# Quadrapower and Supa Snow Foam comparison video



## slapshot (Jul 29, 2007)

I'm getting very different results with these two foam products through an Autobrite Foam Lance:


Jetwash Direct - _Quadrapower Snow Foam_
Autobrite Direct - _Supa Snow Foam_

The JetWash Direct Quadrapower Foam seems far superior. The foam is thicker, clings for longer, disolves road film better and I use 1/5th of the quantity.

Here's a comparison video I made today for anyone interested.


----------



## pete79 (Feb 13, 2007)

wow i know what im gettin when i need some more.top vid nice one


----------



## Detail My Ride (Apr 19, 2006)

Try adjusting the Pan of the lance to a wider angle, and turning up the 'knob' which adjusts the dilution rate, IE, the amount of foam. The amount of foam produced by both is minimal.


----------



## Affection to Detail (Jul 6, 2006)

Yeah, I was just gonna add, I tend to have a larger fan to allow the foam to settle on the car. I use SSF, but a bit more in the bottle. Just love foaming


----------



## Detail My Ride (Apr 19, 2006)

Affection to Detail said:


> Yeah, I was just gonna add, I tend to have a larger fan to allow the foam to settle on the car. I use SSF, but a bit more in the bottle. Just love foaming


More?

I think he's used a little to much there IMO. An inch topped up with WARM water is perfectly fine.

Also, using warm water does make a difference compared to using cold water.


----------



## paddy328 (Mar 4, 2007)

Yeah, there is something not right there. The amount of foam from the autobright bottle is **** poor. I use the supa snow foam with the same foam lance and it comes out like shaving foam. Not really a fair test, or a true representation of both products

Like gaz said, adjust the settings on the lance.

You seem to be using alot of product too.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2008)

paddy328 said:


> Yeah, there is something not right there. The amount of foam from the autobright bottle is **** poor. I use the supa snow foam with the same foam lance and it comes out like shaving foam. Not really a fair test, or a true representation of both products
> 
> Like gaz said, ajust the settings on the lance.


ditto


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

Its was a far test use same amount in both bottles on the same settings. Do think you can be much fairer


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2008)

racquel said:


> Its was a far test use same amount in both bottles on the same settings. Do think you can be much fairer


As an AB SSF user, I know that you can get an almost shaving foam type consistency using slightly less product than shown in the video. I suspect that the dilution setting on the lance needs adjusting to produce this effect.

However, the test clearly showed the same quantity of product being carefully measured out and diluted, with water, to the same amount in the bottle. I assume the dilution setting on the lance was the same for both products. In that respect, the Quadrapower showed a significantly greater foaming potential. I don't think that either product was being shown to the best of its ability.


----------



## slapshot (Jul 29, 2007)

All valid points. And in answer to them ...

1) I delibrately used identical amounts of each product
2) I diluted both using warm water
3) The foam lance knob was 2 turns open from the fully closed position in both cases

I did achieve better foaming results the first time I used the lance. Much like the shaving foam analogy mentioned above. For the video I was concentrating equal settings for the two products and didn't want to monkey around with the settings during the test.

The critical difference for me was the amount of diluted product I ended up using on the car. I needed to use a whole bottle of the Autobrite Supa Snow Foam to foam the car but I only used 1/5th of the bottle with the Quadrapower.

It's also worth mentioning that the car has 2 coats of Collinite Wax on it and unless the car is dirty both foams just slide off. Not that I'm complaining!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 21, 2005)

:doublesho :doublesho :doublesho :doublesho 

That aint right!!


----------



## Kron (Aug 29, 2007)

Thats very different to the results I get with the pink Autobrite SSF, I use about 1/4 of what you put in the bottle and get very thick clingy foam with my HD lance.


----------



## slapshot (Jul 29, 2007)

I'm as surprised as anyone. I got the 5 litres of Autobrite Supa Snow Foam with the HD Lance as a special offer just after Christmas. Thought it was foaming nicely until I tried it with the Quadrapower I had lying around. The difference was astonishing so that's why I posted the video comparison.

Happy to repeat the test with the advice given here but I can't see it making much difference.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

slapshot said:


> 3) The foam lance knob was 2 turns open from the fully closed position in both cases


I'm not sure if the new HD lance is of a different design, but on my original style AB lance (red dial mounted on the side) the dial adjusts the pickup ratio from around 5:1 (water:solution) to over 50:1. The full range of pickup adjustment is selectable through just over 1/2 turn of the dial.

I tend to operate my lance very close to the maximum pickup setting (roughly at 10:1 - yes I was sad enough to measure pickup rates at different settings) and use about 1" of product in a 1L bottle. This gives me a nice thick foam that dwells for several minutes.

I'm pretty sure that 1" product in a 1L bottle represents about a 7:1 dilution ratio, so together with the pickup ratio, I'm sure the product hitting the car is close to the 80:1 recommended dilutio ratio for AB's SSF. 
I'm pretty sure I did some quick experiments a while back and found that using a higher pickup rate on the dial (i.e. closer, or at, 5:1) and a weaker solution in the bottle gave slightly better foam than the other way around. Either way, aim for a specific overall dilution rate and you should end up using the same amount of product anyway.

You test does clearly show that the Quadrapower produces a denser foam for the same amount of product and dilution rates. I would be tempted to increase the dial setting to increaase pickup rate then decrease the amount of product you dilute in the bottle - you may get away with only 1/4" of product.


----------



## slapshot (Jul 29, 2007)

Phisp said:


> You test does clearly show that the Quadrapower produces a denser foam for the same amount of product and dilution rates. I would be tempted to increase the dial setting to increaase pickup rate then decrease the amount of product you dilute in the bottle - you may get away with only 1/4" of product.


Fair point. I guess it's possible that the Autobrite foam needs to be far more dilute before it starts foaming properly. Counter intuitive, but I'll give it a try and report back.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

slapshot said:


> Fair point. I guess it's possible that the Autobrite foam needs to be far more dilute before it starts foaming properly. Counter intuitive, but I'll give it a try and report back.


Sorry, I meant for the Quadrapower - I think you could use significantly less of the Quadrapower than the SSF, but still get the same foaming effects.

I know that SSF and a foam lance can easily cover a car in a thick, dense foam that clings for several minutes (although your Collinite may affect this ). Since you used a fair bit of product, I think the issue is with your dial setting. Once you have found a dial setting for SSF that does produce a thick mouse, I reckon you could get the same effect with the Quadrapower but using significantly less of the product in the bottle (obviously, still topped up with water).

Is your Quadrapower the same stuff as sold by Auto-Rae Chem? From the specs of this product, that has a standard dilution rate of 400:1 compared to AB's SSF which is 80:1. I think Quadrapower may well be my next foam product to try.


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

If you used less of one than the other thats not a far test.

When testsing product use the same quanitity of each as you have done


----------



## slapshot (Jul 29, 2007)

Phisp said:


> Is your Quadrapower the same stuff as sold by Auto-Rae Chem? From the specs of this product, that has a standard dilution rate of 400:1 compared to AB's SSF which is 80:1. I think Quadrapower may well be my next foam product to try.


Ah ... gotcha.

Yes, Quadrapower Snow Foam is from Auto-Rae Chem.


----------



## jimjon (Mar 30, 2007)

slapshot said:


> I'm as surprised as anyone. I got the 5 litres of Autobrite Supa Snow Foam with the HD Lance as a special offer just after Christmas. Thought it was foaming nicely until I tried it with the Quadrapower I had lying around. The difference was astonishing so that's why I posted the video comparison.
> 
> Happy to repeat the test with the advice given here but I can't see it making much difference.


i was in exact same situation, and tried the Cleanyourcar super snow foam and instantely found it much better than the Pink AB stuff.

i think the clear/pissy coloured snow foams are all the same product jsut different labels. There's a funny smell about it that the AB one doesn't have, almost like a fishy glue type smell


----------



## jimjon (Mar 30, 2007)

also thats a lot of product you use :!

i divided my bottle up and only use about 100ml of product


----------



## jimjon (Mar 30, 2007)

actually your is about to the 100-125ml line anyway :lol:


----------



## Deanoecosse (Mar 15, 2007)

racquel said:


> If you used less of one than the other thats not a far test.
> 
> When testsing product use the same quanitity of each as you have done


Disagree with this, different manfacturers will recommend different dilution ratios for their product, so you would need to follow what they advise. Some products will be stronger than others, hence requiring less of the product to be used.


