# 3 layers of this and 2 layers of that?



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

Does anyone else see this (wax named for examples only)

Put 2 layers of dodo juice rainforest rub followed by Nattys blue and a layer of collonite 476?

Does anyone actually find a benefit to this and visually see anything?

To me personally its muddy water over clarity of a fresh spring?

Opinions?


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2009)

:lol: think weve all been guilty when starting out valeting just piling one on top of another,but yeah know what you mean.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Very good post Mark
And I agree totally.
The examples you have given the solvents in the Colly would probably remove all the layer prior.

But I see the reason for your post. Its a marketing dream and does nothing to the looks as well as durability, in the long run.
But all LSP cloud or mask the finish. When multiple layers are applied. Due to the reflective index of the products applied. But as in every rule there are some exceptions. :lol: But this then take you to the refractive index where the base layer of paint comes into play.
Gordon.


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

Anything I try is only ever 1 layer if it doesn't last hey ho, there is plenty of product in the tub to re-apply :thumb:


----------



## Leodhasach (Sep 15, 2008)

I was guilty of layering supernatural over blue velvet over FK1000P over EZ Creme...but saw next to no improvement in finish (probably just the placebo effect) or durability.

On my latest detail all I used was Valentine's Concours over refined bare paint...and I'm very happy with it. Plus my arms are less tired :thumb:


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Leodhasach said:


> I was guilty of layering supernatural over blue velvet over FK1000P over EZ Creme...but saw next to no improvement in finish (probably just the placebo effect) or durability.
> 
> On my latest detail all I used was Valentine's Concours over refined bare paint...and I'm very happy with it. Plus my arms are less tired :thumb:


 And saved money to buy your next product. :lol:


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

i think what im trying to understand chemistry aside although i know it makes a huge difference is this.
If we take a coloured wax or a wax and state its a flat layer of its composition and hue so lets say for instance zymol royale high white nuba content and its white/clear in texture and if a flat sheet of glass id call it clear.
Then take a red wax un-named , im presuming due to colouring it must have an effect even once broken down totally into fine oils otherwise there is no point having its hue in the first place , then we look at the spectrum of colour.
Red and yellow and green blah blah blah generally = brown which to me equals opaque not translucent which takes away from the aspects of spending mega money on obtaining the best clarity from a wax be it the highest white content we can afford.
so by layering all these waxes to me we are pushing a wax further and further away from the best result possible?
my best results ever have been cleanse then wax fullstop.
Does this make sense?


----------



## Leodhasach (Sep 15, 2008)

caledonia said:


> And saved money to buy your next product. :lol:


Exactly :lol:

I should also add that it was 2 layers of each product there :doublesho


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

vxrmarc said:


> i think what im trying to understand chemistry aside although i know it makes a huge difference is this.
> If we take a coloured wax or a wax and state its a flat layer of its composition and hue so lets say for instance zymol royale high white nuba content and its white/clear in texture and if a flat sheet of glass id call it clear.
> Then take a red wax un-named , im presuming due to colouring it must have an effect even once broken down totally into fine oils otherwise there is no point having its hue in the first place , then we look at the spectrum of colour.
> Red and yellow and green blah blah blah generally = brown which to me equals opaque not translucent which takes away from the aspects of spending mega money on obtaining the best clarity from a wax be it the highest white content we can afford.
> ...


Totally and agree fully. :thumb:
Colour changed products do effect the true clarity on the finish, on a clear layer.
But have a leaser effect on a coloured layer. To keep it simple.

Sealants can be layer and built up. Where waxes cannot.
But as for layering every layer eventually masks the finish or changes it.


----------



## -tom- (Jan 27, 2009)

i have dun it at some point :lol:


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

we all have. :lol:
I have also done worse. Following my old mans washing techniques.
But thats another topic.


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

IMO two layers of any given LSP is enough, with the second layer ensuring maximum coverage. weither or not the second layer adds to the durability is questionable really tbh..


----------



## Eddy (Apr 13, 2008)

Very interesting topic marc, but would this only effect using different coloured waxes?

I mean all weather its a waste of money and weather it adds anything aside, would layering a single white wax eventually "marr" the ultimate shine?

I believe you yourself once layered 51 layers of a single wax to your VXR, any thoughts on the above?


----------



## -Kev- (Oct 30, 2007)

Eddy said:


> Very interesting topic marc, but would this only effect using different coloured waxes?
> 
> I mean all weather its a waste of money and weather it adds anything aside, would layering a single white wax eventually "marr" the ultimate shine?
> 
> I believe you yourself once layered 51 layers of a single wax to your VXR, any thoughts on the above?


that was zaino z2 sealant iirc..


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

Eddy i agree , my 51 layers of z2 topped with crystal rock although the finish was superb was simply a test for me to see how it looked and to be honest after a few layers i didnt see any difference and was all stripped off a while after , call it a personal goal at the time which is exactly what it was.
The reason i asked the question is because ive done it myself and when i stood back i wondered why i had? 
Ive seen numerous times on forums people asking what to put on their car say a red astra just for arguments sake and i see the reply " ive got 2 layers of this and a layer of that and it looks immense" and then i think to myself but does it really? Would it actually look any different if i had done one layer in a closed room then said come in what do you think?
Im thinking layering of different waxes is a placebo and something you feel good about not actually contributing anything at all.
This is why im stripping my car off again for the 3rd time and trying Jeffs gear. Ive done Royale , ive done crystal rock , ive done zaino and ive done lusso test wax and i fancy a change again , its the only way i personally can truly know what i think of a good product on a car for a long time.


