I think Clearkote has a huge winner coming out soon

Scottwax,



I got a '03 Lexus SC430 in RED to try this on. I'll test it too.



Right now, the IP/FP did not remove swirls with PC so I have to break out Ro-Zilla. Or just DACP once I get my new batch, can't find the last one...Then back to FP for final polish to bring it up.



It also has quite a bit of Armorglove on it as well.



It's also a "garage queen" as it ONLY comes out in nice weather! Only 2400 miles on it!



Forward this to Everett if you wish!



Looks like this may be a killer product! I hate the dust Z6 seems to attract, especially in the rear of the SC430, always dusty!



Keep us posted, and you can email me or PM me as well.



Regards,

Deanski
 
Call me a hater or whatever you will, but I never believe any photos I see posted on the web. It's simply too easy to "doctor" them, especially if you're good with the camera (like Scott has admitted)...



Allow me to post some examples.



1) Normal photo of Justin's (co-worker) black Firebird. It has not been washed since about 1.5 weeks ago...the paint is pretty dirty, and it shows signs of having acid rain etching, bird dropping etching, etc. Here's the "original" photo:



justin1.jpg


In this photo, the car looks pretty good - better than it does in person...but now, let's adjust some camera settings and play with f-stops, exposure times, and so on. We end up with a photo like this:



justin1a.jpg


Not bad, eh? I worked all day detailing his car, and this is how it turned out! Looks great, right?! Same car, same conditions, just different camera settings...imagine if I was "decent" with photoshop - I could really make it look great...





Ok, here's example #2:



justin3.jpg


Same car, same condition, needs a good detailing/wash. If you look closely at the bumper, you'll see waterspots.



And again, after adjusting some camera settings:

justin3a.jpg




Notice how much more glossy and clean the car looks - again, all I did was play with camera settings on my $300 digital camera...





Finally, my Tahoe. It hasn't been washed in about 3 weeks, and has been sitting outside most of the time (in a gravel parking lot).



steve3a.jpg


Looks great, eh? Gotta love that Zaino shine and protection!



Just kidding - that photo was also "saturated" with the camera...



So, take pictures for what they're worth. Scott is a really good detailer, no question about it; but he's an equally good photographer. I'm not trying to take anything away from his work - just trying to prove a few minor points. :)
 
Being new to detailing and with a new black Hyundai Santa Fe, I got on the VM/MW bandwagon. It took a while, but I found out from actual experience that the products were just so-so in the overall scheme of things. After the original ecstatic run of reviews, second thoughts started to appear on this forum.



Further, there have been several entries that have questioned product quality control. I myself got a "bad" bottle of MW. ClearKote made good on that in spades, but I'd rather buy a product that I am confident in and not have to return it.



I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but only proffer a note of caution.
 
geekysteve said:
I'm not trying to take anything away from his work - just trying to prove a few minor points. :)
Click to expand...
Point well taken Steve. I've always judged pictures with a grain of salt. I found that simply adjusting the brightness of the picture can make a big difference too, and cars always seem to look nicer in photos than in real life it seems. Of course, that doesn't stop me from doing this: :bow Heheh.



Terrific work (and pictures) Scott! :xyxthumbs This new product sounds very interesting and unique. How many pure, non-cleaner carnauba waxes are there out there that can be applied in direct sunlight? :confused: Like Spilchy said, this could go over big with the pro detailers....
 
Thanks for the update on the new products Scott. I am very interested in any products that can be applied in the heat. I would never think of working with ANY product in this AZ direct sun, but even in the shade some products don't do well.

Are both waxes you tested liquid?
 
I don't think application in direct sunlight is the problem. Its the heat that direct sunlight causes. I don't know of any product that can be applied on a car with a surface temperature of 160 degrees after sitting at the Las Vegas airport all day in August. :lol Anyway, you get the picture.



Scott, is this product something that can be applied in just direct sunlight or is it something that works on a hot surface? I don't like working on a hot surface at all. Even drying a hot car is a pain in the arse. I can't imagine something looking that good and applying without streaking on a hot surface.
 
Steve-you of all people should know my pictures are exactly as represented. You used 7 of my pics on the back of the Guru Reports test and you had the original prints so you know they had not been altered at all. I'd be more than happy to send anyone the original negatives of the pictures I take for examination. Besides, I use print film, not digital. This particular set was using Kodak High Definition 400 ASA.



True, I do chose the best angle for the maximum shine and shade brings out reflections better than direct sun, but I even usually shoot in automatic mode since the manual mode on my Nikon is such a PITA.



Jngbrd-the black S500 was waxed in the direct sun on a nearly 90 degree day and the surface was hot and I mean hot to the touch. My hand was getting very warm through the foam pad. I normally would put a black car in the shade, but I was specifically asked to test it on a hot surface. I started with the sides first to see the reaction and it went on and off easily. I think Everett designs his waxes this way since most people at car shows don't have their cars under a tent, so a product that works in the sun is a benefit. I have not tested the carnuba version on black in the direct sun, just on red. The green Lexus was in the shade the whole time.
 
Wow. A wax that goes on well in the sun... Will wonders never cease. I'm looking forward to trying this product myself. Thanks for the excellent review, Scott. :xyxthumbs You are a credit to your profession. :bow
 
Scottwax said:
Steve-you of all people should know my pictures are exactly as represented. You used 7 of my pics on the back of the Guru Reports test and you had the original prints so you know they had not been altered at all. I'd be more than happy to send anyone the original negatives of the pictures I take for examination. Besides, I use print film, not digital. This particular set was using Kodak High Definition 400 ASA.

Click to expand...



Agreed, and I've thanked you a hundred times for sending me the pictures.



I didn't digitally alter my photos either - I simply chose different camera settings...just trying to prove a point. Are you telling me that there isn't an amazing similarity between the color of our trees, cement, and wheels?



I've seen you admit in other forums that you "know how to take good pictures," so I was simply trying to prove a point that you can't always believe what you see in a picture...here's another, just to prove my point further (this one was photoshopped, though):



happy.jpg




:D



Again, THANK YOU FOR SENDING US PICTURES TO USE IN THE WAX TEST REPORT. I really appreciate it!!!! We had requested people send us pictures, but most were unusable, so you helped us out a lot. We had about 50 pictures sent in, but only 4-5 were of the correct pixel depth to work in a printed report, so your pictures were extremely helpful.



My pictures were taken at exactly the same time, just with different settings. As a semi-pro photographer, you should know that minor adjustments with the camera (and/or the photo processing lab) can make a big difference in the final picture quality.
 
geekysteve said:
Agreed, and I've thanked you a hundred times for sending me the pictures.



I didn't digitally alter my photos either - I simply chose different camera settings...just trying to prove a point. Are you telling me that there isn't an amazing similarity between the color of our trees, cement, and wheels?



I've seen you admit in other forums that you "know how to take good pictures," so I was simply trying to prove a point that you can't always believe what you see in a picture...here's another, just to prove my point further (this one was photoshopped, though):



Again, THANK YOU FOR SENDING US PICTURES TO USE IN THE WAX TEST REPORT. I really appreciate it!!!! We had requested people send us pictures, but most were unusable, so you helped us out a lot. We had about 50 pictures sent in, but only 4-5 were of the correct pixel depth to work in a printed report, so your pictures were extremely helpful.



My pictures were taken at exactly the same time, just with different settings. As a semi-pro photographer, you should know that minor adjustments with the camera (and/or the photo processing lab) can make a big difference in the final picture quality.
Click to expand...



No problem. I thought you were suggesting I played with the pics afterwards. I just wanted to make sure you know that I don't do that. Not only don't I know how, but it isn't honest.



I agree that different angles, shade, apeture and shutter speed all play an important role in a quality photo. I usually use the sport setting when it is in automatic role. Slower shutter speed and higher (as in smaller lens opening) apeture so I get good depth of field. If I used a faster shutter speed and opened the lens up, the image past the focal point would not be in as sharp as focus. In portraits, a slightly out of focus background is not necessarily a bad thing since you want the attention on the subject, but on a subject with length like an automobile, you want the entire field of view in as sharp a focus as possible.



Print film still flat owns digital for color saturation and sharpness, provided you are using at least 35mm size film. Larger formats are simply amazing when you blow them up.



I took several pics of the green Lexus for example. All showed a very wet surface, but the hood and trunk shots showed the best since on the others, the angle of light under the covered parking didn't yield as good a picture. The other vehicles were shot where I detailed them. The only thing I do normally is angle the front tire so it is more visible in the picture.



BTW, I was very grateful that you used my pictures. It really meant a lot to me that you thought enough of them to use them in your magazine. :)
 
Scott, getting back to the topic, how this wax compare to S100? Can this wax be layered? BTW great looking cars. Thanks for sharing with us in the forum....Andrew
 
Greg said:
Don't forget, Scott is a great photographer on top of this. Like Jngr once said, damn this guy is smart, don't try to replicate a Scottwax mirror like shine without the very same tools, car, paint, and camera because you will wind up frustrated.



Deep Freeze- have you polished your 350Z w/ something mild like SEC or PPCL. Some pictures and some more explanation of technique will help us diagnose the spottiness. You aren't applying it in direct sunlight are you? That will flash cure the wax and sometimes spot it.
Click to expand...



Well, getting back to the subject, I did use SEC, then I applied the s100. Will be using a polymer for the winter, but right now I am just running with the natural stuff. So all it is, is SEC and s100, yet I don't get a mirror shine. I mean, I can see myself of course, but it is not crystal clear and can't figure out why.
 
andriver said:
Scott, getting back to the topic, how this wax compare to S100? Can this wax be layered? BTW great looking cars. Thanks for sharing with us in the forum....Andrew
Click to expand...



I don't know for sure if it can be layered since I am not sure how a petroleum based protectant even with added carnuba reacts with the layer already there. I do know that two coats of Vanilla Moose look better than one, even though it does have a light abrasive. Probably the extra polishing accounts for the extra shine and not the simple fact you have two coats.



I do know that on top of both Vanilla Moose and also Final Polish (a polymer sealant), the Clearkote carnuba noticably improved the look. When even my kids notice along with super picky customers....:xyxthumbs



How does it compare to S100? They both are super easy on and off, neither stains plastic or trim, a little goes a long way and both leave a very wet and deep look. Honestly, they are very close. I think S100 has a slighty brighter look to it, and the Clearkote carnuba is slightly wetter and deepens the color a slight bit. I don't know as far as durabilty goes, but I am guessing the petroleum base is similar to what is in Vanilla Moose which I know from my own testing beads at least 2 months (tested on a black Expidition that is parked in the sun at her office). S100 has beaded 3 months for me with no problems (no industrial fallout or acid rain here).



For me, since they both look incredibly good, as of right now (I will be closely monitoring how well the Clearkote carnuba's look holds up over time), I'd have to give the edge to the Clearkote product because I can use it in the sun if I have to. I always try to find shade, but a couple times a week, I don't have much choice. If you always have shade, I guess it is which look you prefer. Bright and wet (S100) or deep and wet (Clearkote).
 
Deep_Freeze said:
Well, getting back to the subject, I did use SEC, then I applied the s100. Will be using a polymer for the winter, but right now I am just running with the natural stuff. So all it is, is SEC and s100, yet I don't get a mirror shine. I mean, I can see myself of course, but it is not crystal clear and can't figure out why.
Click to expand...



It could be your paint needs to be clayed or a deeper cleaning that S100 SEC is capable of. I've found that Meguiars Swirl Free does wonders for restoring the clarity and shine on paint that needs more than just a glaze.
 
Scott, can you speculate on what kind of price range this product will be in? One of the things that makes s100 so adored is the bang-for-the-buck quality: it rivals some of the best waxes yet is priced so affordably.
 
Gadfly said:
Being new to detailing and with a new black Hyundai Santa Fe, I got on the VM/MW bandwagon. It took a while, but I found out from actual experience that the products were just so-so in the overall scheme of things. After the original ecstatic run of reviews, second thoughts started to appear on this forum.



Further, there have been several entries that have questioned product quality control. I myself got a "bad" bottle of MW. ClearKote made good on that in spades, but I'd rather buy a product that I am confident in and not have to return it.



I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but only proffer a note of caution.
Click to expand...



I remember those posts. It seems that there was one person who gave a very good review of the product. Once a few others gave mediocre reviews, he changed his mind to hop on the negative bandwagon so he wouldn't be contrary to popular opinion.



I also think there were complaints of an $8.00 shipping charge which really had nothing to do with the product itself. Some people just wanted something to complain about to keep on the popular bandwagon at the time.



Then you can toss in the unfounded allegations that Scottwax and others were being compensated for the positive reviews. Ignorance is quite funny sometimes.



I really like the products I received from Clearkote. I'm looking very much forward to this new product. If it can give the look of S100 (which I currently use) and have a better durability then it should work out well.



Everett is an honest and genuine man. I've had many discussions with Everett and can honestly say I believe what he tells me. Steve from Poorboy's is the only other person who actually makes the product I've spoken too. (I don't count Sal Zaino since he did his best to make me feel like an idiot when I called him).
 
Geekysteve,



What changes exactly did you make to the F-stops, exposure times etc. with those Firebird pics - WOW.



I just got a Canon A70 and I'd like to start playing around with all the manual settings and different lens (macro etc.) that the A70 has.



Paco
 
Scott,



A little off topic but......What kind of product do you use for bug and tar removal off mirrors,bumbers, rockers etc. If you use a product?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top