Two Q's:
1. Shouldn't the optimal word be "erased", instead of clayed?
2. No noticeable slickness even when using ONR as lube? Strange indeed.
Also.
I value your opinion, and also follow your posts on AGO, Optimumforums.org, and the OPT facebook page. I have not yet wrapped my head around the clay alternative offerings as of late. I am a clay purist. The process is the one step of the detailing process that I relish...having said this, and, after reading your statement regarding lack of slickness, please offer me a reason that may possible lead one such as myself into trying this product.
Huge fan of Dr. G., and OCC :xyxthumbs:...and whole-heartedly believe in the sentiment expressed by Nick:
Vegas, great catch, you're correct, it should've been erased instead of clayed. On question 2, it's a minimal difference in slickness as you are erasing the surface, not like clay where it's extremely noticeable, but more of slightly noticeable, which is where I had to trust the technology was working. Once I feel the slight change I move on.
As for trying the product, there are many reasons for me, doing this as a business to have this product vs clay. Speed, I'd not say cut my time in half but 40% improvement would be realistic. There's no need to keep refolding it, just keep it clean. 2nd, if you drop it, it's no big deal, just clean it off. 3rd, it's lasting way longer then a clay block, so it's cutting down my expenses. 4th, and the reason I made the video, it easily adapts to different shapes, where I'd have to be reforming the clay to properly work a certain angle, not the case with the eraser.
Thanks for the questions and if you have any more come to mind, please ask away.