Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    William_Wallace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    109
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

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

  2. #17
    Loach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    208
    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
    186
    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
    85,132
    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
    208
    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

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •