# Best sealants of market at looks and durability?



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

What are the best of best?

Durability:


and

Looks:

Your own opinion:thumb:


----------



## bero1306 (Jan 24, 2011)

I use Blackfire on my car and Carlack 68 on my wifes. Nothing will give you the look of Blackfire and the durability of Carlack is great.


----------



## Demetrios72 (Jun 27, 2011)

sm81 said:


> What are the best of best?
> 
> Durability:
> 
> ...


How you doin mate:wave:

IMO Zaino Z6 & Z8


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

The nano super sealants like Gtechniq C1 will blow most things into the water. The carlack 68 lasts 9-12 months which is great, but c1 will last 3-5 years and gives a superb glossy finish though most of the finish is down to prep work anyway.


----------



## Alan W (May 11, 2006)

For durability:

GTechniq C1, CQuartz, Opti-Coat 2.0, Nanolex Professional (All 12 months+)

For looks:

Wax! 

Alan W


----------



## Cadillacman (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm currently using Car-Lack68 NSC plus two coats of Klasse high gloss sealant glaze....all of which is occasionaly topped off with Sonus Acrylic Glanz after a wash...The results are stunning.

If you want to go up-market then take a look at Opti-coat 2.0 as this stuff is said to last two or more years !!!....I'm planning on trying this myself.





.


----------



## PaulinLincs (Jan 16, 2011)

Still loving Zaino Z5. A simple top up with Z8 after a wash and your good to go.


----------



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

I have carlack twins but I wonder if there are any other just as durable product but better looks at that price range. (also have Colly476s/845)


----------



## PaulinLincs (Jan 16, 2011)

sm81 said:


> I have carlack twins but I wonder if there are any other just as durable product but better looks at that price range. (also have Colly476s/845)


I was using the carlack and its great stuff but switched to Z5 and the difference is night and day. I would say i get 2-3 months durability out of 2 layers. By then i redo it so i possibly might get longer.


----------



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

> I was using the carlack and its great stuff but switched to Z5 and the difference is night and day.


With looks?


----------



## PaulinLincs (Jan 16, 2011)

sm81 said:


> With looks?


Yes. Like glass.


----------



## Cadillacman (Jul 18, 2011)

PaulinLincs said:


> I was using the carlack and its great stuff but switched to Z5 and the difference is night and day. I would say i get 2-3 months durability out of 2 layers. By then i redo it so i possibly might get longer.


Looks like I'm going to have to try the Zaino range too !

Damn!....this is going to cost me a fortune....so many products to try :wall:

.


----------



## PaulinLincs (Jan 16, 2011)

Cadillacman said:


> Looks like I'm going to have to try the Zaino range too !
> 
> Damn!....this is going to cost me a fortune....so many products to try :wall:
> 
> .


I have spent a fortune on products ( although everything is £1.50, Well thats what i tell girlyfriend)
Since switching to Zaino i feel i have found the finish i was looking for. I have found that Zaino like to be used with other Zaino product though.


----------



## ronwash (Mar 26, 2011)

Menz power lock,great durability and great sealant clear shine.
c2 also is a top sealant.


----------



## Blueberry (Aug 10, 2007)

In the past week used Wolf's Body Wrap on a black metallic Discovery 4. The finish is amazing. It's the best finish the car has ever had. It's very crisp and sharp looking. I've used Dodo waxes and other sealants on it before but it never looked this good.

Durability is a year to 18 months I believe.

Highly recommend:thumb:


----------



## badman1972 (Jun 24, 2010)

I think Werkstat Acrylic looks fantastic, just started using it myself after much reading up on them


----------



## owen86 (Jan 2, 2009)

Supernatural hybrid for me so far, the finish its very nice, very glass like compared to their waxes! Cant tell on durability yet as its only been on a month but looks and beads like day 1 even after an apc foam wash to shift some bugs!!


----------



## John @ PB (Aug 25, 2010)

Durability: Nanolex Professional (Nanolex themselves quote over 2 years *from one application*, we cautiously claim upto 2 years)

Looks: depends what colour it's on, but on lighter metallics and white, Werkstat Acrylic Kit, on darker metallics, Blackfire Wet Diamond. Body Wrap or any of the Nanolex products look awesome on just about everything.


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

Zaino Z5 or Zaino Z2 nothing compares personally, oh and Collonite metal wax for the metal.


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

some yob seems to of attached a piece of chrome to your octagon Grizz?... werkstat kit for me, Opti Seal or Fk1000


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

Ninja59 said:


> some yob seems to of attached a piece of chrome to your octagon Grizz?... werkstat kit for me, Opti Seal or Fk1000


No thats just the Zaino reflecting the sun


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

Grizzle said:


> No thats just the Zaino reflecting the sun


:lol: got a hearing aid then  :devil:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

If it is to be a sealent, then Zaino would be my choice.

For sealants claiming durability of a year plus, I have two questions:

1) Has this been demonstrated in practice _consistently_? (Without the need for any top up sprays of special shampoos)

2) If my car collects bonded contamination - tree sap, tar etc - in the year plus, which is will, how do I get rid of this without removing the sealant and rendering the durability irrelevant?


----------



## Soepergrover (Aug 14, 2009)

I've seen beautiful results of Wolfgang Deep Gloss Paint Sealant (DGPS).


----------



## John @ PB (Aug 25, 2010)

Dave KG said:


> If it is to be a sealent, then Zaino would be my choice.
> 
> For sealants claiming durability of a year plus, I have two questions:
> 
> ...


Nanolex has been proven in the field so I'm confident in its long term durability and we are assessing this regularly. Wolf's Body Wrap we are also still undertaking long term testing. These two sealants do need to be washed with a suitable shampoo - the Nanolex one is certainly not cheap but is probably be best shampoo on the market in my view.

The Wolf's shampoo isn't expensive: 40p per wash (1litre bottle, 40 washes at 500:1, £16).

Both of these sealants are resistant to Tardis and claying; neither has an effect on the longevity of the sealant. They will only be removed by machine polishing.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Have you got some examples of the Nanolex in the field? Would be interesting to see to 2-years durability, as it is quite a claim  Has it changed significantly in two years, as I struggled to get six months out of it in testing when I had some of the original Nanolex samples... the water behaviour was very nice though.


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> Have you got some examples of the Nanolex in the field? Would be interesting to see to 2-years durability, as it is quite a claim  Has it changed significantly in two years, as I struggled to get six months out of it in testing when I had some of the original Nanolex samples... the water behaviour was very nice though.


glad someone else experienced poor durability, mines lasted around 4-6 months albeit during winter :lol:


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Why does nobody talk about Duragloss anymore? I always found it performed as well as Zaino, but is cheaper...

I guess it's less fashionable


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

werkstat acrylic is awesome imo. going to try wolfs body wrap soon..


----------



## brandon888 (Dec 20, 2007)

is smartguard sealant any good ???


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Grizzle said:


> glad someone else experienced poor durability, mines lasted around 4-6 months albeit during winter :lol:


with the super coatings like C1, nanolex etc people assume that once the surface isn't beading, the coating is no longer there, when it's simply not the case at all.

easy example of this with gtechniq C1 - put C1 on the paint surface, and also use it (like C4) to restore faded black plastic trim, it'll look more black. now, after 6 months or so, the beading will die down on both the paint work, and the plastic trim. so....you think the coating isn't there any more.... well, check out how black the plastic trim is still 

these coatings last ages, C1 can last up to 5 years. just ignorant people assume that once the beading has died down that the coating is no longer there when it is. these super sealants are NOT about beading. they are about protection (from UV, salt, scratches etc and easy clean), beading doesn't offer any protection at all, it just looks pretty and gives water marks. the surface will still be easier to clean even when it's not beading.

hope that helps


----------



## Beau Technique (Jun 21, 2010)

I like the finish you can get from Zaino and durability is very good which you would expect from a multi layer system. Jetseal is still a good performer for its age as a veteran in the lsp scene. Im still not keen on the nano stuff tbh as they just seem lifeless. For durability, they contend really well but I still like acrylics / polymers and nuba to much plus the finishes delivered look less stagnant.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

E21_ross said:


> with the super coatings like C1, nanolex etc people assume that once the surface isn't beading, the coating is no longer there, when it's simply not the case at all.
> 
> easy example of this with gtechniq C1 - put C1 on the paint surface, and also use it (like C4) to restore faded black plastic trim, it'll look more black. now, after 6 months or so, the beading will die down on both the paint work, and the plastic trim. so....you think the coating isn't there any more.... well, check out how black the plastic trim is still
> 
> ...


Ummm, I wouldn't describe people as "ignorant" personally.

Water behaviour is one of many means of assessing what an LSP is doing - not the only one, but it is one. For example, if a coating changes the water behaviour of a surface (ie, tightens beading or speeds up sheeting) then a change in this water behaviour, ie the beading returning to what it was pre application is an indication most certainly that the surface has "changed". The coating must therefore have "changed" as it is this the water is in contact with. Call it degredation, call it change, call it failure, call it what you will, but a change in water behaviour indicates a change in the way the coating is repelling water and hence a change to the coating. How one interprets this change is up to the user, it should not be used as the only means to determine protection but it is one part of the story (the changing behaviour).

One can use other methods for assessing the paint protection, for example the squeak test and one could also test 50/50 the UV protection offered by having a solid red Vauxhall 50/50 with the coating for example, and compare water behaviour results to this as well. It is not cut and shut, and many means must be used to assess.

Nanolex for me beaded tightly and sheeted quickly, surface felt very slick indeed and did indeed "self-clean" as per the predictions of the lotus effect and then well short of one year, all of these effects faded - water beading loosened, sheeting slowed, surface no longer felt slick and indeed squeaked under a microfibre twist, and surface would no longer clean like it used to with just water... for me, this points to the coating failing - it may still be there, but it is no longer offering what it was offering at application, and for me this represents fading and failing.

On the topic of the Lotus effect while we are here, if we have all these very fine "fibres" that the water glides over, then what is the effect of the abrasives in clay on these - yes, the abrasives are suspended to shave off what is on the surface of the paint, or coating layer, but how do these little fibres survive the claying? I'd be interested to know how the lotus effect survives things like claying, even if the coating is "still there".

For me, paint protection is much more than just a coating "being there" - it is about the benefits the coating brings, and how long these benefits last. My personal opinion of course


----------



## alan_mcc (Oct 28, 2008)

RussZS said:


> Why does nobody talk about Duragloss anymore? I always found it performed as well as Zaino, but is cheaper...
> 
> I guess it's less fashionable


Nowhere near as good as Zaino imo, although Duragloss 105 is a great base for anything.


----------



## Mr Face (Jan 22, 2009)

Power Lock, : nuff said unless you want to sneak a coat or two of Amigo underneath :thumb:


----------



## alan_mcc (Oct 28, 2008)

^ Actually haven't got round to trying a bottle yet, I need funds (oh and a car :lol for that!


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Dave KG said:


> Ummm, I wouldn't describe people as "ignorant" personally.
> 
> Water behaviour is one of many means of assessing what an LSP is doing - not the only one, but it is one. For example, if a coating changes the water behaviour of a surface (ie, tightens beading or speeds up sheeting) then a change in this water behaviour, ie the beading returning to what it was pre application is an indication most certainly that the surface has "changed". The coating must therefore have "changed" as it is this the water is in contact with. Call it degredation, call it change, call it failure, call it what you will, but a change in water behaviour indicates a change in the way the coating is repelling water and hence a change to the coating. How one interprets this change is up to the user, it should not be used as the only means to determine protection but it is one part of the story (the changing behaviour).
> 
> ...


sorry, probably came across ruder than i meant! 

agree, however, these coatings are largely about UV resistance, protection against contaminants etc. the hydrophobic part of the coatings do wear out reasonably quickly (e.g. 6 months) and that's why you get the loss of beading, however (as said) the coating is still there. it's unfortunately extremely hard to test whether or not these super coatings are still present when the water beading has died down, the most simple test is with the black plastics as i mentioned which isn't ideal, but proves my point that even though the plastics are no longer beading, they're still black and look fresh, showing the coating is still on the paint.

i think the problem is things like the "swipe test" and testing for beading etc are largely drawn from testing whether waxes are still on the car. largely (but not entirely) when a wax stops beading, it means it has degraded totally as a wax by make up will be hydrophobic. these coatings like nanolex, C1 etc have a separate component which is hydrophobic which wears off quickly, but the most fundamental point of the coatings (for why they're manufactured - UV resistance, scratch etc etc) it's still doing it's job long, long after the beading has died.

unfortunately, they're being tested exactly the same ways as waxes are tested, and these are products which don't behave in the same way, nor are they meant to protect in the same way so it's not idea. however, it's hard (without a laboratory) to test whether they're still on there. next time....try the plastics test


----------



## josadler (Jul 14, 2010)

Dave KG,

Your comments confuse me. In Your previous post You always try to choose a product for it's durability, Collinite, Glazur etc.(also the reason i bought these products for, as i don't have a lot of time)
I get the impression You don't believe in the durability from the newer products. Would You recommend people to wait for a little while, untill the great sealant test is being carried out?


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> If it is to be a sealent, then Zaino would be my choice.
> 
> For sealants claiming durability of a year plus, I have two questions:
> 
> ...


hi dave - thought I would give my 2 p on this:



> 1) Has this been demonstrated in practice _consistently_? (Without the need for any top up sprays of special shampoos)


1. durability is consistenly judged on this and many other forums by how long a product beads for. with good reason as this side of scraping your paint off and putting flakes under an electron microscope there is very little way of judging whether a coating is still present.

until C4 came along that is.

with c4 it is very easy to see if it is there or not as if it has gone then your trim will have returned to it's previous faded state. in all but very very minor details, c4 is the same thing as c1.

that trim will stay looking fine for as much as 2 years and we have reported 3 years shows that the product is still working.

this and our marine and static tests (see images below for some visual clues) all point to good durability.


















BUT....

the biggest factor that will compromise a car's finish is marring and no matter how good the sealant/wax etc. is - the finish can be prematurely dulled by bad wash technique.

to our way of thinking 95% of the quality of finish comes from the polish stage and not the LSP stage. If you go spend lots of dosh with someone like Kelly to flat sand your car your panels look like this:










Whether you now put on uber expensive wax or some cheap as chips stuff you get from a service station, looks wise you would be hard pushed to tell the difference.

