Zymöl Vintage... what do you charge?

[CocheseUGA]

Originally Posted by GoudyL

Except that they are unpersuasive to anyone familiar with fine chemical manufacturing.



We've establisted, that the "most carnauba" is vague/meaningless in the context of product(s) that is a mixture of functional ingredients.

Also no one has ever explained what the 61% is relative too? Is it 61% of the weight of total solid ingredients, 61% of the net weight of the finished product, 61% of the wax ingredients etc.

My own guess is that its 61% of the wax ingredients, which may be only fraction of the total formula.



Sounds like an argument based on an appeal to authority.



How about if the folks involved are well adjusted and without the pathalogical need to find meaning in thier lives/impress others with displays of wealth?



Since the company was founded in 1980, that's quite a feat.



Why? Because you can afford it.



It's been amply demonstrated in so many examples that having money is not a reliable indicator of any other personal quality except for having money.



If you belive that ethics/values have an objective or even semi-objective basis than anyone with basic reasoning ability is qualified.

Just cause a multi-billionaire says 2+2 =5, doesn't mean it is so.



Why? If it can be established that Zymol vintage offers no tangible improvement over other waxes, then it can be shown that the incremental money spent on Zymol Vintage is wasted/could be better spent on other things.

This is the kind of discussion I was looking for. We can all go to the website and look at what it is, and even call the company. But that's a biased answer to the question. While it can be used in part to form a conclusion, I think discussion here is useful.

I don't hazard a guess as to what the 61% means. I assumed it to be 61% by volume, but that's really not important to me. Is 61% better than 50%? The 'more is always better' argument is a lie, so it remains to be seen what the advantage is, and if there is such thing as too much. If there's something else that works better, then more is certainly not better. I refer that to what scottwax said.

It was developed in 1947. And? I'm not of the opinion that old is better. And I'm certainly not in favor of continuing to do something just because that's the way it's always been done. They didn't have clay back then. There's been too many advances in not only car care innovation, but advances in paint as well. Being established doesn't always equal what's best.

I'm equally interested in the technique about using it by hand. Does it add to the product, or is it a visceral experience? Either way, could it also be applied to other waxes? Or does either of those things only enhance the product in question?

I've already established my opinion that it could be financially a good idea to purchase it based on the concept of free refills. I wonder if that wasn't in play, how much that remains true. Companies don't last forever, and I'm sure they could rescind the offer whenever they choose. Apollo has already stated that the refills don't really matter to him since he's upcharging (or I may have inferred that). I wonder what others would have to say on that.

I could certainly afford buying it. The question isn't a matter of being able to afford something. The question is one of value. And if you can only say that you prefer it and that's it, that's cool. There's a few things in my life that I can't explain why I prefer something, so I definitely get that aspect. I'll even take theories and guesses over a corporate wax job (pun intended). But for someone who's genuinely curious about the product, it's a question I like to ask.

[NSXTASY]

In an attempt to address the thread topic:

Assuming your fee structure is based on (#hours *HrlyRate)=Price, I would guess applying vintage with hands/"sweating"/re-wiping/etc., takes longer than other LSPs.

If it takes 1.5 hours to properly apply from start to finish of the LSP stage, and your rate is $70/hr=105

It seems logical and does not come across as an arbitrary number (although it may be).

[MuttGrunt]

while i agree with your OPINION CocheseUGA, as I wouldn't be able to justify the price, it is quite simple that this wax is worth that price simply because someone will pay that price for the goods.
This isn't a 2+2=5 situation. This is more of a Picaso painting situation. Surely paintings didn't take 1 million dollars to make. So why should a painting be worth a million dollars?
Carnauba percentages have been proven over and over to be worthless in high end detailing other than as a bragging point. With high grade raw 'nuba costing under 10 bucks a pound, there's not much special about having a wax with an extremely high nuba content, other than it makes it that much harder to apply IMHO.
Surely you have to give them credit for development and marketing, and if nothing else the cost is due to the product being exclusive. Maybe not worth a few select ingredients, exclusivity, and the developing cost to you: but if they're target consumer group is willing to pay 2k, then it's worth 2k

[David Fermani]

Originally Posted by Less

I listed several other reasons why I bought Fuzion besides pictures. And besides, your argument only holds water if you assume that everyone posting pictures is doing so in a sinister attempt to mislead potential buyers of a particular product. I chose Fuzion for many reasons, but I never said "It costs more, so it must be better"

Right, you did “research on detail forums” (don’t know what that proved?) and went off of AutoGeek’s advertisement on how great it is because they’re so reputable. I agree, they are a reputable & successful company, but they’re trying to move product just like every other company. You’d figure they’d try to pump up their high end wax to the max when their profit margin is most likely expotentially greater that all the others they offer. I went to their Detail Fest and can assure you that no vehicle(s) stood out better because it had Fuzion (or any other LSP) on it. Any possible difference or characteristic most of these exotic waxes give gets washed away after the 1st good wash anyways IMHO.

I’m not saying or assuming that anyone is posting bogus pictures one bit. I’m saying that there are many people here that can edit their pics to bump up the wetness and gloss to turn a scratched up POS into a masterpiece that anyone would ooh and ahh over. Don’t forget when many companies post pictures of great looking cars in their advertisements, they’re created by professional photographers. I know AutoGeek has a team of photographers on hand for their ads (which look great BTW).


Just because a wax is formulated for a 1947 Bentley, 1937 Bugatti, 1930 Duesenberg or even a 1991 F-40 doesn’t mean anything. Wax won’t help a car win Pebble Beach or any other Concourse event. Spending 1000’s of hours prepping the chassis and finishing it off with perfectly true to class paint is what does. Any of those cars could have had the cheapest, most crappiest wax and they would have still won. Car show judges determine the authenticity and how properly preserved a vehicle is and I'll bet they most likely can't distinguish the somewhat insignificant differences what wax was used.

[Less]

As I continue to do more and more research about Carnauba, I'm becoming more and more convinced that ZV is, in fact, a superior product.

From what I've learned so far, (and some of what I knew previously), carnauba is extremely hard, is NOT readily soluble, has an extremely high melting point, and can not be broken down by water.

That sounds like something I want on my car paint, doesn't it??

However, those properties make it nearly impossible to get pure carnauba from the Brazillian Carnauba Palm Tree, onto your car. Oils and solvents, and mixing carnauba with other, more forgiving waxes makes it easier.

Therefore, as the content of pure carnauba goes up, the oils, solvents, and other waxes need to work harder in order to make the product more spreadable. Or, they need to be higher quality oils, solvents, and waxes. However, when these products evaporate from the surface of the car all that's left is carnauba.

This also explains the "hand" application of ZV. Heat is known to aid in the breakdown of carnauba wax. Therefore, since ZV contains such a high volume of such a resilient product, the introduction of heat aids in the application process. How is this accomplished? From what I've read, ZV contains certain enzymes that interact with your own body head and act as a catalyst to aid in the application of the wax.

Furthermore, the 61% by volume shouldn't be so difficult to understand. Since carnauba is what's left behind after the evaporation of the solvents, it stands to reason that a higher carnauba content would leave a thicker, more durable protective coat. For example: if Brand X contains 5% carnauba and ZV contains 61%. Then it stands to reason that applying 1oz of Brand X will leave your car with .05 oz of carnauba protection. Whereas 1oz of ZV will leave .61oz of carnauba protection. Since your car is a finite size, that means that the protective coating must be thicker and harder when using ZV.

And, since the ZV coating is thicker, it stands to reason that it is more durable. Just like a large chunk of ice takes longer to melt than a small chunk, .61oz of carnauba will take longer to break down than .05oz given the same driving conditions.

This is all basic info I know. I got it from wikipedia and wisegeek.com. I'm still learning, but it seems that this information supports the idea that a 61% carnauba formula should cost more. 1) It takes higher quality, more specialized ingredients to make it work. And 2) It seems logical that it would perform better than Brand X because it leaves behind MORE protective wax.

Please don't come back at me with "Why does more = better" I just attempted to explain it, and I think I did a pretty good job.

[GoudyL]

That is, unless you care to share your expert knowledge of wax manufacturing. I'm very anxiousl to learn why you call carnauba a meaningless ingredient when it serves as the core of EVERY single car wax on the market.

I said that the claim of "most carnauba" is vague/meaningless in the context of product(s) that is a mixture of functional ingredients.

That's because is a product that is a mixture of functional ingredients, it is the relative ratio of the ingredients to each other that is important, and not the absolute amounts.

If someone want's to say Carnauba is the predominent wax in the Zymol formula, that's fine. It could very well be.

Your statement that Carnauba is the core of every single car wax on the market is silly. There are any number of synthetic waxes that contain no carnauba, to say nothing of waxes that are based on other wax ingredients such as Polyethylene/PAO waxes, montan waxes, and silicone waxes/resins, PDMS etc.

Your "guess" isn't a fact. It's just a thinly veiled opinion. And it was established that the 61% is by volume. Therefore, I would expect that a 22oz tube of Vintage contains just over 13 oz's of pure No1 Brazillian white carnauba.

Link to where it was shown that ZV is 61% by volume of the entire formula?

IMHO it's more likely to be 61% of the wax composition, and that wax composition is a fraction of the total formula, compared to things like water, solvents, silicones etc.

And throwing around your familiarity with fine chemical engineering isn't?

It's more relavent, and grounded in reality.

Could you at least acknowledge that there are OTHER posssible motivations for buying the product? Or are all Zymol users just manifesting this "pathological need"

There could be other motivations, for example the untrue belief that zymol is measurably better than other competing waxes in its class.

There's that jealousy again. You're presenting your opinion "people with money don't know how to act with it" as fact.

Just ask the "Dean of Wall St", Bernie Madoff.

And since you're not rich, you must not be as smart as they are.

And if you're so rich, why aren't you smart?

Less, looking at this from the other side, you appear to doing a great job of projective identification claiming that other people suffer from your repressed insecurities about wealth, intelligence, and penis size. You are acting this out, by claiming that people who don't share your views about your idealised car wax are resentful haters.

Also a good argument could be made that at the extreme tail end, very smart people are less likely to be rich, since they are attracted to fields/professions that don't pay much/have much opportunity for wealth creation such as the sciences/humanities and then teaching/research positions therein.

Examples don't necessarily explain general truths or trends.

But they do just fine for knocking down theories that can't explain them.

[Less]

Alright Goudy, you and I are done.

You have yet to demonstrate to me that you actually have a knowledge of chemical wax manufacturing. You keep representing your opinions as fact and I'm just not buying it.

Surely you know that Bernie Madoff does not represent the entire wealthy population. What you're doing is 'spinning' the truth. And I can see right through it.

You can claim 'projective identification' all you want. But I don't see PhD after your name. But the woman sitting next to me has one, and she says you're wrong.

More importantly though, calling me dumb and insulting my penis size just brought this whole conversation down to a level to which I'm not willing to lower myself.

By resorting to name-calling and insults, you've only proven my theory about insecurity and ignorance.

[CocheseUGA]

Originally Posted by MuttGrunt

while i agree with your OPINION CocheseUGA, as I wouldn't be able to justify the price, it is quite simple that this wax is worth that price simply because someone will pay that price for the goods.
This isn't a 2+2=5 situation. This is more of a Picaso painting situation. Surely paintings didn't take 1 million dollars to make. So why should a painting be worth a million dollars?
Carnauba percentages have been proven over and over to be worthless in high end detailing other than as a bragging point. With high grade raw 'nuba costing under 10 bucks a pound, there's not much special about having a wax with an extremely high nuba content, other than it makes it that much harder to apply IMHO.
Surely you have to give them credit for development and marketing, and if nothing else the cost is due to the product being exclusive. Maybe not worth a few select ingredients, exclusivity, and the developing cost to you: but if they're target consumer group is willing to pay 2k, then it's worth 2k

Good response. I'm not a big believer in one person justifying it = justification, but I can understand the point. And yes, that, just like everything else I've said, is merely my opinion.

And to be somewhat on-topic, I would recommend any upcharge done be made clear is for the application, not the product.

[Less]

Originally Posted by David Fermani

Right, you did “research on detail forums” (don’t know what that proved?) and went off of AutoGeek’s advertisement on how great it is because they’re so reputable. I agree, they are a reputable & successful company, but they’re trying to move product just like every other company. You’d figure they’d try to pump up their high end wax to the max when their profit margin is most likely expotentially greater that all the others they offer.

David - I'm not sure what your point is. If you're being critical of my decision to purchase Fuzion, that's fine. You can have your opinion. HOwever, I would like to point out that this is your second post where you ignored the most important and compelling factor in my purchase decision - I got a sample, tried it myself, and loved it.

Also, your points about marketing and profit margin are well taken. And I don't doubt that there is an obscene profit margin on many high end waxes. However, this is predicated on two things 1) Volume. More expensive products usually sell less because somewhere in the market there is a line where the product is prohibitively expensive. 2) There are significant development costs in creating the formula and setting up manufacturing facilities. And these costs need to be recouped within a reasonable amount of time.

Knowing this, I used an opportunistic approach in my purchase decision. I took advantage of the BOGO offered on the sample jar a few weeks back. (This alone should tell you that there's significant profit margin in the full-price product). I also took advantage of the concurrent sale on the mini-conniseur kit.

I realized that I could get 12 oz of Fuzion for $100. (2 x 3oz @ $50)xBOGO = 4 3oz sample jars for $100. On top of that I could get the mini-kit for $80, which included another 3 oz jar for a total of 15oz of wax.

Regular price for 16oz of Fuzion (8 oz jar + 1 refill) was $180

However, by taking advantage of the sales, I spent the same $180 and I got a wash soap, a pre-wax cleaner, a sealant, applicators, and towels along with my wax. The only tradeoff is that I got 1 less ounce of wax (15 oz vs 16 oz) and I didn't get the sexy wooden box. Altogether I think it was a pretty good deal, and that certainly influenced my buying decision as well.

[Less]

Originally Posted by CocheseUGA

And to be somewhat on-topic, I would recommend any upcharge done be made clear is for the application, not the product.

Why? The product represents a $2,100 investment!! Isn't he entitled to recoup that expense?

[Jakerooni]

Originally Posted by Less

Why? The product represents a $2,100 investment!! Isn't he entitled to recoup that expense?

Yep he sure is... And I think the answer and concencious on the matter of the OP's question is a $100 upcharge is a fair estimate for a wide variety of reasons. Hopefully he can get more than 21 cars out of a tub in which he may or may not get refills on based on how he uses the wax.

Everything else in this thread is just filler garbage of a difference of opinions.

I honestly think Zymol gets this bashing alot because there's simply no other company I know of making $2100 and up wax. I know there's a $1000 wax from a competing company which is considered super high end. But with Zymol a mere $1000 breaks you into their mid grade stuff (or so it seems) And anyone with half a brain that can think for themselves clearly has to ability to ask.... Why???.

