Tom Horvath Owner SYSTEM ONE

[rwisejr]

Yes we do have a 3 inch double sided pad and a 6 inch double sided pad

Glad to hear it and looking forward to purchasing these for my arsenal .Hope to see them soon ( MEGHAN !!!!Do you hear this ?)

 

[Meghan]

Glad to hear it and looking forward to purchasing these for my arsenal .Hope to see them soon ( MEGHAN !!!!Do you hear this ?)

Yes I hear you, and I am sure Tom with get with me about those! No worries, I am on it.

 

[Meghan]

Yes I hear you, and I am sure Tom with get with me about those! No worries, I am on it.

Sent Tom an email... Will let you know what I find out.

And I just want to say Thank you to Tom, I really appreciate the vendor participation, it helps us out a lot.

 

[Bigfoot]

There are "3" of you that will just not stop or learn.

Wow.

:iagree:with:whs:

:welcome: Tom!

 

[Brian_Brice]

So why you have logged on then?

Let's see, you are disrespectful toward vendor and AGO after repeated requests by mod that those that are contributing nothing to discussion on the product shut up and stop destroying threads on it, disrespectful toward Meghan by repeatedly ignoring her repeated requests, and disrespectful toward AG by directly hurting their effort to put this product in front of the community through your behavior. If I was Meghan I would have kicked your bella machina out of here in no time flat because such disrespect and her can not be bought out with an offer of a free detail like you did, and even if it could there is a number of guys out there at least ten times better than you that would gladly do same for her and are not disrespectful toward neither her nor AG/AGO.

Feel free to go back to reviving cow hides if you have nothing constructive to contribute.

I didn't realize this was a stay off crack campaign, sorry for the earlier accusation alcohol.:cheers:

 

[Totoland Mach]

Tom: welcome to a very "spirited" forum for car appearance (that's more pc than opinionated )

I've been a pretty active user of X3 and am proud to post my results. In my case, the product is very efficient and saves a lot of time. Notice I said "in my case"... The BMW dealer was/is a die-hard 3M user and I've pretty much convinced him to try this product with success. That goes along with other products that he previously considered not worthy of the 3M logo: ONR, System One, Edge pads, Souveran to name a few.

His experience like yours was body shop ownership where 3M ruled the roost! Good stuff to be sure, but outdated in technology (Ultrafina SE is probably the exception). In the 2+ years I've been reconditioning used BMW's, I've seen the change in paint structures from the 90's cars to the 03-04-05-06 and present cars. I think that's where X3 has shown him that you don't need 3M Extra Cut (which is like beach sand in a liquid) to properly remove scratches and swirls.

And, thank you for joining in on the AutoGeek forums. That says a lot about the owner of a company!

Toto

 

[Deep Gloss Auto Salon]

There are "3" of you that will just not stop or learn.

Wow.

Who is not "stopping and learning"???

 

[pirex]

Back on track,
I just went to dinner
Let’s talk about fillers
SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish has NO fillers because SYSTEM ONE is water based.

Lubricants is another name for fillers and one side effect of a filler product can be clearly seen after a wipe down with soap and water to remove any water based lubrication and then a prep sol or mineral spirit to wipe down to see the true finish of the paint.

This is the procedure we use to check SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish and all competitors product.
WUSIWUG or what you see is what you get with SYSTEM ONE it real!

The first demo we do with SYSTEM ONE X3 polish is to polish a old sun beaten head light lens
Cut it with 1000 grit paper and soap and water, sand until all oxidation is gone
Then buff with a wool pad and SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish it buffs fast and looks like new with no swirl marks and I only use a wool pad.
It’s a fun demo and it looks great


have you ever used Menzerna polishes?
No I can’t say I have.

Thanks Tom :cheers:

 

[Tom Horvath]

How about if you explain it being used on paint instead of a headlight. When you do ipa or prep-sol wipe down when used on paint how much fill is there?

There is no filling in SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish after wipe down
it is a true optic polish.
WUSIWUG

 

[Deep Gloss Auto Salon]

There is no filling in SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish after wipe down
it is a true optic polish.
WUSIWUG

Thanks for the definitive answer.. that should satisfy the curiosity and prompt people to buy and try....


So get to it peeps....and while you are at iticture:

 

[danponjican]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had this kind of access to the inventors of every product!

Kudos Tom!

 

[Deep Gloss Auto Salon]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had this kind of access to every inventor of every product!

Kudos Tom!

It's advantageous for both user and mfg.. win win!

 

[rwisejr]

Sent Tom an email... Will let you know what I find out.