But if you put something like C1 on your paint once it has been corrected, you are playing to every advantage to keep that finish looking great for longer as dirt/bugs/tar/rubber (as tested by a F1 team) doesn't stick so easy and is much easier to remove plus when removing the extra hardness that quartz coatings offer help to keep marring to a minimum and therefore expensively corrected paint from dulling prematurely.

for top up coatings - we recommend c2 only because it revives the beading when it dies. beading dies prematurely mainly due to too much shampoo being used and not enough rinsing thereby leaving ionic surfactants behind or allowing too much dirt to build up on the car which clog up the hairs of the coating (yes really! - see this link for details)



> 2) If my car collects bonded contamination - tree sap, tar etc - in the year plus, which is will, how do I get rid of this without removing the sealant and rendering the durability irrelevant?


you will have to recoat that section again as you will have removed the coating.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

btw - I am assuming on point 2 that you have machined your car to remove said contaminants but in reality you can remove tree sap relatively easily from a c1 finish


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

josadler said:


> Dave KG,
> 
> Your comments confuse me. In Your previous post You always try to choose a product for it's durability, Collinite, Glazur etc.(also the reason i bought these products for, as i don't have a lot of time)
> I get the impression You don't believe in the durability from the newer products. Would You recommend people to wait for a little while, untill the great sealant test is being carried out?


Durability is one of the factors by which any LSP is judged on, and durability of products that is low (ie, less than a month or two) is a concern to me as that is not long enough lasting for me. However, I also believe that to maintain the look of a finish requires regular decontamination - certainly for my car which lives outside, and based on how the paint feels it needs clayed and detarred every six or so months. It is a high mileage car. And for that reason, I like to get rid of the coating that is there, a bit like changing the car's underwear if you will... I want my LSP to last long enough so that it does not fail many times between decontaminations, but if my decontamination of the paint finish which is required removes the coating every six months then durability of six months or more is irrelevant. Some cars may go for a lot longer without needing decontaminated, sadly this is not the case for my workhorse which lives outside and gets used in all conditions on all roads.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Rob, and Ross:

Yes, while I agree that the product is still there protecting against UV radiation, for those who do appreciate water beading and sheeting (and I am one of those), then this feature will always be something that will be judged with the natural caveat that *perhaps* the coating is still there but it has lost one of its desirable (for some) effects.

The plastic test is an interesting one, I do remember having a GTechniq Trim Sealant applied to the Volvo's scuttle panel by Rob (IIRC - possible C4?), and the plastic kept its colour for a good 18 months which is certainly a lot better than typical trim dressings. I wonder at this, the differences between paint and plastic and how this affects the durability of products - will it be the same for a textured plastic surface as it is for paint? 

I think my concerns in my post above regarding decontamination remain - I do agree, prep gives at the very least 95% of the overall finish and the key thereafter is just protecting the look. And perhaps it is just the life my car leads, but it certainly needs de-tarred every six months (below the styling line and rear especially), and benefits from being clayed... if this removes the coatings, for me it renders the the large durability obselete - with one crucial caveat of course. Sometimes, it is nice to know the product can easily last longer than you need it to, a bit like it is nice to know your car can go much faster than you need it to (or are legally allowed to drive it at!).

But hopefully this makes sense - for cars that do not require such regular decontamination, great, extended durability is a winner. For mine, which benefits in terms of looks, feel from decontamination, it seems less suitable. Horses for courses of course, unless the products can survive de-tar, claying etc.


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Dave KG said:


> Durability is one of the factors by which any LSP is judged on, and durability of products that is low (ie, less than a month or two) is a concern to me as that is not long enough lasting for me. However, I also believe that to maintain the look of a finish requires regular decontamination - certainly for my car which lives outside, and based on how the paint feels it needs clayed and detarred every six or so months. It is a high mileage car. And for that reason, I like to get rid of the coating that is there, a bit like changing the car's underwear if you will... I want my LSP to last long enough so that it does not fail many times between decontaminations, but if my decontamination of the paint finish which is required removes the coating every six months then durability of six months or more is irrelevant. Some cars may go for a lot longer without needing decontaminated, sadly this is not the case for my workhorse which lives outside and gets used in all conditions on all roads.


i wouldn't say it's irrelevant if it lasts over 6 months, surely...? because things like C1 will not be removed by claying, or even a spray with tardis and ironX etc. however....these coatings which DO last longer than 6 months (again, C1 as an example) do not need decontaminating so regularly anyway, so the 6 months thing isn't really needed as often....thus it could be of benefit to you.

so in your case, something like C1 would be absolutely ideal, because you could put your decontamination phase to every 1 year or so because things like ironX, tardis etc are just not needed as often, and when they are used, they don't even kill the coating.

i'm not just saying it, but C1 has been on the car for 4 months (which lives outdoors) and it still looks ok. i certainly won't be bothering to clay it when i get back. waxes i've used in the past (collinite, some DJ stuff, FK1000P etc) don't hold a candle to how well this C1 cleans itself, or how easy it is to maintain). with collinite i used to use, i'd do the same as you, full detox every 4-6 months. but with C1, i'm not going to bother as there is no need.

all from my personal experience, others may differ but the only bad things i've heard about C1 is the loss of beading after about 6 months, but as Rob has pointed out above, that doesn't tell half the story - and it's still on there


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Dave KG said:


> and benefits from being clayed... if this removes the coatings, for me it renders the the large durability obselete - with one crucial caveat of course. Sometimes, it is nice to know the product can easily last longer than you need it to, a bit like it is nice to know your car can go much faster than you need it to (or are legally allowed to drive it at!).
> 
> But hopefully this makes sense - for cars that do not require such regular decontamination, great, extended durability is a winner. For mine, which benefits in terms of looks, feel from decontamination, it seems less suitable. Horses for courses of course, unless the products can survive de-tar, claying etc.


totally understand what you're saying...but (as my above post says) C1 won't be removed by claying or de-tarring. i've yet to clean my car since C1 application but have done my dads M3 which also has C1 on it and found i didn't need to use tardis at all....but a normal shampoo shifted it anyway. so this "6 months" thing will not be every 6 months, it'll be far longer 

give C1 a try, it's cracking.

hope that makes sense


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

The way I was reading Rob's response to handling contamination bonded to the surface over time after the paint has been protected...



gtechrob said:


> you will have to recoat that section again as you will have removed the coating.


... made it sound to me like the coating would be removed by the decontamination processes...

It would be nice if they allowed the decontamination process to be extended - I'd be interested to know what the surface chemistry in the thin layer applied is that stops, for example, iron fillings embedding or tar sticking, as it sounds fascinating  If these "hairs" help keep the tar away, make it easier to remove without damage to the hairs then that would be great, or being topped up by a top-up coating... though, for products that require topping I draw the durability line as at the first time it is "topped".


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

product on the very left is characteristically the same as 90% of what's being sold as protective coatings. put a wax/polymer etc. on your car and you are, in effect, putting something on the surface of your car that is more prone to yellowing, staining and contamination than if you didn't have anything on there in the first place.

c1 and c1 type products by nature of their physical characteristics of hardness and density are more resistant to contamination and make contaminants much easier to remove. furthermore, in our experience, light claying and using strong degreasers do not seem to damage the coating too badly.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> The way I was reading Rob's response to handling contamination bonded to the surface over time after the paint has been protected...
> 
> ... made it sound to me like the coating would be removed by the decontamination processes...
> 
> It would be nice if they allowed the decontamination process to be extended - I'd be interested to know what the surface chemistry in the thin layer applied is that stops, for example, iron fillings embedding or tar sticking, as it sounds fascinating  If these "hairs" help keep the tar away, make it easier to remove without damage to the hairs then that would be great, or being topped up by a top-up coating... though, for products that require topping I draw the durability line as at the first time it is "topped".


you missed my second post - on first read I figured you were talking about having to repolish due to bird poop damage after which you would have to recoat with c1.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> product on the very left is characteristically the same as 90% of what's being sold as protective coatings. put a wax/polymer etc. on your car and you are, in effect, putting something on the surface of your car that is more prone to yellowing, staining and contamination than if you didn't have anything on there in the first place.
> 
> c1 and c1 type products by nature of their physical characteristics of hardness and density are more resistant to contamination and make contaminants much easier to remove. furthermore, in our experience, light claying and using strong degreasers do not seem to damage the coating too badly.


