I'm seeing many lightbulbs going off in the comments in this RW series and wanted to share my thoughts with the community. I am not a person that is easily persuaded by detail marketing claims or processes or methodologies of detailing. One needs to take a stance of “skepticism” as many initially believe what an YT influencer or manufacturers says without any rational thought and that's the narrative, they sell products on and one will/would believe moving forward and will ultimately defend it without asking any questions. The best way to approach something in car detailing is to just ask questions for yourself - make your question’s list for ANY detailing process or chemical product. Find what actually works for YOU and why? Here is a sample of questions for a RW chemical product and washing contact process that I developed for myself: - Is rinseless washing truly safer than a traditional contact wash? - Is proper rinseless washing actually quicker than a traditional wash? - Can a RW be used for all types of grime accumulation on a vehicle like a traditional contact wash? - Is modern RW methodology or process better now or when it was first developed as now some say to pre-rinse or soak with a RW before you do a RW wash or even rinse after the RW contact wash, why was the narrative changed? - Like all things does RW have limitations and what are they? - Does the 256:1 ratio standardized narrative actually work for ALL RW formulations as no two formulations are the same nor use the same cleaning agents, chemicals or formulations? - Has anybody actually tested what is the best dilution ratio to use for a given RW product? - Does the choice of different wash media work better with a given RW chemical formulation or ratios than others (best pairing)? - Why believe you should only use a sponge with every RW formulated product? - Clearcoat gets scratched from the detailing process by more “contact” and surface resistance on the vehicle clearcoat from the wash media, type of media selected, the chemicals selected, and the drying process selected (towel dry or blow dry) - which washing process has the least amount clearcoat contact on clearcoat over time traditional wash or RW’ing? - Traditional contact wash, rinse, blow dry off versus towel dry in RW process - which will scratch the vehicle less over time? - What wash media or RW multiple media process by design has the least probability to scratch clearcoat in a RW process? - Why is a twist loop towel the best drying towel for the RW process? Does the height of the twist loop pile matter as twist loop pile can be aggressive on the clearcoat surface based upon the applied pressure downwards, least surface resistance when a drying towel is a little wet and was that why drying aids were developed? - Does a surfactant type by classification leave less surfactant residue on the surface after drying in a RW process? - Does a RW containing surfactants leave behind surfactant residue after drying the surface without rinsing? - Do the chemicals chosen in the RW formulation scratch the surface because the chemical(s) chosen in the formulation? - Am I reviewing SDS sheets before purchasing a product and reaching out to the manufacturers with my questions on the product before using them on vehicles? Granted, the list can go on and on or get “crazy” but it’s illustrating a point here, that being - are you thinking like this (you should be as chemicals are dangerous) or just simply believing what someone, albeit who they are, says? That’s what I do, I test my questions and post review videos at the attempt to validate or “try to validate” the product marketing claims, process and methodology claims in the detail industry the best I can, with the resources available to me and the knowledge I possess and the contacts I have in the detail industry. I pose only illustrations of my findings to my community. I’m a sample of one, not perfect, have my own opinions and testing my “question lists” so I can choose for myself the best possible process and detailing products for my applications in car detailing. How about you?
Now I’m curious about two things: testing the clay towel with dedicated clay lubricant and exploring regular soap cleaning in a way similar to rinseless methods, especially the plexiglass tests for marring and drying. Yes, we’re hungry for more testing, but don’t think we don’t appreciate your work-personally, I’d hug you for today’s review alone. Worry not! Thankfully, I’m on the opposite side of our spinning rock, so you’re safe from unsolicited hugs… for now. ;)
I’m also curious. The purpose of these tests is to see if rinseless washing is “safe” but we don’t know what “safe” is. We need to see what a “safe” wash is like and if any damage is done. People don’t use rinseless because they don’t want to wash their car but they might be scratching it with their traditional hand wash.
As I mentioned in the video, "use a clay towel with a clay lube" - that picture of the clay towel honeycomb scratching the vehicle clearcoat was indeed used with a clay lubricant after washing the vehicle with a pre-foam, foam dwell, rinse, foam and contact wash, rinse, and blow dry wash method. I repeated this testing with multiple marketed clay towels and clay lubes and received the same outcome results - scratching and honeycomb imprinting into the vehicle's clearcoat. The clay lubes used for this testing were from Koch Chemie, Carpro, 3D, and Gyeon and the clay towels were from DIY, TRC, 3D, and Adams. My theory is the material makeup they use in these clay towels is very abrasive against clearcoat and the more downward pressure you use the worse scratching you get. Besides, the clay process in of itself, mars and scratches and in my opinion needs to be followed up with a polishing step - there's no free lunch when you decide to clay a vehicle regardless of the chosen medium/lube used. Even using a handheld light, you will see clay process marring and worse when you parked the car under sunlight.
On the mar tests, wouldn't it be more realistic to spray a layer of the rinse-less first, then do the 10 wipes? I know when I rinse-less wash I never raw dog it and always, always have a layer of the solution sprayed onto my panel... Maybe it won't matter at all but shouldn't you be mimicking best practices?
Wow, the level of work that went into this video is next level! Great job. For those people in areas where water is restricted, products like this help keep the car clean while restricting water usage. The cost per gallon may not be cheap, but given the water restrictions this is a great option for those that like keeping their cars clean. My biggest gripe is the streaking it leaves. I usually just grab another rag dipped in some distilled water and just wipe it down afterwards.
Yep, I notice some streaking too, but that’s with all the Rinse-less washes I’ve used. I typically go back around the whole car with a quick detailer. I use rinse-less wash pretty exclusively, even though I have access to water. I’ll typically pre rinse the car with a pressure washer and start my contact wash. Love it.
Hello and thank you so much for this video. One of the best rinseless videos I've ever seen. Excited to look at all your video's now that I've discovered your channel. I just subscribed to your channel. Keep up the great work my Canadian brother!
I appreciate your ending conclusion. I've noticed that as well, I used two oz of car wash soap the other day and all of the heavy snow, traffic film, and oils were lifted from my ceramic coating as I noticed a return of beading. The past two washes I did were with ONR and the beading on my lower panels was still absent after those washes.
I'm going throw in a curve ball - do you actually think RWs can actually clean "clogged ceramic coatings" as ceramic coatings need "stronger" cleaning chemicals (whereas LSP sealants do not) to unclog them and often "soaps either acid or alkaline or both" to unclog them. A RW may clean a ceramic coating's top superficial surface layer and if the ceramic coating was unclogged to begin with, then the hydrophobics will sufficiently return. On the other hand, if the coating is clogged and RW'ing didn't return hydrophobicity what did we learn? There is a direct correlation of ceramic coatings being clogged and remaining clogged after washing and having poor hydrophobics. The most important thing in any LSP applied to a vehicle is "hydrophobicity" over gloss or even slickness. Here's my question to you - should you even use a RW on a ceramic coating? Was this why the narrative for "hybrid washing" began. ... to use a stronger chemical(s) and rinse process step initially to or attempt to unclog a ceramic coating before doing a RW contact wash as we see done in many YT videos by influencers. If manufacturers are not selling narratives to sell products, they are doing added process step(s) to shore up the limitation(s) of the core detailing RW process so that RW chemicals keep selling. ... They call it the "evolution of modern rinseless washing!" I call it moving the goal post. ...
@@DetailProjects I'm totally with you that marketing plays a large role in the detailing atmosphere. I've been using the same coating for several year now and it's actually a cheaper coating but lasts a solid two years with proper maitanance. The majority of the time I just rinse with hose and do a rinseless wash with perfect hydrophics being returned. It wasn't until I moved up north that I noticed a lack of hydrophobics after snow, salt, rain combination hit the lower panel. But a true soap wash restored beading no problem. A hybrid wash every wash is silly and a waste. As water is the most abundant solvant we have just spraying the car with a pressure washer with simple water before contact I think is more than enough. A RW following this simple method has netted me a swirl free car on both cars I've owned in different environments so yes I believe RW is safe but equally as safe as soap. I think the method of application is equally as vital as the product. I will throw a wrench in this that I just noiced a few washes ago. What I thought was lack of beading was actually just ONR residue on the surface as soon as I sprayed it a few times with pressure washer beading was fully restored. So not sure if my lack of beading is a true lack of beading. So you are correct in that aspect as well. But overall there is far too much hype marketing in the detailing sphere thank you for being one that simply distributes knowledge.
Hi and thanks for this insightful video. I was never fan of rinseless wash but use ONR as a drying aid to reduce the chance of marring the car’s paint during the drying process. I use 16:1 dilution ratio and was wondering if I should switch to 32:1?
Many thanks! If your doing a traditional contact wash a blow dry method is superior to towel drying for paint marring/scratching prevention - I have tested it to be true. Next, "why" would you use a chemical product with its designed use case as a "cleaning chemical" as they contain chemical(s) meant to clean like surfactants and other chemicals that inherently, by nature, create a level of surface resistance as a drying aid. Because a manufacturer says you can - always question the application, use case and the chemical formulation; manufacturers "sell" products. ... RW chemical product's biggest flaw and limitation is "lubrication" and they often use of "lubrication substitutes" (sio2, PDMS and silicones) because of the "no rinse" method it employs in the detail process vs. true lubrication agents which need to be rinsed off as a process step in traditional contact washing. If you're looking to still do a drying aid process step, choose one that has the same chemical chemistry to the vehicle's LSP currently on it so not to overlay nor disrupt with a different hydrophobic property response or choose to add a superior hydrophobic property response in the short term with one like an emulsified Sio2 chemical solution in a detailer product form. If you want to stick with ONR, 16:1 or 32:1 is really interchangeable for the given use case as you are applying it to. If you're looking for a really good "all-around drying aid" meant and specifically formulated for a dying aid use case, it's hard to beat the Obsessed Garage drying aid and its major advantage over others is how it is formulated (contains Sio2) and can be used with most all drying towel pile heights (low, medium and high) while other drying aids only work best with a certain pile height for maximum efficiency. Drying aids like RW products need to be "correctly paired" as with drying aids towel pile height and the chemical product is important.
@ thanks again for the thoughtful response. The reason I use ONR as a drying aid is to prevent my expensive drying towels from getting hydrophobic by using SiO2 drying aids. Is that still a valid point to keep using RW as a drying aid?
Thank you for doing these tests. You added some data to support my own observations and gut feelings. I never quite bought into the 256:1 ratio. If the solution looks and feels like water... its because it's mostly water. I default to 128:1 for both pre-spray and contact wash for most brands, and I keep finding myself coming back to ONR (V5 is great). I'll pre-spray bad pollen spots or bugs with 32:1 (if this doesn't work I'll typically move to all-purpose cleaner). I do not have trouble with streaking. The ONR emulsification/encapsulation is interesting. I wonder if they have something patented since they've been proven by many people to be the only product that reliably separates dirt in a cup of solution. If it is patented, what happens when the patent runs out? I think that the 256:1 is what they all advertise to give the appearance of value at a level of lubrication and safety that they've deemed acceptable, but that doesn't mean its ideal. The only exception I'm aware of is Meguiar's, who recommend 20:1 as the weakest solution for their D115 Rinse Free Wash and Wax (and they recommend as high as 4:1 for rinseless washing with this product). People give them a hard time and say they're not a player in rinseless, but the results are really good (in particular the gloss, darkening, and filling... unlike any other rinseless I've ever seen). The solution is opaque and has a feel of substance. It's expensive for rinseless, but keeping a clean car isn't free. I'm more the type to invest in chemicals since I rent and can't/don't spend on things like a pressure washer and DI water system. I'm not sure yet if I'll buy another gallon of D115, but it's interesting stuff. Keep it up!
D115 is Meguiar’s professional waterless wash product. That why the dilution ratios are so low. D114 was their original rinse-less wash product. Sadly they took it away. Both aren’t very cost effective compared to the multiple dilution ratios of the new rinse-less washes that have come out. But I guess you pay for that extra protection given by the dilution ratios for D114. The Meguiars consumer waterless wash is very similar to D114.
D115 is not only for waterless washing. Look up the Meguiar's forum posts about it with replies from Meguiar's. Diluted 4:1 it is the same as their consumer waterless wash. Dilute up to 20:1 for rinseless. Shame they discontinued D114 as it was good. D115 is amazing and the protection it leaves behind is legit.
Thanks for the detailed quality review👍 I noticed light marks on the lower panels of my freshly painted ceramic coated car after about 10-12 washes with ONR, I use mainly ONR big red sponge specifically for testing on this car. What do you think and as a result of the tests seemed to be the safest way to wash? Shampoo or rinseless?
I have some "preliminary" testing observations/results (test #1) I can share with you BUT I do have a confirming test running right now (test #2) to verify my initial findings from test #1. Looking for repeatability in the outcomes between both tests. I did a side-by-side comparison test of washing two separate vehicles (both sedans) out to 412 days washing every 2 weeks throughout the year in all seasons of the year making it as real world as possible, washed in a covered garage. I also added a finish Sio2 sealant spray LSP process step to keep up vehicle protection after each wash. One vehicle was RW washed only, and the other vehicle was traditional soap washed only. Both vehicles were under 2 years old so really good clearcoat integrity. Both vehicles were ceramic coated with Gyeon Mohs Evo. - RW vehicle wash protocol was - RW dwell presoak, rinse step, RW pre-spray, RW contact wash with TRC USS sponge, towel dry with a twist-loop towel without a drying aid. - Traditional soap wash protocol was - Pre-foam dwell soak, rinse, foamed again for added lubrication properties, contact soap wash with AF zero cuff chenille, rinsed and blown dried. Upon visual inspection that took over a week to do we mapped out every vehicle panel with pictures of both vehicles and using lab microscopes, handheld lights, and sunlight - the traditional soap washed vehicle had over 50-60% less marring and scratching at the conclusion of the test. In addition, the traditional soap washed vehicle the scratches were less deep and shallower compared to the RW washed vehicle. My assumptions and my gut were telling me the towel drying step in the RW process creates a lot of marring in of itself as a detail process step. In test #2 - I added a third sedan that was traditional soap washed protocol vehicle but used a towel dry process step instead of the blow dry process step on one side of the vehicle and the other side, a towel dry with a drying aid process step was included. This vehicle had no blow dry process step. … This test is out to day 197 right now. The traditional wash vehicle towel dry with the drying aid has way less marring and scratching then the towel dry side of the vehicle without the use of a drying aid. However, this vehicle still has less marring and scratching than the current RW washed vehicle. The best vehicle currently is the traditional soap washed with a blow dry process step with the least marring and scratching so I’m seeing repeatability in testing outcomes so far. … My theory with RW'ing is the Achillies heel per say of RW products is the "lubrication properties" are insufficient, but not all RW products as some have just the right amount of lubrication for its intended use case. Second, the towel dry step induces marring with Rw’ing. Last, the chosen surfactant class and even the surfactant chemicals used in the RW formulation impacts marring and scratching as well. If you have no access to water, and RW is your only result, please use a drying aid with the towel dry process step at a minimum to save your clearcoat as long as you can.
@ It's impressive that you took on such a long test! Thanks for such detailed information. I'm looking forward to the hour-long video with detailed information, I'm sure it will significantly influence the industry and the opinion of many professionals and amateurs because you have great potential for your channel. I can wash with soap and I love it but it's winter now and I have to choose a day with a positive temperature because there is no drainage in the garage. About the drying aid, I just don't want to lose the absorbent properties of the towel, I use the Gauntlet, one larger and one smaller for the lower panels so as not to touch the dirt from the wheels and floor. Sometimes I first cover with foam and rinse and then RW. The car has Pan's 3 year ceramic coating and as a topper Clean by Pan sealant on completely new paint. There are barely noticeable scratches only with an inspection light, just on the lower side parts of the car. The hydrophobic properties are very good and this really adds self-cleaning properties. The car is washed about twice a week. After frosty and snowy Michigan days, I just wash off the salt at a coin car wash and on some lower panels the protection layer started sheeting water and soon I plan to wash with koch chemie reactivation shampoo and buy a good air blower. It's a pity that RW is not 100% perfect yet, Ivan also talked about the interaction of surfactants and polymers. I recommend trying to cover the car with ONR Hyper foam and then continue with regular RW, the slickness is many times greater and drying does not leave streaks.
Thank you" for sharing and the kind words - MUCH appreciated! Are those lower panel marrings you speak of run the full length of vechile's lower quarter panel on either side of the vechicle or more isolated to a couple of feet directly behind the front wheels on both sides and also behind the rear tires on both sides? Did this happen recently as we are moving into winter? Asking, because its very common to get "aero-wind debris scratching" right behind both the front wheels on lower quarter panels and directly behind rear wheel quarter panels even with mud flaps installed. As we drive, debris from the road gets kicked up on the lower quarter panels of the vechicle and as we drive at high speeds the wind dynamics around the lower car can/does push the contamination debris along your paint panels and thus isolated marring or scratching occurs. Wind dynamics also abrades lsp protection including ceramic coatings. ... Happens more often when it rains, driving in the rain and driving in the winter months; especially, after the roads have been salted. More so thus happens on cars more than trucks as trucks are higher up and off the road pavement axis. These aero-wind marrings will appear as straight lines with the end of the marring line slightly curving upwards. Also, you mentioned going to a local car wash stall and using a pressure wand will do the same aero-wind damage from the high pressure water hitting the debried panel surface. Tying to troubleshoot with you on all possible causes and effects. ... If the answer is "no" then it might be your detailing technique going to fast on the RW drying process step. If you want to inspect your vechile for marring at home use a handheld inspection light plus a 5x magnifying glass. Your face will need to be close to the magnifying glass, hold it in one hand and other hand hold the inspection light at 45 degrees (very important) to overcome light reflecting back at you, you see alot more marring on the paint panels. ... Make sure you're in a well lit area to begin with. I have seen up to 15x magnifying glasses at Walmart, the more x power the better for inspection purposes.
the conversations going on at this channel are soooo much better than another "ceramic torture test". thank you for actually helping the informed hobbyist
@@DetailProjects Dude, your contributions to this hobby/industry/profession are invaluable. Thank you for taking such a scientific and unbiased approach. Based on your findings, will you be switching to traditional washing now?
I had been researching ways to use UV dye to visualize marring because of your tests, really cool to see what you did there! Somebody knows some tricks of the trade 🤔...
Hey man, great testing. Just some thoughts. It’d be great if you’d display some captions during your testing such as 32:1 or 128:1 regarding what dilution you’re doing. It’s difficult to see on a phone what you’re testing especially if you don’t say it during the video. It def would help for your viewers. Also, do you have a spreadsheet of which dilution is best for each brand you’ve tested? I’d love to know. For instance, for ADS hero Rinseless I think it was 64:1. Thank you!
Thanks for the feedback! Great point, definitely will implement going forward, there will be a complete spreadsheet made up at the end of the RW series and will be available for everyone!
That is crazy that the wash media is creating so much marring, even if light. It's still crazy. You wouldn't think that vehicle paint would be that soft that it allows to much marring to take place even when trying to be gentle. It shows it doesn't matter pretty much which way you wash, you ARE going to get some type of marring on the paintwork. I never remember all these marring problems years ago on all the single stage paints we had before the days of clear coat. All everybody used back then was a cheap wash sponge and bucket from someplace like TG&Y (which was similar to a walmart but much smaller) or Woolworth's or NAPA or someplace like that. We didn't have all these choices we have now days. Maybe the paint was a lot harder back then. Manufacturers now days use super thin clear coats (probably a "cost cutting measure") whereas years ago, the clears were much thicker and also much harder. So it can be subjective depending on what paint type your car has. My 370Z, the paint is so gosh darned soft, if you look at it wrong, it scratches. It's lunacy how fast that car gets scratching on it. I just completed a three week, three stage polishing process on it, and while it looks fantastic, it already has significant wash induced marring on it already, which is frustrating. Very interesting on the various wash media's and how they differ in inducing marring on the paint and the fact that even if it's supposed to be "super safe", it's not! The only thing we can do is try to mitigate the marring as much as possible through good washing practices. There is WAY WAY too much "HYPE" out there with all these new detailing products coming out. While it's truly the "GOLDEN AGE OF DETAILING" (I have been detailing for over 45 years and trust me, THIS IS the Golden Age of Detailing because of the proliferation of the internet which has taken the detailing community of both professionals and enthusiasts alike to a level never imagined. There are more detailing products available now than at any point in history that I have ever seen. So many new companies are popping up with detailing products it's mind boggling. Unfortunately though, although it's what I call the golden age of detailing, there are FAR TOO MANY companies that are selling absolute CRAP products and something I call a "ZONKER". Either a cheap knock off and/or a copy of some other well made product or tool. For example, this particular video showcases rinseless washes which is a good case in point. It seems that every detailing products company is now on the rinseless wash bandwagon. It's the new buzzword in the detailing community for sure, by far. It's sort of like how the word GRAPHENE was the buzzword about five or six years ago. It was going to revolutionize detailing with this super ability to block contaminants from the paint in a super connected bonding action, yeah right, whatever. It was all HYPE! About two years into it, graphene was a has been. And although companies still use the word freely in many of their products and might put a tiny bit of graphene oxide in their mix, it's probably not even remotely close enough to do anything in assisting the coating from preventing marring or rock chips, or basically, ANYTHING. I still use good quality waxes and sealants on my paint rather than the ceramic coatings. I have never used a ceramic coating myself (at least not the full blown 3, 5, 9 or whatever years of....coating. A good quality wax or sealant is going to give you the same protection as a ceramic coating. And sometimes they even look better, especially with a wax. The only place I see a coating would be good is for people that don't maintain their vehicles at all or daily drivers. At least they would have something on the paint to protect it. Even if they take it to their local "wash and scratch" automatic car wash. For me personally though, quality waxes and sealants all day long. Much more economical too and many of them have great durability. For example $25 for a can of Fusso Coat which will easily give you six months protection. Sure, I have to reapply every few months, but it only takes a relatively short period of time to reapply the wax and it looks fantastic. I keep my vehicle garaged all the time so wax works perfectly for me. I use the Fusso as a BASE coat and then I use sealants on top along with other high carnauba content waxes. I personally have never had a problem with products working together than some people report either. I constantly change up my products, especially on the "toppers" and I personally have never seen any cross contamination between products. Not once. One of the best clay lubes I have ever used believe or not, is plain ole' wash soap from a good quality soap, something like DIY Incredible Suds which has superior lubricating ability. So really, any GOOD QUALITY soap, mixed a little heavier than the recommended dilution usually will work great with clay bars and the newer style synthetic clay mitts. That's just my experience and I have been claying for a long time. One of the very best ways to clay your vehicle is with Meguiars Professional Line Clay. It comes in a round container and it costs about $40 which is high, but it works on a level FAR beyond what those junk clay bars they sell in the stores do which usually will definitely mar your paint, requiring a polish afterwards. ONR (Optimum No Rinse) has really been the KING of rinseless washing for about 20 years now. A lot of people didn't know about ONR before TH-cam came along. Now there are probably 100 rinseless washes, all of which can trace their lineage back to the original ONR. Hopefully Dr. G. over at Optimum Polymer Technologies (who invented rinseless wash with ONR) is getting some royalties from all these other companies because the credit really goes to him. He's a very open person about ONR and it's uses so it would be interesting if you actually spoke with Dr. G after your testing is complete, no matter which one comes out on top, to relay to him your findings and also your recommendations for a "PERFECT RINSELESS WASH". Maybe Optimum and Dr. G will take your advice for their next revision and incorporate things from your findings to help redefine a new and improved rinseless that does not induce marring at the recommended ratios. Maybe the ratio's need to be revised. I know that Griot's just announced that they are releasing a new improved version of their old original blue rinseless wash product which looked very similar to ONR but much weaker in appearance. The new ONR definitely looks darker than the original version way back. It looks like it has more polymers in it as it's a milkier appearance. I have been using the new version for about six months (Version 5) and so far so good. It is my most used rinseless wash product for both my vehicles and also inside the home for floor cleaning on my hard floors, window cleaning, mirror and bathroom cleaning, and as a kitchen APC to wipe down all the appliances after use. A very versatile rinseless wash. Another one that I personallly like and it's powerful is Feynlab. That rinseless is a great one in my opinion and it really cleans well. And the new Feynlab V3 is good in a foam cannon as a foaming rinseless. It is near the top of my list of favorite rinseless washes to use. I just got a bunch of the newer ones to try out including Labocosmetica Idrosave, Koch Chemie RRW, DIY V2, and Detail Popo Foaming rinseless, which reminds me a lot of American Detailer Garage FUZION, another rinseless I really enjoy using. DIY Detail V2 seems to be a pretty good one with a pretty good balance of surfactants and polymers and good cleaning ability and wipe off. I have found that temperature definitely affects the streaking and wipe off ability of many different types of rinseless washes. When it's super cold in my garage, it's slightly more difficult to get a streak free finish without having to wipe more than I normally would which is probably putting more wash induced or more appropriately WIPE induced marring on the paint. Especially when I just spray a sealant on dry paint and then wipe it away. I personally prefer leaving a bit of water or rinseless solution on the paint, and dry it that way. I also have seen where those big twist loop towels will induce marring faster than something like the Minx towel from The Rag Company, but then you get the lint issue, so it's a personal preference I guess. I don't like those really heavy twist loop microfibers. I have about six of them of various sizes, mostly large, and they just seem so much more grabby on the paint when wiping. No doubt about it, they soak up a TON of water, but they might be inducing marring faster than other options for drying. I do love the Gauntlet towels which blend the twist loop style and the soft style together. It's an ok balance. For me though, I prefer the older style waffle weave type microfibers like DRY ME A RIVER from TRC which are without a doubt my favorite glass towels in the small size, but also for general drying purposes on the entire vehicle on the large waffle weave size. Great presentation again, and I look forward to your next video and the final conclusion of your rinseless wash series. Maybe some of these manufacturers and distributors will go back to the drawing board after seeing your series on the rinseless washes. No doubt they'll be trolling your site for true answers to how their products actually work in the real world out here. Not every rinseless is created equal as we have already seen from your testing here. I am really both curious and anxious to see which one will come out as the BEST OVERALL RINSELESS based on your testing.
Thanks for this series of RW videos, I’m very curious how traditional soaps do on the plexiglass. Is this a test you plan on doing in the near future? Thanks again!
Do you think spraying the plexiglass with RW before doing the contact wash would make any difference in the marring test? Perhaps more liquid on the surface would create more lubrication? and it would more closely mimic how we wash our cars.
Intuitively you would think so but your question fundamentally “exposes” a major difference between a RW chemical product from a car shampoo product. Direct your critical thought process at “lubrication” as RW products often do not contain the same “level of nor the amount of” lubrication agents found in a given car shampoo. Most RW formulations will not have these lubrication chemical agents but will have chemical lubrication substitute(s) (like sio2 PDMS or silicones)in their place. The question is how effective these lubrication substitutes are. … Can they be stacked upon each other to create a more lubricous surface. The answer is yes and no; dependent upon the RW formulation! In case of Hero, the answer is a positive compounding lubrication effect just by dialing in the correct dilution ratios paired with the correct wash media. Opposite with a given car shampoo - loaded with lubrication agents because a traditional wash is a rinse-off washing process so excess lubrication agents can be rinsed away and by chemical formulation volume “lubrication” is higher in a given car shampoo. Ever notice when you add car shampoo foam on top of the vehicle and then contact wash with the same shampoo how lubricious it becomes? Yes, there is a compounding positive benefit effect for more lubrication since the car shampoo formulation is loaded with lubrication agents along with an ion-exchange charge against the surface of the paint depending on the surfactant’s classification charge plus the added foam process step is a lubrication catalyst. Thus, further helping against marring during a soap contact wash. Now a limited formulation with limited lubrication agents (RW) adding more of it does create a compounding lubrication benefit - “no” it wouldn’t and actually can cause more surface resistance. However, there is one exception or caveat - if the same RW formulation can be foamed on and then do a RW contact wash with the same RW formulation there “is” a compounding positive benefit in terms of lubrication. Why? Foaming creates ion-exchange funnel against the surface of the paint creating more chemical slickness, generally speaking. Didn’t you buy a gallon of DIY RW? - it foams well. Do a test for yourself - foam one side of the hood with a foam cannon and RW contact wash with DIY and the other side no foam added but add more DIY solution - which was more lubricious or appeared to have more lubrication - you will have the answer to your question by doing this simple at home experiment.
@@DetailProjects Fantastic neutral scientific approach seeking the truth. Best detail channel ever. In reading your comment that foaming of RW creates more chemical slickness. And considering that ONR V5 tested better than DIY RW but does not foam, will you test Optimum Hyper Foam ONR Rinseless Foaming Car Wash Soap in future testing? I'm hoping that foaming on Optimum Hyper Foam ONR Rinseless as a presoak followed by bucket contact wash with TRC USS will perform even better than ONR V5.. RW's are the only option for those of us without running water access for regular soap bucket wash and rinse. Or maybe add a foam test to all RW's to determine if foaming process would result in less marring, etc? Thank you for all your efforts!
Thanks for the kind words! To clarify and not wanting to add any confusion or endorsement of, as I see your response is going down the wrong path and thought process. The question that was posed to me was why not just add more of the RW solution chemical to the surface as that should make it slicker? I was explaining that this is not a true statement nor holds true in real actual applications or use case based upon the majority of RW's; especially, surfactant-based RW's use lubrication agent substitutes like sio2, PDMS or silicones for their primary lubrication agent as the surface in RW’ing contact wash is not rinsed off - making this a limiting factor for lubrication agents utilized in formulations and thus relying upon these “lubrication substitutes” in the RW formulations instead of using actual pure lubrication agents found in a car shampoo formulation of which they (lubrication agents) need to be rinsed off as leaving them on the paint will etch spot the paint over time and fade the paint as well. DIY's RW surfactant concentration allows it to foam as they boosted (upped) the surfactant concentration load higher allowing for the “marginal ability” to be foamed to a certain extent by adding high ounces of the RW to water in a foam cannon. Not all RWs can do this and is dependent upon the RW’s formulation specifically chemicals used in the RW formulation. By foaming this particular RW, it creates a "temporary" slick barrier called an ion exchange funnel until the barrier is dispersed (broken) by physical contact from the wash media and the wiping motion creating surface resistance versus just adding more of the DIY RW solution. That was the point, I was making (a temporary slick barrier) to experience and see and feel it for yourself as at home experiment. It ONLY makes a temporary slick barrier over paint versus adding more of the solution by volume. … Foaming of any RW does NOT add more slickness unless the RW chemical formulation was slick to begin with, like HERO is an example of a slick RW formulation with a wisely chosen lubrication substitute (sio2) as I mentioned in my response but it still has limitations. A poorly lubricated RW “is and will always be” a poorly lubricated RW regardless of how much of the volume solution of the RW you add BUT change some dilution ratios around things do change - that’s what I’m pointing out in my testing - what is the correct pairing of the RW dilution ratio for a given RW formulation and its correct chosen wash media to use; this is called pairing! So far, from the RWs I have test, 256:1 is NOT the answer. … Be very careful of marketing and remember businesses are in business to “sell products” for profits and they often pitch narratives or find new detailing processes that use a widget, chemical, machine or whatever - they “sell a narrative” to find solutions for "x" when there is NO actual problem that exists or existed to be solved to begin with but it generates lots of money for them. Like having RWs that change colors or now foaming RW rinses. PLEASE go to OPT and find the SDS section look up the Optimum Hyper Foam Rinse and Optimum Car wash - notice anything similar? Both products share 85% of the same ingredients (soaps) per the SDS and none of the ONR V5 ingredients are in the Hyper Rinse - see my point now. ... I will stand corrected if it does but by regulatory requirements should be listed in a SDS sheet. Let's NOT go down the road of thinking that RW being foamed will be slicker or work any better than a RW chemical solution unless you just use a car shampoo formulation and sell it as a "foam rinse." But don't we do that already as a process step in a traditional soap contact wash - yes, we do!
The purpose of the clay process is to remove the majority of contamination in the clearcoat and not some of it being removed - correct? I agree with a video I recently saw where someone compared a clay towel versus a plain old clay bar. He shown a clay towel leaving behind lots of contamination that a clay bar picked up right behind it after initially using the clay towel on the vehicle's panels. I agree, if you're going to do a clay process just use a plain old clay bar. Claying, regardless or chosen medium (towel, bar, mitt or pad) with mar clearcoat and "polishing is needed afterwards" in my opinion. Trying to find the channel's name as I watched this video the other day and it was excellent!
I am using Rinseless Wash in the winter (my winter is 5c-10c but for me it's cold 🙂) I fill my the 5l pump spray with ONR at 256, spray the car with about 2.5 liter, wash with a garden hose and then spray again and do the contact wash with a the Big red sponge. It works good and from my inspection, I don't see issues on the paint. Sure, after 10 wash something is going to be on the paint, but that is the case with any washing method.
finally, the wait is over! Thanks for the effort to come out of this vid! To me, it looks like the ONR v5 did the best in the marring test so far with the sponge combo, minus the streaky mess (i have the same exp here), easily at least a 4 out of 5 from me. I would like to see the 'contaminated' wash section done with some reputable traditional soaps while using those same wash media to see how they compare.
Yes, you are correct, ONR V5 Blue has done the best in the marring tests using a 32:1 ratio with a "TRC sponge" for exterior washing as not all sponges are created equal. So far, ONR is in the lead to date regarding marring, but many more RW reviews to come. The streaks are from the soy chemical (fatty acid) in the formulation and is the KEY chemical component (fatty acid) in the formulation for true RW encapsulation properties.
My interpretation of your ADS Hero review was that hero did not cause marring with the USS, i just rewatched and couldn't tell the dilution for the dirty wash media. Would you agree or was the methodology different for hero.
@ I need to go back and update both the Hero and the RRW reviews as I finalized my testing protocol after doing those two videos. Both of these RW products are missing some testing parameters. They will be finished at the RW series final video where I will test both with the missing testing parameters with my conclusions; I promise. Until then, I can only comment on RW products that have completed my finalized testing protocol to date. I can comment and say with confidence in side-by-side testing, when RW'ing with a sponge - the "TRC USS" is the best in terms of a Mar LESS sponge. Doesn't mean it won't mar with RW products but will Mar LESS.
I did try this behind the scenes when I was determining my wash mediums of choice, and unfortunately the cyclone consistent marred the most, so it did not make the cut.
Great review! But this is so frustrating. It seems like Rinseless is the gateway drug which leads to buying claying products/iron removers....which leads to polishes/polishers... which leads to ceramic coatings.... which lead to sealants to "protect" the ceramic coatings. It reminds me of the pharmaceutical companies... get them on one thing and keep treating the side effects of long-term use with more drugs. At some point you have to wonder how bad is it just to leave them dirty and just go through a touchless car wash every now and then? Thank you for your wonderful review. You're really good at this
I'm seeing many lightbulbs going off in the comments in this RW series and wanted to share my thoughts with the community.
I am not a person that is easily persuaded by detail marketing claims or processes or methodologies of detailing. One needs to take a stance of “skepticism” as many initially believe what an YT influencer or manufacturers says without any rational thought and that's the narrative, they sell products on and one will/would believe moving forward and will ultimately defend it without asking any questions.
The best way to approach something in car detailing is to just ask questions for yourself - make your question’s list for ANY detailing process or chemical product. Find what actually works for YOU and why?
Here is a sample of questions for a RW chemical product and washing contact process that I developed for myself:
- Is rinseless washing truly safer than a traditional contact wash?
- Is proper rinseless washing actually quicker than a traditional wash?
- Can a RW be used for all types of grime accumulation on a vehicle like a traditional contact wash?
- Is modern RW methodology or process better now or when it was first developed as now some say to pre-rinse or soak with a RW before you do a RW wash or even rinse after the RW contact wash, why was the narrative changed?
- Like all things does RW have limitations and what are they?
- Does the 256:1 ratio standardized narrative actually work for ALL RW formulations as no two formulations are the same nor use the same cleaning agents, chemicals or formulations?
- Has anybody actually tested what is the best dilution ratio to use for a given RW product?
- Does the choice of different wash media work better with a given RW chemical formulation or ratios than others (best pairing)?
- Why believe you should only use a sponge with every RW formulated product?
- Clearcoat gets scratched from the detailing process by more “contact” and surface resistance on the vehicle clearcoat from the wash media, type of media selected, the chemicals selected, and the drying process selected (towel dry or blow dry) - which washing process has the least amount clearcoat contact on clearcoat over time traditional wash or RW’ing?
- Traditional contact wash, rinse, blow dry off versus towel dry in RW process - which will scratch the vehicle less over time?
- What wash media or RW multiple media process by design has the least probability to scratch clearcoat in a RW process?
- Why is a twist loop towel the best drying towel for the RW process? Does the height of the twist loop pile matter as twist loop pile can be aggressive on the clearcoat surface based upon the applied pressure downwards, least surface resistance when a drying towel is a little wet and was that why drying aids were developed?
- Does a surfactant type by classification leave less surfactant residue on the surface after drying in a RW process?
- Does a RW containing surfactants leave behind surfactant residue after drying the surface without rinsing?
- Do the chemicals chosen in the RW formulation scratch the surface because the chemical(s) chosen in the formulation?
- Am I reviewing SDS sheets before purchasing a product and reaching out to the manufacturers with my questions on the product before using them on vehicles?
Granted, the list can go on and on or get “crazy” but it’s illustrating a point here, that being - are you thinking like this (you should be as chemicals are dangerous) or just simply believing what someone, albeit who they are, says?
That’s what I do, I test my questions and post review videos at the attempt to validate or “try to validate” the product marketing claims, process and methodology claims in the detail industry the best I can, with the resources available to me and the knowledge I possess and the contacts I have in the detail industry.
I pose only illustrations of my findings to my community. I’m a sample of one, not perfect, have my own opinions and testing my “question lists” so I can choose for myself the best possible process and detailing products for my applications in car detailing.
How about you?
For this reason/statement, I have subscribed to your channel. Well done man. Love to see critical thinking.
Now I’m curious about two things: testing the clay towel with dedicated clay lubricant and exploring regular soap cleaning in a way similar to rinseless methods, especially the plexiglass tests for marring and drying. Yes, we’re hungry for more testing, but don’t think we don’t appreciate your work-personally, I’d hug you for today’s review alone. Worry not! Thankfully, I’m on the opposite side of our spinning rock, so you’re safe from unsolicited hugs… for now. ;)
I’m also curious. The purpose of these tests is to see if rinseless washing is “safe” but we don’t know what “safe” is. We need to see what a “safe” wash is like and if any damage is done. People don’t use rinseless because they don’t want to wash their car but they might be scratching it with their traditional hand wash.
As I mentioned in the video, "use a clay towel with a clay lube" - that picture of the clay towel honeycomb scratching the vehicle clearcoat was indeed used with a clay lubricant after washing the vehicle with a pre-foam, foam dwell, rinse, foam and contact wash, rinse, and blow dry wash method.
I repeated this testing with multiple marketed clay towels and clay lubes and received the same outcome results - scratching and honeycomb imprinting into the vehicle's clearcoat.
The clay lubes used for this testing were from Koch Chemie, Carpro, 3D, and Gyeon and the clay towels were from DIY, TRC, 3D, and Adams. My theory is the material makeup they use in these clay towels is very abrasive against clearcoat and the more downward pressure you use the worse scratching you get. Besides, the clay process in of itself, mars and scratches and in my opinion needs to be followed up with a polishing step - there's no free lunch when you decide to clay a vehicle regardless of the chosen medium/lube used. Even using a handheld light, you will see clay process marring and worse when you parked the car under sunlight.
On the mar tests, wouldn't it be more realistic to spray a layer of the rinse-less first, then do the 10 wipes? I know when I rinse-less wash I never raw dog it and always, always have a layer of the solution sprayed onto my panel... Maybe it won't matter at all but shouldn't you be mimicking best practices?
Wow, the level of work that went into this video is next level! Great job. For those people in areas where water is restricted, products like this help keep the car clean while restricting water usage. The cost per gallon may not be cheap, but given the water restrictions this is a great option for those that like keeping their cars clean. My biggest gripe is the streaking it leaves. I usually just grab another rag dipped in some distilled water and just wipe it down afterwards.
Yep, I notice some streaking too, but that’s with all the Rinse-less washes I’ve used. I typically go back around the whole car with a quick detailer. I use rinse-less wash pretty exclusively, even though I have access to water. I’ll typically pre rinse the car with a pressure washer and start my contact wash. Love it.
Hello and thank you so much for this video. One of the best rinseless videos I've ever seen. Excited to look at all your video's now that I've discovered your channel. I just subscribed to your channel. Keep up the great work my Canadian brother!
Appreciate you Brother!
I appreciate your ending conclusion. I've noticed that as well, I used two oz of car wash soap the other day and all of the heavy snow, traffic film, and oils were lifted from my ceramic coating as I noticed a return of beading. The past two washes I did were with ONR and the beading on my lower panels was still absent after those washes.
I'm going throw in a curve ball - do you actually think RWs can actually clean "clogged ceramic coatings" as ceramic coatings need "stronger" cleaning chemicals (whereas LSP sealants do not) to unclog them and often "soaps either acid or alkaline or both" to unclog them.
A RW may clean a ceramic coating's top superficial surface layer and if the ceramic coating was unclogged to begin with, then the hydrophobics will sufficiently return. On the other hand, if the coating is clogged and RW'ing didn't return hydrophobicity what did we learn? There is a direct correlation of ceramic coatings being clogged and remaining clogged after washing and having poor hydrophobics. The most important thing in any LSP applied to a vehicle is "hydrophobicity" over gloss or even slickness.
Here's my question to you - should you even use a RW on a ceramic coating? Was this why the narrative for "hybrid washing" began. ... to use a stronger chemical(s) and rinse process step initially to or attempt to unclog a ceramic coating before doing a RW contact wash as we see done in many YT videos by influencers.
If manufacturers are not selling narratives to sell products, they are doing added process step(s) to shore up the limitation(s) of the core detailing RW process so that RW chemicals keep selling. ... They call it the "evolution of modern rinseless washing!" I call it moving the goal post. ...
@@DetailProjects I'm totally with you that marketing plays a large role in the detailing atmosphere. I've been using the same coating for several year now and it's actually a cheaper coating but lasts a solid two years with proper maitanance. The majority of the time I just rinse with hose and do a rinseless wash with perfect hydrophics being returned. It wasn't until I moved up north that I noticed a lack of hydrophobics after snow, salt, rain combination hit the lower panel. But a true soap wash restored beading no problem.
A hybrid wash every wash is silly and a waste. As water is the most abundant solvant we have just spraying the car with a pressure washer with simple water before contact I think is more than enough. A RW following this simple method has netted me a swirl free car on both cars I've owned in different environments so yes I believe RW is safe but equally as safe as soap. I think the method of application is equally as vital as the product.
I will throw a wrench in this that I just noiced a few washes ago. What I thought was lack of beading was actually just ONR residue on the surface as soon as I sprayed it a few times with pressure washer beading was fully restored. So not sure if my lack of beading is a true lack of beading. So you are correct in that aspect as well.
But overall there is far too much hype marketing in the detailing sphere thank you for being one that simply distributes knowledge.
Very well presented. Thank you so much for the time, effort, and energy put into this. Just subscribed. Look forward to watching the others.
Hi and thanks for this insightful video. I was never fan of rinseless wash but use ONR as a drying aid to reduce the chance of marring the car’s paint during the drying process. I use 16:1 dilution ratio and was wondering if I should switch to 32:1?
Many thanks!
If your doing a traditional contact wash a blow dry method is superior to towel drying for paint marring/scratching prevention - I have tested it to be true. Next, "why" would you use a chemical product with its designed use case as a "cleaning chemical" as they contain chemical(s) meant to clean like surfactants and other chemicals that inherently, by nature, create a level of surface resistance as a drying aid. Because a manufacturer says you can - always question the application, use case and the chemical formulation; manufacturers "sell" products. ... RW chemical product's biggest flaw and limitation is "lubrication" and they often use of "lubrication substitutes" (sio2, PDMS and silicones) because of the "no rinse" method it employs in the detail process vs. true lubrication agents which need to be rinsed off as a process step in traditional contact washing.
If you're looking to still do a drying aid process step, choose one that has the same chemical chemistry to the vehicle's LSP currently on it so not to overlay nor disrupt with a different hydrophobic property response or choose to add a superior hydrophobic property response in the short term with one like an emulsified Sio2 chemical solution in a detailer product form. If you want to stick with ONR, 16:1 or 32:1 is really interchangeable for the given use case as you are applying it to. If you're looking for a really good "all-around drying aid" meant and specifically formulated for a dying aid use case, it's hard to beat the Obsessed Garage drying aid and its major advantage over others is how it is formulated (contains Sio2) and can be used with most all drying towel pile heights (low, medium and high) while other drying aids only work best with a certain pile height for maximum efficiency. Drying aids like RW products need to be "correctly paired" as with drying aids towel pile height and the chemical product is important.
@ thanks again for the thoughtful response. The reason I use ONR as a drying aid is to prevent my expensive drying towels from getting hydrophobic by using SiO2 drying aids. Is that still a valid point to keep using RW as a drying aid?
Great video! After you get done with your rinseless series are you going to do soaps?
That’s the plan!
Thank you for doing these tests. You added some data to support my own observations and gut feelings. I never quite bought into the 256:1 ratio. If the solution looks and feels like water... its because it's mostly water. I default to 128:1 for both pre-spray and contact wash for most brands, and I keep finding myself coming back to ONR (V5 is great). I'll pre-spray bad pollen spots or bugs with 32:1 (if this doesn't work I'll typically move to all-purpose cleaner). I do not have trouble with streaking.
The ONR emulsification/encapsulation is interesting. I wonder if they have something patented since they've been proven by many people to be the only product that reliably separates dirt in a cup of solution. If it is patented, what happens when the patent runs out?
I think that the 256:1 is what they all advertise to give the appearance of value at a level of lubrication and safety that they've deemed acceptable, but that doesn't mean its ideal. The only exception I'm aware of is Meguiar's, who recommend 20:1 as the weakest solution for their D115 Rinse Free Wash and Wax (and they recommend as high as 4:1 for rinseless washing with this product). People give them a hard time and say they're not a player in rinseless, but the results are really good (in particular the gloss, darkening, and filling... unlike any other rinseless I've ever seen). The solution is opaque and has a feel of substance. It's expensive for rinseless, but keeping a clean car isn't free. I'm more the type to invest in chemicals since I rent and can't/don't spend on things like a pressure washer and DI water system. I'm not sure yet if I'll buy another gallon of D115, but it's interesting stuff.
Keep it up!
D115 is Meguiar’s professional waterless wash product. That why the dilution ratios are so low. D114 was their original rinse-less wash product. Sadly they took it away. Both aren’t very cost effective compared to the multiple dilution ratios of the new rinse-less washes that have come out. But I guess you pay for that extra protection given by the dilution ratios for D114. The Meguiars consumer waterless wash is very similar to D114.
D115 is not only for waterless washing. Look up the Meguiar's forum posts about it with replies from Meguiar's. Diluted 4:1 it is the same as their consumer waterless wash. Dilute up to 20:1 for rinseless. Shame they discontinued D114 as it was good. D115 is amazing and the protection it leaves behind is legit.
@ I know, it’s a pretty strong rinse-less wash given the dilution.
Thanks for the detailed quality review👍 I noticed light marks on the lower panels of my freshly painted ceramic coated car after about 10-12 washes with ONR, I use mainly ONR big red sponge specifically for testing on this car. What do you think and as a result of the tests seemed to be the safest way to wash? Shampoo or rinseless?
I have some "preliminary" testing observations/results (test #1) I can share with you BUT I do have a confirming test running right now (test #2) to verify my initial findings from test #1. Looking for repeatability in the outcomes between both tests.
I did a side-by-side comparison test of washing two separate vehicles (both sedans) out to 412 days washing every 2 weeks throughout the year in all seasons of the year making it as real world as possible, washed in a covered garage. I also added a finish Sio2 sealant spray LSP process step to keep up vehicle protection after each wash.
One vehicle was RW washed only, and the other vehicle was traditional soap washed only. Both vehicles were under 2 years old so really good clearcoat integrity. Both vehicles were ceramic coated with Gyeon Mohs Evo.
- RW vehicle wash protocol was - RW dwell presoak, rinse step, RW pre-spray, RW contact wash with TRC USS sponge, towel dry with a twist-loop towel without a drying aid.
- Traditional soap wash protocol was - Pre-foam dwell soak, rinse, foamed again for added lubrication properties, contact soap wash with AF zero cuff chenille, rinsed and blown dried.
Upon visual inspection that took over a week to do we mapped out every vehicle panel with pictures of both vehicles and using lab microscopes, handheld lights, and sunlight - the traditional soap washed vehicle had over 50-60% less marring and scratching at the conclusion of the test. In addition, the traditional soap washed vehicle the scratches were less deep and shallower compared to the RW washed vehicle.
My assumptions and my gut were telling me the towel drying step in the RW process creates a lot of marring in of itself as a detail process step. In test #2 - I added a third sedan that was traditional soap washed protocol vehicle but used a towel dry process step instead of the blow dry process step on one side of the vehicle and the other side, a towel dry with a drying aid process step was included. This vehicle had no blow dry process step. …
This test is out to day 197 right now. The traditional wash vehicle towel dry with the drying aid has way less marring and scratching then the towel dry side of the vehicle without the use of a drying aid. However, this vehicle still has less marring and scratching than the current RW washed vehicle. The best vehicle currently is the traditional soap washed with a blow dry process step with the least marring and scratching so I’m seeing repeatability in testing outcomes so far. …
My theory with RW'ing is the Achillies heel per say of RW products is the "lubrication properties" are insufficient, but not all RW products as some have just the right amount of lubrication for its intended use case. Second, the towel dry step induces marring with Rw’ing. Last, the chosen surfactant class and even the surfactant chemicals used in the RW formulation impacts marring and scratching as well.
If you have no access to water, and RW is your only result, please use a drying aid with the towel dry process step at a minimum to save your clearcoat as long as you can.
@ It's impressive that you took on such a long test! Thanks for such detailed information. I'm looking forward to the hour-long video with detailed information, I'm sure it will significantly influence the industry and the opinion of many professionals and amateurs because you have great potential for your channel. I can wash with soap and I love it but it's winter now and I have to choose a day with a positive temperature because there is no drainage in the garage. About the drying aid, I just don't want to lose the absorbent properties of the towel, I use the Gauntlet, one larger and one smaller for the lower panels so as not to touch the dirt from the wheels and floor. Sometimes I first cover with foam and rinse and then RW. The car has Pan's 3 year ceramic coating and as a topper Clean by Pan sealant on completely new paint. There are barely noticeable scratches only with an inspection light, just on the lower side parts of the car. The hydrophobic properties are very good and this really adds self-cleaning properties. The car is washed about twice a week. After frosty and snowy Michigan days, I just wash off the salt at a coin car wash and on some lower panels the protection layer started sheeting water and soon I plan to wash with koch chemie reactivation shampoo and buy a good air blower. It's a pity that RW is not 100% perfect yet, Ivan also talked about the interaction of surfactants and polymers. I recommend trying to cover the car with ONR Hyper foam and then continue with regular RW, the slickness is many times greater and drying does not leave streaks.
Thank you" for sharing and the kind words - MUCH appreciated!
Are those lower panel marrings you speak of run the full length of vechile's lower quarter panel on either side of the vechicle or more isolated to a couple of feet directly behind the front wheels on both sides and also behind the rear tires on both sides? Did this happen recently as we are moving into winter?
Asking, because its very common to get "aero-wind debris scratching" right behind both the front wheels on lower quarter panels and directly behind rear wheel quarter panels even with mud flaps installed.
As we drive, debris from the road gets kicked up on the lower quarter panels of the vechicle and as we drive at high speeds the wind dynamics around the lower car can/does push the contamination debris along your paint panels and thus isolated marring or scratching occurs. Wind dynamics also abrades lsp protection including ceramic coatings. ...
Happens more often when it rains, driving in the rain and driving in the winter months; especially, after the roads have been salted. More so thus happens on cars more than trucks as trucks are higher up and off the road pavement axis.
These aero-wind marrings will appear as straight lines with the end of the marring line slightly curving upwards.
Also, you mentioned going to a local car wash stall and using a pressure wand will do the same aero-wind damage from the high pressure water hitting the debried panel surface.
Tying to troubleshoot with you on all possible causes and effects. ...
If the answer is "no" then it might be your detailing technique going to fast on the RW drying process step.
If you want to inspect your vechile for marring at home use a handheld inspection light plus a 5x magnifying glass.
Your face will need to be close to the magnifying glass, hold it in one hand and other hand hold the inspection light at 45 degrees (very important) to overcome light reflecting back at you, you see alot more marring on the paint panels. ...
Make sure you're in a well lit area to begin with. I have seen up to 15x magnifying glasses at Walmart, the more x power the better for inspection purposes.
the conversations going on at this channel are soooo much better than another "ceramic torture test". thank you for actually helping the informed hobbyist
@@DetailProjects Dude, your contributions to this hobby/industry/profession are invaluable. Thank you for taking such a scientific and unbiased approach.
Based on your findings, will you be switching to traditional washing now?
I had been researching ways to use UV dye to visualize marring because of your tests, really cool to see what you did there! Somebody knows some tricks of the trade 🤔...
Hey man, great testing. Just some thoughts. It’d be great if you’d display some captions during your testing such as 32:1 or 128:1 regarding what dilution you’re doing. It’s difficult to see on a phone what you’re testing especially if you don’t say it during the video. It def would help for your viewers.
Also, do you have a spreadsheet of which dilution is best for each brand you’ve tested? I’d love to know. For instance, for ADS hero Rinseless I think it was 64:1. Thank you!
Thanks for the feedback! Great point, definitely will implement going forward, there will be a complete spreadsheet made up at the end of the RW series and will be available for everyone!
That is crazy that the wash media is creating so much marring, even if light. It's still crazy. You wouldn't think that vehicle paint would be that soft that it allows to much marring to take place even when trying to be gentle. It shows it doesn't matter pretty much which way you wash, you ARE going to get some type of marring on the paintwork. I never remember all these marring problems years ago on all the single stage paints we had before the days of clear coat. All everybody used back then was a cheap wash sponge and bucket from someplace like TG&Y (which was similar to a walmart but much smaller) or Woolworth's or NAPA or someplace like that. We didn't have all these choices we have now days. Maybe the paint was a lot harder back then. Manufacturers now days use super thin clear coats (probably a "cost cutting measure") whereas years ago, the clears were much thicker and also much harder. So it can be subjective depending on what paint type your car has. My 370Z, the paint is so gosh darned soft, if you look at it wrong, it scratches. It's lunacy how fast that car gets scratching on it. I just completed a three week, three stage polishing process on it, and while it looks fantastic, it already has significant wash induced marring on it already, which is frustrating. Very interesting on the various wash media's and how they differ in inducing marring on the paint and the fact that even if it's supposed to be "super safe", it's not! The only thing we can do is try to mitigate the marring as much as possible through good washing practices. There is WAY WAY too much "HYPE" out there with all these new detailing products coming out. While it's truly the "GOLDEN AGE OF DETAILING" (I have been detailing for over 45 years and trust me, THIS IS the Golden Age of Detailing because of the proliferation of the internet which has taken the detailing community of both professionals and enthusiasts alike to a level never imagined. There are more detailing products available now than at any point in history that I have ever seen. So many new companies are popping up with detailing products it's mind boggling. Unfortunately though, although it's what I call the golden age of detailing, there are FAR TOO MANY companies that are selling absolute CRAP products and something I call a "ZONKER". Either a cheap knock off and/or a copy of some other well made product or tool. For example, this particular video showcases rinseless washes which is a good case in point. It seems that every detailing products company is now on the rinseless wash bandwagon. It's the new buzzword in the detailing community for sure, by far. It's sort of like how the word GRAPHENE was the buzzword about five or six years ago. It was going to revolutionize detailing with this super ability to block contaminants from the paint in a super connected bonding action, yeah right, whatever. It was all HYPE! About two years into it, graphene was a has been. And although companies still use the word freely in many of their products and might put a tiny bit of graphene oxide in their mix, it's probably not even remotely close enough to do anything in assisting the coating from preventing marring or rock chips, or basically, ANYTHING. I still use good quality waxes and sealants on my paint rather than the ceramic coatings. I have never used a ceramic coating myself (at least not the full blown 3, 5, 9 or whatever years of....coating. A good quality wax or sealant is going to give you the same protection as a ceramic coating. And sometimes they even look better, especially with a wax. The only place I see a coating would be good is for people that don't maintain their vehicles at all or daily drivers. At least they would have something on the paint to protect it. Even if they take it to their local "wash and scratch" automatic car wash. For me personally though, quality waxes and sealants all day long. Much more economical too and many of them have great durability. For example $25 for a can of Fusso Coat which will easily give you six months protection. Sure, I have to reapply every few months, but it only takes a relatively short period of time to reapply the wax and it looks fantastic. I keep my vehicle garaged all the time so wax works perfectly for me. I use the Fusso as a BASE coat and then I use sealants on top along with other high carnauba content waxes. I personally have never had a problem with products working together than some people report either. I constantly change up my products, especially on the "toppers" and I personally have never seen any cross contamination between products. Not once. One of the best clay lubes I have ever used believe or not, is plain ole' wash soap from a good quality soap, something like DIY Incredible Suds which has superior lubricating ability. So really, any GOOD QUALITY soap, mixed a little heavier than the recommended dilution usually will work great with clay bars and the newer style synthetic clay mitts. That's just my experience and I have been claying for a long time. One of the very best ways to clay your vehicle is with Meguiars Professional Line Clay. It comes in a round container and it costs about $40 which is high, but it works on a level FAR beyond what those junk clay bars they sell in the stores do which usually will definitely mar your paint, requiring a polish afterwards. ONR (Optimum No Rinse) has really been the KING of rinseless washing for about 20 years now. A lot of people didn't know about ONR before TH-cam came along. Now there are probably 100 rinseless washes, all of which can trace their lineage back to the original ONR. Hopefully Dr. G. over at Optimum Polymer Technologies (who invented rinseless wash with ONR) is getting some royalties from all these other companies because the credit really goes to him. He's a very open person about ONR and it's uses so it would be interesting if you actually spoke with Dr. G after your testing is complete, no matter which one comes out on top, to relay to him your findings and also your recommendations for a "PERFECT RINSELESS WASH". Maybe Optimum and Dr. G will take your advice for their next revision and incorporate things from your findings to help redefine a new and improved rinseless that does not induce marring at the recommended ratios. Maybe the ratio's need to be revised. I know that Griot's just announced that they are releasing a new improved version of their old original blue rinseless wash product which looked very similar to ONR but much weaker in appearance. The new ONR definitely looks darker than the original version way back. It looks like it has more polymers in it as it's a milkier appearance. I have been using the new version for about six months (Version 5) and so far so good. It is my most used rinseless wash product for both my vehicles and also inside the home for floor cleaning on my hard floors, window cleaning, mirror and bathroom cleaning, and as a kitchen APC to wipe down all the appliances after use. A very versatile rinseless wash. Another one that I personallly like and it's powerful is Feynlab. That rinseless is a great one in my opinion and it really cleans well. And the new Feynlab V3 is good in a foam cannon as a foaming rinseless. It is near the top of my list of favorite rinseless washes to use. I just got a bunch of the newer ones to try out including Labocosmetica Idrosave, Koch Chemie RRW, DIY V2, and Detail Popo Foaming rinseless, which reminds me a lot of American Detailer Garage FUZION, another rinseless I really enjoy using. DIY Detail V2 seems to be a pretty good one with a pretty good balance of surfactants and polymers and good cleaning ability and wipe off. I have found that temperature definitely affects the streaking and wipe off ability of many different types of rinseless washes. When it's super cold in my garage, it's slightly more difficult to get a streak free finish without having to wipe more than I normally would which is probably putting more wash induced or more appropriately WIPE induced marring on the paint. Especially when I just spray a sealant on dry paint and then wipe it away. I personally prefer leaving a bit of water or rinseless solution on the paint, and dry it that way. I also have seen where those big twist loop towels will induce marring faster than something like the Minx towel from The Rag Company, but then you get the lint issue, so it's a personal preference I guess. I don't like those really heavy twist loop microfibers. I have about six of them of various sizes, mostly large, and they just seem so much more grabby on the paint when wiping. No doubt about it, they soak up a TON of water, but they might be inducing marring faster than other options for drying. I do love the Gauntlet towels which blend the twist loop style and the soft style together. It's an ok balance. For me though, I prefer the older style waffle weave type microfibers like DRY ME A RIVER from TRC which are without a doubt my favorite glass towels in the small size, but also for general drying purposes on the entire vehicle on the large waffle weave size. Great presentation again, and I look forward to your next video and the final conclusion of your rinseless wash series. Maybe some of these manufacturers and distributors will go back to the drawing board after seeing your series on the rinseless washes. No doubt they'll be trolling your site for true answers to how their products actually work in the real world out here. Not every rinseless is created equal as we have already seen from your testing here. I am really both curious and anxious to see which one will come out as the BEST OVERALL RINSELESS based on your testing.
Thanks for this series of RW videos, I’m very curious how traditional soaps do on the plexiglass. Is this a test you plan on doing in the near future? Thanks again!
Thanks ! Yes the plan is to start a soap test series after the RW is over
@ thank you sir!
Amazing video 👌 Much appreciate the hard work 💪
you recommend 32:1. That would be very expensive per wash. So would you suggest using 256:1 for the wash bucket and 32:1 for the pre spray?
thank you for the detailed review
can you share the dilutions for the bucket and ic, clay lube etc? is it all 1:32?
Do you think spraying the plexiglass with RW before doing the contact wash would make any difference in the marring test?
Perhaps more liquid on the surface would create more lubrication? and it would more closely mimic how we wash our cars.
Intuitively you would think so but your question fundamentally “exposes” a major difference between a RW chemical product from a car shampoo product. Direct your critical thought process at “lubrication” as RW products often do not contain the same “level of nor the amount of” lubrication agents found in a given car shampoo. Most RW formulations will not have these lubrication chemical agents but will have chemical lubrication substitute(s) (like sio2 PDMS or silicones)in their place. The question is how effective these lubrication substitutes are. … Can they be stacked upon each other to create a more lubricous surface. The answer is yes and no; dependent upon the RW formulation! In case of Hero, the answer is a positive compounding lubrication effect just by dialing in the correct dilution ratios paired with the correct wash media.
Opposite with a given car shampoo - loaded with lubrication agents because a traditional wash is a rinse-off washing process so excess lubrication agents can be rinsed away and by chemical formulation volume “lubrication” is higher in a given car shampoo. Ever notice when you add car shampoo foam on top of the vehicle and then contact wash with the same shampoo how lubricious it becomes? Yes, there is a compounding positive benefit effect for more lubrication since the car shampoo formulation is loaded with lubrication agents along with an ion-exchange charge against the surface of the paint depending on the surfactant’s classification charge plus the added foam process step is a lubrication catalyst. Thus, further helping against marring during a soap contact wash.
Now a limited formulation with limited lubrication agents (RW) adding more of it does create a compounding lubrication benefit - “no” it wouldn’t and actually can cause more surface resistance. However, there is one exception or caveat - if the same RW formulation can be foamed on and then do a RW contact wash with the same RW formulation there “is” a compounding positive benefit in terms of lubrication. Why? Foaming creates ion-exchange funnel against the surface of the paint creating more chemical slickness, generally speaking.
Didn’t you buy a gallon of DIY RW? - it foams well. Do a test for yourself - foam one side of the hood with a foam cannon and RW contact wash with DIY and the other side no foam added but add more DIY solution - which was more lubricious or appeared to have more lubrication - you will have the answer to your question by doing this simple at home experiment.
@@DetailProjects Fantastic neutral scientific approach seeking the truth. Best detail channel ever. In reading your comment that foaming of RW creates more chemical slickness. And considering that ONR V5 tested better than DIY RW but does not foam, will you test Optimum Hyper Foam ONR Rinseless Foaming Car Wash Soap in future testing? I'm hoping that foaming on Optimum Hyper Foam ONR Rinseless as a presoak followed by bucket contact wash with TRC USS will perform even better than ONR V5.. RW's are the only option for those of us without running water access for regular soap bucket wash and rinse. Or maybe add a foam test to all RW's to determine if foaming process would result in less marring, etc?
Thank you for all your efforts!
Thanks for the kind words!
To clarify and not wanting to add any confusion or endorsement of, as I see your response is going down the wrong path and thought process.
The question that was posed to me was why not just add more of the RW solution chemical to the surface as that should make it slicker? I was explaining that this is not a true statement nor holds true in real actual applications or use case based upon the majority of RW's; especially, surfactant-based RW's use lubrication agent substitutes like sio2, PDMS or silicones for their primary lubrication agent as the surface in RW’ing contact wash is not rinsed off - making this a limiting factor for lubrication agents utilized in formulations and thus relying upon these “lubrication substitutes” in the RW formulations instead of using actual pure lubrication agents found in a car shampoo formulation of which they (lubrication agents) need to be rinsed off as leaving them on the paint will etch spot the paint over time and fade the paint as well.
DIY's RW surfactant concentration allows it to foam as they boosted (upped) the surfactant concentration load higher allowing for the “marginal ability” to be foamed to a certain extent by adding high ounces of the RW to water in a foam cannon. Not all RWs can do this and is dependent upon the RW’s formulation specifically chemicals used in the RW formulation. By foaming this particular RW, it creates a "temporary" slick barrier called an ion exchange funnel until the barrier is dispersed (broken) by physical contact from the wash media and the wiping motion creating surface resistance versus just adding more of the DIY RW solution. That was the point, I was making (a temporary slick barrier) to experience and see and feel it for yourself as at home experiment. It ONLY makes a temporary slick barrier over paint versus adding more of the solution by volume. …
Foaming of any RW does NOT add more slickness unless the RW chemical formulation was slick to begin with, like HERO is an example of a slick RW formulation with a wisely chosen lubrication substitute (sio2) as I mentioned in my response but it still has limitations. A poorly lubricated RW “is and will always be” a poorly lubricated RW regardless of how much of the volume solution of the RW you add BUT change some dilution ratios around things do change - that’s what I’m pointing out in my testing - what is the correct pairing of the RW dilution ratio for a given RW formulation and its correct chosen wash media to use; this is called pairing! So far, from the RWs I have test, 256:1 is NOT the answer. …
Be very careful of marketing and remember businesses are in business to “sell products” for profits and they often pitch narratives or find new detailing processes that use a widget, chemical, machine or whatever - they “sell a narrative” to find solutions for "x" when there is NO actual problem that exists or existed to be solved to begin with but it generates lots of money for them. Like having RWs that change colors or now foaming RW rinses.
PLEASE go to OPT and find the SDS section look up the Optimum Hyper Foam Rinse and Optimum Car wash - notice anything similar? Both products share 85% of the same ingredients (soaps) per the SDS and none of the ONR V5 ingredients are in the Hyper Rinse - see my point now. ... I will stand corrected if it does but by regulatory requirements should be listed in a SDS sheet.
Let's NOT go down the road of thinking that RW being foamed will be slicker or work any better than a RW chemical solution unless you just use a car shampoo formulation and sell it as a "foam rinse." But don't we do that already as a process step in a traditional soap contact wash - yes, we do!
Change to a Klin Drying Duo EVO Edition drying towel & you will see less marring from the drying. Thx for the tests!
I always thought the fabric clay towels were the safest, best option. What is your favorite/recommended claying method and product? Thank you!
The purpose of the clay process is to remove the majority of contamination in the clearcoat and not some of it being removed - correct? I agree with a video I recently saw where someone compared a clay towel versus a plain old clay bar.
He shown a clay towel leaving behind lots of contamination that a clay bar picked up right behind it after initially using the clay towel on the vehicle's panels. I agree, if you're going to do a clay process just use a plain old clay bar. Claying, regardless or chosen medium (towel, bar, mitt or pad) with mar clearcoat and "polishing is needed afterwards" in my opinion. Trying to find the channel's name as I watched this video the other day and it was excellent!
Thank you so much. Great video!
I am using Rinseless Wash in the winter (my winter is 5c-10c but for me it's cold 🙂) I fill my the 5l pump spray with ONR at 256, spray the car with about 2.5 liter, wash with a garden hose and then spray again and do the contact wash with a the Big red sponge. It works good and from my inspection, I don't see issues on the paint. Sure, after 10 wash something is going to be on the paint, but that is the case with any washing method.
finally, the wait is over! Thanks for the effort to come out of this vid! To me, it looks like the ONR v5 did the best in the marring test so far with the sponge combo, minus the streaky mess (i have the same exp here), easily at least a 4 out of 5 from me. I would like to see the 'contaminated' wash section done with some reputable traditional soaps while using those same wash media to see how they compare.
Yes, you are correct, ONR V5 Blue has done the best in the marring tests using a 32:1 ratio with a "TRC sponge" for exterior washing as not all sponges are created equal. So far, ONR is in the lead to date regarding marring, but many more RW reviews to come. The streaks are from the soy chemical (fatty acid) in the formulation and is the KEY chemical component (fatty acid) in the formulation for true RW encapsulation properties.
My interpretation of your ADS Hero review was that hero did not cause marring with the USS, i just rewatched and couldn't tell the dilution for the dirty wash media. Would you agree or was the methodology different for hero.
@ I need to go back and update both the Hero and the RRW reviews as I finalized my testing protocol after doing those two videos. Both of these RW products are missing some testing parameters. They will be finished at the RW series final video where I will test both with the missing testing parameters with my conclusions; I promise. Until then, I can only comment on RW products that have completed my finalized testing protocol to date.
I can comment and say with confidence in side-by-side testing, when RW'ing with a sponge - the "TRC USS" is the best in terms of a Mar LESS sponge. Doesn't mean it won't mar with RW products but will Mar LESS.
So of all these rinsless washes what one do you think is the best at 256:1 can you give a ranking.
28:18, i think you need to wash it off afterwards. Just like bilt hamber touchless, the dirt falls off only after rinsing.
Interesting video. Could you possibly have the rag company's cyclone mitt/pad. Would be interesting to compare it with the ultra safe sponge.
I did try this behind the scenes when I was determining my wash mediums of choice, and unfortunately the cyclone consistent marred the most, so it did not make the cut.
@DetailProjects what a lifesaver! I was planning to buy the cyclone instead of the sponge. Sponge it is then.
Appreciate all the content in the rinseless category. Idrosave would be one to try with it having a sealant built in and not made by American blenders
Great review! But this is so frustrating. It seems like Rinseless is the gateway drug which leads to buying claying products/iron removers....which leads to polishes/polishers... which leads to ceramic coatings.... which lead to sealants to "protect" the ceramic coatings.
It reminds me of the pharmaceutical companies... get them on one thing and keep treating the side effects of long-term use with more drugs.
At some point you have to wonder how bad is it just to leave them dirty and just go through a touchless car wash every now and then?
Thank you for your wonderful review. You're really good at this
Damn so I can’t use rinseless anymore?
godt video ❤
use soap, use good pre wash, use the bloody pressure washer, there's no substitutes! thanks for the video
If You wish to support the channel, use code DP18 for a 5% discount when shopping at CARZILLA.ca 🇨🇦🇺🇸
carzilla.ca/discount/DP18?ref=DetailProjects