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

*To test the products and give correct readings you need to use the same amount of product on each test. That will give you proper results.*
Ok I agreed with this that different manfacturers will recommend different dilution ratios for their product, but none of you guys follow the directions - as you mixed products together!!


----------



## Deanoecosse (Mar 15, 2007)

racquel said:


> *To test the products and give correct readings you need to use the same amount of product on each test. That will give you proper results.*
> Ok I agreed with this that different manfacturers will recommend different dilution ratios for their product, but none of you guys follow the directions - as you mixed products together!!


Come on Racquel, we're men, we dont do instruction manuals! Instructions are just bits of paper stuck inside the box to protect the product while in the post are they not?


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

Deanoecosse said:


> Come on Racquel, we're men, we dont do instruction manuals! Instructions are just bits of paper stuck inside the box to protect the product while in the post are they not?


So true!  :thumb:



Deanoecosse said:


> Disagree with this, different manfacturers will recommend different dilution ratios for their product, so you would need to follow what they advise. Some products will be stronger than others, hence requiring less of the product to be used.


Agreed. To compare products, the manufacturers directions should be followed. In this case Quadapower @ 400:1 and SSF @ 80:1. Unfortuantely, I think the OP may have been using far higher dilution ratios (i.e. too much water to product) due to the pickup dial setting on his foam lance - this is based on my experience with SSF.


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

GUYS PLEASE LISTEN

To compare you must use the same amount of product on both tests, regardless of the dilution rates - otherwise it is not a direct test.

ie Apple with apples and not bananas and apples.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

Have to agree with everyone (again) in that dilution rates will be different for different products, however, racquel is also right, she is saying use 1" of all the products (not mixed) and just top up with WARM water and see what does the best.

That is a fair test and will show what does what with that amount of product.

I can see this annoying certain compaines, but if your in the market for a snow foam that works and is cost effective (you get alot of washes out of the amount bought) then this has to be the fairest way to do it.

(Yes I am in the market for a snow foam that works and is cost effective so am watching this and any test with intrest).

Just my thoughts.


----------



## magic919 (Mar 11, 2007)

I always felt the quadrafoam went further. I have both.

Some say seeing is believing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

But at this rate will have 4 different 5 litres of snow foam, lol

I only want the one for now, just one that works and I get the most out of.


----------



## charlie. (May 11, 2006)

Who sells this Quadrapower then?

Looks good stuff, a wee sample would go down a treat!


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

racquel said:


> To compare you must use the same amount of product on both tests, regardless of the dilution rates - otherwise it is not a direct test.





matt1263 said:


> ..., however, racquel is also right, she is saying use 1" of all the products (not mixed) and just top up with WARM water and see what does the best.


I am bemused by both statements. Surely to assess a product correctly you would aim to use it as the manufacturer specifies? By over or under diluting a product you are going to obtain incorrect results. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

In the end when you have compared products by using same amount .

and lets me honest how many of you use as per recommended directions?

and how many mix products - where that say on the directions!!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

1" of either product is fair, I dont really want to start using marker pens on the side of bottles showing how much product to put in the bottle, just want to put 1" in and fill with water.

So cant we just use the 1" measure as the rule of thumb?

Its a nice simple way, one without have a bottle in various shades of marker pen.

I am not contected to any company in any way, I just want a snow foam that works and is value for money.


----------



## charlie. (May 11, 2006)

I can vouch for the Quadrapower or as it's REAL name is Auto Rae-Chem Snow Foam - awsome stuff, shaving foam like.

On the other hand - If thats what SSF is like I'll stick to what I know.

:lol:


----------



## Deanoecosse (Mar 15, 2007)

Phisp said:


> I am bemused by both statements. Surely to assess a product correctly you would aim to use it as the manufacturer specifies? By over or under diluting a product you are going to obtain incorrect results. Please correct me if I am wrong.


ABSOLUTELY, that's my point because different brands of snowfoam will be different strengths hence needing different dilutions. 1" of brand X may be too strong and strip your LSP, whereas Brand Y may be quite weak and need double the amount to create good foam. You need to follow what the manufacturer says for the chemicals they provide.

Just like different beers in the same sized bottle contain higher or lower alcohol contents than others, different brands of snow foam contain different chemical makeups and require different dilutions.


----------



## riz (Dec 17, 2006)

my supa snow foam isnt pink?


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2008)

So who is going to buy all the snow foams, line up over 10 dirty cars and snow foam em one at a time using measures set out by the makers (which has already been proven not to be read)?

Yes I agree that Brand X might be stronger than Brand Y and theirfore strip the wax, but the only other way is the above.

Now with enough OCDs on here, must be someone with all the snow foams and willing to carry out a full and compresensive test, but would this upset those that sponsor the site?

I still think the 1" guide is the best rule of thumb for those just wanting a snow foam that works and is worth the money spent.

And whilst I sound like I am being cheap here, all the products I have in my house/garage range from cheap to expensive (for me anyway) all share the same thing in commen: they work and are value for money.

Not wanting an arguement, just want a level playing field and a product that works.


----------



## charlie. (May 11, 2006)

Out of curiosity guys, how many DIFFERENT snow foams are there?

As in different makes/ingrediants etc - not just different names.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

racquel said:


> In the end when you have compared products by using same amount .
> 
> and lets me honest how many of you use as per recommended directions?
> 
> and how many mix products - where that say on the directions!!!


I certainly do, and can also vouch for the auto rae snow foam as the demo easily showed for those that like foam it has it, for those that like cleaning power it has it, for those that like a smart finish , it has it :thumb:


----------



## magic919 (Mar 11, 2007)

This is the seller I got mine from http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SNOW-FOAM-5L-AUTO-RAE-CHEMS_W0QQitemZ220153892746QQ


----------



## Affection to Detail (Jul 6, 2006)

Gaz W said:


> More?
> 
> I think he's used a little to much there IMO. An inch topped up with WARM water is perfectly fine.
> 
> Also, using warm water does make a difference compared to using cold water.


I tried a bit more just to see what would happen 

Also may I add the PW pressure affects it as well. I get a lot more foam with the new king size PW than the old ickle one.


----------



## Mr Shoelaces (Dec 27, 2007)

Hi Guys,

Im sorry to say that both those products didnt perform very well. These little screw on bottles arent very good as they dont allow enough air in to the solution to make it foam, also it depents on the concentration rate of the detergent and which surfactants they have used to make the product. you really need to invest in a proper foaming lance to get the best results from the products and if you can use warm water all the better quality foam. 

When using any product through a pressure washer you should always start at the bottom of the car and work upwards, often the bottom of the car is dirtyer and need long dwell time and also you dont get run makes where the detergent has started to clean as it has run down the side of the car. 

I have used lots of differnt foaming TFR's Bonnyman in Scotland played around with putting fragrances and clours foam in their products last year but didnt really catch on. I have been using Espuma Activo for about 4 months now and have found this to be the best product for its price and for the shaving foam effect and its cleaning power. Espuma also do another product which is really concentrated but is maninly used for trucks and vans. The Activo is non caustic which is ideal for the cars I clean at the high end of the market.

I stay away from the Auto (Sm)Fart Actimousse but I have never used the product as demonstrated in the video clip and dont think I will.

Thanks for reading!


----------



## racquel (Dec 18, 2006)

Well your mad mate, you should always keep an open mind, new products on the market all the time there for a reason to save you time and money in the long term.


----------



## magic919 (Mar 11, 2007)

Mr Shoelaces said:


> I have used lots of differnt(sic) foaming ...snip....
> 
> I have never used the product as demonstrated in the video


I wouldn't lose too much sleep, Rach.


----------



## Mr Shoelaces (Dec 27, 2007)

I did say that I do try many different products and I agree about keeping an open mind but when it comes to me spending my money I want the best performance and let the chemcials do the work not me. The products demonstrated dont foam anywhere like the product I now use, so I suspect, that they are not as concentrated but again that may be down to the equipment. In my honest opinion I have found that the resellers products are never as good as a company that manufactures the products, thats why I said I tend to stay away from Auto Fart and Auto Glum products.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

Mr Shoelaces said:


> I did say that I do try many different products and I agree about keeping an open mind but when it comes to me spending my money I want the best performance and let the chemcials do the work not me. The products demonstrated dont foam anywhere like the product I now use, so I suspect, that they are not as concentrated but again that may be down to the equipment. In my honest opinion I have found that the resellers products are never as good as a company that manufactures the products, thats why I said I tend to stay away from Auto Fart and Auto Glum products.


 Autoglym make their own products, but as you say, that is your findings, others have been successful using the products demonstrated.
Also the it is partly to do with the foaming agent in the product, however more does not necessarily mean more foam cocnut diemetholide (or something like that) is a common foaming agent, however detergents are intrinsiically foaming and have additives to the mix to stablize the foam :thumb:


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

Mr Shoelaces said:


> In my honest opinion I have found that the resellers products are never as good as a company that manufactures the products, thats why I said I tend to stay away from Auto Fart and Auto Glum products.


What on earth are you talking about. I can gaurentee you that ALL Autosmart products are designed and manufacturered by Autosmarts own chemists in house at the factory in Staffordshire. Non of AS products are sold onto other companys for rebranding and they do not sell the formulations to other companys for ANY of their products either. Im pretty sure if you contact them they will allow you a tour of the factory and labs if you think otherwise.

I notice you say you stay away from Actimousse Plus can you tell me why?

I notice you say the espuma that you use or whatever its called is non caustic. Actimousse Plus is also non caustic.

Im sorry you feel the way you do about AS stuff but if your going to rip our stuff apart at least come up with some facts rather than incorrect assumptions.


----------



## Mr Shoelaces (Dec 27, 2007)

I think you have misunderstood my comments completely! Also I guess from your reaction that you must be an AS franchise? Auto Smart do sell the products on, they sell them to the franchise who then in turn sell them to the end user, I’m not knocking Auto Smart at all the products are good but everyone to their own opinion and the above is my opinion and maybe you are not best judged to give a fair and balanced view considering you have bought in to the Auto Smart concept. The products when they are despatched from the manufacturing site may be of good quality and I’m sure there is a temptation for the franchise to…… well lets say try to increase profit margins! 

I have been using chemicals for over 20 years and seen chemical companies come and go and Auto Smart have always stood the test of time so I think you shouldn’t get tetchy over a little criticism . Every chemical company can’t be good at everything all the time but you might disagree and think that you are but I’m sure people on here will testify differently. 

I do still use some products from your company but I’m also willing to try new products and when I find better products then I’m entitled to use them and tell others about them that’s the idea of the forum. Maybe you should reconsider reading comments when you might not like what you read


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

Mr Shoelaces said:


> I think you have misunderstood my comments completely! Also I guess from your reaction that you must be an AS franchise? Auto Smart do sell the products on, they sell them to the franchise who then in turn sell them to the end user, I'm not knocking Auto Smart at all the products are good but everyone to their own opinion and the above is my opinion and maybe you are not best judged to give a fair and balanced view considering you have bought in to the Auto Smart concept. The products when they are despatched from the manufacturing site may be of good quality and I'm sure there is a temptation for the franchise to…… well lets say try to increase profit margins!
> 
> I have been using chemicals for over 20 years and seen chemical companies come and go and Auto Smart have always stood the test of time so I think you shouldn't get tetchy over a little criticism . Every chemical company can't be good at everything all the time but you might disagree and think that you are but I'm sure people on here will testify differently.
> 
> I do still use some products from your company but I'm also willing to try new products and when I find better products then I'm entitled to use them and tell others about them that's the idea of the forum. Maybe you should reconsider reading comments when you might not like what you read


Ive no problem with criticism as long as there are facts. It good to see how our products compare to others. Of course no one chemical company has the monopoly over every single product. I just thought i should correct you on the issue of our products being manufactured by other companys or our products being sold on to other companys and rebottled. As i said,all our products are 100% designed and manufactured by AS chemists. The only time a 3rd party comes into the equation is sometimes to test new products and send back their results/findings and see if they are the same as ours.

As for the franchises trying to increase profits i dont want to get into a debate about that other than say that all our products are sealed one way or the other from the factory.If you are given something with a broken seal then you should ask for a replacement. I will also add that it is more than their franchises are worth to try and mess with something.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

racquel said:


> *To test the products and give correct readings you need to use the same amount of product on each test. That will give you proper results.*
> Ok I agreed with this that different manfacturers will recommend different dilution ratios for their product, but none of you guys follow the directions - as you mixed products together!!


sorry, just read this thread from the start, and totally disagree with this. if each product should be tested against each other, then a level playing field should be exactly what the product has been designed for, so each should be up against each other in their correctly diluted form.

say for example you were comparing washing up liquid, and one is more concentrated than another, then the dilution ratios would be different, so if you used the same amount of each product (hence ignoring the recommended dilution ratios) then the results will be different..


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

From a manufacturer's point of view this is an interesting subject. When we're formulating new products it's good to compare the development formulations with existing products from other companies. It's most important though to keep focused on what you're trying to achieve. With a "snowfoam" product the number one - we think - aim is to produce a product that shifts as much dirt, debris, traffic film as possible with little mechanical assistance from surface contact, wash mitts etc. It's also important that the product conserves any wax or sealer film previously applied.

The amount of foam it produces and the stability of the foam is secondary. While foam builders, stabilisers and caustic are often added to these products it must be asked if they're necessary. It's the surfactants that are or *should* be working. Too stable a foam prevents the bubble collapse. Bubble collapse allows fresh surfactant to act on further contamination, this is what you need - test your snowfoams and look to see how much filth is removed as gravity pulls the foam down the vehicle.

A heavy foam may look good but is it effective?


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

bilt-hamber kid said:


> From a manufacturer's point of view this is an interesting subject. When we're formulating new products it's good to compare the development formulations with existing products from other companies. It's most important though to keep focused on what you're trying to achieve. With a "snowfoam" product the number one - we think - aim is to produce a product that shifts as much dirt, debris, traffic film as possible with little mechanical assistance from surface contact, wash mitts etc. It's also important that the product conserves any wax or sealer film previously applied.
> 
> The amount of foam it produces and the stability of the foam is secondary. While foam builders, stabilisers and caustic are often added to these products it must be asked if they're necessary. It's the surfactants that are or *should* be working. Too stable a foam prevents the bubble collapse. Bubble collapse allows fresh surfactant to act on further contamination, this is what you need - test your snowfoams and look to see how much filth is removed as gravity pulls the foam down the vehicle.
> 
> A heavy foam may look good but is it effective?


Yey but it's not as much fun watching people crash their car as they watch when driving past. Seriously, dwell on the car is important too. The surfactants need a chance to work on the dirt before running off. IMHO


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2008)

Oh, and its how you apply the product as well, something I was doing wrong but am now doing right.

That helps in the dwell of the product.

But from my own trials, using various companys, then auto-rea chem is the one for me till I get a sample I want to try from another company.


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

Matt1263 - You're right :thumb: dwell time is important - it's the speed of wetting that dwell is important for. The wetting ability of some surfactants is far more "powerful" than others - with high-end surfactants you wouldn't want the foam to sit there for too long a period - as only those molecules at the dirt/surface interface would be having any effect. As the bubble subside and the applied product/water mix creeps down the panels unused surfactants take their turn too - that way more work gets done. Foam stabilisers may be good in a bubble bath but could really upset a hard working surfactant blend that is quick to wet soils and, more importantly, shift 'em.


----------



## tlzeebub (Feb 13, 2008)

I just wish i could connect my AB lance to my Karcher that quick instead of spending 10 minutes wrestling with it on the floor


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

bilt-hamber kid said:


> Matt1263 - You're right :thumb: dwell time is important - it's the speed of wetting that dwell is important for. The wetting ability of some surfactants is far more "powerful" than others - with high-end surfactants you wouldn't want the foam to sit there for too long a period - as only those molecules at the dirt/surface interface would be having any effect. As the bubble subside and the applied product/water mix creeps down the panels unused surfactants take their turn too - that way more work gets done. Foam stabilisers may be good in a bubble bath but could really upset a hard working surfactant blend that is quick to wet soils and, more importantly, shift 'em.


is there another BH product in the pipeline? I know the AW foams well but are you looking at a dedicated foaming product by any chance?

I also agree that the thickest foam doesnt necessarily give best performance. I have recently changed foaming style and am coming to the conclusion that a mix that runs off the car a little more, might actually be cleaning a little better.

BTW - Surfex in my SSF makes a better cleaning mix


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

Watch this space soon! 
Can't say any more or the 'kid' and his 'da' will cut me up into little pieces and feed me to the fishes, I think was the phrase used.


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

Yes - new snow foam about to come. It's an active one with NO CAUSTIC so it won't be bearing the HARMFUL cross marked on some. It's tackles a wide range of soils to faciltiate max non-contact cleaning. Even if it dries on the paintwork - say on extra hot days, or you've got distracted during the job, then it'll rinse easily and completely with just fresh water. It contains poweful hard water deactivators too. There's no added foam builders it's the highly active surfactant blend that does it all, so we've crammed it full of the hardest working ones. Forecast - snow this summer!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

sounds good, if its anything like the autowash then i cant wait for it


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2008)

sample?


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

May well do limited samples - watch this space. Our products are genuinly built to perform so they're not the cheapest to produce although we stick to our philosophy of NOT putting on high margins. Ta guys.


----------



## Finerdetails (Apr 30, 2006)

I persoanlly think this was a fair test.

All variables were kept constant, amount used, amount of water, foam gun settings.

Nothing wrong with the set up, just showed the difference in the two products and how one works on a lower variables, and one needs a lot more.

One is obviously going to be cheaper in the long run. Now which one did I use for most of last year? The one that worked with least amount of cost


----------



## dominic84 (Jan 27, 2007)

Surely most of these snow foam products are just re-branding of the original Texaco formulation?


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2008)

name a new product?

And I mean NEW, not a new version of.

Yes snow foam (under various names) has been around for a while, but its getting better and better.

But the B-H "might" be worth a look if your in the market for Snow Foam, since they seem to be the "Ronseal" company of the cleaning world.

Hence I have some of their products (all to be used in a detail day I have organised). I have no doubts that once used the car club will be putting orders in since they are after VFM and ease of use. Something I think the B-H products do.


----------



## bilt-hamber kid (Dec 4, 2007)

Detailing day sounds interesting. 

Our product has nothing to do with Texaco I can assure you. You would be amazed at the different level of perfomance that can be achieved with these cleaners. A poor one may well foam beautifully, have great dwell time, but do less than little to any dirt apart from making it softish. 

A good one should lift, and remove soil - as it falls from the panel look for discoloured foam - we have a lightbox test that we use for side-by-side comparisons with others. If it's not shifting soil it's no good even if it does look dramatic with a fluffy white car.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2008)

And this product will rinse off easy?

Have seen a "foam" with rinse aid and that does rinse off (as you would expect) very easy, which helps on a windy day.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

bilt-hamber kid said:


> Detailing day sounds interesting.
> 
> snip
> 
> ...


I agree with what a good cleaner should do, and indeed the BH (along with a few others I have) do just that. A cloth for drying will reveal if the product is removing traffic film
Fortunately for me I do not have to make a living from car cleaning (but the extra cash is nice) .
It is hard to deny though as you have read from other posters, many foam fans like thick useless foam (even if they don't want to admit it) .


----------

