Rinseless vs. Waterless Washing

[LaFawnduh]

I apologize in advance as I am sure there are several informative threads which already exist on this topic but was hoping to clarify a few things which remain unclear to me after reading many of the product descriptions and user reviews.

1.) In formulation, what is the fundamental difference between a rinseless wash and waterless?
1a.) If similar, it is possible to use a rinseless product at a different dilution ratio for both a waterless wash OR a two-bucket rinseless wash?
1b.) What is the fundamental difference between a quick-detailer and a waterless wash?

2.) In terms of safety, it seems more intuitive that the rinseless process may be safer against scratching than waterless - is that accurate?

3.) Where I've seen some reviews where their process is to pre-soak a panel in waterless before using rinseless, going back to question #1, couldn't one just use the rinseless product less diluted to cover this pre-treatment?

Hope my questions make sense and aren't too obvious that I am just dense. Thanks for all for your help / insight!

 

[PiPUK]

There are no definite answers because there are no rules governing what goes into these products. There is nothing to guarantee that a product has really had any in-depth design for purpose and I would hazard that it is not uncommon for a product to hit the shelves with only a limited amount of testing. As long as it works to clean and leave a shiny finish, it will be adequate for most users. That, however, is distinct from what a good product would do (although this quality issue is not limited to this topic).

I can comment mostly on waterless wash products as this is what I have worked on. In practice, they are blends of oily emulsions (including silicones), surfactants and some solvents. They are primarily giving lubrication by having something stick to the paint. It would generally not be possible to make the waterless wash products I have considered from a rinseless product. The reason is simple mathematics - unless the rinseless was only diluted something like 10%, there simply wouldn't be space in the rinseless 'concentrate' to fit all the material. In other words, at 50:1 dilution, there would simply be miles too much water to compare with the dedicated waterless formulations.

I have to admit to being a bit sceptical on the high dilution rinseless products. My only real thought it that the use of large amounts of water can counter the fact that there is so little active material in the actual wash solution. High dilution rinseless actually reminds me a lot of how I would have washed a car when I was a kid - a couple of buckets, soak the vehicles, give it a scrub with one sponge to clean, give it a wipe with a wet sponge to take away the bubbles and dirt then dry. It strikes me that modern rinseless is a lot like that old technique, really just modifying such that you use a whole load of cloths (which, incidentally, can require quite a lot of water to get properly clean!).

 

[ski2]

Ultima + is a product designed to be used as a waterless wash (.5 oz per 22 oz water) or a rinseless wash (1 oz per 3 gallons of water). I don't see much difference between a waterless product and a QD so use Utima +in order to simplify the number of products I use. That being said I only use it when the car is lightly soiled as in just some dust or as a drying aid when doing a full conventional wash. As a rinseless product it works very well with very high lubricity and it's reasonably priced.

Ultima Waterless Wash Plus+ Concentrate, concentrated waterless auto wash, waterless car wash

 

[Setec Astronomy]

1b.) What is the fundamental difference between a quick-detailer and a waterless wash?

That has become pretty blurred and most people who have added waterless wash to their arsenal seem to use it instead of QD (unless you already have gallons of flavor-of-the-month QD that you still need to use up--not that I would know anything about that)

2.) In terms of safety, it seems more intuitive that the rinseless process may be safer against scratching than waterless - is that accurate?

That is generally accepted to be true.

3.) Where I've seen some reviews where their process is to pre-soak a panel in waterless before using rinseless, going back to question #1, couldn't one just use the rinseless product less diluted to cover this pre-treatment?

Correct, there is no reason that wash-dilution or stronger rinseless can't be used as a pre-soak.

I have to admit to being a bit sceptical on the high dilution rinseless products. My only real thought it that the use of large amounts of water can counter the fact that there is so little active material in the actual wash solution...It strikes me that modern rinseless is a lot like that old technique, really just modifying such that you use a whole load of cloths (which, incidentally, can require quite a lot of water to get properly clean!).

Wow, that's really thought-provoking coming from you. Maybe you should call Dr. G and discuss it with him. BTW, although many of us use two buckets with rinseless, or use the Bill D multiple-wash media method, the official ONR recommendation is single-bucket, single-media, as water-saving is part of the stated purpose of the product.

 

[PiPUK]

Wow, that's really thought-provoking coming from you. Maybe you should call Dr. G and discuss it with him. BTW, although many of us use two buckets with rinseless, or use the Bill D multiple-wash media method, the official ONR recommendation is single-bucket, single-media, as water-saving is part of the stated purpose of the product.

I am sure I will sometime call in on the optimum guys. Ultimately I find it hard to get past the fact that all the raw material guys, the ones who make the building blocks we use to make your products, the ones who tend to be the multi billion dollar, global entities... recommend waterless washes with activity levels in the region of 3-5%. Extrapolate it and the highest theoretical concentrate level would be 33x (anymore and there would be more than 100%). In actual practice, it is generally unrealistic to hope for more than 50% active (the formulations would generally not be stable higher). This brings us to the general idea that a rinseless cannot be comparable to a waterless when at more than about 20:1. Since many rinseless products are diluted far more than this there is something awry.As I see it, it is boiling down to whether I believe the global entities with their advanced R&D facilities and huge budgets or one of the (relatively) miniscule automotive specific manufacturers. Certainly if it were to come down to a question between my company and BASF (for example), I wouldn't for one second hesitate in telling you to believe BASF.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

As I see it, it is boiling down to whether I believe the global entities with their advanced R&D facilities and huge budgets or one of the (relatively) miniscule automotive specific manufacturers. Certainly if it were to come down to a question between my company and BASF (for example), I wouldn't for one second hesitate in telling you to believe BASF.

Hard to argue with that. On the other hand, Dr. G is a chemist, and his company seems to be the least hype-driven of any, which as you know is a rarity in this business. It'll be interesting to hear, if you ever talk to him, if he's able to change your mind. Until then, I guess every time I rinseless wash, I'll be worrying I'm just washing with cloudy water...

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, if this isn't drawing too much attention to the man behind the curtain (Wizard of Oz reference, don't know if that means anything across the pond), since you brought up the big chem companies, maybe you can answer this question: the three original WOWA sealants came out in the same year (Optimum, Ultima, Zaino); it was clear to me that some base chemical ingredient had become available shortly before that, that made these products possible--do you know what/who it was?

 

[LaFawnduh]

PIPUK, very interesting read as always. Being the finance guy I am, I would have assumed the basic "cleansing" components for both would be the same products but shipped in different concentrations in the rinse less vs waterless product and the rest is just marketing for additional buyers. Since most rinse less usually also state they can be used a clay lube / quik detailer and will clear your shelves of excess products, it made me a bit more skeptical.

Based necessity for getting out and cleaning the buckets, I was leaning towards waterless but was worried it could impart more swirls than a rinse less. Seems I've seen two opinions here on that topic... One confirming my assumption that rinseless is less likely to leave swirls but you go the other way. Do I understand your point that the further dilution in water negates the lubricants in the waterless thus making it less effective? But if you started with a higher concentration in the rinseless of those chemicals before dilution, wouldn't all things be equal?

Just curious - I'm no chemist and am not questioning your take, just a layman number cruncher trying to gain a better understanding to make a more informed decision.

 

[Kamakaz1961]

This is a tough question to answer. IMO I prefer the rinseless wash method. I am assuming it is the 2-bucket grit guard method. I like the idea of saturating each panel and then proceeding to rinselss wash. At least that is my interpretation. As for a waterless wash, I think it is just a QD on a dry panel and you spray to wipe off the panel you are working on.
If that is the case, then rinseless wash is the way to go. Less chances to scratch the car.

I would only use the rinseless wash method if the car has light dust or can be blown off.
If there is dirt then I would do the foam gun, 2-bucket grit guard, 2 to 3 mitt option only. Less chances of scratching and swirls. Swirls and scratches are our NEMISIS!! Bottom line whatever you can think of in technique to wash the car with the least amount of possible scratches or swirls is the best method, whatever that may be in your book.

