Comprehensive Gloss Measurement Thread - WaxMode Testing

Loach

New member
Hey guys, this will be a pretty comprehensive thread for my gloss-based testing. I`ll give a rather lengthy introduction to the concept of gloss measuring as it relates to detailing, give a breakdown of some of the tools and products that I`m working with, and then I`ll continue to post updates for my results of testing individual abrasives, paint prep products, and waxes/sealants/coatings. Feel free to leave your feedback at any time, ask me any questions, or leave requests for products that you would like for me to get results for!

I`ve worked with my main glossmeter for around 4 years now, but understand that the results of my tests may be unique to my meters, my calibration tiles, my paint, my environment, technique, towels, etc. These results should not necessarily be taken as fact, use them as a guide for one individual`s experience and quest.

49517531766_cde35a011c_c.jpg



Introduction

Gloss measuring as it relates to detailing can be a very tricky topic to navigate through. Although one may assume that the glossmeter would be one of the most valuable types of tools for an industry that is significantly centered around gloss enhancement, the results of measurements can be easily misconstrued. It truly requires a lecture to understand the reason for why the numbers are coming out the way that they are when we`re measuring paint. All of the features of the paint that we collectively regard to as "gloss", the majority of glossmeters out there only capture one of those features, which is purely how shiny the paint is at that given point in time. It won`t necessarily capture paint depth, wetness, warmth. It`s not going to tell us how good the paint looks to our eyes. This concept becomes more important to note as your paint approaches the maximum amount of gloss achieved through abrasive polishing, in many cases the waxes/sealants/coatings applied on top after this point will reduce gloss with immediate post-application measurements, for reasons which I will explain further along below. For now, I`ll jump into the components of the meter and its basic function.

How the Glossmeter Works

The glossmeter shines a fixed amount of light from its lamp onto the surface at a specific angle, the light is reflected off the surface into a receptor lens, and a detector then captures how much light was reflected into it. Rhopoint has very good articles explaining the concept of how their meters work with great visuals that I will leave as a reference for those more interested in the topic, I definitely recommend it:
https://www.rhopointinstruments.com/faqs/how-is-gloss-measured/

This is their picture that covers the components, the light is sourced from the lamp, sent off at a set angle, bounces off the surface that we`re measuring into the receptor lens and it`s funneled into the detector. The measurement is calculated in gloss units (GU):

attachment.php


Here`s the underbody of my meter that shows the base, the two lamps on the left half and the two receptor lenses on the right:

49517747782_1d5097eacb_c.jpg



Measurement Angles

My main Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio unit can measure by beaming the light source at three different angles: 20°, 60°, and 85°. The 60° angle is the universal measurement angle, the majority of meters out there measure only at 60° but this is still a fine measurement angle for low and high gloss surfaces. Anything over 70GU when measured at the 60° angle is technically more suited to be measured at the 20° angle for better resolution. Anything under 10GU at the 60° angle is more suited to be measured at the 85° angle. With my specific meter, I measure at the 60° angle because it`s more consistent when moving from section to section on the paint compared to the 20° angle. My meter is also less impacted by tilt/pressure bias when measuring at 60°, which is very important when I`m working on uneven painted surfaces. More gloss = more GU`s. My clearcoat on the main test panel will be around the 90-98GU range. My bathroom mirror is around 2000GU as a reference.


Standardized Calibration Tile

49517531676_8b2c220da5_c.jpg


The gloss unit (GU) is based around a standardized scale. The meters that I`m working with are consistently tested against a calibration tile, this was certified from the factory to give off a specific GU measurement when measured at a specific angle from the meter. Measuring at the 20°/60°/85° angles will give you different GU results, so it`s important that the viewer understands the angle that the meter is measuring from. The calibration tile is also certified with the meter, recertification to meet ASTM spec is recommended I believe on a yearly basis, and they verify or replace the calibration tile and make sure that the meter is recalibrated and certified to that tile. My meter was last certified in 2007, it`s an expensive process for individual testers when you don`t have the budget of a manufacturing plant to consistently certify your testing equipment to abide by ASTM standards.

Thus the results of my testing are relative to whatever the condition of my calibration tile is. I routinely clean the tile, lenses of the lamps and receptors with isopropyl alcohol. Even though the tile is set to 93.7GU as certified from the factory, it`s very possible it`s no longer actually producing that amount of gloss. However, the glossmeters themselves still need to be routinely calibrated and checked against the calibration tile on a very regular basis, and this is done by the user. I check the meter`s calibration against the tile every single time I turn it on, and before and after each new product is applied to the paint. If I`m reading at 93.6-93.8, this is an acceptable range of the tile to continue measuring against the paint. If I`m at 93.5 or below, or 93.9 and above on the calibration tile, I`ll likely recalibrate the meter and rerun an application of the polish that I`m testing. Largely, the actual gloss reading of my tile is irrelevant, because all products are tested relative against each other, and relative against a calibrated meter to that specific tile. It just means someone else out there with the same Rhopoint model and different calibration tile could come to measure my test panel and receive different total gloss readings, but our overall results relative to each other should net the same comprehensive results.

