Protection - Carnuba Wax Vs. Sealant

I didn't post that on that other forum. I have written about teflon in waxes in other posts......check this one out for my take....



http://www.autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14249&highlight=teflon



There is really no scientific way to measure the amount of protection UV inhibitors give in a product. I suppose one can do a fading comparison (all things equal) and report results, but that would take a long time unless they had the means to do an accelerated test and expose years worth of UV light in a short amount of time.



UV inhibitors are often not added to formulas because they are expensive additives. To be honest, when manufacturers are trying to improve margins, things like that are the first to be cut. How much more business do they attract because they have UV inhibitors? Remember we autopians here make up a SMALL percentage of this industry! In carnuba waxes, I believe that the oils (usually silicone in most products) in the product make it difficult to add the UV inhibitors. This was written about briefly by David in one of his car care articles.



"......The only true negative property of silicone is the difficulty of adding UV protection..............."





As far as topping sealants, I only ask that people use caution and use low solvent, non abrasive systems. I would use a quick detailer ideally, but after that, a carnuba with a low wax % that is not durable. Solvents in a formula can attack a sealant and degrade it upon application of the topper. Remember, at room temperature carnuba is a hard brittle wax. To make it workable, pellets or hard bricks of it are melted and added into a company's formulation. The solvents in the system are what keep it workable for application.



Hope this helps.........



DK
 
500amg said:
Ahhhhhhhh, this is what I was hoping would come out of this thread: some really good information and a great discussion.



blkZ28Conv: What you are doing with your cars is exactly what I am now seriously considering on my MB. Do you think the GEPC is a better base than Blackfire's own polish?
Click to expand...



In absolute terms... :nixweiss . Several BF2 users here actually use a 3 step process. GEPC, BF polish, and BF protectant. Followed by a carnuaba topper. It has been stated that there is a synergy with the GEPC and BF polish that actually enhances results. I can not dispute these results. What I can say is that I used a slightly different procedure. Meg #9 (PC applied), P21S GEPC ( hand applied), Blackfire Protectant x 3 ( 1 coat per day with BF QD'ing prior to each coat / car not driven and garaged during this time period) followed by P21S carnuaba. The final results are very pleasing... deep, color rich, very wet with excellent reflections (clarity). If my car required extensive surface prep or any severe oxidation was present I would have added a second slightly more abrasive polishing step (BF2 polish) and skipped the Meg#9. Even still I believe I would reverse the popular order of GEPC first and actually applied BF2 polish first followed by GEPC than BF2 protectant.



Hope this helps.

:wavey
 
Thanks blkZ28Conv :xyxthumbs



I guess to sum up, the consensus is that if someone uses a good quality carnuba and waxes often (at least once a month), they should be ok protection wise. Of course a sealant offers longer durability and less work, which is ideal on some cars.



My plan now is to continue Zaino on my 3 other cars. They are all fairly light colored, and won't be cared for as much as the benz (did I say that out loud? GASP! :D ). I don't have the time to wax each car every 2-3 weeks. The MB gets GEPC, Blackfire system, and probably the P21S topper.



If someone ever gets an optometrist to do that test, PLEASE POST!
 
500amg,

Where are you in Va ( area .. north, south, east, central...). I just noticed that in your sig. Also noted that you also have an LS400 similiar to mind (95 vs 94). Great carefree cars. True tanks! Do you still have to look at the tach to see if it is running?



Addendum: If my Lexus was a light color I would most likely protect it with Zaino. Great durability and that glow really makes my silver daily driver - Escort ( wash every 2 months) glow even though the dirt. Zaino just did not give me the look I like for my black cars.:wavey
 
500amg said:
Presumably sunblock works for human skin...I wonder why true UV protection couldn't be provided for a car (well I guess it already is in the clearcoat) :nixweiss
Click to expand...



Yeah, it sounds like the key difference is in the thickness of coating. We generally 'glob' our bodies with lotion whereas a layer of wax or sealant is many times thinner. So thin, even several layers cannot be detected by paint thickness gauge equipment.



Thank god for clearcoats!!
 
In this discussion about protection you seem to be talking only about UV protection and I understand that consensus here is that there is no significant UV protection in either carnauba nor polymer, but what about protection against water spotting, acid rain, fallout contamination?

I would think that protection advantage of polymers is not only that it lasts longer but in that they are more resistant to water spotting and acid rain damage. I can't think of anything that can protect paint from getting contaminated with brake, rail dust or paint overspray tough.
 
LOL blkZ28...I am also in SW VA. I didn't even notice your sig until you mentioned it. The LS after 7 1/2 years is still as smooth as day 1. Amazingly quiet. Only has 50,000 miles on it though. It never got driven the first 4 years. :)
 
Very good point F1. My intention was not to limit protection to UV, but to all types of protection offered by waxes/sealants...my main goal was to remove any appearance factors and try to judge products based on any protective abilities they can offer. So sealants provide much better acid rain protection? I know that bird crap will eat throught carnuba or a sealant...the best thing to do for that is QD it right away.
 
theveed said:
theveed said:
Whoa... exact statement from http://216.167.44.22/fusetalk/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=55



"So I see a few new polishes/wax's that say that they have teflon in them and I won't need to wax my truck again for 5 yeaers. Is this stuff for real? If so, which is the best one?



The teflon in a paint sealant has one purpose, that is to make the part of the sealant that adheres to the clearcoat easier to remove. The protection comes from the synthetic matter in the sealant. I would not suggest using a pure carnuba for long term protection, for the simple fact that carnuba comes from a tree in Brazil which needs UV to survive. Therfore it will not protect against the harsh UV rays your vehicle is exposed to every day."



I don't buy this at all... Or are you just kidding? Since when are waxes living organisms?
Click to expand...



DK didn't say waxes are living organisms. He said carnauba comes from a certain tree. Would you consider Maple syrup to be a living organism?? :)



Also, what was the point in providing that link and doing all that pasting? Are you assumming DK authored that post also??
Click to expand...
 
500amg said:
LOL blkZ28...I am also in SW VA. I didn't even notice your sig until you mentioned it. The LS after 7 1/2 years is still as smooth as day 1. Amazingly quiet. Only has 50,000 miles on it though. It never got driven the first 4 years. :)
Click to expand...



We must be neighbors. I am not too far from VIR which is going to me my figurative retirement golf course. Can you imagine doing laps several times a week.:bounce
 
Here is a simple experiment that I did years ago...



We all know what the sun can do to a newspaper in just an hour or two...it turns it yellow from UV damage.



I took a number of glass panes (4'' x 10") and waxed them with various products...just as you would a car. I left one panel un-waxed as a control.



I placed newspaper under these panes and set them in the sun.



The carnauba wax retarded the degradation of the newspaper significantly...I mean for more than a week. Other products that did not contain carnauba were less effective. That may not seem like a long time, but put it in perspective...newspaper degrades in hours.



Of course formulations are more advanced today, offering even more protection..but I thought I'd just share this fun experiment.



I wanted to know if Carnauba Wax provided UV protection. I got my answer.
 
Mr. Chemist said:
Here is a simple experiment that I did years ago...



We all know what the sun can do to a newspaper in just an hour or two...it turns it yellow from UV damage.



I took a number of glass panes (4'' x 10") and waxed them with various products...just as you would a car. I left one panel un-waxed as a control.



I placed newspaper under these panes and set them in the sun.



The carnauba wax retarded the degradation of the newspaper significantly...I mean for more than a week. Other products that did not contain carnauba were less effective. That may not seem like a long time, but put it in perspective...newspaper degrades in hours.



Of course formulations are more advanced today, offering even more protection..but I thought I'd just share this fun experiment.



I wanted to know if Carnauba Wax provided UV protection. I got my answer.
Click to expand...
Interesting! I never knew why newspaper turned yellow.... this is something anyone could do at home too - if they were wondering about UV protection.



Thanks for sharing.
 
Yellowing also has a lot to do with "oxidation".......Being as it was immediatley under a glass pane, (I think) it may not have received adequate oxygen required for a sample test. If the pane was elevated slightly above the paper, and exposed to normal amounts of oxygen, i think you may have seen different results......I have witnessed this in winter months when papers come delievered in plastic bags....
 
These newspaper experiments were not sealed in plastic..the were simply placed on a pallet...with open slats...plenty of air available....



And since all panels were treated equally...the deductions are valid...but it is important to note that it is a simple experiment that was qualitative....not quantitative.



Today's paint systems are designed with much more effective UV protection than paints of even just a few years ago...but do you remember the first clears...back in the late 70's and early 80's....man those were nightmares.
 
Interesting experiment,



Here's a question, probably a dumb one, after applying the different waxes to the glass panels, did you remove it? or did you leave the layer of product on the glass?



Here is why I ask,



Glass is very different than automotive paints. Waxes, or paint protectants, (synthetic, natural, or blended), are, or should be formulated to bond or stick to paint.



Could applying these substances to glass skew the results if the products didn't properly adhere to the glass?



That's kind of why I was wondering if you removed the product, or left a layer of it on the glass?



Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top