# 74 washed out of 500ml SN shampoo??



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

*74 washes out of 500ml SN shampoo??*

Hi

One for the supernatural shampoo users...

From quick calculations, using the dilution ratio of 1:1500 Dodo recomend, I should be able to get 74 washes out of one 500ml magical bottle and a 10L bucket.

Making supernatural cheaper in the long run than Born to be mild, by around £9 a bottle.

Is supernatural concentrated enough to be able use the 1:1500 recomendations, is it going to be slick as BTBM?

If all this is correct I'm going to be buying a bargain in my eyes :doublesho


----------



## PremierDetail (Aug 23, 2008)

Well I think Born to Be Mild is all about being a very mild shampoo(ie not sripping your LSP), not about being highly concentrated which is what Supernatrual is all about.


----------



## supercharged (Feb 1, 2008)

I used SN shampoo and was NOT impressed with it...it's like washing your car with plain water - no lubricity...BTBM is far better shampoo.


----------



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

supercharged said:


> I used SN shampoo and was NOT impressed with it...it's like washing your car with plain water - no lubricity...BTBM is far better shampoo.


This is what I was thinking, I just can't see 3-4 squirts into a bucket of 10L making the water very slick.


----------



## rds1985 (Mar 7, 2009)

hmm i just got a big bottle of SN after finishing my BTBM will be interesting to see how it compares in the next day or 2


----------



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

Yes please post back what you think or pm me, it would be much appriciated.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

I was disappointed with Dodo SN (and BTBM to a lesser extent), so I've gone back to using CG and Megs.


----------



## supercharged (Feb 1, 2008)

dodgercannon said:


> This is what I was thinking, I just can't see 3-4 squirts into a bucket of 10L making the water very slick.


that's what I mean...


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

The dilution ratios are based on soap content (surfactants). SN shampoo is, in all probablity, the most technically advanced and high grade shampoo you can buy ml per ml. That's not to say you should buy it, or even like it.

You may find the wash mix isn't as lubed or as foamy as other shampoos, because we haven't artificially exaggerated these characteristics in those areas. You can use SN shampoo at more concentrated ratios, such as 800:1 and get more lubrication/foam but this isn't necessarily desirable for the job of cleaning paintwork (even though it feels/looks good).

As ever, it is best to try the shampoo at 1500:1 and see _how much dirt it removes_. That is its job. Forget assumptions - give it a go. Yes, you can get 375 litres of wash water out of a 250ml bottle and that wash water will get your car clean, assuming an average level of dirt in an area of medium water hardness. But if you want super foam, super slickness, buy a shampoo with silicone or foaming agents in


----------



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

Just the chap I wanted to reply to my thread.

What I want to achieve is as few swirl marks as possible whilst washing on a weekly baisis. Would a more 'slick' shampoo reduce the amount of swirls? I'll be using the wookies fist as they are so cool and to minimilise swirls. 

Cheers pal


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

Frequent rinsing of your washmitt will help reduce swirls.


----------



## ajmanby (Jan 12, 2010)

i use SN and as said above you don't get the slickness that you may want, however after a good snow foam i find it does the job exactly as it should, may not smell as nice as others etc but it does exactly what it says on the bottle! what more do you need?


----------



## fozzy (Oct 22, 2009)

I was a little disheartened the first time I used SN, but after realising how hard the water was I increased the % slightly and WOW it's magic stuff, but I've never been one to be impressed with soap suds flying all over the place, bear with it :thumb:


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

dodgercannon said:


> Just the chap I wanted to reply to my thread.
> 
> What I want to achieve is as few swirl marks as possible whilst washing on a weekly baisis. Would a more 'slick' shampoo reduce the amount of swirls? I'll be using the wookies fist as they are so cool and to minimilise swirls.
> 
> Cheers pal


two buckets and rinsing your mitt after each panel will reduce swirls, and pre-washing (snow foam) to remove as much dirt as possible before touching the paintwork


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

supercharged said:


> I used SN shampoo and was NOT impressed with it...it's like washing your car with plain water - no lubricity...BTBM is far better shampoo.


In all honesty, SN shampoo is probably the worst shampoo Ive ever tried. I don't mean worst at doing the job,more the shampoo I dislike the most.

Although, If I were to go looking Im sure I could easily find worse, but for the price I was mega disappointed, anyone want to buy what I have left of it :lol:


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

dodgercannon said:


> Just the chap I wanted to reply to my thread.
> 
> What I want to achieve is as few swirl marks as possible whilst washing on a weekly baisis. Would a more 'slick' shampoo reduce the amount of swirls? I'll be using the wookies fist as they are so cool and to minimilise swirls.
> 
> Cheers pal


In essence, yes, it can help... more silicone in a wash product will help encapsulate dirt to the point where the shampoo becomes a waterless/less-water/rinseless product. However, this doesn't help cleaning. The more silicone the less dirt can often be removed by washing alone (the waterless products often rely on friction of a mitt or cloth to physically remove the dirt). Instead of washing it away, you are wiping it away - albeit more safely.

But it is not a failsafe - you can still swirl paint no matter how much silicone is present. A larger grain of dirt, like a sand particle, will marr whatever the product.

In essence, good wash mitt/sponge discipline and hygiene is essential - two bucket wash, checking the mitt every pass, working top down, wheels with a separate mitt or last...

Shampoos tend to be a balancing act.

Lubricity vs cleaning
Foam vs concentration
Gloss (via silicone or wax residue) vs rinsing (residue less)
Convenience (wax or sealant ingredients) vs purity

You want a bit of foam and lubrication, but maximum cleaning (IMO). It's a cleaning stage and having a shampoo too slippery can diminish this and lead to rinsing problems - when high silicone washes are dried they are really being BUFFED 

Biggest problem is that soap isn't sexy. You can sell on price, on quantity, on smell, on thickness/viscosity (all pleasing yet ultimately irrelevant to the aim) and people oversell themselves on foaming and lubricity.

