NuFinish - what am I missing out on?

[qwertydude]

NONE of the NuFinish pictures posted by members are specifically shown to highlight the swirls. They're all beauty shots.

NOT a single one was a closeup of a panel with a bright light specifically to show the worst possible lighting to highlight swirls. You only really see those kind of shots on before and after product test like on Autopia. The most dramatic being half and half tape lined tests.

NONE of them showed a before and after.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...680#Post3096680

Take a look at my explanation for beauty shots. Do you see ANY swirls in the last two? You can easily see the detail in the bricks and the peeling paint on the neighbor's roof. Remember this is my car at it's worst. But I made sure to include one that did show the swirls, none of the Nufinish posts ever show specifically a swirl highlighting shot probably because they'd be shocked when the rubber meets the road and they actually find out their car is swirly.

And it looks as good with just a wash as most people's cars after a detail with NuFinish. It is swirly at this stage but the lighting, angles, and photography techniques don't show the swirls. They show the reflectivity because the car has been polished very well previously and waxed regularly.

I don't care that someone posted shots because I specifically stated photographic techniques don't necessarily equate to a decent polish.

Look at the old 13 year old white car in the post. Only waxed maybe twice but it's the angle of lighting making it look highly polished but I can guarantee you the surface finish isn't ideal.

That's why my polish post specifically was preceeded by a post specifically about beauty shots and photography. I was trying to help other people who were wondering why when they post a picture it doesn't look as good as the pros. First thing they try to blame is their polishing technique isn't up to snuff and I countered it may very well be but the pros not only know how to polish their cars but know how to photograph them to get them to look as good as possible. Learning good photography techniques is actually part of setting up a detailing business. Besides word of mouth excellent photographs of detailed cars is the next best business advertising.

 

[qwertydude]

As for the concentrate. Then it looks like it's down to only two ingredients. And it's still 80% water. So you're buying 80% water anyways not that big an improvement from 94-98% water and what is essentially Armor All.

http://www.ultimafinishcare.se/Pdf/Ultima+MSDS+Ultima+Waterless+Wash+Concentrate.pdf

And the active ingredient is still the same polydimethylsiloxane. And at a concentration about only 4 times as concentrated as the regular it's still not that great a deal. Still trying to make a distraction considering whether it's concentrated or not, it's still a dead simple formula that can easily be made at home and modified with wax and a pure surfactant like Photo-Flo.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1489017

Polydimthylsiloxane. It's basically Armor All.

 

[doitmyself]

The one variable in qwertydude's CD test that isn't addressed is the microfiber applicator.

As this discussion at autopia points out, the choice of applicator pad by itself can affect swirling: http://www.autopiaforums.com/forums/auto-detailing-101/40452-all-microfiber-failing-cd-test.html

The amount of pressure used needs to be consistent also.

Finally, and no offense qwertydude , one thing that raises red flags about your testing is your need to fall back on your credentials so much to attempt to prove your point. The data should stand on its own.

There are two very conflicting results shown in this thread about NuFinish, so I would be interested to see more controlled testing.

 

[qwertydude]

As for posting on Autopia. I actually did but on my dark blue BMW right around when M105 just came out. The whole hood and front panels was repainted by me in my garage using matched paint and PPG two part clear. Look carefully and you'll see on the top of the front right panel still is dull from the wet sanding.

Yes I paint cars too. Is it surprising I know how to paint a car? Oh yeah maybe because my uncle owns his own body shop and maybe that's how I first got into detailing as a business. Maybe that's why I know a little bit more than the average guy about paint, chemicals, polishing and surface finish?

It was a bit orange peely so I wet sanded it since I knew after three coats I had plenty of paint thickness to work with and just for fun I decided to see if the new M105 could get rid of the satin sanded finish, tried at first by hand and was shocked that it left such a good finish nearly wax ready. So I tried with my cheapy polisher. Looked darn near wax ready. Not up to my high standards so afterwards I followed with Meguiars Deep Crystal Polish and a PC. Flawless finish. But the M105 and cheapy polisher worked to remove 2000 grit wet sanding.

Thread didn't go much anywhere but certainly not nearly as much hostility than here which surprises me because of the passion on Autopia would have me believe they would have hung me up by my toenails for not doing exactly as they do.

Most people simply refused to believe you could remove 2000 grit wet sanding marks with a cheap polisher and M105 and left it at that. But after a few years other people started to turn their opinions around when M105 started become the go to gold standard for heavy polishing even defect removal by hand including wet sanding repair. So me being one of the early adopters I simply stopped posting their because I got out of professional detailing and decided to post here where people aren't pros but can benefit better from having a former pro tell some of the secrets he learned from years of being in the detailing business.

Oh yeah just in case you think it wasn't swirly.

Before wet sanding and M105 polishing.

After.

So who else is here is posting both beauty and swirl highlighting shots?

 

[qwertydude]

There's a couple random deeper scratches. Maybe I forgot to shake my bottle of M105 right?

Or maybe I know when to stop compounding and let the next step take care of the deeper scratches to reduce their visibility. Not needing to completely remove the deeper scratches but simply reduce their visibility to maintain paint thickness.

 

[qwertydude]

The data does stand on it's own if you know how to interpret it.

The problem is people here don't and won't believe you unless you have at least some background. I have enough background to know what I'm doing isn't bunk. But if people don't understand chemistry, science, surface finish, and photography. How is it up to me to teach them the basics.

If I showed you the data proving the higgs boson exists. The data stands on its own. Can you as a lay person understand it? Heck even I have a hard time understanding the data because the detailed process is simply a little too passed my experience. But nonetheless people more qualified than me posted the data and I'm apt to believe them.

So credentialing matters a lot when trying to convince the lay person. And the average NuFinish user is about as lay a person as you can get. I'm trying my hardest to make the information as accessible as possible. Using different analogies like the CD test because can you tell me ANY other method to determine the presence of abrasives in a product? I certainly don't know of any besides microscopic analysis. It's a crude test for sure but it's better than nothing.

 

[qwertydude]

And if you're wondering what a former detailing professional is doing with a cheapy random orbital in the first place. When you have a mobile detailing business and no access to electricity your choices are either a generator or a large marine deep cycle battery and inverter. I didn't want a loud generator making a racket in the neighborhoods where I worked, just being conscientious about the sound in case nosy neighbors complained. That would kill repeat business.

When using an inverter a PC simply consumes too much power and would drain my battery. And no way I could do two cars a day by hand without my arm falling off. So cheapy polisher and inverter it was. I learned to make the most of it. Oh and if you also have no access to water, learning to make your own waterless wash saves money too.

 

[qwertydude]

And one thing too I do have to add. I wish NuFinish was as good as it claims. It is very cheap, and I care about cheap. I care about it a lot. I'm probably cheaper than most people here but being that cheap doesn't mean ALL I do is look at price. I do still care about performance.

If I didn't I wouldn't be posting about how to get excellent correction with the cheapest possible polisher on the market. Instead I'd be just like every other snob saying you need a $350 Flex polisher and exotic pads and a wax formulated just for your car (Zymol) Maybe even in a crystal box with "free" refills for life. But not once in my life have I ever said you need anything high dollar to get professional results. I've always been extolling the value of certain products. Meguiars polishes and Collinite waxes being my go to favorites along with some other more specialized products but none of them exotic or even really that expensive.

So if I take the time to try to post about how to get the best finish on the least amount of time, effort and money don't you think I would try my hardest to prove NuFinish is good stuff? Because I certainly would love to make that claim. But sadly it really isn't good stuff and for the money you can do better.

 

[Chris B.]

Ha ha ha TL;DR.

All I have now as far as close up's but there is no swirling at all and this Volvo has 8 NuFinish coats over 4 years time. Paint is flawless and I'll get more pictures if I can get access to it again:

 

[qwertydude]

I'll believe it when I see it. Flawless to you is not flawless to me, and certainly not the detailing pros at Autopia. And surprisingly my criteria isn't as strict as the pros on Autopia. Their kind of flawless you really can only see in real life. Photography simply can not capture it.

But it does look somewhat like this on camera.
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=485533

And notice a before sample and after a simlar car purposely using the sun to highlight the swirls, of which there are zero swirls and the car isn't even waxed. Pictures Just like I do. And just like you've yet to post.


You need a camera that you can control exposure at the minimum. Set it to about -1 to -2 ev, better if you can take bracketed shots -1, -2 and -3 ev and stopped down to at least f8 in order to get the light focused from the paint, and sunlight and reflections to really judge paint condition objectively.

Wait for a bright sunny day with the sun clearly visible, even better if you have clear sun and clouds or objects in the background, not forground, distant objects reveal more about surface finish as light rays distort more the further a refelction is from the reflecting surface. This to help judge true surface flatness. You need a point source light and the sun is the best bright point source light available. Then take a picture focused specifically on the paint with the sun reflected, it's good to take one wide shot and one close up to reveal overall swirl condition and closer for fine swirls. If your polish is really good a lot of times your camera actually wants to focus on the sun or reflections in the paint which can end up with blurry photos. So I usually manually focus my shots with my DSLR.

Another way is in a dark garage with the light angled toward the paint but not shining the beam into the camera. This usually takes a decently bright light like a halogen.

http://www.autopia.org/forum/click-brag/96242-bmw-x3-black-metallic-recon-toto.html

You can infer the setup from this Autopia post.This is how you light for a professional detailing inspection. This is why I don't want to setup a polish just for this. Because to try to do the experiment right I'd have to do this three times. A control setup, then polish and an exact setup just like before but polished with NuFinish, then again after to show the repair.

That to me would be an unbiased test. Feel free to follow those setup routines in order to convince me you're a NuFinish master.

 

[dishdude]

I'm a fan of Collinite 845, but everytime I hear of Nufinish I think of this commercial I watched 100s of times as a kid. I swear they played it for 10 years.

 

[Vikas]

Being an engineer I do trust a fellow engineer lot more than somebody without the credential. They at least have the scientific and statistical background to understand the principles. As I said many times, this forum has 90% fluff and may be 10% real scientific and rigorous data. I am appreciative of both Qwerty and Chris for posting their individual evidence here for us to make our own judgement.

Depending upon the hardness of the clear coat, the el cheapo buffer with M105/UC can do miracles on paint. I have experienced great results and not so great results using it. There are going to be snobs who would refuse to believe that.

All of the claims made here are trivial to verify or debunk and cost little money. People need to get in the habit of using their own hands and brain before opening their collective mouths.

 

[BTLew81]

Wow. Quite the thread. Engineer or not, there are many variables and perhaps your mileage may vary on this product. Apparently it seems to based on this thread.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
There are bunch of guys here if given a fancy bottle of extremely expensive sealant (but the content replaced with NuFinish without their knowledge) would be extolling the virtues of their gift. You can bet your paycheck on it. There is no need to argue with them.


Right you are....a truth that they will deny.

 

[daves87rs]

Wow...lots of talk here (and some good points too)

I think it simply depends on the car. On a real nice/high end/ classic/, I'd use what the pros use to get the most of out of shine.

But My 2 are almost 11, and a 8 year old beater. They are in pretty good shape for their age, and get treated to some good Meg's wax during the spring/summer. During the winter though, Nufinish does the best job I've seen of beating water and help me keep some of the salt off. The rest of the waxes will barely last a storm or too. At that point, it's about the protection, not shine....

 

[Errtt]

Well I took one vehicle, washed, done one coat treatment with a fresh bought can of NF paste, let vehicle sit in garage overnight, next day a coat of Surf City Garage Barrier Reef wax as a topper.
Looks good, but the vehicle (2010 - Diamond Silver color) looked good before I started anyway.

I had a bottle of NF, but sat in the garage un-used for awhile. So went and picked up a can of NF paste. It's not like any paste I'm used to. It was gooey, slobber like... like Go-Jo hand cleaner or grease.
Although I did hit a few spots of black trim, it cleaned off with ease. Now if I can only maintain a topper coat every few months, at least through the winter season.

 

[doitmyself]

Originally Posted By: BTLew81
Wow. Quite the thread. Engineer or not, there are many variables and perhaps your mileage may vary on this product. Apparently it seems to based on this thread.


Exactly. So many variables that it is tough to make a call.

In this 2011 Autopia thread, member Dan did a "test" of 4 AIO products and the NuFinish was second to Zaino AIO. He thought that the NF formula was changed and there was no mention of marring. He thought it was an o.k. product for the price.

http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing-product-discussion/132351-durable-aio-4-way-test.html

In 2012 member Dan started another AIO test and his opinion of NF turned 180 degrees:

http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing-product-discussion/132888-nu-finish.html

"I applied the NuFinish after polishing the car, and much to my surprise I got a bit of hazing/scratching, so I'm not sure what is going on with the formulation, it seems to have taken a step back on this latest bottle I got. Fair warning, do a small section before you do the whole car."

As lay persons, we need to equally scrutinize real world trials AND expert "analogy type/CD" trials. Credentials don't automatically make everything true. Just look at the medical research results that flip flop constantly. Having said this, I respect both ChrisB and qwertydude for posting their data and hope to see (and learn) more from both.

 

[FastEddie]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Wow...lots of talk here (and some good points too)

I think it simply depends on the car. On a real nice/high end/ classic/, I'd use what the pros use to get the most of out of shine.

But My 2 are almost 11, and a 8 year old beater. They are in pretty good shape for their age, and get treated to some good Meg's wax during the spring/summer. During the winter though, Nufinish does the best job I've seen of beating water and help me keep some of the salt off. The rest of the waxes will barely last a storm or too. At that point, it's about the protection, not shine....

I too have not seen really any waxes outlast NuFinish, and for good reason, they are waxes and NuFinish isn't. There are "sealants" out there, and very good ones that can, will and do outlast NuFinish, and imo, look worlds better. But again, that's just my opinion and since I detail for money I obviously buy and try more products than an average garage weekend detailer usually does.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: FastEddie
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Wow...lots of talk here (and some good points too)

I think it simply depends on the car. On a real nice/high end/ classic/, I'd use what the pros use to get the most of out of shine.

But My 2 are almost 11, and a 8 year old beater. They are in pretty good shape for their age, and get treated to some good Meg's wax during the spring/summer. During the winter though, Nufinish does the best job I've seen of beating water and help me keep some of the salt off. The rest of the waxes will barely last a storm or too. At that point, it's about the protection, not shine....

I too have not seen really any waxes outlast NuFinish, and for good reason, they are waxes and NuFinish isn't. There are "sealants" out there, and very good ones that can, will and do outlast NuFinish, and imo, look worlds better. But again, that's just my opinion and since I detail for money I obviously buy and try more products than an average garage weekend detailer usually does.


It is a valid point....

 

[mwball0]

I have tried it, love the stuff! Easy to use, cheap and last a long time. Only problem is it gets on the black trim and looks terrible. Anyone know how to get it off?