How Much Does Wax "Really" Do For Perfect Paint?

[FUNX650]

Ok Bob,
Before putting on the Proffessor Cap & Gown and start quizzing, it's worth noting that those were questions, with question marks right?

So where in there did you see that I made the following statements?:



The answer is you didn't, but rather just made your own assumptions right?
That would render your questions Moot, wouldn't it?

Now,

-When you put a high Octane Gas in your car vs low Octane do you "see" the actual percentages and contents of each?

-Same question with engine oil, do you "see" the difference with different grades ? Do you "see" the Difference between Synthetic and conventional oil, or there isn't any? Do you actually "see" the contents?

-Same question with different wiper fluids, do you "see" the actual content, and the actual percentages of Alchol and other ingredients in them? The one for Summer vs the one for Winter, do you see the actual contents of each?

In any of the above, do you see a difference in performance?

Bob here too

I applaud your attempt to "bob and weave"...
But:
Since you didn't preface your rebuttal to slimnib's post that: You do not see the difference between an oily wax vs one with polymers vs one with higher nuba etc...

Then: No...That doesn't render my questions Moot, IMHO.

Speaking of questions:
You never directly answered any of the ones that pertained to "Waxes".

"Another Bob".......{LOL}

 

[Guessless]

So you don't see the difference between an oily wax vs one with polymers vs one with higher nuba etc.?

I applaud your attempt to "bob and weave"...

: You do not see the difference between an oily wax vs one with polymers vs one with higher nuba etc...

"Another Bob".......{LOL}

Thank you for your applause, much appreciated.
However the symphony is still playing, let's wait till the Music stops.rops:

So when quoting my question, by mischievously cut and pasting it to your liking and omitting the "so" and "?" you turn it into a statement of facts rather than a question it was. Clever you.

Had I made a statement of facts, then yes your questions would be valid. But with you twisting it and thereby changing the context it was in, then No Sadly they stay Dead Moot.

As for answering your questions pertaining to wax, rather than twisting my words you could ask a straight forward question like:

"Hey Bob do you know the answers to these...."

BTW you didn't answer my questions either.


That same Bob here

 

[inDetail]

Mike pointed out the most important benefits of an LSP. Keeps the paint clean underneath, makes it easier to wash, defends against pollution to some degree and hides minor imperfections.

A lot of what a wax can do is all hype. I can't tell the difference between wax, sealant, sealant with a wax on top when they are side by side. I can feel the difference, water behaves a little different that is about it.

Maybe we can dispel and confirm some LSP visual improvement claims and swap samples and do blind tests. Have someone do test spots with 4 different products that are not labeled and we all try and match the test spot to the bottle. I think a lot of us would be hard pressed to be able to do it. I have done it with my products and the only way I was able to tell was by touch and spraying some water on the tests. That was it.

As far as junkman's opinion on LSP hype. I think the point behind his comments is in the end the differences between a $1000 and $50 tub in terms of looks is probably not worth the money. If anything the only differences may be ease of application, smell and fancy package. In other words buy a quality brand with a good rep and your making a solid decision because it really does not do that much more to make your car look better.
I always shake my head at wax junkies. Hey if that's your addicition then cool. You really only need 1 or 2 sealants and one max 2 waxes. I prefer to spend the money that I saved from the additional 8 tubs of wax on stuff that I need more off, wheel cleaner, MF's, polishes, pads and tape. I prefer to spend the $ on stuff I burn through not a tub of wax that I smell more often then I use.

 

[TurboToys]

Ok Bob,
Before putting on the Proffessor Cap & Gown and start quizzing, it's worth noting that those were questions, with question marks right?

So where in there did you see that I made the following statements?:



The answer is you didn't, but rather just made your own assumptions right?
That would render your questions Moot, wouldn't it?

Now,

-When you put a high Octane Gas in your car vs low Octane do you "see" the actual percentages and contents of each?

-Same question with engine oil, do you "see" the difference with different grades ? Do you "see" the Difference between Synthetic and conventional oil, or there isn't any? Do you actually "see" the contents?

-Same question with different wiper fluids, do you "see" the actual content, and the actual percentages of Alchol and other ingredients in them? The one for Summer vs the one for Winter, do you see the actual contents of each?

In any of the above, do you see a difference in performance?

Bob here too

i'll answer those in a way that can be understood.

high octane gas, yes you can actually see contents and percentages of gas using the proper measuring devices , most commonly used for e85 to tell the difference between what would normally be e85-e90 in the summer, and when it goes down to as low as e70 or so in the winter, these meters help keep the car running at the proper AF ratios with the difference in gas/ethanol blends.

so yes, you can visually see a difference in fuel quality when using the right equipment.


engine oil, yes you can actually see the difference between engine oils performance by using something called an oil analysis, a laboratory will analyze your samples, giving you approximate PPM of different types of metals, solids, liquids, and other compounds and such in the oil, allowing you to see exactly how much protection was being provided by the oil, you can also get a list of things such as how much breakdown the oil has seen (synthetic normally has little to no breakdown at all, which is why its so nice to run in turbocharged cars with oil cooled turbos), and you can also visually see the numbers of how much additives are remaining in the oil so you can tell how much longer based on the additive level and contaminant level you can run the oil before needing to change it.


as for the wiper fluids, that summer vs winter comparison with alcohol (methanol) contents vs the other could easily be observed through its freezing point. a quick analysis of what temperature it freeze it can give you a pretty accurate number of the water vs alcohol contents of it.








now back to the wax debate

do you know of any device that will allow you to detect how thick of a layer of wax you have?

are you aware there are devices called glossometers that will literally tell you based on a baseline, of how glossy a surface is? (we use them at work to determine if the coating using on backboards is up to the right gloss or not).

have you tried to take a scraping sample of your wax to see if you can get it analyzed and determine exactly how much there is, how "shiny" it is, and how "smooth" it is compared to other materials?

the reason that the level of gloss, looks, and feel of wax is up to debate is because there is no set in stone way of determining these things, it is more or less in the eye of the beholder.



edit: i might also mention that the difference in a paints glossyness can be affected by the paint code itself, how much base coat there is and how much clearcoat there is. the more clearcoat there is on a car, the "wetter" it will look because you will be looking through a thicker layer of "gloss", ever seen how much clearcoat is applied to cars that are specially show cars, especially "lowriders", they have a ridiculous amount of clearcoat becaues they want that super wet look.

not to mention the amount of clearcoat and basecoat mixing can give an even deeper look to the paint instead of having a dull color underneath of a lot of wet clear.

then you could come to the conclusion that not only the amount of paint, and the way that it was applied make a difference in "gloss", but the actual paint code will make a difference as well, paints that contain more colors (more towards looking "white") aren't going to come off as glossy as colors that have far less "color" too them, towards the black spectrum.

and then what about flakes. what one wax does for a black paint it might not do the same for a pearl paint. if most of the light is being reflected off the surface and not making it's way into the pearl layer, it just won't reflect the same. but it might look great on say a dark blue car with no flake or pearl.


the thing thats being discussed has thousands of variables, and i would applaud you or anyone if they could easily identify all the variables and give quality data on the subject to provide nothing but truthful and backed analysis of why one wax is better than another through scientific testing that is done to disprove the theory, not just prove the theory.

 

[swanicyouth]

Thank you for your applause, much appreciated.
However the symphony is still playing, let's wait till the Music stops.rops:

So when quoting my question, by mischievously cut and pasting it to your liking and omitting the "so" and "?" you turn it into a statement of facts rather than a question it was. Clever you.

Had I made a statement of facts, then yes your questions would be valid. But with you twisting it and thereby changing the context it was in, then No Sadly they stay Dead Moot.

As for answering your questions pertaining to wax, rather than twisting my words you could ask a straight forward question like:

"Hey Bob do you know the answers to these...."

BTW you didn't answer my questions either.


That same Bob here

^ sucked into the black hole of arguing with Bob about "wax"... Good luck my friend.

 

[Bunky]

Most people notice a before and after on car that has been waxed but it does not matter if they cannot guess which wax/sealant.

Some have tried to associate maximum shine with a single measurement of gloss but your eyes see more than gloss. We see all the reflected light at angles and not just what is reflected at the specific angle that the glossmeter measures.

Few deny that for maximum shine, the paint should be as smooth as possible. But most are not dealing with perfect paint so it is a moot point to discuss perfect paint.

 

[Guessless]

Different colors do make a difference, however on the same- no difference in look, There is however, a difference in feel- smoothness, some waxes are smoother than others.

But then again. some people have superman vision and say then can tell the difference, so be it they can and I cannot. My loss.

Thanks and sorry to have missed your post, also if my post came accross as a challenge negating your views; no such thing was intended. Even if I had decades of experience in this field which I don't, and was an expert which I'm not, I wouldn't allow myself to negate, belittle, or poke fun at someone else's opinions when they differ from mine.

I was just asking your thoughts so I could share mine, that was before somebody took it upon himself to jump in there B.... Naked and start muddying the waters as apparently that's how they get a kick out of things....

Back to wax,

I somewhat differ.

IMHO a wax is made of so many different ingredients, different combinations of which creates a unique product. As such they ought to result in a "somewhat" different final look. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread it's that "somewhat" that is the point of debate, discussions, and arguments....
Case in point is DJ Purple haze, which leaves a slight purplish tint after so many layers which you don't get with a neutral wax say DJSN. Now that is one example of a difference in final looks.

Another one is Bouncer's CTR which is an oily wax to the point that you have to give it a second buff a few hours later. This wax "to my eyes" left a wetter look than the others I've used, I got reaffirmation of that when another driver two cars down shouted "right on I'm satisfied" to which I started cracking, he wasn't the only one to mention that, and I never saw such responses with other waxes I used.

Here is a hearsay worth mentioning, though obviously not my own experience, A member on the UK forum just recently posted that he used Pinnacle Souveran wax on his black car and that " it's unlike any other wax he's ever used" to the point that he can't stop going back to the garage and staring at his car, and he named half dozen expensive waxes that he says wouldn't come close....

So am I and the others delusional?
I don't think so, but if some want to advise and point their views I'll humbly listen and ponder their points. Then again if some like to just keep arguing for the sake of arguing, and keep the ramble going, so be it then.....

Thanks for your reply.:xyxthumbs:

i'll answer those in a way that can be understood.

high octane gas, yes you can actually see contents and percentages of gas using the proper measuring devices , most commonly used for e85 to tell the difference between what would normally be e85-e90 in the summer, and when it goes down to as low as e70 or so in the winter, these meters help keep the car running at the proper AF ratios with the difference in gas/ethanol blends.

so yes, you can visually see a difference in fuel quality when using the right equipment.


engine oil, yes you can actually see the difference between engine oils performance by using something called an oil analysis, a laboratory will analyze your samples, giving you approximate PPM of different types of metals, solids, liquids, and other compounds and such in the oil, allowing you to see exactly how much protection was being provided by the oil, you can also get a list of things such as how much breakdown the oil has seen (synthetic normally has little to no breakdown at all, which is why its so nice to run in turbocharged cars with oil cooled turbos), and you can also visually see the numbers of how much additives are remaining in the oil so you can tell how much longer based on the additive level and contaminant level you can run the oil before needing to change it.


as for the wiper fluids, that summer vs winter comparison with alcohol (methanol) contents vs the other could easily be observed through its freezing point. a quick analysis of what temperature it freeze it can give you a pretty accurate number of the water vs alcohol contents of it.


now back to the wax debate

do you know of any device that will allow you to detect how thick of a layer of wax you have?

are you aware there are devices called glossometers that will literally tell you based on a baseline, of how glossy a surface is? (we use them at work to determine if the coating using on backboards is up to the right gloss or not).

have you tried to take a scraping sample of your wax to see if you can get it analyzed and determine exactly how much there is, how "shiny" it is, and how "smooth" it is compared to other materials?

the reason that the level of gloss, looks, and feel of wax is up to debate is because there is no set in stone way of determining these things, it is more or less in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks for your input, I'm of a firm belief that all constructive info and discussion helps One (Me) to progress in life.

To the answers you gave,

-As to the test for Octane in Gas for which you indicated a machine that tests the data and gives you a result, you are seeing A report of "the results" and "not the actual contents of the Gas" with "your eyes".
So No you are not seeing the actual contents with your eyes, rather the results of a test. Two obviously different things.

-As to Engine oil, NO.
Then again you are seeing the results of tests done in a lab and "Not the actual ingredients of the oil with your eyes". An easier and very inaccurate test would have been testing the thickness vs thinness of oil and guessing the grade.

-As to washer fluid, NO.
Yet again you are seeing the results of a test, in this case freezing or not freezing, and based on that you are calculating the contents of the fluids. No you don't actually visually see the contents of each fluid.

Why?

In order to visually see the contents in each example above your eyes need to BE ABLE TO see to the Molecular level, and your brain to identify each different element within the subject matter.

That simply is not Humanly possible.

FYI They were simply thrown in return at the Wiseguy who threw me a curveball.....

As to the Wax debate,

Actually you don't need a Gloss meter to measure the thickness of your wax, an accurate Paint thickness Gauge would do, (I got a Defelsko).

Supposing your paint is bare, You'd simply measure points on the paint before applying your first coat of wax, then measure after your first coat, and do it again after the second coat. You now have three measurements and can discern the thickness of first and second coats of wax. :xyxthumbs:

^ sucked into the black hole of arguing with Bob about "wax"... Good luck my friend.

Thanks for the heads up Bud.
Actually was buckling up for the trip to Pluto and beyond, now that I know the final destination is beyond the "Event Horizon" I'd imagine there are better things to do in life.....like reading about people's experiences with Waxes and such......rops:

 

[allenk4]

Most people notice a before and after on car that has been waxed but it does not matter if they cannot guess which wax/sealant.

Some have tried to associate maximum shine with a single measurement of gloss but your eyes see more than gloss. We see all the reflected light at angles and not just what is reflected at the specific angle that the glossmeter measures.

Few deny that for maximum shine, the paint should be as smooth as possible. But most are not dealing with perfect paint so it is a moot point to discuss perfect paint.

Really?

Are saying a simple majority (50% +1) can tell it has been waxed or are you saying something like 90% can tell it has been waxed?

Interesting

 

[slimnib]

^ sucked into the black hole of arguing with Bob about "wax"... Good luck my friend.

I just cannot tell the difference between waxes and did not want to insult anyone. In the end the problem may lie with me.

 

[allenk4]

Whoops....." you don't need a Gloss meter to measure the thickness of your wax, an accurate Paint thickness Gauge would do, (I got a Defelsko). "

I was with you until that one...

A glossometer measures reflectivity, not coating thickness

Unless you have the $10k Defelsko...good luck measuring the thickness of wax layers; they are not thick enough to measure with that instrument.

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

Wow this thread is now 5 pages long....

I'll stick with what I wrote in my post... at least I can defend it. In fact, I'll turn it into an article.


:xyxthumbs:

 

[Guessless]

Whoops....." you don't need a Gloss meter to measure the thickness of your wax, an accurate Paint thickness Gauge would do, (I got a Defelsko). "

I was with you until that one...

A glossometer measures reflectivity, not coating thickness

Unless you have the $10k Defelsko...good luck measuring the thickness of wax layers; they are not thick enough to measure with that instrument.

Yeap my bad, was trying to answer many question in one response.
Thanks for correcting me.rops:

 

[TurboToys]

Thanks for your input, I'm of a firm belief that all constructive info and discussion helps One (Me) to progress in life.

To the answers you gave,

-As to the test for Octane in Gas for which you indicated a machine that tests the data and gives you a result, you are seeing A report of "the results" and "not the actual contents of the Gas" with "your eyes".
So No you are not seeing the actual contents with your eyes, rather the results of a test. Two obviously different things.

-As to Engine oil, NO.
Then again you are seeing the results of tests done in a lab and "Not the actual ingredients of the oil with your eyes". An easier and very inaccurate test would have been testing the thickness vs thinness of oil and guessing the grade.

-As to washer fluid, NO.
Yet again you are seeing the results of a test, in this case freezing or not freezing, and based on that you are calculating the contents of the fluids. No you don't actually visually see the contents of each fluid.

Why?

In order to visually see the contents in each example above your eyes need to BE ABLE TO see to the Molecular level, and your brain to identify each different element within the subject matter.

That simply is not Humanly possible.

FYI They were simply thrown in return at the Wiseguy who threw me a curveball.....

As to the Wax debate,

Actually you don't need a Gloss meter to measure the thickness of your wax, an accurate Paint thickness Gauge would do, (I got a Defelsko).

