Conditioner? Confused!

[Earl Weiss]

Until recentlyI thought "conditioner' was what I put on my hair after a shampoo and rinse.

A local rep asked what Kind of triple foam I was using? If it was conditioner? I said, I use KR triple foam Soap and triple foam wax. I asked what his conditioner was? A soap? A Polish? He really did not give me a satisfactory answer.

Then I see KR now has a triple foam low PH Conditioner. So, with the low PH I am guesing it's used for cleaning as opposed to a Polish replacement.

So, is the term "Conditioner" standard in our industry? If so, what are the uses? Pros? cons?

 

[Mr.Aap]

Until recentlyI thought "conditioner' was what I put on my hair after a shampoo and rinse.

A local rep asked what Kind of triple foam I was using? If it was conditioner? I said, I use KR triple foam Soap and triple foam wax. I asked what his conditioner was? A soap? A Polish? He really did not give me a satisfactory answer.

Then I see KR now has a triple foam low PH Conditioner. So, with the low PH I am guesing it's used for cleaning as opposed to a Polish replacement.

So, is the term "Conditioner" standard in our industry? If so, what are the uses? Pros? cons?

Conditioner.....It's going to be a lower Ph....This will assist the drying agent.....

 

[robert roman]

This is probably the best description I have come across. It comes from Simoniz USA.

"Another type of wax or conditioner sold... is foam polish and now, clearcoat conditioners, which are high sudsing siliconized soaps, which do not have any "beading" in and of themselves. Typically, these products are applied through air operated foaming devices and produce colorful foams which have outstanding visual appeal. The silicone polishes not only clean, but deposit silicone on the surface, leave a beautiful gloss, and it is readily apparent to the customer that his car has been waxed. Typically these foam polishes or conditioners are followed by a poly functional silicone cationic emulsion, which deposits a second layer of silicone and more importantly rinses the foam polish and allows it to bead up. From a promotional point of view, it is safe to say to your customers that this is a two step process and that the negative charge of the foam polish reacts with the positive charge of the sealer wax leaving behind a silicone shine."

A long time ago, I went through the MSDS for each tri-foam product (red, blue and white) we used in the wash I was operating. The only difference that I found was that each product contained a different colored dye.

Maybe I should sell product, it wasn't difficult to find this information.

Earl, you can send me another dollar. LOL

 

[rph9168]

The term wax should not be used in any description of a car wash product unless it can be verified to actually contain a wax which almost all of the products on the market called a wax do not. There was a lawsuit (a somewhat frivolous one) by a small manufacturer in Wisconsin back in the late 80's or early 90's regarding the use of the term wax. Although there was no official verdict, most of the major car wash chemical manufacturers settled it out of court.

Technically a conditioner is either a neutral or high pH detergent with excellent foaming. A low pH conditioner is just as the product is called - a low pH detergent with excellent foaming. Both have limited cleaning capabilities, especially if they are applied without friction. A polish normally contains water soluble silicones (and sometimes but rarely polymers which may also be a form of silicone) and tends to enhance the shine on a vehicle with a surface that is already in good shape.

Unfortunately there is no real uniformity in our industry in regards to naming these products. The term polish and sometimes wax is used indiscriminately as is the term conditioner. The only way to really know what the product contains is to look at the MSDS sheet which a distributor should be able to provide upon request.

Sometimes you can tell what's in it by the price with regular neutral/high pH one being the cheapest and a polish the most expensive. Some manufacturers will label a product a wax or polish when it is really a conditioner since they can charge more for one.

 

[sparkey]

I use diamond shine triple foam conditioner. My understanding is that when I am applying a hi ph presoak it raises the PH of the vehicle. A vehicle with high PH will not bead water very well. The triple foam conditioner lowers the PH of the vehicle so the clearcoat protectant or drying agent will bead up better and help give a better shine.

 

[Earl Weiss]

This is probably the best description I have come across. It comes from Simoniz USA.

"Another type of wax or conditioner sold... is foam polish and now, clearcoat conditioners, which are high sudsing siliconized soaps, which do not have any "beading" in and of themselves. Maybe I should sell product, it wasn't difficult to find this information.

Earl, you can send me another dollar. LOL

1. The check is in the mail.
2. As noted in the post following yours their seems to be no industry standard for exactly what the "Conditioner" is or does.

 

[robert roman]

“The term wax should not be used in any description of a car wash product unless it can be verified to actually contain a wax which almost all of the products on the market called a wax do not.”

I’m not sure I would necessarily agree with this statement.

“There was a lawsuit (a somewhat frivolous one) by a small manufacturer in Wisconsin back in the late 80's or early 90's regarding the use of the term wax. Although there was no official verdict, most of the major car wash chemical manufacturers settled it out of court.”

Settling out of court can be interpreted in many different ways.

It allows each party engaged in a matter to resolve the matter without admitting to rightness or wrongness.

For example, several years ago I was engaged as an expert in a wrongful death case where a toddler managed to wander into an operating in-bay wash and was critically injured, a real tragedy and a wrong.

The OEM, not the operator, settled out of court.

A toddler is a minor child, without cognition to read warning signs or recognize potentially dangerous situations, etc. in the care of a custodial parent.

What OEM would want to go there even if it was not in the wrong?

Prior to this “wax” law suit (I have to agree with frivolous), I was contacted multiple times by this small Wisconsin manufacturer. He suggested that I (consultant) could be in the wrong by advising my clients to sell wax products that did not contain wax.

Advice given to me was simply to ignore this.

My hunch is this guy simply identified an opportunity to enrich himself at the expense of the carwash industry, and the OEM’s settled out of court to make him go away to avoid the potential expense of a more global situation.

Quite frankly, it is rather easy to take the terms involved in this matter and construe them to have many different interpretations.

For example, “waxing” is a term that is most often used to describe the process of removing body hair.

As Earl mentioned, “conditioner” is a term most often used to describe hair care products.

“Polishing” is the process of creating a smooth and shiny surface by rubbing it or using a chemical action.

“Sealant” has many forms and applications, so does Silicone.

Where can you draw the line in the sand? Moreover, does it really matter?

People want their vehicles cleaned, shined and protected.

If you take the time to explain all of the details that goes into this to the average motorist, mostly likely all you will accomplish is to make their eyeballs roll around in the backs of their heads.

 

[Waxman]

RPH

You know I love you, but I will insist on calling the silicone emulsion in water a 'wax' henceforth. I apologize if you take offense, but knowing you as I do I feel you will understand.

Sincerely,

"siliconeemulsioninwaterman"

see how silly that is?!

 

[rph9168]

Waxman,

I have no problem with anyone calling it a wax but in reality a silicone emulsion is not a wax. Most products called waxes in the detail industry contain a silicone emulsion but they also contain either a natural or synthetic wax - very few car wash products called a wax do actually contain one.

Since many manuals and instructions given to people who buy new cars contain information saying that they should not use a wax I think that using the term may discourage some from buying a package or service using the term wax. I prefer using the term polish since it indicates imparting a shine and I believe has a positive connotation as well. As has been pointed out by several others the terminology for this category of car wash chemicals is not clearly defined so if a manufacturer wants to call it a wax even though it is not one I guess an operator has that same option.

 

[Earl Weiss]

<<<<<<<<<<<<
Prior to this “wax” law suit (I have to agree with frivolous), I was contacted multiple times by this small Wisconsin manufacturer. He suggested that I (consultant) could be in the wrong by advising my clients to sell wax products that did not contain wax.

Advice given to me was simply to ignore this.

My hunch is this guy simply identified an opportunity to enrich himself at the expense of the carwash industry, and the OEM’s settled out of court to make him go away to avoid the potential expense of a more global situation.<<<<<<<<<<



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
People want their vehicles cleaned, shined and protected.

If you take the time to explain all of the details that goes into this to the average motorist, mostly likely all you will accomplish is to make their eyeballs roll around in the backs of their heads.

<<<<

Per issues above.
1. Me thinks you guess wrong. This guy was one of the first, if not the first to introduce "Hot Wax" his products really contained wax. Or so he said. Of course I never had it analyzed. His beef was that people were supplying a cheaper product with no wax and calling it wax to unfairly undercut him.

2. From an operational standpoint my issue is do I use the "conditioner" as a replacement for my soap, or do I use it for a replacement for my triple foam Polish.

From the above it seems there is no uniform use of the term and I need to try and read the MSDS for what I am using now and somehow compare it to the MSDA for the "Conditioner" and figure which if any I should try to use it as a replacement for.

 

[robert roman]

".... Me thinks you guess wrong. This guy was one of the first, if not the first to introduce "Hot Wax" his products really contained wax. Or so he said. Of course I never had it analyzed. His beef was that people were supplying a cheaper product with no wax and calling it wax to unfairly undercut him."

I didn't say his products did not contain "wax." Nor did I say he was wrong for suing folks for selling products described as containing wax but did not, just frivolous because "waxing" can have a great many interpretations. As Tricky Dicky and Billy Boy once said, it depends upon what the meaning of the word is.

The wash I worked at in 1968, 43-years ago, sold a product containing wax that was heated, hot-wax.

Whose product was it, I can't recall.

 

[Waxman]

One can also "wax" philoshphical, poetic, historic.

As long as the product exists and isn't simply water, you are covered, IMO.

Plus wax sounds better than silicone.

Polish has a nice ring, too.

 

[rph9168]

I just read that most cereals that have the word Blueberry in their title have little or no Blueberry in them. Blueberries have become the latest "good" food so manufacturers use it to entice customers to buy their products. I guess that means that using the term wax in the same fashion can't be that bad after all.

 

[Earl Weiss]

".
I didn't say his products did not contain "wax." Nor did I say he was wrong for suing folks for selling products described as containing wax but did not, just frivolous because "waxing" can have a great many interpretations. As Tricky Dicky and Billy Boy once said, it depends upon what the meaning of the word is.

The wash I worked at in 1968, 43-years ago, sold a product containing wax that was heated, hot-wax.

Whose product was it, I can't recall.

I guess frivolity is in the eye of the beholder. As are definitions.

As for Bill Clinton. The word "Sex" was defined at the deposition as denoting "Intercourse" . His answers we truthful but considered not.

1968 Seems about wright for when I started Selling Hot Wax in Chicago. I believe the Company was actualy called Hot Wax Inc. and had an arch with bears on it. It was of course started by the Guy from Wisconsin, Ed Holbus.

 

[robert roman]

Today, I washed and wax my wife’s two cars and my one of neighbor’s cars.

I used Rain-X Ultra Wax.

“A revolutionary breakthrough in Rain-X® chemistry brings superior beading technology to your vehicle's paint. Rain-X® Ultra Wax forms a super-slick, protective barrier between your car's paint and the environment, reducing the adhesion and build-up of mud, tar, insects, and road grime. Formulated with a powerful sunscreen, Rain-X® Ultra Wax protects against color fading and oxidation.

Mirror-like-shine, long-lasting protection, superior beading technology, UV sunscreen, for clear coat and all automotive paint finishes.”

From the MSDS;

< 5% surfactant
< 4% Heptane
50% to 70% Water
< 5% Silicon oil
< 5% naphtha, petroleum, medium aliphatic
10% to 30% naphtha, petroleum, medium aliphatic

I believe there is no “wax” in this description.

Should I sue? Would it be frivolous to do so?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Today, I washed and wax my wife’s two cars and my one of neighbor’s cars.

I used Rain-X Ultra Wax.

I believe there is no “wax” in this description.

Should I sue? Would it be frivolous to do so?

Should you sue? That is a judgement call. Your individual harm most likely makes it not financialy worthwhile. If you were to be the lead Plaintiff in a class it might be worthwhile. I am not interested in doing the research on precedents.

Would it be frivolous?

You have to seperate the ordinary definition from the legal definition.

Using the legal definition below it most definitely is not frivoluos from a legal standpoint.



Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: friv·o·lous
Pronunciation: 'fri-v&-l&s
Function: adjective
: lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact