# Snow foam choices



## daz4311 (Oct 13, 2007)

Awaiting delivery of my new kranzle 1152tst so need some snow foam help,theres that many so gonna order a few of the best to see which i like best,so please point me in the direction of the best few available please


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Lots of foams offer plenty of froth, but for good value cleaning power Bilt Hamber Autofoam is hard to beat.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

Bilt Hamber Autofoam, Autoglanz Spritzer, Waxplanet 8 Below. Won't be disappointed with any of them when it comes to cleaning power.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Imprezaworks (May 20, 2013)

On another forum a chap really rates the autosmart one. 

He's tried loads.


----------



## mbarn (Mar 2, 2019)

Another vote for Bilt Hamber.
Visually, it lacks the thick and impressive foam aspect of some other brands, but has the best cleaning power I’ve had from a foam.


----------



## Crackers (Mar 31, 2011)

I've just ordered KKD Blizzard, just fancied something new to try and the tutti fruiti scent twisted my arm.

Cheers

Crackers


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

I've only tried 2 snow foams and for me, AG Spritzer cleans at least as well as Bilt Hamber Auto Foam and as it foams better it dwells a little longer (which may be important in warmer weather). Spritzer also works out a bit cheaper per application as you use much less product. I also like that I can increase the concentration of Spritzer to say 30:1 and use it as a strip wash.
BH AF is decent, but I don't plan on buying it again after I use up what I have. 
*Not trying to convert the world, just my tuppence worth.* :thumb:


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

Crackers said:


> I've just ordered KKD Blizzard, just fancied something new to try and the tutti fruiti scent twisted my arm.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Crackers


Cleaning power is pretty poor but then I find all PH neutral foams are.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## Crackers (Mar 31, 2011)

Brian1612 said:


> Cleaning power is pretty poor but then I find all PH neutral foams are.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Damn, never bothered to check up on it as it was an alright price and j needed some and wanted to bulk me order up for free delivery 🙈

Cheers

Crackers


----------



## bradleymarky (Nov 29, 2013)

Bilt hamber all day.


----------



## Carscope (Sep 4, 2019)

A bit of a sore spot for some but I find autobrite magi Foam to have great cleaning power and has better foaming compared to BH AF...each to their own though! 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## stonejedi (Feb 2, 2008)

Eturty said:


> A bit of a sore spot for some but I find autobrite magi Foam to have great cleaning power and has better foaming compared to BH AF...each to their own though!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Theirs a blast from the pastmagifoam was always a good cleaner i have not used it in years now though.SJ.


----------



## Rob D 88 (May 24, 2016)

AutoGlanz Spritzer is my best cleaning foam. Carbon Collective Ultimus is another good one but none match the cleaning power of Koch Chemie GreenStar in a 5 litre sprayer diluted 15:1

Rob


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

Is that fairly LSP safe Rob? GreenStar that is.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Brian1612 said:


> Bilt Hamber Autofoam, Autoglanz Spritzer, Waxplanet 8 Below. Won't be disappointed with any of them when it comes to cleaning power.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


Just a shame Jon didnt put BHAF against these.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Eturty said:


> A bit of a sore spot for some but I find autobrite magi Foam to have great cleaning power and has better foaming compared to BH AF...each to their own though!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Better foaming for sure but doesn't clean as well. I've tried these 2 back to back.


----------



## AndyQash (Jul 28, 2019)

I found Gyeon Foam to clean really well and on a coated car it performed just as good as BH auto-foam, but the price of GF is a big sticking point for me, even though it's good I'd rather have 5L of BHAF rather than 1L of GF for the same money.


----------



## stonejedi (Feb 2, 2008)

Forensic detailing test today.SJ.


----------



## Dazednconfused (Oct 10, 2017)

I always end up going back to BH Autofoam. It just cleans better than the others I’ve tried.


----------



## Max Inc (Apr 3, 2007)

stonejedi said:


> Forensic detailing test today.SJ.


Thanks for sharing this. Tomorrows comparison to BH Autofoam should be really interesting!


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

RS3 said:


> Just a shame Jon didn't put BHAF against these.


Apparently that's coming tomorrow (Sunday 5th). Just his no1 in this test against BH AF. But I agree, it's a bit weird he didn't include BH AF in this one.
I'm wary of these 'simulated' tests and it speaks volumes that they don't match up with the 'real world test' in his eyes. Moving on, Jon admits he has been using Spritzer at 25:1 in a sprayer which I can, without a shadow of a doubt confirm is not LSP safe for the ones I've used. This agrees with the instructions on the Spritzer bottle which states 100:1 is as strong as they recommend to be coating-safe. I use Spritzer at about 30:1 as a foam cannon shampoo when I want a strip wash.
I will admit though that it would be difficult to 'real world test' these products with any degree of uniformity but I certainly put no stock in the simulated test. As for the corrosion test... who cares about a 24 hour corrosion test for a product that will be rinsed off after 10 minutes whereafter it will be rinsed and another product will likely be hitting it?


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Can't wait and I will get some Spritzer before next winter. I can see me using it with a coat of dry and shine to finish every wash.&#55357;&#56397;


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

It's nice to use if you haven't tried it mate. Some really smart 'spray on' products about these days. Next up for me is Sonax BSD with a Bouncers Done & Dusted SI topper.


----------



## daz4311 (Oct 13, 2007)

Jeez just reading all these posts makes me more confused ,seems everyone has there own opinions, some say certain ones are good,then others say bad, this could get expensive lol


----------



## atbalfour (Aug 11, 2019)

daz4311 said:


> Jeez just reading all these posts makes me more confused ,seems everyone has there own opinions, some say certain ones are good,then others say bad, this could get expensive lol


The reality is that BH Auto Foam is the best-known, most used product because it is a tried and tested performer.

It just works and I haven't seen it not come top of any test measuring cleaning power. I honestly believe the only people who don't rate it are those who think it's expensive, those who want shaving foam-like results, or those who think it isn't LSP safe (just dilute it more?!).

Don't confuse yourself. Buy the market leader.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

atbalfour said:


> The reality is that BH Auto Foam is the best-known, most used product because it is a tried and tested performer.
> 
> It just works and I haven't seen it not come top of any test measuring cleaning power. I honestly believe the only people who don't rate it are those who think it's expensive, those who want shaving foam-like results, or those who think it isn't LSP safe (just dilute it more?!).
> 
> Don't confuse yourself. Buy the market leader.


Its defo the foam factor than turns people off cause it's cheap as chips.


----------



## atbalfour (Aug 11, 2019)

Ps. the Forensic Detailing snow foam challenge was a real anti-climax - all products compared poorly to BH AF on the dirt 'simulator'. 

I'd love to have seen a test of a panel waxed with a benchmark like DSW or Fusso and hit with the highest recommended concentration of each product. As others have said, I'd have liked BH Auto Foam (clear winner of the last test) in there as a control.

As a user and convert to Power Maxed TFR I was shocked at how it fared. I have used BH at 10% PIR and still not achieved the power of 10:1 Power Maxed. The AG products underperformed too which surprised me.


----------



## c87reed (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't bother using a foam lance as it just makes a mess. BH Autofoam in a garden sprayer does the job perfectly.


----------



## Hawkesybaby (Jun 17, 2016)

atbalfour said:


> Ps. the Forensic Detailing snow foam challenge was a real anti-climax - all products compared poorly to BH AF on the dirt 'simulator'.
> 
> I'd love to have seen a test of a panel waxed with a benchmark like DSW or Fusso and hit with the highest recommended concentration of each product. As others have said, I'd have liked BH Auto Foam (clear winner of the last test) in there as a control.
> 
> As a user and convert to Power Maxed TFR I was shocked at how it fared. I have used BH at 10% PIR and still not achieved the power of 10:1 Power Maxed. The AG products underperformed too which surprised me.


He isn't testing against BH he's testing against that set of products. I'm sure after all the comments he'll compare WP against BH to appease people.

Also he isn't comparing what will happen with a wax applied he's comparing the chosen products. Remove as many variables as possible should help yield the best outcomes. If the test was let's see what pre wash cleans the best with a wax applied then that would make sense but it isn't. It's his test using his testing to compare those chosen products?

I was surpsied at some of the results, EZ car care is priced at its rrp (which never is an rrp with them) which skews the results of price per wash slightly but you've gotta stick with certain criteria because it'll just muddy the waters.


