Rinseless washing as safe as traditional bucket?

I've read that pressure washing can damage the paint too, I try to stay away from that now. IMO if you do a good pre-soak, either method done with proper wash technique will be fine. I've heard nothing but good things about ORN.
Click to expand...

This probably was my fault, but way back in the day when I had to go to the coin operated pressure washers to wash my car, I managed to get the pressure washer too close to a paint chip and lifted the clear right off the hood. I learned my lesson.:wall


In the harsh MN winters are cars look like this after a day of driving in the slop....no way I'm taking ONR or even traditional wash to paint looking like this without a pre-rinse from a pressure washer! Period!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't touch my car with it in the winter either, but that's just me. I'm lucky if I can even see the car, with all the crud on it.
 
Rocket said:
I don't think it's pressure washing that damages the paint I think it's too much pressure. You don't need 3000 psi to wash a car. Some of the smaller pressure washers are plenty to wash cars.


I think traditional washes are safer. The combination of more water and lubricants in traditional soaps make it safer.

With that said if you're smart and rinse more often you could safely do a rinseless wash on a dirty car. But thick dirt I would do a prerinse
Click to expand...

You're probably right, I'm just wary about the high pressure washers at coin-op self services. Luckily I don't have too many deep paint chips, just typical light ones on the front. Just worried about the stream scratching dirt across my paint, even after the pre-soak.
 
RaskyR1 said:
In my 22 years of using a pressure washer to wash cars with I've never seen any damage from them that wasn't a direct result of improper use by the operator.
Click to expand...
Well put Rasky.

Personally I think the polymers can only encapsulate so much dirt. I think of the grainy stuff stuck to the paint as being a real problem if not rinsed off first. You can only expect so much from a WW or ONR.
 
rzatch said:
Well put Rasky.

Personally I think the polymers can only encapsulate so much dirt. I think of the grainy stuff stuck to the paint as being a real problem if not rinsed off first. You can only expect so much from a WW or ONR.
Click to expand...

But you can use something like ONR like a traditional soap -- same amount in bucket, same amount solution on the paint (sans the suds), very similar process, etc. I guess the primary difference that is left is you rinse off the solution with water as opposed to wiping it off assuming the dirt is suspended in the soap.

In fact, 1z Perls to me seems like more ONR than a traditional soap so the question is where is the line.
 
I guess I just feel better knowing that stuff like sand particals and such are rinsed away before I start rubbing on the paint with a traditional wash. May be a false sense of security I don't know for sure.
 
rzatch said:
Well put Rasky.

Personally I think the polymers can only encapsulate so much dirt. I think of the grainy stuff stuck to the paint as being a real problem if not rinsed off first. You can only expect so much from a WW or ONR.
Click to expand...

This is true. The polymers (or any lubricant) only can provide so much protection against abrasion. In my testing water that is fortified with polymers (particularly Wet Diamond polymers) provides more slip then water that is 'wetted' (surfactants). Its not a matter of which formula is more slippery, it is more about how the dirt is removed once it has been suspended/lubricated/encapsulated.
 
Todd Helme said:
This is true. Its not a matter of which formula is more slippery, it is more about how the dirt is removed once it has been suspended/lubricated/encapsulated.
Click to expand...

So if i'm understanding what your saying, is that a traditional wash even though may not be as slippery as a polymer is a better option. It's the flooding action provided by the traditional wash which makes it better.
 
rzatch said:
So if i'm understanding what your saying, is that a traditional wash even though may not be as slippery as a polymer is a better option. It's the flooding action provided by the traditional wash which makes it better.
Click to expand...

Makes more sense, flooding has less chance of scratches than pressure by hand. Most people on here keep their cars clean enough though so its probably not an issue.
 
rzatch said:
So if i'm understanding what your saying, is that a traditional wash even though may not be as slippery as a polymer is a better option. It's the flooding action provided by the traditional wash which makes it better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I would say anything is better then the other, I would say that a polymer combined with a surfactant (assuming the polymers are in a water based emulsion) is going to deliver more polymers to the surface and provide the best lubrication.

Even traditional car soaps can be formulated with polymers, surfactants, or both.

The flushing action of the encapsulated dirt is going to provide more of a barrier to abrasion then wiping the encapsulated dirt against the surface (washing vs. rinseless).

But what about when towel drying (assuming there is no dirt left on the surface what-so-ever). The polymers in the left over rinseless wash are going to provide a greater level of protection compared to a surfactant rich soap that has been rinsed away (leaving behind only water which isn't very slick).
 
Todd Helme said:
I'm not sure if I would say anything is better then the other, I would say that a polymer combined with a surfactant (assuming the polymers are in a water based emulsion) is going to deliver more polymers to the surface and provide the best lubrication.

Even traditional car soaps can be formulated with polymers, surfactants, or both.

The flushing action of the encapsulated dirt is going to provide more of a barrier to abrasion then wiping the encapsulated dirt against the surface (washing vs. rinseless).

But what about when towel drying (assuming there is no dirt left on the surface what-so-ever). The polymers in the left over rinseless wash are going to provide a greater level of protection compared to a surfactant rich soap that has been rinsed away (leaving behind only water which isn't very slick).
Click to expand...

Hmmm your not making this easy are you??? I think then reading the label of your soap of choice for a traditional wash is very important. Some people even add ONR to their wash water just for this reason to boost the polymer content. Using a quality shampoo such as Blackfire Gloss Shampoo should should all but alleviate this concern to add polymers.
 
Todd Helme said:
I'm not sure if I would say anything is better then the other, I would say that a polymer combined with a surfactant (assuming the polymers are in a water based emulsion) is going to deliver more polymers to the surface and provide the best lubrication.

Even traditional car soaps can be formulated with polymers, surfactants, or both.

The flushing action of the encapsulated dirt is going to provide more of a barrier to abrasion then wiping the encapsulated dirt against the surface (washing vs. rinseless).

But what about when towel drying (assuming there is no dirt left on the surface what-so-ever). The polymers in the left over rinseless wash are going to provide a greater level of protection compared to a surfactant rich soap that has been rinsed away (leaving behind only water which isn't very slick).
Click to expand...


Insert quick detailer drying aid! :D
 
rzatch said:
Hmmm your not making this easy are you??? I think then reading the label of your soap of choice for a traditional wash is very important. Some people even add ONR to their wash water just for this reason to boost the polymer content. Using a quality shampoo such as Blackfire Gloss Shampoo should should all but alleviate this concern to add polymers.
Click to expand...

Not trying to make anything difficult, just making sure that I am specific in what I say.

Adding a rinseless wash to a soap is a good idea IMO, although it can kill the suds of the soap. The sud-sing effect isn't too important to the functionality of the soap anyways, but some people love their suds.

BLACKFIRE Gloss Shampoo is rich in both high quality surfactants and polymers and provides a lot of lubricity.
 
Bunky said:
I guess my hypothesis is if you take the same vehicle, rinse in down well, then proceed to do either a traditional 2 bucket or a rinseless wash (washing while still damp from the rinse) then they will always be equally safe no matter the condition of the vehicle?

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, what is the extra safety done in a traditional 2 bucket without about foam down, no foaming while wiping, no prsssure washer, no modified 16 bucket method, 16 mitts or 36 towels, etc) and no radio controlled helicopters (inside joke if you know the reference) or what makes rinseless less safe,
Click to expand...

Hi Al,

Power washers are great but lets look at this from the two methods you suggest.

I'm of the opinion that the traditional two bucket method has less chance of imparting surface defects than a rinseless wash.

The traditional soap and water solution seems to provide better lubricity than a rinseless wash. The wash media is generally saturated with the foamy solution and glides across the surface much smoother than that of the rinseless wash. Rinseless wash instructions even suggest adding an ounce our two to your conventional wash to add lubricity, which does make sense.

Rinseless washes should incorporate the second bucket as well. Rinsing the wash media when using a rinseless wash is actually more important to avoid reintroducing dirt and debris that's just been removed.

I've found it easier to unknowingly impart damage to the finish because of pressing too hard or have the surface "too dirty".

If I have a bucket of clean rinseless wash and adding dirt and debris by rinsing the wash media in it doesn't make much sense hence the reason to use the two bucket method for the rinseless as well...

I don't believe the two are equal but the rinseless wash does have it's place but under certain conditions..
 
I use 2 buckets + 2 grit guards + a prerinse for rinseless washing, too. I believe this significantly reduces the risk of marring with rinseless.
 
Bunky said:
Therefore is it the pre-rinse with a hose that really makes them equal? That is, if I hose down the car first like I would for a traditional wash it would be as safe?



I guess my hypothesis is if you take the same vehicle, rinse in down well, then proceed to do either a traditional 2 bucket or a rinseless wash (washing while still damp from the rinse) then they will always be equally safe no matter the condition of the vehicle?
,
Click to expand...

mjlinane said:
I use 2 buckets + 2 grit guards + a prerinse for rinseless washing, too. I believe this significantly reduces the risk of marring with rinseless.
Click to expand...

:exactly:Your doing what the OP suggest makes the difference so in essence the only thing your saving on is the final rinse part of a traditional wash. Not saying I don't agree with doing it but your kind of defeating the concept of the waterless wash or rinseless wash.

And a quote from Todd on the use of waterless wash products.

Waterless Wash products are limited. If you use them on a heavily soiled car you will likely overide the abillity of the product to remove dirt safely. BLACKFIRE Wet Diamond Waterless Spray is no exception, it does have it's limit.
 
From what I have seen so far, the view is that a soap offers more lubricity but the key characteristic is that the suspended dirt (what is not picked up in the mitt) is rinsed away as opposed to being removed through the wiping process of a rinseless wash.

So it seems many would say if you used a rinseless product exactly like the traditional soap, they do not believe it is as safe.
 
I agree Bunky. I think you hit the nail on the head with the pre-rinse being the key. I know around here in the winter there is a lot of sand and junk on the roads. It would take a lot of polymer to encapsulate that with just a wowo.
 
rzatch said:
Your doing what the OP suggest makes the difference so in essence the only thing your saving on is the final rinse part of a traditional wash.
Click to expand...

I wasn't clear: pre-rinse in this context was with a the rinseless product at wash strength from a garden sprayer. Pre-soak would have been a better choice of words.:sorry:

Now, if there is caked on dirt, the pressure washer definitely comes out. And, if the pressure washer is out, I do a traditional wash (I've got gallons and gallons of different shampoos).

Earlier in the thread I've stated my ideas on the matter. My CG HFEW review also has my thoughts on handling dirtier cars (the dirtier the car, the smaller the working area).

I am not disagreeing with any of you. I happen to like rinseless (and even waterless) - when I think it is appropriate for the dirt level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top