Car Care: Controlled experiment - test gloss and durability of the top paint finishes

[rogers08m3]

I may be wrong, but I believe artsci is using the original cQuartz (the one still available to consumers). He mentioned it in the first post; read the thread, may have missed him using Finest instead. Finest and the original cQuartz are definitely different animals.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think someone asked this but may be worth asking again; are you testing the marring resistance claims of some of these products? Most pro detailers seem to say opti coat 22ple and cquartz offer some protection against swirls.

- - - Updated - - -

One last question - when applying the products you mention the product, then a product used to maintain it. I saw on, I think page 6, you applied BFWD then applied the QD; when applying the other products are you allowing them to cure properly before applying the relative qd/spray sealant? I only ask because I believe applying something like optimum gloss enhancer or carpro reload on the coatings before they fully cure can cause them to fail prematurely. Thanks!

 

[artsci]

I may be wrong, but I believe artsci is using the original cQuartz (the one still available to consumers). He mentioned it in the first post; read the thread, may have missed him using Finest instead. Finest and the original cQuartz are definitely different animals.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think someone asked this but may be worth asking again; are you testing the marring resistance claims of some of these products? Most pro detailers seem to say opti coat 22ple and cquartz offer some protection against swirls.

- - - Updated - - -

One last question - when applying the products you mention the product, then a product used to maintain it. I saw on, I think page 6, you applied BFWD then applied the QD; when applying the other products are you allowing them to cure properly before applying the relative qd/spray sealant? I only ask because I believe applying something like optimum gloss enhancer or carpro reload on the coatings before they fully cure can cause them to fail prematurely. Thanks!

I used the consumer version of CQuartz.

I'm not testing mar resistance and perhaps some of these products provide it, but I think that such claims fall heavily into the hype category. Given the thinness of the coatings any differences have to be very minor. Maybe when I'm finished testing I'll take some 600 grade emory cloth to each panel and see what happens.

I only applied secondary product applications where it was recommended, for example with the Klasse. Recommended cure times were followed to the letter, although only a few products had them.

 

[rogers08m3]

I used the consumer version of CQuartz.

I'm not testing mar resistance and perhaps some of these products provide it, but I think that such claims fall heavily into the hype category. Given the thinness of the coatings any differences have to be very minor. Maybe when I'm finished testing I'll take some 600 grade emory cloth to each panel and see what happens.

I only applied secondary product applications where it was recommended, for example with the Klasse. Recommended cure times were followed to the letter, although only a few products had them.

Awesome, thank you for the reply. I asked because, admittedly, I am rooting for one product in particular (it's on my car, I won't tell!); and I know that it requires some time to flash, then to cure without being wetted , etc.

As for marring resistance, I agree... I think any product will exhibit marring if enough force is used, like a coin op power brush or soft cloth wash. Maybe even before you test with the 600 grit you could check the respective panels in the sun or with an LED after a series of your washes? I don't think anything will take 600 grit but if some of the products even offered protection from normal washing that would be significant since modern automotive paint seems so difficult to maintain even when taking all precautions. I only ask because I don't plan on using 600 grit on my car, but I am hopeful I see some benefit of the product I used since before I did it was so damned hard to keep my car swirl free.

 

[bryansbestwax]

Ya. Kind of figured regular Cquartz. Which as stated above are two different products.

sent using my thumbs, mispelling most words

 

[bryansbestwax]

If you wanted to check marring resistance apply the products to a properly prepped car. Use a different product for each of the panels. Then once cured, go about your regular business in washing your car. Using a 2 bucket method, favourite soap, ect. Using 600 grit Emory cloth will only prove you can scratch paint which is not what most manufacturers are claiming resistance to.

sent using my thumbs, mispelling most words

 

[artsci]

If you wanted to check marring resistance apply the products to a properly prepped car. Use a different product for each of the panels. Then once cured, go about your regular business in washing your car. Using a 2 bucket method, favourite soap, ect. Using 600 grit Emory cloth will only prove you can scratch paint which is not what most manufacturers are claiming resistance to.

sent using my thumbs, mispelling most words

I was kidding about the 600grit emory cloth. Actually, given that each panel is being washed, dried, and buffed before each two-week test, over time I should get a good sense of the mar resistance of each product. But I think this needs more time.

 

[rogers08m3]

I was kidding about the 600grit emory cloth. Actually, given that each panel is being washed, dried, and buffed before each two-week test, over time I should get a good sense of the mar resistance of each product. But I think this needs more time.

/thumbsup - looking forward to seeing the results in 6 months to a year, that should really show what's what.

 

[jay o]

The claims for the Opti-Coat are over the top (basically them claim it lasts forever)

so they say...

 

[bryansbestwax]

The key to any of the coatings is a very clean surface to start. Using a body shop prepping cleaner or similar works best. Letting things dry and cure properly is another must. I have been using various coatings for going on 5 years. These are the true coatings not the acrylic sealants some companies have been known to push. I have had issues from time to time, not often, and one thing is generally certain I was to blame for the performance. Opicoat has been shown to last in a car 2 years+. Cquartz has been on a few of the cars I have done 18 months+. Liquid glass lasted 4 months on average. Klasse was around 5 when topped with the klasse SG. These are on well maintained vehicles. Conditions will also vary as well. And some are better suited for 24/7 outdoor storage. If anyone wants a proper opinion especially on durability, find someone who has what you want and ask them questions. First hand accounts on everyday conditions.

sent using my thumbs, mispelling most words

 

[smorgasbord]

When I collected the test data for each of the three tests done so far, the gloss measurements for each product were then recalculated based on its panel's gloss index.

Maybe an example would help me understand it. For instance:

Before any finish was applied panel "A" had a gloss reading of 105.0 and panel "B" had a gloss reading of 103.94. That would mean panel A's "gloss index" is 0.99 and panel B's is 0.98. Right?

Then you applied one finish to panel A and one finish to panel B.

Now, it's 4 weeks later and you take gloss readings again. What do you do to the readings from the gloss meter? Do you multiply A's by 0.99 and B's by 0.98? If not, then what?


What I'm still not wrapping my head around is how you know what the mathematical formula is for adjusting gloss enhancement based on panel gloss before application. For argument's sake, let's say one panel was pretty dull - only read 80 on the meter. Would your results properly predict what any of the finishes you tested would read on the gloss meter right after application?

Sorry in advance for being dense.

 

[artsci]

The key to any of the coatings is a very clean surface to start. Using a body shop prepping cleaner or similar works best. Letting things dry and cure properly is another must. I have been using various coatings for going on 5 years. These are the true coatings not the acrylic sealants some companies have been known to push. I have had issues from time to time, not often, and one thing is generally certain I was to blame for the performance. Opicoat has been shown to last in a car 2 years+. Cquartz has been on a few of the cars I have done 18 months+. Liquid glass lasted 4 months on average. Klasse was around 5 when topped with the klasse SG. These are on well maintained vehicles. Conditions will also vary as well. And some are better suited for 24/7 outdoor storage. If anyone wants a proper opinion especially on durability, find someone who has what you want and ask them questions. First hand accounts on everyday conditions.

sent using my thumbs, mispelling most words

"Proper opinions" are just that, opinions. I undertook these tests precisely because none of these products and the claims they make have been subject to any kind of serious objective evaluation. I don't claim that my approach is faultless because it isn't.

Every detailer I know, and some damned good ones, is sure he knows which products are best, and usually, he's devoted to them. And I'll grant that a detailer's experience and expertise has real value. But given that there's nothing approaching consensus among the experts you do have to wonder. There are a lot of shills for these products out there. So if I can add a little objective knowledge I'll be happy. And I'll have a very rational basis for what I use on my own Model S. What anyone else does is his or her own business. Hopefully I'll provide some data that will help them decide.

 

[Al Sherman]

"Proper opinions" are just that, opinions. I undertook these tests precisely because none of these products and the claims they make have been subject to any kind of serious objective evaluation. I don't claim that my approach is faultless because it isn't.

Every detailer I know, and some damned good ones, is sure he knows which products are best, and usually, he's devoted to them. And I'll grant that a detailer's experience and expertise has real value. But given that there's nothing approaching consensus among the experts you do have to wonder. There are a lot of shills for these products out there. So if I can add a little objective knowledge I'll be happy. And I'll have a very rational basis for what I use on my own Model S. What anyone else does is his or her own business. Hopefully I'll provide some data that will help them decide.

You da man artsci! We're loving it. Forward!

 

[artsci]

Maybe an example would help me understand it. For instance:

Before any finish was applied panel "A" had a gloss reading of 105.0 and panel "B" had a gloss reading of 103.94. That would mean panel A's "gloss index" is 0.99 and panel B's is 0.98. Right?

Then you applied one finish to panel A and one finish to panel B.

Now, it's 4 weeks later and you take gloss readings again. What do you do to the readings from the gloss meter? Do you multiply A's by 0.99 and B's by 0.98? If not, then what?


What I'm still not wrapping my head around is how you know what the mathematical formula is for adjusting gloss enhancement based on panel gloss before application. For argument's sake, let's say one panel was pretty dull - only read 80 on the meter. Would your results properly predict what any of the finishes you tested would read on the gloss meter right after application?

Sorry in advance for being dense.

Here's how I created the index. First, before applying any finish, I took gloss readings from five identical locations on each panel, then averaged them together to end up with an average gloss reading for each panel. I then used the panel with the lowest gloss reading (not the highest as I indicated in an earlier post in this thread) as the baseline for creating the index. The average gloss reading for the dullest panel was 97.58. The highest panel had a average gloss rating of 98.68. So using 97.58 as the baseline, the index for the dullest panel is 1 and the glossiest panel, 0.988852858 (which is 97.58 divided by 98.68). After I applied the finish, and after each subsequent test, I multiplied the new test averages for each panel by its index. For example, if after a new test, a panel had an average gloss rating of 97.64 and its gloss index was 0.991465149, the adjusted gloss rating would be 96.81 (97.65 X its index). In other words, the gloss rating would be adjusted down to account for the fact that the the finish was applied on a panel with a higher initial gloss relative to the other panels.

This gives a rating that adjusts for the underlying differences in gloss of the base panel. There may be a better way to do it but I couldn't think of one.

Below are the gloss indices for each of the panels, with the dullest being 1. The differences are quite marginal.

1.0000000
0.9914651
0.9900568
0.9940913
0.9973652
0.9942939
0.9930796
0.9959175
0.9993855
0.9936864

 

[ddruz]

Yes, I have an untreated sample which is used to calibrate the gloss meter every time I test.

Has that untreated sample also been exposed to the elements?

Thanks for the amazing job you are doing with this.

 

[artsci]

No. As I use it to calibrate the meter I want to be sure I'm always working with the same baseline calibration.

 

[Shurhold]

Yes, I have an untreated sample which is used to calibrate the gloss meter every time I test.

.

Gloss meters come with a reference standard. A special piece of black glass. This is the only thing that the meter should ever be calibrated to.

 

[smorgasbord]

There may be a better way to do it but I couldn't think of one.

I think we need to understand the mechanism by which these finishes make the surface glossy in order for us to model it properly. You're doing a multiplication based on initial gloss readings, but for all we know, the finishes simply add a certain amount of gloss. So, something that starts at 75 would become 82 and something that starts at 95 would become 102. If that were the case, your formula wouldn't work. It could be that the initial gloss doesn't matter, that the finish always achieves a certain level of gloss no matter what the initial gloss. Chances are it's something more complex that we don't understand at all.

We don't know the effect of differing initial gloss on the results, even without weathering, so we really can't come up with a proper mathematical model.

 

[artsci]

I don't want to sound defensive, but can you cut me some slack? I'm not pretending that this is some reliable mathematical model and never have.

It would be great to know the chemistry of each product, but I'm neither a mathematician nor a chemist, just an buyer trying to determine the reliability of the manufacturers claims and the extent of the hype about their products. And good luck getting any data from the makers about what they put in this stuff. Although they don't hesitate to make some very wild claims about their product chemistries, I doubt they'll reveal anything that a scientist would find acceptable.

The test I've constructed was the best I could to do simulate what we experience with these products. As a consumer my concerns are largely three: how much to they improve the gloss and depth of the appearance of the paint, how long does the improvement last, and what kind of protection is provided for the surface? The latter, as I've said, I can't answer. The first two are what I'm trying to determine. I've invested a huge amount of my own time and money in this experiment. Yes, with better instrumentation and a better experimental design, we might get more reliable results. But have you looked at the so-called tests that are out there? Mine may be flawed, but it is a step in the right direction.

In the end if I just satisfy my own curiosity I'll be happy. I'll buy the products for my Model S that the tests reveal are superior. Everybody else can do whatever they want.

 

[rogers08m3]

I wonder how easy (or difficult) it would be to get msds for some of these products.

I don't want to sound defensive, but can you cut me some slack? I'm not pretending that this is some reliable mathematical model and never have.

It would be great to know the chemistry of each product, but I'm neither a mathematician nor a chemist, just an buyer trying to determine the reliability of the manufacturers claims and the extent of the hype about their products. And good luck getting any data from the makers about what they put in this stuff. Although they don't hesitate to make some very wild claims about their product chemistries, I doubt they'll reveal anything that a scientist would find acceptable.

The test I've constructed was the best I could to do simulate what we experience with these products. As a consumer my concerns are largely three: how much to they improve the gloss and depth of the appearance of the paint, how long does the improvement last, and what kind of protection is provided for the surface? The latter, as I've said, I can't answer. The first two are what I'm trying to determine. I've invested a huge amount of my own time and money in this experiment. Yes, with better instrumentation and a better experimental design, we might get more reliable results. But have you looked at the so-called tests that are out there? Mine may be flawed, but it is a step in the right direction.

In the end if I just satisfy my own curiosity I'll be happy. I'll buy the products for my Model S that the tests reveal are superior. Everybody else can do whatever they want.

 

[artsci]

I wonder how easy (or difficult) it would be to get msds for some of these products.

I'm not positive, but I don't recall that any of these products came with MSDS data.