# Bilt Hamber Products deminishing LSP's



## Rappy

Hi Guys,

Have seen a few posts around Bilt Hamber products deminishing LSP's.

What are you using & your experience?


----------



## Rappy

I will start

Auto wash 12ml per 20 litre wash bucket, zero issues

SurfexHd 5% on wheels, body etc zero issues

AutoFoam, weak mix 1" in a full bottle lightly soild car
2" in a full bottle dirty car.

Never had an issue with wax or sealants. Only maintained around 2 ceramic coated cars. All the above, zero issues.

50/50 mix decon, paint prep correction etc...stripped LSP as intended.

Guys, what is your experience?


----------



## macmaw

I’ve read that BH Autofoam isn’t good for ceramics and can degrade them. 
It does say on their site that it is fine for waxes and sealants. 
Autowash should be ok. 
I’ve used Autofoam on my coated car a few times but stopped using it after reading recently on here about the high alkaline in Autofoam. I will admit that was news to me. 
Hoping I haven’t done too much damage, my car is wearing Myabi Coat and Zipang Coat, and has been regularly topped with Overcoat and lately, Beadmaker. 
Shame, as Autofoam is one of the best cleaning firms out there. 
Carbon Collective Satsuma Foam claims similar cleaning and bubble behaviour as Autofoam but says it it doesn’t interfere with ceramic coatings.


----------



## Rappy

The amount of time and money to prep & apply a Ceramic. I would be pretyy p***ed if had issues


----------



## Guest

I'm sure people think I'm starting to sound like a broken record on here, but BH products are very VERY popular thanks to reviews form [email protected] detailing and what that lovely guy didn't get round to mentioning is what these do to cermaic coatings. I've no experience with waxes or sealants, only ceramic products and as a disclaimer I will say that I believe BH products are some of the best cleaning, most powerful and cost effective cleaners we have available in the UK.

My experience was as follows, and I'm been fairly vocal about it on this forum because it has cost me days of time and a fair bit of cost in ruining and then reappling cquartz UK and DLUX to my car and wheels.

I purchase auto wash, auto foam and surfex at the same time as my coating, to first strip wash my new car and then polis and ceramic it. I waited 10 days in nice weather for the coating to cure then began maintaining it with auto foam at 4% PIR (measured), auto wash in a bucket at 5ml too 20L. The car was covered in Reload as well as the cquartz. I am seriously OCD about detailing, and was washing the car 1-2 times a week as autumn rains came. Beading remained strong from perhaps 8-10 washes at which paint the beading turned to sheeting. I blamed this on reload failing, and reapplied it. Again a few washes later it was sheeting. So I spoke to Craig @ CarPro UK who said reload cold be stripped off with reset and the cermaic would come back after a full ash and decontamination. So I ironx and tarx'd the car, washed it twice with straight reset, and it was still dull. I then ordered some labocosmetica purifica in hopes it might restore things, but to no avail. So I washed the car a few more times over the course of a month (3 months or so since the initial application) and it was clear the coating was gone. I blamed this on my application of cquartz outside etc. and ended up re-coating the bonnet, this time no reload and washed it with reset a while before trying my BH routine again. Within 3-4 washes the performance again has diminished, but the cermaic was still there. But I was annoyed the rest of the car had failed and suspected my wash routine was the culprit. 

Additionally I had been cleaning my wheels, tyres and arches with surfeit at 10% dilution (as recommended by BH). Cleaning polishing and coating and curing wheels is a giant pain, and when I realised my wheels were no longer coated I was not best pleased.

I had wrongly assumed ceramics were durable to acid and alkaline and was obviously using things way to strong. 

So I took my 10% dilution of surfed and wiped down my bonnet. To my utter amazement the cermaic was gone - completely. I had a clean, sheeting panel, and even after several washes to see if it was just clogging the surface I confirmed it had been totally removed.

And since then I have spoken to BH and to CarPro on the mater, and BH denies that alkalinity affects ceramics, and CarPro say it certainly does, and there is no need for strong alkaline cleaners when you car is coated, as they will not get dirty enough to require it.

So I recoated he car all over again and it has been performing flawlessly for 9+ months now. 

Unfortunately I had also been maintaining a second car with can coat on which was being topped by hydro2 regularly, and I had not realised that I was just covering up the failed coating (after just 3 months) every few weeks. Toppers can offer a deceptive performance to your coatings. Many may be removing them, and of the coating underneath with strong washing and not even know it.

As [email protected] has said to me, there is no need for high alkaline washing when you have a coated car. Live and learn form my mistakes. If you use a great PH neutral soap like reset your coatings will last as intended.


----------



## Imperialjim

Used BH products on assorted LSPs for probably about 7 years with no issues I can remember.

I guess this is mainly referring to autofoam, that I've been using for about 5 years at around 4% out of one of those garden weed 5L spray bottle things, no problems. Used on lots of different "normal" waxes and sealants. Regarding ceramic, used it on C1 & C5 that has been occasionally topped up with c2v3 with no noticeable issues.

I wouldn't use surfex on any paint work unless I was purposely trying to strip it back, that's for tyres and wheel arch liners for me.


----------



## Rappy

Thanks for such a detailed reply :thumb: 

On my next wash on my daily, it will not get any toppers 3 mths wearing UFF.


----------



## Rob D 88

As [email protected] has said to me, there is no need for high alkaline washing when you have a coated car. Live and learn form my mistakes. If you use a great PH neutral soap like reset your coatings will last as intended.[/QUOTE]

I have previously used Gyeon Pure, CQuartz 3.0 and Carbon Collective Oracle. Out of the 3 Oracle is miles better, easier to apply / remove and beads water twice as good.

I only ever use Adam's Mega Foam which is basically a PH neutral shampoo with a glorified name.

My Oracle coating has been on 8 months and it is still going very strong. That being said I think reset was and if not the best shampoo out there for healing a coating. Always seemed to bring the best out of the beading!

AutoWheel & Korossol are fantastic there is no doubt but I personally believe the rest of the products are over hyped.

The main thing is we all have different preferences and we don't have to buy certain products again.

Best Foam is AutoGlanz Spritzer although I don't even think that is PH neutral if I remember rightly.

Thanks
Rob


----------



## roscopervis

I’ve used Autofoam for years. Generally, I don’t use it at 4% pir on my coated car unless it’s been a very long time without a wash. Usually it will be at 1. Something% pir. Saying that, I have used it a fair bit this year between November and April as a touch less wash at 4%, though the Feynlab Ceramic has been coping well.

I know from previous experience that Sonax BSD doesn’t like Autofoam at 4% pir, neither does Polymer Net Shield. Since Lockdown with some time on my hands I’ve been looking at Labocosmetica’s 3 pH cleaning system and replicating it with Autofoam, any half decent pH neutral soap and Fse, which I have enjoyed and had good results.

Autofoam doesn’t have to be used at 4%, it isn’t the only setting on the box! 

Autowash I haven’t used for quite a while as I’ve got loads of other shampoo to use up. Even so, at the 1:2000 dilution it won’t harm LSP’s but will benefit from a very good rinse as it has a rinse aid property that is also anti corrosion. This wears off quickly anyway, but it can freak people out. The protection is just underneath.

Surfex is potent, but again can be used at many different dilutions. One of the basic golden rules of detailing is use chemicals at the least strong dilution it needs to be, the onus is on the detailer to work this out. Surfex very rarely has to be used at 10%, even on wheels. If wheels are coated, such powerful cleaners simply aren’t needed. I very rarely use more than snow foam.

I’ve tried to make this point before - using potent cleaners and chemicals is like using medicines; there are potential side effects. As such, it makes sense to only use them when necessary and at the weakest dilution that will do the job. By doing that, the “side effects” are gonna be much less than just by going in at strong dilutions and means that they can still be useful and safe in anyone’s arsenal.


----------



## atbalfour

I don't think this thread is appropriately titled... there isn't a specific issue with 'Bilt Hamber products'.

Anyone who has issues with Auto Wash is incapable of measuring the recommended dosage and/or rinsing their car thoroughly. Like any highly concentrated shampoo it needs to be used properly, and like some other shampoos leaves an element of (corrosion) protection behind which does not degrade anything.

I've used alkaline pre-cleaners including Auto Foam, Wax Planet Eight Below and recently AutoGlanz Spritzer and I too have seen them prematurely degrade certain protection products including one 2 year ceramic coating top coat and it's 3-5 year base coating not once, not twice but three times.... I've since reverted to more neutral pre-cleaners and had no issues with said coating. They do seem to have a greater impact on certain products and BSD is the example I use regularly as it's a product most people have tried... BSD is a 4-6 week product that is instantly stripped by this category of product at below their recommended PIR - it just so happens that there are a host of other SiO2 based products with similar issues. Yet to find any coating topper that will hold up to them having tried 7 or 8 of them. 

Maybe I've been extremely unlucky and been exclusively using 'brittle' LSPs with no chemical resistance. Maybe it's the high pH of these cleaners, but these are supposedly non-caustic products so it's not like I'm hurling industrial strength TFRs at the car....

It is very interesting that coating manufacturers provide pH guidance if products at either extreme do not impact them!? @macmaw just bear in mind that Miyabi coat has a published pH tolerance between 2 & 11 and certain pre cleaners will operate at the very edge of this. 

Would be good to have this thread title changed and hear from LSP and cleaning product manufacturers on this subject. Would love to get to the bottom of the hundreds of pounds I've washed down the drain quite literally even if that means being proved completely wrong


----------



## Rappy

I think the thread is titled correctly. As that is what some people are reporting.

If you read my opening posts, I'm not bashing BH products, quite the opposite.

Based on your reply, you are saying it is user error?

I do hope BH reply to this post.


----------



## MrPassat

The big question is do BH products diminish each other.... e.g. affect DSW


----------



## Stoner

I am a huge fan of BH products because they are very good at delivering the results I want. However, they are incredibly strong and without the correct dilution they will strip most products. I am still old school and prefer sealant/waxes to ceramics so cannot comment on the latter.

I use Auto-foam at around 1% pir in the summer and 3-4% in the winter. My choice of waxes (currently) are Race Glaze for summer months and FK1000P for winter. I also use BH auto-wash diluted down - I use 5-10ml in a standard bucket but I don't measure the water, just fill it 3/4 of the way to the top.

