IronX, et al - is it the real deal or just a fad?

[Setec Astronomy]

If you are just an average ordinary guy who just details his car on the weekends I think using just clay is fine.
I mainly do detail for retail used cars so I haven't found that "must have" use for it since both foundries in town are now closed.

LOL...funny how local circumstances can make a huge difference in the contamination on your vehicle.

Like Rimcarty said its cheap insurance. Anytime we can remove contaminants without mechanical action it is a good thing.

Yeah, that's for sure.

To me it seems evident, that the primary use of Iron X would be NOT to use it with claying, but when and where claying is not an option, because you won't or can't polish the paint, or where you can't even reach with a clay - like inner wheel parts or around nuts and bolts. So, even if we agree that Iron X possibly won't remove anything (or just in negligible amounts) that a clay won't, it might still make sense to use this product in other situations, for other purposes.

Yes, I agree. But detailers are creative, and it seems to me that some use iron eaters instead of clay, some use it before (to reduce clay contamination or claying time) and some use it after on the theory that clay shaves off level with the surface and leaves iron below the surface, so the iron eater removes what's left.

•Chemical decontamination is not a
revolutionary development: it is
a process that’s been going on for
a quite a long time now—ValuGard’s
“A,B,C”; and, Finish Kare’s “1,2,3”
Neutralization Systems are a few
that come to mind.

•Many OEM manufacturers have chemical
paint decontamination as part and parcel
of the dealerships’ PDI and their own paint
warranty programs.

***********************************

The main differences between IronX, and
its ilk; and those above listed systems;
can, basically, be boiled down to:

-IronX, et al:
1.) you can see iron contaminates being
dissolved (the bleeding effects/purple
streaking)
2.) they’re One-Step (self-contained) systems
3.) “That smell of death surrounds you”

-Valugard; FK; et al:
1.) Can’t see the iron contaminates being
dissolved (no bleeding/purple streaks)
2.) basically are Three-Step systems
3.) “The smell of death”? Not so much.


IMO:
Making either type of chemical decontamination
system an integral part of a vehicle’s overall de-
tailing processes is not one to be overlooked. Or
offhandedly dismissed.

Thanks for pointing that out, I think a lot of members don't realize that there were other decon methods before the "bleeders", and also that using thioglycolates to remove rust has been used for a long time, but they are relatively expensive chemicals...it's just in the last what, 5-7 years that someone realized that we foolish car nuts would pay all that money for a wheel cleaner.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

•Chemical decontamination is not a
revolutionary development

Hey Bob, I would PM you with this but my PM box is full and I don't think you're a member of the other forum where we have a much larger mailbox.

Since as I mentioned in my previous post that using Thioglycolates to remove rust industrially has been common for decades, but is new to detailing, I was curious what your perspective was on a couple of other "new technologies" for detailing that perhaps are not new at all, just new to this market.

I'm referring to the WOWA sealants like Zaino Clear Seal, Optimum Opti-Seal, Ultima Paint Guard Plus, and whatever others have followed--was there a chemical "breakthrough" that allowed this kind of sealant, or was it simply application engineering of existing technology?

Similarly, the "SMAT" polishes...was this a new development, or simply the abrasives manufacturers finding a new market for an existing product? At a price point they had never considered viable for that market?