# Scholl S17+ - My Initial Testing Results



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Scholl has slowly been getting a name for itself on the forums, especially over the past year, and so I thought it was about time to start seeing what the products in the range are capable of... first into my line of sight was S17+, a middle of the road correction polish that lines itself up alongside Menzerna PO85RD3.02 Intensive Polish and similar and on reading a lot of the current comments about it, it seems the ace up its sleeve is the speed at which it achieves its correction, shorter work times cutting the overall time for correcting a paint finish down.

*Head to Head with Menzerna*

So, for an initial test, I decided to go for a head to head with what is for me the benchmark of workhorse polishes: Menzerna PO85RD3.02, a product that is flexible to the point of being able to correct severe defects (especially when on wool), and also be able to finish down beautifully with a regenerating technique and long set length. So, it is a challenge for sure to be lined up alongside this polish but given S17+'s great reviews so far I thought this would be fitting.

*Scholl S17+*

The Scholl was up first, and we started with a boot on a Jaguar XJ which had been marred for general swirls and deeper RDS added with a key as well to asses the ability to correct deeper marks... assessed under the lights with the camera set to manual focus to give a true representation of the paint surface:




























Then assessed under the Sun Gun and the Lenser which will show the general swirls but will not be effective for looking at the deeper RDS:














































A decent challenge set here. From my own testing for far with S17+, I was finding that longer set times were giving me better correction results and given the RDS challenge here, the longer set was used which also showed benefits in terms of the clarity of the finish achieved as well... Video of the set, using a Chemical Guys Hexlogic Green Heavy Polishing pad (again chosen for a combination of cutting and correcting ability and ability to refine down if the effort is made):






Note that during the working stage of the polish, which is higher than is typically used wtih S17+ but was found to be giving a little better correction, there was moderate pressure over the head of the rotary and then during the refining stage, the hand is moved to underneath the rotary to support the weight of the machine to ensure light pressure for the burnishing. The results of this, first of all using manual focus to assess the correction:




























Zooming into the region where an X was marked into the paint with a key, we can see significant correction with only a hint of this mark remaining:



















Now, to assess the clarity of the machine finish and to check for machine marring use of the Sun Gun and the Lenser:























































Impressive finish in my eyes, free from machine marring (still to be checked following IPA wipedown), and notable correction from a set that is shorter than 3 minutes in length... this product certainly punches hard in terms of correction and finish.

*Menzerna PO85RD3.02*

As for the Scholl, deeper marks and general swirls inflicted into the test panel:
































































For the Menzerna, the same type of pad was used to keep the test fair, but the product was worked using a typical Zenith technique which for 85RD3.02 involved a longer work time to ensure refinement from the product as the video shows... same style though, with moderate pressure during the working stage and then light pressure during the refining stage:






This delivered the following results, first using manual focus and the roof mounted lights to examine the paint surface to judge the level of correction achieved:



















Zooming in to examine the correction of the deeper RDS, and this polish has at least matched the results of S17+:










Now assessing the clarity of the finish using the Sun Gun and the Lenser torch:














































Again, the finish looks very impressive to my eyes here with good correction levels and good clarity of finish... indeed, at this stage it seems very difficut to separate these two products as both are very capable with roughly equivalent correction and finishing abilities, and with the exception of the Intensive Polish feeling just slightly smoother under the rotary on this paint, it even seemed as if the same products were being used based on the results! Of course, one key difference to highlight at this stage is the set length, with the Menzerna set taking over a minute longer and given the number of sets over a typical car this does show a time advantage to S17+. However, S17+ seemed at its working limit in the above set whereas Menzerna is capable of much longer sets where even greater correction and clarity of finish can be achieved from the longer sets which gives the nod of flexibility to Intensive Polish. But we are splitting hairs here, both are very strong performing products.

*IPA Wipedown*

Of course, the test is not finished at the above stage, and the panel was wiped down with IPA, which is allowed around 15 seconds to dwell on the panel before removing...










and we then assess under the Sun Gun again to check for machine marring that may have been masked by the ingredients in the polish.

Starting with S17+, 50/50 results also shown:





































And then Intensive Polish:














































Both sections looking pretty much identical in terms of both correction and finish, it would take a lot to separate the results seen here.

From this little test alone, S17+ shows itself as a very interesting product - it can compete with Intensive Polish in terms of correction and refining with slightly shorter sets which is the ace up its sleeve, but feels a little restricted on the same hand because it has a shorter work time beyond which it didn't feel possible to push to polish, giving the flexibility win to Intensive Polish. You need to split hairs to separate them, ultimately it will come down to horses for courses so far though further testing still to go ahead. Very impressive showing from S17+ however 

*Long vs. Short Sets with S17+*

The set lengths of S17+ are well talked about and are typically described as being short which is one of the good parts of the polish... however, with many polishes, short-setting them carries the risk of not working the abrasives thoroughly enough and leaving machine marring which oils and other lubricants in a polish can then mask. So, for this little test, part of the S17+ tests I have been doing so far, I've compared a long and a short set for results in terms of correction and finish with an equivalent pad.

Using a Jaguar XJ boot, marked with severe swirls and deep RDS to test correction as well as finishing ability:









































































Now, the first set is a short set, of between 80 and 90 seconds with the first 60 seconds being the working stage of the polishing followed by a quick couple of light pressure passes at slower speed for refining (I found the slower passes for refining more effective than maintaining the speed at the working speed for me personally in terms of finishing). The set:






Again, my working speeds are a little higher than come recommended, but the reasons for this are the better correction results I am personally seeing from the slightly higher speeds - a future thread will compare different working speeds  The results achieved from this short set, first assessing the correction:



















Not bad from a distance! Close up, we can see some RDS remaining but still the correction level is impressive given the short set length:




























Under the Sun Gun the finish also looked pretty impressive:



















However, an IPA wipedown was performed:










and then, the finish re-assessed and this was where it got interesting for me as assessing the correction, it could easily be argues here that masking of the more general swirls occured as the correction level seemed to drop back...





































Additionally, under the Sun Gun, faint machine hologramming could also now be seen highlighting the masking potential:




























I should highlight at this stage that this is not a claim that S17+ fills, just to be clear. This is a demonstration of the masking abilities of product, which are likely not intentional, but coming from ingredients used for lubrication for example. Many machine polishes can do this, and the risk of not fully working a polish is that the mechanical abrasive action can be leaving marring which is then masked by these oils giving the impression of a perfect finish. From this short set, there is an indication that S17+ (in common with many other polishes) can mask under certain conditions, both its own machine marring and also swirls too. Something to be aware of.

For comparison, a longer set was also carried out:






Yes, around the 4 minute mark, so very long compared to what is recommended and again at higher speeds than is recommended... those who've been here a while will know me well though, I don't stick to recommendations if I find a way that works better for me personally :lol: ... This set delivered the following results on the panel (befores as at the top of this section)... First of all assessing the correction (note, I did not go up to the tape line, as will be obvious!):



















Zooming in closer to the RDS, and we can see that the correction level is higher for the longer set and there has been more rounding of the deeper marks:




























Assessed under the Sun Gun, as expected, the finish is clear of machine holograms and I would say show greater clarity than for the short set above...





































and following an IPA wipedown, the results this time stood up to the wipedown, showing no evidence of masking...



















This indicated to me the benefits of the longer set with the product, as it did give an edge both for correction and for the finish, while short setting gave a tendency to machine marring that was masked by the polish. This may not occur on all paint types of course, but it is definitely something that should be taken into serious consideration.

In brief summary so far, S17+ has impressed me and shows itself able to hold hold its head high alongside Menzerna's Intensive Polish - certainly, it is capable of slightly faster correction but as discussed above this seems to come a little at the cost of overall flexibility. You pays your money on this one. But as a polish, S17+ is very good indeed. It is not a gimmicky product, it does a job and does it well and carried its own little advantages to bring something to the table. Not pushing boundaries like Megs SMAT and Microfibre systems, but certainly bringing something decent to the market to give people more choice of polish. It is unlikely to disappoint and I am looking forward to further testing with it. :thumb:


----------



## tzotzo (Nov 15, 2009)

Dave thank you for the review.
What is the purpose of this test though?