I have not noticed any deterioration in longevity in either product at those ratios.


----------



## Rappy

Stoner said:


> I am a huge fan of BH products because they are very good at delivering the results I want. However, they are incredibly strong and without the correct dilution they will strip most products. I am still old school and prefer sealant/waxes to ceramics so cannot comment on the latter.
> 
> I use Auto-foam at around 1% pir in the summer and 3-4% in the winter. My choice of waxes (currently) are Race Glaze for summer months and FK1000P for winter. I also use BH auto-wash diluted down - I use 5-10ml in a standard bucket but I don't measure the water, just fill it 3/4 of the way to the top.
> 
> I have not noticed any deterioration in longevity in either product at those ratios.


x2

Good to hear :thumb:


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

It’s widely believed that if a cleaner has either a high or low pH that’s the reason they diminish LSP’s. This assumption is incorrect;  for example organic solvent cleaners such as tar removers, some degreasers, panel wipes etc have no meaningful pH whatsoever yet will remove waxes and most sealants far more rapidly than the most basic of alkaline and even damaging caustic cleaners. 

It’s the case that the surfactant combination used in water-borne cleaners has a huge bearing on their performance, with one combination used at pH7 easily being more “wearing” on LSP’s than another combination at pH13. Judging the cleaner on its pH is too limiting and do remember the cleaner is designed to clean if it doesn’t do that well then it has little use.

The main purpose of any LSP is to protect the paintwork and IT should do that well. We believe it’s incumbent, on those formulating the LSP that it can at tolerate commonly used cleaning agents and isn’t so weak that it fails upon being cleaned. The most damage to your paintwork will be during the mechanical cleaning stage where particulate matter not removed during the first cleaning stage is dragged as an abrasives slurry across the surface – the LSP not able to tolerate a competent cleaner (and so a lesser one is used) will lead to its own and the paint beneath its damage by the increased slurry load. 

Choose an LSP that can be cleaned – none of them will ever self-clean to the point of not needing a pre-wash and getting rid of abrasive matter is of prime importance. We’ve seen and tested and made many LSP’s including ceramics that can be challenged repeatedly with a 10% Surfex (that’s above what you would use to clean paintwork btw) and many others too. As a side note none of our products are caustic and this is important as this can dull paintwork as the binder is attacked – once that’s occurred it’s game over for the paint system. We also do not use NTA chelating agents as they are a suspected carcinogen, so we firmly believe we are doing the right thing with these cleaning products.:thumb:

Choose a robust LSP it's there to protect and should be able to be cleaned to reduce the abrasives that sit inevitably on our finishes.


----------



## Rappy

Thanks Bilt Hamber for commenting so quickly :thumb::thumb:

Guys, F.Y.I....

I did make them aware of this thread & asked that they added a comment.

The only way I'm linked to BH is buying there fantastic cleaning products 

Never had any issues.


----------



## GSVHammer

I've got Sonax Polymer Netshield on my car for winter. Found out that Autofoam at 4% through pump sprayer seriously degraded my LSP on it's first wash. I had to apply another coat of PNS.
I've had to buy another brand of Snowfoam (PH7) to use on this LSP.


----------



## Guest

So according to BH, PH is not the limiting factor to degrading coatings. This may be so and we can defer to their expertise, but does not change the fact that most popular ceramic and toppers will not withstand high PH treatment, as is stated by and according to the manufacturers of these coatings.

If it is not alkalinity that degrades (some) of these coatings then it is (as BH has said) other chemicals which do exist in these very powerful and effective (excellent) cleaning products.

I do not feel it is right though to simply say that popular protection products that are significantly degraded by these cleaning products simply are not robust enough. But it shows that their products are not compatible with all coatings/toppers and this should be cautioned accordingly, but it is down to us to do and share our experiences and heed manufacturer recommendations.

I would however like to know which ceramic can withstand repeat treatment with surfex HD at 10%, cause I want it!

I'd also wager that those who have had "no problems" are adding protection every/few washes and just haven't noticed the degradation.


----------



## sm81

roscopervis said:


> I know from previous experience that Sonax BSD doesn't like Autofoam at 4% pir, neither does Polymer Net Shield. Since Lockdown with some time on my hands I've been looking at Labocosmetica's 3 pH cleaning system and replicating it with Autofoam, any half decent pH neutral soap and Fse, which I have enjoyed and had good results.
> 
> Autofoam doesn't have to be used at 4%, it isn't the only setting on the box!
> 
> Autowash I haven't used for quite a while as I've got loads of other shampoo to use up. *Even so, at the 1:2000 dilution it won't harm LSP's but will benefit from a very good rinse as it has a rinse aid property that is also anti corrosion. This wears off quickly anyway, but it can freak people out*. The protection is just underneath.
> 
> Surfex is potent, but again can be used at many different dilutions.
> 
> I've tried to make this point before - using potent cleaners and chemicals is like using medicines; there are potential side effects.


I have noticed this same effect with Autofoam.


----------



## Coatings

New here.... from the states. Been using BH auto foam on my 1.5 yr CQUK3 coated car for past 8 months with no issues to coatings. I do believe it does affect/remove toppers.

I apply with IK foam 12 4oz to 100oz of water.

I use it as a strip wash of toppers. Also helps when i have areas in car where coating isn't performing due to fallout road film and what not. Brings coating right back.

Lastly if Alkaline products aren't good for Carpro coatings..... why did the release and alkaline pre wash snow foam.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...-arrivals/carpro-lift-snow-foam-1-liter-34oz/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

I'm curious where you've been getting BH in the states for that long? It's still very new there. 

It's a fair point about the new LIFT product from carpro. Looking forward to testing it when it comes out. It is likely much lower PH than Auto-Foam (and question remains how it would compare in cleaning power), but if Bilt Hamber above is correct then it is not just alkalinity, but also the other chemicals that are effecting many peoples coatings (and/or toppers). Hopefully CarPro has formulated theirs to be completely safe for untopped coatings, and that they will still get the stated 18-24 months when using LIFT regularly. That remains to be seen.

Those willing to use a "sacrificial layer" and top up regularly may protect the coating underneath it from harsh cleaners, and are likely the ones saying they had no problems as they would not notice the degradation if topping up every few washes. IMO toppers are unnecissary, do not perform as well as the ceramics they coat over. But on the up side the detailing industry will thrive on sales if people are washing off and re-applying products time and again


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> So according to BH, PH is not the limiting factor to degrading coatings. This may be so and we can defer to their expertise, but does not change the fact that most popular ceramic and toppers will not withstand high PH treatment, as is stated by and according to the manufacturers of these coatings.
> 
> If it is not alkalinity that degrades (some) of these coatings then it is (as BH has said) other chemicals which do exist in these very powerful and effective (excellent) cleaning products.
> 
> I do not feel it is right though to simply say that popular protection products that are significantly degraded by these cleaning products simply are not robust enough. But it shows that their products are not compatible with all coatings/toppers and this should be cautioned accordingly, but it is down to us to do and share our experiences and heed manufacturer recommendations.
> 
> I would however like to know which ceramic can withstand repeat treatment with surfex HD at 10%, cause I want it!
> 
> I'd also wager that those who have had "no problems" are adding protection every/few washes and just haven't noticed the degradation.


It simply means they're not robust enough to withstand cleaning with a product that will significantly reduce particulate matter , therefore you will, by default, increase risk of abrasive damage as you attempt to save the fragile LSP by using less effective cleaners. It's a choice.

However perfectly good LSP's maybe incorrectly considered poor in durability because they are not applied to properly cleaned paint. The use of a solvent cleaner (not the alkaline cleaner) before application is essential to get correct adhesion of the LSP). If LSP's are applied to oily, surfaces then auto-foam, for example, removes the oil and LSP along with it.


----------



## sm81

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> It simply means they're not robust enough to withstand cleaning with a product that will significantly reduce particulate matter , therefore you will, by default, increase risk of abrasive damage as you attempt to save the fragile LSP by using less effective cleaners. It's a choice.
> 
> However perfectly good LSP's maybe incorrectly considered poor in durability because they are not applied to properly cleaned paint. The use of a solvent cleaner (not the alkaline cleaner) before application is essential to get correct adhesion of the LSP). If LSP's are applied to oily, surfaces then auto-foam, for example, removes the oil and LSP along with it.


That is prober point. I haven't seen to any degrade to my CQUK coatings (v1 and v2) when using Autofoam but I'm always meticulous with my coating prep.


----------



## Guest

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> It simply means they're not robust enough to withstand cleaning with a product that will significantly reduce particulate matter , therefore you will, by default, increase risk of abrasive damage as you attempt to save the fragile LSP by using less effective cleaners. It's a choice.
> 
> However perfectly good LSP's maybe incorrectly considered poor in durability because they are not applied to properly cleaned paint. The use of a solvent cleaner (not the alkaline cleaner) before application is essential to get correct adhesion of the LSP). If LSP's are applied to oily, surfaces then auto-foam, for example, removes the oil and LSP along with it.


I hear what you are saying, and auto-foam does a phenomenal job in the pre-wash like no other I've tried. Removing as much particulate mater in the pre-wash absolutely makes sense. Just wish I'd known that it degraded "fragile" coatings before buying 2 gallons of the stuff and removing several days work and a relatively expensive ceramic coat using them. My response from Bilt Hamber when I enquired to this was that your products "do not" effect ceramic coatings, and from your response here it is clear that they can in some cases, and will in many cases remove topers and sealants also.

You might then agree that a word of warning might be advisable, or perhaps a lower dilution specified for those using "fragile" coatings. It is my opinion (obviously) that you products are best avoided on coated cars, and it sounds like you acknowledge loosely that they do degrade some LSP's. So maybe is best used on polymer sealants and waxes and bare paint rather than on coated cars?

I in no way blame BH for its products effectiveness, It is a fabulous product, and it's up to the end user to heed manufacturers guidelines.

In the case of ceramic coatings, more so than other spray coats is that they do not hold on to the particulate mater and are more easily rinsed away, so less harsh cleaning products do very good job of removing surface contaminants, so a strong pre-wash aside form being inadvisable, is not particularly needed.


----------



## Guest

sm81 said:


> That is prober point. I haven't seen to any degrade to my CQUK coatings (v1 and v2) when using Autofoam but I'm always meticulous with my coating prep.


Do you use a topper, and at what PIR are you using auto foam?


----------



## Coatings

DannyRS3 said:


> I'm curious where you've been getting BH in the states for that long? It's still very new there.
> 
> It's a fair point about the new LIFT product from carpro. Looking forward to testing it when it comes out. It is likely much lower PH than Auto-Foam (and question remains how it would compare in cleaning power), but if Bilt Hamber above is correct then it is not just alkalinity, but also the other chemicals that are effecting many peoples coatings (and/or toppers). Hopefully CarPro has formulated theirs to be completely safe for untopped coatings, and that they will still get the stated 18-24 months when using LIFT regularly. That remains to be seen.
> 
> Those willing to use a "sacrificial layer" and top up regularly may protect the coating underneath it from harsh cleaners, and are likely the ones saying they had no problems as they would not notice the degradation if topping up every few washes. IMO toppers are unnecissary, do not perform as well as the ceramics they coat over. But on the up side the detailing industry will thrive on sales if people are washing off and re-applying products time and again


I ordered from UK. Ultimate Finish. Cost about $45 dollars shipped. Always add some little "goodies" to make work. Pre wash and snow foams aren't as big in the states. The best I have used from here is Griots Surface Wash. it's PH neutral. The make a foaming prep soap that is high PH but they do not recommend for coatings.

I use when coating is looking sluggish in problem areas on lower panel behind tires. Usually an accumulation of road film. I use BHAF as pre wash and then an alkaline coating prep wash from a company called Mckees. The coating sheds water like new before any toppers.

I don't put to much notion in how toppers work. I'm thinking that they help but i can tell you even after topping the water behavior from coating below is more prevalent. I have my hood uncoated and behavior on coated parts and hood perform drastically different. Even using high quality toppers like Polish Angel Cosmic and Kami Overcoat. Don't really know if it makes a protection difference.

Reason i use is because i like to apply things..... and i can tell you for sure they do make a visual difference.

Some of use do this detail to protect our paint..... some to make it shine....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carscope

I’m slowly getting my way through testing a bunch of different foams on my car at the moment which can be seen in my thread. 

I will say I have found most these alkaline cleaners knock down to a PH neutral formula once diluted and hit the panel. 

At the end of the day it’s a trade off, cleaning ability or the durability of your coating. There is no holy grail I’ve found (yet). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

Coatings said:


> New here.... from the states. Been using BH auto foam on my 1.5 yr CQUK3 coated car for past 8 months with no issues to coatings. I do believe it does affect/remove toppers.
> 
> I apply with IK foam 12 4oz to 100oz of water.
> 
> I use it as a strip wash of toppers. Also helps when i have areas in car where coating isn't performing due to fallout road film and what not. Brings coating right back.
> 
> Lastly if Alkaline products aren't good for Carpro coatings..... why did the release and alkaline pre wash snow foam.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...-arrivals/carpro-lift-snow-foam-1-liter-34oz/
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A very good point :thumb:


----------



## AD18

DannyRS3 said:


> I hear what you are saying, and auto-foam does a phenomenal job in the pre-wash like no other I've tried. Removing as much particulate mater in the pre-wash absolutely makes sense. Just wish I'd known that it degraded "fragile" coatings before buying 2 gallons of the stuff and removing several days work and a relatively expensive ceramic coat using them. My response from Bilt Hamber when I enquired to this was that your products "do not" effect ceramic coatings, and from your response here it is clear that they can in some cases, and will in many cases remove topers and sealants also.
> 
> You might then agree that a word of warning might be advisable, or perhaps a lower dilution specified for those using "fragile" coatings. It is my opinion (obviously) that you products are best avoided on coated cars, and it sounds like you acknowledge loosely that they do degrade some LSP's. So maybe is best used on polymer sealants and waxes and bare paint rather than on coated cars?
> 
> I in no way blame BH for its products effectiveness, It is a fabulous product, and it's up to the end user to heed manufacturers guidelines.
> 
> In the case of ceramic coatings, more so than other spray coats is that they do not hold on to the particulate mater and are more easily rinsed away, so less harsh cleaning products do very good job of removing surface contaminants, so a strong pre-wash aside form being inadvisable, is not particularly needed.





Rappy said:


> The amount of time and money to prep & apply a Ceramic. I would be pretyy p***ed if had issues


Great posts @DannyRS3 and also thanks to @Rappy for creating this thread. Info on this subject seems to have only arisen recently, otherwise it just doesn't seem to exist. 
I must admit, the BH responses are a little confusing for someone without huge experience in this field such as myself, especially when they refer to LSP's not being robust enough to handle their cleaners (!?), there seem to be plenty of popular LSP's being mentioned in this and other threads related to this topic.

I feel there are a high number of people that pay large sums of money to get their pride and joys detailed and coated by a professional and then would look online or Youtube to find ways to maintain that investment (I'd happily admit to being in this category). Forensic Detailing channel popped up showing the brilliance of BH products and multiple product review winners on various websites (and rightly so) but then zero info on what it does to coatings or how important dilutions are with these. From his video and simply because auto wash is specifically pH neutral, I would honestly have bought the whole BH product line (and this is where I think many others with my experience would do the same), start spraying my car with auto foam (because of how great a cleaner it was but also lets face it, it looks cool) and washed with auto wash etc, I can't help but think what the results of that coating may have been down the line had I not stumbled across DW just before and instead steered towards shampoos made by coating manufacturers by the great people here.

From the POV of an average guy without big detailing experience or knowledge, but wants to keep his car clean and looking great, there seems a higher risk of something going wrong with these products and that info just isn't out there other than on specific sites like this. Just my viewpoint and probably of those with similar experience as myself.


----------



## Guest

AD18 said:


> Great posts @DannyRS3 and also thanks to @Rappy for creating this thread. Info on this subject seems to have only arisen recently, otherwise it just doesn't seem to exist.
> I must admit, the BH responses are a little confusing for someone without huge experience in this field such as myself, especially when they refer to LSP's not being robust enough to handle their cleaners (!?), there seem to be plenty of popular LSP's being mentioned in this and other threads related to this topic.
> 
> I feel there are a high number of people that pay large sums of money to get their pride and joys detailed and coated by a professional and then would look online or Youtube to find ways to maintain that investment (I'd happily admit to being in this category). Forensic Detailing channel popped up showing the brilliance of BH products and multiple product review winners on various websites (and rightly so) but then zero info on what it does to coatings or how important dilutions are with these. From his video and simply because auto wash is specifically pH neutral, I would honestly have bought the whole BH product line (and this is where I think many others with my experience would do the same), start spraying my car with auto foam (because of how great a cleaner it was but also lets face it, it looks cool) and washed with auto wash etc, I can't help but think what the results of that coating may have been down the line had I not stumbled across DW just before and instead steered towards shampoos made by coating manufacturers by the great people here.
> 
> From the POV of an average guy without big detailing experience or knowledge, but wants to keep his car clean and looking great, there seems a higher risk of something going wrong with these products and that info just isn't out there other than on specific sites like this. Just my viewpoint and probably of those with similar experience as myself.


:thumb: really well said there mate. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## atbalfour

Rappy said:


> I think the thread is titled correctly. As that is what some people are reporting.
> 
> Based on your reply, you are saying it is user error?


Honestly I'd love it to be user error as I could more easily fix it than compromise between really exceptional cleaners and really great looking high performing (and normally durable) LSPs. Sadly I don't think it is though.



Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> It's widely believed that if a cleaner has either a high or low pH that's the reason they diminish LSP's. This assumption is incorrect; for example organic solvent cleaners such as tar removers, some degreasers, panel wipes etc have no meaningful pH whatsoever yet will remove waxes and most sealants far more rapidly than the most basic of alkaline and even damaging caustic cleaners.
> 
> It's the case that the surfactant combination used in water-borne cleaners has a huge bearing on their performance, with one combination used at pH7 easily being more "wearing" on LSP's than another combination at pH13. Judging the cleaner on its pH is too limiting and do remember the cleaner is designed to clean if it doesn't do that well then it has little use.
> 
> The main purpose of any LSP is to protect the paintwork and IT should do that well. We believe it's incumbent, on those formulating the LSP that it can at tolerate commonly used cleaning agents and isn't so weak that it fails upon being cleaned. The most damage to your paintwork will be during the mechanical cleaning stage where particulate matter not removed during the first cleaning stage is dragged as an abrasives slurry across the surface - the LSP not able to tolerate a competent cleaner (and so a lesser one is used) will lead to its own and the paint beneath its damage by the increased slurry load.
> 
> Choose an LSP that can be cleaned - none of them will ever self-clean to the point of not needing a pre-wash and getting rid of abrasive matter is of prime importance. We've seen and tested and made many LSP's including ceramics that can be challenged repeatedly with a 10% Surfex (that's above what you would use to clean paintwork btw) and many others too. As a side note none of our products are caustic and this is important as this can dull paintwork as the binder is attacked - once that's occurred it's game over for the paint system. We also do not use NTA chelating agents as they are a suspected carcinogen, so we firmly believe we are doing the right thing with these cleaning products.:thumb:
> 
> Choose a robust LSP it's there to protect and should be able to be cleaned to reduce the abrasives that sit inevitably on our finishes.


It's great to have engagement from yourselves on this subject BH. I think everyone acknowledges just how good your products are and personally trying to find a way I can incorporate them into my routine without undoing some of the time and money spent on LSPs... for less effective products I'd probably swap them out and say nothing.

What you are saying makes sense and who am I with 0 scientific or chemical understanding to disagree re. the theory - all I can say is what I have experienced.

You say there are general misconceptions and conclusions drawn about pH and I completely understand that there are exceptions to most rules. I continue to question though why nearly every coating manufacturer makes pH tolerance claims in that case and why all 3 high pH products I've used degrade the same type of LSPs to the same degree.

I also understand the point about the built up dirt on a car and the effect of abrasion of that dirt can itself degrade LSPs and it's something I haven't really thought about before. What I can say though is that degrading of certain products (BSD being one) occurs without any agitation. The chemicals within Auto Foam (and others) immediately strip those more fragile (and quite often expensive) LSPs.