And I just want to say Thank you to Tom, I really appreciate the vendor participation, it helps us out a lot.

Thanks Meghan you are the best

 

[Meghan]

Thanks Meghan you are the best

Tom has already contacted me with the info, so the pads will be in motion!

 

[Tom Horvath]

Tom, I had a number of questions and I am not sure how much detail you will be willing to go into. However, I know it can clear up a lot of skeptism I am having and perhaps anwser other's questions as well.

1) I understand the concept of what you are saying with your polish being safer. I was at your demonstration in Tampa as strongly disagreed with the way you presented diminishing abbrasives as being dangerous. Let's say, for arguements sake, that clear coat is an inch thick, and that there is a scratch that is 1/10 an inch deep. To remove this scratch we have to remove 1/10 of the clear coat (a little more because the scratch will be chased down as well but you understand). If we half to remove 1/10 to blend the scratch, at what point is your product safer and removing less paint? 1/10 is 1/10, correct?

2) I have spoken to several people that formulate abrasives/polishes and the general agreement is that the abrasives will break down and that "non diminishing abrasive" is a play on words. To clarify, would you say that the abrasives that are wiped of the paint at the end of working the polish are the same in size and cut (no degradation) as "fresh polish".

3) When you say the product is water based, would you also say that the only lubrication in the product is pure H2o? There are no added silcones, mineral or other oils, solvents, or PTFE. I know Menzerna uses and oil and water emulsion, I am wondering if yours is the same.

4) From my understanding, you say that micro abrasives are more aggresive then a traditional cutting abrasive when used with a wool pad and less aggresive with a foam pad. I have used many finishing polishes with traditonal diminishing abrasives with a wool pad and found them to cut a lot (due to the pad). Would you say that the additonal cut System One has is because of the pad (similar to using any finishing polish on an aggresive pad) or does the product itself become more aggresive because of the pad. Would a traditonal rubbing compound still cut more then X3 on a similar wool pad?

I really appericate you comming on here to anwser our questions. It really says a lot about the character of your company and your believe. As you can tell, while I have a background in science, I am kind a novice when it comes to the engineering of polishes, though I try to learn as much as possible.

Thanks again!

PS, sorry about the spelling and gramatical errors, it is pasted my bedtime.

I like to get to the bottom of a problem as fast as possible.
If you were at the NAPDR in Clearwater ( Tampa ) I hope you sat in on my seminar on SPP or Single product polishing
I know it’s controversial but I want to preach this message so you might become a believer in what I was teaching.

Diminishing abrasives are dangerous, SPP is safer

What proof do I have ?
Look at all the cars being polished that have swirl marks, who put those in the car , is it the manufactures fault? Is it the guy who washed my car? Or is it the polishing process?

Take a hand full of compound with the proposed marketing term of diminishing abrasive rub as hard as you can into a black surface on a junk panel.
What happens?
So what would happen if I did this on a Brand new Black Ferrari 430 in the sun? is your stomach turning yet.

Now do the same demonstration using SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish, the result if you look at this truthfully will make you a believer.

I’ve had a Body shop since 1980 in Southern California getting close to 30 years, boy o boy I’m getting old. Before that I worked for my Dad in Ohio for 5 or so years.

The biggest unsolved problem in the trade during my apprentice years was
WHY AM I GETTING SWIRL MARKS?

And today in the detailing trade the products have not really changes to much, everybody saying about the same thing and If I used a diminishing abrasive like must all manufactures claim I should, what do you think the out come would be on that.

Now let go back to the Black Ferrari
And answer your questions

1) I understand the concept of what you are saying with your polish being safer. I was at your demonstration in Tampa as strongly disagreed with the way you presented diminishing abbrasives as being dangerous. Let's say, for arguements sake, that clear coat is an inch thick, and that there is a scratch that is 1/10 an inch deep. To remove this scratch we have to remove 1/10 of the clear coat (a little more because the scratch will be chased down as well but you understand). If we half to remove 1/10 to blend the scratch, at what point is your product safer and removing less paint? 1/10 is 1/10, correct?

And just like I said in the seminar on SPP don’t believe me on any thing I’m saying but we all have to listen to the truth or there will be a price to pay, the big problem is what is the truth. As a science person I know you will agree the truth is evidence I can prove, if we stand on that simple fact we can build upon those blocks.

What is that term that I hear repeated all the time
Crazy is doing the same things over and over again and hoping for a different result!

