# Traffic Film Removers (TFR) ; discuss



## GleemSpray

In response to the thread about Power Maxed TFR which went a bit off course, I thought I would start a neutral thread (see what I did there?  ) about the merits or otherwise of using TFR's on paintwork work and trim. 

Particularly, how to effectively clean dirty cars in winter, when time and weather is against you. So TFR'S v snowfoam v Citrus pre-wash v ONR and similar v any other suggestions. 

I would like to keep this thread as a considered discussion if possible. 

All are welcome to contribute.


----------



## Spoony

Most snowfoams are derived from tfr. In fact most probably are tfr. I know magifoam is designed for curtain sided lorries hence the high dwell time.


----------



## rottenapple

A pre-wash should be chosen in the same manner you would choose a polish, least aggressive to get the job done. Manufacturers have a wide range due to this factor, one which cleans quickest and easiest may not always be the best for the situation in hand. I use tfr's before full decontamination not weekly maintenance wash, i use less aggressive products for that.


----------



## AllenF

Pre wash tfr snow foam 
Here we go detailing or valeting.
Bottom line they ALL do the same job which is to loosen traffic film ( traffic film being an oily snotty dusty salty grime that sticks to paintwork) 
Now IN THEORY hot water SHOULD do the same job. How effective it would be against a decent tfr is debatable. The beauty of these products though is they also remove grime such as moss etc from the window seals and the stupid gap where the designer thought it would be funny to leave a 1/4" gap round the rear window or the top edge of the windscreen.
Citrus prewash..... Mmmmmmmmm citrus therefor an acid technically then albeit made from oranges and lemons but still more acid than PH7 if not then why call it citrus?? Agreed not as acidic as oxalic acid that the polish use but still.....


----------



## Gavla

I use 25:1 dilution of BH Snow foam in a pump sprayer as a pre cleaner for dirtier cars in winter...I then wash with sonax extreme. Works well for me. This is my winter maintenance wash solution...


----------



## DJ X-Ray

I personally use Valet Pro,Autoglym and sometimes the Hazsafe by Autosmart (due to freebieness),from a mate.and can't say i've noticed any major lsp degradation with those products. I don't use them for every wash though, usually shampoo by itself suffices.
However, over the years i've used loads of different TFR's on cars and haven't encountered anything out of the ordinary...both my Audis still have their paintwork perfectly intact and aren't sporting the Delorean raw metal look


----------



## adjones

AllenF said:


> Citrus prewash..... Mmmmmmmmm citrus therefor an acid technically then albeit made from oranges and lemons but still more acid than PH7 if not then why call it citrus?? Agreed not as acidic as oxalic acid that the polish use but still.....


Sorry but that is not right. The 'citrus' is, effectively, the oily solvent produced when you squeeze the peel. More than this, it is totally insoluble in water and thus does not have a pH - to try to define such a thing is like looking at a fat bloke and saying how many months pregnant he is! A product containing this solvent can be acidic, neutral or alkaline, depending on what else is in there.


----------



## AllenF

Disagree all you want but have a read if this
The main constituent of orange peel essential oil is d-limonene (present to the extent of at least 90 %), which is the only hydrocarbon present. Thats the freshly squeezed peel no additives ( so far??)
http://www.technicaljournalsonline....PRIL JUNE 2012/ARTICLE 02 APRIL JUNE 2012.pdf

Now you MIGHT like to take a little read if this
http://www.autosmart.co.uk/images/PDF Folder/Autosmart COSHH sheets/G101 - SDS11028 - GBR.pdf
See something familiar??
Yup d-limonene (agreed g101 has extras in there too) 
So citrus isnt REALLY that good is it its probably a lot stronger than some tfrs out there.


----------



## cheekymonkey

rottenapple said:


> A pre-wash should be chosen in the same manner you would choose a polish, least aggressive to get the job done. Manufacturers have a wide range due to this factor, one which cleans quickest and easiest may not always be the best for the situation in hand. I use tfr's before full decontamination not weekly maintenance wash, i use less aggressive products for that.


I would add to that if it has to be a more powerful product dont rush in at the strongest dilution try a milder first. same principle as using polish and pad


----------



## adjones

AllenF said:


> Disagree all you want but have a read if this
> The main constituent of orange peel essential oil is d-limonene (present to the extent of at least 90 %), which is the only hydrocarbon present. Thats the freshly squeezed peel no additives ( so far??)
> http://www.technicaljournalsonline....PRIL JUNE 2012/ARTICLE 02 APRIL JUNE 2012.pdf
> 
> Now you MIGHT like to take a little read if this
> http://www.autosmart.co.uk/images/PDF Folder/Autosmart COSHH sheets/G101 - SDS11028 - GBR.pdf
> See something familiar??
> Yup d-limonene (agreed g101 has extras in there too)
> So citrus isnt REALLY that good is it its probably a lot stronger than some tfrs out there.


Yes yes, you have just quoted some information which agrees with what I said and disagrees with your previous quote. You have agreed that the citrus component is citrus oil/orange peel oil/d-limonene - a hydrocarbon type solvent. Hydrocarbon solvents do not have a pH, which was your initial claim about the citrus solvent (where you seem to have related it to citric acid). pH is defined as a negative log of the concentration of hydrogen ions in (and this is the important bit) _aqueous_ solution. So you simply cannot assign a pH to d-limonene. Likewise, you cannot do for petrol, kerosine, diesel, crude oil (etc).

I don't know why you are referencing G101. If you look at the MSDS, it is clear that G101 contains it in a tiny proportion. Check the regulations - were it present above 1%, it would have to be listed in section 3. In reality, there is a fair chance that it should be listed if present above 0.1%. It is listed in section 2 only because of its potential as an allergen. Put all these bits together and the truth is that the limonene is probably there for fragrancing, not for cleaning power.

Ultimately this is somewhat unimportant to the topic at hand because a TFR simply would not use d-limonene as a functional component because of the related costs and formulation complexity.


----------



## kings..

I tend to only use TFR on wheels or heavily soiled lower body panels, and engines. I certainly wouldn't use TFR for all over cleaning as it makes a quick job a lengthy one! 

Having to wax or polish after every wash is a ball ache.


----------



## fatdazza

adjones said:


> Yes yes, you have just quoted some information which agrees with what I said and disagrees with your previous quote. You have agreed that the citrus component is citrus oil/orange peel oil/d-limonene - a hydrocarbon type solvent. Hydrocarbon solvents do not have a pH, which was your initial claim about the citrus solvent (where you seem to have related it to citric acid). pH is defined as a negative log of the concentration of hydrogen ions in (and this is the important bit) _aqueous_ solution. So you simply cannot assign a pH to d-limonene. Likewise, you cannot do for petrol, kerosine, diesel, crude oil (etc).
> 
> I don't know why you are referencing G101. If you look at the MSDS, it is clear that G101 contains it in a tiny proportion. Check the regulations - were it present above 1%, it would have to be listed in section 3. In reality, there is a fair chance that it should be listed if present above 0.1%. It is listed in section 2 only because of its potential as an allergen. Put all these bits together and the truth is that the limonene is probably there for fragrancing, not for cleaning power.
> 
> Ultimately this is somewhat unimportant to the topic at hand because a TFR simply would not use d-limonene as a functional component because of the related costs and formulation complexity.


It is so refreshing when true science appears on here. Too often there is hearsay and fiction.

Reminds me of someone testing Tardis and determining it was "pH neutral" - thought it was therefore wax safe :lol:


----------



## rottenapple

Excellent facts coming out love the science, this is a better discussion, as helps me and others understand the products we use.


----------



## Sutty 90

This guy knows his stuff! 

Sutty.


----------



## james_death

WE all have differing wants from our products and can have many products and dependent on situation time etc can dictate what we use.

For me the Modern TFR's from established reputable firms seam fine always test for any reactions with trims or rubbers for any staining etc but the few i have used From Autosmart and Powermaxed have been to no detriment.

If you have the time the wash bucket method you could feel the best with however the more soiling you can remove before moving the remainder with a sponge mitt etc the better.

Have protection thats a fair few months old on the IQ and despite spending all winter so far just using A TFR on it with the odd Hand wash or detailing QD spray to follow there has been no fallback from the lsp.

Especially in winter with salts or the molasses even worse for sticking stuff to the vehicle a good pre wash or better still a good product you can spray on and spray off and be pretty clean without handling the bodywork even better.


----------



## nick_mcuk

I have always used TFR on all of my cars even the 205, the 2 main Products I have used are both AutoGlym. The first being MultiWash TFR (PowerMax3) and the 2nd being Advanced TFR (not the Super strength one).

Neither of them have ever caused issues (especially on the 205) Infact the Multiwash TFR can be diluted down and used and a type of APC for interior cleaning....which it works as very well.

As I said in the other post call you what you want be it Pre-Wash, SnowFoam or TFR they are all the same thing "Traffic Film Removers" they all vary in strength and some are properly strong. TFR seems to have this evil stigma attached to it yet its ok to use Snowfoam or Prewashes thanks to our good friend "Marketing" 

Any of the above mentioned solutions to be touch-less "HAVE" to have some hefty chemicals or surfactants in them to work other wise you might as well just use water for the prewash this is a fact....

People are also getting wayyyyy to hung up on PH levels here again thanks to "Marketing".

Whilst we are talking about TFR its not damaging as some people are making out if we took something like any of these fall out removers have you seen what they do to brake caliper....on my A6 they went from the silver (zinc or what ever it was) coated finish to rusty messes after using them a couple of times......they are all supposed to be PH neutral yet they are strong enough to remove metal plating.....so that goes to prove that getting hung up on PH is a fallacy.


----------



## GleemSpray

I have used Autoglym Pressure Wash quite a lot in the past. That is based on a TFR and is intended for the domestic market. 

It's pre diluted, but you can still get a decent strong clean out of 200ml in a pressure washer or pump spray. 

Never had any issues with trim staining. 
My wife decided to let Tesco hand car wash loose on the shopping trolley some years back when it was run by an independent and not yet branded tescos. 

Came back looking good from a distance, but very swirled and a day or so later you could see the wipers and trim had some of the colour washed out of them. They must have used a strong TFR and then some sort of short lived gloss over everything I guess. 

Have heard in the past of car washs fading trim also.


----------



## nick_mcuk

I think the difference between a "proper car wash" and the "Tescos carpark crew" is that they don't rinse the cars properly....a watering can of water over the car as apposed to a pressure wash off makes a hell of a difference.


----------



## adjones

nick_mcuk said:


> As I said in the other post call you what you want be it Pre-Wash, SnowFoam or TFR they are all the same thing "Traffic Film Removers" they all vary in strength and some are properly strong. TFR seems to have this evil stigma attached to it yet its ok to use Snowfoam or Prewashes thanks to our good friend "Marketing"


I posted in the other thread that this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you care to look at most products which sell themselves as TFR (take AS, for example), you will see that almost every last one will be based upon a blend of sodium/potassium hydroxide and nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA - or something comparable). Of course there are going to be a few surfactants added, but that is mostly it. These are caustic products which are the most aggressive cleaners (and, con-incidentally, some of the cheapest). People dismiss the term caustic but these caustic hydroxides are well known to cause issues. For instance, in the catering industry, it is bad practice to use caustic products for cleaning of pots/pans/tray/etc - these are often aluminium or alloys and this style of product will damage them over time. This translates across to automotive because trim and some wheels tend to be constructed of these same materials (Bikes and caravans are even worse, never ever try a caustic TFR on these). If you look at many vehicles which are not properly cared for and simply thrown at the cheap car washes every so often, you will routinely see that trims are spotty and dull, something which is almost certainly a result of the hydroxide cleaners. You can get TFRs which are non-caustic and much safer, such as AS hazsafe. They are necessarily more costly and not as good cleaners, but they do not have the same dangerous reactivity.

The more potent snowfoams are, as you say, closer to variants of the TFR. I have seen a number which are like a super foaming hazsafe. This strikes me as a good balance - strong cleaning but without the potential hazard of the hydroxides, a perfect product for knowledgable detailers. There are lots of more neutral products. Many of these are nothing at all like TFR. The more effective neutral products can start to look slightly similar (minus the rather crucial caustic element) but these are miles more expensive than the caustic products and are not as effective. Prewashes can be anything but, assuming that the 'citrus' element is anything more than fragrance, such a citrus based product will be totally different from a TFR because of the difficulty of getting the citrus oil stable in the formulation. Of course, it does often appear that 'citrus' products have inclusions of limonene at way less than 1% (or even 0.1%) so some of these products are only 'citrus' in the marketing sense.

From a detailing standpoint, I think that anything with caustic in it should automatically be excluded from your go to list. It might work well, but it is excessively hazardous and has increased potential for doing harm. This should be the go to for the car wash down the road, not for someone who is claiming to be a vehicle care expert. You should be starting with something much milder. Of course, there will be occasions where you need something stronger but the fact that you have considered this shows that you have applied your brain to the problem. If you are inclined to jump towards a caustic TFR as your 'go-to', you immediately show that your work is focused towards time saving and turnaround time, rather than doing what is best for the vehicle.


----------



## Alex L

AllenF said:


> Disagree all you want but have a read if this
> The main constituent of orange peel essential oil is d-limonene (present to the extent of at least 90 %), which is the only hydrocarbon present. Thats the freshly squeezed peel no additives ( so far??)
> http://www.technicaljournalsonline....PRIL JUNE 2012/ARTICLE 02 APRIL JUNE 2012.pdf
> 
> Now you MIGHT like to take a little read if this
> http://www.autosmart.co.uk/images/PDF Folder/Autosmart COSHH sheets/G101 - SDS11028 - GBR.pdf
> See something familiar??
> Yup d-limonene (agreed g101 has extras in there too)
> So citrus isnt REALLY that good is it its probably a lot stronger than some tfrs out there.


Same reason we dont recommend citrus based cleaners be used on our benchtops as over time it can degrade the finish and the polyester resins they use in engineered stones are a heck of a lot more hard wearing than a thin film of clear and an LSP.

Imho your better off hardening up and getting out in the winter and washing by hand and using warm water.


----------



## AllenF

@adjones
Strong Alkali is just as bad but people dont seem to get that point either


----------



## adjones

AllenF said:


> @adjones
> Strong Alkali is just as bad but people dont seem to get that point either




I just explained this. Caustics are the strongest alkaline products - they are the most risky product to use (aka. traditional type TFRs). Safer option is to use a non-caustic alkaline product, which gives much of the cleaning power with much less hazard - some specialised TFRs offer this, likewise some snowfoams and prewash products. Check your MSDS for confirmation.


----------



## davies20

Heading in one direction this thread, why even bother especially after the last one?!


----------



## Lowiepete

davies20 said:


> Heading in one direction this thread, why even bother especially after the last one?!


However, it looks like those who were sounding warnings there, were completely
vindicated, eh?

Regards,
Steve


----------



## GleemSpray

adjones said:


> Sorry but that is not right. The 'citrus' is, effectively, the oily solvent produced when you squeeze the peel. More than this, it is totally insoluble in water and thus does not have a pH - to try to define such a thing is like looking at a fat bloke and saying how many months pregnant he is! A product containing this solvent can be acidic, neutral or alkaline, depending on what else is in there.


So when some manufacturers promote and advertise PH values and others don't, would it be fair to say that it is a bit of a red herring in determining how "harmfull" a product is ?

Or is it just intended as a broad indicator, to be taken into consideration along with other factors such as dilution ?

Also , the word "Citrus" does summon up images of lemon juice / vinegar effortlessly cutting through grease, which many kitchen cleaners try to suggest. From what you say, it sounds like term is being stretched a bit in car cleaning products.


----------



## chrisgreen

Lowiepete said:


> However, it looks like those who were sounding warnings there, were completely vindicated, eh?


And here we go again, FFS.


----------



## AndyA4TDI

chrisgreen said:


> And here we go again, FFS.


Well said Chris, some people really need to learn to let go and move on, doubt it though


----------



## Kash-Jnr

This is really interesting... So adj would you say AF Avalanche is too strong?


----------



## davies20

Lowiepete said:


> However, it looks like those who were sounding warnings there, were completely
> vindicated, eh?
> 
> Regards,
> Steve


Pardon?


----------



## adjones

GleemSpray said:


> So when some manufacturers promote and advertise PH values and others don't, would it be fair to say that it is a bit of a red herring in determining how "harmfull" a product is ?
> 
> Or is it just intended as a broad indicator, to be taken into consideration along with other factors such as dilution ?
> 
> Also , the word "Citrus" does summon up images of lemon juice / vinegar effortlessly cutting through grease, which many kitchen cleaners try to suggest. From what you say, it sounds like term is being stretched a bit in car cleaning products.


pH is really not too useful, in isolation. You need to know a bit more about the chemistry really. Unfortunately it is unknown or ignored by some of the brands out there and they are either failing to give advice or actually bluffing away the chemistry because anecdotal experience has not yet identified issue. There are also some rather trade orientated brands which have become more present in detailing, where they used to have very limited presence. Whilst the products are often superb, my view is that they tend to be at the more risky end of the spectrum, when it comes down to private vehicles, especially the more expensive ones which will have more in the way of exotic finishes.

Citrus - yeah, I suspect so. But try to find MSDS and you find that it is very hard to actually find the truth.



Kash-Jnr said:


> This is really interesting... So adj would you say AF Avalanche is too strong?


The early MSDS I saw might have made me jump to the 'TFR' terminology for that product. But the truth is that I have little confidence that the product you buy now is the same as the original. Since I've not succeeded in getting a more recent MSDS, your guess is as good as mine as to what is in there and just how much potential hazard exists. This should present any pro user a major issue - impossible to do a risk assessment (which every pro is obliged to do) without an MSDS (of course, AF are far from the only ones reluctant to provide this).


----------



## davies20

AndyA4TDI said:


> Well said Chris, some people really need to learn to let go and move on, doubt it though


I agree.



davies20 said:


> Pardon?


Just for the record I've PM'd lowiepete to explain the post was completely not aimed at him. In fact it was totally for the OP.

Don't ever accuse me of something, one way to really pusd on my chips. Enjoy top gear everyone


----------



## AndyC

Where does fallout remover fit into all this? I've talked a few times with a manufacturer and his chemist on here about how some of this stuff works (them explaining and me listening I hasten to add lol). The long & short being that fallout removers are potentially very harmful to paint due to their makeup. I've not heard any horror stories to date and likewise none about TFR's. I always figured "good" foam would have similar ingredients but with the fun factor of foam added for good measure.


----------



## AllenF

Well think about that one ..
How does fallout remover work?? It disolves the ferrous particles embedded in the paintwork.
Mainy done by an acid but could be a strong alkali.
So to sum that one up ph neutral tfr followed by a good dose of fallout remover.. BRILLIANT 
Just take the battery off and empty that over the car

Yet people use this stuff ( fallout remover ) on a regular basis without batting an eyelid at it


----------



## rottenapple

AllenF said:


> Yet people use this stuff ( fallout remover ) on a regular basis without batting an eyelid at it


Or some companies promote over usage for a competition 😉


----------



## ALLR_155528

Round 2 the last one ended badly and this one isn't going to be any different



davies20 said:


> Heading in one direction this thread, why even bother especially after the last one?!


----------



## nick_mcuk

AllenF said:


> Well think about that one ..
> How does fallout remover work?? It disolves the ferrous particles embedded in the paintwork.
> Mainy done by an acid but could be a strong alkali.
> So to sum that one up ph neutral tfr followed by a good dose of fallout remover.. BRILLIANT
> Just take the battery off and empty that over the car
> 
> Yet people use this stuff ( fallout remover ) on a regular basis without batting an eyelid at it


Exactly my point. TFR is far less harmful than some of the fall out removers out there.

TFR is not a evil word it's the correct term for a range of products that have had more fluffy "consumer friendly" labels attached.

We once cleaned my valeter friends work shop floor with AS Actimouse. Did a banging job and left the floor spotless 

As for certain "brands" not making the MSDS publicly available and locking them away behind a passwords protected area that's a bit norty in my view. Probably because it will identify where the products originate from eh?