It's sad, but we could bring out a 100:1 shampoo that's thick, foamy, full of silicone, coloured brightly and with a nice fragrance and 9/10 people in the street would prefer it over Supernatural shampoo at 1500:1 surfactant concentration. And 4/10 people here (or higher) would also make the same choice. 'It's foamy! It's really slippery! It seems to add something to my car!'

Yes, but the mitt's doing all the cleaning ;-)) If it wasn't for all the silicone you'd be looking at swirls galore...

In some cases, what the market wants isn't what the market should be getting. The market wanted McDonalds and it got it. We're resisting a few of these market forces as ultimately we think it's the wrong way to go.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

AllyRS said:


> In all honesty, SN shampoo is probably the worst shampoo Ive ever tried. I don't mean worst at doing the job,more the shampoo I dislike the most.
> 
> Although, If I were to go looking Im sure I could easily find worse, but for the price I was mega disappointed, anyone want to buy what I have left of it :lol:


That probably says more about you than the shampoo, Ally :lol:


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Ally, what's with the Dodo War you're embarking on? It's really not that bad at all. Lime Prime is great too.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Maybe so, but it is my opinion, just as it was my money, that, In my opinion, was wasted. 

Im sure you understand what Im getting at.


PS Russ, I like dodo products too, Infact I have loads !!


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Ahh ok, apologies


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

The SN is a good shampoo,I am not sure why so many dont like it?


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

For me, lack of suds, but technically great.


----------



## Cheesy231 (Apr 6, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> Yup, you do seem to be a bit of a hater of late, Ally? What do you want? A cuddle from pj to cheer you up?


quality comeback from the dodo. a cuddle from pj wielding some wookies fists wouldn't go a miss :lol:


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

They are expecting more foam and more lubricity, Ross...

These don't make a better shampoo, but they make a better one in people's minds.


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

Cheesy231 said:


> quality comeback from the dodo. a cuddle from pj wielding some wookies fists wouldn't go a miss :lol:


And a bottle of Born Slippy "Just in case":lol:


----------



## MidlandsCarCare (Feb 18, 2006)

Indeed, which BTBM gives me, and a 'nice' smell

You have every angle covered IMO, nobody else does.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Cheesy231 said:


> quality comeback from the dodo. a cuddle from pj wielding some wookies fists wouldn't go a miss :lol:


I thought it a bit unfair to Ally, so took it down.

A cuddle from pj isn't necessarily the act of love it first seems :lol:


----------



## Cheesy231 (Apr 6, 2009)

Ross said:


> And a bottle of Born Slippy "Just in case":lol:


haha, i see another matt and dawn thread coming on!


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

Dodo Factory said:


> They are expecting more foam and more lubricity, Ross...
> 
> These don't make a better shampoo, but they make a better one in people's minds.


I understand fully where you are coming from Dom:thumb:I think the SN is a good shampoo because it cleans and rinses nicely too.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Its a mind game LOL.
At the end of the day, its what the customer likes, I will continue to buy BTBM beacuse I like it, but I won't buy SN again because it's not what I like. Simples

But A hug from the big chap would be nice


----------



## chunkytfg (Feb 1, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> They are expecting more foam and more lubricity, Ross...
> 
> These don't make a better shampoo, but they make a better one in people's minds.


Bit like the bilt hamber autowash. I got rid of it as I couldnt get my head round a bucket with literally no suds in it and a feeling like i was washing with plain water.

There was no denying it did it's job superbly and knowing the rest of the range of BH products was actually a very good product but i just could not like it no matter how much I knew it was good.

In a way SN shampoo is exactly the same. Personally I use it exclusively now and love it. Okay it's not as slick as some shampoo's out there but it sure does work well:thumb:


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

This just higllights the fact that you can't please everybodyDom how are the labels coming on for the new shampoo?


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

are Dodo also doing the hugs in mugs for cuppa soups?


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

-Kev- said:


> are Dodo also doing the hugs in mugs for cuppa soups?


HA Dodo Juice Hug in a Mug:lol:


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

LOL, good on you Ally 

I suppose it is the equivalent of going on a wine buffs forum and someone saying 'I had some Chateau Lafite 1963 the other day at 2000 GBP a bottle and it was awful - or at least it was for the money'. People's tastes and expectations may be different, but Supernatural is a sophisticated shampoo for those who appreciate what it is.

We would rather people didn't buy Supernatural shampoo but bought Born to be Mild instead (which is a bit more 'customer friendly') than tried it and were disappointed.

This tends to be the way we talk about the shampoos at shows as well. And in many cases we would rather people didn't go straight for the Supernatural wax either, as the more basic waxes are perhaps easier to use and more consumer friendly from the off.

PS Ross... pj has a template for the new shampoo labels, so they are in his safe, capable and ever so slightly oversized hands.


----------



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

I can really see what your getting at now. I think a shampoo like supernatural is what I'm looking for. I want it to clean, not smell nice and feel slippery, but to clean better than any other shampoo on the Market. 

How does SN compare to AG BSC? as I'm using that currently and doesn't feel slippery in the slightest but does clean pretty well and rinses lovely.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

i found the supernatural cleaned better than btbm but the btbm left more of a gloss but since gone back to my autosmart duet&autowash cheaper imo and cleans just as good if not better.but suppose different producers different markets


----------



## downhuman (Mar 25, 2007)

Yeah once my SN is gone I won't buy it again. Love Britemax and Duragloss 501 and nothing comes close for what I want. Bilt Hamber stuff I used and hated.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

For me it has to be BTBM. 
I first tried it starting last year as I was looking for a PH neutral 
shampoo, that did not leave any form of protectant behind as I was running a long term nano sealant test. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised by the results. 