Now back to the questions you have

1. If the clear was an inch thick I would not have to worry about what I used to polish the paint because the UV protection would not be an issue. But because the over all thickness of ALL the paint and primer on that Ferrari is only 4 to 5 mills thick from the factory. ( 20 lb ink jet paper is 4 mills ) And all overall thickness of the clear coat on the Ferrari is only 2 to 3 mills I start to have a problem. You see the OE Manufactures say the clear coat starts to fail (delaminate) if there is any more than .5 tenths of one mill removed.

SYSTEM ONE addresses this problem by removing less paint than any diminishing abrasive on the market and the proof is on the simple comparison that I used earlier. Diminishing abrasive that do the damage I described, do excessive visible damage and If checked with a mill gauge I will find a conclusive ending result.

2) I have spoken to several people that formulate abrasives/polishes and the general agreement is that the abrasives will break down and that "non diminishing abrasive" is a play on words. To clarify, would you say that the abrasives that are wiped of the paint at the end of working the polish are the same in size and cut (no degradation) as "fresh polish".

2. No

3) When you say the product is water based, would you also say that the only lubrication in the product is pure H2o? There are no added silcones, mineral or other oils, solvents, or PTFE. I know Menzerna uses and oil and water emulsion, I am wondering if yours is the same.


3. No


4) From my understanding, you say that micro abrasives are more aggresive then a traditional cutting abrasive when used with a wool pad and less aggresive with a foam pad. I have used many finishing polishes with traditonal diminishing abrasives with a wool pad and found them to cut a lot (due to the pad). Would you say that the additonal cut System One has is because of the pad (similar to using any finishing polish on an aggresive pad) or does the product itself become more aggresive because of the pad. Would a traditonal rubbing compound still cut more then X3 on a similar wool pad?

4. You are right SYSTEM ONE works because of the pad product combo

SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish was developed to out perform any compound on the market using the simple parameters described earlier on UV protection being the main issue.
SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish is safer, faster, and more cost effective than any 3 product (compound, polish, glaze ) system on the market today.

 

[Brian_Brice]

I like to get to the bottom of a problem as fast as possible.
If you were at the NAPDR in Clearwater ( Tampa ) I hope you sat in on my seminar on SPP or Single product polishing
I know it’s controversial but I want to preach this message so you might become a believer in what I was teaching.

Diminishing abrasives are dangerous, SPP is safer

What proof do I have ?
Look at all the cars being polished that have swirl marks, who put those in the car , is it the manufactures fault? Is it the guy who washed my car? Or is it the polishing process?

Take a hand full of compound with the proposed marketing term of diminishing abrasive rub as hard as you can into a black surface on a junk panel.
What happens?
So what would happen if I did this on a Brand new Black Ferrari 430 in the sun? is your stomach turning yet.

Now do the same demonstration using SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish, the result if you look at this truthfully will make you a believer.

I’ve had a Body shop since 1980 in Southern California getting close to 30 years, boy o boy I’m getting old. Before that I worked for my Dad in Ohio for 5 or so years.

The biggest unsolved problem in the trade during my apprentice years was
WHY AM I GETTING SWIRL MARKS?

And today in the detailing trade the products have not really changes to much, everybody saying about the same thing and If I used a diminishing abrasive like must all manufactures claim I should, what do you think the out come would be on that.

Now let go back to the Black Ferrari
And answer your questions

1) I understand the concept of what you are saying with your polish being safer. I was at your demonstration in Tampa as strongly disagreed with the way you presented diminishing abbrasives as being dangerous. Let's say, for arguements sake, that clear coat is an inch thick, and that there is a scratch that is 1/10 an inch deep. To remove this scratch we have to remove 1/10 of the clear coat (a little more because the scratch will be chased down as well but you understand). If we half to remove 1/10 to blend the scratch, at what point is your product safer and removing less paint? 1/10 is 1/10, correct?

And just like I said in the seminar on SPP don’t believe me on any thing I’m saying but we all have to listen to the truth or there will be a price to pay, the big problem is what is the truth. As a science person I know you will agree the truth is evidence I can prove, if we stand on that simple fact we can build upon those blocks.

What is that term that I hear repeated all the time
Crazy is doing the same things over and over again and hoping for a different result!

Now back to the questions you have

1. If the clear was an inch thick I would not have to worry about what I used to polish the paint because the UV protection would not be an issue. But because the over all thickness of ALL the paint and primer on that Ferrari is only 4 to 5 mills thick from the factory. ( 20 lb ink jet paper is 4 mills ) And all overall thickness of the clear coat on the Ferrari is only 2 to 3 mills I start to have a problem. You see the OE Manufactures say the clear coat starts to fail (delaminate) if there is any more than .5 tenths of one mill removed.

SYSTEM ONE addresses this problem by removing less paint than any diminishing abrasive on the market and the proof is on the simple comparison that I used earlier. Diminishing abrasive that do the damage I described, do excessive visible damage and If checked with a mill gauge I will find a conclusive ending result.

2) I have spoken to several people that formulate abrasives/polishes and the general agreement is that the abrasives will break down and that "non diminishing abrasive" is a play on words. To clarify, would you say that the abrasives that are wiped of the paint at the end of working the polish are the same in size and cut (no degradation) as "fresh polish".

2. No

3) When you say the product is water based, would you also say that the only lubrication in the product is pure H2o? There are no added silcones, mineral or other oils, solvents, or PTFE. I know Menzerna uses and oil and water emulsion, I am wondering if yours is the same.


3. No


4) From my understanding, you say that micro abrasives are more aggresive then a traditional cutting abrasive when used with a wool pad and less aggresive with a foam pad. I have used many finishing polishes with traditonal diminishing abrasives with a wool pad and found them to cut a lot (due to the pad). Would you say that the additonal cut System One has is because of the pad (similar to using any finishing polish on an aggresive pad) or does the product itself become more aggresive because of the pad. Would a traditonal rubbing compound still cut more then X3 on a similar wool pad?

4. You are right SYSTEM ONE works because of the pad product combo

SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish was developed to out perform any compound on the market using the simple parameters described earlier on UV protection being the main issue.
SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish is safer, faster, and more cost effective than any 3 product (compound, polish, glaze ) system on the market today.

If this is all true then:wave::awesome::righton:

I will be receiving a sample of your polish an plan on using as directed followed by a prep sol wipedown, I'll take a video of it and post results regardless of what they may be.


Thanks for taking your time to explain.

 

[Larry A]

Your System One -polish,wool pad , foam pad, spray wax, sounds very similar to Autoint Fini system which also is - polish, wool pad, foam pad, spray wax. Are they similar, the same, or a idea that 2 people had at the same time?

 

[rwisejr]

Tom has already contacted me with the info, so the pads will be in motion!

Thats why I love this place top notch service !!!! You go Girl !!!

 

[Todd@RUPES]

What proof do I have ?
Look at all the cars being polished that have swirl marks, who put those in the car , is it the manufactures fault? Is it the guy who washed my car? Or is it the polishing process?

I would say the majority of swirl marks are caused by improper washing techniques, which is why 99 percent of cars I see at the dealerships, washed with shop brushes, have swirl marks. Proper buffing technqiues do not instill swirl marks IME.

Take a hand full of compound with the proposed marketing term of diminishing abrasive rub as hard as you can into a black surface on a junk panel.
What happens?
So what would happen if I did this on a Brand new Black Ferrari 430 in the sun? is your stomach turning yet.

In all fairness, of course a compound is going to mar the paint as your hand is cannot replicate the conditions required to evenly break down the abrasives. However, polishing with a machine, which these products are designed for, will not. If you are saying that using a compound by hand is will cause a degredation in paint quality, I agree. By the same token, using a finishing polish by hand will not.

Now do the same demonstration using SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish, the result if you look at this truthfully will make you a believer.

To truthfully look at it, I would be stuck on the fact that a rubbing compound is being compared to a finishing polish, and would judge the results on those merits only.

The biggest unsolved problem in the trade during my apprentice years was
WHY AM I GETTING SWIRL MARKS?

Most body shop guys I know do not know how to properly polish paint. If worked properly, then buffing will not cause swirl marks but remove them. Almost every body shop I have dealt with (and many that have been in bussiness for a long time) have had very poor polishing technqiue, as do most detailers. Luckly, places like the Geek and autopia exist, where proper techniques are developed and shared.

And today in the detailing trade the products have not really changes to much, everybody saying about the same thing and If I used a diminishing abrasive like must all manufactures claim I should, what do you think the out come would be on that.

Completely dependent on the type of abrasive and its structure. With proper technique, the result would be a flawless finish.

Now let go back to the Black Ferrari
And answer your questions

1) I understand the concept of what you are saying with your polish being safer. I was at your demonstration in Tampa as strongly disagreed with the way you presented diminishing abbrasives as being dangerous. Let's say, for arguements sake, that clear coat is an inch thick, and that there is a scratch that is 1/10 an inch deep. To remove this scratch we have to remove 1/10 of the clear coat (a little more because the scratch will be chased down as well but you understand). If we half to remove 1/10 to blend the scratch, at what point is your product safer and removing less paint? 1/10 is 1/10, correct?

