What the heck, how about we get back to actually addressing the original points of this thread?
OK, this thread isn’t trying to start any arguments. I mean it only to be a thread playing devil’s advocate about the new MF Pad System. I am by no means saying the system doesn’t work, isn’t good, or shouldn’t be purchased.
Cost:
For this I am just going to base it on the 5/5.5 inch pads since that is the most popular size on the PC.
MF Compound Pads– Two pads cost $20 so $10 per pad (intro price, could go up)
Surbuf Pads – Two pads cost $12 so $6 per pad.
I know we are only talking $4 per pad, but when you are doing several cars, or want to have enough on hand that you don’t have to keep cleaning them, that will add up very quickly. Also for the MF System you are supposed to purchase the special compound as well which adds another $28 to the cost. We don’t need to take the second step into consideration because obviously both of these pads will need to be followed up by something.
All of this is dead spot on if the ONLY thing you care about is the initial cost of purchasing an equal number of pads. But the story is far from over with initial purchase. How many of you have corrected dozens of cars with a single Surbuf pad - or put another way, how many of you have had a single Surbuf pad survive through a dozen or more corrections? 20 corrections? 50? Because a single DA Microfiber Disc will do just that. In the long run, then, the overall cost is far less with the DA Microfiber Discs.
Pad cleaning:
I know not many have used them, again from what I’ve seen, the MF pads need to be constantly cleaned. They need to be brushed and blown out with air after every section. Otherwise the nap will get stuck down and not cut well, if at all. With the Surbuf pads they too will get matted down but it takes much longer before that happens. Also on the Surbuf a quick cleaning on the fly with a MF towel will fluff the fibers right back up. Again in this category I feel the Surbuf is superior. The constant cleaning of the MF pads will inevitably add time to your detail. Now if you are the type to not clean pads and just put a new one on and go, the higher price of the MF pads will come in to play. Even buying just 10 MF pads will cost you at least $40 more than the Surbufs. That’s enough to buy almost 7 more Surbuf pads.
As David Fermani points out, the actual cleaning process takes a matter of seconds - this is true whether you're using compressed air or a brush. And using a brush is a completely viable alternative for those of you who don't have compressed air available. For the record, I don't have it at home and using a brush as never been an issue. Further, you comment "if you are the type to not clean pads" should, hopefully, be addressing just the tiniest percentage of readers/users. Anyone who does not regularly clean pads, be they wool, foam, Surbuf or DA Microfiber, is just flat out doing something wrong. Do it right, and a single DA Microfiber Disc will easily do an entire car. Then throw it in the washer and dryer and do another car. Repeat 30, 40, 50 or more times. Now where does the cost advantage fall?
Pad Life/Durability:
As far as how long the MF pads last, I cannot speak for this. I have seen them in action on 2 occasions which is not enough to make a fair assessment. As for durability I think both the MF pads and Surbuf pads are on the same level. Both pads tend to let fibers go as you polish. With the MF pads puffs of MF will come off sometimes randomly, but definitely if you catch an edge. Same with the Surbufs. They will shed fibers as you polish. Neither shed anything that affects the job, but I would be interested to see how long a MF pad lasts before it needs to be replaced.
As noted above, it seems your observations are a bit flawed. David Fermani, Todd Helme, Kevin Brown, Nick Chapman and others who have been using these discs extensively will refute your statement above.
So from my point of view the MF pads are a product that solves a problem that didn’t exist. Also after the crazy hype for these, which wasn’t ALL Meguiars’ fault, they just fall short, again in my opinion. I personally am always excited when advancements are made in detailing. Even if it isn’t something I will use it’s great to see companies working hard to get us great products and tools. However in this case I don’t think the product is quite as impressive as everyone expected. I personally will stick to using Surbufs (when I even us a PC) and leave the MF pads for everyone else.
I hope everyone enjoyed this read, and I hope it may spark some good, read not insulting, responses. Again this isn’t meant to piss anyone off, just a view from someone who isn’t totally blown away by this system. Thanks.
You certainly do have very strong opinions for someone who has never used any single component of the system. We are all for fair and honest reviews, even if they are negative, but stating things in such an authoritative and direct manner when you have no experience with the system is simply a disservice to anyone reading the "review".
Results:
This can be argued until the cows come home, which one removes more defects faster. Since the MF system isn’t out for consumers yet, there are only a few people’s reviews out there and that just isn’t enough to go on. Needless to say both pads remove defects very well. However, both pads also NEED to be followed up by some sort of finishing polish. I’ve read reviews saying the MF first step will finish ALMOST lsp ready, but from what I’ve seen, in person, this just isn’t the case. The MF pad finishes well, but it does need to be followed up. Surbuf pads also finish well, but they too leave little tick marks in the paint that must be removed by another finishing step. So as far as results it doesn’t matter what pad you use, because it will need to be followed up.
In my personal opinion I feel that the Surbuf pads remove defects faster, and better than the MF system, but I don’t expect everyone to believe or agree with me.
Touching first here on your comment about there
"being only a few people's reviews out there and that just isn't enough to go on". When those reviews are based on several months, or even a year or more of practical experience in the hands of detailers with the reputation of Mike Phillips, Todd Helme, David Fermani, Nick Chapman, Chris Dasher, Kevin Brown, Joe Fernandez and others, just where do you reach the point of there "being enough to go on"? That isn't enough time or a broad enough mix of users to give you some sort of an idea? Or do you just prefer to base all of your assumptions on a single session that you witnessed, but didn't actively participate in?
To your other point: while we believe it will be extremely rare that the DA Microfiber Compound step will leave a finish LSP ready, we suppose anything is possible. Highly unlikely, but possible. We aren't counting on it though! But
both pads do
not NEED to be followed up, as you assert - that simply is not true. Read the reviews posted by long time evaluators here on AutogeekOnline, on TruthInDetailing and MOL and you'll see that.
Now, let's assume that whatever hazing is left following the D300/Cutting Disc step is equivalent to that left behind by using Surbuf/M105, and that in both cases a simple second polishing step easily cleans it up. What then? Where is the advantage of one over the other? With the D300/Cutting Disc there is virtually zero dust or splatter, so nothing to clean up after. Can you state the same when using Surbuf/M105? As previously stated, the durability of the DA MF discs is far superior to that of the Surbuf discs, making total cost far less. So near equal defect removal and near equal speed doing so (we'll even give a bit of a nod to Surbuf on that) yet no time spent with clean up, and much less cost involved. Score that 2-1 in favor of the MF Discs then?