 

[PiPUK]

since you brought up the big chem companies, maybe you can answer this question: the three original WOWA sealants came out in the same year (Optimum, Ultima, Zaino); it was clear to me that some base chemical ingredient had become available shortly before that, that made these products possible--do you know what/who it was?

I'm not sure what it is that they are using... if you had MSDS for them, you might find the answer. I suspect you may just find that someone had the idea and the others followed suit. The WOWA sealant can be done with a few different approaches I am aware of. However, you could be right. You could find that all 3 of those companies have something in common.

PIPUK, very interesting read as always. Being the finance guy I am, I would have assumed the basic "cleansing" components for both would be the same products but shipped in different concentrations in the rinse less vs waterless product and the rest is just marketing for additional buyers. Since most rinse less usually also state they can be used a clay lube / quik detailer and will clear your shelves of excess products, it made me a bit more skeptical.

Based necessity for getting out and cleaning the buckets, I was leaning towards waterless but was worried it could impart more swirls than a rinse less. Seems I've seen two opinions here on that topic... One confirming my assumption that rinseless is less likely to leave swirls but you go the other way. Do I understand your point that the further dilution in water negates the lubricants in the waterless thus making it less effective? But if you started with a higher concentration in the rinseless of those chemicals before dilution, wouldn't all things be equal?

Just curious - I'm no chemist and am not questioning your take, just a layman number cruncher trying to gain a better understanding to make a more informed decision.

Do keep in mind that much of what I am saying here is my own personal ponderings. Yes, in theory you could make the waterless products I have in my formulation book from a concentrated 'rinseless'. But, as above, these waterless products are about 5% active ingredients in water. The very most concentrated I could make them before the formulation would become unstable, would be about 50% (think what happens to some of your cleaners when they get cold). So, you could take this concentrate and dilute to 10% and you would have the waterless product. But a 50:1 dilution? That means about 1% active in your 'waterless' which is 5x lower than I would recommend. To achieve 50:1, you would need a concentrate which is 250% active (which, of course, isn't possible!).

Musings, meanderings... maybe someone has done some proper testing. We are a moderate sized company and there isn't justification in spending a couple of thousands doing some quantitative tests. I would have hoped that, for those who are selling many tonnes of product, it would have been a no-brainer to show something like change in gloss or haze on a painted surface, with number of wipes of wash solution with suitable soil suspension. There may even be a standardised test which would even cover it.

 

[LaFawnduh]

Thanks, PIPUK. My thoughts have been to keep it in the BlackFire family since that is what I use as polish / lsp / polymer spray - assuming the chemistry all works together - as opposed to introducing another brand and mix.

You have any opinion on their line?

 

[PiPUK]

Thanks, PIPUK. My thoughts have been to keep it in the BlackFire family since that is what I use as polish / lsp / polymer spray - assuming the chemistry all works together - as opposed to introducing another brand and mix.

You have any opinion on their line?

I'll be honest, I have limited experience with the blackfire products. As Mike would say, if they work for you, that's all you need to know!

 

[LaFawnduh]

Thanks, gents. With the current drought in SoCal I'm definitely trying to curb water use. My DD goes from a garage to a parking garage so I really just get light dust plus break dust that I am trying to stay on top of without busting out the full production i usually go through (water filter, power washer, foam cannon, two buckets, leaf blower, etc,)

The cost of keeping a black car beautiful, I swear. I like the idea (prob just a marketing ploy) of keeping the products all in the same family... But for the money and what seems like use, I'm thinking the ONR or Ultima+ might just be better than springing for the BF waterless or rinseless.

Other suggestions?

 

[conquistador]

Thanks, gents. With the current drought in SoCal I'm definitely trying to curb water use. My DD goes from a garage to a parking garage so I really just get light dust plus break dust that I am trying to stay on top of without busting out the full production i usually go through (water filter, power washer, foam cannon, two buckets, leaf blower, etc,)

The cost of keeping a black car beautiful, I swear. I like the idea (prob just a marketing ploy) of keeping the products all in the same family... But for the money and what seems like use, I'm thinking the ONR or Ultima+ might just be better than springing for the BF waterless or rinseless.

Other suggestions?

I like some of BF product line. But their rinseless isn't one of them. ONR, Ultima, and Duragloss all make a better product when it comes to rinseless or waterless washes.

 

[LaFawnduh]

Thanks to all for their feedback / expertise - think I'm going to skip the BF and pick up some ONR and the Pinnacle w/ carnauba (since it's on BOGO) in the waterless wash to see what I like more.

 

[LaFawnduh]

So I have now received and tried both. I will have to buck the trend: I like the pinnacle waterless better than ONR. Maybe if I did this as a rinseless with a bucket, my view would change but, on a waterless approach with both (doing 50/50 over a car) I strongly preferred the finish and depth of shine of the pinnacle. I would say that during application ONR does have a "slicker" feel, which I think bodes well for its protection while washing, but the finish is also slick more than soft and not as deep.

My guess is it boils down to the carnauba content in the pinnacle. While I like the cost of the ONR and think the results are good, I think I will suck it up and buy the pinnacle concentrate (especially if that goes up on BOGO!).

If pics come out decent, I'll try to show a 50/50 shot to post.

 

[LaFawnduh]

I must be doing something wrong in my mix of ONR. Look at this 50/50 and how ONR (left) has a haze and Pinnacle had a deep glow. I think user error may be involved or I have over-saturated the ONR / not buffed enough. Something just seems off as I doubt the pinnacle can really be this much better.
View attachment 26596

 

[aztec1987]

I personally dislike waterless wash. I have a whole gallon of it and just used it once when the weather was too cold for me

 

[ducksfan]

I must be doing something wrong in my mix of ONR. Look at this 50/50 and how ONR (left) has a haze and Pinnacle had a deep glow. I think user error may be involved or I have over-saturated the ONR / not buffed enough. Something just seems off as I doubt the pinnacle can really be this much better.
View attachment 26596

I wouldn't use ONR as a waterless either. But Opticlean @ 5:1, I have come to like a lot. Solid gloss and seems to resist dusting real well.

I have also used UWW+ and Pinnacle. I like Pinnacle, but it seems to pick up dust quickly. UWW+ is just solid in anyway I've used it.

 

[Durallymax]

1.) In formulation, what is the fundamental difference between a rinseless wash and waterless?

Waterless wash is designed to use virtually no water. Just spray on and wipe off. Rinseless still uses 5-10 gallons in the buckets but doesn't require "rinsing" off, instead you simply dry the paint with a drying towel and use a QD spray if needed for lube.

1a.) If similar, it is possible to use a rinseless product at a different dilution ratio for both a waterless wash OR a two-bucket rinseless wash?

Depends on the product but some are designed for both at different dilution levels.

1b.) What is the fundamental difference between a quick-detailer and a waterless wash?

Good question, I'm no expert but in theory I would think a QD is designed to enhance appearance whereas a waterless wash is designed to help loosen surface contaminants.

2.) In terms of safety, it seems more intuitive that the rinseless process may be safer against scratching than waterless - is that accurate?

I would agree that the more the surface is contaminated the safer a Rinseless would be versus waterless.

3.) Where I've seen some reviews where their process is to pre-soak a panel in waterless before using rinseless, going back to question #1, couldn't one just use the rinseless product less diluted to cover this pre-treatment?

I never do but I am not expert. I would think just using the rinseless at a different ratio would suffice.

FWIW: I use UWW+ with 700gsm MF for waterless and ONR with 2BM, Micro Chenille and waffle weave drying towel for rinseless.

 

[PiPUK]

Waterless wash is designed to use virtually no water. Just spray on and wipe off. Rinseless still uses 5-10 gallons in the buckets but doesn't require "rinsing" off, instead you simply dry the paint with a drying towel and use a QD spray if needed for lube.

I think I noted elsewhere, this means that rinseless is really not that different from old school wash techniques. I used to wash cars with 2 buckets, no hose... long before we had rinseless.