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Great stuff.... will have to read this a few times....:thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

tzotzo said:


> Dave thank you for the review.
> What is the purpose of this test though?


To trial the product and see how it performs, allowing me to give my own thoughts and experiences on the products... the same reason as all product tests are carried out


----------



## tzotzo (Nov 15, 2009)

From what I see these polishes perform almost identically. I don't think that the average/weekend detailer will take into account these minor differences that the two polishes have. Or, due to lack of experience/tools will not be able to see the differences. 
I think this isn't a test from which will be determined which of the two products is better, but it is a browl to prove you right or wrong. Please don't be offended, i m saying this with all the respect to your experience and skills


----------



## Black Magic Detail (Aug 17, 2010)

nice review dave


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

I know you can see them in the flesh but from the pics there are swirls still in the menz.
Again thanks Dave and as ever all we can do is post our findings.


----------



## CraigQQ (Jan 20, 2011)

tzotzo said:


> From what I see these polishes perform almost identically. I don't think that the average/weekend detailer will take into account these minor differences that the two polishes have. Or, due to lack of experience/tools will not be able to see the differences.
> I think this isn't a test from which will be determined which of the two products is better, but it is a browl to prove you right or wrong. Please don't be offended, i m saying this with all the respect to your experience and skills


but the initial outset of the test is the same..

a test to see if one performs better than the other(s)...

in this case.. as Dave said.. negligible difference, therefore possibly comes down to whats needed, technique and personal preference..

Thanks for the review Dave.. quite interested in the scholl products.. but i keep stopping myself lol..
would like to see them up against p1 if you do further testing(and deem it a suitable comparison) mate :thumb:

its nice to have you back enjoying the detailing 
smile on the face.. and lassie on the arm :thumb:


----------



## catalin1984 (Feb 24, 2009)

I tested s17+, and was not really thrilled. Congrats on your test, i must say power finish/intensive polish from Menz is still one of the most versatile i found on the market today

Also try s3, it is close to Power Gloss From Menzerna


----------



## Reflectology (Jul 29, 2009)

what you have to remember that is that Scholl Concepts do not manufacturer "old fashioned" polishes where "old fashioned" techniques have to be used....I have changed my technique from an 80s-90s type to present day, and still, although i would like to say i am fairly experienced in the use of Scholl I am still learning about the product on every job i do....I must admit I can finish down with S17+ on a course pad with no filling or pad marring, your technique has to change when you use Scholl, it may seem like a waste of product when you wipe most of it away but the polish has gone by then and all you are wiping away are the lubricants, this is what DaveKG is working for longer periods, essentially forcing lubricant into to paint which would give the impression of a wetter finish but still the work times should be kept shorter....

A typical example from using Menzerna a year ago was a Red Subaru Impreza, my own in fact and it took way too long to correct, balled up on soft paint and dusted like crazy....after this malarky I then switched to Scholl for all jobs, including soft paint and cut my work times down by about 3 hrs....no brainer, and that was after a 2 stage as well....Scholl takes no prisoners whether it be hard or soft paint, you just have to change your style to use it....

I have also just completed a 2 stage on a golf 4 motion in less than 11 hrs where another detailer on here spent 30 last year...i would like to say that the results are....well if you want to compare them you will have to find the old post as I am not really going to rate and slate another forum supporter, its not what i do....what i do like to do though is compare the finishes of 2 products, which is what Dave has done here.....I will post this up at somepoint when i get a minute I just have another 3 write ups to do before it....


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

tzotzo said:


> From what I see these polishes perform almost identically. I don't think that the average/weekend detailer will take into account these minor differences that the two polishes have. Or, due to lack of experience/tools will not be able to see the differences.
> I think this isn't a test from which will be determined which of the two products is better, but it is a browl to prove you right or wrong. Please don't be offended, i m saying this with all the respect to your experience and skills


I think if you are viewing this as some form of proof right or wrong, then the point of the review is being missed - as with all of the comparative tests that I and Gordon have been doing (there are many that have been posted recently and more to be posted) the purpose is, as intimated above, to see which products perform better under certain conditions and to see what each product has to bring to the table when compared to others that are similar on the market. Here Scholl has speed to bring the the party, whereas I would argue that Menzerna has more flexibility to bring, but both products can be used to give very similar (and very good) results. I hope that makes sense 



Reflectology said:


> what you have to remember that is that Scholl Concepts do not manufacturer "old fashioned" polishes where "old fashioned" techniques have to be used....I have changed my technique from an 80s-90s type to present day, and still, although i would like to say i am fairly experienced in the use of Scholl I am still learning about the product on every job i do....I must admit I can finish down with S17+ on a course pad with no filling or pad marring, your technique has to change when you use Scholl, it may seem like a waste of product when you wipe most of it away but the polish has gone by then and all you are wiping away are the lubricants, this is what DaveKG is working for longer periods, essentially forcing lubricant into to paint which would give the impression of a wetter finish but still the work times should be kept shorter....
> 
> A typical example from using Menzerna a year ago was a Red Subaru Impreza, my own in fact and it took way too long to correct, balled up on soft paint and dusted like crazy....after this malarky I then switched to Scholl for all jobs, including soft paint and cut my work times down by about 3 hrs....no brainer, and that was after a 2 stage as well....Scholl takes no prisoners whether it be hard or soft paint, you just have to change your style to use it....
> 
> I have also just completed a 2 stage on a golf 4 motion in less than 11 hrs where another detailer on here spent 30 last year...i would like to say that the results are....well if you want to compare them you will have to find the old post as I am not really going to rate and slate another forum supporter, its not what i do....what i do like to do though is compare the finishes of 2 products, which is what Dave has done here.....I will post this up at somepoint when i get a minute I just have another 3 write ups to do before it....


I look forward to seeing the writeup 

In your first paragraph here you are describing what is essentially the "jewelling" process - using the lubrication of the polish with any small cut of the pad and the remainder of the broken down abrasives to refine the finish and this is what can be used to enhance the gloss. The principle is the same as long-setting PO85RD/E... The marring produced from the shorter set does suggest the abrasives are still cutting at this stage, though the lubrication was able to mask this before an IPA wipedown. Though of course, a different pad may have different effects which is the subject of further testing.

From what I can gather, S17+ is using diminishing abrasives (at least in part), which come in thousands of different grades and styles where the initial cut, breakdown rate etc are all different. It seems as if S17+ cuts hard and breaks down quickly, hence the fast working times and the ability to refine even in shorter sets though this will be at a detriment to flexibility as the polish is short lived. Most, if not all polishes respond differently when trialled on different types of pad, I am looking forward to not just looking at S17+ on the spider pads but also Menz and even more interesting will be to see how products like Megs 105/205 and P1 perform on them as well. The latter Megs and GTechniq have what for me has really pushed the polishing world forward recently - non-diminishing abrasives.

The Subaru example sounds like classic sticky paint, and an issue that is common to many Imprezas over a few generations of the car it would seem - and Menzerna's response to this is to ball up and dust with standard working techniques. Though as you say, it is changing your technique that really counts and if you change how you work the Menzerna it can overcome the sticky paint issues - high heat being one of the main enemies here, coaxing the polish at lower speeds is more effective in my experience for dealing with sticky paints and this applies across a broad range of polishes, not just Menzerna. Interesting though if Scholl doesn't seem bothered by sticky paint, will be something to look at for fun the next time I have some sticky paint to play with as it was always Megs x05 series polishes that worked best for me on them, or of course, altering one's technique with the Menzerna polishes.

The time does seem to be an advantage to the Scholl, something I think we are all agreed on


----------



## Reflectology (Jul 29, 2009)

It is jewelling that is being carried out and if this is the way you feel it works best then its a single step 2 stage machine correction, which when and if you look at it that way, which other polish can do that....as I always had to do a second step using Menz as i was never happy with what it left behind....