You have this notion that 61% nuba means something special. I can go out in my shop and pull half a dozen waxes off the shelfs that claim that and higher. ( a few claiming 100% right on the bottles) No I know it's a bunch of bull. I know pure Nuba isn't usable. But the claim is right there on the lables of many waxes... And it all means exactly jack crap to me. A good wax is a good wax. It dosen't need to cost much. Most of my waxes (all but one) cost less than $30. I've personally compared these to the $100+ waxes I've gotten to sample and it's simply no concernable difference and thus a waste of money to spend the big dollars. If I actually had clients that wanted "Brand X" and asked for it so be it I would then look into getting some of "Brand X". However right now I present my wax as 2 options. 1 Paste wax or 2 Liquid wax. I've never had anyone ask anything above that. 99% of the people just don't care. They just want a nice looking car. Which is why I go back to the hobbiest. If they want it by all means go buy it and have fun with it. but to most people it dosen't make any sense. You seemed to be beyond obsessed with it for some reason. Rest assured I'm not jealous of Zymol by any means. I can get great cars looking great without it just fine. Even if I had the means to plunk down there's just nothing about it that appeals to me.

[GoudyL]

From what I've learned so far, (and some of what I knew previously), carnauba is extremely hard, is NOT readily soluble, has an extremely high melting point, and can not be broken down by water.

That sounds like something I want on my car paint, doesn't it??

Not really, there are many other aspects a substance needs to have in order to be a good ingredient in a car wax.

The fatty alcohols in Carnauba wax, cause it to be slightly hydroscopic, and the linear structure of its molecules means it doesn't form stabilising entanglements within itself. It's not detergent resistent either.

A reactive aminosilicone that bonds to the paint and to other components in the formulation is going to be much more durable.

However, those properties make it nearly impossible to get pure carnauba from the Brazillian Carnauba Palm Tree, onto your car. Oils and solvents, and mixing carnauba with other, more forgiving waxes makes it easier.

Not exactly, disolving carnauba in solvents would require strong solvents, and leave behind a wax film that would be streaky and too hard to buff.

So what you do, is you soften the carnauba by combining it with oily substances, and further combine the carnauba with emulsifiers/emulsifying waxes, thus forming a colloidal dispersion of softened wax microparticles, in a continious phase.

The emulsifying waxes are critical, which is why you see oxidised waxes used. These waxes have acid groups (acid value) which make them polar, and easily emulsifable. Classically people use montan wax's (Luwax or Licowax) or various oxidised polyethylene/PAO waxes.

Further a good formulation will contain silicone oils which lubricate the movement of the wax microparticles in the emulsion and film. This helps form a level film of wax on the surface. Of course the silicone oils contribute additional functionality because they are very glossy, hydrophobic, and slick/non-tacky.

When you spread the wax on the surface of the car, the emulsion breaks (due to the shearing and evaporation of solvents), the wax microparticles form a thin film layer, and are further "smooshed" together when you buff the wax.

Therefore, as the content of pure carnauba goes up, the oils, solvents, and other waxes need to work harder in order to make the product more spreadable. Or, they need to be higher quality oils, solvents, and waxes.

Not exactly, welcome to the world of emulsions and colloids.

However, when these products evaporate from the surface of the car all that's left is carnauba.

Along with emulsifiers and lubricants and all other non-volatile solid ingredients in the wax.

In the case of emulsifers, you don't want things in the film that make it more soluble. Thus car wax formulators would prefer not to use ingredients that require emulsifers or retain their emulsification abilities in the final film.

This is one of the reasons that the actual amounts of wax in a formulation tend to be quite low.

This also explains the "hand" application of ZV. Heat is known to aid in the breakdown of carnauba wax. Therefore, since ZV contains such a high volume of such a resilient product, the introduction of heat aids in the application process.

Not at all, the carnauba wax is happily inert at body temperatures. All that's happening is that the solid emulsion has a softening point around body temperature. Heat makes both the microparticles and the continious phase more energetic, Same idea as butter softening at room temperature.

How is this accomplished? From what I've read, ZV contains certain enzymes that interact with your own body head and act as a catalyst to aid in the application of the wax.

How? By what mechanism?

Furthermore, the 61% by volume shouldn't be so difficult to understand.

Maybe it's much more complex than you are aware of? Remember that the wax film is 100% solids. So 61% by solids means the wax film will be 61% carnauba wax. 61% by volume means the wax film will be more more than 61% carnauba by volume.

Since carnauba is what's left behind after the evaporation of the solvents, it stands to reason that a higher carnauba content would leave a thicker, more durable protective coat.

Absolutely not. What matters is how well that coat bonds to the paint, and how well it bonds to itself; how thick it is a secondary consideration.

Only the first layer of molecules in the wax film can bond/interact with the paint surface. The next and subsequent layers can only interact with the layer of molecules that are interacting with the paint.

This is why straight mineral oil would be a poor wax, the first layer binds nicely to the paint, but the later layers have so much less interaction with each other that they come right off.

Now when we have a wax that contains reactive aminosilicones, these will bond to the paint, and to other reactive ingredients in the wax, thus forming a cross linked network throughout the film. Even better if that film contains things like highly branched compounds and hard particles that form stabilising entanglements or stiffen the film by restricting movement within the film.

In contrast, the molecules of carnauba wax, are mostly linear, with only perhaps slight bending due to ester linkages etc.

Where thickness is a consideration, is in the optical distiortion that the wax film creates. The thicker/less uniform carnauba film, creates a "wet look" because of this. But you can get the same or better effect by using bulky polymers to create a thick synthetic film. This is also why sealants look better on metalic cars, less distoration allows the metalic flake to shine better.

For example: if Brand X contains 5% carnauba and ZV contains 61%. Then it stands to reason that applying 1oz of Brand X will leave your car with .05 oz of carnauba protection. Whereas 1oz of ZV will leave .61oz of carnauba protection. Since your car is a finite size, that means that the protective coating must be thicker and harder when using ZV.

No. The thickness of the film is limited by the waxes ability to bind with itself. The waxes will form films of roughly equal thickness, and durability of the film is much more influenced by the other ingredients.

Again, in a product that is a mixture, what is important is the relative proportions of the ingredients, not the absolute amounts.

And, since the ZV coating is thicker, it stands to reason that it is more durable. Just like a large chunk of ice takes longer to melt than a small chunk, .61oz of carnauba will take longer to break down than .05oz given the same driving conditions.

No because again you are making the faulty assumption that thickness = durability which is not the case. And further you are assuming that the wax coat is abraded off, or degrades due to scission rather than being washed off or falling off in microscopic flakes.

This is all basic info I know. I got it from wikipediaand wisegeek.com.

Here's a wikipedia article for you.

Dunning-Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm still learning, but it seems that this information supports the idea that a 61% carnauba formula should cost more. 1) It takes higher quality, more specialized ingredients to make it work. And 2) It seems logical that it would perform better than Brand X because it leaves behind MORE protective wax.

Seriously, the expensive ingredients are things like functional silicones/polymers, not waxes or emulsifiers. Basic waxes and emulsifiers (aka soap) are bulk chemicals. Carnauba wax costs less than $10/lb.

Again, for someone not in the chemicals industry, you have no idea how silly the idea of a car wax that costs $2100 for 22oz is. I doubt the total cost of ingredients is more than $25 per tub.

Please don't come back at me with "Why does more = better" I just attempted to explain it, and I think I did a pretty good job.

Your explanation was naive (Evian?).

You can claim 'projective identification' all you want. But I don't see PhD after your name. But the woman sitting next to me has one, and she says you're wrong.

She's married to you, and I hope you aren't expecting an honest response to a question that is the male equivalent of

"Honey, does this dress make me look fat"

"No of course not."

"Sugerplum, do I project my male insecurities onto other people"

"No, Tiger, of course not"

Surely you know that Bernie Madoff does not represent the entire wealthy population.

How about his clients?

He built $65 Billion dollar business built entirely on rich people too stupid to understand why what he claimed to be doing was impossible.