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

*Colour and Clarity*

Clear coat paint is applied over the colour coat to provide, protection, gloss and to allow its colour to be seen. Waxing over a paint surface that hasn't been properly cleaned will only result in a shiny layer over dull, dirty paint - not the deep smooth, optically perfect crystalline shine that is obtainable. Without clarity the true colour of the paint cannot be seen, only a muted version of its colour.

The fact that Carnauba wax isn't optically clear is an advantage on some solid colours as it artificially deepens or darkens the colour. There is an issue with metallic's as many Carnauba waxes tend to mute metallic flakes.


----------



## Eddy (Apr 13, 2008)

vxrmarc said:


> Eddy i agree , my 51 layers of z2 topped with crystal rock although the finish was superb was simply a test for me to see how it looked and to be honest after a few layers i didnt see any difference and was all stripped off a while after , call it a personal goal at the time which is exactly what it was.
> The reason i asked the question is because ive done it myself and when i stood back i wondered why i had?
> Ive seen numerous times on forums people asking what to put on their car say a red astra just for arguments sake and i see the reply " ive got 2 layers of this and a layer of that and it looks immense" and then i think to myself but does it really? Would it actually look any different if i had done one layer in a closed room then said come in what do you think?
> Im thinking layering of different waxes is a placebo and something you feel good about not actually contributing anything at all.
> This is why im stripping my car off again for the 3rd time and trying Jeffs gear. Ive done Royale , ive done crystal rock , ive done zaino and ive done lusso test wax and i fancy a change again , its the only way i personally can truly know what i think of a good product on a car for a long time.


I think its exactly what you said, placebo effect, which could be also argued all day and night with regards to does wax A look better than wax B etc etc

I also think people do it for the fun of waxing, I read recently in a post by Dave Kg which said something along the lines of, no matter how good the zaino system is the fact that it _is_ so good means us crazy lot don't get the pleasure of waxing on a regular basis which is half the fun.

I still find myself adding random coats of wax and to be honest, I'll probably still do it. I don't think any wax I have ever used has had to break sweat to be honest as the car gets topped up so often that it doesn't have to be durable at all. Its just the crazy way I and I'm sure a feew others are.

Even if I had royale sitting downstairs, knowing full well I need never buy another wax again, you would still find me looking at all the traders sites each night wondering which to buy next.

anyway enough mumbling.


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

Yea that makes sense Eddy.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Where I can agree with some of the points raised on this thread.
I have also got to point out the there are very many exception to this rule.

Clear coat has a reflective index of 1.5 supplied by Dupont.

All LSP tested have a higher reflective index rating than the clear itself. So in short applying an LSP over this coating only protects the finish over the nature layer.

Base colour layer have also to be considered as these can either absorb the light (as in black) or be reflective (as in silver or white). These have greater effect on the absorption or reflective qualities of the clear coat.

I have found it is better to look at the refractive index figure, as this give a truer results, as absorption and reflection is taken into the equation.


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

caledonia said:


> Where I can agree with some of the points raised on this thread.
> I have also got to point out the there are very many exception to this rule.
> 
> Clear coat has a reflective index of 1.5 supplied by Dupont.
> ...


I can just see that young lad who has just passed his test with his bottle of super resin polish in his hand from his gran for christmas thinking of his car just about to walk outside , looking at this post and then putting it back under the tree :lol:


----------



## GlynRS2 (Jan 21, 2006)

When using a good wax, I use 2 layers as this just helps to make sure you have good even coverage. I can never honestly say I have seen an improvement in how it looks.

With Zaino I think you can see a difference up until about 6 coats and then there is no further enhancement IMO.
The biggest problem with Zaino is that the finish just lasts and lasts with just a top up with Z8. So inevitably I get bored and put something else on top for something to do


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

I have noticed a difference on my car (black metallic) when applying either an acrylic sealant or glaze (or both), under carnauba wax as it tends to darken the colour of the paint somewhat and gives me the finish I prefer.

It doesn't seem to matter if I use colour charged or non-colour charged products at either the glaze / seal stage or carnauba wax stage, or whether I use products costing £15 or £70, the results look indistinguishable to my eyes at least.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

TOGWT said:


> *Colour and Clarity*
> 
> Clear coat paint is applied over the colour coat to provide, protection, gloss and to allow its colour to be seen. Waxing over a paint surface that hasn't been properly cleaned will only result in a shiny layer over dull, dirty paint - not the deep smooth, optically perfect crystalline shine that is obtainable. Without clarity the true colour of the paint cannot be seen, only a muted version of its colour.
> 
> *The fact that Carnauba wax isn't optically clear is an advantage on some solid colours as it artificially deepens or darkens the colour. There is an issue with metallic's as many Carnauba waxes tend to mute metallic flakes*.


How sure are you about this? I agree with your first paragraph but not entirely with the second. In terms of what can be seen by the human eye? Lets face it, the typical LSP thickness is measured in tens of nanometres, so exactly what is the "optical loss" in going through that even for a layer which is slightly opaque, presuming it decays exponentially... I mention this as I see no evidence in practice of carnuaba based LSPs masking the flake of the finish which leads me to beleive the effect either does not happen or we cannot detect it with out eyes (which are actually very good optical sensors all told). To me, I believe the LP layer is simply too thin to overly cause a masking effect and I am yet to see this in practice on finishes, looking at either larger open flakes or smaller tightly packed flakes in the finish.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

GlynRS2 said:


> When using a good wax, I use 2 layers as this just helps to make sure you have good even coverage. I can never honestly say I have seen an improvement in how it looks.
> 
> With Zaino I think you can see a difference up until about 6 coats and then there is no further enhancement IMO.
> The biggest problem with Zaino is that the finish just lasts and lasts with just a top up with Z8. So inevitably I get bored and put something else on top for something to do


You and me both - I got bored with Zaino lasting well too! :lol:


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

Nothing to do with the perceived optical properties of Carnauba wax.The differences that some of us are able to detect between Polymer sealants and Carnauba waxes,can be explained by how the molecules are arranged,and the differences between them.Polymer sealants form a bond with the paint.Their molecules are open,and cross link forming a flat surface which reflects light very well,shows great true colour,and produces what many refer to as a 'bright' shine.Carnauba wax molecules are closed.They join up to each other,but do not join together and bond.The effect is a slight 'distortion' of the reflected image, not clouding,or muting,but a subtle 'rippling' effect that we translate as depth of colour with our eyes.