Yes, this makes sense, and is why I regard a wax as a "sacrifical layer" (which is why I do not believe in topping up waxes with other products to "protect" your wax layer - it makes no sense, the wax layer is there as a sacrificial layer which you cleanse away and replace with a fresh layer.

As above, if tar (one of the bains of the Volvo's life, although being black it doesn't look bad, I know it is there) can be removed without the need for tardis (the most effective tar remover I have used), great, and this is a clear benefit to the coating... if it cannot, and then the process required to remove the tar removes the coating as well, then at this stage the coating is of little use to me personally as I will never see its durability used effectively.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> you missed my second post - on first read I figured you were talking about having to repolish due to bird poop damage after which you would have to recoat with c1.


No, I was meaning what would happen to the coating following application of: claying, not necessarily "light" as I find light clays are not always effective, Tardis for removing tar and IronX for removing iron fillings. All of which, my car seems to collect.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> No, I was meaning what would happen to the coating following application of: claying, not necessarily "light" as I find light clays are not always effective, Tardis for removing tar and IronX for removing iron fillings. All of which, my car seems to collect.


have you tried c1 yet? we haven't tested every way of decontamination on the market but certainly have clayed and tardis'd/ citrus degreased surfaces with c1 (rarely required tbh) and not had c1 performance drop off dramatically.

another pointer is c5 which is again v. v. similar in makeup - this resists wheel cleaning products and afaik is pretty much the only product out there that will provide any effective protection against brake dust eating into the lacquer of your rims.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> The way I was reading Rob's response to handling contamination bonded to the surface over time after the paint has been protected...
> 
> ... made it sound to me like the coating would be removed by the decontamination processes...
> 
> It would be nice if they allowed the decontamination process to be extended - I'd be interested to know what the surface chemistry in the thin layer applied is that stops, for example, iron fillings embedding or tar sticking, as it sounds fascinating  If these "hairs" help keep the tar away, make it easier to remove without damage to the hairs then that would be great, or being topped up by a top-up coating... though, for products that require topping I draw the durability line as at the first time it is "topped".


you don't need to top the product up - your paintwork will still retain it's high gloss and even if c1 isn't repelling water (quite often the beading will return if the car is really rinsed thoroughly) it's still resisting swirling for you and providing a non yellowing highly stain resistant barrier. c2 is only needed in this situation to bring the beading back and being a 100% non yellowing coating it compliments c1 very well.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> Yes, this makes sense, and is why I regard a wax as a "sacrifical layer" (which is why I do not believe in topping up waxes with other products to "protect" your wax layer - it makes no sense, the wax layer is there as a sacrificial layer which you cleanse away and replace with a fresh layer.
> 
> As above, if tar (one of the bains of the Volvo's life, although being black it doesn't look bad, I know it is there) can be removed without the need for tardis (the most effective tar remover I have used), great, and this is a clear benefit to the coating... if it cannot, and then the process required to remove the tar removes the coating as well, then at this stage the coating is of little use to me personally as I will never see its durability used effectively.


playing devils advocate here - why bother with the wax?

if the quality of your finish comes from the machine correcting then surely all you need to do is lock that finish down with somethign like c1 and let the c1 coating repel most of the rubbish thrown at it and from time to time decontaminate the c1 leaving yoru paint protected and occassionaly throwing a bit of c2 on just for something to do.

again - playing devils advocate - i don't buy the sterile vs warm look of sealants vs wax. the warm look is because you have discoloured your paintwork by in effect putting a coloured filter over your paintwork. the guy who designed your car spent ages getting the colour right so your car looks how he intended to so why go changing the colour with coloured waxes. makes no sense to me (but then again I could be slightly biased :lol

given that your car looks how it was designed when you have machine corrected it in an ideal world you would put nothing on it. but we all know that acrylic paints are quite prone to marring, staining etc. so coating it makes sense. we came to the coatings business through a massive dissatisfaction with the performance of protective coatings and so developed our own. we believe that whilst there are some excellent traditional products out there, nano-scale surface engineering offers a big step forward in functionality such as durability, swirl resistance, uv resistance, dirt repellency etc.


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> have you tried c1 yet? we haven't tested every way of decontamination on the market but certainly have clayed and tardis'd/ citrus degreased surfaces with c1 (rarely required tbh) and not had c1 performance drop off dramatically.
> 
> another pointer is c5 which is again v. v. similar in makeup - this resists wheel cleaning products and afaik is pretty much the only product out there that will provide any effective protection against brake dust eating into the lacquer of your rims.


I dunno i'm still skeptical about these coatings, more so after spending alot on the Nanolex kits and it lasting next to no time in my opinion anyway.

C5 again skeptical sometime i feel a washmitt and shampoo just isnt enough to clean my wheels and opt for some Autosmart's Smart Wheels to clean them properly.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

No, I also don't buy into the big differences between waxes and sealants in looks - certainly not on well prepped paints, and given how thin typical wax layers are I would say it is very arguable on most colours as to whether or not you would actually notice the change in hue.

In which case, an LSP would be most ideal delivering no change at all to looks, and being an optically clear protective layer which sounds like is the purpose of the GTech coatings (and other coatings with similar "looks" claims)... but playing devil's advocate here as well, if water behaviour is of interest to you (and aesthetically it is to me), then what advantage does C1 present to a routine whereby I can top my way layer up quickly in 20 minutes, it is not in my eyes detracting from my finish (perhaps a gloss meter may pick it up), and then following a decontamination where I can ensure my paintwork is fully clean once more I can then quickly add a layer of wax again?

I think the best thing here is suggest that there are multiple possible routines for paint maintenance, and new coatings fit ideally into some but not others... perhaps some would gain benefit from them, others may not - joy of detailing to have people all using different things of course. C1/2 is on my radar for trialling now I am getting myself back into detailing, and I am looking forward to it


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> No, I also don't buy into the big differences between waxes and sealants in looks - certainly not on well prepped paints, and given how thin typical wax layers are I would say it is very arguable on most colours as to whether or not you would actually notice the change in hue.
> 
> In which case, an LSP would be most ideal delivering no change at all to looks, and being an optically clear protective layer which sounds like is the purpose of the GTech coatings (and other coatings with similar "looks" claims)... but playing devil's advocate here as well, if water behaviour is of interest to you (and aesthetically it is to me), then what advantage does C1 present to a routine whereby I can top my way layer up quickly in 20 minutes, it is not in my eyes detracting from my finish (perhaps a gloss meter may pick it up), and then following a decontamination where I can ensure my paintwork is fully clean once more I can then quickly add a layer of wax again?
> 
> I think the best thing here is suggest that there are multiple possible routines for paint maintenance, and new coatings fit ideally into some but not others... perhaps some would gain benefit from them, others may not - joy of detailing to have people all using different things of course. C1/2 is on my radar for trialling now I am getting myself back into detailing, and I am looking forward to it


pm me when you are ready :thumb:

only thing is you are going to have to do is work out what to do with all the extra time not claying your car :lol:


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

I think we all like to see beading but when we dont we think our lsp has deminished and then feel the need to reaply and lets be honest we all love those beading shots. C1 in my usage does not like dirt or water on it, infact it takes some believing But yes its true.

Speaking for myself i can relate to what Davekg is saying as i judge an lsps performance on beading and sheeting up to now any way. How ever speaking for my self and using the new age lsps including Nano i now look at it in a differant way. Wax is and always will be great for people who love to wax. 

Rob its hard not to put something ontop of C1 but it does not need it :thumb:.

Grizzle Put some C5 on 1 wheel and then a wax on the other 3 and then judge it buddy :thumb: Im going to run some C1 and permanon Which repels dust together to see whats what with those.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Interesting Thread, i can see both sides of the argument here, but tend to agree with Dave, as like most people on here, I like waxing the car every 2 months or so, i find it almost soothing, so having an LSP on the bodywork that lasts 2 years, would be like having the mother in law live with me:lol:

Kev


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> pm me when you are ready :thumb:
> 
> only thing is you are going to have to do is work out what to do with all the extra time not claying your car :lol:


Yup, I will do :thumb: It will be the Volvo that is run with the coatings, or I may treat my dad's Astra to it as he parks his car literally on a beach and it gets blasted with salt air... perhaps both cars would give it a thorough work out


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

I guess coating or an Lsp is as individual choice and what then look for in protection. But an interesting discussion has also emerged. 

I the past Super guard, lifeshine and most of the long term LSP that are offered to potential customers when purchasing there new vehicle have come in for some bad press and people have slated there durability and lasting protection. Now whether this be down to poor prep prior to applying the long term product or the over inflated price of the product being applied. Again this is down to the individual. But as for these product and to maintain their durability and in turn their guarantee offered at point of sale. The user has to use there maintance products or after care kit. What is not disclosed to the customer is. By using the maintance pack you are essentially topping up protection and re levelling the upper surface that has been damaged over the course of time. Be it UV or air born pollution settling on the Upper level of the LSP.

So going with this thread G tech C1 is no different. As it requires C2 to top up the upper layer to re energize the Beading, sheeting and in turn its self cleaning rights. After all a car cannot self clean in it gathers standing water. Even more so it these defects in the upper layer are not toped up. And going with what PB has said about Body wrap and nanolex then these can also be considered in the same category. Due to the need of topping up. Durability can be looked at in may way. Chemical resistance, UV factor, and repelling water or moisture. So how can you claim a long term product is still protection. When there is a weak link in the chain. If the products are not topped up I would expect that the defect would in turn become more wide spread and in turn eventually lead to total failure.

We can look at it from different angles. When I apply a wax or a polymer sealant to my car. I know it will do what it is designed and marketed to do. Protect the cars surface from the environment. Aid in cleaning and cut down on the time it take to maintain it. Durability is down to the given LSP and manufacturer. Yes we can apply z8 to Zanio. But it is not necessary. You can simply apply a new coat once it has failed. This way you are applying to clean decontaminated paint. Rather than sealing in air born contamination or anything else that the wash process as not removed. Surely air born pollution sealed under C2 or some other type of top up product will cut back in clarity, looks and the main LSP. 

Rob has also said the C1 produces the lotus effect as is claimed by nanolex also. Now where this effect does work in nature as the fibres are soft and flexible. Sealants are not these micro needles are cured and brittle and friction is the enemy of all these types of products not the surfactants that are left behind by not cleaning the surface properly. Yes surfactants’ will hinder cleaning and water behaviour and can also cause a build up of debris on the surface. Any form of friction on any LSP. Whether is be a wax sealant or a long tern sealant will abrade at the upper surface, even washing. Never mind mild claying. I am not saying clay removes the coating fully. But it will have an effect on the upper layer with abrasion. So re levelling the surface. It would be far to much to expect it to simply run across the top of the pins as on the lotus effect. Is it not the case that these type of products simply self level the upper surface of the paint, making it a truer and increasing the slickness of your car. In filling all the pits undulations and defects in the upper layer of paint. So in turn making your car water proof. The water molecule is larger than the defect left behind.???

The difference between polymer sealants and these new long term sealants and what they bring to the table is the addition of quartz or silica. This is and is well proven harder than the surface of your paint. Again with the addition of these types of products . it should cut down of the chance of marring. But nothing it guaranteed as expected.
I am also very surprised that Rob brought c5 to the table. As we all know. The paint on your wheels is no different than the paint on your car. So why market a product exclusively of this specific area. The lower side panels on your car lives within the same environments as your wheels. It get covered in brake dust Splashed with contamination that your wheels throw up and in turn cover then wheels. And unless its a track car you have. You wheels will be no warmer than your bonnet of your car on a sunny day. Surely C1 would do the same job??? Or am I missing sometime here.

But cutting through all the marketing involved with products are we meant to believe that we have to invest in a coating only to have then. To buy yet another product to either protect the sacrificial layer or re energize it. Surely this means that the original product can either not be a long term protectant as in all elements of protection or lacking something it its mix??

Polymers and waxes do not require this special care and attention. So why these types of products and if the later be the case. Is the dealer super guard treatment that bad. Taking away the prep and costs involved.

Gordon.


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Caledonia:



gtechrob said:


> you don't need to top the product up - your paintwork will still retain it's high gloss and even if c1 isn't repelling water (quite often the beading will return if the car is really rinsed thoroughly)* it's still resisting swirling for you and providing a non yellowing highly stain resistant barrier*. c2 is only needed in this situation to bring the beading back.




it does not require to be topped up with C2 at all. the only real reason people use C2 after using C1 is purely for a little extra beading, that's it. in reality, once sealed with C1 all you need to do is wash it for a couple of years. you all mention claying, but honestly, it really isn't needed when you have C1. as rob (and others) have said, even when it's not beading, dirt really doesn't stick to it like it would a wax.

it was all of this "ease of maintanence" that convinced me to buy C1. i've applied it only to 2 cars and it was applied just over 4 months ago now but it's stayed WAY cleaner than it ever did with any wax i've ever used by MILES. i'll never, ever be putting a wax on my car again, i love the fact C1 practically cleans itself. that, as well as the fact i won't need to clay as often and thus run a much lower risk for marring the paint, so it doesn't need polishing as often etc etc.

at the end of the day though, it can be a personal choice. but if you guys enjoy applying waxes for whatever reason (and i do too) then there's nothing to stop you putting one on top of C1. however....want to know why i cannot bring myself to wax over C1...? because i know whatever wax i put over it, my car will get dirtier, quicker. meaning it needs to be washed more often, and meaning that there is a greater chance for inducing unnecessary scratches.

anyway, i'm sitting the rest of this one out as Rob is doing a far better job and he's the guru behind these coatings and i know he really knows his stuff so i'm gonna sit back with a cuppa 

cheers chaps,

Ross.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

I take you points on board Ross. But without beading or repealing water this is the weak link as far as durability is concerned. Water dispersal is as important as all the other factors. Also tar and tree sap adeherese to the surface as in glue So although the product may be ultra smooth. It will inevitably bond to the surface. Cleaning this should be a breeze at the start with will become hard though time. The chemical resitstance qualities these products have is more down to the size of the molicules in the chemical make up than the products resistance themselves. But as deterioration increases than so does the size of the defect and in turn resistance becomes weaker.

It does not mean to say they are bad products. But like everything else available these type products have there weak points also. But personally could not openly promise long tern durability to a customer or client. When I know it would require regular maintenance tops ups to conserve the look and protection as a hole.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

caledonia said:


> I guess coating or an Lsp is as individual choice and what then look for in protection. But an interesting discussion has also emerged.
> 
> I the past Super guard, lifeshine and most of the long term LSP that are offered to potential customers when purchasing there new vehicle have come in for some bad press and people have slated there durability and lasting protection. Now whether this be down to poor prep prior to applying the long term product or the over inflated price of the product being applied. Again this is down to the individual. But as for these product and to maintain their durability and in turn their guarantee offered at point of sale. The user has to use there maintance products or after care kit. What is not disclosed to the customer is. By using the maintance pack you are essentially topping up protection and re levelling the upper surface that has been damaged over the course of time. Be it UV or air born pollution settling on the Upper level of the LSP.
> 
> ...


not sure if you read my post gordon but reading yours I think you may have missed the point.

When we first started with c1 applications we always answered the question that was invariably asked after we had spend 1 or 2 days correcting and protectign a customers car "how do i maintain the finish?"

our stock answer at the time was - simply wash the car carefully using less soap than you used to, rinse thoroughly and dry with a microfibre drying towel.

but we knew full well that in about 50% of cases the cusotmer wouldn't believe that this was all that was required and would drop into their nearest halfords and buy some kind of shampoo with gloss enhancers or some mainstream quick detailer.

this in itself isn't going to damage the coating but it just seemed a shame that they were coating a super functional coating with something less smart which was removign many of the benefits of the coating such as stain resistance.

therefore we were always keepign an eye out for something that was more compatible wiht c1. we just happened to get lucky with a company called permanon who were, coincidentally, represented by the same company as us in Mallorca doing coatings on super yachts.

our agents reported that captains were very happy with the permanon range of products and it worked well with c1 in keeping surfaces stain free (most of our competitors in the super yacht coating business use ptfe based coatings often with quite horrendous results as most super yachts have very sooty generators and the soot would lodge very easily into the soft ptfe based coating and in extreme cases the whole back end of the boat would blacken).

so we ran some tests and found out more about the product and together with permanon we selected what we found to be the most beneficial formula as a standalone and c1 compatible product.

but having said all of the above - strictly speaking c2 is not necessary. your assumption that because the lotus effect has diminished the coating is on its way out is incorrect. in fact we found that a hydrophilic coating (ie one that attracts water) worked better at dirt repellency and for a while we had this version labelled as c0 which was marketed as a waterline coating to keep waterlines clean. however there isn't a lot in it and in altering the water repellency the uv absorption properties were slighly compromised and as a result we dropped it.

the beading effect is largerly a visual benefit but to most people it is what they judge a coating's performance from.

gordon (and dave kg) - don't take this the wrong way but as fellows putting it about that you are pretty expert in this game and with dave kg having a background in physics, I am suprised by some of what appear to be pretty subjective comments. i find that the insinuations you are makign that c1 is something similar to supagard since we recommend using c2 with it, is pretty laughable and illustrates to me very clearly that at best you haven't done your home work and at worst you have some incentive to slur Gtechniq.

as mentioned to dave - when you are ready to actually try c1 then do drop me a pm :thumb:

rob


----------



## Kokopelli (Sep 18, 2009)

But, then, all the conversation went to the nano-coatings side  

Should we not buy Zaino anymore?


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Kokopelli said:


> But, then, all the conversation went to the nano-coatings side
> 
> Should we not buy Zaino anymore?


heh - nobody is saying don't buy anything.

to use a very threadbare expression - it's horses for courses.

if your course is a nippy little right hander and the race is 4 furlongs long - a boutique wax could be for you.

if you are lining up for the grand national - c1 is the product for you.

really depends on what you want - c1 is designed for those who, well to put it bluntly, like a detailed car but don't like detailing every weekend.

waxes made from melon juice with a hint of coconut and a side order of brazilian that have to be activated by a virgin's nipple (steady!) are for those who like the process of detailing.

both are valid but as mentioned previously - the quality of yoru finish is 95% down to the quality of your machine polishing and at most 5% down to your lsp.

hth :thumb:


----------



## cleslie (Feb 19, 2006)

I loved the idea of the C1 type products. 2 years protection, what a result. Then I remembered how much I like faffing around with the cars. Both are washed weekly and if I last a month without sticking another coat of something on, I'm doing well. Low maintenance - what a nightmare!


----------



## Kokopelli (Sep 18, 2009)

cleslie said:


> I loved the idea of the C1 type products. 2 years protection, what a result. Then I remembered how much I like faffing around with the cars. Both are washed weekly and if I last a month without sticking another coat of something on, I'm doing well. Low maintenance - what a nightmare!


+1 Exactly  And it is a pleasant pursue for a week more in durability in a boutique wax or sealant. It also gives the ability to use up your paint cleaners, glazes, booster sprays faster and try many milder but lovelier shampoos to keep the LSP for longer.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> gordon (and dave kg) - don't take this the wrong way but as fellows putting it about that you are pretty expert in this game and with dave kg having a background in physics, I am suprised by some of what appear to be pretty subjective comments. i find that the insinuations you are makign that c1 is something similar to supagard since we recommend using c2 with it, is pretty laughable and illustrates to me very clearly that at best you haven't done your home work and at worst you have some incentive to slur Gtechniq.
> 
> as mentioned to dave - when you are ready to actually try c1 then do drop me a pm :thumb:
> 
> rob


Rob, please read my above posts for my thoughts on C1 and my discussion of it before drawing conclusions about *my* opinions of the product, and describing my posts as "laughable" - thank you. If you read my posts in this thread, you will see they are explaining (in what I believe to be a very fair fashion) my personal thoughts, what I perceive as advantages and what I have as concerns (re: decontamination), and my perceptions following your replies which have led me to wishing to test the product at some point after which I will post my own findings about how the product works in my own personal practical situations. As above, please read my posts and if addressing me by name in your posts, I would appreciate it if you base this on my posting and not that of others. Sorry if this sounds rather abrupt, but I don't appreciate being called into question for things that I have not personally typed, hope that makes sense.

I will be in contact once I prepare a suitable car for C1, either my own or another which I know leads a hard life.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> Rob, please read my above posts for my thoughts on C1 and my discussion of it before drawing conclusions about *my* opinions of the product, and describing my posts as "laughable" - thank you. If you read my posts in this thread, you will see they are explaining (in what I believe to be a very fair fashion) my personal thoughts, what I perceive as advantages and what I have as concerns (re: decontamination), and my perceptions following your replies which have led me to wishing to test the product at some point after which I will post my own findings about how the product works in my own personal practical situations. As above, please read my posts and if addressing me by name in your posts, I would appreciate it if you base this on my posting and not that of others. Sorry if this sounds rather abrupt, but I don't appreciate being called into question for things that I have not personally typed, hope that makes sense.
> 
> I will be in contact once I prepare a suitable car for C1, either my own or another which I know leads a hard life.


my comments were directed towards gordon but since you guys worked together i assumed he was writing from a company POV - fair play if this is not the case and I apologise for any offence I may have caused.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

gtechrob said:


> my comments were directed towards gordon but since you guys worked together i assumed you were writing from a company POV - fair play if this is not the case and I apologise for any offence I may have caused.


I'm employed by a local council as a secondary school teacher, and have no longer any business interest in detailing - I do it for the banter these days, Gordon is now at the helm of Defined Details. I just pop along to machine polishing classes because Gordon's a good mate, and they were always "my baby" so its nice to see them in action - I detail purely for social pleasure these days :thumb:


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

i think his laughable comment was aimed at whoever said their product was similar to C1 to be fair. i think what Rob found silly (i'm not Rob, so i don't know what he's thinking so i may be totally wrong!) was the fact you say about that when a surface stops beading then it points to the surface failing and that it needs re-applying. you stated this earlier on in the thread. whilst i agree that this genuinely does apply to most stuff you put on paint such as waxes, it doesn't apply to things like C1, which you have yet to try. i think the fact you were (or at least it seemed you were....i'm not saying you actually were!) assuming that C1 would be the same was perhaps a little disrespectful, but i'm 100% sure you did not mean to be disrespectful in the slightest.

i think you should apply C1 to your car, and if you were to do a test, i think you should only apply it to 1/2 your car. and at that "6 months" stage - do not do a decontamination. please don't chuck tardis at it, don't clay it etc etc and claim it doesn't last long, just wash it as you usually would with a shampoo that leaves NO residue behind. bare in mind, if you wash regularly with a shampoo that leaves something behind you'll lose the self-cleaning capabilities and then you'll think C1 is no good etc.

i'm giving you my honest word...i've not tried any boutique waxes, but i've tried collinite 476, FK1000P, 2 dodo juice waxes, AG HD wax, carlack68 NSC + LLS and a few other sealants and waxes and i can say none of them are a patch on C1.

i couldn't give a toss if it doesn't bead, all beading does is cause water marks. as Rob said, they had a hydrophilic coating which repelled dirt just as well (if not better) than C1 so that shows you don't NEED the lotus effect to provide self cleaning.

hope that clears a few things up, and in no way am i meaning to sound rude, sorry if it comes across that way.

cheers chaps,

Ross.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Where I can honestly see the benefits of long term Silica based products, as in the scratch resistant qualities. I still stand by my comments on long term durability and how they are maintained. I do know the difference in Hydrophobic and hydrophilic qualities in any product. And these also have their plus as well as minuses. Hydrophilic products rely mainly on gravity to shed water. But it is slower but very much completed drying of the surface. It has is benefits as it removes all light dust and un bonded contamination from the surface. Hence the clean car look. But again due to the standing water it also have a magnifying effect on the surface protected and as you rightfully said. Has a detrimental effect on UV protection. Hydrophobic products reject the water and sheet much faster. But they also leave water spotting and this can lead to possible damage or debris left behind.

For what you said Rob and sorry it this seems that you are being singled out, as this is not the case. Although going with you post you have taken it that way. C1 when applied forms the lotus effect. I still am not convinced on this personally. But going by what you have said. This is the reason it repels water and aids in the self cleaning ability. Now since water has a larger molecular structure than the surface of C1. It causes the water to run off. But you then say in a post on this thread that the deterioration of the lotus effect is down to not rinsing the car off properly and not UV or friction created by the end user. Surely this is a contradiction in terms. If the water molecule is larger than the surface area. Then soap residue and water would have the same effect. As both these molecules are larger than the coating. Yes this would hinder the upper surface and cause a fall back in sheeting and beading. But once rectified and rinsed properly this would return. So if we are meant to believe that the upper layer of C1 is not damaged by environmental or physical influences. Why the sudden change in the products upper layer. From Hydrophobic to hydrophilic.

C2 as a stand alone product is a very nice product and is claimed to have a high level of durability. When used neat. It is the top up part that does not sit well with me personally. Once you have applied C2 neat to your car and you carry out your wash process. As we all know not all contaminates are removed and the intervention of claying or paint cleanser are required. This would have a negative effect on C2. But if this stage is not carried out to protect the product. You are essentially sealing in the contamination and this would lead to a drop back in looks, increase surface tension. So causing beading and sheeting to slow. This can also be considered when we look at C1 with a C2 top up.

But getting back to the matter at hand and the change in C1. You say that you do not need to nor is it required to top it up with C2. But going by the drop off over a 6 month period. How much drop off would there be if the product is left to it devices???. Friction as I have already stated is the biggest influence on any LSP. Not just long term sealants. We have carried out long term research at university standard with regards this and any form of friction, created on any LSP have a negative effect even just dragging a very light cloth across the surface with no hand pressure. Which would also explain your photo of the panel left on the roof of a building, as no friction was involved. It was simply left to the elements. After all even Diamond coated pipelines in Alaska wear with the continual friction of the crude oil passing though this all day long.
I would also agree that 95% of the original looks come from the machining stage. If not higher. But knowing what the reflective index rating of clear coat is. I would also be interested in any information with regards C1 on the same scales.

As you rightfully have mentioned. Long term sealants will have their place in the market place. But surely it is better to have the truth out there as a standalone product. If someone posted up a wax test measuring durability on his given vehicle and then said they topped it of every month with a spray protectant. Then the test would come under fire and nothing could be gauged or taken from this. This is no different to long term protection. Not every member wishes to or has the desire to protect their car on every wash and this is where durability comes in. And one of the main benefits of long term sealants. But do we have all the facts on these new products and again without topping off.

Would you be happy topping off a product knowing full well that you are essentially sealing in contamination? I personally would not, as I prefer a product to protect look good and once it has run its course the cut it back. By either cleansing or claying the surface and starting once more. But this is just me.
One more question. That is if you decide to answer them this time. Unlike before when you chose to ignore them and resort to slander. At no point did I say your products where bad. But what I did try and highlight that there are no real life or worldly test that can confirm the durability of any of the long term sealants. All have either been topped off or left to their own devises. With no friction or washing over the course of the test. How can members gauge an insight into any products if most ,if not all of the test are on hearsay.
There is far to many cloak and daggers when it comes to certain product and from a personal point of view it is not needed. But then again I am only the end user and the person that applied certain products to my car., and will take this opportunity to commend you on your customer care service.


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

Gordon there are lots of good points in this thread and one i think is very relative for me is the scratch resistant qualities C1 has to offer. ( if it does ) Its a shame its not more user friendly for folk just starting out. Have a great weekend everyone :thumb:


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Caledonia, i suggest you thoroughly read Rob's posts again and the previous images he's posted. after 17 months on a yacht C1 was still performing well, so you're asking about drop off in performance has arguably been answered already.

with regard to your "sealing in contamination"....well, earlier in the thread people say they like to re-wax every month or so....are they saying they do a full decontamination and polish every month!? at least when you coat C2 on top of C1 you won't be sealing in much contamination because it doesn't stick to the surface.

not being harsh but clearly you aren't listening to what Rob is saying. many beliefs are founded by how other coatings like waxes behave, not how super coatings like C1 behave.

this is my last post on the thread because (without too much offence intended) you appear to base all of your knowledge (which largely appears subjective) on things like waxes and PTFE based coatings which don't behave anything like C1. your judging C1 in the same way you would other products (e.g. with a wax - lotus flower effect gone, wax gone, dirt adherence worse) whereas C1 is totally different.

how do you explain that even though my C4 coated plastic trim appears very black after 12 months, and still doesn't appear patchy at all, is still extremely easy to clean and has been on for 12 months. but surely if the beading has gone the coating is wearing out and it'll be harder to clean...well, i've not noticed any difference!!

Ross


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

gordon

dictionary definition of slander is malicious faleshood. not something I am conscious of doing on this or any other thread but feel free to point this out to me but be aware that opinioning on somethign that you haven't actually tested would be closer to this definition than pointing this fact out 

i think that most of your questions have already been answered - the only one that i don't believe has is your question about whether c2 is locking in contamination. yes if you don't remove it and no if you do. removing contamination using clay or something like tardis doesn't remove the c1 coating and in any case contamination is significantly reduced on c1 coated surfaces thereby often negating the need to decontaminate panels in the first place (as demonstrated by that Hong Kong roof panel test).

rob


----------



## ITHAQVA (Feb 20, 2011)

wow heated thread! :doublesho

er, im afraid of spoons & hairy men 


Common guys we are talking about sealants here, it’s not as though a guy has broken in your house smoked all your Cigars, drunk all your best Whisky whilst bedding your woman.


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

ITHAQVA said:


> wow heated thread! :doublesho
> 
> er, im afraid of spoons & hairy men
> 
> Common guys we are talking about sealants here, it's not as though a guy has broken in your house smoked all your Cigars, drunk all your best Whisky whilst bedding your woman.


when your livelihood depends on sales of a product that so called experts opinion negatively about without ever trying it - it kinda get's into this arena tbh. this business is full of halve truths but it goes with the territory as detailing is fairly subjective. I'm happy to roll with that but when threads like this start establishing received wisdom based on zero testing, rightly or wrongly I wade right in.


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

ITHAQVA said:


> wow heated thread! :doublesho
> 
> er, im afraid of spoons & hairy men
> 
> Common guys we are talking about sealants here, it's not as though a guy has broken in your house smoked all your Cigars, drunk all your best Whisky whilst bedding your woman.


God that made me laugh. it's not as though a guy has broken in your house smoked all your Cigars, drunk all your best Whisky whilst bedding your woman.

I have seen this thread as a very imformative one and has answered alot of questions people will want to know. Lots of info imo and a well mannered thread. P.s whAT cigars to you have ithaqva ?


----------



## ITHAQVA (Feb 20, 2011)

chillly said:


> God that made me laugh. it's not as though a guy has broken in your house smoked all your Cigars, drunk all your best Whisky whilst bedding your woman.
> 
> I have seen this thread as a very imformative one and has answered alot of questions people will want to know. Lots of info imo and a well mannered thread. P.s whAT cigars to you have ithaqva ?


Cheers mate dont smoke or drink (only thing i do drink is Absinthe :devil: devils brew)


----------



## ITHAQVA (Feb 20, 2011)

gtechrob said:


> when your livelihood depends on sales of a product that so called experts opinion negatively about without ever trying it - it kinda get's into this arena tbh. this business is full of halve truths but it goes with the territory as detailing is fairly subjective. I'm happy to roll with that but when threads like this start establishing received wisdom based on zero testing, rightly or wrongly I wade right in.


Totally understand, but wanted to distract the negative & move on to the informative, I will try your products one day mate, that you can be sure of :thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Well, all I can say is that if C1 resists the decontamination, and reduces the need for it in the first place, I'm looking forward to giving a good 50/50, perhaps alongside another long life sealant. Will certainly make for a very interesting test although the trouble with such a test is that it will only be able to show how the product does in the very specific conditions which I subject it to on a road car I can monitor. So will never be a conclusive est, but certainly telll a small part of the much bigger story.

It is true that these sealants just will not suit some folks - some who do just like the waay a wax works for them. We're all different after all. I fear I'm probably a fan of wax and the associated water behaviour and application deep down, but the test of C1 will be (as with my other lsp tests) purely based on results, and any personal opinions following that must be seen as just that - personal opinions. I do look forward to giving it my own run out, andd this will add to lots of info and results already available from those using it to tell the bigger pictture.

Until I've tested, I can't really add anymore thoughts for now - I've voiced what were concerns for me, discussed them and that alkone has been valuable for me and gives me greater insight into C1.


----------



## Cadillacman (Jul 18, 2011)

LOL!....what a thread !!!.....all this technical stuff is way over my head...

Think I'll stick to car-lack/klasse until it runs out, then I'll try something else...

.


----------



## Kokopelli (Sep 18, 2009)

true, true


----------



## gtechrob (Sep 11, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> Well, all I can say is that if C1 resists the decontamination, and reduces the need for it in the first place, I'm looking forward to giving a good 50/50, perhaps alongside another long life sealant. Will certainly make for a very interesting test although the trouble with such a test is that it will only be able to show how the product does in the very specific conditions which I subject it to on a road car I can monitor. So will never be a conclusive est, but certainly telll a small part of the much bigger story.
> 
> It is true that these sealants just will not suit some folks - some who do just like the waay a wax works for them. We're all different after all. I fear I'm probably a fan of wax and the associated water behaviour and application deep down, but the test of C1 will be (as with my other lsp tests) purely based on results, and any personal opinions following that must be seen as just that - personal opinions. I do look forward to giving it my own run out, andd this will add to lots of info and results already available from those using it to tell the bigger pictture.
> 
> Until I've tested, I can't really add anymore thoughts for now - I've voiced what were concerns for me, discussed them and that alkone has been valuable for me and gives me greater insight into C1.


that would be great. look I realise I got pretty heavy about this previously but I hope you realise how having a product that we have put a shed load of research into and not an inconsiderable amount of dosh (well into 5 figure sums territory) into developing, not to mention considerable field trials feeding back into endless rounds of revision being likened to products based on old technology that are flogged to unsuspecting new car punters as long life sealants doesn't go down too well.

just out of interest. my missus' golf was coated about 2 years ago. we live down some pretty wild and wooly country lanes and swmbo's motor doesn't get washed quite as often as it should. it's never been decontaminated and has had a couple of c2 dilution sprays in this period. washed it today and felt the lower parts of the body work - didn't feel any dirt whatsoever. roof did feel somewhat contaminated but very little and nothing visible to the naked eye.


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

dave - check these 2 pictures out that another user uploaded. was a buggy doing races through mud, grime, sh*t, you name it. 1/2 was coated in C1, the other was coated with a wax. guess which side was coated in C1 

the wing mirror and mud guard on the C1 side had also been done with C4.



















i think you'll agree that's pretty remarkable.


----------



## Cadillacman (Jul 18, 2011)

E21_ross said:


> dave - check these 2 pictures out that another user uploaded. was a buggy doing races through mud, grime, sh*t, you name it. 1/2 was coated in C1, the other was coated with a wax. guess which side was coated in C1
> 
> i think you'll agree that's pretty remarkable.


Looks like it's going to be C1 for me this winter ....


----------



## E38_ross (May 10, 2010)

Cadillacman said:


> Looks like it's going to be C1 for me this winter ....


just bare in mind prep work is paramount to its durability and effectiveness. before i did my car (may be a bit OTT but wanted to get it spot on...):

wash
tardis
ironX
clay (this would arguably render tardis and ironX obsolete)
quick wash again
polish with gtechniq P1
neat IPA wipe down (not strictly needed with P1 though)
final wipe down with soft buffing cloth to ensure surface is squeaky clean and dry
apply C1.

follow the instructions to the letter. it's really quite easy to apply, but it's temperature and humidity dependant. i'm going to be applying some to another car in a couple of weeks and will most likely be doing a write up.


----------



## anpictum (Feb 7, 2011)

Many thanks to all the posters on this thread. Will trial C1 + Detailing World Doublewax soon.


----------

