one seems to have paid any notice to my last post

^^^Not to worry...I did.^^^

Most gloss enhancers are not low grade waxes - contrary to the marketing spiel above. If a product has wax in it, it will almost always be marketed as a wash and wax. As addition to that, a wax containing product will (should) give modified water behaviour. A gloss enhancer which does not do this, is not a wax, rather a surfactant, as I detailed previously.

^^^Will not surfactants also modify water's 'behavior' in some sort of fashion or the other?^^^

Filling agents - beats the life out of me what they are talking about. In liquid products there is one ubiquitous filling agent - water. I will bet my life that G-wash, like every other equivalent product, has a healthy water 'filling agent' content!

I used to refer to car wash soap/shampoo-filling agents as "salting"...
a way some manufacturers used to cheat the end-user

Another note for you is that waxes in emulsion (which is really the only way you can do a wax in a wash type product, unless the wax is water soluble) tend to be of a certain particle size. It is actually quite common for this characteristic to be used to give a dull matte finish, a result of the large particles reflecting light in a non-uniform way.

That's why I polished off the dullness I perceived was caused from
my rounds of using a "Wash & Wax type" of Waterless Wash product.


This is the opposite theory to why sealants look so wet and reflective, the sealant adhere evenly to a smooth surface and gives a very uniform reflection.

I do like the property of sealants...especially their longevity as opposed to waxes.
Hard to completely change my carnuba-mindset though.

In the case of my: "certain Spray-On Car Wash (Waterless Wash)"...
It was labeled as having wax: A 'Wash & Wax' product.

I realize that waxes are not: Surfactants-gloss-enhancers, per se.

But I'm apt to state, from a detailer's point of view, that waxes: When used as a protective film-layer (LSP)
atop a clean, polished, smooth...(ergo: "glossy")...paint surface: Appears (to me) to enhance said gloss...
Until the wax begins to: Wane and Gray, so to say.

I know, I know:
Probably just some more misconstrued marketing-hype
that has been heaped upon a misguided soul over the years.




Bob

 

[TroyScherer]

No one seems to have paid any notice to my last post.

I did not miss it, and it wasn't wasted on me. I appreciate your added bout and information. It gives me some new and good information to remember and use as I move forward and pick products.

But at the the same time I have found that many don't speak technical and need it to be broken down to a more understandable level. So being, I tend to try and keep it at the most basic level in my explanations just like my one above.

 

[vegas911gts]

How do you know that AF Lather does not contain gloss enhancing agents?

Because the product page says that it does not contain gloss enhancers or wax.

 

[WRXINXS]

Because the product page says that it does not contain gloss enhancers or wax.

Oh ok I was looking at a website that sold it and it only used some of the product description I now found on the manufactures website. Thanks!!

Is it a pretty solid shampoo? Optimum is my go-to but I like trying new shampoos.

 

[PiPUK]

In our context, a filling agent is something that fills/hides swirls, like a heavy carnauba wax can, and like oils or kaolin clay are used in some products.

But is this relevant to most shampoo? If the shampoo is a clear liquid (it can be coloured, but transparent), it will not have any of these things in it. Wax and oils are similar and would result in an opaque emulsion type product (like car pro Perl) and clays will result in there being visible suspended matter. My experience is that most car shampoos will not be like this (though I accept some will). You can of course see the flip side here - there are numerous shampoos which claim to contain wax but are transparent liquids which almost certainly have no wax content at all.

Will not surfactants also modify water's 'behavior' in some sort of fashion or the other?

I used to refer to car wash soap/shampoo-filling agents as "salting"...
a way some manufacturers used to cheat the end-user

Amusingly you have hit on one of my personal annoyances! Yes, you are right, residual surfactants may indeed modify the behaviour of water. However, they rarely do it for long because they wash away. Often they won’t behave as a wax would, most will do quite the opposite and will inhibit beading and make the surface more water loving. A lot of people misinterpret this behaviour as having diminished the underlying LSP when in fact it has done nothing more than temporarily ‘cover it up’.

Salting is actually quite common in many forms of detergents. If using anionic surfactants, it is the easiest and most effective way to change the thickness of a liquid product. You have to remember that often we actually strive for a product which is less thick because it is much easier to handle. The final thickness is typically tweaked to match customer expectations, to make it that thick without modification makes the formulation very sensitive and much more expensive.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

But is this relevant to most shampoo?

No...I don't even know where filling got mentioned in this thread, I was just trying to help out because I thought you didn't understand our across-the-pond usage of the term.

residual surfactants may indeed modify the behaviour of water. However, they rarely do it for long because they wash away. Often they won’t behave as a wax would, most will do quite the opposite and will inhibit beading and make the surface more water loving. A lot of people misinterpret this behaviour as having diminished the underlying LSP when in fact it has done nothing more than temporarily ‘cover it up’.

One day I bought a cheap shampoo they had on sale at the auto parts store and it instantly killed my beading...I guess I should have just waited for it to "wear" off instead of reapplying my LSP. No matter, I relegated that shampoo to house washing...

PS Now that I'm thinking of it, I guess I realized it was the "sheeting" agent touted on the bottle that had killed my beading, so maybe I didn't reapply my LSP, but I certainly decided it wasn't a shampoo I wanted to use anymore.