As for the Subaru soft paint it is no problem for S17+....since doing mine I have done many an Impreza and had no real issues, only once have i had an issue and it was on a rear door of a Range Rover, it seemed as though the car had been painted in certain areas, the door being one but either a recent paint that had been left to air cure or just the incorrect mixture of Clear and Hardener leaving the paint extremely vulnerable....

The same goes with hard paints, I was fore warned a while ago about an RS6 that I did that the paint would be a real challenge, no such issue and had it not had been for the few bouts of rain the whole of the correction stage would have been completed in double quick time....

Recently the Bentley i did, started at 9.30am with the detail and it was all complete bar the Ceramic Coating for 4.30...so from a standing start on a Bentley ready for LSP in 7 hrs is pretty much how the stuff goes....also bare in mind that a grill on these can take an hr to clean in itself....take that away and an enhancement in 6hrs is just unheard of on a Bentley I think and that all down to the speed of Scholl, getting to know it, how it works and more importantly using it to its best ability, which is speed, if you are going to long set it, then go again then stick with Menz or 3m because that is the 90s way....

Whilst I have speed in some jobs as it is needed I can also slow it down, lengthen the set by around 30 seconds but no more, i will then use S17+ or A15+ on a finishing pad to increase the appearance....which its all about....


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

If you were struggling to get Menz to finish down for you, then I would be looking at your technique with the product. While I enjoy refining the Menz finish (as I would seek to refine the S17+ finish for similar reasons - I like using finishing polishes), the use of the correct technique can get 85RD3.02 to finish down hologram free and with very good clarity. Long set it and you can also get superb correction from it, put it on a wool pad and it goes to another level... Long-setted 85RD3.02 is a very powerful tool in any detailer's armoury, in my humble opinion of course. I'll be trialling S17+ for equivalent flexibility of course but on equivalent pads while its speed of correction seems faster (the 'noughties way?), its flexibility seems more limited. 

While it is definite that Scholl is bringing a speed advantage to the floor, I would be very wary of becoming overly obsessed with speed in detailing and seeing faster as the modern way - in my eyes it is not. Yes, time is money, so purely from a business angle there is an advantage, but care and attention and using all products you have to maximise their potential rather than just focussing on speed is also vital in my opinion. Perhaps long-setting and getting the most out of products like 85RD3.02 is the 90s way (though I don't personally agree with that statement but each to their own) for a product that came to the fore if my memory serves in the mid to late 'noughties... But the flexibility this offers is something that I personally would see as hard to overlook regardless of whether it is viewed as old fashioned or not  Though I suppose at the end of the day, if speed is a main concern, then Scholl does have this advantage but if it is not a concern and flexibility of the product is then the more old-fashioned ways have their advantages too  Though again, I wouldn't be viewing them as old-fashioned personally. 

As mentioned in my initial posts, the short work time of the product is something which I see as a potential limit to its flexibility though I do look forward to trying many more pad combinations as well and seeing how it performs of different pads, and compare directly to Menz and others on these same pads to see where exactly all the advantages lie. If machine polishing in a hurry is the modern way, then Scholl S17+ does certainly seem to fit the bill though


----------



## Reflectology (Jul 29, 2009)

Not that i was struggling as such I just felt it took too long but then again I was just starting out my business and moving up in the world so to speak, when i did use menz i was well pleased with results on most jobs just that scholl in my eyes is a far more superior product....regarding speed, its not that essential but i think anyone who says they would rather spend an extra few hrs polishing than they would like is just making more work for themselves....dont get me wrong Menz and 3m are good sets of gear but the option of Scholl on the shelf has got to be high on everyones list...if i can find some i will try and break out a few pics of my Menz and farecla jobs and try and compare finishes with the ones of Scholl...i mention Farecla as i used that more than i did 3m....

There is good in all the polishes and where one falls down another steps in, which is where the thinking of a huge system of polishes comes in from Scholl....

S0 for heavy cutting, as is S2....S3 Gold is just pure genius where slightly heavier correction is needed....A15+ is for me the second in line to the Scholl throne....S30 produces the crisp look and S40 the wet look....s17+ really does need no introduction....

I have somewhere in my emails from Olivier working times, start speeds and combos for certain finishes from defects to final finish....suggestions as what to use with pad and polish combo's....I will dig them out and post them up as I am sure Olivier wouldnt mind me sharing his information as it would only go well for Scholl interpretation of application and times....


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Great review Dave, thanks for sharing.

For me, on 'standard pads' Scholl isn't that amazing. However, use it with their own pads, particularly the Sandwich Spider Pads and it becomes very impressive indeed, cutting quickly and finishing down wonderfully well (on medium-hard paints). I did an R32 yesterday, something which would normally be hard work, but White Spider and S17 made very short work of it, and yes I did use IPA to check actual correction.

Are you going to test S17 which Scholl's pads? It seems only fair and logical to me as its a system. Otherwise, it's like testing the new Megs DA MF system polish on a foam pad... not how it was designed to work. I appreciate that a lot of people will already have their pad collection of Hex Logic and 3M etc, but I for one am glad I invested in Scholl's pads too, else I wouldn't have been as impressed as I am.

I need to try A15 now!


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Reflectology said:


> Not that i was struggling as such I just felt it took too long but then again I was just starting out my business and moving up in the world so to speak, when i did use menz i was well pleased with results on most jobs just that scholl in my eyes is a far more superior product....regarding speed, its not that essential but i think anyone who says they would rather spend an extra few hrs polishing than they would like is just making more work for themselves....dont get me wrong Menz and 3m are good sets of gear but the option of Scholl on the shelf has got to be high on everyones list...if i can find some i will try and break out a few pics of my Menz and farecla jobs and try and compare finishes with the ones of Scholl...i mention Farecla as i used that more than i did 3m....
> 
> There is good in all the polishes and where one falls down another steps in, which is where the thinking of a huge system of polishes comes in from Scholl....
> 
> ...


One of the things I have seen with the variety of polishes I have used in the past is that in terms of finishing and cutting ability, all of the current line up of products can be made to perform very well - the key is in learning how to use the products and learning how to get the best from them, and then at this stage it comes down to splitting hairs to see which is best out of them. Rather than one range being far more superior to others, if that makes sense. When detailing, both as a business and now as a more relaxed detailing for pleasure, it is a case of maximising the potential of all products that you have and this is one of the things I like about Menz 85RD3.02 is that it has so much potential once you really learn it. A bit like S17+ I'm sure, and further investigation will allow me to play around and see all the potential it has to unlock but on the standard pads it plays second fiddle to Menz in terms of flexibility in my eyes. But I do look forward to trialling the Scholl pads, both with Scholl products and other ranges of polishes to see if they have a global advantage rather than just for one product range.

The thing with having lots of polishes in a range, as you say is Scholl's approach, and also seems to be Menzerna's approach - to this extent, they are signing off the same hymn sheet. But, to me, this if anything is what is the dated approach to polishing! Take the SMAT system of Meguiars, or P1 from GTechniq: they have engineered such a high degree of flexibility into the products that you can access through pad choice and just as importantly, application technique that you have no need to have lots and lots of products in a range. This is a time saver on a detail, as you can address different levels of defects across a car without needing to change your polish and pad around - just change your application technique, or if really needed switch your pad around. Intensive Polish's appeal is that it comes reasonably close to their flexibility but ultimately it looses out, as it would seem S17 will to the unigrit abrasive products which have unmatched flexibility. If anything, I think the "new-age" of polishing if we want to put dates on machine polishing would be strongly featuring polish ranges which are small but with very flexible products rather than lots of different products for slightly different tasks - the onus being placed on the detailer to learn and adapt their technique 

The emails about working times would certainly be interesting - giving the huge range of variables in machine polishing, I would be wary of saying one type of set and length for certain defects (ie, I wouldn't say work a polish for 80 seconds, as this may work on one type of paint but not another), but general ideas are always useful to give guidance :thumb:



RussZS said:


> Great review Dave, thanks for sharing.
> 
> For me, on 'standard pads' Scholl isn't that amazing. However, use it with their own pads, particularly the Sandwich Spider Pads and it becomes very impressive indeed, cutting quickly and finishing down wonderfully well (on medium-hard paints). I did an R32 yesterday, something which would normally be hard work, but White Spider and S17 made very short work of it, and yes I did use IPA to check actual correction.
> 
> ...


Yes, once I can afford to try the Scholl pads, I will give them a run out and see - not just trying Scholl on them but also trying Menzerna, Meguiars etc on the as well as for me the best tests don't just stick to systems but look at all possible options  The same reason that the Megs MF pads will be getting other polish ranges on them soon for testing 

My concern would lie with softer paints when short-setting, again for reasons discussed in the thread as softer paints will be more sensitive to abrasives not fully worked... I know Intensive Polish can be long-setted to achieve hologram free result on soft paints, but short-setting it risks leaving marring which the product has the potential to fill... S17+ also seems to marr slightly on softer paint (as was the test panel here) when short-setted, from what I can imagine would be abrasives not fully worked, but longer sets did not have this issue. The Spider pads will no doubt change the results, the degree of which I am looking forward to finding out but soft paint will be used for my assessment of finishing where I can and harder paint for the test of correction.


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

Dave KG said:


> The same reason that the Megs MF pads will be getting other polish ranges on them soon for testing


:argie: That's what I'm waiting for 

Nice job on the write-up, it's good to see some old-school tests around here now and then...


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

You're absolutely right Dave, and it's a problem I came up against today, on a red Mondeo - the S17/white SSP was too aggressive to finish down effectively, so I had to refine with 205 - not something I had time for, as I was after a 'one hit wonder'

In the end, I got better results with Megs 205 and an Orange Hex Logic Pad, but it wouldn't touch some of the deeper RDS's like S17 and the SSP will.

S17 and SSP can do wonders on some paints, but the firmness of the pad can definitely work against it. Where I'm struggling personally, is getting S17 to perform as well as 3.02 etc on my non Scholl pads, but I guess this is the point of your review 

Have you tried it or S3 on wool?


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

I think this is one of the benefits of the x05-series from Meguiars Russ, as they do seem to me to be more flexible... Something I would have been tempted to try in the situation on the red Mondeo would be Meguiars #105 on a polishing pad, which would make shorter work of the RDS but when refined at slower speeds with lighter pressure can also finish down - it is hugely flexible in this respect and one of this product's strongest suits. P1 is similar. 

Not tried any Scholl on wool yet, but this is also coming, as I know just how strong Intensive Polish can be on wool it would be interesting to see if S17+ can be pulled up in terms of correction in the same way, or perhaps if S17+ on a Scholl Spider pad can be made to match Intensive Polish on Lake Country Wool for example in terms of cut. All very interesting comparisons.

As you've discovered though, and it is something that I have said for some time - it is not wise to just rely on one range of polishes, and sometimes another range can deliver better results on the paint and conditions in front of you... Having Menzerna, Meguiars and 3M to hand for some time, I have never been at a loss, but would not want to just rely on one of them alone. But if I was pushed, I would probably choose Meguiars 105 and 205 as a sole range of polishes to use for their flexibility


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

I'd run out of M105, I thought it would have been a perfect combo, it's funny that you've just suggested that. It goes to show that you can't just stick to one brand, and need a varied arsenal if you're correcting a variety of cars. I made the mistake of buying into the 3M system about 12 months ago, and selling everything else off, but sometimes you need 3.02 or 105/205 as it just WORKS.

Agree with you on 105/205, as they do offer the greatest levels of flexibility overall, very clever stuff, and I strongly believe 205 is the best finishing polish there is still. It's odd that you still see people buying 83/80 in bundles, when the game as moved out so much since they were popular.

I'm going to look forward to school holidays every year now, as I love all of these recent threads you've been posting up, so thanks for taking the time to do it. There's not a lot of 'sharing' on here anymore (although Russ and Scott have been very open with regards to Scholl!), as people seem to be keen to protect their 'processes', which I can understand to an extent. I love Gordon's write ups for how detailed they are in this respect.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

RussZS said:


> I'd run out of M105, I thought it would have been a perfect combo, it's funny that you've just suggested that. It goes to show that you can't just stick to one brand, and need a varied arsenal if you're correcting a variety of cars. I made the mistake of buying into the 3M system about 12 months ago, and selling everything else off, but sometimes you need 3.02 or 105/205 as it just WORKS.
> 
> Agree with you on 105/205, as they do offer the greatest levels of flexibility overall, very clever stuff, and I strongly believe 205 is the best finishing polish there is still. It's odd that you still see people buying 83/80 in bundles, when the game as moved out so much since they were popular.
> 
> I'm going to look forward to school holidays every year now, as I love all of these recent threads you've been posting up, so thanks for taking the time to do it. There's not a lot of 'sharing' on here anymore (although Russ and Scott have been very open with regards to Scholl!), as people seem to be keen to protect their 'processes', which I can understand to an extent. I love Gordon's write ups for how detailed they are in this respect.


Still a week of my school holidays left, then back to work for 8 weeks before the October break but I hope to be staying around as well, just wont have quite so much time to be doing so much product testing - I'll be about polishing classes and things though, back to detailing in a more relaxed and fun way and Allie being involved too makes it a great way to chill out. So the posts will keep coming, I'm glad to hear they are useful :thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Just one point which is important to make here by means of comparison... A little shopping around has thrown up the following approximate prices for both of these products:

*Scholl S17+ 1 litre is circa £28

Menzerna PO85RD3.02 1 litre is circa £20*

A notable difference there for sure and something to bear in mind when comparative testing. The spider pads also seem quite expensive but I'll be giving them a go soon given the good reviews they are getting :thumb:


----------



## Cquartz (Jan 31, 2009)

Great comparison Dave,very good info for both polish's

always glad to read your reviews, i hope you will continue writing here


----------



## Reflectology (Jul 29, 2009)

RussZS said:


> You're absolutely right Dave, and it's a problem I came up against today, on a red Mondeo - the S17/white SSP was too aggressive to finish down effectively, so I had to refine with 205 - not something I had time for, as I was after a 'one hit wonder'
> 
> In the end, I got better results with Megs 205 and an Orange Hex Logic Pad, but it wouldn't touch some of the deeper RDS's like S17 and the SSP will.
> 
> ...


It is a firm pad but soon loosens with heat and as such can work down to an extremely clever finish, irrespective of paint type....regarding pads Scott uses 3m yellow with no issues and very good results....I use all but the scholl Black waffle as i feel the structure is too open but havent lost hope in it yet....the one hit wonder you were after is either S17+ or A15+, on another pad with more experience of it under your belt maybe you would have the results you needed....


----------



## ant_s (Jan 29, 2009)

RussZS said:


> I'm going to look forward to school holidays every year now, as I love all of these recent threads you've been posting up, so thanks for taking the time to do it. There's not a lot of 'sharing' on here anymore (although Russ and Scott have been very open with regards to Scholl!), as people seem to be keen to protect their 'processes', which I can understand to an extent. I love Gordon's write ups for how detailed they are in this respect.


+1 on this, I've spend so much more time actually reading and learning on DW in the last few weeks than ever (well maybe when I was a noob and needed to learn the very basic's) I even found myself pm'ing Dave (again thanks!) talking about the Meg's mf system, and i'm, if i'm honest a polishing noob, with little experience.

The last few weeks has made me want to get my polisher out just for fun/test's rather than wanting to correct my car lol.


----------



## Beau Technique (Jun 21, 2010)

In terms of heavier correction. S17+ does its job in sterling fashion. This MG was the first ever studio post and was a pain to rectify correctly but the results speak for themselves. I will admit that there was tweeks with 3M ultrafina se...

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=179665

Also, thsi 997 Porsche was in a terrible state and again, S17+ dealt with the task in great gusto...

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=209471

I seldom rarely use cutting pads purely due to the disadvantage of firm foam ergo wool is always used for cutting sets. Wool is marmite to many but thats my way and the rest is dealt with 3M pads and the odd Scholl orange sandwich pad( at present ).


----------