Good cleaning power and very nice product to use and work with. I have not fallen under the whole SN range and prefer to buy a product that fits in with my routine. If there is a product that does the same job well then why pay more.

But this is my opinion and might not be followed by others.

On the whole shampoo issue. Where I respect Dom coming on here and answering members question.

I cant agree with his comment on waterless cleaners and the need of friction to remove grime from the finish. I have been using certain waterless washes for a while now and my wash technique Involves supporting the wash media. Yes there is friction there to an extent. But not what I would class as damaging. And I personally feel it is misleading in this respect. 

This take us to surfactants. A surfactant has nothing to do with soap or cleaners. But aids these product by removing the gaseous layer present on the surface between any LSP and the water with the shampoo or cleaners. In short it breaks down the Hydrophobic layer and lets the cleaners in the wash solution come in contact with the cars surface.

As surfactant is made up of a hydrophobic tail and a hydrophilic tail, As already mention you could have a great cleaner. But it would do Jack as in cleaning without surfactants.

Bubbles or foam is not necessary as Dom has said it is what us humans expect, and wrongly think that you need these to clean properly. Bubbles and foam is great in your bath. But its cars we are cleaning. So it is down more to the individual.

Water hardness will always play a hand in the dilution ratios on products and like everything else should be take as a guide line. Not the facts. The user must decide what they require in a product and how it must act or feel and adjust accordingly. Much the same as wax and the swipe test.

There is far to much marketing involved in products these days and the user must decide after using or at least trying where it fits the bill or not. What does not help is members saying we love this, when in fairness they are just siding with other or do not wish to be in the minority.
This does not help the forum or other member that are trying to decide on what to buy. I also does not help when people get jumped on for saying they dislike a given product or brand of goods.

We are all individuals and lets be honest there are very few bad products out there. It is all the hype that is generated by forums that build up people expectation and in turn lead to negative replies.

Gordon.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

caledonia said:


> There is far to much marketing involved in products these days and the user must decide after using or at least trying where it fits the bill or not. What does not help is members saying we love this, when in fairness they are just siding with other or do not wish to be in the minority.
> This does not help the forum or other member that are trying to decide on what to buy. I also does not help when people get jumped on for saying they dislike a given product or brand of goods.
> 
> We are all individuals and lets be honest there are very few bad products out there. It is all the hype that is generated by forums that build up people expectation and in turn lead to negative replies.
> ...


Well said Caledonia. This is the sort of thing I've been trying to say for a while but always get tagged as a Dodo hater:lol:


----------



## ross-1888 (Feb 22, 2009)

anyone fancy sending me some dodo sn and btbm samples??????

like the smell of btbm.


----------



## JJ_ (Oct 26, 2005)

Ok maybe I should have read this before I embarked on my test. I tried SN for the first time this evening and I did think the wash was brillaint, the car was very clean and easy to rinse due to as the Dodo correctly puts it lack of customer pleasing qualities. 

I was looking for a sudsy wash and to feel the lubricity however, I did notice that the suds did actually stay on the wash mitt, whereas the 15 or so other shampoo's I have they mostly "pop" before I get to the car or are artificial. 

I must say that the rinse aid or whatever you have in the shampoo is ridiculously good and the shampoo does not leave its own coating which at the end of the day if I have stumped 100 odd quid for a wax I don't want a shampoo adding its own thoughts and soppy feelings to my finish lol! 

Ok so infact this is the best shampoo I have ever laid my hands on, also it didn't dry my hands out afterward - very clever. 

John.


----------



## JJ_ (Oct 26, 2005)

ross-1888 said:


> anyone fancy sending me some dodo sn and btbm samples??????
> 
> like the smell of btbm.


I would ross but it seems you like a certain team that ross county had some fun with, I could send you some gold class and bottle it as SN ? hehe - Just kidding.

Chris does samples of all these products for a few quid and they arrive scary quick.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

i think there better on more maintained cars but lack the cleaning power on real grubby cars imo


----------



## Mirror Finish Details (Aug 21, 2008)

Well I am always up for samples to try and report back on but no one seems to want independant reviews. I like Dodo waxes but have never tried the shampoos as never had a sample to try.


----------



## CliveP (Feb 1, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> They are expecting more foam and more lubricity, Ross...
> 
> These don't make a better shampoo, but they make a better one in people's minds.


Or, as marketing tells us 'perception is reality' and marketing has long given the average punter the impression, or perception that bubbles = cleaning power.....

I've not tried SN yet, but I love BTBM.

(ps loved the demos and talks at Autofinesse at the back end of February).

Regards,
Clive.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

caledonia said:


> I cant agree with his comment on waterless cleaners and the need of friction to remove grime from the finish. I have been using certain waterless washes for a while now and my wash technique Involves supporting the wash media. Yes there is friction there to an extent. But not what I would class as damaging. And I personally feel it is misleading in this respect.


Spray a waterless cleaner onto a surface, then rinse off without contact. Then do the same with a shampoo and you'll see the effect I am talking about, Gordon. Silicone heavy cleansers and shampoos do not generally clean as well.



caledonia said:


> This take us to surfactants. A surfactant has nothing to do with soap or cleaners.


Soaps generally ARE classed as surfactants.... surface active agents.... or if you have a strict definition of soaps being naturally derived only and surfactants as being synthetic, you'll find that they are so similar in action to be considered one and the same using a wider definition. Indeed, modern cleaning ingredients used in shampoo manufacture will most likely be a mix of natural and synthetic ingredients, potentially a complex mix of soaps/detergents all operating under the surfactant banner. Saying a surfactant has 'nothing to do with soap or cleaners' is wrong. Surfactants fundamentally degrease/clean by breaking up dirt/oil and then allowing water to wash it away - and that is how soaps work. So I am not sure how you can make the statement above... surfactants clean, detergents are a class of synthetic surfactant and a wider definition of natural/traditional soap classes it as a surfactant due to the way it works.



caledonia said:


> There is far to much marketing involved in products these days and the user must decide after using or at least trying where it fits the bill or not. What does not help is members saying we love this, when in fairness they are just siding with other or do not wish to be in the minority.
> This does not help the forum or other member that are trying to decide on what to buy. I also does not help when people get jumped on for saying they dislike a given product or brand of goods.


All I would like to see is a little fairness. Not bandwagonning because a mate is launching a new product, or so and so gives it a good review or because it is fashionable to like a product. But accurate, independent reporting.
Conversely, I would also like to see less negativity from people who seek attention by 'going against the flow' who may attack extremely good products because they don't understand them, fail to use them correctly or simply enjoy the status they feel they gain by taking a rebellious position amongsth their peers. Some people just love to be controversial.... it's human nature.

The daftest stuff I see here are the rare instances when people make ********** comments from a point of ignorance - recommending or attacking products they have no personal experience of. That does the forum no favours. Opinions, suggestions and recommendations made with an open and positive mind (even if negative in tone) are to be welcomed. I love the fact our products get criticised occasionally - it raises our game and means I am comfortable with our range as nothing gets past the scrutiny of this forum. If we made a genuinely bad product it wouldn't last a month.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Mirror Finish said:


> Well I am always up for samples to try and report back on but no one seems to want independant reviews. I like Dodo waxes but have never tried the shampoos as never had a sample to try.


We could send you a sample of the shampoo but then it wouldn't be an independent test :lol:

Maybe you could buy one and report back


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Dodo Factory said:


> Soaps are surfactants.... surface active agents. Surfactants generally degrease/clean. So I am not sure how you can make the statement above
> 
> All I would like to see is a little fairness. Not bandwagonning because a mate is launching a new product, or so and so gives it a good review or because it is fashionable to like a product. But accurate, independent reporting.
> Conversely, I would also like to see less negativity from people who seek attention by 'going against the flow' who may attack extremely good products because they don't understand them, fail to use them correctly or simply enjoy the status they feel they gain by taking a rebellious position amongsth their peers. Some people just love to be controversial.... it's human nature.
> ...


Unfortunately Dom I don not know where you got your information from.
But soap contains surfactants which is an additive not part of its make up. Possibly the same place that told you red mist has solvents in it where it actually has alcohols which gas off faster than a solvent. So aid flash curing. 

Surfactants come in many disguises and can be used
In medication.
Paints.
Adhesives.
Fabric softeners.
Shampoos.
Detergents.
and even in fire extinguishers
The list could go on and on.

So the surfactants is mearly a wetting agent that displaces the gaseous layer between two surfaces.
In-turn letting the dedicated cleaner or product to come into true contact with the surface and not held in suspension above. So in short letting the cleaners clean.

I will also not be drawn into the hidden undertones tones in you response.
I am independent. But I will not be swayed by the masses either. So when I post it its my findings of the given product not what other think. If this make me a rebel then so be it.

I have already posted that I personally feel that BTBM is a very good product and has serves me well even though I do not have to use this every wash. Due to nanolex.
But this also hinders me in conducting your test with the waterless wash and shampoos. As I feel it would not give a fair indication of the cleaning ability of either product.

But I look on this very differently and can take constructive criticism on the chin, and will continue to post facts and understand product not the marketing associated with them. 

I am in the fortunate position of getting all the test equipment i need to verify and conduct my own test and this aids me in understanding how and why the products work or fail.


----------



## Daryl_mk4coupe (Oct 17, 2007)

I got a bottle of SN the other day,and the first time i uesed it i was dissapointed,as it didnt feel very slick at all,but it did clean the mrs Swift Sport. Iv washed my car twice this week,(dont ask) and i tried the tactic of agitating the shampoo before i put the grit guard in,and it made a difference,so maybe some people should try that. I do think it is a good shampoo. I tried it as it got some good reviews,and i wanted to see if it was better than the Zymol. I must say it seems to shift dirt and grime better,and also drying the car seemed to be easier. Iv used the bottle 3 times now,and you would be hard pushed to see it,unless you got a new bottle next to it,so value for money wise,its probably on the money. Though i have to confess that id had a glass of wine when i ordered mine,as i would have struggled to justify buying a £20+ bottle of car shampoo. I wouldnt hesitate buying it again though.


----------



## Dan J (Jun 18, 2008)

Think i better get a bottle of SN and try it to see what all the fuss is about, if it cleans the car thats all good imho, foam and slickness never cleaned cars 15yrs ago when i was training in this trade. 
This thread at certain points has turned into ANOTHER lets cuss dodojuice and challenge Dom rant.
alot of products from various manufacturers these days are dramatically more advanced than previous ones obviously and my personal opinion is its either too higher expectation of a product or user error that makes people get the hump.

I will post my findings on SN once ive tested itim sure it will clean the car as its been designed to do that.


----------



## Dunkwho (Jan 23, 2009)

I picked up SN because the cost per wash is just so good. I tried some BTBM and was happy with that so thought I'd go up one when working out the CPW when it came to ordering a bottle. I never have a very frothy wash with which ever shampoo I use, I get my water from my water butt ... as mentioned above a quick flick with my hand and I can get some bubbles - but it washes really well either way!

Oh - and samples of both available in the samples section 
http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=149274


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

caledonia said:


> Unfortunately Dom I don not know where you got your information from.
> But soap contains surfactants which is an additive not part of its make up. Possibly the same place that told you red mist has solvents in it where it actually has alcohols which gas off faster than a solvent. So aid flash curing.
> 
> Surfactants come in many disguises and can be used
> ...


Gordon, I am not going to get into an argument with you. You like to take the stand of some kind of independent chemistry expert, and sadly, your knowledge is more limited than you think. You are attempting to discredit me and the products my company makes and you are in no position to do so - Red Mist has a paraffinic solvent at its base and yet you try and complicate the matter and confuse people by inferring it doesn't have a 'solvent' in, it has alcohol in. And alcohol can be used as a carrier anyway. I can tell you the exact make, type and supplier of our paraffinic solvent, if I so wished. It is a paraffinic base, not an alcoholic base.

I couch my answers in general terms that people understand. Sure, my scientific knowledge is limited too, I acknowledge that, but I have never attempted to mislead the forum or knowingly spoken anything but the truth. Your attempt to dissect and propensity to confuse the forum with these quasi-technical points does not serve the community as much as you think it does.

Saying surfactants have 'nothing to do with soap and cleaning' and then making a big deal about it is a case in point. Surfactants really refer to the way soaps work and although you could potentially argue that only synthetic detergents can be classed as true surfactants and natural soaps should be purely classed as soaps, this is like trying to argue that wax and sealants are hugely dissimilar in the way they work when they aren't. Soap is generally classed as an anionic surfactant. Surfactants could refer to the whole ingredient involved or an additive within a cleaning formulation, but it really just describes the way that it works, and the way that it works means that it cleans... removing grease/breaking up dirt etc. Indeed, modern 'surfactant' ingredients used in shampoo making could contain detergents as well as a more traditional fat acid/alkali soaps - these are the commercial ingredients we are dealing with. Poring over some text book definition of soap vs surfactant vs detergent and trying to break things down into hydrophilic bonds and tails etc does the forum no favours as some newbies even struggle with sealant vs wax, wax vs polish, polish vs LSP, let alone all this. And wikipedia, where you probably get your 'info' from quite plainly states that soap is an anionic surfactant on the surfactant entry. To be honest, I am more interested in couching the science in a digestible and easily understood way and I have had to go into far more detail here and risk confusing things even further to counter your claim. I'm sure you could continue to nitpick until the cows come home, but to what end?

You also have close associations with another manufacturer, whether you claim to be independent or not.

We also have test equipment and welcome comments from customers and even competitors. However, whilst you may have a friend at a lab, you seem to be on a little crusade against 'marketed' products. All products on general sale are 'marketed', Gordon - why do you want to splice and dice ours compared to all those Zymol products with montan oil in, the Simoniz 'no buff' wash that you rub with a towel (ie buff) or even the enzymes within CG E-zyme? There are juicier stories out there than a shampoo that 1) we haven't extensively 'marketed' (where is the ad for it? where is the press release?); that we haven't made an overclaim for (indeed, I had it working at 1:7000 with water and we chose to recommend 1:1500 as we don't like to overstate these dilution ratios) and 3) we simply make available and don't even push that strongly.

I hope that you give this all a bit of perspective as I feel you are on some kind of mission. You have the capability for independent and informed debate, but challenging what is in our products (that alcohol vs solvent claim), dissecting my answers and generally confusing the forum (IMO) isn't fair or reasonable behaviour and I feel like I am the victim of a 'trolling'.


----------



## ross-1888 (Feb 22, 2009)

this seems to be a common theme with you dom. even when the mitrechem thread was running. everyone claimed that me and my brother had a close ties with a certain manufacturer. and twitters was flooded with messages, of a certain manufacturer trying to bring down the dodo name. no one is trying to bring you down . some of your stuff is pretty good. as for what is in your proucts, then only you and the folk whjo make them know what they are made of.

I have seen gordons collection and i can tell you there are certainly more dodo juice products in it, than there are of this certain manufacturer that you keep referring too. 

i personally like the idea behind dodo. and like the funky colours and labels. and imo tbh maybe 5 out of 10 products i have tried i liked. but im a strong bulever that why buy something thats £30 when a products that costs £10 will doo the same thing.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

That is fair comment, Ross. It isn't a cheap product and if you feel a cheaper shampoo works for you then buy it.

However, how can Gordon say Red Mist has got alcohol in it when it is a paraffinic solvent?

The manner of some posts made on this forum go beyond interested, reasonable comment though. They seem to be driven by an agenda. They may not be - but that is the way they come across. I am aware on some threads that even some of my posts may be picked up in this way, if another manufacturer's product is mentioned, so care must be taken. Like it or not, there are historical associations between rival companies and various members. The comments will never be seen in an independent light. It's one reason why I am happy that people know who I am from my nickname on here.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Dodo threads never fail to ammuse, that is for sure.
As for the contents of your products, I couldn't possibly comment. My knowledge of chemistry is,well, non existant. 

All this talk is putting me in the mood for buying some more of the range I've not tried...must resist !!


----------



## Cheesy231 (Apr 6, 2009)

ross-1888 said:


> i personally like the idea behind dodo. and like the funky colours and labels. and imo tbh maybe 5 out of 10 products i have tried i liked. but im a strong bulever that why buy something thats £30 when a products that costs £10 will doo the same thing.


i strongly agree with this, but this is why i BUY dodo products over others. they do the job they are intended for and 99% of time they are cheaper. the initial outlay may seem a bit steep when you do only receive small bottles of smelly stuff but id rather get a product i believe in that works out cheaper. its essentially proven that most of the bigger manufactures are using silicones and bulking agents to emulate a decent shampoo when all your getting is half an american gallon of water.


----------



## Daryl_mk4coupe (Oct 17, 2007)

The reason why good products cost more,is because they dont just knock up a formula and sell it to the public,they employ specialist people to research and test the products before they go on sale. So when you pay £20 for a bottle of something instead of £6,you are not only buying a superior product,you are buying all the R+D and testing that has gone on before the product even reaches the shelves.


----------



## Dan J (Jun 18, 2008)

yep dodo products are more money than id like them to be but they do what they say on the tin and some so its money well spent imho. and yes people dont seem to realise that alot of money has to go into research etc etc to produce these products its not cheap.
dodojuice products rock even if they do cost that little bit more than the next company.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

To be fair, there are economies of scale and larger companies can write off R&D costs over a longer period of time. If we were a company of Autoglym's size and had been going 40 years, not 3, we may be able to get you Supernatural Shampoo at half the price.

That is why SRP is so good and so cheap 

However, one of the sheeting/rinsing ingredients in Supernatural shampoo is more commonly used in sealants and very expensive and unnecessary in the estimation of most manufacturers. We can only put some of these ingredients in because people will pay for a decent shampoo with decent ingredients. The supplier confirmed we were the only UK person they sell to and were amazed we were using it in a car shampoo... If we were selling Supernatural Shampoo in Halfords for 5 GBP for a US gallon something would have to give as you couldn't make enough savings on economies of scale alone - and it would be the expensive ingredients. You have to have a brand that can carry a high price point - could Megs or Autoglym get away with a shampoo that is 24 GBP for 500ml? Would their customers pay it? Would the buyer at Halfords entertain the idea?

Luckily, people know enough about who we are and what we do to make an informed decision that isn't based wholly on price, and we can afford to make a product unconstrained by normal budgets or customer preferences.

I think the only other companies that could carry such a high price point for a shampoo would be Zymol or Swissvax, due to their super-premium positioning, so maybe they will do something with their shampoos in the future to raise the game.

But then again - if people like foamy bulked out water laced with silicone, why bother? You'll get much richer pandering to the masses than I ever will justifying, explaining and arguing about a sophisticated wash here.


----------



## Blazebro (May 18, 2007)

Wow, this thread has gone so off topic it's ended up in the atlantic.

One minute it's about SN shampoo, then the BTBM fanbois have arrived and next it's gone into a spat about surfactants. 

At the end of the day it's only a shampoo, something that can be bought for £1 from any motorfactors and it does exactly the same job. If someone wants to spend £££££'s on another product because it smells nice and has a nice feel is totally down to them. Personally a product has to offer more for me to splash that kind of cash.

I don't particularly like DJ products, I actually think they're performance is hindered by their determination to make them look, feel and smell nice. I much prefer industrial type chemicals which meet their intended purpose 100%.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Fair point, Blazebro, but those industrial products may not be meeting their intended purpose 100%.

There is a fair bit of trickery and marketing that goes on in that market as well. 

And those 1 GBP products may do the same job, but they don't do it the same way or as well.

It's best to keep an open mind in all areas, but it is true that making products consumer friendly, easy to use, colourful, fragrant etc can compromise the products slightly. Which is why we did Supernatural, which doesn't have that kind of stuff in.

Also trade products also tend to have colours and smells in as well. Bilberry is coloured, for example. Most of the Autosmart range have colours and fragrances. No bad thing.

We would always like people to treat products as they find them in performance and usage terms rather than assessing it as a 'consumer' or 'trade' product and making an assumption because of it.

Some trade products are good, some aren't. Same for 'fancy' consumer products.


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

I'll read through this thread when I've got more time, but tbh. I'm getting a bit fed up of reading the bickering on here about all the technical stuff, which seems to me is being fuelled by more than simply getting the facts laid out for the benefit of members, and threatens to start getting personal and even defamatory. I'm pretty damn sure it's doing nobody any favours, it'll be turning visitors to the site off DW and detailing in general, and taking the fun and enjoyment out of it.


----------



## revocupra (Feb 5, 2006)

My 2p worth too....

I have had no joy with supernatural shampoo either as per my previous posts and PM's to Dom.

Also my main reson for posting is that whenever a product is more expensive than dodo juice products and people compare performance dom always fights back to say his version works just as well for CHEAPER. I.e HD Cleanse vs Lime prime.

also the fact that Dom always talks about silicone and massive reposts are crazy yet always confusing to say the least. Do we really care that much about indredients....it's not as if we eat it?

as a newbie on here i thinks its fair say there is a market for dodo juice with fancy colours and smell....but i'm more intrested in performance and quantity than anything else. (i.e why buy colour charged wax's just to match the colour of your car?)

Not having a go just giving my basic opinion on what ive seen and used.


----------



## ross-1888 (Feb 22, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> However, how can Gordon say Red Mist has got alcohol in it when it is a paraffinic solvent?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> no idea... he will probably be back on here tonight lol.


----------



## Blazebro (May 18, 2007)

revocupra said:


> My 2p worth too....
> 
> I have had no joy with supernatural shampoo either as per my previous posts and PM's to Dom.
> 
> ...


Likewise, when there's a product cheaper than Dodo's, which does exactly the same job, they'll still swear blind theirs is a superior product, and make statements about the product, possibly one they've never tried or heard of.

One reason why i'd have a problem parting with my cash on a DJ product.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Show me the post where I state Lime Prime works well for CHEAPER... you can't, because I never posted it. If some price comparison is dragged up it would be based on comparison and fact. Why accuse me of hypocrisy? I just don't get this forum sometimes.

I spend a lot of time on here helping to let people know how products work and tricks of the trade, and you're saying that you're not intrested or it's confusing. Fine, don't learn about fillers and silicones and carnauba percentages. An ignorant consumer is a happy consumer. But I started posting as I thought people wanted to know the truth.

Some people are trying to challenge some of these posts for whatever end. Perhaps they just like a robust argument or debate, but when I try and couch something in simple terms it leaves me open to a pedant dissecting what I have said. And when I couch it in technically correct but overly complicated terms, people get confused.

Let me state this again.

Whether you like our products or what I state, I have never 'spammed' a thread about how you must buy our products. I never knowingly tell porky pies or BS people. I even play pretty fair with other manufacturers when I have *evidence* of misleading the market and deliberately lying to consumers. And this forum probably knows a lot more about products since I've been on here and busted a few myths and told a few manufacturer's tales.

Who else is on here telling you how it is from a manufacturing perspective? We have some great people like Florian from Nanolex and Pete from Bilt Hamber who occasionally have the time to chip in, but most of the manufacturers present are just resellers or agents. Many manufacturer representatives don't even KNOW what is in their own products. I can only tell you half the stuff I actually know for legal reasons, but believe it or not, most of it actually rings true.

I post openly, not under a pseudonym as a 'happy customer'. You can, of course, look at my comments from a 'vested interest' point of view and please do. You'll see the number of times I help people with other products or praise our competitors. You can challenge me and ask me questions. But I am amazed at the occasional hostility and negativity that is shown towards someone trying to get a few facts out into the open.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Blazebro said:


> Likewise, when there's a product cheaper than Dodo's, which does exactly the same job, they'll still swear blind theirs is a superior product, and make statements about the product, possibly one they've never tried or heard of.
> 
> One reason why i'd have a problem parting with my cash on a DJ product.


Again, this is BS and essentially defamatory. Show me the posts.

How you can get away with 'hating' posts like this is just absurd. It is hardly in the spirit of a friendly forum.


----------



## Blazebro (May 18, 2007)

Dodo Factory said:


> Again, this is BS and essentially defamatory. Show me the posts.
> 
> How you can get away with 'hating' posts like this is just absurd. It is hardly in the spirit of a friendly forum.


Post no10:

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=164319

There is a clear suggestion (to me) that shampoos that leave a finish don't clean and BTBM and SN do.

And as a direct quote:

"And those 1 GBP products may do the same job, but they don't do it the same way or as well."


----------



## ahaydock (Jan 4, 2007)

Guys keep this professional or I'll simply lock it! I know Viper has already had to chip in and it would be a shame to shut this down.

I'm sure we can all keep are opinions professional and constructive, and stop the pointless bickering :thumb:


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Blazebro said:


> Post no10:
> 
> http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=164319
> 
> There is a clear suggestion (to me) that shampoos that leave a finish don't clean and BTBM and SN do.


I never said they don't clean - I just said that those ingredients can inhibit cleaning, which they can.

You are trying to twist the facts.

Very sad.

It is also clear you don't want to learn much about detailing products, so trot on.


----------



## revocupra (Feb 5, 2006)

dodo, If you keep things to the point and keep it simple maybe we all could understand you and your products better. (you keep going off on one making no sence or refrence to posts)

Together with massive replys everytime! you dont have to defend yourself and your company in every topic do you?


----------



## Blazebro (May 18, 2007)

Dodo Factory said:


> I never said they don't clean - I just said that those ingredients can inhibit cleaning, which they can.
> 
> You are trying to twist the facts.
> 
> ...


So can alot of things, like adding overpowering perfumes.

I don't really know what there is to learn about a shampoo. The markets flush with them, so my choice not to buy DJ products really isn't going to harm your business in any way, so in your nice customer focused way, I'll trot on.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

I don't. 

Maybe if you spent more time here you'd see it's repeated troublemakers who may have an agenda trying to stir things up.


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

Blazebro said:


> So can alot of things, like adding overpowering perfumes.
> 
> I don't really know what there is to learn about a shampoo. The markets flush with them, so my choice not to buy DJ products really isn't going to harm your business in any way, so in your nice customer focused way, I'll trot on.


Good.

:wave:


----------



## revocupra (Feb 5, 2006)

Good, just everytime i look here for help (esp from the likes of you) it can be misleading at times when i need more direct information (i.e. how to use for best performance)

which is sad as i sold my Sn shampoo and purchased the Sn drying towel instead (just as well it's works without instructions haha)


----------



## supercharged (Feb 1, 2008)

Dodo Factory said:


> The dilution ratios are based on soap content (surfactants). SN shampoo is, in all probablity, the most technically advanced and high grade shampoo you can buy ml per ml. That's not to say you should buy it, or even like it.
> 
> You may find the wash mix isn't as lubed or as foamy as other shampoos, because we haven't artificially exaggerated these characteristics in those areas. You can use SN shampoo at more concentrated ratios, such as 800:1 and get more lubrication/foam but this isn't necessarily desirable for the job of cleaning paintwork (even though it feels/looks good).
> 
> As ever, it is best to try the shampoo at 1500:1 and see _how much dirt it removes_. That is its job. Forget assumptions - give it a go. Yes, you can get 375 litres of wash water out of a 250ml bottle and that wash water will get your car clean, assuming an average level of dirt in an area of medium water hardness. But if you want super foam, super slickness, buy a shampoo with silicone or foaming agents in


I guess when we talk what's the best shampoo out there, it's more of what works the best for me, and you never know that you like it 'till you try it...After trying SN with original wookie I was not impressed (expected more lubricity, and that wookie is very hairy, while I prefer shorter hair cuts for easier maintaince), and actually traded them off, but I was impressed with BTBM sample, that I decided to order 500ml bottle...and now I ordered Supernatural Trim sealant and SN short hair wash mitt to see how they will work for me...everyone has the personal preference, not everyone is the same...I like the word Supernatural, I really like SN wax, and plan on trying SN drying towel aka Jedi Blanket too...


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

OK, well apologies for that.

It is just a microfibre towel and there are care/use instructions on our website but it could be something we add to the packaging.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> Good.
> 
> :wave:


Lolz, on the subject of drying towels, my SN one and my CG orange one have "died". They just seem to spread the water around rather than absorb it. Any solution to this issue ? Also what cause it as I always just handwash my towels in the sink. Given the price of these products I cannot possibly treat them as "throwaway". I need a solution- white vinegar wash not working.

If nobody understands the issue I'm on about then I could video a quick example using the Jedi blanket tommorow.


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

AllyRS said:


> Lolz, on the subject of drying towels, my SN one and my CG orange one have "died". They just seem to spread the water around rather than absorb it. Any solution to this issue ? Also what cause it as I always just handwash my towels in the sink. Given the price of these products I cannot possibly treat them as "throwaway". I need a solution- white vinegar wash not working.
> 
> If nobody understands the issue I'm on about then I could video a quick example using the Jedi blanket tommorow.


dont know if it will resolve but that 3d wash for microfibres is meant to be good in fact ill ask steve next time i see him hes got some:thumb:


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

They have absorbed silicone from detailing products and gone non-porous.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

chrisc said:


> dont know if it will resolve but that 3d wash for microfibres is meant to be good in fact ill ask steve next time i see him hes got some:thumb:


I've got the CG version but I tried that In The washing machine as per instructions on bottle, but still the same mate, just moves the water about on the car. Thanks for the suggestion anyway mate.

Ally


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Dodo Factory said:


> They have absorbed silicone from detailing products and gone non-porous.


well does TTD contain silicone, as this is the only drying aid I have ever used. Can you suggest a solution Dom?


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

TTD contains a small amount of water soluble silicone that washes out of microfibres when used in machines with standard detergent. It could also be from the shampoo you use (why I have gone on about no silicones in shampoos in the past), quick detailers and LSPs.

I would personally try a machine wash with a detergent. Failing that I would get a batch of cloths dry-cleaned.


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Thanks Dom, I will try the above and report back.


----------



## Spoony (May 28, 2007)

Someone had posted on here about bringing life back into MFs through boiling them in some manner, can't find the post though


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

i now wash myn with surecare no fragrence stuff used for people with allergys liquid type can be got at wilkos couple pound a tub in sink untill i try the 3dmf wash then stick them on washing line


----------



## Ebbe J (Jun 18, 2008)

Dodo Factory said:


> They have absorbed silicone from detailing products and gone non-porous.


I have stopped using Megs LT for this reason.. Two of my Miracle Dryers are completely non-absorbent, they literally bead water.

Now I use SV Quick Finish as drying aid. Some may say that it's way to expensive for this use, but I find that it does an awesome job and I use very little per wash. And so far none of my newer drying towels have died, and they've been washed quite a few times now.

Sorry for OT, but AllyRS isn't the only one out there having these problems.

Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## dodgercannon (Apr 4, 2010)

Il be getting the SN drying towel soon, don't want to wreck it at that price. But would demon shine have silicones in that will ruin it? As I've got 4L of the stuff .


----------



## Dodo Factory (Apr 11, 2007)

It isn't the silicones, it's the *type* of silicones.

Some silicones are oil based and need to come out with strong detergent/solvent.

Some silicones are water based and much milder; they will come out in the washing machine with normal detergent.

Manufacturers have been driving towards higher performing products that are water repellent for longer and more durable (resistant to detergents etc) - a good thing. But the side effect is that some of the regular quick detailers, waxes, sealants, shampoos etc now contain very strong silicones. When we formulated Time to Dry as a drying aid we were aware of the effect it could have on drying towels so we made sure any silicones would disappear in the wash. Some products are particularly bad for this effect, but we can't comment further as it would be unfair.


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

I used my Sn shampoo again tonight and I think that its a good shampoo.It cleans well,rinses easily ect but I will admit its not as nice as BTBM but saying that its still a very good shampoo IMO


----------



## grant_evans (Mar 2, 2008)

i used it today aswell, i agree btbm is better.


----------



## empsburna (Apr 5, 2006)

Some interesting reading. I feel like giving SN Shampoo another chance now.


----------



## tosh (Dec 30, 2005)

Spoony said:


> Someone had posted on here about bringing life back into MFs through boiling them in some manner, can't find the post though


I've tried stuff like that - boiling in a pan, washing on boil wash, and vinegar - vinegar rinse - all didn't work for me... didn't know about the dry cleaning option though - I have a couple of PakShak's that have died, and will give them a go next week to see if I can find a helpful dry cleaner...

Saying that, my mate's dad owns a dry cleaning business... bit far to go though...

Cheers - will report back on success...

T


----------



## tony2 (Jan 31, 2010)

lol another dodo thread that's gone bad with Ally at the heart (love you Ally mate) and the mods protecting dodo regardless of the underlying implications, 

Remember guys you opinions only matter if there not bashing a sponsor........

Guess who will get another mysterious suspension 


See you guys In 24hrs


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

^^
Yes,could the mods please explain what is with these "suspensions" and the rules surrounding it. Or should I start a new topic regarding it ? 

And to let everyone know- I got one." Everyone has a price", this statement could not be more relevant to the way the mod'ing is done on this forum, it is incredible.

Ally


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

sad to see ally if peoples getting suspensions for exspressing a view.thought that was point of a forum.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

chrisc said:


> sad to see ally if peoples getting suspensions for exspressing a view.thought that was point of a forum.


Yes that would seem silly if in fact that happened


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

Brazo said:


> Yes that would seem silly if in fact that happened


is that aimed at me that would be a shame as i spend money etc on this forum.through traders etc polished bliss autobrite autosmart to name a few.and help members in any way i can.and charitys etc gave to through the site


----------



## -Ally- (Mar 6, 2009)

Brazo said:


> Yes that would seem silly if in fact that happened


Not a very clear reply, are you suggesting that these suspensions aren't actually happening ?

Ally


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

chrisc said:


> is that aimed at me that would be a shame as i spend money etc on this forum.through traders etc polished bliss autobrite autosmart to name a few.and help members in any way i can.and charitys etc gave to through the site


It wasn't mate no, I just used your text as an example.

Ally if you wish to know the exact reasons for your suspension then please contact a mod. In the meantime this thread has gone so far off topic it has IMO run its course.


----------