The calibration tiles are not painted, they are either glass or acrylic I believe, translucent except for the sides and bottom which are blackened, so the tile does not oxidize like paint would and I believe it`s able to obtain a much more consistent gloss reading as a result over the years.

49517531731_ed4a4b6482_c.jpg



The Problems

One main problem I face when measuring the paint is our vehicle panels are not perfectly flat. This creates a vast fluctuation of measurement angles and this means I`m very likely to have a large difference in gloss measurements just moving away to another area on the paint. Any angle concave to the surface of the base of the glossmeter will present much lower readings, the lamp is positioned further away from the paint compared to a flat or convex surface, and you also have the potential for ambient lighting to creep through that can also skew your results. I`ve mapped out my measurement area on my test panel in a way to really reduce the inconsistency of measurement results. Any slight pressure bias in the glossmeter when hitting the read button can also introduce different angles that can lead to inconsistent results.

Product Wipeability Has a Major Impact in Gloss Results

Another main problem has to do with the wipeability of the products we`re working with. Compounds, polishes, waxes, sealants, coatings - we apply these to the paint and we buff them off with a microfiber towel. These all contain carriers that can prevent you from achieving a super clean wipeoff. Any of those carriers or "residuals" that are left behind can easily skew measurement results, leading to lower than expected readings. Even if it looks like you`re getting a clean wipeoff, the residuals can still be left behind which will diffuse the light from the meter, any diffusion of the light source reduces how much it`s reflected off of the surface. A consistent panel wipe product is imperative when working with compounds and polishes in order to more accurately determine the amount of true gloss enhancement.

This poses a significant problem when working with waxes/sealants/coatings. How much gloss your meter is able to read can be entirely based on just how good of a wipeoff you achieved when buffing the paint with your microfibers. Some microfibers may be more absorbent than others, or maybe you wiped off a certain area much more than a different area. The post-application gloss measurements for last step protectants (LSP) can be a highly irrelevant statistic in terms of the product`s actual gloss rating. In most cases where a product is perhaps poor in its wipeability, a single post-application wash and rinse can immediately jump gloss measurements up to match other products that perhaps gave a cleaner wipeoff and thus higher post-application readings. At what point in the test is it appropriate to record the gloss rating of an LSP?

Ever heard of guys talking about the warmth and depth of a carnauba wax, which one might find leaves behind a better looking finish? It`s very possible that the diffusion of the light created by those oils and residuals in the wax, that are not captured by the microfiber during wipeoff, can create that warmth or deep looking finish, while at the same time reducing the actual gloss readings. We`re in a situation here where the glossmeter isn`t necessarily correlating a higher GU reading as determining a better finish. It would be inappropriate for me as a tester, in my opinion, to create a scale where the highest GU of an LSP on the post-application phase of measuring is the be-all end-all of statistics. More variables are at play when it comes to the overall look of the paint rather than just how reflective the paint is.

Not being able to maintain a consistent measurement environment can lead to a drastic difference in results. I cannot measure the test panel outside of the garage with any degree of consistency. Whether it`s temperature, or an influx of ambient lighting, the meter does not like it when I reposition the paint or panel to other areas beyond its main testing location that`s in a much more controllable environment. The meter also has a metal base, if you try sliding this around on your paint you`re going to seriously scratch it, and it`s likely I`m making slight marks as I`m picking it up and putting it down on the surface. I`d be seriously careful when using a glossmeter on your paint after polishing.

And finally, I`m hovering around a low to high range of 93.0-97.4 on the main test panel factoring in LSP`s and polishes. Maybe some outliers with regards to products with even worse wipeability, but the high and low range of about 4GU. My eyes aren`t going to notice 4GU`s of GU mining out in the wild. These meters are extremely accurate, and I can really knock down differences in actual gloss measurements between different products in many cases. One of the things to attempt to answer is just at what point can our eyes really notice a difference, and whether or not spending the time GU mining or trying to jewel out the finish is even worth it if our LSP on top is just going to negate any potential jeweling benefit.


Test Equipment

Glossmeters

49517007058_2f40834885_c.jpg


49517007013_a7ebc4807c_c.jpg


My main Rhopoint is the Novo-Gloss Trio, it`s incredibly consistent when I`ve mapped the test surface out properly, and it has one of the highest rates of reproducibility and repeatability for any glossmeter. It has a nice backlight on the unit, only holds about 200 results before I have to delete them which is a nuisance but I`m loving it. The Elcometer 406L is a Rhopoint model branded to Elcometer, almost identical to the Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Lite, but the 406L measures in 20° and 60° so I use this to confirm accuracy and the results of the Novo-Gloss Trio. The Lite only measures in the 60° angle. The others are some older models that I`m working on bringing back to life. Back in 2007 I believe the Trio, 406L, and Lite were around $1700-$2800 per unit, insanely expensive but Rhopoint definitely had some of the best consistency, accuracy, and statistical based software, and Rhopoint is still at the top of the game with today`s meters.

49517007003_6d94dbf583_c.jpg



Polishes/Compounds

49517007078_e93f366495_c.jpg


This is the bulk of what I`m currently working with. With the polishes and compounds, since their designed performance is not dictated by their residuals, these will perhaps give us the most relevant form of gloss results. The difficult part is perhaps narrowing down and pairing them with the best pads, polishers, running speed, arm speed, # of passes, etc. This is where I would love feedback from you guys working with a particular type of process that you use that perhaps gives you the best results when working with that particular type of abrasive. However, much of this could also be substrate dependent, different clearcoats used in the manufacturing process, hardness/softness, etc. Best measured gloss can potentially only be relevant to this Nissan hood.

Temperature Gauge, PTG, Lights

49517531821_b96b96cfe6_c.jpg


Panel Wipes/Paint Preps

49517007088_8bc64f7bd9_c.jpg


Prep-All is my main post-polishing panel wipe, but I`ll be running tests using the others as well and this will be documented which one is used when I post results. The N-914 I actually have this in a waterless wash style dilution as a substitute to a CarPro Reset wash. Sometimes if I`m doing short term based testing where I`m running LSP`s without a curing session, I like to grab N-914 out and run a quick spray and wipedown to capture the improvement in gloss measurements from doing this. I like doing this to get my head around how a product applies and removes in the short term using a few different methods, but I can capture gloss as well while doing this.

Pads

49517747882_3741abe258_c.jpg


Pads will be mainly a mix of Rupes and Buff and Shine foam pads, the ones above are from the last batch of tests. I`ve got Meguiar`s DMC pads, few different types of wool pads but likely I`ll fetch a different test panel for compound related tests in the future to try and conserve clearcoat as much as possible on this test panel.

Polishers

49517007053_2c96a79481_c.jpg


49517040703_b2c7f798b5_c.jpg


49517559736_9bdfa00f9e_c.jpg


With the polishers I can attempt to capture any advantage with a particular type for gloss enhancement. A lot of guys say nothing beats a rotary for jeweling, others say the long-throws are the best. Let me just tell you guys that I`ve done an EXCESSIVE amount of finishing polishing on this test panel in the process of removing and reapplying different LSP`s. Has to be 100s of individual polishing sessions. I`ve been maxed between 96-98GU after polishing for a very long time now, using my range of polishers with all sorts of different pads and polishes. But I`ll focus down and we`ll see if we can pinpoint a consistent jeweling advantage with a particular system.

Test Panel

49517747932_9b928d2487_c.jpg


Nissan hood, factory paint.

Conclusions

That`s going to be it for the intro, at this point I`ll jump on releasing updates on a regular basis in subsequent posts for some of the abrasives and LSP`s that I`m working with. The glossmeter has been a fun tool to work with, much more fun now that I believe I have a pretty firm grasp of how to decipher its results compared to when I just picked them up. The jump in gloss on a vehicle that hasn`t been polished is massive after you perform that multi-step polishing session, and this highlights perhaps the largest benefit in a real world situation for the glossmeter as a tool that you can present to a client. My hunt right now is to try and find any unicorn products that are giving an unusually large increase in readings on heavily polished paint, and to be honest I haven`t found this yet on this paint. I have found polishes that are consistently giving me marginally higher readings so I`ll post those results. Eventually I`ll get to sanding on another panel and I will really dive into aggressive compound testing and GU mining, but also test the impact of just how much the products can enhance the gloss when the paint is not already close to its maximum gloss limit.

Also, here`s a video I did that dives into the topic. This gives you a visual reference to some important gloss-based topics that I referenced above, so check it out let me know what you guys think, I appreciate your feedback:


Hopefully this will be a way that I can contribute to the board with a fun topic, I`ve always appreciated the knowledge I`ve soaked up from you guys over the many years I`ve been lurking. Stay tuned for the results that I`ll be posting as I get around to organizing it!
 
Thanks for info it will be interesting. I bounce back in forth when purchasing products. I’m either purchasing the glossiest product or looking for the most hydrophobic product and I’ll also purchase a product that is different either it applies different or has something unique. Looking forward to the info.
 
Loach:
If I could, I would bestow a Doctorate`s Degree (PhD) in Gloss Meter Science and Technology upon you from the University of Autopia. (So Captain Obvious is now Professor Obvious from UofA (THE "Gloss" U). VERY detailed (no pun intended!) and well written and organized thread subject (AKA, technical white paper.)

One question: You mention the 100`s of polishing and measuring sessions on this Nissan test hood. Wouldn`t that thin the clear alot?? You`ve got the Paint Thickness Gauge (PTG) to verify that.

One comment I will make is you need to watermark you photos to denote your trademark/copyright and ownership of this information. Yes, it is THAT good and I fear that indiscriminate "experts/know-it-all-wanna-be`s" will copy-and-paste (AKA, pirate/usurp/plagiarize) this info and attempt to pass it off as their own.

OR you can let Gloss Meter manufacturers use this info in exchange for a (some) gloss meter(s) and appropriate equipment to test and experiment with(Like a Gloss Meter Grant)!
 
WOW

First of all, you had me at "Comprehensive." After reading through all that, I can see you weren`t kidding.

Largely, the actual gloss reading of my tile is irrelevant, because all products are tested relative against each other, and relative against a calibrated meter to that specific tile.

Thank you for recognizing that, and mentioning it here.


If I could, I would bestow a Doctorate`s Degree (PhD) in Gloss Meter Science and Technology upon you from the University of Autopia. (So Captain Obvious is now Professor Obvious from UofA

Thanks for the laugh, Captain!

One question: You mention the 100`s of polishing and measuring sessions on this Nissan test hood. Wouldn`t that thin the clear alot?? You`ve got the Paint Thickness Gauge (PTG) to verify that.

Thank you for asking the same question I would have
 
Loach... the science guy. Thanks for this project.
The first project was very interesting and I`m
sure this will as well. You have a lot of hard work
to come. Thank you.

Jim
 
Thanks for the feedback guys!

Loach:
If I could, I would bestow a Doctorate`s Degree (PhD) in Gloss Meter Science and Technology upon you from the University of Autopia. (So Captain Obvious is now Professor Obvious from UofA (THE "Gloss" U). VERY detailed (no pun intended!) and well written and organized thread subject (AKA, technical white paper.)

One question: You mention the 100`s of polishing and measuring sessions on this Nissan test hood. Wouldn`t that thin the clear alot?? You`ve got the Paint Thickness Gauge (PTG) to verify that.

One comment I will make is you need to watermark you photos to denote your trademark/copyright and ownership of this information. Yes, it is THAT good and I fear that indiscriminate "experts/know-it-all-wanna-be`s" will copy-and-paste (AKA, pirate/usurp/plagiarize) this info and attempt to pass it off as their own.

OR you can let Gloss Meter manufacturers use this info in exchange for a (some) gloss meter(s) and appropriate equipment to test and experiment with(Like a Gloss Meter Grant)!

Haha thanks Lonnie!

With regards to paint thickness, the PTG is another massive head scratcher of a tool to dissect. The accuracy and consistency of the Rhopoint with regards to gloss measuring is leagues above what my DT-156 PTG can achieve. I can map an entire 2x2` section with the PTG, come back 10 minutes later and I`ve now got a 10-15 micron level difference in the results, some of which aren`t necessarily relative to the results I received beforehand. And then I can go back 10 minutes later and I`m getting similar results to the first readings. It`s a total mess. And I think my gauge is pretty much on par with the majority of the Chinese based clones out there, I`m sure the pricier Elcometer and DeFelsko units would do a much better job. It`s actually pretty accurate when paired against the zero reference tile and plastic shims, but once I start measuring on paint there`s no way I would be comfortable doing any sort of before/after with polishes to any degree of accuracy.

Based on the readings of the areas where I`ve struck through the clear on some of the lower edges where the hood was dented inwards, I`ll start striking through clear around the 70-80 microns level. I still measure some areas that are as high as 120-130 microns in the main section where I polish the most. Some areas in the low 100s level as I flow down towards the nose of the hood. I saw a lot of readings in between 115-130 microns when I just picked the hood up. I would estimate that I`ve shaved off about 5-20 microns total since I got my hands on it in-between 2-3 years ago. But in the process I`ve tackled through some really deep white scratches, the most of which you can still see the imprint if you look closely, but they`ve been rounded off so much that you only notice the white slightly on just a few of them now.

Here`s a before shot when I just picked the hood up:
49522490568_1fc44d1fb0_c.jpg


And right now:
49523033301_367f423656_c.jpg


I`ve rarely used compounds on this hood, but I can`t even begin to try and figure out just how many total polishing applications I`ve put the hood through with various mid-fine polishes. Jason at Chicago Auto Pros had a great video where it took them 66 total applications, 5 passes each time with FG400 on the Rupes with a microfiber cutting pad before they started to strike through the clear. This paint I would say is more on the medium side of the hardness scale.

Should have the first batch of results posted up later tonight!
 
Very nice job Loach, looking forward to your results. Your thread like many here helps me more than you know. Thanks for the very detailed write up.
 
Holy information gloss maniacs! Loach, thanks for taking the time to post all of this and the pictures. I will be reading thru it again! Thanks for posting!
 
I can`t read that much at one time but look forward to the pictures.
How/why have you acquired so many gloss meters? Aren`t those things pretty expensive? Who are you Loach Rockerfeller??
 
49517747887_4179a14724_c.jpg



This first batch of results will be a consecutive style of test. Each product will be used on the same exact area on the paint, one right after another in a 2ft x 2ft section. For measurements, I read from a 1ft x 1ft section inside of the polished area, and I`m going to list the low to high GU range of measurements for each product. For this specific test, I had IGL F4 Renew on the paint to start, so I`ll post the baseline gloss measurements, then I`ll follow up with the abrasives. CarPro Eraser was selected as the panel wipe for this test, my Prep-All bottle and sprayer decided to throw a fit and leak all over the place.

The main gloss measurement for the abrasives will be after the panel wipe has been applied. You`re going to notice a pre-panel wipe gloss measurement in the test listed at the bottom. This pre-panel wipe measurement is dependent on my towels and how aggressive I am, I`m going to wipe the paint until I feel it`s a clean wipedown without being overly aggressive.

For any of the protectants being tested, the main gloss measurement is directly after the initial application, once again it`s dependent on my aggressiveness and my discretion. I`m not going to be overly aggressive wiping off any protectants, but I will aim for a clean wipedown if possible. I may decide to perform a wipedown with a waterless wash dilution of McKee`s 37 N-914 Rinseless Wash if I don`t plan on running the product through an overnight cure. Then I will measure the gloss after that wipedown and this will be listed at the bottom of the results.

I`ll definitely run other more focused tests in the future where I take one polish, run this through a variety of different polishers, pads, speeds, passes, and panel wipes to see if an advantage can be narrowed down and post those results. So I`ll switch things up from time to time.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.7GU / 60° Measurement Angle

IGL F4 Renew
GU: 95.7 - 96.1
Temperature (°F): 76.4
Hand Application / Wiped with N-914


Griot`s Correcting Cream
GU: 96.0 - 96.4

Temperature (°F): 76.2
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.1 @ 81.6°F


Griot`s Perfecting Cream
GU: 96.2 - 96.6

Temperature (°F): 77.7
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.2 - 96.0 @ 79.8°F


Griot`s Perfecting Cream (2nd Application)
GU: 96.1 - 96.6

Temperature (°F): 77.9
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 80.4°F


Griot`s Finishing Sealant
GU: 94.8 - 95.3

Temperature (°F): 80.2
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Foam Finishing (Flat)
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Post N-914 Waterless Wash Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.2 @ 78.0°F


Griot`s Finishing Sealant (2nd Application)
GU: 94.9 - 95.5

Temperature (°F): 79.1
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Buff and Shine Black Foam Finishing (Flat)
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 3
Post N-914 Waterless Wash Wipe GU: 95.9 - 96.4 @ 77.3°F


3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish
GU: 96.4 - 96.8

Temperature (°F): 77.9
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.0 - 96.4 @ 80.0°F


3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (2nd Application)
GU: 96.7 - 97.0

Temperature (°F): 77.3
Panel Wipe: CarPro Eraser
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.3 - 96.7 @ 80.0°F


IGL F4 Renew
GU: 92.7 - 94.1
Temperature (°F): 76.4
Hand Application


Overall thoughts for this batch of tests, Griot`s has the best smelling abrasives on the market by far in my opinion. Minimal difference measured in gloss between Correcting and Perfecting Cream on this panel, I can see Correcting Cream paired nicely with Fast Correcting Cream for a two-step approach. Perfecting Cream does take a bit more of a wipeoff to get it super clean, zero dusting, good polishes.

The Griot`s Finishing Sealant I measured a notable drop in immediate gloss measurements which is not alarming. Again, once we switch from abrasives to any all-in-one`s (AIO`s) or last step protectants (LSP`s), we need to switch our expectations for the gloss measurements. The N-914 wipedown jumped the numbers up a bit, so Finishing Sealant definitely has some residuals that can potentially increase paint depth. I felt the wipeoff was good, expect additional testing of this in the future where I will grab potential curing results.

3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine is a great performing polish, low dust, bit of better wipeoff compared to Perfecting Cream and this shows with its higher pre-panel wipe gloss readings. Also edges the Perfecting Cream in total gloss, although you`re still talking about half a GU at the top end here. I consistently see Perfect-It performing well.

IGL F4 Renew is just a placeholder, I`m running water behavior tests with this currently. I think it definitely works better by machine in terms of application, I get higher gloss results compared to a hand application. With a machine application I had IGL F4 at 95.4 - 96.2GU with a red Buff and Shine pad, 96.0 - 96.6 post CarPro Reset wash.

If I`m missing any data points that you would like for me to record, feel free to make requests. I need to get a humidity gauge in the garage so I can capture that, that will be extremely relevant as it begins to heat up here in Florida. Next up will be McKee`s 37 Jeweling Wax and Sonax Perfect Finish.
 
One question on some detailing hobbyist`s and professional`s minds are where would you ever NEED a gloss meter? To some shiny is shiny. I will state that this is comparable to trying to "guess/estimate" the thickness of a thin piece of sheet metal to tell what is gauge. Unless you deal with sheet metal on a very regular basis, 14 gauge sheet metal looks very close to 16 gauge sheet metal. The ONLY way to verify this is with an accurate digital /vernier micrometer or calipers measuring tool. Even the slight difference in metric to SAE (inch) screw diameters can be difficult to "eye-ball" (IE; is it a 10-0.8MM or a 1/4-20NC thread?)

The point is that a gloss meter can gauge or measure how shiny is shiny and give a credible, verifiable, and accurate objective (IE, measured) value to that question, thus taking the subjective evaluation (IE, the person who is eye-balling a shiny surface and giving their observed estimate of one shiny surface over another, like comparing the gloss of one wax or coating over another).
Loach`s systematic and scientific approach (IE a repeatable methodology) to giving us Autopians a" gloss value" achieved by different polishes on ONE donor hood (IE, the same test sample) as measured through the same gloss meter takes all the guess work and subjectivity out of answering that question, "Who makes the shiniest polish?".

That said, the ONLY place I have seen a gloss meter used was in the infomercial with actor Dennis Weaver from the late 1980`s TV series "McCloud" selling the benefits of Coral Blue`s Auto Fombulin "A" sealant. (Good stuff in its day. I still have some in my ancient car-care collection). The "pitch" was to buy a used car at an auction, measure the initial gloss of paint, apply Fombulin A to it, and re-measure how much "better" it was. They then ran the car through the auction again to re-sell it, and of course, it brought a higher auction value because if its "enhanced" appearance. Do not ask me what manufacturer/model of meter they were using, I could not tell, but I do faintly remember the housing was a blue plastic with an LED readout.
 
Loach- I really appreciate this testing you`re doing, even though for *me* it`s basically just intellectual curiosity.

But echoing what Lonnie asked, I`m wondering what *in your opinion* is the "IRL discernible difference" threshold.

Using my experiences as an example, let`s take a relatively discerning Autopian, who for instance thinks M205 finishes out so-so even on hard paints and can see an improvement when it`s followed by certain other products. At what point could such a person notice the differences that you`re measuring? Like... does it take a full integer`s worth of difference (in the meter readings) to see the difference with the naked eye? More/less? Very subjective I know, but what`s *your* take on this?

E.g., I remember how somebody here had noticed that following Menzerna PO85rd with KAIO resulted in a drop in gloss that he could readily see. Most people would say that "KAIO leaves things nice and glossy", but he could see otherwise.
 
Loach, you may want to look into a sling psychrometer
for a cost effective way to go. However, you will need a
chart to compare between the wet and dry bulb for the
relative humidity.

Is the Prep-All your using the water based one?

Jim
 
I can`t read that much at one time but look forward to the pictures.
How/why have you acquired so many gloss meters? Aren`t those things pretty expensive? Who are you Loach Rockerfeller??

Haha, I wish! I just happened to be one of the only guys on the hunt for them. The Rhopoints are incredibly expensive when new, but there isn`t really a used market for them that I know of. They`re pretty much worthless to any company when they`re out of certification if that company is ISO qualified, and the only companies looking for this caliber of glossmeter are going to have the budget to buy new and direct. So the rare chance that one does pop up for sale they`re either priced way too high so that no private buyer would ever bite, or dirt cheap because it wouldn`t sell otherwise. There`s a handful on ebay but those older models you have to watch out for, a lot of them had rechargeable batteries which are toast by now most likely, or need the lamp bulbs replaced, or the 20-25 year old electronics could be on their last leg.

One question on some detailing hobbyist`s and professional`s minds are where would you ever NEED a gloss meter? To some shiny is shiny. I will state that this is comparable to trying to "guess/estimate" the thickness of a thin piece of sheet metal to tell what is gauge. Unless you deal with sheet metal on a very regular basis, 14 gauge sheet metal looks very close to 16 gauge sheet metal. The ONLY way to verify this is with an accurate digital /vernier micrometer or calipers measuring tool. Even the slight difference in metric to SAE (inch) screw diameters can be difficult to "eye-ball" (IE; is it a 10-0.8MM or a 1/4-20NC thread?)

The point is that a gloss meter can gauge or measure how shiny is shiny and give a credible, verifiable, and accurate objective (IE, measured) value to that question, thus taking the subjective evaluation (IE, the person who is eye-balling a shiny surface and giving their observed estimate of one shiny surface over another, like comparing the gloss of one wax or coating over another).
Loach`s systematic and scientific approach (IE a repeatable methodology) to giving us Autopians a" gloss value" achieved by different polishes on ONE donor hood (IE, the same test sample) as measured through the same gloss meter takes all the guess work and subjectivity out of answering that question, "Who makes the shiniest polish?".

That said, the ONLY place I have seen a gloss meter used was in the infomercial with actor Dennis Weaver from the late 1980`s TV series "McCloud" selling the benefits of Coral Blue`s Auto Fombulin "A" sealant. (Good stuff in its day. I still have some in my ancient car-care collection). The "pitch" was to buy a used car at an auction, measure the initial gloss of paint, apply Fombulin A to it, and re-measure how much "better" it was. They then ran the car through the auction again to re-sell it, and of course, it brought a higher auction value because if its "enhanced" appearance. Do not ask me what manufacturer/model of meter they were using, I could not tell, but I do faintly remember the housing was a blue plastic with an LED readout.

Great points, I can`t see the glossmeter as an absolute need tool. It`s helpful for product comparison testing to discover some differences that my eyes would never detect, and it is a great tool for quality control departments for manufacturers that must capture that data to keep their qualifications. However out in the real world these meters are grossly unprepared for full scale gloss mapping around painted panels. The only meter that I can see being of real day to day use to fit the trade, is the Rhopoint IQ Flex 20, which is a Distinctness of Image(orange peel)/Haze/Gloss meter all in one. This has a much smaller and more portable measurement base, and you can swap out the base with adapters that can be curved to fit the shape and angle of the surface you`re measuring from. It also has rubber/felt adapters so you`re not putting metal against your paint or a customer`s paint to capture results.

The price on this is $5,341. Being able to capture just how much of the quality of the finish has been improved through haze reduction and DOI improvement, is perhaps much more valuable than gloss measurements in itself, especially if you`re wetsanding or running heavy compounding. But at that price? That`s a big dream away, but really the only tool remotely suitable to perhaps tackle the types of curves that we`re working on if our goal is to capture those data points for ourselves or a customer. However, there`s no way I would need that type of data to be satisfied with my paint`s maintenance.

Loach- I really appreciate this testing you`re doing, even though for *me* it`s basically just intellectual curiosity.

But echoing what Lonnie asked, I`m wondering what *in your opinion* is the "IRL discernible difference" threshold.

Using my experiences as an example, let`s take a relatively discerning Autopian, who for instance thinks M205 finishes out so-so even on hard paints and can see an improvement when it`s followed by certain other products. At what point could such a person notice the differences that you`re measuring? Like... does it take a full integer`s worth of difference (in the meter readings) to see the difference with the naked eye? More/less? Very subjective I know, but what`s *your* take on this?

E.g., I remember how somebody here had noticed that following Menzerna PO85rd with KAIO resulted in a drop in gloss that he could readily see. Most people would say that "KAIO leaves things nice and glossy", but he could see otherwise.

I`ll pull M205 out and run some tests with it! What kind of pads have you been using with yours? I`ve got M210 as well so I can grab some results for this at the same time.

Rhopoint has an article that estimates a 5GU difference is noticeable to a trained eye, but that must be at the lower gloss spectrum. On higher gloss surfaces I think it becomes much more difficult to discern, I doubt I`d be able to really notice the difference most likely between 95GU to 100GU if the 95GU surface was already haze free. That`s very important because we`ll see polishes that consistently come out with lower gloss readings than others. Much of which is literally within 1GU of the other. I`m definitely not noticing that margin unless the polish leaves a haze, which this meter will not quantify. They do have meters that capture paint haze measurements but unfortunately mine do not.

What is very interesting is the types of looks that products are known to leave behind. I think the meter does capture some of this in the form of that reduced gloss reading as a result of light diffusion, but generally the readings go immediately up after the first wash. Really makes sense for something like Pinnacle Souveran for guys who say it only lasts for a wash or so. Some of the oils in the formula that provide that awesome depth will only diffuse the light like this until they`re washed off.

Loach, you may want to look into a sling psychrometer
for a cost effective way to go. However, you will need a
chart to compare between the wet and dry bulb for the
relative humidity.

Is the Prep-All your using the water based one?

Jim

Thanks Jim! I`m running the solvent-based version of Prep-All. I`ll actually have to try out that water-based one in the future as a substitute to Eraser or Gyeon Prep to see how it does.
 
I`ll pull M205 out and run some tests with it! What kind of pads have you been using with yours? I`ve got M210 as well so I can grab some results for this at the same time...

Hard to remember which pads I used with the M205..it`s been quite a few years. Actually, I probably tried all the usual suspects from back then *except* very soft Finishing Pads like the LC Black (did use the Griot`s Red Waxing Pad, probably the softest I used with it regularly). Sorry I can`t provide any better suggestions, but if you use the pads *you* consider best that oughta show the M205 in its best light (maybe resulting in it turning out better than it did for me!) and provide a good benchmark for those of us who care. Heh heh, I`ll be the first to congratulate you if the M205 turns out a lot better for you than it did for me :D

Good idea on the M210, sorta the current-day equivalent (only presumably better).

..Rhopoint has an article that estimates a 5GU difference is noticeable to a trained eye, but that must be at the lower gloss spectrum. On higher gloss surfaces I think it becomes much more difficult to discern, I doubt I`d be able to really notice the difference most likely between 95GU to 100GU if the 95GU surface was already haze free. That`s very important because we`ll see polishes that consistently come out with lower gloss readings than others. Much of which is literally within 1GU of the other. I`m definitely not noticing that margin unless the polish leaves a haze, which this meter will not quantify. They do have meters that capture paint haze measurements but unfortunately mine do not...

So much of interest in that paragraph!

I`d (uh-oh!) assumed the finishes were all free of any discernible hazing since any such artifacts I can actually see are eliminated *LONG* before I start thinking about finer points like level-of-gloss. Heh heh, discernible haze = can`t leave garage yet unless it`s getting painted (for me).

Though I guess "residual marring without enough clear to correct it" can be awfully close to "hazing" depending on how somebody looks at it. To me "hazing" is something so light I can remove it on any vehicle, even the `93 Audi with its trashed paint.

That response covering "what diffs you can actually see" was about what I was expecting, thanks for putting actual numbers to it. Heh heh, it does sorta rev up my Cynicism Meter regarding people doing burnishing on drivers ;)

What is very interesting is the types of looks that products are known to leave behind. I think the meter does capture some of this in the form of that reduced gloss reading as a result of light diffusion, but generally the readings go immediately up after the first wash. Really makes sense for something like Pinnacle Souveran for guys who say it only lasts for a wash or so. Some of the oils in the formula that provide that awesome depth will only diffuse the light like this until they`re washed off...

Yeah, good points there too! That probably explains some of the Personal Preferences in LSPs, where one guy thinks it looks great and another thinks "better strip that [crap] off and start over".

Now you have me wondering how my beloved FK1000P would test! I sure find it interesting that the Souveran does *NOT* diminish the gloss as much as I would`ve thought, but I guess that plays into how my wife *LOVES* it on silver, calling it the "white wax" because it "makes the silver look so light, bright and reflective" whereas a lot of people think of it as a dark/red-color wax instead. Looks-wise, it seems Souveran has a lot to offer most anybody.

MY reasoning behind "Souveran only lasts for one wash" has very little, if anything to do with how it looks, but rather that is simply seems stripped. Far less slick (the oils being gone? I dunno..) and with greatly diminished beading and a lot more dirt-retention. It`s just not what I consider "freshly waxed" any more whereas some LSPs stay basically the same for me even after numerous washes and many months.
 
49528680672_42578521c2_c.jpg


I decided to pull the Rupes Keramik Gloss and Diamond polishes out. When I test polishes I will likely use one that I`ve worked with recently to baseline my results against. In this case I ran 3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine after testing Keramik and Diamond. Meguiar`s Hybrid Ceramic Liquid Wax was on the paint to start, after having been washed with CarPro Reset earlier in the day. I switched over to Klean Strip Prep-All (solvent) for the panel wipe compared to Eraser on the previous test. First polish tested was Keramik on the yellow Rupes pad with the LHR15 polisher.

Meter: Rhopoint Novo-Gloss Trio / Calibrated to 93.7GU / 60° Measurement Angle

Meguiar`s Hybrid Ceramic Liquid Wax
GU: 96.1 - 96.7
Temperature (°F): 81.0


Rupes Keramik Gloss
GU: 96.0 - 96.4

Temperature (°F): 81.3
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 4
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.6 - 96.3 @ 81.5°F


Rupes Diamond
GU: 95.8 - 96.4

Temperature (°F): 81.8
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.3 - 96.0 @ 82.9°F


Rupes Diamond (2nd Application)
GU: 95.9 - 96.4

Temperature (°F): 81.6
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.7 - 96.3 @ 82.4°F


Rupes Keramik Gloss (Follow Up)
GU: 95.9 - 96.4

Temperature (°F): 81.6
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes Yellow
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 95.8 - 96.4 @ 83.1°F


3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish
GU: 96.3 - 96.8

Temperature (°F): 81.8
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 4
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.2 - 96.8 @ 82.4°F


3M Perfect-It EX Ultrafine Machine Polish (2nd Application)
GU: 96.3 - 97.0

Temperature (°F): 81.6
Panel Wipe: Prep-All
Polisher: Rupes LHR15 MK III
Pad: Rupes White
Polisher Speed: 3.5
Overlapping Passes: 6
Pre-Panel Wipe GU: 96.3 - 96.8 @ 82.5°F


Turtle Wax Hybrid Solutions Ceramic Spray Coating (Heavy Application)
GU: 94.2 - 94.9

Temperature (°F): 81.6
Cure(20 Hours) GU: 94.6 - 95.4 (94.8 - 95.8 after buffing with a dry microfiber)
Cure Temperature (°F): 83.4


My thoughts on Keramik vs. Diamond, I like Keramik much more. Didn`t notice any significant dusting, wipeoff is a bit oily as a result on both but Diamond left an unusually tackier feeling behind on the paint after the initial wipeoff. Prep-All was able to resolve this but the difference between the two polishes is night and day in terms of feel prior to using a panel wipe. What I ended up doing for the 2nd application of Diamond was a more aggressive wipeoff with the microfiber, so that pre-panel wipe gloss measurement is higher as a result if you compare it against the first application test. This didn`t seem to tackle through any of that tackier feeling until Prep-All was used. The follow-up application of Keramik I bumped the speed down from 4 to 3.5 to match Diamond. Gloss measurements between the two are negligible. I might run white pads with Keramik next time I pull it out to see if this has an impact.

3M Perfect-It EX shows an advantage in gloss measurements both in the pre-panel wipe readings and after using Prep-All. Second application of 3M I ran 6 passes instead of 4. We matched the top end GU of the last session, but a bit of bump down in the low-range of the readings this time. I ran an Eraser wipedown after waiting a little bit on top of 3M, but this did not change the gloss measurement range. This is something I will check for occasionally. 3M does have the advantage on this paint, but 0.4 - 0.6GU is still pretty negligible in my opinion.

I ran a pretty heavy application of Turtle Wax`s Ceramic Spray Coating afterwards which dropped the readings down. I then let it cure for 20 hours and took measurements without wiping which yielded a slight bump in gloss readings from the cure. Then I buffed it using a dry microfiber which slightly bumped the numbers up further. I can still noticeably see the residuals on the paint during the dry wipe from the heavier application, no streaking but the towel would never be able to accomplish a completely clean wipeoff. I`m planning on adding a second coat tonight to run tests later on.
 
Back
Top