What you are saying is that Sonax BSD falls into the category of a poorly formulated LSP, despite it lasting weeks without the Auto Foam step. It would take me upwards of 4 weeks of twice weekly washes consisting of mechanical abrasion with pH neutral soaps to replicate the same degradation of one 'touchless' hit of Auto Foam.

Perhaps there is a specific component in all of these cleaners which do not like the hydrophobic components of certain protection products and nothing to do with pH! For now though, it very much feels hard to argue that pH isn't a factor, despite the odd exception to that rule.



Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> It simply means they're not robust enough to withstand cleaning with a product that will significantly reduce particulate matter , therefore you will, by default, increase risk of abrasive damage as you attempt to save the fragile LSP by using less effective cleaners. It's a choice.
> 
> However perfectly good LSP's maybe incorrectly considered poor in durability because they are not applied to properly cleaned paint. The use of a solvent cleaner (not the alkaline cleaner) before application is essential to get correct adhesion of the LSP). If LSP's are applied to oily, surfaces then auto-foam, for example, removes the oil and LSP along with it.


So in your experience is Auto Foam made 'safer' for less chemical resistant LSPs by using a reduced dilution (e.g. 1% PIR)?

Re. prep, I have always feared that this could have been user error... how has nobody else complained about this but me. Because of this I've literally gone to the extent of washing the car with Surfex, followed up with used two continuous wipedowns of different panel preps with multiple cloths!! Paint had 0 hydrophobicity, 0 slickness, all of the tell tale signs of being completely ready to accept LSPs!

It isn't for you guys to know how LSPs are formulated and you can only test so far, but it would be great to know if there is a recurring theme of protectant that you have found degraded by Auto Foam and also another type of protectant that seems impervious to it.

I want to use Auto Foam because I believe it to be best in class and it's great that it can do this while being non caustic and non corrosive. But I also like my car to self clean, look great and bead water but it can't do that if Auto Foam is degrading my protection.


----------



## sm81

DannyRS3 said:


> Do you use a topper, and at what PIR are you using auto foam?


True. I'm  (Nanolex Final Finish usually)
4-5%


----------



## Guest

sm81 said:


> True. I'm  (Nanolex Final Finish usually)
> 4-5%


Case in point then. Keep washing with 5% Auto-Foam and not applying your topper and then come back and tell us if performance is degraded after some washes or not


----------



## galamaa

Yes. Autofoam - BSD or Netshield wont work together and I must say, this is not absolutely auto-foam problem. There are a lot different products, which dont like each other. Almost 2 years ago I understand that really well and I have different products - different prewashes and shampoos to get good combo each other. Also I find really good solution to BSD and Netshield. Wont degrade anything but cleaning is excellent and nothing behind. You cant buy this products in England, but you can buy them in Finland and Estonia. and 5 litres cost me 8,5 euros and work really well 1:10 and also through foamlance. BSD can last very long time even harsh winter, if you use right prewash and shampoo. Also bsd really like sonax seal&shine shampoo. Strong reactivity each other and beading jump up really well.


----------



## Taxboy

It's an interesting thread but imo you need to look at it from the other way round. If you apply a LSP (partuclarly a ceramic coating) the responsibility surely rests with the supplier to provide advise on maintenance. BH has been around a while and generally doesn't have any issues with LSP, although I accept the wider use of coatings may prove slightly more problematic

If people are using products other than that recommended by the LSP supplier then it must be a case of caveat emptor

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

Taxboy said:


> It's an interesting thread but imo you need to look at it from the other way round. If you apply a LSP (partuclarly a ceramic coating) the responsibility surely rests with the supplier to provide advise on maintenance. BH has been around a while and generally doesn't have any issues with LSP, although I accept the wider use of coatings may prove slightly more problematic
> 
> If people are using products other than that recommended by the LSP supplier then it must be a case of caveat emptor
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


A very good way at looking at it :thumb::thumb:

Like I said at the start zero issues for me.

Maybe user error, maybe not.

Until it appeared on here, I would not have gave it a 2nd thought.

I will however try not topping my car next wash.

I do have a ceramic coated car coming next for a winter freshen up & will be paying close attention to the water behavour.

The owner did say it still beads like a b*****d his words not mine :lol:


----------



## atbalfour

Taxboy said:


> It's an interesting thread but imo you need to look at it from the other way round. If you apply a LSP (partuclarly a ceramic coating) the responsibility surely rests with the supplier to provide advise on maintenance. BH has been around a while and generally doesn't have any issues with LSP, although I accept the wider use of coatings may prove slightly more problematic
> 
> If people are using products other than that recommended by the LSP supplier then it must be a case of caveat emptor
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Fair point - generally these issues are not commented on when exclusively using coating manufacturer pre washes. I mentioned this in the past, there's a reason why some of the bigger brands TAC, CarPro, Gtechniq and Gyeon haven't sold a pH13 snow foam..

The challenge is that they're generally quite mild and don't clean to the same degree as those mentioned in this thread. It would be nice to have the best of both worlds..

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Taxboy

atbalfour said:


> Fair point - generally these issues are not commented on when exclusively using coating manufacturer pre washes. I mentioned this in the past, there's a reason why some of the bigger brands TAC, CarPro, Gtechniq and Gyeon haven't sold a pH13 snow foam..
> 
> The challenge is thst they're generally quite mild and don't clean to the same degree as those mentioned in this thread.
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Isn't it the selling point that a ceramic makes it easier to keep your car clean so in theory you don't need such strong cleaning power.......I'm being a little ironic here 

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

:thumb:


atbalfour said:


> Fair point - generally these issues are not commented on when exclusively using coating manufacturer pre washes. I mentioned this in the past, there's a reason why some of the bigger brands TAC, CarPro, Gtechniq and Gyeon haven't sold a pH13 snow foam..
> 
> The challenge is that they're generally quite mild and don't clean to the same degree as those mentioned in this thread. It would be nice to have the best of both worlds..
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


They do now. CarPro Lift is PH13


----------



## atbalfour

Rappy said:


> A very good way at looking at it :thumb::thumb:
> 
> Like I said at the start zero issues for me.
> 
> Maybe user error, maybe not.
> 
> Until it appeared on here, I would not have gave it a 2nd thought.
> 
> I will however try not topping my car next wash.
> 
> I do have a ceramic coated car coming next for a winter freshen up & will be paying close attention to the water behavour.
> 
> The owner did day it still beads like a b*****d his words not mine


That's fantastic that you're alright, but you can see there are multiple people sharing similar experiences. This isn't just some concept plucked out of thin air... I don't think anyone should see this as 'you're wrong I'm right' it's more that there are certain categories or types of product (even some specifically.. BSD, PNS) that are factually not compatible with these products.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

atbalfour said:


> That's fantastic that you're alright, but you can see there are multiple people sharing similar experiences. This isn't just some concept plucked out of thin air... I don't think anyone should see this as 'you're wrong I'm right' it's more that there are certain categories or types of product (even some specifically.. BSD, PNS) that are factually not compatible with these products.
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Agree 100% :thumb:

That is why I wanted to start this thread.

Knowing how OCD I am, I'm rather shocked I have not had issues. If BH is so bad on LSP & Ceramics.

Everyday is a school day, and all for learning & trying to help fellow members make a formal decission.

If BH could provide a list if which products are OK that would help all on here

Rappy


----------



## CharliesTTS

Ive experienced degradation on PA products using BHAF - only use it if I’m doing a full decon now


----------



## Guest

@taxboy thats what i've been saying on both counts - it is down to the manufacturers of coatings and LSP's to warn not to use high Alkaline products. Some do, some only put a range they are ok with and others nothing at all. Let's be honest, most of us starting out didn't know any better, or understand the consequences, or check the PH of the BH products before using them. Given the BH acknowledges that "fragile" products as they put it will be degraded, it is something they may want to consider mentioning on their website and products. But we can't fault them for making to powerful a product really. I don't think anyone here is doing that. And ceramics are easier to clean and indeed do not need strong pre-washes as you say. But all of us are buying products based on reviews, marketing and popularity, and discussing how work and how they interact is what this forum is all about and quite a few users now are realising that what works with a wax or sealant may not work with a LSP or ceramaic. For the sake of saving us our hard earned money it might be nice if the manufacturers offered some warnings though. 

@Rapey You're coming off as rather smug there pal, and it's starting to grate to be honest. You're using retail grade meguiars products and its good that you feel that they are holding up to strong prewashes (even though you are just as likely just re-topping the products you are washing off), but to repeatedly saying it works great for your one particular combination of products adds nothing more to the conversation. People are having issues and it's not "user error" which you rather obnoxiously have put it. Your thread however is a good idea and it's good to see this issue being discussed. So thanks for starting it. 

As for testing on your apparent "customer" car, I find it a little disconcerting that you would test a theory on a customers expensive ceramic coating. Though thankfully for them a single wash isn't likely to do too much damage, or be particularly obvious. I fear that will just have you back here telling us it did nothing on a ceramic car after 1 wash. Hopefully you are slightly more intelligent than that.

As to CarPro LIFT it is advertised as PH12. We do not yet know if that is neet or not, but even so that is quite a lot less than BH AF (which is over 14 IIRC) so Lift is within the margin of stated tolerance of cquartz. Though only testing will tell for sure once it is released. As BH has said it may be down to more than alkalinity as far as degrading coating.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> @taxboy thats what i've been saying on both counts - it is down to the manufacturers of coatings and LSP's to warn not to use high Alkaline products. Some do, some only put a range they are ok with and others nothing at all. Let's be honest, most of us starting out didn't know any better, or understand the consequences, or check the PH of the BH products before using them. Given the BH acknowledges that "fragile" products as they put it will be degraded, it is something they may want to consider mentioning on their website and products. But we can't fault them for making to powerful a product really. I don't think anyone here is doing that. And ceramics are easier to clean and indeed do not need strong pre-washes as you say. But all of us are buying products based on reviews, marketing and popularity, and discussing how work and how they interact is what this forum is all about and quite a few users now are realising that what works with a wax or sealant may not work with a LSP or ceramaic. For the sake of saving us our hard earned money it might be nice if the manufacturers offered some warnings though.
> 
> @Rapey You're coming off as rather smug there pal, and it's starting to grate to be honest. You're using retail grade meguiars products and its good that you feel that they are holding up to strong prewashes (even though you are just as likely just re-topping the products you are washing off), but to repeatedly saying it works great for your one particular combination of products adds nothing more to the conversation. People are having issues and it's not "user error" which you rather obnoxiously have put it. Your thread however is a good idea and it's good to see this issue being discussed. So thanks for starting it.
> 
> As for testing on your apparent "customer" car, I find it a little disconcerting that you would test a theory on a customers expensive ceramic coating. Though thankfully for them a single wash isn't likely to do too much damage, or be particularly obvious. I fear that will just have you back here telling us it did nothing on a ceramic car after 1 wash. Hopefully you are slightly more intelligent than that.
> 
> As to CarPro LIFT it is advertised as PH12. We do not yet know if that is neet or not, but even so that is quite a lot less than BH AF (which is over 14 IIRC) so Lift is within the margin of stated tolerance of cquartz. Though only testing will tell for sure once it is released. As BH has said it may be down to more than alkalinity as far as degrading coating.


auto-foam pH ~13 Using a 4% solution delivers 0.68% actives to the surface - very little indeed.


----------



## Guest

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> auto-foam pH ~13 Using a 4% solution delivers 0.68% actives to the surface - very little indeed.


So just to clarify, is that PH13 at 4% or neet?


----------



## Brian1612

It's something I've never experienced with auto foam in all honesty. In fact noticed is probably a better word for it as I'm not silly enough to believe it's having absolutely no effect on LSP at all.

I think it comes down to whether you want to retain your LSP or retain your machined paint. I know which I'd rather but it's finding a suitable middle ground between the two which I think a weak solution (1-2% PIR) of AF achieves.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian1612

DannyRS3 said:


> @taxboy thats what i've been saying on both counts - it is down to the manufacturers of coatings and LSP's to warn not to use high Alkaline products. Some do, some only put a range they are ok with and others nothing at all. Let's be honest, most of us starting out didn't know any better, or understand the consequences, or check the PH of the BH products before using them. Given the BH acknowledges that "fragile" products as they put it will be degraded, it is something they may want to consider mentioning on their website and products. But we can't fault them for making to powerful a product really. I don't think anyone here is doing that. And ceramics are easier to clean and indeed do not need strong pre-washes as you say. But all of us are buying products based on reviews, marketing and popularity, and discussing how work and how they interact is what this forum is all about and quite a few users now are realising that what works with a wax or sealant may not work with a LSP or ceramaic. For the sake of saving us our hard earned money it might be nice if the manufacturers offered some warnings though.
> 
> @Rapey You're coming off as rather smug there pal, and it's starting to grate to be honest. You're using retail grade meguiars products and its good that you feel that they are holding up to strong prewashes (even though you are just as likely just re-topping the products you are washing off), but to repeatedly saying it works great for your one particular combination of products adds nothing more to the conversation. People are having issues and it's not "user error" which you rather obnoxiously have put it. Your thread however is a good idea and it's good to see this issue being discussed. So thanks for starting it.
> 
> As for testing on your apparent "customer" car, I find it a little disconcerting that you would test a theory on a customers expensive ceramic coating. Though thankfully for them a single wash isn't likely to do too much damage, or be particularly obvious. I fear that will just have you back here telling us it did nothing on a ceramic car after 1 wash. Hopefully you are slightly more intelligent than that.
> 
> As to CarPro LIFT it is advertised as PH12. We do not yet know if that is neet or not, but even so that is quite a lot less than BH AF (which is over 14 IIRC) so Lift is within the margin of stated tolerance of cquartz. Though only testing will tell for sure once it is released. As BH has said it may be down to more than alkalinity as far as degrading coating.


Autofoam is 13 neat & between 8-9 diluted, I've checked.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Kenan

Stupid question . . Would the different water quality provide differed diluted PH levels?

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest

Brian1612 said:


> Autofoam is 13 neat & between 8-9 diluted, I've checked.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Interesting, I just want back and found my first post on this topic from quite some time ago when I did some PH testing. Here is what I came up with with my tap water (@kenan it does make a difference yes):

My tap water: PH 6.87

BH Surfex HD:

Neet: 14.1
10% = PH 11.67
5% = PH 11.2 
1% = PH 10.92

BH Auto-Foam:

4% dilution = PH 10.67
2% dilution = PH 10.2

That is still surprisingly alkaline at 2%. I didn't test the Auto-Foam neet I guess, but will do that tomorrow along with 1% to see what my tester says.


----------



## GeeWhizRS

https://www.unitedutilities.com/globalassets/documents/pdf/phfactsheet_acc16.pdf
_*The water quality regulations specify that the pH of water at your tap should be between 6.5 and 9.5.*_

With such a large variance in permissible pH levels of drinking water, I would suggest that if *drinking* water is allowed to be as high as 9.5pH then you may wish to focus your attention elsewhere with a view to finding what is affecting your LSP.


----------



## Fatboy40

Kenan said:


> Stupid question . . Would the different water quality provide differed diluted PH levels?
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk


Any difference would be almost imperceptible, minute fractions of a PH level.


----------



## roscopervis

Very good thread this. I'll just leave the wax testing video I've just uploaded to YouTube here. Very interesting. Bare in mind that in between these uses of the product, there is no dirt or slurry to affect any LSP, and reduction you may see should purely be down to the product, which in this case is Autofoam at 4%.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> So just to clarify, is that PH13 at 4% or neet?


At 14C
Essex tap water pH7.95 
4% Auto-foam pH10.82
4% Surfex pH 11.02

With regard to the importance of removing dirt and abrasive matter during FIRST-STAGE (pre-wash, snow-foam, power-wash) it's not, in our opinion, the reduction of the LSP's hydrophobicity that's the major concern with regard abrasion it's the hologram-like scratching that these particles inflict on the expensive paintwork below that LSP that will occur during SECOND-STAGE (bucket, wash mitt, sponge)

Our view remains after many years of observation and testing is that it's of prime importance to remove as much dirt / abrasive in a touchless fashion during first stage to help minimise damage to the paintwork. If your concern is more to preserve, for as long as possible, the hydrophobic nature of LSP at the expense of soil removal in the first-stage then that is, of course, a matter of choice and this can occur if an LSP is chosen that cannot tolerate the more effective cleaners. Our view is that the LSP should help to protect the paint as much as possible and this should include allowing removal of particulate matter in the most efficient way during first-stage.

Any discussion regarding high pH products should include the source of alkalinity within that product, whilst some sources will never damage paintwork, others will - even though reaching the same pH. Our products achieve their pH values whilst remaining non caustic.

One a final note auto-foam is cationic in nature; the surfactant is drawn to the surface and users may notice when power-washing during rinsing that unusual water behaviour observed at the paint surface. This is caused by these surfactants and is why power-washing is important to ensure adequate removal. Rinsing with a, open hose will not remove these and will result in the surfactant masking the hydrophobicity of the surface. There will be news soon from us of an non-cationic clean-rinse product that assists in the application of wet applied coatings


----------



## sm81

Those surfactants needs quite thorough rinsing even with pressure washer.


----------



## roscopervis

sm81 said:


> Those surfactants needs quite thorough rinsing even with pressure washer.


I agree. With my video instead of a pressure washer I used a clean damp (which became much wetter) drying towel to try and remove these surfactants as much as possible. Following the final rinse in the video, I also washed the panel with a pH neutral pure wash soap and again rinsed, dried and flooded the panel to see if this helped. Not much is the answer. I should have a video of it, I'll try and upload it.


----------



## GeeWhizRS

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> Rinsing with an open hose will not remove these and will result in the surfactant masking the hydrophobicity of the surface.


The requirement to rinse with a pressure washer might be something you want to add to your product instructions. The bottle of Auto Foam I have just says 'Rinse with cold water'. I dare say there will be people that apply Auto Foam with a hand held foamer and rinse off with a hose.


----------



## atbalfour

GeeWhizRS said:


> The requirement to rinse with a pressure washer might be something you want to add to your product instructions. The bottle of Auto Foam I have just says 'Rinse with cold water'. I dare say there will be people that apply Auto Foam with a hand held foamer and rinse off with a hose.


I'd be interested to hear if this has any detrimental effects aside from the masking of water behaviour. Most likely not based on BHs reply above.

Really interesting thread.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

I do have a question for BH.

On my new bottle of BH Autowash it says you should rinse with warm water. Please can you clarify?

I have always rinsed with a PW & cold tap water.

Thanks,

Rappy


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

atbalfour said:


> I'd be interested to hear if this has any detrimental effects aside from the masking of water behaviour. Most likely not based on BHs reply above.
> 
> Really interesting thread.
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


You can apply it at low pressure but to get good cleaning pressure is needed with COLD water upon rinsing. You can flush off with low pressure, but if the cationics are left in place they will mask the LSP but will, as a side-effect, add a degree of easy clean for the subsequent washes.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

Rappy said:


> I do have a question for BH.
> 
> On my new bottle of BH Autowash it says you should rinse with warm water. Please can you clarify?
> 
> I have always rinsed with a PW & cold tap water.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rappy


Auto-wash is different chemistry it will flush easily with warm or cold water.


----------



## Rappy

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> Auto-wash is different chemistry it will flush easily with warm or cold water.


Thanks for clarifying & your input on my thread :thumb:


----------



## Rappy

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> There will be news soon from us of an non-cationic clean-rinse product that assists in the application of wet applied coatings


Will this be 2020?


----------



## Guest

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> One a final note auto-foam is cationic in nature; the surfactant is drawn to the surface and users may notice when power-washing during rinsing that unusual water behaviour observed at the paint surface. This is caused by these surfactants and is why power-washing is important to ensure adequate removal.


I'd imagine this would then be a factor in the premature failure of coatings and LSP's then also if any surfactant remains on the surface before the application of protection. Might be worth adding this info to your product info/website as well, no?


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> I'd imagine this would then be a factor in the premature failure of coatings and LSP's then also if any surfactant remains on the surface before the application of protection. Might be worth adding this info to your product info/website as well, no?