Supposing your paint is bare, You'd simply measure points on the paint before applying your first coat of wax, then measure after your first coat, and do it again after the second coat. You now have three measurements and can discern the thickness of first and second coats of wax. :xyxthumbs:


Thanks for the heads up Bud.
Actually was buckling up for the trip to Pluto and beyond, now that I know the final destination is beyond the "Event Horizon" I'd imagine there are better things to do in life.....like reading about people's experiences with Waxes and such......rops:

i believe everyone would be done here after seeing someone simply refuse to believe with their eyes, the results of a test. ie, the gas, oil, fluid, etc all being done through quality testing to achieve visual results.

you seem to have lost the actual meaning behind being able to literally see results with your eyes done through testing, and traded it off to saying that you need to see the molecules with your eyes... this is absurd, and you may have been throwing hypothetical questions with what you thought there was no answer, but don't get bent out of shape because there actually is a way to visually see a result through testing.

like it was said before, there is no sure fire way to determine gloss and shine of a wax with any kind of machine done through baseline testing, which is the difference between the tests you thought were impossible and the one that there is no test for yet.


curveball or not. i wouldn't try to throw them if you don't know how to pitch



fyi, from what i've seen before a layer of wax varies from 10-30 nm. and 1 micron is 1000 nm. so when you are measuring paint in layers of mils, one layer of wax is going to be .00078 mils thick. and your high end gauges read in the tenths of mils range, even if it read 10x better than that, you would still need 100-150 layers of wax for it to show up accurately on a paint thickness gauge. the amount of wax you are talking about trying to casually measure with a handheld device in your garage isn't going to be available to anyone.

i don't believe you have done enough research and investigation to try to lecture someone as knowledgeable and helpful as bob (funx) here. no offense intended, but misinformation is bad information

 

[allenk4]

Yeap my bad, was trying to answer many question in one response.
Thanks for correcting me.rops:

Do you actually have a PTG that will measure wax layers?

 

[TurboToys]

Wow this thread is now 5 pages long....

I'll stick with what I wrote in my post... at least I can defend it. In fact, I'll turn it into an article.


:xyxthumbs:

mike we all appreciate what you do for the community, you provide helpful and knowledgeable feedback and support for everybody without throwing guesses into the wind. everything you say is purely from your knowledge and experience and anything you have credibly learned from another master or someone who was good enough to back up their findings with evidence. nothing is shot from the hip with your words and i respect that.

:xyxthumbs:

 

[Guessless]

Do you actually have a PTG that will measure wax layers?

I thought this answered that:

Yeap my bad,
Thanks for correcting me.rops:

 

[goodinblack]

This thread is so silly

 

[allenk4]

I thought this answered that:

So, you do have a PTG, but nit one that can measure coating thickness?

Got it

There is actually an older thread that I thought would be quoted by now, that studies wax layering in a laboratory setting. Basically, layering does not consistently add thickness. It is literally, "wax on. Wax off"

 

[Guessless]

i believe everyone would be done here after seeing someone simply refuse to believe with their eyes, the results of a test. ie, the gas, oil, fluid, etc all being done through quality testing to achieve visual results.

you seem to have lost the actual meaning behind being able to literally see results with your eyes done through testing, and traded it off to saying that you need to see the molecules with your eyes... this is absurd, and you may have been throwing hypothetical questions with what you thought there was no answer, but don't get bent out of shape because there actually is a way to visually see a result through testing.

For a minute I thought we are not in the same Ballpark, now that I know we are.....

I forgot to mention in my previous post to you that by answering the questions I asked, You actually reached the conclusions I was hoping one reaches, and provided the answers to the questions thrown my way.
(Hope you are not ticked off too much by me pointing out that actual visual observation is different than observing through checking test results, though it sounds like you are.)

In both of your posts, you indirectly answered these questions:

Wait a minute:

You can see:
-What it is...that makes a Wax "oily", or not "oily?
-Waxes' "polymers"?
-Waxes' carnauba %s?

If in doubt, read the above questions followed by your answers.

THANK YOU
For answering him for me.

 

[TurboToys]

Guessless, you literally implied that one could see the difference in waxes visually, you may want to look back at how that exchange started, and the fact that I answered those was only due to the fact that they were s poor comparison.



Before you sidetrack again, where is this magic paint gauge that can get down to .02 microns to determine wax thickness?