----------



## stevenebm (Jun 6, 2009)

id say put a few coats of the same wax on that you like then go out for some beers with mates and pull some chicks.job done.


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

stevenebm said:


> id say put a few coats of the same wax on that you like then go out for some beers with mates and pull some chicks.job done.


Eureka , ive got it , put a beer pump in the garage!!


----------



## stevenebm (Jun 6, 2009)

vxrmarc said:


> Eureka , ive got it , put a beer pump in the garage!!


:lol:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

waxy said:


> Nothing to do with the perceived optical properties of Carnauba wax.The differences that some of us are able to detect between Polymer sealants and Carnauba waxes,can be explained by how the molecules are arranged,and the differences between them.Polymer sealants form a bond with the paint.Their molecules are open,and cross link forming a flat surface which reflects light very well,shows great true colour,and produces what many refer to as a 'bright' shine.Carnauba wax molecules are closed.They join up to each other,but do not join together and bond.The effect is a slight 'distortion' of the reflected image, not clouding,or muting,but a subtle 'rippling' effect that we translate as depth of colour with our eyes.


I disagree with this with respect to seeing the flake through a layer that is on the paint... you are talking about what is happening on an atomic level, subwavelength which will not affect light wavelengths as the wavelength of light (hundreds of nanometers) will deal more with the macroscopic appearance of the layer on the paint... this is why, as is observed so many times in practice and is yet to be proven tenably otherwise, that a wax will not mute the metallic flake compared to a sealant. Certainly not in my experience or that observed on the wax test for example, or many others experiences. If something is of order of the wavelength of light (600nm for sake of argument, let us consider red) then you will see the effects, but is something is notably subwavelength, you will not see the effects. Similarly to why the resolution of a radar image is typically less than that of an optical image, the wavelengths are larger. So if these effects you are talking about are on the atomic size scale (angstroms, or rather ten or so nanometers), this is one order of magnitude less than that of the wavelength of light which will make it unperceivable. Which matches what is most often observed in practice.

Further, if one were to put a very reflective surface on top of the paint, then you would mask what is underneath the paint from this reflection - as you would get the reflection off of this top flat layer which you describe - light would bounce of of this and it would act like a mirror. Which contradicts the idea of allowing the flake to ping through or the true colour to be seen as this must allow light to first of all pass through the layer (not reflect from it) and then travel back through the layer. So by this, naturally, the optical effects of the layer are important as the light must travel through it and back from it after reflecting off of (and being absorbed by) the colour layer. The effect you are describing (or certianly how it reads to me) is the property of reflection off of the surface created by the LSP but you must also consider the ability of the layer to pass light through it (again subwavelength so can we really see it?) and transmit light out. Naturally a surface roughness will affect this but only if it is of order of the wavelength of the light, and what will also affect what you see is how light travels through the layer as well.

You are referring to what the molecules of different LSPs do - but you have to remember that this is happening on the atomic level, is it not? What are typical atmoic sizes of the polymer sealants you are referring to? And how does this compare with light wavelengths? And can you, in practice, see a difference between a polymer sealant and wax applied to the same paint surface in a blind test? Would be interesting to see if you could


----------



## ross-1888 (Feb 22, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> I disagree with this with respect to seeing the flake through a layer that is on the paint... you are talking about what is happening on an atomic level, subwavelength which will not affect light wavelengths as the wavelength of light (hundreds of nanometers) will deal more with the macroscopic appearance of the layer on the paint... this is why, as is observed so many times in practice and is yet to be proven tenably otherwise, that a wax will not mute the metallic flake compared to a sealant. Certainly not in my experience or that observed on the wax test for example, or many others experiences. If something is of order of the wavelength of light (600nm for sake of argument, let us consider red) then you will see the effects, but is something is notably subwavelength, you will not see the effects. Similarly to why the resolution of a radar image is typically less than that of an optical image, the wavelengths are larger. So if these effects you are talking about are on the atomic size scale (angstroms, or rather ten or so nanometers), this is one order of magnitude less than that of the wavelength of light which will make it unperceivable. Which matches what is most often observed in practice.
> 
> Further, if one were to put a very reflective surface on top of the paint, then you would mask what is underneath the paint from this reflection - as you would get the reflection off of this top flat layer which you describe - light would bounce of of this and it would act like a mirror. Which contradicts the idea of allowing the flake to ping through or the true colour to be seen as this must allow light to first of all pass through the layer (not reflect from it) and then travel back through the layer. So by this, naturally, the optical effects of the layer are important as the light must travel through it and back from it after reflecting off of (and being absorbed by) the colour layer. The effect you are describing (or certianly how it reads to me) is the property of reflection off of the surface created by the LSP but you must also consider the ability of the layer to pass light through it (again subwavelength so can we really see it?) and transmit light out. Naturally a surface roughness will affect this but only if it is of order of the wavelength of the light, and what will also affect what you see is how light travels through the layer as well.
> 
> You are referring to what the molecules of different LSPs do - but you have to remember that this is happening on the atomic level, is it not? What are typical atmoic sizes of the polymer sealants you are referring to? And how does this compare with light wavelengths? And can you, in practice, see a difference between a polymer sealant and wax applied to the same paint surface in a blind test? Would be interesting to see if you could


yes exactly what i was thinking :tumbleweed:

i have always been under the impression that a wax or sealant layer makes the paint in a sense "duller" and not increase the finish. as the best finish to paint would be it freshly polished and flattened. surely anything on top of this will make a negative change in the aesthetics of the finish.

but has the plus side of protecting the finish thats there?

please correct me if im wrong dave kg


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

well my beer pumps rigged up


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

Would I be right in thinking that the phenomena I experience of the paint seeming to darken as I apply layers of sealant / glaze and carnauba wax is, in essence, the product of the increased number of layers which have been applied (as this will cause a change in the refractive index of the paint, thus making it seem a deeper black)?


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

ajc347 said:


> Would I be right in thinking that the phenomena I experience of the paint seeming to darken as I apply layers of sealant / glaze and carnauba wax is, in essence, the product of the increased number of layers which have been applied (as this will cause a change in the refractive index of the paint, thus making it seem a deeper black)?


The reports from finstp are that with multiple layers of wax applied, there is no increase to the thickness of the overall layer of wax on the surface and the refractive index does not change either. What you may be seeing are oils that are in the LSP, many waxes have glaze oils added to them, acting to slightly darken the paint by making it look wet but layering of carnauba wax certainly doesn't seem to happen, the lab testing suggesting that if you apply wax over wax you essentially remove what is already there and replace it with the fresh wax.


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> I disagree with this with respect to seeing the flake through a layer that is on the paint... you are talking about what is happening on an atomic level, subwavelength which will not affect light wavelengths as the wavelength of light (hundreds of nanometers) will deal more with the macroscopic appearance of the layer on the paint... this is why, as is observed so many times in practice and is yet to be proven tenably otherwise, that a wax will not mute the metallic flake compared to a sealant. Certainly not in my experience or that observed on the wax test for example, or many others experiences. If something is of order of the wavelength of light (600nm for sake of argument, let us consider red) then you will see the effects, but is something is notably subwavelength, you will not see the effects. Similarly to why the resolution of a radar image is typically less than that of an optical image, the wavelengths are larger. So if these effects you are talking about are on the atomic size scale (angstroms, or rather ten or so nanometers), this is one order of magnitude less than that of the wavelength of light which will make it unperceivable. Which matches what is most often observed in practice.
> 
> Further, if one were to put a very reflective surface on top of the paint, then you would mask what is underneath the paint from this reflection - as you would get the reflection off of this top flat layer which you describe - light would bounce of of this and it would act like a mirror. Which contradicts the idea of allowing the flake to ping through or the true colour to be seen as this must allow light to first of all pass through the layer (not reflect from it) and then travel back through the layer. So by this, naturally, the optical effects of the layer are important as the light must travel through it and back from it after reflecting off of (and being absorbed by) the colour layer. The effect you are describing (or certianly how it reads to me) is the property of reflection off of the surface created by the LSP but you must also consider the ability of the layer to pass light through it (again subwavelength so can we really see it?) and transmit light out. Naturally a surface roughness will affect this but only if it is of order of the wavelength of the light, and what will also affect what you see is how light travels through the layer as well.
> 
> You are referring to what the molecules of different LSPs do - but you have to remember that this is happening on the atomic level, is it not? What are typical atmoic sizes of the polymer sealants you are referring to? And how does this compare with light wavelengths? And can you, in practice, see a difference between a polymer sealant and wax applied to the same paint surface in a blind test? Would be interesting to see if you could


Interesting,but i think you have misunderstood my post.My response was in relation to TOGWT suggesting that Carnauba can mute metallic flake in paints,because it is not opticaly clear.I stated that Carnauba does*not*mute or cloud the paint surface.Yes the arrangement of molecules is at the atomic level,i am simply refering to the differences in molecule structure between Polymer sealants and Carnauba wax.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

AJC347 Is this what you are seeing in your finish.??

Prior to application.









After product applied.









Beading of product.


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> The reports from finstp are that with multiple layers of wax applied, there is no increase to the thickness of the overall layer of wax on the surface and the refractive index does not change either. What you may be seeing are oils that are in the LSP, many waxes have glaze oils added to them, acting to slightly darken the paint by making it look wet but layering of carnauba wax certainly doesn't seem to happen, the lab testing suggesting that if you apply wax over wax you essentially remove what is already there and replace it with the fresh wax.


I've found that it is the addition of an acrylic sealant (Jetseal or AJT) or glaze (Black Hole, White Diamond), is what seems to darken the paint when the wax is applied on top.

This does not occur if I just apply 2 layers of wax (I've tried a variety of Dodo waxes (including SN), RG55 & 42, Vics Concours, AG HD wax, Natty's Red, Blue and White, Pete's 53 and Valentine's Concours and Road n Track) - the finish is just as shiny but does not appear to be noticeably darker.

The same effect was not noticeable when using Lime Prime Lite or Megs #7 prior to waxing or EZ-Creme glaze under the sealants.

This is what leads to think that there must, logically, be an interplay between the acrylic sealants / glazes and the waxes I've used.


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

caledonia said:


> AJC347 Is this what you are seeing in your finish.??


I can't quite make out what is happening in the first two pictures as the lighting conditions seem to be different.

The beading does look to be quite recognizeable though.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

ajc347 said:


> I've found that it is the addition of an acrylic sealant (Jetseal or AJT) or glaze (Black Hole, White Diamond), is what seems to darken the paint when the wax is applied on top.
> 
> This does not occur if I just apply 2 layers of wax (I've tried a variety of Dodo waxes (including SN), RG55 & 42, Vics Concours, AG HD wax, Natty's Red, Blue and White, Pete's 53 and Valentine's Concours and Road n Track) - the finish is just as shiny but does not appear to be noticeably darker.
> 
> ...


Experiments do suggest that sealants can indeed be layered to an extent... but the darkening effect that you are describing sounds more like the effects of oils that when smeared over the finish give the effect of darkening through a "wetting" effect.


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> Experiments do suggest that sealants can indeed be layered to an extent... but the darkening effect that you are describing sounds more like the effects of oils that when smeared over the finish give the effect of darkening through a "wetting" effect.


I hear what you are saying Dave, but would have thought that the 'wetting' effect would be just as evident when applied to clean paint though, without the need for some sealant / glaze layering beneath it to bring it out (unless of course the acrylic sealants / glazes are producing a darkening effect in themselves and the wax is emphasing this)?


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Here is a prior pic.
Under the same subdued lighting.









After application.


----------



## ajc347 (Feb 4, 2009)

Thanks Caledonia, I'm not getting as dramatic effect through the application of products; the paint is nowhere near as opaque and non-reflective as the finish in the first picture.


----------



## supercharged (Feb 1, 2008)

I seen some people applying a coat of 915 and topping it with Pete's 53 for tight beading action...once Pete's 53 is gone, 915 is still there...


----------



## Porta (Jan 3, 2007)

Am I the only one who see almost nothing, or very little difference on all the lsps?


----------



## Andy M (Apr 7, 2006)

I think in reality most of it is a placebo effect, add to that it has a nice enjoyment factor being the last stage before the car is done. Ive been guilty myself of adding a few layers, simply because I find it so enjoying, and you do get that feeling that your doing the paint even more good. Ive always thought the placebo effect comes from when your looking at the hazed wax on the panel, then you start to remove it and reveal shine, you are then seeing a marked difference, and this starts the whole placebo thing off.


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

There seems to be some views at the moment that contradict.If we are to believe some peoples opinions about not being able to layer Carnauba wax,then we must also assume that you can not Glaze,then wax either?If some people are suggesting that each additional layer of wax removes the previous,then how do you believe that the wax would not remove an oil rich Glaze?Further,to suggest that you can layer a Glaze with cleaners,and increase the filling ability with each additional application,contradicts the belief that you can not do the same with Carnauba wax.IMO,after using Glazes for decades,long before Detailing World,IME,you can layer low solvent Carnauba paste waxes successfully over them,without removing the filling ability of the Glaze,which is what many people on here allready know.


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

Great post OP. Not to add or takeaway from any views on this post at all. 
A nice fresh polish is without a doubt the the best look i have encountered.
Once adding any Lsp after that my eyes do not notice any detraction from that original polished look! What my eyes do tell me is 

1, A more glassy look? yes
2, A more rich colour? yes
3, A more flake enhancing look? yes

To enhance on that sealants add glassy,wet,flake popping finish. And waxes add extra colour and warmth in my eyes. is it the oils or the wax?? dont know.
Protection for me use your fav sealant for gloss etc and a your fav wax for warmth of colour.

These looks are what my eyes see and not necessarily what your eyes see. However having tried lots of differant sealants and waxes some do indeed give you differant looks and protection and length of that protection. Whether more than 2 layers will add or takeaway is? well ?? Never have i added a layer or two of something after a polish have i said that looks dull! Again great post OP, and to see lots of opinions on this topic which brings out the best!! :thumb::thumb::newbie:


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2009)

waxy said:


> There seems to be some views at the moment that contradict.If we are to believe some peoples opinions about not being able to layer Carnauba wax,then we must also assume that you can not Glaze,then wax either?If some people are suggesting that each additional layer of wax removes the previous,then how do you believe that the wax would not remove an oil rich Glaze?Further,to suggest that you can layer a Glaze with cleaners,and increase the filling ability with each additional application,contradicts the belief that you can not do the same with Carnauba wax.IMO,after using Glazes for decades,long before Detailing World,IME,you can layer low solvent Carnauba paste waxes successfully over them,without removing the filling ability of the Glaze,which is what many people on here allready know.


I do wonder if somtimes manafactures give people these 'opinions' so they can bring out a new product that solves these problems that everyone wants


----------



## ross-1888 (Feb 22, 2009)

waxy said:


> There seems to be some views at the moment that contradict.If we are to believe some peoples opinions about not being able to layer Carnauba wax,then we must also assume that you can not Glaze,then wax either?If some people are suggesting that each additional layer of wax removes the previous,then how do you believe that the wax would not remove an oil rich Glaze?Further,to suggest that you can layer a Glaze with cleaners,and increase the filling ability with each additional application,contradicts the belief that you can not do the same with Carnauba wax.IMO,after using Glazes for decades,long before Detailing World,IME,you can layer low solvent Carnauba paste waxes successfully over them,without removing the filling ability of the Glaze,which is what many people on here allready know.


i thought that when you "layer" a product with fillers you dont build up a thick coating on top of the paint surface, you would be building up inside of the defects (swirls, rds) in the paint, kind of like if you fill in a pot hole in a road. you layer it up till you reach the surface of the road.

If you read the tests that were carried out by fintp then he has drawn a conclusion that layering of waxes cannot be done past 2 layers. 1 layer fills in the void and the second ensures maximum coverage, anything more than that and you will be wasting wax. the tests where carried out using specialist equipment that i cant even possible name. but is was measured, the scientific answer would be that you cannot layer waxes.


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Contradiction or not. It has been scientifically proven that it is not possible to layer carnauba waxes. You can build up the layer, but as soon as buffing takes place regardless of the pressure exerted the wax layer returns to its previous level or there about. Sealants on the other hand are capable of being layered. But this has a negative effect on the true clarity with every layer added.
http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=127943
and
http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=130901
Glazes on the other hand fall into 2 categories oils and acrylic. Some of acrylic based glazes are capable of filling and the cleaners within these product do not remove the filler. Much the same as water will not remove emulsion when it has dried to your walls.

The oil based glazes on the other hand, as wax is an oil based substance readily except these glazes. It is all depended on the strength of the solvents within the wax, whether these glazes are reposition on the surface of the wax or excepted into the wax as a whole.

Glazes whether oil based or acrylic aid the illusion of light. They fill or glaze over microscope defects within the paints surface. In a way levelling this out. This helps in the reflective nature of the paint finish as the light is not scattered or defused and give the impression of a truer finish.

The key to any product is understanding the true nature of it and how it works. Light is not transmitted from the upper surface. But the lower layer. The base colour. It has to pass though your LSP, Clear coat and then be reflected back though these layer again to the user. This is why masking or removal of defects within the clear is paramount as this cuts down on the distortion of light. Not once but twice.
 An example this would be machining a scratch on the surface, where the paint will not accommodate full removal. If you round over the outer sharp edges of the defect. Then although the scratch is still present it defuses the light and makes it harder to see. The light is no longer directed straight back at your eyes. But scattered. To take this to the next level. Once filled with an acrylic glaze or to a lesser extent oil based glazes, there are is no edges at all to defuse or scatter the light. So aiding in a truer reflection.
Gordon.


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

caledonia said:


> Contradiction or not. It has been scientifically proven that it is not possible to layer carnauba waxes. You can build up the layer, but as soon as buffing takes place regardless of the pressure exerted the wax layer returns to its previous level or there about. Sealants on the other hand are capable of being layered. But this has a negative effect on the true clarity with every layer added.
> http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=127943
> and
> http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=130901
> ...


Nice info Gordon and lots to consider :thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Porta said:


> Am I the only one who see almost nothing, or very little difference on all the lsps?


No you are not, and I think this is the realisation that many people are at last starting to come to... it really does not matter what LSP you use, you will not change the looks of the finish - the LSP is simply there for protection. We have tested this many times, right up to the scale of using six identically prepped cars prepared with different LSPs and asking people to identify different LSPs - the results in the statistics showed that simply people could not identify a tenable difference. This is just one test but it backs up what is often said in theory, and what many people demonstrate in practice day in, day out - the looks come from the prep and the prep alone. LSPs are there for protection, and while the oils may temporarily help the finish if the prep is not as good, if the prep is good the look will not change anything beyond a simple placebo effect.



Andy M said:


> I think in reality most of it is a placebo effect, add to that it has a nice enjoyment factor being the last stage before the car is done. Ive been guilty myself of adding a few layers, simply because I find it so enjoying, and you do get that feeling that your doing the paint even more good. Ive always thought the placebo effect comes from when your looking at the hazed wax on the panel, then you start to remove it and reveal shine, you are then seeing a marked difference, and this starts the whole placebo thing off.


Nail on the head - it is, I believe, a placebo effect. Why else would you see just about every LSP on hte market being claimed to deliver a whole heap of different styles of looks that when one sits down an thinks about it, cannot be possibly all delivered at the same time!



waxy said:


> There seems to be some views at the moment that contradict.If we are to believe some peoples opinions about not being able to layer Carnauba wax,then we must also assume that you can not Glaze,then wax either?If some people are suggesting that each additional layer of wax removes the previous,then how do you believe that the wax would not remove an oil rich Glaze?Further,to suggest that you can layer a Glaze with cleaners,and increase the filling ability with each additional application,contradicts the belief that you can not do the same with Carnauba wax.IMO,after using Glazes for decades,long before Detailing World,IME,you can layer low solvent Carnauba paste waxes successfully over them,without removing the filling ability of the Glaze,which is what many people on here allready know.


You are talking about two different types of products... fillers are not LSP, they are not waxes - although do bear in mind that waxes can act to "fill" slightly though this effect is more likely a rounding effect by lessening the shaprening of a scratch edge which is of order of the wavelength of the light and thus visible to the naked eye. Fillers are carried in products such as SRP which also contain solvents. However, if it is indeed SRP we are considering here for sake of argument then do also bear in mind that a lot of these filler heavy products also have a slight degree of cut to them also, be this coming from the pad or from light abrasivesin the product itself. These abrasives will act in multiple applications to improve the finish but how then can you tell apart what is filled and what is actually corrected - you cannot. There is alslo evidence of watching high solvent products removing some of the glazing oils left behin by products. The "type" of fillers also has an effect too, which is one of the reasons Autoglym do not recomend you follow UDS with EGP (owing to the solvents which will act to strip the UDS), but you can follow SRP with it.

The "layering" of a glaze I think you are referring to is more that one can increase the corrective abilities from using a glaze that also contains light abrasives - gthis is certainly what I see in my own testing and I also believe a slight cut from the pad has its part to play also, not by fully removing a scratch but by rounding is physical appearance to make it less noticeable which is also what a wax can do on poorly prepared paintwork.

I often think that it is dangerous to simply say that because one has been doing something for years that is must be correct - knowledge bases are increasing all the time, and it is prudent in my opinion to learn from the experiments being conducted which do show that one cannot layer a carnauba wax and that the solvents in them do have the ability to strip some of the underlying products used. It is excellent, in my opinion, to finally see such experiements being carried out as we can now start to put some hard facts on an industry which was simply shrouded in smoke and mirrors and a avriety of opinions based on beleif rather than fact, and based on what could be described as a placebo effect of seeing differne looks from different waxes. It is great that we can push forward detailing for the benefits of all by really developping an understanding of how all of our products work such that instead of wasting time and product, we can maximise the performance of them for the benefits of both ourselves and in the case of professionals, our customers.


----------



## Andy M (Apr 7, 2006)

Add to that the fact you go out and spend £xxx on a wax you expect fantastic results, and in your head thats what you think you get, purely because youve spent the money.

But when you sit back and look at the results say #16 gives, it makes the rest look a waste of money


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Andy M said:


> Add to that the fact you go out and spend £xxx on a wax you expect fantastic results, and in your head thats what you think you get, purely because youve spent the money.
> 
> But when you sit back and look at the results say #16 gives, it makes the rest look a waste of money


Indeed... also, if you look at the marketing, every LSP promises the deepest shine, the wettest shine, the best reflections. Is depth of colour and high reflection possible at the same time - nope.

There is so much smoke and mirrors to the LSP market, it does make you wonder and I feel for anyone new to detailing who are faced with all these products on the market all promising the best of everything... when the simple fact is what you are looking for from an LSP is a nice durable coat that protects you hard work, and few are better than #16 or 476S at providing that, and they are cracking value for money.


----------



## chillly (Jun 25, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> Indeed... also, if you look at the marketing, every LSP promises the deepest shine, the wettest shine, the best reflections. Is depth of colour and high reflection possible at the same time - nope.
> 
> There is so much smoke and mirrors to the LSP market, it does make you wonder and I feel for anyone new to detailing who are faced with all these products on the market all promising the best of everything... when the simple fact is what you are looking for from an LSP is a nice durable coat that protects you hard work, and few are better than #16 or 476S at providing that, and they are cracking value for money.


I think this is the nut shell everyone needs to see!!! after reading lots and lots of Dave KGs posts what do the majority say? prep is the key!!!! 476 is the one mentioned along with megs 16. Sums it up fellas i think. Good on you DaveKG. But imo if you want a little extra colour then go with one thats got some oils in it, but no no no more than £50. Think im going to cop some flak for this. nevermind.


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> No you are not, and I think this is the realisation that many people are at last starting to come to... it really does not matter what LSP you use, you will not change the looks of the finish - the LSP is simply there for protection. We have tested this many times, right up to the scale of using six identically prepped cars prepared with different LSPs and asking people to identify different LSPs - the results in the statistics showed that simply people could not identify a tenable difference. This is just one test but it backs up what is often said in theory, and what many people demonstrate in practice day in, day out - the looks come from the prep and the prep alone. LSPs are there for protection, and while the oils may temporarily help the finish if the prep is not as good, if the prep is good the look will not change anything beyond a simple placebo effect.
> 
> Nail on the head - it is, I believe, a placebo effect. Why else would you see just about every LSP on hte market being claimed to deliver a whole heap of different styles of looks that when one sits down an thinks about it, cannot be possibly all delivered at the same time!
> 
> ...


Yes i am talking about two different types of products,and yes fillers are not LSP's,i am well aware of that,thankyou.I don't quite understand why you imply that i do not know the difference.My post was in response to certain people suggesting that you can't layer Carnauba,as each subsequent layer removes the previous.With that in mind,i found it strange that someone found that they could get incremental filling from using Poorboy's WD,seeing as this product contains cleaners,but no abrasives.This is the glaze i was refering to,non abrasive with cleaners,so i am not refering to an increase in corrective abilities in this case,as it's not possible.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

waxy said:


> Yes i am talking about two different types of products,and yes fillers are not LSP's,i am well aware of that,thankyou.I don't quite understand why you imply that i do not know the difference.My post was in response to certain people suggesting that you can't layer Carnauba,as each subsequent layer removes the previous.With that in mind,i found it strange that someone found that they could get incremental filling from using Poorboy's WD,seeing as this product contains cleaners,but no abrasives.This is the glaze i was refering to,non abrasive with cleaners,so i am not refering to an increase in corrective abilities in this case,as it's not possible.


One must also consider the abrasive effetcs of any pad that may have bee used in the application - there are some very good posts by L200 Steve from a while ago polishing with just water and a pad, to show the pad's effects. So even with a cleaner only product (and are we also perhaps to consider "chemical cut" here as well?) you may well see a slight abrasion of the surface, depending on the application technique and the pad used.

Why would one find it strange that a carnauaba cannot be layered when a glaze can in any case? Carnauba wax contains solvents which can and do act to remove wax layers underneath them, and can also act to remove oils that are on the paintwork too. The solvents used in different eaxes will have different effects but out of the products tested, no wax has shown itself able to layer. Sealants on the other hand, have shown layering abilities. These filler heavy glazes contain cleansers, but what exactly are these cleasners? Solvents - probably if we take the loose meaning of "solvent". But what type of solvents, what are they designed to work with and carry? I we have a resin style of filler, then naturally one can envisage layering this up but if the product also contains a solvent that will dissolve or remove this resin then surely you are going to see a loss as well as a build up. Can one then easily seaprate the increase in "correction" from what was achieved by rounding from pad abrasion and filling by filler?


----------



## Ninja59 (Feb 17, 2009)

personally i will stick with 2 layers of BOS on mine i avoid layering as much as possible reason for doing other peoples cars i *think* keeps me happy although the shi*e weather recently means ive done nothing :lol: one layer of FK on parents although i think i put some RG55 on my dads and saw no real improvement...i just seem to be doing things inside atm for example my 1/2 scale helmet :lol: FK'ed that to :lol: actually i think most of my tech stuff has a layer of FK or migilore if more special...


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

This thread http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=147213 post #23.Would we be right to assume that the cleaners contained in this Glaze,(for the purpose of prepping the paint),are stronger in functional cleaning ability,than the solvent contained in most Carnauba Paste waxes?


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

waxy said:


> This thread http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=147213 post #23.Would we be right to assume that the cleaners contained in this Glaze,(for the purpose of prepping the paint),are stronger in functional cleaning ability,than the solvent contained in most Carnauba Paste waxes?


I would cite you to a post by Chris4536 who has showed tenable correction from this product using a DA on a black Focus - how much of it was the repsonsibility of the pad choice. Likewise above, how much of the above was the pad re-smoothing the surface. If the layers are applied in close succession with a set of fillers, can we say that the effect of two layers with no cleaning effect is the same as two layers above or is there a redistribution?

I would also cite you do Dodo Factory's posts about solvents and cleaners - one should always remember that the strength of the solvent or cleanser is not always what is important - some solvents will quickly dissolve carnauba wax for example, others will not - solvent functionality is different from solvent to solvent. So while they may be stronger in cleaning ability (that is to remove from the paint ingrained grime) they may be very weak to a carnauba wax which has set on a paint surface. Whereas the solvents in a carnuaba wax may be very effective at removing previously applied and set carnauba wax but will be pretty useless at removing ingrained grime from paint. Though you do tend to find a decent cleaning ability from these solvents too - pads can come up dirty with Collinite for example if you have no pre-cleansed, and this effect is not just isolated to the stronger solvent carnaubas such as Collinite 

I'm sure also Gordon will be able to confirm his details from this test also as it was he that conducted this test - so what variables were being controlled etc will be known by him, and not myself


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

I will try and explain in a rather simple manner. Without all the chemical make up and specifics.

Lets look at standard oil based paints, for an example. You can use turps substitute or white spirits to diluted the thickness of the paint and make it more workable. When It is in a liquid form. Apply it and leave it to fully dry.

Will these same solvent soften and thin the paint once more?? No. 

Even if you had to use the same solvents used in the specific product it will not have an effect.

Same can be said as for WD or BH. But these are not alone SRP. Is more than capable of masking, but the fillers in this product has also to contend with the abrasives in the mix, as well as its cleaners.

Again we need to look at the strength of the solvents . Although these fillers are not affected by the cleaners in these products. This is not to say they will not be affected by a stronger solvent (eg Tardis.)
 Solvent of the same make up can vary considerably in volatility and well as strengths. This will aid in the curing as well as manageability of the products. Some manufacturers also use nature solvents within the produce. Almond oils, coconut oils and the like. Even well know brands try to cover certain products up by using fancy terms and claiming no solvent contents. When essentially they are but in a natural form.
 Cetyl Esters is one of these so called products. It is essentially a fatty acid and is now a day manufactured for palm leaves., or as a by product from the petrochemical industry. Its main purposes include being an emulsifier, surfactant and lubrication within the wax. Aiding in easier buffing and application. But it is also a solvent, by nature, although very gentle. But strong enough when mixed with the other key ingredients to keep the wax from setting up.

Wax is essentially the same. The solvent do have a slight effect on the cured layer but not enough to remove the cured layer. Its the friction caused when buffing regardless of pressure that has the shearing effect on the cure layer. When wax sets up and fully cures it forms something similar to a honeycomb structure. Seen under electron microscope. These chambers are full of glazing oils, gloss enhancers., and the like. Any friction across the panel simply shear this structure off, distributing the glazing elements on the waxes surface. Further test are going to start shortly when a lesser strength solvent wax is used over a more durable cured layer. I personally feel this will give a fair and much more or a level playing field. Were all bases are covered. Possibly Vic's red over Colly. As Vic is renowned for having very little in the way of strong acting solvents.

Sorry for taking this down to grass level William. But I have been probably working with waxes and solvents as long as yourself. Although always willing to learn more. But more in a different field. Where other members have not. So hence the reason for the basic explanation.

On a much lighter note though. I am glad you have gotten on well with one of the waxes only recently and look forward to any feed back you have on this. There are a few more in the range. Three cream in colour. One of them is rather raw in the blend and the other more buttery in nature. The third is not readily available, so far. But like everything else takes time to research and develop.
Gordon.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

I agree I personally initially lay a good LSP for durability then top with a good wax as I personally think I have a combination that works for me in total its 4 layers and so far I have received good reports on its durability. Also I have to admit on testing to expand this conversation a bit without going off topic is the sequence in which different "waxes/sealants" are applied in one order it may look good and give a good durable finish and in another sequence it may give very mediocre results. Personally it think it boils down to personal taste that will "refine"over time. in saying that I have recently tested this on 2 911's one with layering a high end wax and the other a sample of a prototype wax and I have to say the result shocked me a bit. 

I think the wax really does not make that much difference to the final finish. it will compliment the work that has been done prior. I have to agree other than winter I do not usually layer more than 3 coats a PWC and then 2 LSP coats buffed with a water based QD. I agree I think the more you add the more "muted" the finish can become. But if you are not prepared to regularly "wax" the car then it becomes a trade off between finish and longevity. This is only my opinion and is probably totally wrong.

one thing i have to agree with is the fact that the price of the wax really has no bearing on the finish you will achieve. I have my tub of vintage that I am really proud of... until recently that is as my application techniques got better I have found that I can get the same results from Victoria concourse as I do with Vintage.. Personally I am not a fan of coloured waxes I prefer the clear or translucent ones as I do feel there is a better finish but not really that much that the average person in the street will notice.


----------



## waxy (Feb 27, 2006)

caledonia said:


> I will try and explain in a rather simple manner. Without all the chemical make up and specifics.
> 
> Lets look at standard oil based paints, for an example. You can use turps substitute or white spirits to diluted the thickness of the paint and make it more workable. When It is in a liquid form. Apply it and leave it to fully dry.
> 
> ...


Thankyou for the usefull,if rather simple explanation.I would like to think that we can agree to dissagree on certain matters,while agreeing on others:thumb:This is what, for me makes Detailing interesting,differing opinions,techniques etc.We all share a common interest,but we may do things differently,there are no set rules,and there is an almost endless capacity to obtain knowledge.


----------