----------



## B17BLG

Are we getting to an age where people want to detail their car once and never have to do it again. It seems like people worry about PH neutral items far too much and always claiming they don't want to degrade there protection. 

Unfortunately, at the moment with the products we have available (readily) they will degrade on a daily basis, some of course much quicker than others. 

Perhaps in the future there will be paints with nano technology within that requires no washing at all. I do seem to remember watching a video in which a trial coat was applied. 

Anyway I applied snowfoam to a car today which probably reduced the protection a little further of my LSP and not one single **** was given


----------



## rottenapple

ALLR_155528 said:


> Round 2 the last one ended badly and this one isn't going to be any different


How is that adding to the thread, good facts are being discussed, in a constructive manner to the benefit of the reader (or in my eyes it is). you are not adding anything positive to thread just looking to stir


----------



## nick_mcuk

B17BLG said:


> Are we getting to an age where people want to detail their car once and never have to do it again. It seems like people worry about PH neutral items far too much and always claiming they don't want to degrade there protection.
> 
> Unfortunately, at the moment with the products we have available (readily) they will degrade on a daily basis, some of course much quicker than others.
> 
> Perhaps in the future there will be paints with nano technology within that requires no washing at all. I do seem to remember watching a video in which a trial coat was applied.
> 
> Anyway I applied snowfoam to a car today which probably reduced the protection a little further of my LSP and not one single **** was given


This ^^^^^ is one thing that always gets me. We all love cleaning and polishing and making our cars pretty so why are so many obsessed with super long life products?

I will quite happily add some more Zaino/Bouncers Wax/Auto Glym every couple of weeks to the car. Ok the Saab has a coating on it but this doesn't stop me putting extra products on top. That's part of the fun in "our obsession" with clean shiny cars?????


----------



## AndyC

Sorry chaps - I was genuinely asking how a product sits in the TFR "debate" - I'm not bothered by who makes what for who and never have been. If seems that TFR does no harm and if you apply some more LSP as a top-up every wash then any drop-off in protection is countered, yes?


----------



## nick_mcuk

In my view yes although I have seen next to no drop off on the Saab to be honest


----------



## nbray67

AndyC said:


> Sorry chaps - I was genuinely asking how a product sits in the TFR "debate" - I'm not bothered by who makes what for who and never have been. If seems that TFR does no harm and if you apply some more LSP as a top-up every wash then any drop-off in protection is countered, yes?


It's what the majority of us do anyway Andy, that is, topping up/re-applying a LSP every so often.

That's why, in my eyes, the debate about a TFR degrading/stripping your LSP over time is wasted on quite a few of us. I've stripped cheap and expensive LSP's back in order to try out new ones on quite a few occassions.

The main thing for me and the majority who use them, is that the TFR, diluted accordingly, is extremely good at removing winter road grime with no visible degradation to LSP's.

Abuse the TFR dilution ratio's as with any chemicals and their user instructions and you only have yourself to blame if any damage is incurred. As always, if in doubt, dilute down and test on an inconspicuous area 1st.

If you're happy with a product and it does what you want to do, then use it, simple really.


----------



## nick_mcuk

Spot on....


----------



## adjones

AndyC said:


> Sorry chaps - I was genuinely asking how a product sits in the TFR "debate" - I'm not bothered by who makes what for who and never have been. If seems that TFR does no harm and if you apply some more LSP as a top-up every wash then any drop-off in protection is countered, yes?


No, that isn't right. If it was, then why doesn't everyone go out and buy the strongest industrial TFR out there? The reason is that the stronger it is, the more chance and faster it will do harm. For the same reason, why don't people just use neat brick acid on their wheels?

Again, this is DETAILING world. It is not VALETING world, it is not ROAD SIDE WASH A CAR AS FAST AS YOU CAN world. By all means, make a potent TFR your go to wash product, but next time you want to laugh at someone else who is using fairy liquid or driving through a gantry car wash - wise up your thoughts.


----------



## nick_mcuk

That is utter ****** sorry, do you not read any of the previous post?

My A4 Avant that I had got washed weekly with a tfr pre-spray on it....the wheels were always cleaned with either AutoSmart Ali-Shine or AutoGlym Acid wheel cleaner and the day it went back (3 years after i got it with 100 miles on the clock) the car looked better than the day I got it....and it had 85k on the clock.

I even got a call from Lloyds AutoLease complimenting me on it.

So prey tell how all these "EVIL" & "Dangerous" products damage the car....fact is they dont...and if they did the likes of AutoSmart/AutoGlym etc would go out of business.

Sense of Reality people....fer christs sake!


----------



## rottenapple

nick_mcuk said:


> That is utter ****** sorry, do you not read any of the previous post?
> 
> My A4 Avant that I had got washed weekly with a tfr pre-spray on it....the wheels were always cleaned with either AutoSmart Ali-Shine or AutoGlym Acid wheel cleaner and the day it went back (3 years after i got it with 100 miles on the clock) the car looked better than the day I got it....and it had 85k on the clock.
> 
> I even got a call from Lloyds AutoLease complimenting me on it.
> 
> So prey tell how all these "EVIL" & "Dangerous" products damage the car....fact is they dont...and if they did the likes of AutoSmart/AutoGlym etc would go out of business.
> 
> Sense of Reality people....fer christs sake!


Nick you are judging it on your own car, for which you have probably properly adhered to sensible dilution ratios and sensible chemical selection. Some of us are judging it on hundreds of cars we see each year where damage from heavy chemical misuse is evident.


----------



## dexter101

I know this will be different for each product but I'm assuming that following the manufacturers dilution guidelines would class as "sensible"? I've just been looking at Meguiars APC fact sheet and although I don't understand most of it, it seems to have the same warnings about corrosive and irritant as a TFR does. Now when cleaning black trim you use a APC?

These are honest questions from someone keen to learn. I have bought TFR and use it currently due to personal need for a way to utilise a jet wash for maintenance washes. 

I dilute it down further than recommended to try and limit and potential damage (although haven't seen anything so far) 

I even diluted it right down over the weekend to clean the bathroom! worked a treat and was left gleaming. 

Its good to have these mass debates (had to drop that joke in) but my opinion is most people have different needs and restraints and would be good if people realised this.


----------



## nick_mcuk

rottenapple said:


> Nick you are judging it on your own car, for which you have probably properly adhered to sensible dilution ratios and sensible chemical selection. Some of us are judging it on hundreds of cars we see each year where damage from heavy chemical misuse is evident.


I use my car as an example but I have been round the motor trade in various guises for the last 15+ years so have experience from all angles.

Most people in here will use chemicals as per the manufacturers guidelines and I bet a damn high percentage of members on here will run the chemicals even weaker than guided.

Now granted your iffy roadside car washes using brick acid on wheels and not mixing chemicals correctly will cause damage but you can't blame it on the chemicals it's the users error!


----------



## rottenapple

nick_mcuk said:


> I use my car as an example but I have been round the motor trade in various guises for the last 15+ years so have experience from all angles.
> 
> Most people in here will use chemicals as per the manufacturers guidelines and I bet a damn high percentage of members on here will run the chemicals even weaker than guided.
> 
> Now granted your iffy roadside car washes using brick acid on wheels and not mixing chemicals correctly will cause damage but you can't blame it on the chemicals it's the users error!


During that time you must have seen some damage caused from chemical misuse? And you are spot on its not the chemical its the user, with threads like this allowing a better understanding of the chemicals they use. Anyone reads this maybe we might get a few road side washes reading msds sheets lol  but for me having seem random use of acids and other chemicals threads like this rather than wow look what this can do, are very important. With the reader interpreting the information into how it can be useful in their situation, agreeable more handy for people in the trade but also handy for all.


----------



## AndyC

adjones said:


> No, that isn't right. If it was, then why doesn't everyone go out and buy the strongest industrial TFR out there? The reason is that the stronger it is, the more chance and faster it will do harm. For the same reason, why don't people just use neat brick acid on their wheels?
> 
> Again, this is DETAILING world. It is not VALETING world, it is not ROAD SIDE WASH A CAR AS FAST AS YOU CAN world. By all means, make a potent TFR your go to wash product, but next time you want to laugh at someone else who is using fairy liquid or driving through a gantry car wash - wise up your thoughts.


Hang on chap, hang on just a second. I am well aware of "what" this site is as I was one of the 3 founders thanks.

And yes, I do want to wash my car quickly as there are more important things, for me at least, than spending an entire day on it and then boring the ******** out of anyone who'll listen about how you really should spend an hour cleaning your wheels. I have a life.

As for product strength, pretty much everything you use to chemically clean something has stuff in it which *could* be harmful. I find washing up liquid harsh on my skin for example - way more so than my go-to car shampoo.

Likewise I tried Power Maxxed TFR yesterday and guess what? My car's still there, no residue anywhere and frankly looks every bit as clean as last time when I used a foam. My unscientific brain tells me therefore that thjis particular TFR is no worse for my car than the foam I used previously.

I usually look at the wheels and brakes for signs that there's a nasty ingredient (like the discolouring of calipers and shiny bits that Wonder Wheels used to give) and there was nothing at all.

Doesn't smell strongly of anything or irritate eyes or skin. I didn't drink it so can't comment on that aspect I'm afraid.

It also needed agitating on my wheels as it didn't lift all the dirt between the spokes straight off. Again, this tells me that it isn't any stronger than VP foam which needed exactly the same methodology.

Is it the best thing ever? Um, no - my wife & kids tick that box. Will it cure cancer? Sadly no. Is it evil, nasty stuff which will damage my car? On the face of the above user facts, I really don't think so.

Normal washing practice (i.e for most out there) could mean that an LSP would suffer I'm sure but I give my cars a quick Z8-ing pretty much every wash so, as I said above, they get an LSP top-up 2-3 times a month on average. On that basis I'm completely comfortable that using this particular TFR will not cause me any problems.

Pics below - first 2 after TFR application and rinse, second 2 because the sun caught the car looking pretty sharp.

After rinsing it away, the water run-off was more or less the same as when I use a foam so using that as a baseline I can't honestly see that it's different to a lot of foams - and some of the most popular are way stronger as they can irritate skin & eyes during use. This tells me that some foams are potentially more harmful - albeit very effective at quickly removing dirt.

Sweet baby Jesus, I'm taking sunlight shots of my car again


----------



## davies20

is that an Octavia buddy? ^^

Looks lovely


----------



## AndyC

Certainly is. Many thanks


----------



## davies20

AndyC said:


> Certainly is. Many thanks


I thought it was, although those pictures make it look smaller. Very nice


----------



## stumpy90

I'm getting one of those when I can afford it. At the moment... the 57plate VRS TDI i've got will have to do. Has to be the best car i've ever had by a country mile.


----------



## adjones

Like it or not, there are a bunch here who are going totally against detailing in the original sense. If that is detailing UK then someone tell the sponsors and brands to quit looking for safer and more technological products. Why bother with the hassle and expense if detailers UK is happy with the cheap and aggressive cleaners. If that truly is what dw believes, I have great concerns for the sustainability.


----------



## AndyC

Dude you need to read posts properly. If you're against any form of pre-wash or foam then fine but otherwise this is exactly why this place started - until yesterday I'd never used a TFR (discounting various foams) as I thought it was a bad thing. I was wrong - like any chemical, if it's used incorrectly then it can do more harm than good but it isn't from where I'm standing.

And when DW started, foam didn't exist, glass coatings were the crappy stuff dealers overcharged for and only pros use machine polishers. It's called progress.


----------



## GleemSpray

adjones said:


> Like it or not, there are a bunch here who are going totally against detailing in the original sense. If that is detailing UK then someone tell the sponsors and brands to quit looking for safer and more technological products. Why bother with the hassle and expense if detailers UK is happy with the cheap and aggressive cleaners. If that truly is what dw believes, I have great concerns for the sustainability.


Serious question - what is "_detailing in the original sense_" ?

I honestly thought Detailing was about getting a vehicle beyond clean - getting it looking like new in every last detail, getting the very best looking finish.


----------



## dexter101

Surely that's a bit narrow minded. I'm sure everyone would love to be able to afford and have the time to treat their cars to the best products, only using ph neutral shampoos but that's not possible for everyone. Hobbies (and that's what detailing is for most) are aspirational, therefore not always possible to do everything perfectly.


----------



## AndyC

It is and part of that is exploring new products and methodology. In its "original sense" it was a bunch of chaps who cleaned their cars more than average and wanted somewhere to hang out. 

I'll listen to anyone who hasn't, and never will, use any type of pre wash product ever but beyond that it's speculative waffle. 

I used to lodge with a chap who works for Selden. Amongst other things they manufacture cleaning products from janitorial to industrial with automotive somewhere in the middle; white labelling for some big names too.

He took one sniff of a foam I was using (to save blushes I won't name names) and pronounced it TFR immediately. Not a bad thing but it opened me eyes to the way a lot of the stuff we used is marketed.


----------



## APS

adjones said:


> Like it or not, there are a bunch here who are going totally against detailing in the original sense. If that is detailing UK then someone tell the sponsors and brands to quit looking for safer and more technological products. Why bother with the hassle and expense if detailers UK is happy with the cheap and aggressive cleaners. If that truly is what dw believes, I have great concerns for the sustainability.


There is absolutely no offence meant when I say this..... But that post makes it sound like you somehow 'own' detailing??

I have very limited experience of products and the valeting industry so generally I keep my beak out, but with that said I don't feel detailing is 100% about the products. Granted they are an integral part of detailing.... But to place such a sweeping statement on the basis of essentially a tfr debate is hasty no??

Also, it's a hobby that as far as I can see, has no RIGHTS per se. There are wrong ways yes, and an aweful lot of ways to achieve the same outcome, so to catagorically say people are wrong for using a tfr is possibly a bit much?


----------



## dexter101

Seems a little bit like some people want some form of vetting process for whether a product can be classed as suitable for detailing. I saw the product in the review section. The results looked good. Seemed easy to use etc etc. so I bought it. I'm happy with it but this now seems to be not enough, but I don't really understand why?!


----------



## adjones

Detailing started in the US and persists with purists like Mike Phillips. His motto is to use the least aggressive product and the American detail scene pretty much agrees. Those guys simply would not use products like those which are becoming the norm here. It is against their consideration of what constitutes detailing.

If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


----------



## GleemSpray

adjones said:


> If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


Are you suggesting that Detailing is about only using expensive brands then ?


----------



## dexter101

Surely you can see a balance though? Otherwise it's like saying you only like cars if you can own a classic! I don't have the time or money to start making my corsa b paint work perfect. However this site has helped me try and improve it, that surely is a start


----------



## nick_mcuk

adjones said:


> Detailing started in the US and persists with purists like Mike Phillips. His motto is to use the least aggressive product and the American detail scene pretty much agrees. Those guys simply would not use products like those which are becoming the norm here. It is against their consideration of what constitutes detailing.
> 
> If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


I think you will find the yanks have been using the term "detailing" in the same way I the UK we call it "Valeting". It just evolved some company's use the term as marketing to charge more money for Valeting.

As for your comments about AutoSmart, wrong again they have been about for many many years before the detailing thang caught on as an extra source of revenue and profit. Before this they had always made chemicals for the trade Valeting industry. They have just branched out into the detailing sector as its a lucrative business (not knocking them for that either by the way). Trust me they have some pretty pokey products too.

Again nothing is evil if used as directed by the manufacturers.


----------



## nbray67

adjones said:


> Detailing started in the US and persists with purists like Mike Phillips. His motto is to use the least aggressive product and the American detail scene pretty much agrees. Those guys simply would not use products like those which are becoming the norm here. It is against their consideration of what constitutes detailing.
> 
> If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


Without wanting to sound pedantic here adjones, this isn't the US despite us having some decent well voiced worldwide members on DW.

This site, or as much as I believe it is, is made up of Sunday morning enthusiasts to full time Detailer's who all share experiences and knowledge of techniques and products, in doing so, the site is great for all, from novice to professional.

Your comments towards what is 'constituted' as to what and what is not detailing is somewhat, at times, rather condescending towards those who fall into the novice criteria, including myself.

Not everything to do with DW and Detailing is about the best quality, most expensive products out there. The current polls will back that argument up for sure.

We all, including myself, a weekend hobbiest at best, use the products we like and we use them sensibly and as per the manufacturers instructions. Because of this, non of cars have suffered in the way in which you speak of.

The last, uncalled for, comment about Autosmart sums up what utter nonsense you try to instill into the majority of us.


----------



## AllenF

adjones said:


> Detailing started in the US and persists with purists like Mike Phillips. His motto is to use the least aggressive product and the American detail scene pretty much agrees. Those guys simply would not use products like those which are becoming the norm here. It is against their consideration of what constitutes detailing.
> 
> If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


Er you may want to check what you say
Detailing is an AMERICANISM for VALETING because they havent got a word for valeting other than cleaning ( which they didnt like )
The star with the softest product and work up is standard practice to any decent well trained valet in uk. And some of the american products are a hell of a lot worse than ours ( yes i have used them )
Its all about technique and experience .. Tools come next then products come basicly last.
Just because its expensive DOESNT make it the best after all one of the best cleaners out there is stardrops ( yup £1.25 per litre ) but i spose if i put it in a svisswax can and told everyone it was a new detailing cleaner i could sell it for about 50 quid a litre.
People are sheep. One person buys something and gets on with it ..everyone has to buy it.. Not everyone gets on with it so it fall by the wayside... Over the years and years i have been doing this ( dealer trained in house by mercedes for 3 1/2 years before i was allowed NEAR a car by myself to the standards of they would reject a car if the badge wasnt at 32.5 degrees { they even gave you a gauge for it}) i have seen many many products come and many go. I still use a lot of the products today that i was using when dinosaurs roamed. Yes there are ither oroducts out there some cheaper some a lot more expensive. But i know what these products can do how they react and more importantly how to dilute/ use them.
Many many people think that they can get rich quick from cleaning a motor by calling themself a detailer because they have cleaned a couple if their mates cars. The reality of it is, the daily school runners are the bread and butter motors.
Joe public sees the word detailing and shuns away from it because they automatically see it as expensive. They are NOT impressed by a website full of top end labos and fezzas they drive a 10plate focus they want to know what you can do with that.
Next a "quick detail" WTF speed is not really and issue it takes as long as it takes to get a motor into factory condition ( note NOT showroom as by then its probably six monthes old and been parked at tilbury for six weeks) a quick detail is basicly a wash hoover and quick coat of wax isnt it when a proper wheels off detail can take upto and over a week how can you do it quicker to the same standard.... Simple answer you cant.

And as for autosmart.
Well ok they have the accolade of being able to boast that 80% YES 80% of vehicles on the road today have been cleaned with an autosmart product at sometime in their life. Show me another company that can boast that. Not even autoglym can boast that...


----------



## nick_mcuk

Actually if you use the term "valet" in the USA it refers to someone who is going to park your car


----------



## AllenF

EXACTLY hence they had to find another name for it

Cheers nick


----------



## AndyC

I give up. Detailing and valeting co-existed for years before DW ever launched.

Based on this bizarre rationale the use of any pre wash products shouldn't be a part of car cleaning at any level. 

But stick it in a fancy bottle and tell us it can also be used to bathe babies and we'll all buy it. What complete tosh. And pretty insulting to anyone who's dabbled around basic and high end products just for ****s and giggles.

Check your "facts" as regards products made outside the EU too - not everyone adheres to high standards of safety.

AS make piles of tried, tested and well respected products and were doing of when we all thought Colour Magic was the dog's Doo-dahs.

The photos I posted earlier in this thread? Not retouched or mucked about with? SRP and a coat of Z8; nothing fancy, high end or high tech, just proven products which work. 

I'm done with trying to put forward my take on a new (to me) method. I'll stick to it and when my car's scrap due to TFR I'll drink a litre as punishment for my obvious stupidity.