Thorough prep before LSP application includes using products such cleanser-fluid, this removes these easily. Many shampoos and cleaners are substantive but it would be very unusual to apply an LSP directly after auto-foam and not what we advocate we wouldn't add an instruction that would encourage it.

You would expect to, at least, follow with auto-wash which removes these surfactants and will do so either hot or cold, before applying an LSP.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

Rappy said:


> Thanks for clarifying & your input on my thread :thumb:


:thumb: Welcome! Sorry I can't spend more time doing so.


----------



## Rakti

GeeWhizRS said:


> The requirement to rinse with a pressure washer might be something you want to add to your product instructions. The bottle of Auto Foam I have just says 'Rinse with cold water'. I dare say there will be people that apply Auto Foam with a hand held foamer and rinse off with a hose.


That's me GeeWhiz i.e. apply with a hand held foamer and rinse off with a hose (not open hose though) three times. So, are we saying that BH Autofoam is specifically designed to be rinsed with a PW?

...and, if I haven't got one, would I be better using 2% AF instead of 4%?


----------



## GeeWhizRS

Rakti said:


> That's me GeeWhiz i.e. apply with a hand held foamer and rinse off with a hose (not open hose though) three times. So, are we saying that BH Autofoam is specifically designed to be rinsed with a PW?
> 
> ...and, if I haven't got one, would I be better using 2% AF instead of 4%?


Sounds like Auto Foam requires a higher pressure rinse than a hose but it also sounds like the wash phase will remove any remaining Auto Foam. 
There will be plenty of people that will just use Auto Foam on its own as a quick contactless Winter wash so this is probably more relevant to them if they are just rinsing off with a hose.


----------



## Rappy

Hi guys,

Just a quick update.

I think I may have cracked it. I believe it to be the OEM paint thats the issue not BH.

More info to follow later & what further testing I will be doing.

Rappy


----------



## blademansw

Fascinating thread this!


----------



## Rappy

Hi Guys,

As promised an update.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I will wash my car x2 times without topping. 

Autofoam 4% 
Surfex HD 5%
Autowash 12ml per 20l bucket

I decided to do both mine & Mrs Rappy's for the test earlier in the week. And again today I rewashed both mine & Mrs Rappy's car.

Now this is where I noted an issue with my paint 3-4 mths with a coating which is now sheeting water, instead of beading. Protection is still there as paint is still very slick.

Guessing down to BH products, which others have reported.

What I did note that the wheels were still beading water, with no issues.

So, for info. Wheels & bumpers are not painted at the manufacturing plant, but via a tier 1 supplier. So now I'm thinking the OEM top coat on my cars body is not the same as the wheels.

I believe the top coat on the painted body to be the issue.

Now Mrs Rappy's car. Water is still beading nicely on the body. Not as tight as when intially applied but still there. Her wheels however seem to be sheeting instead of beading.

So to summarise.

I agree BH products are not OK with certain paint finishes.

To make my follow on test more fair, I have decided to recoat both cars today.

From memory my car was coated 3-4 mths ago, Mrs Rappy's a little over 2 mths.

Both will be washed the same, but different OEMs.

If you guys can add what car & year of manufacture, that would be a big help.

A question for BH. During your testing, did you use different manufactures or the same?

Going forward, I will be reducing BH strength.

Autofoam 1% 
Surfex HD 3%
Autowash 10ml per 20l bucket


----------



## Soul boy 68

Rappy said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> As promised an update.
> 
> As mentioned earlier in this thread, I will wash my car x2 times without topping.
> 
> Autofoam 4%
> Surfex HD 5%
> Autowash 12ml per 20l bucket
> 
> I decided to do both mine & Mrs Rappy's for the test earlier in the week. And again today I rewashed both mine & Mrs Rappy's car.
> 
> Now this is where I noted an issue with my paint 3-4 mths with a coating which is now sheeting water, instead of beading. Protection is still there as paint is still very slick.
> 
> Guessing down to BH products, which others have reported.
> 
> What I did note that the wheels were still beading water, with no issues.
> 
> So, for info. Wheels & bumpers are not painted at the manufacturing plant, but via a tier 1 supplier. So now I'm thinking the OEM top coat on my cars body is not the same as the wheels.
> 
> I believe the top coat on the painted body to be the issue.
> 
> Now Mrs Rappy's car. Water is still beading nicely on the body. Not as tight as when intially applied but still there. Her wheels however seem to be sheeting instead of beading.
> 
> So to summarise.
> 
> I agree BH products are not OK with certain paint finishes.
> 
> To make my follow on test more fair, I have decided to recoat both cars today.
> 
> From memory my car was coated 3-4 mths ago, Mrs Rappy's a little over 2 mths.
> 
> Both will be washed the same, but different OEMs.
> 
> If you guys can add what car & year of manufacture, that would be a big help.
> 
> A question for BH. During your testing, did you use different manufactures or the same?
> 
> Going forward, I will be reducing BH strength.
> 
> Autofoam 1%
> Surfex HD 3%
> Autowash 10ml per 20l bucket


Very interesting findings Rappy. Admire your tenacity.


----------



## Rappy

Soul boy 68 said:


> Very interesting findings Rappy. Admire your tenacity.


Thanks :thumb:


----------



## Rappy

atbalfour said:


> Have you been drinking Auto Foam?
> 
> Nothing against you mate but I'd quit while you're ahead. Also.. thought you had no 'zero' issues?! Which is it?


:lol::lol:

I would always add toppers & this week on 2 washes I never.

Only because of seeing the issues on here, I decided to be very anal about my wash process, with no toppers.

The results as above.

Mrs Rappy's car body OK my car not OK.

Both washed the same.


----------



## Rappy

Rappy said:


> Agree 100% :thumb:
> 
> That is why I wanted to start this thread.
> 
> Knowing how OCD I am, I'm rather shocked I have not had issues. If BH is so bad on LSP & Ceramics.
> 
> Everyday is a school day, and all for learning & trying to help fellow members make a formal decission.
> 
> Rappy


Like I mentioned before


----------



## atbalfour

Rappy said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> I would always add toppers & this week on 2 washes I never.
> 
> Only because of seeing the issues on here, I decided to be very anal about my wash process, with no toppers.
> 
> The results as above.
> 
> Mrs Rappy's car body OK my car not OK.
> 
> Both washed the same.


God it must be the clearcoat's fault then not one of 2,387 other factors. Let's try not to dilute what has and will be a very useful thread on this forum any further


----------



## Rappy

atbalfour said:


> God it must be the clearcoat's fault then not one of 2,387 other factors. Let's try not to dilute what has and will be a very useful thread on this forum any further


I can only speak on what I have found. Another member mentioned it was toppers masking BH stripping LSP and he was correct, at least on my car :thumb:

Two cars with the exact same coatings behaving differently, inc wheels.

Hence both being re-coated today to see if I get the same results in future washes.


----------



## Rakti

Rappy said:


> I can only speak on what I have found. Another member mentioned it was toppers masking BH stripping LSP and he was correct, at least on my car :thumb:
> 
> Two cars with the exact same coatings behaving differently, inc wheels.
> 
> Hence both being re-coated today to see if I get the same results in future washes.


Thanks for clarifying that. I also didn't quite get your 6:53 PM post but understand now.


----------



## Rappy

Rakti said:


> Thanks for clarifying that. I also didn't quite get your 6:53 PM post but understand now.


Would be easier via a computer, than mobile 

Sorry if it was not clear & too much detail.


----------



## Rakti

Rappy said:


> Would be easier via a computer, than mobile
> 
> Sorry if it was not clear & too much detail.


If you'd started off with "Another member mentioned it was toppers masking BH stripping LSP" that would have been a good first line for your 6:53 post.

Need to remember that the reader might not have read your (and others) earlier posts.


----------



## Coatings

Rappy said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> As promised an update.
> 
> As mentioned earlier in this thread, I will wash my car x2 times without topping.
> 
> Autofoam 4%
> Surfex HD 5%
> Autowash 12ml per 20l bucket
> 
> I decided to do both mine & Mrs Rappy's for the test earlier in the week. And again today I rewashed both mine & Mrs Rappy's car.
> 
> Now this is where I noted an issue with my paint 3-4 mths with a coating which is now sheeting water, instead of beading. Protection is still there as paint is still very slick.
> 
> Guessing down to BH products, which others have reported.
> 
> What I did note that the wheels were still beading water, with no issues.
> 
> So, for info. Wheels & bumpers are not painted at the manufacturing plant, but via a tier 1 supplier. So now I'm thinking the OEM top coat on my cars body is not the same as the wheels.
> 
> I believe the top coat on the painted body to be the issue.
> 
> Now Mrs Rappy's car. Water is still beading nicely on the body. Not as tight as when intially applied but still there. Her wheels however seem to be sheeting instead of beading.
> 
> So to summarise.
> 
> I agree BH products are not OK with certain paint finishes.
> 
> To make my follow on test more fair, I have decided to recoat both cars today.
> 
> From memory my car was coated 3-4 mths ago, Mrs Rappy's a little over 2 mths.
> 
> Both will be washed the same, but different OEMs.
> 
> If you guys can add what car & year of manufacture, that would be a big help.
> 
> A question for BH. During your testing, did you use different manufactures or the same?
> 
> Going forward, I will be reducing BH strength.
> 
> Autofoam 1%
> Surfex HD 3%
> Autowash 10ml per 20l bucket


What coating are you using? Is it a full Coating? Coating lite product?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roscopervis

Rappy said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> I would always add toppers & this week on 2 washes I never.
> 
> Only because of seeing the issues on here, I decided to be very anal about my wash process, with no toppers.
> 
> The results as above.
> 
> Mrs Rappy's car body OK my car not OK.
> 
> Both washed the same.


I'm glad you're testing variables and have started this thread. However, what this shows is that when testing product durability and degradation from wash chemicals or time, as soon as you add a topper onto the base product being tested, the results become null and void. All products are gonna look great if they are topped.

I, like many here are looking at this from the perspective of non topped products from day 1 - what is the ultimate durability of a product and how does the wash chemicals affect the LSP's wash after wash?

I personally don't think the clearcoat will be making that difference. You have to strip both cars back to bare and retreat each the same and go from there, without toppers.


