Why the hype about water beading?

wlshephard

wlshephard

New member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Hi Mike,
What all the hype about water beading? Don't you want water to sheet and run off the paint completely instead of beading and then drying and leaving water spots? Or am I missing something. Also all the "water beading tests" people do can you actually tell how good a wax is by that? Thanks for you input. I appreciate all your great advice.
 
This has been discussed many times on many different forums. The best answer I can give based on all of the posts I have seen and my understanding.....you are correct, sheeting is much better than beading in terms of what is best for the paint. Beading makes people feel good because they can "see" the wax working. So for the few detailers of the world, get the nasty mineral filled crap off the paint. For the average person..."look how nice my wax beads water", majority rules :xyxthumbs:
 
goodinblack said:
Speaking of which.......

Which wax or sealant sheets the best?
Click to expand...

Good luck finding any tests on that one, but I'm sure all of our AG forum friends will have their opinions. I'll throw mine out there...Hi-Temp Bahama Mama seems to do pretty good, I just wish it was more durable.
 
I dunno, the beading gives me a little sense of pride when I see my car all nice and beaded up in a parking lot full of water-logged cars in the rain!
 
Romans5.8 said:
I dunno, the beading gives me a little sense of pride when I see my car all nice and beaded up in a parking lot full of water-logged cars in the rain!
Click to expand...

Yes. Me too....... but waterspots are :banghead::mad::(
 
I love the water beads becoz while I'm driving those small beads will fly off my car's hood. I love to see those water droplets we call beads fly off. If I use a sheeting liquid sealant, those beads that are less tall n seems harder to fly off my car. It also motivates me to keep on applying a new coat of wax when the beading seem to be lesser.
 
I have to admit that I am being driven a bit up the wall on this subject. There are some basic, textbook, errors being made in this sector and they are outright ignored (If people even argued about it, I would feel better!).

Ok, a knock up of something to try to explain hydrophobic and hydrophillic.

With a strongly hydrophobic surface, we get tight beads. Tilt the surface and they want to run off quite easily. Unless you have a huge volume of water, you will get it running off in blobs or beads, any sheets which try to form will break up quite easily. This is what you guys have when you post 'beading' pictures.

Then you have a less hydrophobic surface. The beads are not all that tight anymore, more like blobs but they do still form. Tilt the surface and, if you have enough water, these blobs will join together and gravity will get the newly formed 'sheet' rolling off the surface. The sheet will trail along any other water there and leave it dry. This is what you (mostly) refer to as sheeting - the surface is mildly hydrophobic, not strongly hydrophilic

Now look at how a hydrophilic surface behaves. Water actually sticks to the surface. Again, it forms a sheet but this time there is some level of bonding to the surface. Tilt it and the water at the surface interface is still stuck! It does not run off as a sheet, it drains off from the top, a bit like pouring water out of a jug. Eventually you get to the point where most of the water is gone but, because of the bond to the surface, the surface will still be wet, albeit a very thin sheet (much thinner than with a hydrophobic manifestation). You can tilt this all you like and it will not roll off. It will dry via evaporation and it will leave a uniform finish. This is what you often see with soiled vehicles and you can often tell a surface like this because it will be the first one dry after a rain shower.

So I am confident that almost all the time detailers talk about sheeting, they are talking about a hydrophobic surface which is simply not hydrophobic enough to break the sheet down. I am also confident that the majority of times detailers refer to hydrophilic, they have been misled or misunderstand the product. I would further note that there is a tendency that the people selling and marketing products will be no better informed than the end users and I believe this is not helping the confusion at all (because we have some brands who get it totally wrong as well).

Have a look at the attached schematic and perhaps this will help explain further.
 
I don't care what anyone thinks. I like beads. That's why I use Collinite.
 
I like strong beading too! If it provides protection, it should also manifest some visual indication as part of the product. What is the fun is having something clean and protected and not look unique in some way?
 
Why hasn't anybody ever done any type of scientific tests? With all the technology available today we should be able to tell exactly how much wax has actually been applied, how much is removed and how quickly from normal driving, how much washing removes etc. Same for longevity tests. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard with the proper equipment and testing.
 
 
CowboyTruckn said:
Why hasn't anybody ever done any type of scientific tests? With all the technology available today we should be able to tell exactly how much wax has actually been applied, how much is removed and how quickly from normal driving, how much washing removes etc. Same for longevity tests. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard with the proper equipment and testing.
Click to expand...

$$$, if they developed a tool for that, it would have to be very sensitive to detect something as thin as a coat of wax. That costs money and the cost of the tool to measure it would be expensive with a limited market willing to pay for it. Measuring clear coat has a larger market, but also has a need due to damage that can be caused. What damage will result from having a thicker or thinner layer of wax? Are you willing to pay thousands to find out vs. just putting on another coat of wax? I suspect that even your wax companies wouldn't pay for that testing/technology since the return on investment isn't significant.
 
CowboyTruckn said:
Why hasn't anybody ever done any type of scientific tests? With all the technology available today we should be able to tell exactly how much wax has actually been applied, how much is removed and how quickly from normal driving, how much washing removes etc. Same for longevity tests. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard with the proper equipment and testing.
Click to expand...

They have. As a manufacturer (an actual manufacturer, not just a detailer or similar telling pork pies to fanboys), I will look for hard scientific data before you will get me to buy into a new ingredient. We are often talking thousands of dollars for me to try something new in production so words and marketing are not enough.

End users are almost universally uninterested in this sort of thing. End users want fancy bottles, tasty smells and a whole bunch of marketing literature which strokes their egos and makes them think that they have spent their money wisely. The use of the word 'nano' (whether it is actually accurate or not) will do more to attract a user than a graph showing the performance as a function of wash cycles.

Brands, who supply end users, are thus in a position where the marketing info is what sells, not the product technology and often not the product performance (sorry, but I feel that is accurate). So, my experience is that the most successful brands are the ones with the biggest marketing budgets, not the ones with the best products. So, once more, there is very limited interest in the science beyond asking how long a product lasts and whether there are any buzz words they can use.

:hungry:
 
Indeed...Why the hype?
ack.gif


Is it because of the difficulty faced in the de-bunking of the proliferation on,
(for example: detailing forums), of pseudo-psychological:
"Temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." ~Jung {
crazy.gif
}


Is it due to: Torsion Field Physics?<<<(
notallthere.gif
...I say!!)

Now...
Please don't think I'm totally overcome with Forteanism whenever the virtues of beading...
(and/or as forum member PiPUK pointed out: sheeting)...are being extolled, or villified.

But I digress.

So...
Besides taking into consideration adhesion's/cohesion's "scientific-properties";
and in order to resolve this water-beading-hype question (at least for myself)...

Could it be a matter of answering the following question:
Why does salt dissolve in water...and not gasoline?


Bob
 
Are there any sealants, waxes or coatings that will sheet water and let it run off instead of bead it on the market?
 
Can you take a run at this again in layman's terms? I left my sonic screwdriver at the office so I can't decode it.lol

FUNX725 said:
Indeed...Why the hype?
ack.gif


Is it because of the difficulty faced in the de-bunking of the proliferation on,
(for example: detailing forums), of pseudo-psychological:
"Temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." ~Jung {
crazy.gif
}


Is it due to: Torsion Field Physics?<<<(
notallthere.gif
...I say!!)

Now...
Please don't think I'm totally overcome with Forteanism whenever the virtues of beading...
(and/or as forum member PiPUK pointed out: sheeting)...are being extolled, or villified.

But I digress.

So...
Besides taking into consideration adhesion's/cohesion's "scientific-properties";
and in order to resolve this water-beading-hype question (at least for myself)...

Could it be a matter of answering the following question:
Why does salt dissolve in water...and not gasoline?


Bob
Click to expand...
 
PiPUK said:
They have. As a manufacturer (an actual manufacturer, not just a detailer or similar telling pork pies to fanboys), I will look for hard scientific data before you will get me to buy into a new ingredient. We are often talking thousands of dollars for me to try something new in production so words and marketing are not enough.

End users are almost universally uninterested in this sort of thing. End users want fancy bottles, tasty smells and a whole bunch of marketing literature which strokes their egos and makes them think that they have spent their money wisely. The use of the word 'nano' (whether it is actually accurate or not) will do more to attract a user than a graph showing the performance as a function of wash cycles.

Brands, who supply end users, are thus in a position where the marketing info is what sells, not the product technology and often not the product performance (sorry, but I feel that is accurate). So, my experience is that the most successful brands are the ones with the biggest marketing budgets, not the ones with the best products. So, once more, there is very limited interest in the science beyond asking how long a product lasts and whether there are any buzz words they can use.

:hungry:
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right! The existing formula is simple:

Marketing + Ignorant Consumer = Volume sales w/profit.

Great Product (scientifically tested) + (still) Ignorant Consumer = Low volume, no business.

Based on that formula, manufacturers supply a lot of crap to end users.

The only hope is for Professional field , and that's why I personally come to this forum, to learn more about the hard data and tested results, so I can apply those when detailing my own cars.

A question in point: Can you recommended (having a first hand knowledge) the best product out there to use for waxing/sealing? I mean NOT one that looks, smells and s*its the best, but one that is TRUE to purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top