----------



## Mcpx (Mar 15, 2016)

Tried more than a few and many of them do foam up nicely and smell great but that’s about it. The only one I’ve ever bought more than once is AG Polar Blast, simply because it’s the only one where I can actually see the dirt coming off in the foam, which is surely the object of the exercise. Never tried BHAF but can understand the respect it gets, maybe next time


----------



## atbalfour (Aug 11, 2019)

Hawkesybaby said:


> He isn't testing against BH he's testing against that set of products. I'm sure after all the comments he'll compare WP against BH to appease people.
> 
> Also he isn't comparing what will happen with a wax applied he's comparing the chosen products. Remove as many variables as possible should help yield the best outcomes. If the test was let's see what pre wash cleans the best with a wax applied then that would make sense but it isn't. It's his test using his testing to compare those chosen products?
> 
> I was surpsied at some of the results, EZ car care is priced at its rrp (which never is an rrp with them) which skews the results of price per wash slightly but you've gotta stick with certain criteria because it'll just muddy the waters.


Appreciate he was comparing products but I think LSP degradation is a hugely important factor when we use snow foam so regularly. Of course it is not practical to test against every LSP, but a really common base product that is reasonably tough would test the 'LSP safe' claims. If certain products don't degrade something like Fusso they are hardly going to erode a coating.

Including BH under the same conditions would have been an easier way to do it IMO - the video he uploads today will be a quick test, no dirt simulator I would suspect.


----------



## huvo (Dec 14, 2009)

AndyQash said:


> I found Gyeon Foam to clean really well and on a coated car it performed just as good as BH auto-foam, but the price of GF is a big sticking point for me, even though it's good I'd rather have 5L of BHAF rather than 1L of GF for the same money.


+1 for the Gyeon Foam. Going to go against the grain here but I never got on with the BHAF. Felt I had to use too much product to get it to work, although the idea of it through a pump sprayer is making me reconsider.


----------



## Danjc (Dec 1, 2013)

He did do another round of tests previous to this recent test with BH auto foam so you could cross compare 




As for testing foams with a panel with a LSP on this would be good but there are so many LSP's out there I'm sure all he would get would be " why didn't he use this or that LSP" 
Maybe it's something he may do in the future.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

The 8 below won it by what looked to me to be quite a significant margin although Jon didn't say that, I think he felt it was very close. Would like to see some testing of when dilutions start to strip LSP's on the top 5 foams.
Would like to see each's effect on a typical (not Fusso) paste wax and a lite ceramic.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Eturty said:


> A bit of a sore spot for some but I find autobrite magi Foam to have great cleaning power and has better foaming compared to BH AF...each to their own though!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Me too, using BH autofoam, still prefer the Magifoam as it always dripped loads of dirty stuff on the floor, maybe I am not using BH stuff as I should but I do give it a large amount in the Foam gun, I think it is just the short dwell time not soaking into the crud that lets it down for me.
advice from anyone appreciated.:thumb:


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

Forensic Detailing's videos of yesterday and today are completely pointless and misleading. People will be buying 8 Below on the strength of this simulated dirt test but he's using it at over 5x the manufacturer's recommended mix ratio. So when they take delivery of it and stick 100ml in their foam cannon, it's not going to have the same dirt removal capability. He really dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

GeeWhizRS said:


> Forensic Detailing's videos of yesterday and today are completely pointless and misleading. People will be buying 8 Below on the strength of this simulated dirt test but he's using it at over 5x the manufacturer's recommended mix ratio. So when they take delivery of it and stick 100ml in their foam cannon, it's not going to have the same dirt removal capability. He really dropped the ball on this one.


He did make that very clear and as both products where diluted the same it was a simple comparison pound for pound. The simulation material was also at least 5x over the top too as you wont find those sort of harsh contaminants in that quantity on a car normally. To carry out such a real world test on cars with so many products would be very difficult to do but yes, just comparing 2 using swabs on a very dirty car would be a good thing but jon works from his garage with a very limited supply of cars to test on.
I might have a go myself on my old daily splitting the car long ways but I need to order some 8 below.


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

RS3 said:


> I might have a go myself on my old daily splitting the car long ways but I need to order some 8 below.


Good luck with that, it's out of stock at Wax Planet in all sizes!
I can forgive the dirt-simulator because as you say, it's difficult to set up in a real world test. What I can't forgive is using the product way stronger than intended and claiming that its a better product as a result of it being more concentrated. There is no way I would buy 8 Below after watching this but clearly many have. I can only think there will be some pretty annoyed people when they use it at the manufacturer's ratio. 🙈
I know he mentioned it, but I can't help thinking that the point will be lost on most.


----------



## Max Inc (Apr 3, 2007)

I won’t hide that -8 impressed me enough to order a sample. I’m also a big fan of BH, especially to their scientific approach. However, a few points to consider:

AF is designed to be LSP safe and it is known to have less degreasing power for this reason. It is formulated more towards shifting dirt and road film whereas Surfex HD is the product more suitable to use with oil residues. How safe is -8 at that dilution rate, 5x higher than the manufacturers max recommendation? 

I agree that the test was pointless as it didn’t provide any useful measure for comparison. You can ignore the fact that -8 can not be used through a foam lance at those concentrations. If used through a pump sprayer, I would have liked to see how they compare at the same price point, with -8 being 1.5x the price.

And if we are talking about out of spec usage and completely ignore the LSP effect, AF can be combined with 3-4% Surfex HD to dramatically boost degreasing capabilities for an insignificant amount of money.


----------



## tosh (Dec 30, 2005)

This is from the wax planet website










I'm missing the point where Jon used a concentration 5x the recommended. Can someone enlighten me?

Edit: ok, you're talking about Spritzer. To be fair, I use Spritzer at 25:1 as well in a manual pump sprayer. Same with BH Autofoam. The AutoGlanz spec says 25-250:1 in a manual foamer so he (and I) are still within spec.


----------



## Sean66 (Apr 5, 2019)

GeeWhizRS said:


> Good luck with that, it's out of stock at Wax Planet in all sizes!
> I can forgive the dirt-simulator because as you say, it's difficult to set up in a real world test. What I can't forgive is using the product way stronger than intended and claiming that its a better product as a result of it being more concentrated. There is no way I would buy 8 Below after watching this but clearly many have. I can only think there will be some pretty annoyed people when they use it at the manufacturer's ratio. 🙈
> I know he mentioned it, but I can't help thinking that the point will be lost on most.


Spot on . 
John should do a re match with the wax planet used at the correct dilution rate and then we'd have a fair comparison.


----------



## atbalfour (Aug 11, 2019)

Would be good to do a proper test of this side by side.. was face palming during the video at points.



> During the panel dwell period, auto-foam's bubbles will systematically burst and move, encouraging our soaking and cleansing agents to start working.


If BH's own claim above is correct - even the method of applying these products is skewing the results and not mirroring a real world scenario.

Yes it's been done for simplicity - you'd most likely need two different panels to actually test as a foam and power-hosed off, but there are very simple minded people out there who have (by the look of things) rushed to buy a product based on what I think was an unintentionally misleading review.

Last I'll comment on this particular thread as I don't like giving heat to another enthusiast (not professional) detailer who is just sharing his results. This is likely the only post in which I've been critical because so many of Jon's tests and advice have been absolutely spot on, plus he seems like a decent guy with no hidden agenda.


----------



## Taxboy (Aug 23, 2006)

There is a YouTube video Detailing and the Beast who has done a video on 8 below and he wasn't impressed.

May be worth a look

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

I saw that one mate and it looked a bit poo. Also, that dude was using a 15 degree nozzle on his paint, so needs a good going-with with a ragman's trumpet. 😂


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

tosh said:


> I'm missing the point where Jon used a concentration 5x the recommended. Can someone enlighten me?


Tosh, in the video, when Jon poured all the products over the simulated dirt, all products were applied at a ratio of 5%. That means for example there's 95ml of water in a cup and 5ml of product. Where the confusion occurs is because of the terms of application used. Bilt Hamber recommend a maximum of 4% but that is the final ratio of the product as it hits the panel... the PIR, Panel Impact Ratio. As pressure washers and foam cannons all vary, you need to measure and work the correct amount of product to use in your own foam cannon; Brian did a fine post on how to do this here https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=400542 So to achieve a 4% PIR with Bilt Hamber may result in anywhere between 500-700 ml in foam cannon topped up to a litre with water.
Where the problem occurs is with 8 Below, the manufacturer's ratio (as you highlighted) says a maximum ratio of 10:1, but this is in the foam cannon and not as it hits the panel. So 100ml of product and 900ml of water in the foam cannon. But, when you add in the fact that there will be likely be an additional 10+ litres of water required to empty that 1 litre in the foam cannon, that will result in a PIR (Panel Impact Ratio) of less than 1%. What Jon did was to use a 5% mix of all products in his cups. So, using his figures, the 8 Below was used somewhere around 8x the manufacturer's recommended maximum and Bilt Hamber was used at 1.25x recommended maximum.


----------



## tosh (Dec 30, 2005)

I know what PIR is

How does Wax Planet know what type of cannon you have, orifice size, the mix ratio and L/m of your pressure washer?

They just want you to stick an inch in the bottle and fill it up. 1:10; close enough. Too strong? Halve it. 

He explained why he poured the chemicals on the dirt simulator at the same concentration for each; you may not agree with it, but he did explain why he did it. 

You’re looking for the perfect test that meets your particular requirements rather than a comparison. When you find it (or film it) let us know.


----------



## stonejedi (Feb 2, 2008)

All i know is that i am surprised how wax planets snow foam offering compared to the mighty bilt hamber especially the anti corrosion.SJ.


----------



## tosh (Dec 30, 2005)

It’s a nice surprise though
Something else to try 500ml of, which actually has some cleaning power. I think it may foam too much for my liking.


----------



## stonejedi (Feb 2, 2008)

tosh said:


> It's a nice surprise though
> Something else to try 500ml of, which actually has some cleaning power. I think it may foam too much for my liking.


I love a good foam especially one that cleans,i have a bottle of it somewhere that i never got around to trying, will have a proper look for it now:thumb:.SJ.


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

tosh said:


> I know what PIR is
> How does Wax Planet know what type of cannon you have, orifice size, the mix ratio and L/m of your pressure washer?
> They just want you to stick an inch in the bottle and fill it up. 1:10; close enough. Too strong? Halve it.
> He explained why he poured the chemicals on the dirt simulator at the same concentration for each; you may not agree with it, but he did explain why he did it.
> You're looking for the perfect test that meets your particular requirements rather than a comparison. When you find it (or film it) let us know.


Forgive me for telling my Grandma how to suck eggs; from what you wrote I figured you weren't seeing the difference. 
Working out the correct quantity of a product to add to _your_ foam cannon from a PIR figure is not something your average consumer would be knowing how to do, or be inclined to do. You might have noticed that we're not exactly normal on here. 😀
Wax Planet stating to use a maximum of 10:1 (20:1 for regular washing) in the bottle is will just a best guess given from their testing. I've tried about 4 or 5 different cannons and they all require varying levels of product to achieve the same PIR, but this variance isn't much more than about 25%. Wax Planet will know this and have settled on a good guide to be 10:1.
A perfect test, to me, would be simply a fair test, and that is using each product at the manufacturer's recommended ratios, as he did with the foam test. For the 'simulated dirt' test, using all at 5% is nothing even approaching fair. That would equate to using 800ml of 8 Below + 200ml Water in a foam cannon.
My concern is that viewers cannot appreciate how misleading this test is and will put stock in this video, buy this product and be disappointed.


----------



## minimadmotorman (Mar 18, 2012)

GeeWhizRS said:


> Forgive me for telling my Grandma how to suck eggs; from what you wrote I figured you weren't seeing the difference.
> Working out the correct quantity of a product to add to _your_ foam cannon from a PIR figure is not something your average consumer would be knowing how to do, or be inclined to do. You might have noticed that we're not exactly normal on here. 😀
> Wax Planet stating to use a maximum of 10:1 (20:1 for regular washing) in the bottle is will just a best guess given from their testing. I've tried about 4 or 5 different cannons and they all require varying levels of product to achieve the same PIR, but this variance isn't much more than about 25%. Wax Planet will know this and have settled on a good guide to be 10:1.
> A perfect test, to me, would be simply a fair test, and that is using each product at the manufacturer's recommended ratios, as he did with the foam test. For the 'simulated dirt' test, using all at 5% is nothing even approaching fair. That would equate to using 800ml of 8 Below + 200ml Water in a foam cannon.
> My concern is that viewers cannot appreciate how misleading this test is and will put stock in this video, buy this product and be disappointed.


I think my test on here was pretty impartial and at recommended dilution ratios for each product, whilst not a "forensic" test I was pretty happy with the results and stand by my observations.

Long and short IMHO BH still king for cleaning power but WP8B has its benefits such as cost, dwell, slickness for brush work (and subsequently a place in some of my wash routines)

https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=418033


----------



## minimadmotorman (Mar 18, 2012)

I just noticed in my review I said I would be a WP8B convert going forwards, well after a couple of months using both BH and WP8B alternately that I will probably keep BH in stock as I find it better for a "quick" wash.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

I'm swaying towards 8 below myself. As for the 5% used, I don't see an issue with it when you are directly comparing 1 product to another. I'd say that is the fairest way of doing it when determining which is more effective imo.

Little comparison I done at 4%...

https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=412848

All that's left to do for me now is confirm whether at 2 to 3% the 8 below can still perform to same level at AF at 4%. If it can it means it's not only a more effective cleanwr but works out cheaper as well which makes it a no brainer. The non caustic & non corrosive nature of 8 below (& AF!) is a bonus.

Regardless of all this both are still tremendously good pre washes. Auto foam in the winter & 8 below in the summer, problem solved 

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

Brian, did you have any LSP on the car when you carried out this test? I only ask because I'm curious to know whether the 8 below affected anything as you were using it stronger than recommended. I know BH is safe at 4%.
Jon, in his video mentioned he had been using Spritzer at 25:1. I can confirm that is not LSP safe but I use this to my advantage when wanting to strip everything off.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

Hi Gee,

From memory there was an old layer of wax on it but it was being stripped regardless so didn't pay much attention to it unfortunately. Certainly something I can check in future tests though 

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

I need some WP8B in my armoury but it seems the stock all over has gone.

I have the 500ml LAVA from DetailedOnLine with their foam cannon on it's way so that should do for 5 washes at least.

Then again, with the car not being used, the wash routine has taken a back seat, giving WP time to get more 8B in stock.


----------



## Dazednconfused (Oct 10, 2017)

I also was interested in trying Detailed Online's Lava foam.
They also have a V2 version of the foam which looks to be more concentrated.


----------



## minimadmotorman (Mar 18, 2012)

I thought lava was ok not in the same league as BH/WP


----------



## tosh (Dec 30, 2005)

GeeWhizRS said:


> My concern is that viewers cannot appreciate how misleading this test is and will put stock in this video, buy this product and be disappointed.


I've listened to the foaming part of the video again, and he specifically says that foaming at 10:1 in his bottle is about 0.6% PIR in his setup. I hope anyone sitting through a 30min video would at listen to what he's saying. He even said that he got more cleaning out of Spritzer and AF, but that was hitting the car at a lot higher PIR.

I don't think his 5% test was misleading, it was a direct comparison of the strength of the products as supplied to clean dirt. But if someone skipped to that part in the video, and took it out of context, that's the internet/forums/Facebook isn't it; jump to conclusions and take everything out of context.


----------



## wax-planet (Sep 30, 2010)

Interesting debate, for anyone wanting to try Eight Below it will be back in stock tomorrow in a small quantity and live at mid day . I will have 500 and 1000ml available. if anyone wants 5000ml that will be towards the back end of next week when the bottles turn up.


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

tosh said:


> I've listened to the foaming part of the video again, and he specifically says that foaming at 10:1 in his bottle is about 0.6% PIR in his setup.


This wasn't mentioned at the foaming part because he used the products at the recommended application levels. His testing makes no sense to me. Why test products at the recommended levels for one test, and then change the ratios for the next test? Testing is about consistency.
He mentioned how much product _he_ thought was required in the 'cost per wash test' (which is fair enough) where 8 below came 3rd and he said you needed 90ml in a foam cannon which will be somewhere around the 10:1 ration the manufacturer's recommend, but then in the final test, uses it at a much higher concentration of what is already a highly concentrated product in the first place.



tosh said:


> I don't think his 5% test was misleading, it was a direct comparison of the strength of the products as supplied to clean dirt.


Why not use them neat out of the bottle then? Why use 5%? When they come up with these products, they have one eye on how strong someone can use the product before it starts affecting coatings. This will be the maximum strength the manufacturer recommends, unless otherwise stated (as AutoGlanz do). If you start messing about with the mix ratios, you are not comparing apples with apples, you are comparing quantity with quantity. Which is not fair and misleading (hence, why the stuff is out of stock). Imagine you are comparing wine with vodka. 1 bottle of wine will do the job nicely for most people, but 1 bottle of vodka will have a much stronger affect because it has a higher concentration of alcohol, whereas you should be using much less vodka as per recommendation. That's unfortunately the best way I can explain it, if you can't see it, then we'll agree to disagree. You buy the stuff and I hope you're really happy with it. I'm just calling out Jon's comparison testing as being flawed, nonsensical and misleading.

Edit: Wax Planet, can you advise on what concentration 8 Below is LSP safe to? Ta.


----------



## wax-planet (Sep 30, 2010)

GeeWhizRS said:


> This wasn't mentioned at the foaming part because he used the products at the recommended application levels. His testing makes no sense to me. Why test products at the recommended levels for one test, and then change the ratios for the next test? Testing is about consistency.
> He mentioned how much product _he_ thought was required in the 'cost per wash test' (which is fair enough) where 8 below came 3rd and he said you needed 90ml in a foam cannon which will be somewhere around the 10:1 ration the manufacturer's recommend, but then in the final test, uses it at a much higher concentration of what is already a highly concentrated product in the first place.
> 
> Why not use them neat out of the bottle then? Why use 5%? When they come up with these products, they have one eye on how strong someone can use the product before it starts affecting coatings. This will be the maximum strength the manufacturer recommends, unless otherwise stated (as AutoGlanz do). If you start messing about with the mix ratios, you are not comparing apples with apples, you are comparing quantity with quantity. Which is not fair and misleading (hence, why the stuff is out of stock). Imagine you are comparing wine with vodka. 1 bottle of wine will do the job nicely for most people, but 1 bottle of vodka will have a much stronger affect because it has a higher concentration of alcohol, whereas you should be using much less vodka as per recommendation. That's unfortunately the best way I can explain it, if you can't see it, then we'll agree to disagree. You buy the stuff and I hope you're really happy with it. I'm just calling out Jon's comparison testing as being flawed, nonsensical and misleading.
> ...


1:10 , i have went stronger but it cleans very well at this ratio and is perfectly safe at this ratio. It uses a very strong surfactant and i wouldn't want anyone complaining about there coatings degrading....im staying safe and i hope all you are too !


----------



## GeeWhizRS (Nov 1, 2019)

Thanks for that WP. :thumb:


----------



## gloss.lab (Feb 23, 2020)

My vote on Bilt Hamber.
AB Magifoam is good too.

I hope to test WP in future


----------



## piston_warrior (Jul 25, 2012)

wax-planet said:


> 1:10 , i have went stronger but it cleans very well at this ratio and is perfectly safe at this ratio. It uses a very strong surfactant and i wouldn't want anyone complaining about there coatings degrading....im staying safe and i hope all you are too !


Thanks for your input, do you have a recommended panel impact ratio for your product or is it just 1:10 in the lance bottle?

I hope you're getting some good business off the back of Jon's video, every little helps in this current climate.


----------



## wax-planet (Sep 30, 2010)

piston_warrior said:


> Thanks for your input, do you have a recommended panel impact ratio for your product or is it just 1:10 in the lance bottle?
> 
> I hope you're getting some good business off the back of Jon's video, every little helps in this current climate.


The recommended usage is 1:10, no panel impact ratio to simplify it for people.
Its been very busy on the Eight Below front, theres a major issue at the minute for supplies of bottles to put it in. Its not something i seen coming although i know now to be prepared in the future. Most of the wholesalers are either sold out or theres a long lead time. if you shop around you can find them at x5 the normal prices 
Hopefully it will be over soon and we can all play outside safe again :thumb:


----------



## Ctreanor13 (May 1, 2019)

Had a litre of 8 below on the shelf for the last 3 or 4 weeks and got using it today. Definitely will be buying again when it runs out. Will definitely be my go to snow foam (I'll use autofoam in pump sprayer for contactless washes for convenience)


----------



## wax-planet (Sep 30, 2010)

Ctreanor13 said:


> Had a litre of 8 below on the shelf for the last 3 or 4 weeks and got using it today. Definitely will be buying again when it runs out. Will definitely be my go to snow foam (I'll use autofoam in pump sprayer for contactless washes for convenience)


Pleased you liked the foam :thumb:


----------

