I need to ask the question.....

[Dr_Pain]

I was involved in a thread conversation earlier which got me thinking. The premise of which was the trickery and misfits done by certain coating manufacturer to skew the results of their independent testing. The exchange I had revolved around some of the information I have shared previously in my thread "The Truth about Coatings". In the thread I hinted at the fact that I was going to have a fuller exposee on the subject (which I am still planning on doing), HOWEVER it was speculated that detailers in general would be able to discern the best coating from personal experience and are not exactly interested in the testing claims. My point was that with the information and education that we will be in a better position to dispute the falsehood and better be able to discern the REAL science from the charlatan claims made by some. In a nut shell I advocate real science and scientific process over anecdotal single experience reporting.

What do you guys think?? Should CarPro step up and be the leader of REAL scientific testing on coatings, forcing other to "measure up" or should we not bother and just go by the seat of our pants (I think you know where I stand)

[CH.Detailing]

What, specifically, would you suggest be changed? What testing procedures would you like to see implemented? I'm all for real science and debunking false marketing claims.

[Dr_Pain]

Currently the standards are that you prep a surface (ANY SURFACE), coat it (YOUR PROCESS and PROCEDURE), send it off to a place like SGS and they do the stupid "Pencil Test" (aka 6B to 9H). It was shared in the FB thread (by someone who knows), that a certain company manipulated the surface in such a way to give unrealistic and falsified results. Coming from a STRONG science background I find soooo many flaws in the whole thing that it bothers me that CarPro would even consider using SGS just because they are following ISO standards, when they obviously don't standardize their testing process to provide a true reproducible result, invalidating any data (other than having a piece of independent literature they can use in their marketing campaign).

If SGS is just the testing entity, applying a test which in my opinion is bogus (I'll explain later), then who polices the surface, coating and prep!?!?! According to the source, this particular manufacturer sprayed the coating (which results in a much thicker application than hand applied which they then baked on 80 deg.c. (175F) for 5 hours. Not exactly real world application, wouldn't you say? How can those results be used to promote a product applied by hand and fast flashed with medium wave IR lamps for 10-15 minutes at 170 degrees F.

To me the SGS test is bogus on soooo many levels. If the ISO standard used for testing coating is the ISO - 15184 (Paints and Varnishes - Determination of Film Hardness by Pencil Test), then let me be the first to say that it was a test for paint and varnishes and leaves a very big question mark above my head as far as its usefulness to test coating, ESPECIALLY considering that most coating manufacturer claim 9H+. How useful is a test when all of the testing max or exceed the scale? I think you would have more useful data in a test where the data points would find themselves in the lower to middle portion, allowing room to reach greater applicable results on the same scale. 9H+ for me mean nothing more than the test was inconclusive in providing a true reading. It gives me absolutely no fuzzies that I am dealing with a above standard product. Basically and plainly put, the test SUCKS and a new test which can produce actual data point need to be invented. Unanswered questions on the Pencil Test..... what is the standard methodology used to evaluate the actual scratch? Basic visual observation or are we looking for a microscopic evaluation/measurement of the depth of what was produced during the test? Does the size of the tip and contact point with the substrate test calibrated to maintain the same standardized effective PSI at the tip (coming from the standardized 500gm or 750gm)?.... and the list goes on

My point is that CarPro need to rise above all those slide of hand marketing trickery, and become the standard. They need to educate extensively and rely and unbiased, irrefutable and verifiable claims and science. If nobody is coming to measure up then CarPro becomes the King of the Hill. At that point even the smallest detailer with no knowledge of chemistry will be able to say: "How does your coating test out?". Right now, reading on threads after threads there seems to be questions as to who is King, and the reason for it and they are taking their dog fight in an "unsanctioned" arena. They are trying to compare and contrast on flawed science.

[Status Auto Detailing]

I can see where you are coming from. The 9h thing has got out of hand. In the end, it's about performance in the field, but some real science would be cool. Would it be profitable...eh, maybe. Would it make CarPro even more credible? I believe so. Definitely some pros and cons

[Greg]

Absolutely! If the current testing protocols are flawed, I would ENCOURAGE CarPro to step up, and create a new standard. Something that is scientifically based, performed in a controlled environment, and eliminates variables. You've also hit on a very important thing here - most of these other coating companies only have 1-2 chemists that actually know what the heck they are talking about. Most of the distributors, and people in sales/marketing just repeat what others have told them about the products.

[allenk4]

Absolutely! If the current testing protocols are flawed, I would ENCOURAGE CarPro to step up, and create a new standard. Something that is scientifically based, performed in a controlled environment, and eliminates variables. You've also hit on a very important thing here - most of these other coating companies only have 1-2 chemists that actually know what the heck they are talking about. Most of the distributors, and people in sales/marketing just repeat what others have told them about the products.

I would say that the majority of companies "marketing" coatings have zero scientists on staff.

The rumor is that all but a couple of the coatings are made by two companies in the far east