----------



## AllenF

Will that be ph neutral tfr then????
When you actually look at what traffic film is 
Unburnt hydrocarbons
Rubber
Soot
Burnt hydrocarbons
Bird pee
Rain spray
Then the rain rinses away all the water soluble elements leaving behind a fine film .
The tfr breaks into this film and rehydrates it making it water soluble again. 
On those grounds ph neutral tfr is about as good as using plain water to rinse it off ( as we ALL know that doesnt always shift the film )
And nice pics by the way ( no this isnt a dig at you either lol)


----------



## nick_mcuk

Exactly Andy. Those that saw my grand Cherokee at the Clean and Shiny meet a couple of weeks back saw the results on the drivers side from using a bunch of £1 wonder wheels products vs the passenger side which is scratched to **** from where I take it off road. 

Price has no bearing on how good a product is fact. 

I do love how a member who signed up in 2013 is being so impertinent towards members that have been on here for much longer (in the case of a Andy who was in here since day one!). 

I think a little respect and thought needs to be engaged by certain members who think they know it all. When it is all to apparent they know very little.


----------



## AllenF

Very diplomatically put nick. 

It cracks me up how everyone has a chemistry degree lmao.


----------



## AllenF

AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I have just worked out the difference between a valeter and a detailer.
A valeter buys 25litres of product and decants it into non descript minijet bottles
A detailer buys individual 500ml bottles of the same product at ten times the price because they look nice on the shelf.


----------



## Clancy

Until the thread the other day where this pathetic tfr argument started i had not given one thought to the use of tfr 

I have used various brands for years, a number of which completely neat. My dad has used them his whole life, as does a friend who owns a valeting company, as do the valeters at my mums showroom 

I have never heard a single negative comment let alone any talks of damage to the car or products etc 

This whole argument is nonsense, I will stand by what i said last time, I will buy the strongest tfr I cam find and diluted as I see fit, my car is still completely fine 

Also on the comments from adjones, detailing is not by any means about buying expensive products. It's about technique, but more importantly it's enjoyment and Community 

You don't need expensive products to get outstanding result, some of the best products I've ever used have been cheap items, or things not intended for use on cars but work great 

People need to get if their high horse, detailing is not an elitist, rich only hobby


----------



## Clancy

AllenF said:


> AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> I have just worked out the difference between a valeter and a detailer.
> A valeter buys 25litres of product and decants it into non descript minijet bottles
> A detailer buys individual 500ml bottles of the same product at ten times the price because they look nice on the shelf.


Spot on :lol: or 15x the price if it's in a fancier bottle


----------



## nick_mcuk

AllenF said:


> AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> 
> I have just worked out the difference between a valeter and a detailer.
> 
> A valeter buys 25litres of product and decants it into non descript minijet bottles
> 
> A detailer buys individual 500ml bottles of the same product at ten times the price because they look nice on the shelf.


PMSL that will be the one.

....a brand buys 1000l cuts it with water to make four times the volume then puts it in fancy bottles does a load of creative description and marketing making out they tweaked the formula and puts a 200% mark up on 250ml of product that in fact is a cheap trade product :lol:


----------



## AllenF

Exactly its about technique over product.
A good person with a cheap product can produce better results than a crap person with expensive priducts.


----------



## GleemSpray

So which brand of TFR should I use for best results on a midnight blue mercedes? 

Also, can I use a DA to apply TFR? 

.... Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## adjones

nbray67 said:


> The last, uncalled for, comment about Autosmart sums up what utter nonsense you try to instill into the majority of us.


How so? AS make industrial strength products which give the most cleaning power, for the least money. That is what we are talking about. Why would you use AF products? They are dramatically less strong and cost much much more. If we are going with the approach of using the strongest product first, autosmart wins.



AllenF said:


> And as for autosmart.
> Well ok they have the accolade of being able to boast that 80% YES 80% of vehicles on the road today have been cleaned with an autosmart product at sometime in their life. Show me another company that can boast that. Not even autoglym can boast that...


As above, you have missed the point. I was complimenting AS as being the obvious go too for the most potent and aggressive cleaners. Their products are by far the best on here when that is what you are after.



nick_mcuk said:


> I do love how a member who signed up in 2013 is being so impertinent towards members that have been on here for much longer (in the case of a Andy who was in here since day one!).


Oh shoot, you caught me out. Better change my CV because all those years of experience meant nothing.



AllenF said:


> It cracks me up how everyone has a chemistry degree lmao.


From someone who talked about pH of 'citrus' solvent and publicly posted about its obvious similarities to citric acid, that is hilarious.

I find it really amusing that the forum has suddenly turned on its head. A few weeks back, the term TFR was almost a bad word. All of a sudden, everyone is using it and there are no reservations posted about it. I'm just waiting for someone to start selling highly concentrated brick acid and it to become the new big thing.

The other amusement is that this forum regularly has a laugh about what 'non-detailers' do. The old fairy liquid thing has been a regular chortle - that damned stuff dissolves your car, I so laughed at my stupid neighbour using it (etc.). And now we laugh at them whilst using products which have actual corrosive stickers plastered on them. Something seems wrong about that.


----------



## DJ X-Ray

It's one thing advising people on the misuse of chemicals and what can happen if they're used incorrectly that's fair enough, but it's people's individual choice what they do or don't use in their cleaning regime. Personally, i don't really care what they do or don't do in America or on Autogeek.


----------



## Alex L

I remember a thread by Epoch about where your waste water from washing and rinsing is going? Especially with all those TFR chemicals?



nick_mcuk said:


> .
> 
> I do love how a member who signed up in 2013 is being so impertinent towards members that have been on here for much longer (in the case of a Andy who was in here since day one!).





nick_mcuk said:


> .
> I think a little respect and thought needs to be engaged by certain members who think they know it all. When it is all to apparent they know very little.


I think you should heed your own advice, every member here has an equal and valid opinion as the next. :thumb:

And my 2 pence, how many people who've used a TFR on their for the last 40 years still have the same car?

Just because the paint doesn't fall straight away, doesn't mean it doesn't degrade it over time.

You just have to look at how bad the paint is on Trucks and trailers to know that weather and chemicals can prematurely age some surfaces.


----------



## Sue J

adjones said:


> Detailing started in the US and persists with purists like Mike Phillips. His motto is to use the least aggressive product and the American detail scene pretty much agrees. Those guys simply would not use products like those which are becoming the norm here. It is against their consideration of what constitutes detailing.
> 
> If this is what DW is about, I'm beat as to why anyone buys anything beyond autosmart.


Just for the record, Autosmart has 13 different TFR formulations. These range from products which are very strong, such as Truckwash 66 for chassis degreasing, through to products like Envirowash and Hazsafe for delicate trim and paintwork.

Why so many? Several reasons. First, traffic film can be made up of many different elements, as explained by Allen F. So, if you are cleaning baked on grease from a truck chassis then you will require a different product than if you are cleaning general contaminants from a car. Second, there are many different surfaces and vehicle types to be cleaned. A haulier with expensive livery to protect may want a product with built in livery enhancers. However, a valeter who is going to polish the car anyway simply wants something that is going to give him a good wash, possibly touchless. Thirdly, application method can play a part. For example, on the continent they tend to prespray rather than simply apply chemical via the pressure washer. Finally, customer preference can come into play. For example, a customer may want something with lots of bubbles, or COSHH exempt to help meet their H&S requirements.

One final point which people often miss is product concentration. So, the label hazard and MDS relate to concentrated product, not what is hitting the vehicle. Many customers have dilution control and therefore buy a product which is more concentrated in the container. The product that is hitting the vehicle may be milder than many products seen as "safe". The difference is that the customer has chosen to add the water himself rather than pay someone else to do so for him. Chemical companies will sometimes pre-dilute products themselves in a bid to make their products seem "kinder" or to avoid strenuous labelling and transport regulations. We have always taken the attitude that our customers are professional adults and offer them choice, depending on their circumstances. Coca Cola in concentrate form is highly corrosive. However, the company pre-dilutes the product for us at bottling stage and provides the consumer with a watered down version, which is ready to drink and is free of the warning labels you would see on the concentrated product.

In my experience the States is really no different from here. Again, specialist chemical suppliers will have a wide range of different products to suit different customer needs, as they know that the product for the truck chassis is not going to perform well on the BMW paintwork and vice versa.


----------



## nick_mcuk

Alex L said:


> I think you should heed your own advice, every member here has an equal and valid opinion as the next. :thumb:


That is kind of insulting considering we have a couple of people that constantly post messages that are impertinent and condescending. Skill is gained from experience and when certain members are quite frankly rude to what are experienced members and people that were the founding stone that is Detailing World.

Agreed respect should be given to all in here regardless of age/sex/experience etc but when a relative wet behind the ears newbie starts posting quite frankly impertinent replies and not showing respect to others instantly removes any respect due back to them. Also posting "facts" that are categorically incorrect just shows the lack of knowledge and understanding.

I have used TFR for 15 plus years and always will it makes life easier and does a job.

Sue has done a fantastic post above and well done to her and AutoSmart, maybe AutoGlym can add to the conversation???


----------



## V3nom

Wow, this is the most informative thread I've read on DW for a long time. Nice to read the "science" of things  

A few silly posts but hey-ho...that's life.


----------



## AllenF

Pity auto finese dont MANFACTURE their own products though they just rebadge every one elses ( well one companys anyway )
@ adjones. While you may know your chemistry ( which frankly i dont care about ) and enjoy working in a lab injecting rats with stuff, personally i prefer to go out and clean motors which i what i do and have done for more than 20odd years. I have probably FORGOTTON more about cleaning a motor than you know. 
All i know is i use chemicals that work that dont aggravate my breathing problem and leave a quality finish ( which basicly is what its all about ) 
But you go ahead using ph neutral stuff then when your car is covered in traffic film spots and god know what else maybe come and ask but dont expect a few of us to reply with anything nice.
Same as everything in life its ok if you use it correctly in moderation.
I would be more concerned about the rhubarb juice people spray over their cars weekly ( yup come on whats that one then???????)
END OF..................


----------



## Alex L

nick_mcuk said:


> That is kind of insulting considering we have a couple of people that constantly post messages that are impertinent and condescending. Skill is gained from experience and when certain members are quite frankly rude to what are experienced members and people that were the founding stone that is Detailing World.
> 
> Agreed respect should be given to all in here regardless of age/sex/experience etc but when a relative wet behind the ears newbie starts posting quite frankly impertinent replies and not showing respect to others instantly removes any respect due back to them. Also posting "facts" that are categorically incorrect just shows the lack of knowledge and understanding.
> 
> I have used TFR for 15 plus years and always will it makes life easier and does a job.
> 
> Sue has done a fantastic post above and well done to her and AutoSmart, maybe AutoGlym can add to the conversation???