And just like I said in the seminar on SPP don’t believe me on any thing I’m saying but we all have to listen to the truth or there will be a price to pay, the big problem is what is the truth. As a science person I know you will agree the truth is evidence I can prove, if we stand on that simple fact we can build upon those blocks.

What is that term that I hear repeated all the time
Crazy is doing the same things over and over again and hoping for a different result!

Now back to the questions you have

SYSTEM ONE addresses this problem by removing less paint than any diminishing abrasive on the market and the proof is on the simple comparison that I used earlier. Diminishing abrasive that do the damage I described, do excessive visible damage and If checked with a mill gauge I will find a conclusive ending result.

I am curious as which abrasives you have tested? While I would agree that X3 is less asgresive (and thus less dangerous) then a rubbing compound, but specically, how does it stand up in terms of aggresiveness compared to the nano technology abrasives found in Menzerna 106ff or PO85d? Since both of the polishes break down rather quick (as opposed to your abrasive which doesn't loose cut) it seems that they X3 would remove more paint over time, compared to an abrasive that has lost all its cutting power very quickly

That said, if we still have to remove 1/10 of the clear coat, it doesn't matter how its done, that amount of paint still has to be removed. Whether we make 10 passes with a finishing polish or 1 pass with a compound and 1 pass with a finishing polish, the point is 1/10 still has to be removed.

2) I have spoken to several people that formulate abrasives/polishes and the general agreement is that the abrasives will break down and that "non diminishing abrasive" is a play on words. To clarify, would you say that the abrasives that are wiped of the paint at the end of working the polish are the same in size and cut (no degradation) as "fresh polish".

2. No

So the abrasive structure is not the same as the fresh polish, so it has broken down?

3) When you say the product is water based, would you also say that the only lubrication in the product is pure H2o? There are no added silcones, mineral or other oils, solvents, or PTFE. I know Menzerna uses and oil and water emulsion, I am wondering if yours is the same.


3. No

Thank you

4) From my understanding, you say that micro abrasives are more aggresive then a traditional cutting abrasive when used with a wool pad and less aggresive with a foam pad. I have used many finishing polishes with traditonal diminishing abrasives with a wool pad and found them to cut a lot (due to the pad). Would you say that the additonal cut System One has is because of the pad (similar to using any finishing polish on an aggresive pad) or does the product itself become more aggresive because of the pad. Would a traditonal rubbing compound still cut more then X3 on a similar wool pad?

4. You are right SYSTEM ONE works because of the pad product combo

SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish was developed to out perform any compound on the market using the simple parameters described earlier on UV protection being the main issue.
SYSTEM ONE X3 cutting polish is safer, faster, and more cost effective than any 3 product (compound, polish, glaze ) system on the market today.

I understand your points, but any micro fine finishing polish can be used with similar results (allowing the pad to the cutting). For what its work, you take 3M Ultra Fina, wipe it one, make one pass across the paint (ensuring that the abrasives have not broken down) and wipe clean. And on all but the softest paints, you will have zero marring.

Thanks for taking the time Tom.

 

[makdaddy626]

Ok, now I'm getting confused...

Ultimately, I'll probably try the product (have plenty of polish right now) based on the user reviews I've seen from so many on this forum whose opinion I value, and if the product works, who cares about the marketing.

But, for me, to many of the answers seem to be evasive...

The question posed regarding the safety of the x3 vs diminishing abrasives is the most notable to me. The mention of a 1" thick clear coat was meant to illustrate the point that the amount of cc that has to removed to get rid of a scratch or swirl is a constant, determined by the depth of the scratch, regardless of the polish/compound used. The reply ignored this and instead focused on the fact the cc isn't 1" thick. I'm sure that x3 is safer and would remove less clear than a heavy compound such as Power Gloss with all other variables being the same, but I wouldn't pick up PG and a wool pad to get rid of light swirls. So the question is, how is x3 safer than the least aggressive diminishing abrasive cabable of doing the job?

Also, I have a similar issue with the illustration of rubbing an aggressive compound against the paint compared to x3... if you take x3 and a wool pad, you'd get some marring as well right? if not, why the need to follow up with a second or third pass with a lighter cut pad? It's hard to follow any logic that implies, x3 is less abrasive and therefore removes less cc but, at the same time is capable of removing the same defects as a compound.

Finally, the idea that polishing is what causes swirls is little annoying... everyone knows that compounding, or the use of an agressive polish, or the use of a light polish with an agressive pad, can leave marring that has to be corrected with a less agressive polish or pad, but the same seems to be true of x3, right? thus the 2 (or 3) step process. To say polishing causes swirls seems off the mark as it implies that if you didn't polish your vehicle would stay swirl free.