# Does ONR provide any protection?



## MirfieldMat (Mar 13, 2011)

I have used ONR a few times now, in wash concentrate and QD concentrate. I think its a fantastic product. I always follow up with a dedicated QD such as Megs UQD, or a waterless like SnS or GLSS, just to give some extra gloss and protection.

My question is, is it necessary? Does ONR lay down a protective layer just like GLSS does? Or does it just remove the dirt like a normal 'shampoo'.

Any info much appreciated.


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Does lay something down after it.


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi Mat,


MirfieldMat said:


> Does ONR lay down a protective layer just like GLSS does? Or does it just remove the dirt like a normal 'shampoo'.


The protection laid down by products like GLSS, provided that you shake them
up properly first, will always be heavier than that provided by ONR. Also, GLSS
claims to have carnauba wax in it, amongst other things. Regular use will
help build up an increasingly shinier layer.

When it comes to ONR, the level of polymer coating left behind will always
be dependent upon the dilution ratio and indeed the water hardness. Although
diluting ONR at 20:1 is meant to provide a "QD", my belief is that dilution is
actually too strong, especially in soft water areas. All the time I've been using
it, I've only ever seen ONR as a very easy to use cleaner, relying upon those
products marketed as QDs (OID / FK#425 / Megs UQD) to bring up the rear
with their protection and slickness.

As to whether or not it is necessary is a moot point that could be debated
endlessly! At dilution rates of 32:1 upward, my belief is that any protection
left behind by ONR is minimal indeed. It's power is mainly in providing the ability
to get under the dirt as well as into it.

Regards,
Steve


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Yeah agree with Mr O.N.R above...:thumb:
Does leave something but only a tiny something...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 28, 2011)

Lowiepete your in lowestofr near me im in ipswich


----------



## MirfieldMat (Mar 13, 2011)

cheers guys.

I didnt think that ONR really left much in the way of protection which is why I always followed up with a QD just to add a boost, as the car is well waxed anyway.

Even when I have used it as a QD I still followed up with another QD just in case.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

why worry about whether or not it leaves protection when the cars waxed already?


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

It all depends on what you classify as protection.
If you are looking for a wax or sealant protection then the answer would be no.
The ingredients within the product is short lived. But dependant on your wash routine and how you car lives its life. Will also depend whether that car is essentially protected.

Potection can take on my guises. It is after all a sacrificial layer that stop foreign matter or the elements coming in contact with you surface of the car. In ONR it is also the same ingredients that give the shampoo it slickness, and has nothing to do with polymers. This is why it is considered an Eco wash.
Gordon.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

-Kev- said:


> why worry about whether or not it leaves protection when the cars waxed already?


It is a worry when some shampoos change the water characteristics of the wax you have applied by coating them, or worse if that protection comes at the cost of some or all of your wax layer. Ie, I really like the water behaviour of Glasur, but I have seen evidence of ONR changing the water behaviour of it, slowing the sheeting under open-end hose and making the beading a bit larger, clearly it has left something on the finish to do this... the Glasur behaviour returns after a couple of weeks after the next wash with Born to be Mild so it is not a case of deteriorating the wax, but leaving something which erodes over time. This gives an additional concern to judging the durability of LSP coatings if your regular wash is ONR - if it is coating the LSP, even only temporarily, then this can act to lengthen the durability seen by some LSPs - this of course can be seen as a very good thing, but if you are quoting achieved durabilities and you regularly use ONR then your quote should come with a caveat of using a shampoo that can protect your LSP... rather like saying you get six months out of an LSP when you regularly "top up" the protection with a quick detailer for example, the figure is not realistic.


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

The polymers in ONR bond to a paint surface and act as a barrier to protect from marring, this will also proved limited surface protection. That is something that soap will not provide since surfactants in soaps have no affinity for painted surfaces.

As David has eluded to this will have a limited affect on the durability of an applied LSP


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> It is a worry when some shampoos change the water characteristics of the wax you have applied by coating them...


I don't quite understand how that could be worrying. A lot of things can
change those characteristics; the surface temperature, force and size of
the raindrops (not forgetting the forces from a pressure washer!) and not 
least the application of a regular QD. In my view, beading / sheeting 
characteristics cannot be a fixed measure, there are far too many variables.


Dave KG said:


> ...or worse if that protection comes at the cost of some or all of your wax layer.


Let's keep things in proper perspective here. Are you seriously suggesting 
that ONR has an adverse effect? All that's happening is that an absolutely 
microscopic layer is being very temporarily added to the paint's surface.
Once it has worn away, the original wax / sealant / nano coating is restored 
at whatever level it would be following a wash.

So, where is the worry? The very act of washing, or even wiping with a wet 
cloth is bound to wear away some of the original protective coating, obviously
to varying degrees, but again what is there to be too concerned about?

As long as the surface is repelling water, does it really matter how big the
beads are? As I've said all along, far too much is made of this ONR layer,
quite needlessly in my view. The ease (especially) and thoroughness of 
cleaning that's achieved with ONR far outweigh such minor distractions.

Regards,
Steve


----------



## Carshine (Nov 11, 2009)

Lowiepete said:


> Let's keep things in proper perspective here. Are you seriously suggesting
> that ONR has an adverse effect? All that's happening is that an absolutely
> microscopic layer is being very temporarily added to the paint's surface.
> Once it has worn away, the original wax / sealant / nano coating is restored
> at whatever level it would be following a wash.


And that is also exactly what you get when you use a QD after wash


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Carshine said:


> And that is also exactly what you get when you use a QD after ash


That will depend entirely upon the dilution ratio of the ONR. See my original
post in this thread...

Regards,
Steve


----------



## Carshine (Nov 11, 2009)

My point was that what ONR does to the paint, is the same as a QD. It bonds a thin layer of protection which will not last as long as the original wax/sealant you got on.


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Carshine said:


> My point was that what ONR does to the paint, is the same as a QD.


I'm not disagreeing with you, although a dedicated QD will last a lot longer
than ONR diluted at 32:1. Diluting ONR at the 20:1 recommended has caused
several people to experience streaking, especially in soft water areas.

Remember also, it's us as a community that talk about ONR at QD strength.
Optimum have their own dedicated QD and the slickness left behind by that
could never be matched by ONR at any dilution! So, now it comes down to 
how you define a QD. Is it... 
a quick cleaner,
or is it a quick top-up of the existing protective layer,
or even a combination of the two?
In my book, ONR at 32:1 is much closer to the first, than any other...

Regards,
Steve


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Lowiepete said:


> I don't quite understand how that could be worrying. A lot of things can
> change those characteristics; the surface temperature, force and size of
> the raindrops (not forgetting the forces from a pressure washer!) and not
> least the application of a regular QD. In my view, beading / sheeting
> ...


One of the reasons that I do not use a QD regularly these days is the adverse effects I see personally on the water behaviour of waxes... now, in the days where the looks advantage of waxes are arguable, one of the things that appeals to me is the water behaviour. While this may not appeal to all, tight high beads is something that I like to see on my car's paintwork - like your Union Jack perhaps which is water behaviour you like? It may not mean anything in terms of the quality of the protection, but aesthetically it is pleasing to me and products which affect this *on average* to various incident water types are not something that find favour with me. Of course, as I have alluded to in a previous thread where the effects of a Megs QD were discussed, water behaviour is affected by lots of factors - not least how the water is incident on the surface, but if this surface is changed then the water behaviour is changed for all the "types" of water. I find that with tight beading in rain comes fast sheeting to a stream of water and I have seen evidence of products adversely affecting this, reducing the beading and slowing the sheeting while still protecting... so the protection is still there but it has lost some aesthetic appeal that I find pleasing. Will matter to some and not to others. So therein lies one of my concerns, highlighted in my previous post. Hence, if a shampoo (for example Born to be Mild or Shampoo Plus) does not cause any noticeable effects to a factor of LSPs that I look for, then a product which does is not what would be called a "minor distraction".

In terms of this microscopic layer being added (bearing in mind, of course, that the wax layer is also microscopic) - how thick is this layer compared to your wax layer, how long does it take to erode? You say temporary, but quantitatively, what do you mean by this? Is there a matter of hours, or a matter of days, the latter being something that will definitely slew durability testing. It is not a case that the layer is adversely affecting the protection per se (unless it is altering the wax layer to "bond" rather than sitting on top of the layer - is it altering the wax layer in any way chemically, and how do we know whether it is or it is not?), but it is adversely affecting a factor which pleases me. In this world of personal preferences, it is something worth taking into consideration.

Of course, these wax layers erode over time anyway - as a sacrificial layer, it is what they are designed to do. And many things speed up this erosion. However, if they provide something that you like from your finish, why use a product that adversely affects this? Fine if water behaviour is not a concern, but if you like the aesthetics then it is something to bear in mind. And the length of time of the effect is important. Then, if the product is in anyway adversely affecting the wax layer, why use something that speeds up the erosion process? Of course, ONR may well be having the opposite effect and the temporary layers (as I suggested above) positively effecting the durability as you are adding extra protection, albeit temporary (how long lasting?). This is a big plus day to day, and I am not suggesting it is not. However, if one quotes durability of an LSP and sees significantly better than average when washing with ONR, then statistically this suggests something above ONR's effects on LSP durability... a positive, for sure, so long as it is understood.

I hope this makes a bit more sense now - these "worries" are not just the simple "ONR adversely affecting the protection of my wax" as you suggest was my concern, it is a little more detailed than that - there is more to adverse effects on LSPs than simply how well the LSP is "protecting" for many people


----------



## CliveP (Feb 1, 2009)

Dave,

Thanks for that explanation, my other half thinks I'm mad enough and I know if I tried to discuss your words she'd think I was mad - and she's probably right - but I think it's great you can enlighten us with some physics and chemistry (I'm presuming it's those two disciplines we're talking about on the whole in this game). Because whether people are interested in the chemistry/physics or not, I've often looked at water performanceafter just waxing (colinite 915 is classic in terms of run of and beading after it's been freshly done, no doubt others are too), then been intrigued to see the difference after a wash and a QD to finish. I've actually debated with myself (no one else listens!!!!) whether Autobrite's QD (berry blast one) 'improves' slightly worn waxes in terms of beading and sheeting. My experiment for this is a neighbour's daughters Peugeot - she doesnt live at home anymore so it is at different intervals I clean it (yea, I know a big softy!), and what starts with no beading on the pre-rinse, gets better after the wash then rinse (I think because the wax which has benn hidden under dirt, is revealed once more), then seems even better after a dry and layer of Autobrite's QD. This is purely observational on my part, nothing scientific. But I like the fact it seems to give that sort of properties back to a car.

Ah well just my observations, as I, like you, like to see the water effect you describe.

My new toy a DS3 seems to have a nice beading behaviour off my quick Autobrite Black Magic application after I collected the car on Thursday...

By the way I presume you have completed your PhD now and we can call you doctor?


Looking forward to seeing you soon!
Regards,
Clive.


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi Dave,

Well, I imagine that in an area of the country that sees rain almost every
other day, then beading would probably be important. You see your vehicle
in the dry and in the wet in almost equal measure, and it needs to visually
impress either way. Here in E. Anglia we see much more in the way of cloud 
rather than rain, and despite the past 10 days or so of wet weather the 
greater majority of the time it is dry here. Sometimes quite worryingly so...

So, instead of getting the car partly washed on most days, the paintwork 
sits there gathering dust and then the morning dews attract more. This is
then followed by a good baking by the sun. Often, a quick shower from the
West will pass by; this having gathered all kinds of muck on the cloud's
traverse of the country only to dump that on the paint as well. This without
the car having been moved an inch! So, there is probably more justification
for QD usage here than where you are.

Trying to keep the paint's surface as clean and slick as possible is more 
the goal here. ONR in this circumstance is ideal, in that it cleans quickly, 
efficiently and much more cheaply than a dedicated QD. So, this brings us 
back to what ONR leaves behind and its longevity. We also have to come 
back to the main factors that affect these which I alluded to in my first 
response to this thread. Dilution ratios and water hardness. 

We cannot compare like with like because of these factors. Some say that 
ONR has a softening effect upon hard water; I'm not that confident that it 
does. You just need a stronger dilution for the same cleaning strength. On 
the face of it, as you have a far more regular rainfall pattern in Scotland, 
you'd be far better placed to test how long ONR lasts. My _guess_ is that if
we had that rainfall pattern locally, at 32:1 dilution, it wouldn't be much more 
than a couple of days before some restoration of some tight beads began. 

However, where you are 32:1 is a much stronger mix than here because of
your water softness. So, I'd be experimenting with ratios going closer to 60:1 
(as a QD strength mix) and in the wash bucket looking at very weak mixes 
indeed. Certainly well less than half of the recommended. From there, the 
bigger question that arises is: at what dilution do you reach a point where 
there aren't enough polymers to actually lay down any (protective) layer?

The thing I like about ONR, over a proper QD, is the way that its surfactants
work to loosen the dirt. It was that which gave me the confidence to explore
more of its cleaning capabilities, leading eventually to a very successful
bucketless wash method. With ONR it's all about the cleaning; where using a 
dedicated QD on a baked hard crust of dirt could risk marring, then using a 
QD like FK#425, OID or UQD to restore the slickness. 

All these have different beading characteristics, though they're not frequently
visible. Of these three, UQD seems to win hands down in keeping the paint 
surface resistant to passing dust. ONR singularly fails here, whatever it leaves
behind, but then I'm not expecting it to do what I see as two separate jobs...

Regards,
Steve


----------

