Setec Astronomy said:
Why does something have to be horrible to be a "flavor of the month"? What if next month Menzerna comes out with new polishes that are even better than 105/205, and the month after that Optimum tops that, and the month after that someone else does, and the month after maybe Meg's will come out with something new. You guys make it sound like progress will stop now for some reason, that everyone including Meg's, will just give up on developing new polishes because 105/205 are so good.
Poor word choice- replace horrible with over rated. Honestly, that is the word I was looking for...grabbed the wrong one :laugh:
FOTM products are products that had some desirable attributes, but once people really use them enough they figure out they aren't quite what they are hyped up to me. People stop using them and start reaching for other stuff.
Is there a chance that something will be made that will be similar to M105 some day and we will like that more? Sure, of course it is possible. But considering Meguiar's holds the patent on SMAT technology I don't think it will be any time soon, thus making it pretty impossible for the product to be quickly replaced.
Jakerooni said:
Like setec said. It dosen't have to be a bad product to be a FOTM type of thing. I mean a year ago everyone was all over the CCS pads.. Now who buys them? Not to many I would guess. Are they bad pads?? no.. But we've found better. The reason I think they might be a FOTM is because we've all used Non-dimishing abrasives before (anyone that has been doing this for awhile anyways) as the paints changed on the cars and the clears got softer we qucikly dumped the "Rocks in a jar" product and moved quickly to diminishing abrasives that broke down easier and quicker. Now the paints have moved back to the super hard clears and such and voila we've conviently switched back to NDA's are they good products?? Heck yea! probably some of the best on the market right now. However they fit our needs right now when the Automakers decide to go all loopy again and change things up again who knows. I think we are dictated by the current market. 105 and 205 are great for now and hopefully will be for awhile yet. However when the market changes (and it will) a new product will most definatly show up on the spot to take the place of 105 and 205. There are very few products that can last the test of time. In fact I can't think of a single one that I still use now that I started out with.
First of all... friendly tip, space out your posts.... they make my eyes balls hurt :cooleek: :laugh:
That said, I agree it doesn't have to be a BAD product, but more of an over rated product. That is what makes something FOTM. It has something desirable, but with further examination it is found to fall short of initial assumptions.
I don't know if I would call CCS pads FOTM....they may have dropped in popularity from their peak, but they are still very popular.
Now, one thing I seriously just can't agree with is the parallel you are drawing between "rocks in a bottle" and M105 due to their supposed common link of non-diminishing abrasives. The reason that parallel just doesn't make sense is because M105 was developed with the full intention of completely turning the idea of a conventional compound (Rocks in a bottle) on its head by changing how they work. M105 provides "rocks in a bottle" cut, but leaves a polished finish.
Saying that we stopped using Rocks in a Bottle because finishes changed is 100% incorrect. People don't use it because it is a terrible product that damages your finish. People don't use rocks in a bottle because they can achieve the same or better correction with M105 AND have a nice finish when they are done. They are NOT interchangeable products.
Also, to be accurate, M105 and M205 use SMAT, or Super Micro Abrasive Technology, which is NOT the same as non-diminishing abrasives of the past. It is far more advanced, revolutionary more than evolutionary, and no one else has it. Further solidifying my belief that they are not going to be FOTM and forgotten any time soon.
In fact, how long has M105 been out (Introduced Dec 2007) and it is only picking up in popularity.... that alone disproves the possibility it is a FOTM.
SuperBee364 said:
True, but there have been times when they made formula changes that bit them, and they had to go back to a previous formula. A good example was Megs #2 Fine Cut. The original formula was approved (and actually worked) for manual application. I used it to hand polish a lot of cars back then. Then one day, after buying a new bottle, I couldn't figure out why I couldn't get it to work by hand. I flipped the bottle over, and it said, "for machine use only". I called Megs up and complained. Apparently, lots of people did, as they changed it back. They got me twice during this time; when they changed the formula, it said that it was for rotary and DA use. Not knowing the difference between a DA and an orbital, I went to Sears and bought an orbital (my very first buffer!). That particular formula of #2 didn't like hand application *or* orbitals. (I bet
Accumulator remembers when all of this happened... he's an old guy like me.
)
I still wish they would bring back the original 105, and market the new stuff under a different part number. Yeah, I know, Megs has a ton of part numbers already, but I'd be willing to bet that both formulas of 105 would be successful. I *really* miss the original formula.
Of course you can find examples of stuff that changed... but just as you can do that, there are oodles of products that are unchanged. Can you say M07? M20? A12? The list goes on.
