Inside Griot's Garage

[oneheadlite]

I have a graduate degree in bioinformatics, so I am no stranger to geeky! I’ll check out that video

Oh well then you will thoroughly enjoy that video because I have just a high school diploma and a lot of the stuff they were saying was flying very far over my head

I've got a 2 year tech degree for fixing cars; I had to google "bioinformatics" :laughing:

Hahaha. I prefer turning bourbon into confidence

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


The only thing I can speculate on how Griot's has been slow with ceramic/alternate technology is just knowing how Griot's big emphasis is having products that are easy to use, regardless of your skill level.
Knowing that your entry level enthusiast likely just buys a bottle and proceeds directly to overapplying it to their paint, I'd imagine them going straight to the socials to tear down Griot's if now they've got high spots/etc. (Yes, I have very little faith in a lot of the population...).

 

[BlackCarBlues]

So I watched the video and wrote this post simultaneously.

The lab manager (from 303/Gold Eagle) with 3 degrees (chemistry, biology, and biochemistry) stated that the main difference between a ceramic coating and a graphene coating is the reduction in water spotting. He also said they stand behind everything they claim about their products. One thing they claim is a reduction in surface temperature which leads to the reduction in water spotting. He was completely unable to explain why the surface temperature is lower and how they test that it is in fact lower — he completely danced around the answer and kept referencing “because thermodynamics.” He ends up stating that the surface temp is lowered by tenths of a degree rather than whole numbers, when you spray the product on a hot surface (29:14). You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that tenths of a degree don’t make any difference in actual use.

Sounds like most of his job involved getting as much graphene oxide into solution (dissolved in the carrier solvents) as possible within a ceramic spray (35:54).

Theoretically the graphene oxide forms a layer of “carbon chain mail” (37:25) in addition to how we already know the ceramic component fills in the valleys of the clear coat… In my mind this entire extra component should be doing something measurable and effective above and beyond the base ceramic product, otherwise it’s complete snake oil (title of Pan’s video is “Are graphene coatings snake oil?”).

Also interesting is that 303’s minimum of 1 year durability claim is backed up by them washing a bumper 28 times with car soap and water (48:39)… No heat cycling? No introduction of traffic film or things you might reasonably expect to see on the road?

The rest of the video really didn’t have any pertinent information specific to graphene or graphene oxide implementation.

I know I came into this video with a bias, but to be honest I’m even more skeptical now. I’m all for progressing the field of detailing and using the scientific method, but in my opinion any claim that graphene or graphene oxide (in it’s current implementation) is making detailing products better is unfounded and baseless. Are there good products that have graphene/graphene oxide in them? Yes. Is it because of the graphene/graphene oxide? I’m far from convinced.

I hope I’m wrong and that this post doesn’t age well. Or I hope some lab finds a better way to implement graphene/graphene oxide… or hell some other buzz-wordy chemical/molecule! Doesn’t really matter what chemical it is. I just want good products from honest companies. I don’t want ineffective additional chemicals in products which allow the company to charge more for no reason — doing so completely undermines the market and slows advancement of things that are actually worth researching and implementing. For that reason, for now, graphene/graphene oxide is snake oil as far as I’m concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill D]

Sounds like 2022's Teflon. Remember the hype surrounding that?

 

[CleanIT]

So I watched the video and wrote this post simultaneously.

The lab manager (from 303/Gold Eagle) with 3 degrees (chemistry, biology, and biochemistry) stated that the main difference between a ceramic coating and a graphene coating is the reduction in water spotting. He also said they stand behind everything they claim about their products. One thing they claim is a reduction in surface temperature which leads to the reduction in water spotting. He was completely unable to explain why the surface temperature is lower and how they test that it is in fact lower — he completely danced around the answer and kept referencing “because thermodynamics.” He ends up stating that the surface temp is lowered by tenths of a degree rather than whole numbers, when you spray the product on a hot surface (29:14). You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that tenths of a degree don’t make any difference in actual use.

Sounds like most of his job involved getting as much graphene oxide into solution (dissolved in the carrier solvents) as possible within a ceramic spray (35:54).

Theoretically the graphene oxide forms a layer of “carbon chain mail” (37:25) in addition to how we already know the ceramic component fills in the valleys of the clear coat… In my mind this entire extra component should be doing something measurable and effective above and beyond the base ceramic product, otherwise it’s complete snake oil (title of Pan’s video is “Are graphene coatings snake oil?”).

Also interesting is that 303’s minimum of 1 year durability claim is backed up by them washing a bumper 28 times with car soap and water (48:39)… No heat cycling? No introduction of traffic film or things you might reasonably expect to see on the road?

The rest of the video really didn’t have any pertinent information specific to graphene or graphene oxide implementation.

I know I came into this video with a bias, but to be honest I’m even more skeptical now. I’m all for progressing the field of detailing and using the scientific method, but in my opinion any claim that graphene or graphene oxide (in it’s current implementation) is making detailing products better is unfounded and baseless. Are there good products that have graphene/graphene oxide in them? Yes. Is it because of the graphene/graphene oxide? I’m far from convinced.

I hope I’m wrong and that this post doesn’t age well. Or I hope some lab finds a better way to implement graphene/graphene oxide… or hell some other buzz-wordy chemical/molecule! Doesn’t really matter what chemical it is. I just want good products from honest companies. I don’t want ineffective additional chemicals in products which allow the company to charge more for no reason — doing so completely undermines the market and slows advancement of things that are actually worth researching and implementing. For that reason, for now, graphene/graphene oxide is snake oil as far as I’m concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's where I'm at with it. It has been said that in a lot of these Graphene products, the Graphene isn't even doing what many think it is (water repellency etc.). Unfortunately there is a lot of garbage in the detailing world and unless you're a chemist, there is very little to go off of in terms of how these products actually work.

There was a chemist on here (PiPUK) that would cut through a lot of the BS out there in the detailing world. He hasn't posted in quite some time.

 

[Bosko]

Sounds like 2022's Teflon. Remember the hype surrounding that?

"Never wax your car again"

*disclaimer*...must come back once a year for maintenance Application...$250/Year to avoid warranty void

 

[Klasse Act]

BlackCarBlues....well said there I read it and all I can say is that you sound like your making legit points to me.

I find it odd that 303 adds color to their spray coating whereas Adam's doesn't, they even have upgraded their graphene spray coating already

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[BlackCarBlues]

That's where I'm at with it. It has been said that in a lot of these Graphene products, the Graphene isn't even doing what many think it is (water repellency etc.). Unfortunately there is a lot of garbage in the detailing world and unless you're a chemist, there is very little to go off of in terms of how these products actually work.

There was a chemist on here (PiPUK) that would cut through a lot of the BS out there in the detailing world. He hasn't posted in quite some time.

I agree. A lot of BS. I kinda view detailing products like Mexican restaurants. It’s all the same ingredients, just mixed different ways and in different concentrations to create something with a different name — and a lot of times that’s all you need to do to make a product work well in a different application! But I really wish I could see the work the chemists at these companies do, because from the outside looking in it feels like it’s a lot of pseudo-science. A lot of “throw it at the wall to see what sticks” rather than true research and innovation.

I’m not saying real breakthroughs never happen or real research never takes place — high-solids ceramic coatings come to mind… and perhaps that’s the equivalent of adding a deep fryer to the Mexican kitchen so that you can have burritos (paint sealants) and also chimichangas (ceramic coatings). In this analogy, graphene/graphene oxide would be like adding a new spice you can’t taste to a taco and charging extra for the taco because it’s now a fiesta taco!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jayfro]

I agree. A lot of BS. I kinda view detailing products like Mexican restaurants. It’s all the same ingredients, just mixed different ways and in different concentrations to create something with a different name — and a lot of times that’s all you need to do to make a product work well in a different application! But I really wish I could see the work the chemists at these companies do, because from the outside looking in it feels like it’s a lot of pseudo-science. A lot of “throw it at the wall to see what sticks” rather than true research and innovation.

I’m not saying real breakthroughs never happen or real research never takes place — high-solids ceramic coatings come to mind… and perhaps that’s the equivalent of adding a deep fryer to the Mexican kitchen so that you can have burritos (paint sealants) and also chimichangas (ceramic coatings). In this analogy, graphene/graphene oxide would be like adding a new spice you can’t taste to a taco and charging extra for the taco because it’s now a fiesta taco!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love the analogy! Adding chorizo to Chile con queso would be like adding a sealant to a carnuba wax!

Jay


Sent from my iPhone using AGOnline

 

[Klasse Act]

As a resident of Chicagoland I can ASSURE you that all Mexican restaurants ARE NOT the same with the same ingredients. I know your being funny here but as a foodie I couldn't resist.

BlackCarBlues...I'd like to send you to Armondo's in Mexicantown and then report back to the group, I really miss being able to go there whenever I want

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[BlackCarBlues]

As a resident of Chicagoland I can ASSURE you that all Mexican restaurants ARE NOT the same with the same ingredients. I know your being funny here but as a foodie I couldn't resist.

BlackCarBlues...I'd like to send you to Armondo's in Mexicantown and then report back to the group, I really miss being able to go there whenever I want

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So what you're saying is that Armondo's is the Swissvax of the Mexican restaurants? :laughing:

EDIT: Damn... now I really want Mexican food for dinner!

 

[Klasse Act]

So what you're saying is that Armondo's is the Swissvax of the Mexican restaurants? :laughing:

EDIT: Damn... now I really want Mexican food for dinner!

Back home...yes! Their steak fajitas are WORLD CLASS!

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[dgage]

I agree. A lot of BS. I kinda view detailing products like Mexican restaurants. It’s all the same ingredients, just mixed different ways and in different concentrations to create something with a different name — and a lot of times that’s all you need to do to make a product work well in a different application! But I really wish I could see the work the chemists at these companies do, because from the outside looking in it feels like it’s a lot of pseudo-science. A lot of “throw it at the wall to see what sticks” rather than true research and innovation.

I’m not saying real breakthroughs never happen or real research never takes place — high-solids ceramic coatings come to mind… and perhaps that’s the equivalent of adding a deep fryer to the Mexican kitchen so that you can have burritos (paint sealants) and also chimichangas (ceramic coatings). In this analogy, graphene/graphene oxide would be like adding a new spice you can’t taste to a taco and charging extra for the taco because it’s now a fiesta taco!

Dammit. Now I’m hungry for some Mexican but our favorite place is way too busy on a Friday night.

 

[IID]

So I watched the video and wrote this post simultaneously.

The lab manager (from 303/Gold Eagle) with 3 degrees (chemistry, biology, and biochemistry) stated that the main difference between a ceramic coating and a graphene coating is the reduction in water spotting. He also said they stand behind everything they claim about their products. One thing they claim is a reduction in surface temperature which leads to the reduction in water spotting. He was completely unable to explain why the surface temperature is lower and how they test that it is in fact lower — he completely danced around the answer and kept referencing “because thermodynamics.” He ends up stating that the surface temp is lowered by tenths of a degree rather than whole numbers, when you spray the product on a hot surface (29:14). You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that tenths of a degree don’t make any difference in actual use.

Sounds like most of his job involved getting as much graphene oxide into solution (dissolved in the carrier solvents) as possible within a ceramic spray (35:54).

Theoretically the graphene oxide forms a layer of “carbon chain mail” (37:25) in addition to how we already know the ceramic component fills in the valleys of the clear coat… In my mind this entire extra component should be doing something measurable and effective above and beyond the base ceramic product, otherwise it’s complete snake oil (title of Pan’s video is “Are graphene coatings snake oil?”).

Also interesting is that 303’s minimum of 1 year durability claim is backed up by them washing a bumper 28 times with car soap and water (48:39)… No heat cycling? No introduction of traffic film or things you might reasonably expect to see on the road?

The rest of the video really didn’t have any pertinent information specific to graphene or graphene oxide implementation.

I know I came into this video with a bias, but to be honest I’m even more skeptical now. I’m all for progressing the field of detailing and using the scientific method, but in my opinion any claim that graphene or graphene oxide (in it’s current implementation) is making detailing products better is unfounded and baseless. Are there good products that have graphene/graphene oxide in them? Yes. Is it because of the graphene/graphene oxide? I’m far from convinced.

I hope I’m wrong and that this post doesn’t age well. Or I hope some lab finds a better way to implement graphene/graphene oxide… or hell some other buzz-wordy chemical/molecule! Doesn’t really matter what chemical it is. I just want good products from honest companies. I don’t want ineffective additional chemicals in products which allow the company to charge more for no reason — doing so completely undermines the market and slows advancement of things that are actually worth researching and implementing. For that reason, for now, graphene/graphene oxide is snake oil as far as I’m concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree and well said!

 

[dgage]

Dammit. Now I’m hungry for some Mexican but our favorite place is way too busy on a Friday night.

Ended up eating at a Mexican place near my parent’s new apartment. Good though not quite as good as my favorite.

Griot’s is very good but not the best. Very solid company and products. I agree with Black Car Blues.

 

[umi000]

So I watched the video and wrote this post simultaneously.

The lab manager (from 303/Gold Eagle) with 3 degrees (chemistry, biology, and biochemistry) stated that the main difference between a ceramic coating and a graphene coating is the reduction in water spotting. He also said they stand behind everything they claim about their products. One thing they claim is a reduction in surface temperature which leads to the reduction in water spotting. He was completely unable to explain why the surface temperature is lower and how they test that it is in fact lower — he completely danced around the answer and kept referencing “because thermodynamics.” He ends up stating that the surface temp is lowered by tenths of a degree rather than whole numbers, when you spray the product on a hot surface (29:14). You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that tenths of a degree don’t make any difference in actual use.

Sounds like most of his job involved getting as much graphene oxide into solution (dissolved in the carrier solvents) as possible within a ceramic spray (35:54).

Theoretically the graphene oxide forms a layer of “carbon chain mail” (37:25) in addition to how we already know the ceramic component fills in the valleys of the clear coat… In my mind this entire extra component should be doing something measurable and effective above and beyond the base ceramic product, otherwise it’s complete snake oil (title of Pan’s video is “Are graphene coatings snake oil?”).

Also interesting is that 303’s minimum of 1 year durability claim is backed up by them washing a bumper 28 times with car soap and water (48:39)… No heat cycling? No introduction of traffic film or things you might reasonably expect to see on the road?

The rest of the video really didn’t have any pertinent information specific to graphene or graphene oxide implementation.

I know I came into this video with a bias, but to be honest I’m even more skeptical now. I’m all for progressing the field of detailing and using the scientific method, but in my opinion any claim that graphene or graphene oxide (in it’s current implementation) is making detailing products better is unfounded and baseless. Are there good products that have graphene/graphene oxide in them? Yes. Is it because of the graphene/graphene oxide? I’m far from convinced.

I hope I’m wrong and that this post doesn’t age well. Or I hope some lab finds a better way to implement graphene/graphene oxide… or hell some other buzz-wordy chemical/molecule! Doesn’t really matter what chemical it is. I just want good products from honest companies. I don’t want ineffective additional chemicals in products which allow the company to charge more for no reason — doing so completely undermines the market and slows advancement of things that are actually worth researching and implementing. For that reason, for now, graphene/graphene oxide is snake oil as far as I’m concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've come to the same conclusion on all of these graphene products. Companies are using graphene as a buzzword, to generate hype and noise, but I don't see it adding much, if anything, to the performance of the products. In fact, for me, it's gotten to the point where it's having the opposite effect that these companies would probably want - I tend to discount all of these "graphene" products just because they use the marketing term, and even look at the companies promoting them with a skeptical eye and a guarded attitude - my thinking is, if they're willing to bullshit on this, I have to be more careful on their claims for all of their other products.

 

[CleanIT]

Take note of the companies not jumping on graphene.

 

[Bill D]

Like I said, sounds like Teflon all over again

 

[Klasse Act]

Take note of the companies not jumping on graphene.

I'm not sure why a few have done this actually

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[BlackCarBlues]

I've come to the same conclusion on all of these graphene products. Companies are using graphene as a buzzword, to generate hype and noise, but I don't see it adding much, if anything, to the performance of the products. In fact, for me, it's gotten to the point where it's having the opposite effect that these companies would probably want - I tend to discount all of these "graphene" products just because they use the marketing term, and even look at the companies promoting them with a skeptical eye and a guarded attitude - my thinking is, if they're willing to bullshit on this, I have to be more careful on their claims for all of their other products.

Very well said. Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[opie2]

Companies are using graphene as a buzzword, to generate hype and noise, but I don't see it adding much, if anything, to the performance of the products.

I agree, and feel the same way about the word ceramic.

Every tom, dick and harry seem to put that word on a bottle. Obviously to entice folks to buy it. And im sure folks that are not like us..dont know the difference, and think its good stuff.

In the end there are quality products out there that are far superior to those that just use the buzz word and put just enough of said product in it to be able to market the bottle under that catagory.

I personaly find it so annoying and it completly turns me away. Granted im only one customer.

Another thing is...most quality names are only availible from online, which turns most average everyday customers away...because they cant go to wally world or autoparts store and buy a product that we may reccomend to them.

I also would love to be able to go to a brick and mortar store and purchase all the quality products that i have on my shelf.

To get back to the topic, ive never even tried a graphine product lol

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk