Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 79
  1. #16
    William_Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    I’m impressed by the griots compounds.
    Likes GearHead_1, Loach, dwaleke liked this post

  2. #17
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Quote Originally Posted by bad penny View Post
    I can`t read that much at one time but look forward to the pictures.
    How/why have you acquired so many gloss meters? Aren`t those things pretty expensive? Who are you Loach Rockerfeller??
    Haha, I wish! I just happened to be one of the only guys on the hunt for them. The Rhopoints are incredibly expensive when new, but there isn`t really a used market for them that I know of. They`re pretty much worthless to any company when they`re out of certification if that company is ISO qualified, and the only companies looking for this caliber of glossmeter are going to have the budget to buy new and direct. So the rare chance that one does pop up for sale they`re either priced way too high so that no private buyer would ever bite, or dirt cheap because it wouldn`t sell otherwise. There`s a handful on ebay but those older models you have to watch out for, a lot of them had rechargeable batteries which are toast by now most likely, or need the lamp bulbs replaced, or the 20-25 year old electronics could be on their last leg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
    One question on some detailing hobbyist`s and professional`s minds are where would you ever NEED a gloss meter? To some shiny is shiny. I will state that this is comparable to trying to "guess/estimate" the thickness of a thin piece of sheet metal to tell what is gauge. Unless you deal with sheet metal on a very regular basis, 14 gauge sheet metal looks very close to 16 gauge sheet metal. The ONLY way to verify this is with an accurate digital /vernier micrometer or calipers measuring tool. Even the slight difference in metric to SAE (inch) screw diameters can be difficult to "eye-ball" (IE; is it a 10-0.8MM or a 1/4-20NC thread?)

    The point is that a gloss meter can gauge or measure how shiny is shiny and give a credible, verifiable, and accurate objective (IE, measured) value to that question, thus taking the subjective evaluation (IE, the person who is eye-balling a shiny surface and giving their observed estimate of one shiny surface over another, like comparing the gloss of one wax or coating over another).
    Loach`s systematic and scientific approach (IE a repeatable methodology) to giving us Autopians a" gloss value" achieved by different polishes on ONE donor hood (IE, the same test sample) as measured through the same gloss meter takes all the guess work and subjectivity out of answering that question, "Who makes the shiniest polish?".

    That said, the ONLY place I have seen a gloss meter used was in the infomercial with actor Dennis Weaver from the late 1980`s TV series "McCloud" selling the benefits of Coral Blue`s Auto Fombulin "A" sealant. (Good stuff in its day. I still have some in my ancient car-care collection). The "pitch" was to buy a used car at an auction, measure the initial gloss of paint, apply Fombulin A to it, and re-measure how much "better" it was. They then ran the car through the auction again to re-sell it, and of course, it brought a higher auction value because if its "enhanced" appearance. Do not ask me what manufacturer/model of meter they were using, I could not tell, but I do faintly remember the housing was a blue plastic with an LED readout.
    Great points, I can`t see the glossmeter as an absolute need tool. It`s helpful for product comparison testing to discover some differences that my eyes would never detect, and it is a great tool for quality control departments for manufacturers that must capture that data to keep their qualifications. However out in the real world these meters are grossly unprepared for full scale gloss mapping around painted panels. The only meter that I can see being of real day to day use to fit the trade, is the Rhopoint IQ Flex 20, which is a Distinctness of Image(orange peel)/Haze/Gloss meter all in one. This has a much smaller and more portable measurement base, and you can swap out the base with adapters that can be curved to fit the shape and angle of the surface you`re measuring from. It also has rubber/felt adapters so you`re not putting metal against your paint or a customer`s paint to capture results.

    The price on this is $5,341. Being able to capture just how much of the quality of the finish has been improved through haze reduction and DOI improvement, is perhaps much more valuable than gloss measurements in itself, especially if you`re wetsanding or running heavy compounding. But at that price? That`s a big dream away, but really the only tool remotely suitable to perhaps tackle the types of curves that we`re working on if our goal is to capture those data points for ourselves or a customer. However, there`s no way I would need that type of data to be satisfied with my paint`s maintenance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Accumulator View Post
    Loach- I really appreciate this testing you`re doing, even though for *me* it`s basically just intellectual curiosity.

    But echoing what Lonnie asked, I`m wondering what *in your opinion* is the "IRL discernible difference" threshold.

    Using my experiences as an example, let`s take a relatively discerning Autopian, who for instance thinks M205 finishes out so-so even on hard paints and can see an improvement when it`s followed by certain other products. At what point could such a person notice the differences that you`re measuring? Like... does it take a full integer`s worth of difference (in the meter readings) to see the difference with the naked eye? More/less? Very subjective I know, but what`s *your* take on this?

    E.g., I remember how somebody here had noticed that following Menzerna PO85rd with KAIO resulted in a drop in gloss that he could readily see. Most people would say that "KAIO leaves things nice and glossy", but he could see otherwise.
    I`ll pull M205 out and run some tests with it! What kind of pads have you been using with yours? I`ve got M210 as well so I can grab some results for this at the same time.

    Rhopoint has an article that estimates a 5GU difference is noticeable to a trained eye, but that must be at the lower gloss spectrum. On higher gloss surfaces I think it becomes much more difficult to discern, I doubt I`d be able to really notice the difference most likely between 95GU to 100GU if the 95GU surface was already haze free. That`s very important because we`ll see polishes that consistently come out with lower gloss readings than others. Much of which is literally within 1GU of the other. I`m definitely not noticing that margin unless the polish leaves a haze, which this meter will not quantify. They do have meters that capture paint haze measurements but unfortunately mine do not.

    What is very interesting is the types of looks that products are known to leave behind. I think the meter does capture some of this in the form of that reduced gloss reading as a result of light diffusion, but generally the readings go immediately up after the first wash. Really makes sense for something like Pinnacle Souveran for guys who say it only lasts for a wash or so. Some of the oils in the formula that provide that awesome depth will only diffuse the light like this until they`re washed off.

    Quote Originally Posted by JRW67 View Post
    Loach, you may want to look into a sling psychrometer
    for a cost effective way to go. However, you will need a
    chart to compare between the wet and dry bulb for the
    relative humidity.

    Is the Prep-All your using the water based one?

    Jim
    Thanks Jim! I`m running the solvent-based version of Prep-All. I`ll actually have to try out that water-based one in the future as a substitute to Eraser or Gyeon Prep to see how it does.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Thanks JRW67 thanked for this post

  3. #18

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    188
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    such a cool thread
    Likes Loach liked this post

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    85,894
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Quote Originally Posted by Loach View Post
    I`ll pull M205 out and run some tests with it! What kind of pads have you been using with yours? I`ve got M210 as well so I can grab some results for this at the same time...
    Hard to remember which pads I used with the M205..it`s been quite a few years. Actually, I probably tried all the usual suspects from back then *except* very soft Finishing Pads like the LC Black (did use the Griot`s Red Waxing Pad, probably the softest I used with it regularly). Sorry I can`t provide any better suggestions, but if you use the pads *you* consider best that oughta show the M205 in its best light (maybe resulting in it turning out better than it did for me!) and provide a good benchmark for those of us who care. Heh heh, I`ll be the first to congratulate you if the M205 turns out a lot better for you than it did for me

    Good idea on the M210, sorta the current-day equivalent (only presumably better).

    ..Rhopoint has an article that estimates a 5GU difference is noticeable to a trained eye, but that must be at the lower gloss spectrum. On higher gloss surfaces I think it becomes much more difficult to discern, I doubt I`d be able to really notice the difference most likely between 95GU to 100GU if the 95GU surface was already haze free. That`s very important because we`ll see polishes that consistently come out with lower gloss readings than others. Much of which is literally within 1GU of the other. I`m definitely not noticing that margin unless the polish leaves a haze, which this meter will not quantify. They do have meters that capture paint haze measurements but unfortunately mine do not...
    So much of interest in that paragraph!

    I`d (uh-oh!) assumed the finishes were all free of any discernible hazing since any such artifacts I can actually see are eliminated *LONG* before I start thinking about finer points like level-of-gloss. Heh heh, discernible haze = can`t leave garage yet unless it`s getting painted (for me).

    Though I guess "residual marring without enough clear to correct it" can be awfully close to "hazing" depending on how somebody looks at it. To me "hazing" is something so light I can remove it on any vehicle, even the `93 Audi with its trashed paint.

    That response covering "what diffs you can actually see" was about what I was expecting, thanks for putting actual numbers to it. Heh heh, it does sorta rev up my Cynicism Meter regarding people doing burnishing on drivers

    What is very interesting is the types of looks that products are known to leave behind. I think the meter does capture some of this in the form of that reduced gloss reading as a result of light diffusion, but generally the readings go immediately up after the first wash. Really makes sense for something like Pinnacle Souveran for guys who say it only lasts for a wash or so. Some of the oils in the formula that provide that awesome depth will only diffuse the light like this until they`re washed off...
    Yeah, good points there too! That probably explains some of the Personal Preferences in LSPs, where one guy thinks it looks great and another thinks "better strip that [crap] off and start over".

    Now you have me wondering how my beloved FK1000P would test! I sure find it interesting that the Souveran does *NOT* diminish the gloss as much as I would`ve thought, but I guess that plays into how my wife *LOVES* it on silver, calling it the "white wax" because it "makes the silver look so light, bright and reflective" whereas a lot of people think of it as a dark/red-color wax instead. Looks-wise, it seems Souveran has a lot to offer most anybody.

    MY reasoning behind "Souveran only lasts for one wash" has very little, if anything to do with how it looks, but rather that is simply seems stripped. Far less slick (the oils being gone? I dunno..) and with greatly diminished beading and a lot more dirt-retention. It`s just not what I consider "freshly waxed" any more whereas some LSPs stay basically the same for me even after numerous washes and many months.
    Likes Loach liked this post

  5. #20
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing



    I decided to pull the Rupes Keramik Gloss and Diamond polishes out. When I test polishes I will likely use one that I`ve worked with recently to baseline my results against. In this case I ran 3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine after testing Keramik and Diamond. Meguiar`s Hybrid Ceramic Liquid Wax was on the paint to start, after having been washed with CarPro Reset earlier in the day. I switched over to Klean Strip Prep-All (solvent) for the panel wipe compared to Eraser on the previous test. First polish tested was Keramik on the yellow Rupes pad with the LHR15 polisher.

    Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.7GU / 60 Measurement Angle

    Meguiar`s Hybrid Ceramic Liquid Wax
    GU: 96.1 - 96.7
    Temperature (F): 81.0


    Rupes Keramik Gloss
    GU: 96.0 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 81.3
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes Yellow
    Polisher Speed: 4
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.6 - 96.3 @ 81.5F


    Rupes Diamond
    GU: 95.8 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 81.8
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 82.9F


    Rupes Diamond (2nd Application)
    GU: 95.9 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 81.6
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.3 @ 82.4F


    Rupes Keramik Gloss (Follow Up)
    GU: 95.9 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 81.6
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes Yellow
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.8 - 96.4 @ 83.1F


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish
    GU: 96.3 - 96.8

    Temperature (F): 81.8
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.2 - 96.8 @ 82.4F


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (2nd Application)
    GU: 96.3 - 97.0

    Temperature (F): 81.6
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 6
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.3 - 96.8 @ 82.5F


    Turtle Wax Hybrid Solutions Ceramic Spray Coating (Heavy Application)
    GU: 94.2 - 94.9

    Temperature (F): 81.6
    Cure(20 Hours) GU: 94.6 - 95.4 (94.8 - 95.8 after buffing with a dry microfiber)
    Cure Temperature (F): 83.4


    My thoughts on Keramik vs. Diamond, I like Keramik much more. Didn`t notice any significant dusting, wipeoff is a bit oily as a result on both but Diamond left an unusually tackier feeling behind on the paint after the initial wipeoff. Prep-All was able to resolve this but the difference between the two polishes is night and day in terms of feel prior to using a panel wipe. What I ended up doing for the 2nd application of Diamond was a more aggressive wipeoff with the microfiber, so that pre-panel wipe gloss measurement is higher as a result if you compare it against the first application test. This didn`t seem to tackle through any of that tackier feeling until Prep-All was used. The follow-up application of Keramik I bumped the speed down from 4 to 3.5 to match Diamond. Gloss measurements between the two are negligible. I might run white pads with Keramik next time I pull it out to see if this has an impact.

    3M Perfect-It EX shows an advantage in gloss measurements both in the pre-panel wipe readings and after using Prep-All. Second application of 3M I ran 6 passes instead of 4. We matched the top end GU of the last session, but a bit of bump down in the low-range of the readings this time. I ran an Eraser wipedown after waiting a little bit on top of 3M, but this did not change the gloss measurement range. This is something I will check for occasionally. 3M does have the advantage on this paint, but 0.4 - 0.6GU is still pretty negligible in my opinion.

    I ran a pretty heavy application of Turtle Wax`s Ceramic Spray Coating afterwards which dropped the readings down. I then let it cure for 20 hours and took measurements without wiping which yielded a slight bump in gloss readings from the cure. Then I buffed it using a dry microfiber which slightly bumped the numbers up further. I can still noticeably see the residuals on the paint during the dry wipe from the heavier application, no streaking but the towel would never be able to accomplish a completely clean wipeoff. I`m planning on adding a second coat tonight to run tests later on.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Thanks JustJesus thanked for this post

  6. #21
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Bit of an update on the gloss testing, my main calibration tile used for the Novo-Gloss Trio took a fall off the edge of my cart and cracked in the corners a few weeks ago.



    The readings were still coming out okay but I decided to do things proper and order a new calibration tile directly from Rhopoint, with an up to date certification, calibrated recently from their master standard tiles. This came in today:







    Novo-Gloss Trio calibrated to the new tile:



    Certification:



    I also wanted to cross reference my Elcometer calibration tile for the 406L over to this brand new tile, so this shot is the 406L calibration from the Elcometer tile:



    And in this shot I moved over to read the new calibration tile, in theory the readings should match the actual calibration listed at 89.0 for 20, and 93.1 at 60. The Elcometer 406L meter is reading perfect on the 60 angle, off a bit on the 20 angle. I`ve expected this a bit because any measurements at the 20 are very sensitive:



    This is very good, this means that at least at the 60 measurement angle, my backup Elcometer 406L meter is completely within spec so I can accurately cross reference results on the spot. The old calibration tile which cracked, this was reading about 1GU too high compared to both the 406L tile and this brand new Novo-Gloss Trio tile. So all of the measurements moving forward will be slightly lower that what I`ve been recording previously, but the ranges and marginal difference between polishes should be the same. Again, these measurements are always taken relative to the readings that the calibration tiles are giving me.

    Here`s the slightly concerning part, in theory the 20 angle should be the default measurement angle to pull readings from for the best resolution on paint that`s this highly polished. But my 20 readings have a high disparity, the ranges are much higher than the 60 angle, and it`s so incredibly sensitive to tilt bias which is impossible to control on these panels that aren`t flat. I brought these issues up in the main post, but I really want to reach out to other testers that have the newer Rhopoint models to see what they`re noticing when they measure at the 20 angle. The 60 angle is giving me great results, highly repeatable data points and I feel very comfortable I can use this angle to give a firm answer of which polishes have the ability on this panel to really pull more gloss out of it.

    With the Novo-Gloss Trio calibrated to the new calibration tile, 3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine just pulled a range of 95.6-96.2, this matched my measurements last week that I pulled from the Elcometer 406L. Expect more results to be posted moving forward using the updated calibration tile.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Likes Stokdgs, Coleroad liked this post

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    85,894
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Loach- Huh,interesting about the evaluation angles...I`m with you on "maintain consistency" no matter what the "usual rules" say.

    That`s *ASSUMING* that I`m not missing something...but if I am I sure can`t think of it!
    Likes Loach liked this post

  8. #23
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing



    Decided to put the high gloss trio to the test, finished up with High Gloss at the end. To start the test, the current LSP on the paint was Pinnacle Liquid Souveran which had last been applied 24 hours prior. I did notice a bit of a stickier, more difficult wipeoff going directly over Pinnacle with 3M Perfect-It. The wipedown with Prep-All was able to clean this up and the jump in gloss was measurable. New calibration tile is being used for this test as well and it was perfect the entire time, 93.1GU measured before and after each stage of the test.

    Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60 Measurement Angle


    Pinnacle Liquid Souveran

    GU: 95.7 - 96.1
    Temperature (F): 72.5


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.5

    Temperature (F): 72.8
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.0 - 95.8 @ 74.3F
    Note: Stickier wipeoff, likely Pinnacle`s interference.


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.5

    Temperature (F): 73.4
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.5 @ 74.8F
    Note: After Menzerna 3800 was measured I waited an hour, and came back to remeasure and recorded a 0.2GU increase on the top end, so 95.9 - 96.7GU @ 72.5F. Then Perfect Finish was tested.


    Sonax Perfect Finish
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.7

    Temperature (F): 72.6
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes Yellow
    Polisher Speed: 4
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.7 @ 73.4F


    Sonax Perfect Finish (2nd Application)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.6

    Temperature (F): 72.8
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes Yellow
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.5 @ 73.5F


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (Follow Up)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.6

    Temperature (F): 72.6
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.5 @ 73.9F
    Note: I waited an hour after measuring 3M, came back and measured 96.0 - 96.8GU, so a 0.1 and 0.2GU increase in the bottom and top end respectively. Noticeably better wipeoff compared to the first application.


    Polish Angel High Gloss
    GU: 95.6 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 72.3


    The follow up application with 3M gave a much better wipeoff compared to the first, and this showed through on the pre-panel wipe measurement. Waiting that additional time after the final post-panel wipe measurements is having a very slight increase in readings. Could be temperature, could be the remnants of the solvents in Prep-All outgassing, it`s a noticeable increase in average measurements across the board both times I measured after the wait period, although the increase is still very slight. I will continue to observe this occasionally during tests, and it does add some relevant questions like when it`s appropriate to run the measurements after the panel wipe, whether or not this has a significant impact in the performance of the LSP`s if the panel wipes are not given the full time to completely outgas prior to application, etc.

    Sonax Perfect Finish was the easiest to wipe clean before Prep-All was sprayed, but all three (once Pinnacle was removed) were able to provide a very clean wipeoff even before the Prep-All wipe. With Sonax Perfect Finish and the second application of 3M, I pulled out my Elcometer 406L gloss meter and was able to verify the same results between both meters which is awesome. Only a slight drop in measurements after the Polish Angel High Gloss application, those are great post-application numbers in my opinion. Super clean wipeoff after High Gloss, which is nuts because as thick as it is, it just wipes off extremely well.

    Difference in maximum gloss readings between these three abrasives is completely negligible in this test, all three are very good. I will have to switch up pads in the next test, I had gone through the rest of my Rupes pads during previous tests and need to get everything cleaned up.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Likes Stokdgs liked this post

  9. #24
    JustJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    2,316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    I need to get up to speed on this thread.
    Thanks for doing this

    Edit. Caught up! Good stuff here
    Likes Loach liked this post

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    85,894
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Loach- Ah, once again you`ve come up with some interesting findings That "how long to wait"/outgassing of the solvent for instance.

    Good idea, comparing the two meters!

    I gotta say that I`m relieved to hear your measured diffs are still trending insignificant!

    And, heh heh...I see I`m not the only guy who finds that "merely polishing through the existing LSP" can be a bit much. Some act like it`s no big deal..and in your case it was just that Liquid Souveran!
    Likes Loach liked this post

  11. #26
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing



    I had a few Rupes rotary pads that were still clean, so I decided to pull out the LH19E to put Menzerna 3800 through a more focused test. Polish Angel High Gloss was applied last night and was left untouched prior to polishing with 3800. In this test I swapped out the white and yellow pads to check for any finishing advantages, and half way through I pulled out the LHR15 to double check the results from last night on the white pad.

    Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60 Measurement Angle


    Polish Angel High Gloss

    GU: 95.6 - 96.4
    Temperature (F): 75.9


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.6 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 77.1
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LH19E
    Pad: Rupes White (Rotary)
    Polisher Speed: 3
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.5 - 96.2 @ 77.7F


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus (2nd Application)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 77.7
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LH19E
    Pad: Rupes White (Rotary)
    Polisher Speed: 2
    Overlapping Passes: 8
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.3 @ 77.9F
    Note: Dropped the speed down to 2 on the rotary, doubled the amount of overlapping passes, very light pressure on the final few passes while maintaining good pad contact.


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus (3rd Application)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 77.1
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.6 - 96.4 @ 78.2F
    Note: Pulled the LHR15 back out for this run just to cross reference from last night. I waited an hour and came back to read the paint at 95.7 - 96.5GU @ 76.1F.


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus (4th Application)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.5

    Temperature (F): 76.2
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LH19E
    Pad: Rupes Yellow (Rotary)
    Polisher Speed: 3
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.4 @ 76.8F
    Note: Back to the LH19E for this run, swapped out to a clean Rupes yellow rotary pad.


    Menzerna 3800 Super Finish Plus (5th Application)
    Post Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.5

    Temperature (F): 76.4
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LH19E
    Pad: Rupes Yellow
    Polisher Speed: 2
    Overlapping Passes: 8
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.5 @ 77.1F
    Note: Again, dropped the speed down to 2 on the LH19E, doubled the amount of overlapping passes, very light pressure on the final few passes. I then waited an hour and came back to measure the paint at 95.7 - 96.6GU @ 75.3F.


    Polish Angel Cosmic Spritz
    GU: 95.5 - 96.4

    Temperature (F): 74.8


    I`m liking Menzerna 3800, it`s not the absolute easiest polish to get a clean wipeoff and I think Perfect Finish has it beat here. The initial wipeoff is giving me some very good numbers out of the meter, so whatever isn`t picked up by the microfiber before using Prep-All, is not having a large impact in the measurements after we use the panel wipe with this polish.

    Slightly lower readings compared to last night, even when I pulled the LHR15 back out to cross reference we were still slightly under, so I don`t believe the rotary is at a disadvantage at all. The Rupes yellow rotary pad is capable of finishing out to a top tier level. The white Rupes rotary pad is very soft, when I first picked them up a while ago I nearly completely shredded the first one using the Rupes Claw tool/brush on it, just a heads up. Once again, very negligible differences after all of these separate applications of 3800 consecutively over each other.

    Very comparable results with Cosmic Spritz tonight compared to High Gloss yesterday.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Likes Stokdgs liked this post
    Thanks Stokdgs, JustJesus thanked for this post

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    85,894
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Loach- The results seem to fall pretty consistently into that same range, huh?

  13. #28
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing



    I decided to pull P&S Bead Maker and Chemical Guys V7 out for a few post-application readings today on a whim. I did some multiple applications of 3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine out to get some baseline readings. Prior to the first application of 3M, I had a mix of Polymer Net Shield and Brilliant Shine Detailer on the panel applied a few days ago, and it was wiped down with Adam`s CS3 before prepping with Klean Strip Prep-All.

    Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.1GU / 60 Measurement Angle

    Pre-Test Measurements
    GU: 95.3 - 96.0
    Temperature (F): 77.2

    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish
    GU: 95.7 - 96.3

    Temperature (F): 77.1
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 94.8 - 95.7 @ 77.5F
    Notes: Wasn`t able to get a clean wipeoff for 3M Perfect-It, it showed through on the pre-panel wipe numbers, with a significant bump up in readings after using Prep-All.


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (2nd Application)
    GU: 95.7 - 96.3

    Temperature (F): 77.1
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.0 - 95.6 @ 77.9F
    Notes: This follow up was done to cross reference against the first application. Identical post panel wipe readings, still wasn`t able to get a super clean wipeoff.


    P&S Bead Maker
    GU: 95.3 - 96.0

    Temperature (F): 76.4
    Towel: Gold Plush Jr.
    Damp Microfiber Wipedown: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 75.3F
    Post-Panel Wipe GU (Prep-All): 95.5 - 96.1 @ 76.1F
    Note: So in this type of test since I`m not allowing the products to cure, I`m just going to run a damp microfiber wipedown, then buff with a clean microfiber and grab those measurements separately. This is to see the impacts of any heavy residuals from the immediate post-application measurements which can significantly reduce gloss if the products don`t self-level well during application, or are heavier and require additional wiping to level the products out. As you can see, there was no impact in gloss measurements after using the damp microfiber wipe, Bead Maker went on and buffed in incredibly clean and I was liberal when spraying the panel with it, about with five sprays in the 2x2ft section. Afterwards, I followed up with Prep-All to prep for the next batch of 3M Perfect-It and listed the measurements.


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (3rd Application)
    GU: 95.6 - 96.3

    Temperature (F): 76.4
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 94.8 - 95.6 @ 77.3F
    Notes: Again, difficult wipeoff. Reminder, the test section was panel wiped with Prep-All so that I`m not polishing over a fresh batch of Bead Maker, it`s possible we`re still getting interference to create a more difficult wipeoff, but I`m skeptical that it`s not environment related.


    P&S Bead Maker (2nd Application)
    GU: 95.3 - 96.0

    Temperature (F): 75.0
    Towel: Gold Plush Jr.
    Damp Microfiber Wipedown: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 74.3F
    Post-Panel Wipe GU (Prep-All): 95.4 - 96.0 @ 74.6F
    Note: I wanted to double check my first readings with Bead Maker by running a duplicate test. Excellent on/off wipe, exact same post-application range of readings as our first test with Bead Maker.