----------



## Rappy

roscopervis said:


> I'm glad you're testing variables and have started this thread. However, what this shows is that when testing product durability and degradation from wash chemicals or time, as soon as you add a topper onto the base product being tested, the results become null and void. All products are gonna look great if they are topped.
> 
> I, like many here are looking at this from the perspective of non topped products from day 1 - what is the ultimate durability of a product and how does the wash chemicals affect the LSP's wash after wash?
> 
> I personally don't think the clearcoat will be making that difference. You have to strip both cars back to bare and retreat each the same and go from there, without toppers.


Agreed :thumb:.

I would have not thought the clearcoat either, but from what I could see yesterday makes me believe it to be the issue.

Spent a full day yesterday on both cars, so will keep you all updated.

I decided to prep both cars & strip everything yesterday & recoat. Both are in the garage & will come out after 24hrs.

Will hose down both cars today & photograph the water behaviour from day 1 & soon as I note a change will report back.

For info...

My car is a 2019 Audi
Mrs Rappy's is a 2020 BMW/ Mini.

It would be interesting to hear if the others have Audi's or VWAG cars & have issues.


----------



## JU5T1N

I thought the main point of a coating was too make cleaning easier and not require strong chemicals.


----------



## mbarn

JU5T1N said:


> I thought the main point of a coating was too make cleaning easier and not require strong chemicals.


It is, but Bilt H Autofoam is very effective compared to the PH neutral foams, meaning there's a lot less dirt to have to wash off. In winter with all the road grime and film, it's night and day difference on coated or non-coated cars.


----------



## Rappy

Hi Guys,

More of a question & what you would like me to do?


So, I have been speaking with an old friend over the w-end that has lived in the US for around 10 yrs.

The BH topic came up. To which he replied, zero to do with BH products, it's either user error or the coating is not very good.

We then got onto the topic of my cars & he blames my coating, plain & simple.

In the US he would use Megs UFF after each wash, and treat it more like a QD or QW. He said that 3-4 mths was the max you would see beading, which then would turn into sheeting. Still protecting. (I may start a new thread on this  ) he loved the tight beads, so kept reapplying

He suggests I should alter my test & use BH on one car. Basically my normal wash process, then Megs Gold Class Shampoo as they do not do a pure shampoo & Megs Snowfoam.

Should I stick with my original test, or do as he suggests?

Thoughts welcome?

I might add Megs products in the US are pennies, vs what we pay here in the UK. I think he last used UFF in 2017 & paid $5. He is now using TW & Megs Hybrid Ceramics. And like me, very interested to try 303 Graphene.


----------



## roscopervis

I don't think your U.S. friend is in any way correct, at least about 4% Autofoam. He uses UFF after each wash - so, as I've said before totally negates the experience of durability assessments, unless he isn't washing for 6 months, but then he won't be using Autofoam frequently, so how does he know? UFF is a very good product, with around 6 months durability, quite similar to Sonax Polymer Netshield in time durability, though I'm not sure about chemical resistance. If used every wash, Autofoam won't fully strip it at 4% and then a reapplication will not give you any learning.

Megs do a pure shampoo but you have to go beyond the consumer products- Hyperwash. Of course, you could use one of the plethora of other pH neutral, pure car shampoos also. Gold Class is a shampoo that also affects water behaviour, more than Autowash, if you don't rinse it properly. The optical brighteners and polymers are well known for clogging up protection.

A better test would be to change one variable - change too much and you don't know what the difference was. As such, I think the better test would be to Use Autofoam on both cars, but use it at 4% on one, followed by Autowash (and a proper rinse/no topper) and at 1% on the other, followed by Autowash (proper rinse/no topper). That way you can assess both if 1% cleans well enough for you and if there is a difference in the long term performance of the protection on both cars, though I still don't know what 'coating' you are using. The hypothesis is that 1% Autofoam should still clean well enough on protected cars, as noted by Just1n, but will not be strong enough (ignoring it's still probably high pH) to be significant in the removal of the protection. Side by side, if the hypothesis is correct, you should see this as one car's protection fails quicker than the other (if all other things remain relatively even). You would learn far more from that test, than just applying 2 completely different products.


----------



## JU5T1N

mbarn said:


> It is, but Bilt H Autofoam is very effective compared to the PH neutral foams, meaning there's a lot less dirt to have to wash off. In winter with all the road grime and film, it's night and day difference on coated or non-coated cars.


But when using strong cleaners the difference between ease of cleaning between a coated and non coated car is much smaller, also there are plenty of spray sealants about that are cheap to buy and easy to apply you could use one of them and just reapply if it gets cleaned off.


----------



## Rappy

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Just to be clear UFF latest him 3-4 mths. So he switched to using after every wash. This was his daily driver washed weekly.

As UFF is super easy to apply, this is what he did.

I no longer use Hyperwash as BH Autowash replaced it a few years ago now.

I was simply using up Megs products I have.

Interesting what you said about Gold Class.

I think I will do as you said.. but to add..Surfex HD 5% & 3%


roscopervis said:


> I think the better test would be to Use Autofoam on both cars, but use it at 4% on one, followed by Autowash (and a proper rinse/no topper) and at 1% on the other, followed by Autowash (proper rinse/no topper). That way you can assess both if 1% cleans well enough for you and if there is a difference in the long term performance of the protection on both cars, though I still don't know what 'coating' you are using. The hypothesis is that 1% Autofoam should still clean well enough on protected cars, as noted by Just1n, but will not be strong enough (ignoring it's still probably high pH) to be significant in the removal of the protection. Side by side, if the hypothesis is correct, you should see this as one car's protection fails quicker than the other (if all other things remain relatively even). You would learn far more from that test, than just applying 2 completely different products.


----------



## roscopervis

Rappy said:


> I think I will do as you said.. but to add..Surfex HD 5% & 3%


Hang on a minute, where has Surfex HD come from all of a sudden? And why 5% and 3% - what's the logic of adding this in and complicating and clouding the results?

Think about this - Autofoam at 4% is being shown to be very harsh on products, hence why I'm suggesting the 1% for the alternative car. Surfex HD at 5% is known to be an even more potent degreaser than Autofoam and will, from experience, cause even more degradation to protection products than Autofoam. 3% Surfex - what is that gonna achieve? We know it works, and I'm sure a lot of us know that at 1/33 will also be very hard going on protection products, and more so than Autofoam at 4% I suspect. That may be worth a separate test, but it doesn't fit this hypothesis, unless I've completely got this wrong.

I come from a science background so maybe I'm just assuming people know how to run tests like this - but you change 1 variable, so you can control everything else so the results are valid and repeatable. Change more than one thing and before you know it, you won't know what did what.


----------



## Rappy

roscopervis said:


> Hang on a minute, where has Surfex HD come from all of a sudden? And why 5% and 3% - what's the logic of adding this in and complicating and clouding the results?


From the start of this thread. See page 1 & 7

Appreciate what you are saying.

Will use Autofoam only :thumb:


----------



## Rappy

roscopervis said:


> Hang on a minute, where has Surfex HD come from all of a sudden? And why 5% and 3% - what's the logic of adding this in and complicating and clouding the results?
> 
> Think about this - Autofoam at 4% is being shown to be very harsh on products, hence why I'm suggesting the 1% for the alternative car. Surfex HD at 5% is known to be an even more potent degreaser than Autofoam and will, from experience, cause even more degradation to protection products than Autofoam. 3% Surfex - what is that gonna achieve? We know it works, and I'm sure a lot of us know that at 1/33 will also be very hard going on protection products, and more so than Autofoam at 4% I suspect. That may be worth a separate test, but it doesn't fit this hypothesis, unless I've completely got this wrong.
> 
> I come from a science background so maybe I'm just assuming people know how to run tests like this - but you change 1 variable, so you can control everything else so the results are valid and repeatable. Change more than one thing and before you know it, you won't know what did what.


Do you use Surfex HD?


----------



## roscopervis

Is the lower part of the body and are the wheels coated (or protected)? If they are, then why? Again, the point of coatings or protection (which I’m still missing) is to avoid the need to require such heavy products, so if you do it as you suggest, will you be able to tell if it’s the Autofoam, the Surfex or just a crappy coating that is causing failure on the lower panels?

Makes no sense. Just control the 1 variable. If you do that, this will be a very good test.


----------



## roscopervis

Rappy said:


> Do you use Surfex HD?


Yes, though I have run out currently and I'm trying Wax Planet's APC.


----------



## Rappy

My friend in the U.S stopped using Surfex HD. He found that using this as a pre clean, would stain glass only visible when using wipers & discolour gloss black trim.

He only uses Autofoam now.


----------



## Rappy

roscopervis said:


> Is the lower part of the body and are the wheels coated (or protected)? If they are, then why? Again, the point of coatings or protection (which I'm still missing) is to avoid the need to require such heavy products, so if you do it as you suggest, will you be able to tell if it's the Autofoam, the Surfex or just a crappy coating that is causing failure on the lower panels?
> 
> Makes no sense. Just control the 1 variable. If you do that, this will be a very good test.


Thank you.

Agree 100% with your logic.

For me like most. You want to remove as much surface grease & grime as possible.

Logic would say overkill!

After the test, I will use Surfex HD for tyres & wheel arches only.

What strength did you use Surfex HD?


----------



## roscopervis

Rappy said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Agree 100% with your logic.
> 
> For me like most. You want to remove as much surface grease & grime as possible.
> 
> Logic would say overkill!
> 
> After the test, I will use Surfex HD for tyres & wheel arches only.
> 
> What strength did you use Surfex HD?


It depends where I was using it. On tyres at 10%, sometimes stronger if needed, in the engine bay, again mostly 10%, on wheels at 5%, same for wheel arches, inside at 1% generally. I rarely if ever used it on paint, and then it would have been mixed with a cheap snow foam at 1%.


----------



## Carscope

Worth. Noting you won’t won’t to use a meguiars shampoo like gold class as it has fillers in it which won’t bode well with trying to see if it’s affecting you coating


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rappy

Eturty said:


> Worth. Noting you won't won't to use a meguiars shampoo like gold class as it has fillers in it which won't bode well with trying to see if it's affecting you coating
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks :thumb:

For the test, Autofoam & Autowash only.


----------



## mbarn

JU5T1N said:


> But when using strong cleaners the difference between ease of cleaning between a coated and non coated car is much smaller, also there are plenty of spray sealants about that are cheap to buy and easy to apply you could use one of them and just reapply if it gets cleaned off.


Adding a sealant defeats the object, because you no longer get the ceramic behaviour, but the sealant behaviour instead, as the ceramic is masked. I use a ceramic topper as a detailing spray every 5 washes but BH would destroy it. The listed PH range of the topper is quite clearly not compatible with BH Autofoam.

You're right that I don't need to use as strong cleaners, but right now my car is quite dirty from some motorway runs in the pouring rain. If I used BH autofoam it would take around 90% of that dirt off. If I use my PH neutral one, it will do 30% at best. 
On a non coated car the percentages would be lower. BH just means a lot less to clean with a mitt.

The issue for me is I've used BH autofoam on non-coated car and been amazed at how good it is compared to other foams. Now having to use PH neutral foams on a coated car is just disappointing, but for the amount of time and effort (or cost if it's done professionally) of applying a ceramic, I'd be an idiot to risk the coating for better pre-wash stage.


----------



## JU5T1N

I am suggesting just using a spray sealant instead of the ceramic coating, since the main issue with washing of the ceramic coating is cost and time to reapply.


----------



## mbarn

JU5T1N said:


> I am suggesting just using a spray sealant instead of the ceramic coating, since the main issue with washing of the ceramic coating is cost and time to reapply.


Ah ok, I understand.
I wouldn't personally do a ceramic coat again as it's loads of work and effort to do properly. I'd have to have something rather special to pay a pro to do it, as it's rightfully expensive due to labour. Spray sealants and waxes for my next car.

I've not had any issues with my ceramic at all, it has performed faultlessly for the last 6-7 months. Research on this forum and aftercare advice from the manufacturer is the only reason I didn't undo that hard work because I was an avid Bilt Hamber AF user with my last car.


----------



## Rappy

See the link.






Forensic Detailing testing :detailer::thumb:


----------



## St Evelyn

That made for an interesting bit of viewing, thanks for sharing. :thumb:


----------



## Rappy

I know how to prep a car :lol::lol: 25 plus years experience. 

My issue was either Megs Gold Class or CG Gloss Worx shampoo, which I know I have used on my car.

If I had never seen people posting about BH products deminishing LSP's I would never have questioned BH.

A very detailed test in the above link, which I guess will not please everyone.


----------



## roscopervis

I’ve just posted some queries and my video in the comments before coming here. Using it lightly brushed on is very different to a coating of snowfoam I think. I also know my prep was spot on. Let’s see what happens.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> Maybe you ought to, a good many people bought into BH products because of his reviews. But I stand corrected if this is true.


 If we did that your unfounded, baseless suggestion would be accurate. However it's entirely against my principles and I'm stating unequivocally that we never done this nor will we. Please let me know the foundation of your suggestion.


----------



## Gas head

never had any issues with BH products, yes my car is kamikaze ceramic coated, it hardly needs polishing and recoating because the products get most the dirt and grime off before I touch the car with a noodle mit although this maybe partly due to the fact I have a hot pressure washer, the lower sections of the car get a hammering with mud and grime so will degrade/wear with time and use, I thought most ceramics (proper ones that is) require polishing to remove otherwise the manufacturers of the ceramic would recommend using a strong detergent to remove, and if they did would you spend the cash on a ceramic that could be removed using a detergent?


----------



## Carscope

That video is interesting! 

What do you all think? 

Is there a anti corrosion ingredient in BH AF that may be masking the hydrophobics of the coating? 

I’m not sure I need to test BH in my testing. Remember that Gyeon foame is also a high alkaline cleaner. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian1612

DannyRS3 said:


> This is not a reply to Rapey, please don't confuse this post with engaging you in conversation of any kind. This is a comment on the above Forensic detailing video:
> 
> Jons testing is flawed. No dwell time which is critical with AutoFoam to work (and degraded coatings). He's also (likely) sponsored/comped by Bilt Hamber... and this video is pretty timely with this thread... so there's that
> 
> His statement that "no detergent will degrade a coating" is straight up nonsense. Apply a 10% surfex HD mix to any ceramic or SIO based toper and it will wipe it right off. Try it for yourself.
> 
> When I wrote this in the YouTube comments he deleted it.


Utter garbage post this.

As for Jon's video, it's spot on & only backs up what I've experienced first hand using autofoam. I've never had any issues with it degrading my protection more so than any other product & I'm still of the opinion you will do more damage to the LSP when coming into contact with your paint during the contact wash using PH neutral shampoo due to the mechanical abrasion.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## atbalfour

This was an interesting video.. would have caused a real stir had the results gone the other way! It's clear that these 3 products held up well - from the beginning I have said that not all products are equally affected. I've previously posted a video on here showing a 1 month spray wax surviving more hits of AF than an 8 month 15% SIO2 topper from the same brand. For users of BSD/PNS, the issues are well documented. Those with Gtechniq Exo V4, I've had it professionally applied and quickly degraded 3 times using nothing but Auto Foam and GWash...

There has been a crusade on here against alkaline cleaners... I think they've diluted too many threads personally. All I've ever posted is my experience that they impact *certain* products where giving advice on those said products and sadly this test didn't include at least one susceptible product, as such it's easy to just jump on the bandwagon that this is a non-issue. *Only you can judge for yourself based on the protection product you use * - if you're topping it weekly it's irrelevant anyway.

That said I do think that Jon has been a bit bold with some of his statements, based on my own findings which admittedly are primarily related to ceramic coating toppers which Jon doesn't have as much experience in. It's only right that if someone is considering parting with £46 for 100ml of premium SiO2 topper from Japan or Germany that they also know that a couple of weeks using Auto Foam and you're reapplying. That guidance from me has always been extremely specific to the products I know are susceptible.

I posted the below on YT having got a little frustrated with the condescending tone around people not understanding the basics of applying and maintaining protection products - this may be the issue for some commenters, but not all.

@Forensic Detailing Channel not sure it's right to tar everyone with the 'you did it wrong' brush. Of course there are some idiots out there using AIOs, applying in the cold, using crazy dilutions, not waiting for things to cure or facing other bonding issues. Unfortunately with this test being so 'conclusive' some of the statements made are a bit far reaching, that detergents don't have any impact on LSPs, that Auto Foam will not degrade LSPs and cannot break down a coating. Bilt Hamber themselves have acknowledged they can (unless LSPs are formulated to resist them)- this video proves that AG UHD and the other 2 products are not susceptible.. who knows, maybe 80% of products fare well against them but there are certainly some that don't. Stick BSD or PNS on the best prepped panel and hit it with Auto Foam and tell me that Auto Foam can't break down ANY protection product. Why do some coating manufacturers list a chemical resistance pH maximum of 11 if only acid will remove them?! Sadly there are tens of other examples.. even some 3-6 month products broken down after 2-3 hits. It's a great video, I enjoyed watching it as always, but in my opinion it doesn't tell the full picture. On this subject I believe there's no smoke without fire - have all protection products been tarred with the same brush on forums, definitely and wrongly so and this video will dispel the myth that ALL products are impacted. What it doesn't prove sadly is that some will be. Is that BH's fault, nope.


----------



## mbarn

Hopefully Jon will do a follow up video with further testing.

I still cannot use AF as I topped my CQUK with Reload, and whilst the coating is listed as being able to cope from a PH point-of-view with AF, Reload certainly cannot.

Certainly on this forum, those of us who have moved from waxes and sealants to ceramics will most likely have added a topper to the ceramic, as we cannot help ourselves


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab

DannyRS3 said:


> You read me all wrong sir. Youtubers are often compensated as is common knowledge. It's a superb form of advertising and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If that's not the case then all I'm saying is Jon does a very good job promoting your products which directly translates into sales. I'm not trying to be a dick, I use and like your products and I'm a subscriber to the channel and love t he content provided. I just don't agree with this particular method of testing or statements. Some of us have just had a few issues with compatibility with other products. That in no way diminishes the quality or effectiveness of your products.


No no, I did not read you " all wrong" you made an emphatic statement that John is "sponsored / comped" by us which is incorrect and damaging. You have since inserted the word "likely" into your fabricated assertion, I suggest that you remove it completely.


----------



## Brian1612

DannyRS3 said:


> Garbage post this. Just because you had no issues with your particular combination doesn't mean it's safe for all coatings and toppers. Even BH in this thread have acknowledged that it may degrade LSPs.
> 
> Jon is great but his method and statement on detergent being unable to degrade ceramic is questionable.


I'm not rubbishing any of what you are saying Danny with regards to detailing. I'm rubbishing the fact that you are suggesting BH & Jon are both involved in foul play with regards to their products & advertising.

I can say 100% Jon is not taking any payments for any of his reviews. I talk to him frequently & know this for a fact from the chats we have had where he has bashed YT, how it functions & also other channels on how they are accepting payment for advertising products. It's actually easy to spot as well. In fact the majority of the products he features he buys himself to avoid these sort of claims against him & to stand out from the other channels.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## WHIZZER

DannyRS3 said:


> This is not a reply to Rapey, please don't confuse this post with engaging you in conversation of any kind. This is a comment on the above Forensic detailing video:
> 
> Jons testing is flawed. No dwell time which is critical with AutoFoam to work (and degraded coatings). He's also (likely) sponsored/comped by Bilt Hamber... and this video is pretty timely with this thread... so there's that
> 
> His statement that "no detergent will degrade a coating" is straight up nonsense. Apply a 10% surfex HD mix to any ceramic or SIO based toper and it will wipe it right off. Try it for yourself.
> 
> When I wrote this in the YouTube comments he deleted it.


Hi DanyRS3 please sure your facts are correct as your statement could be looked at as libellous. Bilt hamber do not sponsor.
Statements like this can cause damage to Business Reputations - Whilst you may think this is the case - without FACTS or proof this is heresay on your behalf please refrain from commenting on threads in this manner- You should in fact apologise to BILT HAMBER for unfound truths.

And Thanks to DannyRS3 this thread is now LOCKED !


----------