By your fantastic logic Paul Dalton and Kelly Harris should be using stuff I recommend because I've been a member longer :lol:

just because someone has a later join date than you doesn't mean they haven't been doing this for years. You yourself say you've been doing this for 15 years but DW hasn't been around that long.

so wind your neck as Adjones was just trying to warn people of th possible dangers of using strong chemicals.

As Sue said, they do a range of varying strength TFRs so whats to stop me buying the strongest and using it at the wrong dilution? And then watching things turn to custard pretty quickly.


----------



## nick_mcuk

I am out now you are now just being argumentative for the sake of it and there is simply no point continuing to have a discussion with you captain keyboard!


----------



## Alex L

nick_mcuk said:


> I am out now you are now just being argumentative for the sake of it and there is simply no point continuing to have a discussion with you captain keyboard!


Have a bit more respect, I've been a member longer than you :lol::lol::lol:
Actually Im not :thumb: I just think people are dismissing some valid points he raised in between his thoughts on what detailing meant to him.

just because something works it doesnt mean we should ignore possible dangers involved in using strong chemicals.

Anyway, back to my original question that maybe Sue can add to, what are the recommended disposal methods of the TFRs? Are they ok to rinse down the drain or should you be using some kind of catchment system like Polished Bliss and others use?


----------



## Sue J

Alex L said:


> By your fantastic logic Paul Dalton and Kelly Harris should be using stuff I recommend because I've been a member longer :lol:
> 
> just because someone has a later join date than you doesn't mean they haven't been doing this for years. You yourself say you've been doing this for 15 years but DW hasn't been around that long.
> 
> so wind your neck as Adjones was just trying to warn people of th possible dangers of using strong chemicals.
> 
> As Sue said, they do a range of varying strength TFRs so whats to stop me buying the strongest and using it at the wrong dilution? And then watching things turn to custard pretty quickly.


Certainly possible. However, our franchisees are experienced at understanding customer needs (the benefit of selling face to face rather than over the internet) and would always recommend something to suit what you are cleaning and how you clean.

Also, our customers are professionals, who understand the precautions required when they use concentrated trade products. Needless to say, our labels are always accurate and dilutions are very clearly marked.

We would always recommend that someone who is not confident in diluting themselves should steer clear of concentrated products and instead buy something which is supplied in a more dilute form. That's the benefit of choice!


----------



## Sue J

Alex L said:


> Have a bit more respect, I've been a member longer than you :lol::lol::lol:
> Actually Im not :thumb: I just think people are dismissing some valid points he raised in between his thoughts on what detailing meant to him.
> 
> just because something works it doesnt mean we should ignore possible dangers involved in using strong chemicals.
> 
> Anyway, back to my original question that maybe Sue can add to, what are the recommended disposal methods of the TFRs? Are they ok to rinse down the drain or should you be using some kind of catchment system like Polished Bliss and others use?


I'm just getting a useful little chart put into a JPEG for you and will then post it in a bit. It shows what you need to do in terms of foul water disposal. Back soon!!!


----------



## Sue J

Ok so here is chart which helps explain effluent disposal. What we should add is that collecting waste for disposal by a specialist contractor such as BIFFA will be your easiest option if you do not have easy access to a foul drain. The product you are using is largely irrelevant as the effluent (grease, oils, contaminants) coming off the vehicle is also included in the scope of Environmental legislation. 

ie it's not just the chemical which can harm the environment, it's also the rest of the crud washed off a car and down the drains. Most TFRs (ours included) are biodegradable. However, the oils and greases that get washed off vehicles are not. This is why the legislation is concerned about what happens to these and ensuring safe practice. 

hope this helps


----------



## Sue J

sorry can't remember how to make this image show on page. Can any kind IT literate soul help?


----------



## squiretolley

There you go....


----------



## AllenF

Nobody know what rhubarb juice is then nasty horrible poisenous stuff but people use it weekly without batting an eyelid at it.


That effluent sheet is good but there is a clause in there that allows it to go to a soak away or into gravel bed IIRC


----------



## SPARTAN

AllenF said:


> Nobody know what rhubarb juice is then nasty horrible poisenous stuff but people use it weekly without batting an eyelid at it.
> 
> That effluent sheet is good but there is a clause in there that allows it to go to a soak away or into gravel bed IIRC


No idea but my guess would be something that contains high levels of oxalic acid. Am I anywhere near being close ? :thumb:


----------



## AllenF

You are very close whats the trade name for oxalic acid. What does it do????


----------



## nick_mcuk

Fall out remover.


----------



## SPARTAN

AllenF said:


> You are very close whats the trade name for oxalic acid. What does it do????


Erm, something like iron x or iron out ? Maybe?


----------



## rottenapple

Bar keepers friend is high in oxalic acid, and is a good glass cleaner, as oxalic acid good for water spot removal. Also same as nick can be found in fall out removers.


----------



## AllenF

Yup fallout removers.
Designed to disolve ferrous particles yet people spray it on librally weekly ( if some of the "routines" are to be believed).


----------



## AndyC

Did I mention fallout removers a few pages back??

Way more potentially harmful IF used wrongly IMHO but there you go. I stick to occasional use on my wheels.

And sorry if I created a willy waving show. My point about length of time on DW was purely to answer the point about what's the forum coming to, nothing else


----------



## Alex L

Im just guessing here but you cant buy undiluted iron x etc. It comes premixed and (you'd hope) has passed the certain legislations. 

Isn't it Germany where your not allowed to wash your car on your driveway for environmental reasons?


----------



## AllenF

Uk as well technically its illegal to wash a car ( or do any maintenance on it ) on the side of the road

Yes you can buy neat oxalic acid ( same as you can buy 99% pure IPA) but you would have to be pretty stupid to put that on your car neat ( same as pure ipa etc etc etc) 
Watered down correctly and used within the manufactures guidlines then these chemicals are safe. If not the manufactures would pull them as they would have so many claims against them they would go bust.
The problem is people DONT understand dilution they think that neat is better.
Take G101 or smartwheels even upholstery shampoo its MORE effective when diluted than when used neat. But you just cant tell some people.
5litres of any chemical with a dilution ratio of say upto 40/1 would last a hobbiest /weekender ( i will refrain from calling them weekend warriors as it upsets a few) a few years. But they buy it month in month out. FFS i use the stuff daily and even I dont go through as much as some " hobbiests" and i get some right mingers in


----------



## Cy-Zuki

Interesting thread.


----------



## GleemSpray

Cy-Zuki said:


> Interesting thread.


I am glad it has turned out to be so.

I started it to get away from the shambles of the other thread about Power Maxed TFR, where it had just deteriorated into " _TFR's are terrible / no they aren't / yes they are / no they aren't ...etc,etc,etc _" .

I did think this thread was heading that way at one point, but it seems to have settled into some worthwhile and informed discussions about the use of *any* potent chemistry on car paintwork, trim and even alloy wheels.

So by all means use it to talk about fallout removers, brick acid, TFR's, IPA... .


----------



## Oldsparky

As novice (who's only just started to use prewash and tfr including the power maxed stuff) I've found these discussions really interesting, sadly at times they've gone a bit flame wars but that seems to be the nature of the Internet. 

It's fascinating that we can use such potent chemicals without harming ourselves or our precious vehicles and that's a tribute to the manufacturers and legislators who keep us safe. It's made me think hard about what I actually need to use. 

Top marks to all the experts and manufacturers on here what a source of information this is!


----------



## Alex L

AllenF said:


> Uk as well technically its illegal to wash a car ( or do any maintenance on it ) on the side of the road
> 
> Yes you can buy neat oxalic acid ( same as you can buy 99% pure IPA) but you would have to be pretty stupid to put that on your car neat ( same as pure ipa etc etc etc)
> Watered down correctly and used within the manufactures guidlines then these chemicals are safe. If not the manufactures would pull them as they would have so many claims against them they would go bust.
> The problem is people DONT understand dilution they think that neat is better.
> Take G101 or smartwheels even upholstery shampoo its MORE effective when diluted than when used neat. But you just cant tell some people.
> 5litres of any chemical with a dilution ratio of say upto 40/1 would last a hobbiest /weekender ( i will refrain from calling them weekend warriors as it upsets a few) a few years. But they buy it month in month out. FFS i use the stuff daily and even I dont go through as much as some " hobbiests" and i get some right mingers in


great point:thumb:

the other thing to think about is the correct PPE. How many people wear the correct type of gloves and masks etc.

I've seen in some pics of people applying coatings just using a cheap dust mask instead of at least a sealed P3 designed for fumes.


----------



## ianFRST

G101 as a "TFR" for me.

dilute it about 30:1 and jet wash off at 60degree. brilliant


----------



## AllenF

At that temp try it at 50 or 60-1


----------



## Juke_Fan

Also used G101 30-1 with cold water - cleans well. As Allen says if using warm or hot water then dilute 50 or 60 to 1.


----------



## GleemSpray

Interesting to read of APC's being used as pre-washs. G101 on here and Stardrops on another thread. 

I am no chemist, but I guess anything with a decent all surface and all purpose surfactant will do a job of loosening that dirt and salt.

One of the things I really rate about using a garden pump sprayer for pre-washing with TFR's and the like is that you can use hot water and boy does it make a difference in winter for making the dirt just slide off.

You can reduce Bilt Hamber Autofoam down to 5% if you use hot water and it works same as if you were mixing it at 7% or more.

My Pressure Washer has a pick up that you can put into a bucket of hot water and it works well, but I cant be arsed setting it up and filling a big bucket with hot water - did it once LOL

And I am not enthusiastic enough to splash out on a proper hot water machine like a Kranzle.


----------



## AndyC

Ditto. Hot water seems to make a big difference to dilution rate and speed of cleaning - I've only tried it with APC from a trigger spray and foam via a pump sprayer. More experimentation needed!


----------



## cheekymonkey

when using hot water you need to take into consideration what lsp you have. some waxes cant take the same heat as a sealant.


----------



## SiGainey

nick_mcuk said:


> This ^^^^^ is one thing that always gets me. We all love cleaning and polishing and making our cars pretty so why are so many obsessed with super long life products? ?


I think that's where I'm different from most of the clique on here. I want a product that does what it says it will do without hours of prep using distiller water which can only be applied under very controlled conditions.

I want an easy to clean, well polished car that I can take a jet wash to and have clean in 5 minutes at the Tesco jet wash and not have to pamper it.

Applying a new wax every couple of weeks? That's not for me, I have too many other things pressing for my time :thumb:


----------



## Alex L

So whats the general rule of thumb when it comes to diluting with hot water? And why do they need tmore dilution with hot water?



cheekymonkey said:


> when using hot water you need to take into consideration what lsp you have. some waxes cant take the same heat as a sealant.


Yep, I used to blame waxes for not lasting in the wintrr but it was the warm water I was using.



SiGainey said:


> I think that's where I'm different from most of the clique on here. I want a product that does what it says it will do without hours of prep using distiller water which can only be applied under very controlled conditions.
> 
> I want an easy to clean, well polished car that I can take a jet wash to and have clean in 5 minutes at the Tesco jet wash and not have to pamper it.
> 
> Applying a new wax every couple of weeks? That's not for me, I have too many other things pressing for my time :thumb:


Same as me, when you have 1 year old twins you literally have 2 miutes a day to get anything done.


----------



## AllenF

Why dilute more with hot water??
Good question aint got a clue but its always been that way.
Maybe suej can provide an answer via the labrats here


----------



## cheekymonkey

always put it down to the heat does some of the work, so less product is needed


----------



## Sue J

cheekymonkey said:


> always put it down to the heat does some of the work, so less product is needed


Correct
The description we use is the greasy frying pan. 
Run it under cold water and nothing much happens
Run it under hot water and the heat will dislodge some of the soiling
Add a chemical and it will further break down the grease
And for the ultimate add some mechanical action and you have the optimum cleaning process.

Our labels will generally show dilutions for hot and cold pressure washing.


----------



## ALLR_155528

Thought I would add to this thread now that I have used a pre wash. Previously never been interested in using any sort of pre wash but with recent bad weather most of us in the UK had, seeing the results of a pre wash I thought it was about time to give it ago. 

Ordered 3 pre wash samples, Valet Pro Citrus Pre Wash, Power Maxed TFR and Power Maxed Jet Wash and Wax. I used jet wash and wax on my car one word wow was left wondering why I haven't used a pre wash before. Removed 90-95% dirt on paint didn't do so well on alloys but there are protected with sealant so nothing my shampoo, brush, wheel wash mitt couldn't sort out, easy to apply, good dilution ratio, smell good, didn't effect any protection on my car. 

Later I used Power Maxed TFR on my dads nearly 20year old car needed a good a clean I have read about it not been wax safe, not ph natural etc even though in a few months when weather picks up a bit will be doing a full detail machine, sealant on glass, paint, alloys etc didn't want any of my current protection removing my dads car has minimal protection and trading it in next month for his brand new car so didn't matter if it stripped anything of my dads car. Compared to jet wash and wax didn't perform as well removed around 75% that night it rained and there was still beading on my dads car so haven't stripped any protection or very little.

Hopefully will get to use Valet Pro Citrus Wash next week


----------



## nick_mcuk

I will give a word of caution G101 will and can bleach paintwork tonnes worse than any TFR. I used some on the engine bay of the 205 once and got some on the wings (was degreasing some areas of the engine)....it bleached the areas it came into contact with.

Ok the 205 is single stage but in my eyes something like G101 should be used very very cautiously if at all.


----------



## fatdazza

nick_mcuk said:


> I will give a word of caution G101 will and can bleach paintwork tonnes worse than any TFR. I used some on the engine bay of the 205 once and got some on the wings (was degreasing some areas of the engine)....it bleached the areas it came into contact with.
> 
> Ok the 205 is single stage but in my eyes something like G101 should be used very very cautiously if at all.


Any idea what the "bleaching" agent in G101 might be?

Could it be the sodium hydroxide? Only reason I ask is that some TFRs contain this as well.


----------



## nick_mcuk

I am not sure but it might be, that being said never had issues with TFRs but then it could be that G101 is much stronger.

I stopped using G101 in favour of AG CleanAll and Super Interior Cleaner.

Have used AG CleanAll nearly neat on all kinds of paintwork and engine components and it has never had a issue but cleans as well


----------



## Juke_Fan

Got me worried now! Maybe Sue can advise?


----------



## nick_mcuk

fatdazza said:


> Any idea what the "bleaching" agent in G101 might be?
> 
> Could it be the sodium hydroxide? Only reason I ask is that some TFRs contain this as well.


Had a look this morning at the AS Saftey Data Sheet and it seem it is Sodium Hydroxide...thats the key ingredient.

http://www.autosmart.co.uk/images/PDF Folder/Autosmart COSHH sheets/G101 - SDS11028 - GBR.pdf

That being said I am not knocking G101 at all and it is brilliant for shifting serious grime on door shuts, arches and engine bays....and its ability to degrease is epic....as said on single stage paint you have to be super careful with it.


----------



## fatdazza

nick_mcuk said:


> Had a look this morning at the AS Saftey Data Sheet and it seem it is Sodium Hydroxide...thats the key ingredient.
> 
> http://www.autosmart.co.uk/images/PDF Folder/Autosmart COSHH sheets/G101 - SDS11028 - GBR.pdf
> 
> That being said I am not knocking G101 at all and it is brilliant for shifting serious grime on door shuts, arches and engine bays....and its ability to degrease is epic....as said on single stage paint you have to be super careful with it.


So, G101 contains sodium hydroxide at 1 to 2% (Autosmart MSDS)

and powermaxed TFR contains sodium hydroxide at "<2%" - (I assume this is greater than 1% otherwise they would label it as <1%)

So ....... (and I know we have not proved this so please don't shout me down yet) if it is the sodium hydroxide which is causing the damage, then if suitably diluted why should G101 cause damage and TFR not?


----------



## nick_mcuk

It must be something to do with the combination of the other ingredients.

I got the MSDS for the AG Advanced TFR and it doesn't contain any Soduim Hydrox.

But having said that CleanAll does....but as I say its honestly never caused any issues.

I think if AutoSmart or Autoglym could come on and maybe give us the lowdown on it...its got to be to do with the formulations of the products and the additional ingredients that make the difference here


----------



## AllenF

Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate.
Alkyl dimethylamine betaine.
And the sodium hydroxide combined 
You wont find those in tfrs ( well not that i can recall )

So its got to be one of the top two that causes that effect (especially on reds .... But vaux reds go pink anyway so can discount those )


----------



## fatdazza

AllenF said:


> Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate.
> Alkyl dimethylamine betaine.
> And the sodium hydroxide combined
> You wont find those in tfrs ( well not that i can recall )
> 
> So its got to be one of the top two that causes that effect (especially on reds .... But vaux reds go pink anyway so can discount those )


Alkyl Dimethlyamine Betain listed in Powermaxed TFR at <10% so it's probably not that

Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate is an emulsifier (used sometimes as a food additive) so I doubt it is that.


----------



## AllenF

Yeah combine them altogether though.
On their own they may be ok.


----------



## Alex L

Just more proof that every product has the ability to cause damage. Some like Micks example straight away or some over time causing premature aging/clearcot failure.


----------



## AllenF

Agreed used with total disregard or little or no knowledge of the capabilities of any product has the ability to do harm.
Its like wheel cleaners on diamond cut alloys people use them willy nilly without actually reading the data on them.
Like i said before people are sheep..... Just because someone gets a result with a product EVERYBODY then gets on it... Some with disastrous results.


----------



## nick_mcuk

AllenF said:


> Agreed used with total disregard or little or no knowledge of the capabilities of any product has the ability to do harm.
> 
> Its like wheel cleaners on diamond cut alloys people use them willy nilly without actually reading the data on them.
> 
> Like i said before people are sheep..... Just because someone gets a result with a product EVERYBODY then gets on it... Some with disastrous results.


Then you start talking ceramic coatings and the damage and health issues they can present.....scary S*** people.

Has anyone pulled the MSDS on some of the more popular SnowFoams and Prewashes that are out there?


----------



## The Doctor

Guys you really must read all the labels on products especially trade strength products such as G101. Here is the G101 label. It clearly says not to use on single stage paint. On clear coated paint it is fine as long as it's suitably diluted but do not use on single stage. This is another reason not to buy decanted AS products off eBay as most of the time such information is not included on the label


----------



## AndyC

I can happily (I think) report that used neat PM TFR is a very good degreaser. Used it on a manky subframe earlier and it cleaned all the grime out easily. Rinsed and now painted and all good.


----------



## nick_mcuk

AndyC said:


> I can happily (I think) report that used neat PM TFR is a very good degreaser. Used it on a manky subframe earlier and it cleaned all the grime out easily. Rinsed and now painted and all good.


Cool nice one!

On the above post it was at least 4 years ago that I used G101 so after I had the staining incident I never used it again on painted finishes.

Still stand by people being very cautious using it on painted surfaces of all kinds. It's just that bit too pokey.


----------



## AndyC

If it doesn't get me lynched, the only APC I use nowadays is Sainsburys own brand - works well and no adverse effects that I can see. Good value too lol and I figure if you remove the lemon scent it'll be little different to an automotive brand APC.


----------



## nick_mcuk

AndyC said:


> If it doesn't get me lynched, the only APC I use nowadays is Sainsburys own brand - works well and no adverse effects that I can see. Good value too lol and I figure if you remove the lemon scent it'll be little different to an automotive brand APC.


Lol true probably 

I just stick to my AG professional kit know what it does and how it works.

Aqua blade gets the worst of the water off, AutoGloss Rinse add the top up protection and final bling at the end courtesy of Chemical guys speed wipe


----------



## AllenF

**** that.
Im going back to fairy liquid hot water, sponge old dried crusty chamois. And an old tee shirt to smear the turtle wax spray wax on.
It worked in the old days for my grandad.. And he didnt suffer any ill effects from it.
Admittedly he was run over on the way to buy some more turtle wax spray .... But thats another story


----------



## GleemSpray

Have used Mr Muscle APC before now, but then bought a tub of Bilt Hamber Surfex and just dilute a small amount as needed into a spray bottle. Fantastic degreaser and cleaner, even down to 50:1

Surfex is excellent as a pre-wash too and, bizarrely, it has a clever trick of cleaning tyres at the same time which I haven't noticed other pre-washes doing.


----------



## AndyC

I'm now sitting on the naughty step thinking about what I've done.


----------



## DJ X-Ray

^^I use Flash/ Febreze APC...think i'll join ya


----------



## nick_mcuk

AndyC said:


> I'm now sitting on the naughty step thinking about what I've done.


I will join you and think of Aqua blades.


----------



## GleemSpray

AndyC said:


> I'm now sitting on the naughty step thinking about what I've done.


Its not big and its not clever ... 

I have used both non-automotive APC *and *an AG Hydra Blade on my car paintwork (though not at the same time).

I also like the number 13, walking under ladders and stepping on cracks in the pavement.


----------



## GleemSpray

DJ X-Ray said:


> ^^I use Flash/ Febreze APC...think i'll join ya


I used to use Febreze in the past when I practically lived in my car for work.

It worked great when I was away from home and the car smelled like an old pair of socks after a long week !!


----------



## Alex L

AndyC said:


> I'm now sitting on the naughty step thinking about what I've done.





DJ X-Ray said:


> ^^I use Flash/ Febreze APC...think i'll join ya


I use Simple Green as its about $10 for 30/40 litres. But its very harsh.


----------



## AllenF

Ohhhhhhh alex.
I hope you wear the proper respirator and decent chemi gaunlets with that stuff. That will just eat through the oils in you skin and melt your lungs.


----------



## Alex L

AllenF said:


> Ohhhhhhh alex.
> I hope you wear the proper respirator and decent chemi gaunlets with that stuff. That will just eat through the oils in you skin and melt your lungs.


:thumb:

its nasty stuff ay, but is awesome at cleaning. I even use it in the foam gun to clean the weather boards and spouting on my house. Although its not very good at killing the ugly plants my wifes planted around the house


----------



## Sue J

Juke_Fan said:


> Got me worried now! Maybe Sue can advise?


Ok
Any TFRs on single pack could have the potential to cause damage. Hence the warning on the label. The chemists say that the "bleached look" is often caused by simply stripping off any polish on the car, so that you are seeing paintwork that has suffered over time. This is especially common on red vehicles, which have a tendency to go a light pink colour. In terms of recommendations for single pack. We'd always say Duet or Hazsafe / Highfoam if you want to pressure wash.

To reassure you. We have 140 showrooms on the road, each with an average of 250 trade customers. Just think of the 1000's of vehicles which are being cleaned with our products every day. And these range for Bentley dealerships through to your local car wash. We have to be rigourous in ensuring that our products are effective, easy to use and safe. Follow the instructions on the label and you are highly unlikely to experience any problems with our products.


----------



## silver_v

AllenF said:


> Pre wash tfr snow foam
> Here we go detailing or valeting.
> Bottom line they ALL do the same job which is to loosen traffic film ( traffic film being an oily snotty dusty salty grime that sticks to paintwork)
> Now IN THEORY hot water SHOULD do the same job. How effective it would be against a decent tfr is debatable. The beauty of these products though is they also remove grime such as moss etc from the window seals and the stupid gap where the designer thought it would be funny to leave a 1/4" gap round the rear window or the top edge of the windscreen.
> Citrus prewash..... Mmmmmmmmm citrus therefor an acid technically then albeit made from oranges and lemons but still more acid than PH7 if not then why call it citrus?? Agreed not as acidic as oxalic acid that the polish use but still.....


These gaps are so people like me who used to work in the Windscreen trade can get the glass OUT without scratching or damaging the vehicle. Cheese wire was not the tool of choice back then but its more common now, but we still need the gaps so we don't wreck the hell out of the cars paint work.


----------



## Adot

Interesting stuff here,

Not exactly on topic but closely relating in principle;

With all the talk of limonene/ citrus being harmful and damaging finishes, is this applicable to waxes that are very citrus like?

People have often said about homebrews using d-limonene too. Are these then harmful being used in a wax??

A fantastic thread however


----------



## ashers16

Anyone used this TFR before? Tempted to give it a go at this price but don't want to be left with 20L of something that's useless.


----------



## jamesmut

ashers16 said:


> Anyone used this TFR before? Tempted to give it a go at this price but don't want to be left with 20L of something that's useless.


I really wouldn't bother if I were you!! Unless of course you like throwing your cash away!


----------



## adjones

Alex L said:


> Im just guessing here but you cant buy undiluted iron x etc. It comes premixed and (you'd hope) has passed the certain legislations.


You can buy the fundamental material which makes it work, at concentrations of 60% and higher. Diluting that won't give you a good product though. Legislations - you would have no problem selling it but it would need a toxic hazard with it. That said, this basic ingredient will render a finished product as at least an irritant, at any useful level. The fact that there are products out there with no hazard, clearly shows that legislation is not always adhered to (which is going to either be wilful negligence or ignorance - there is no other option).



nick_mcuk said:


> I am not sure but it might be, that being said never had issues with TFRs but then it could be that G101 is much stronger.


G101 would not be stronger than many TFRs. It may have more caustic in it (which I have been ignored about before, so no point re-iterating). If you look at AS TFR products, you should spot that there is one ingredient in almost all of them, that is not in G101.



AllenF said:


> Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate.
> Alkyl dimethylamine betaine.
> And the sodium hydroxide combined
> You wont find those in tfrs ( well not that i can recall )
> 
> So its got to be one of the top two that causes that effect (especially on reds .... But vaux reds go pink anyway so can discount those )


The top one is also known as TKPP. It is a very common ingredient in products of this type. It gives alkalinity and, for want of a simpler description, softens the water which ensures that the product can do its job (it does other things, but this is beyond the scope here). Alkyl dimethyl betaine is, again, not uncommon in this product type. This is a surfactant which helps boost foam. It is also known as a particularly mild surfactant and is in almost everything, which includes shampoo, shower gel and even baby products. Of the three things you have listed, Sodium hydroxide is the only one which would offer a genuine risk (you would have to ingest a fair amount of the others to harm yourself, caustic soda, on the other hand, can cause irreversible skin damage and would kill you if you ingested it at any appreciable level).



fatdazza said:


> Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate is an emulsifier (used sometimes as a food additive) so I doubt it is that.


TKPP isn't an emulsifier. Of the above, the only ingredient which will emulsify will be the betaine (although that will not be its primary function as it is not known as a good emulsifier).



Adot said:


> With all the talk of limonene/ citrus being harmful and damaging finishes, is this applicable to waxes that are very citrus like?
> 
> People have often said about homebrews using d-limonene too. Are these then harmful being used in a wax??


Where was the talk of the hazards with limonene? Being brutally honest, many (maybe even most) fragranced products will have _some_ limonene. Limonene is a pretty potent solvent but no more so that the likes of xylene (which is used liberally by a great many forum members and beyond). You have to take things with a pinch of salt and be willing to read between the lines. If you care to dig through autogeek, you will see that Mike Phillips has demonstrated how IPA can do irreparable damage to paint. However, the reality is that this was a freak occurrence with extenuating circumstances - in normal use the only risk from IPA is marring (because it has no lubricating properties).



ashers16 said:


> Anyone used this TFR before? Tempted to give it a go at this price but don't want to be left with 20L of something that's useless.


For the price and on the retail market, you are unlikely to get better value for money. It would be unfair to dismiss it without knowing more. The reality is that it may not be as strong as other products out there, but if you find the right dilution, it will work. Others clearly disagree but I would remind you of my opinion that you are definitely working the cheap and nasty end of the market.


----------



## Alex L

adjones said:


> You can buy the fundamental material which makes it work at concentrations of 60% and higher. Diluting that won't give you a good products though. Legislations - you would have no problem selling it but it would need a toxic hazard with it. That said, this basic ingredient will render a finished product as at least an irritant, at any useful level. The fact that there are products out there with no hazard clearly shows that legislation is not really adhered to.
> 
> .


I think it was Tim who did post somewhere about labelling his products and how broadly sweeping they were. I'd completely forgot about this thread, but it was a good insight into the sometimes pointless workings of labelling.

It's amazing when you look at stuff around you just how bad it is. MDF for example is full of Formaldahyde (sp) and loads of people machine that with no form of mask. Even looking at threads with people using coatings they just use the cheapest dust masks and don't seem worried about the vapours.


----------



## adjones

Alex L said:


> I think it was Tim who did post somewhere about labelling his products and how broadly sweeping they were. I'd completely forgot about this thread, but it was a good insight into the sometimes pointless workings of labelling.
> 
> It's amazing when you look at stuff around you just how bad it is. MDF for example is full of Formaldahyde (sp) and loads of people machine that with no form of mask. Even looking at threads with people using coatings they just use the cheapest dust masks and don't seem worried about the vapours.


There is a whole lot of 'ignoring' health and safety. If you search DW, it gets brought up every now and again. A few people say the right things and then the normal crowd come along and nonsense it because 'it will be all right'. I suspect I am preaching to the converted with you but this is another example of doing a slap dash job. More than that, someone detailing for a profession is actually breaching health and safety law by taking this approach. Ive suggested before that DW be more pro-active with regards to informing detailers of their obligations - but there just is no interest.


----------



## GleemSpray

I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread and a special thanks for keeping to the spirit that I asked for in the first post of " _a considered discussion_ " about " _the merits or otherwise of TFR's _" .

I think some good food for thought has come out of this and I personally have found it fascinating and educational to learn more about the chemistry raw ingredients and blends, from people who actually work with these chemicals.

Not just about TFR's either; some great info about the way that surface cleaners in general work.


----------



## DeanoLfc

Anyone tried this TFR KING GREEN TRAFFIC FILM REMOVER 400-1


----------