    3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (4th Application)
    GU: 95.7 - 96.3

    Temperature (F): 75.0
    Panel Wipe: Prep-All
    Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
    Pad: Rupes White
    Polisher Speed: 3.5
    Overlapping Passes: 4
    Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 94.7 - 95.6 @ 77.0F


    Chemical Guys Hybrid V7
    GU: 95.3 - 95.9

    Temperature (F): 74.3
    Towel: Gold Plush Jr.
    Damp Microfiber Wipedown: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 74.3F
    Post-Panel Wipe GU (Prep-All): 95.4 - 96.1 @ 73.5F
    Notes: Same five sprays on the section, took slightly longer than Bead Maker to get a clean wipeoff with V7, but the results was a near identical performance, with very competitive slickness. Very slight bump in readings after using the damp microfiber.


    Thoughts on this test, you can see the very slight reduction in gloss after applying Bead Maker and V7, which again is not unexpected after polishing the paint to this level and I`ve covered this concept in depth. I would assume that if a product you`re using is giving you a significant measurable increase in gloss readings, then this surface that you`re working with is capable of being further refined with abrasives to the point to where the LSP on top should no longer have a significant measurable advantage. I have still yet to come across a product that has significantly outperformed abrasives in pure gloss measurements, to the point to where the answer is yes, you need to use THIS product for pure gloss enhancement at this level. Merely, the products giving me the best performance in terms of wipeability usually have an advantage in measurable gloss, which is usually rendered irrelevant after the first wash.

    That`s not to say that LSP`s don`t affect appearance to a significant level, as a highly polished surface without any LSP can still look different when applying the LSP on top. This is merely covering measurable gloss and its limitations.

    This seemed like a unicorn session with Bead Maker and V7, where the environment was perfect for them wiping off as cleanly as they did with as much as I sprayed on the paint. The way I`m using the damp microfiber as a follow up, is I will fully saturate with water and then wring it out moderately, go over the sections and then follow up with a dry microfiber on the final wipe. This is the process of how I deal with products that are heavier and don`t level out as well, so instead of using any particular type of cleaner or rinseless wash on top of fresh products, I will do this type of method when working with LSP`s that I don`t intend to allow to cure. This type of damp microfiber follow up will show a significant bump up in measurements for heavier products like Seal N Shine, or their Hybrid Solutions Ceramic Polish & Wax.

    I also recently struck through the thin clearcoat on this test panel when testing McKee`s 37 Jeweling Wax and Griot`s BOSS Finishing Sealant!



    This section towards the front nose of the hood was always comparably thinner than the middle sections, I`m reading around the 70-80 microns level in this spot now compared to the middle of the hood that varies between 100-130 microns.
    WaxMode - Product Testing & Reviews
    Likes kevk liked this post

  14. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    85,894
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Loach- You`re sure putting in some work on this! What jumped out at me this time was that you`ve pretty much hit the limit on Gloss gain from more abrasion, and that yes indeed even those very mild abrasives can/do take off enough clear to matter some times.
    Likes Loach liked this post

  15. #30
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

    Quote Originally Posted by Accumulator View Post
    Loach- You`re sure putting in some work on this! What jumped out at me this time was that you`ve pretty much hit the limit on Gloss gain from more abrasion, and that yes indeed even those very mild abrasives can/do take off enough clear to matter some times.
    You`re definitely right, those abrasives will add up over time. This panel has gone through a ton of polishing using mostly medium to lighter cut finishing polishes over the years that I`ve had it. Still some sections that are showing healthy thickness compared to the low spot. The front portion of the paint that was damaged and caved in to a sharper angle I polished through this pretty quickly as the paint was stretched thin from whatever hit it, in this shot here it looks like the chip is through to the primer, with the metallics abraded from the base to where it`s actually glossy underneath:


 

 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sio2 (hydro2 type) testing thread
    By MattPersman in forum Car Detailing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-16-2017, 12:16 PM
  2. Adam`s H2O Guard and Gloss Durability Thread
    By SYMAWD in forum Detailing Product Reviews
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-09-2015, 04:55 PM
  3. 3 Machines, same pads, same compounds, gloss testing.
    By JohnKleven in forum Machine Polishing & Sanding
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 09:01 AM
  4. Comprehensive Leather Care Thread
    By imported_Megafast13 in forum Interior Car Care
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 01:21 PM
  5. Medical Question (cholesterol measurement)
    By Dave N in forum Hot Tub
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-18-2005, 04:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •