New Self service option

[soapy]

While attending the ICA show last week I noticed the latest greatest thing for tunnel washes was the Foaming Hot Wax setups offered by several companies like SImoniz, Blue Coral etc. It is a showy foamy wax that is applied before the last mitter curtail. The wax is applied to the car then polished into the paint with the final mitter curtain. I was thinking this could be applied to the Self Service bay as another option. I think it could easily be applied by using an existing foamy brush but giving it the second option. With 2 foamy brush equipment packs all you would have to do is T into the foamy brush. Soapy Foamy brush would come out as one color like white and the Hot wax selection might come out yellow. It would be applied by rubbing the car down with the hot wax out of the foamy brush. It would increase time in the bay and offer another service for people to select from. Any ideas on this? In this type of application the wax would provide superior protection compared to sprayed on waxes.

 

[robert roman]

Great idea but there is reasons why it would be difficult if not impossible to implement and execute in a wand-bay.

In tunnel applications, it is suggested to use 6 ounces of product per vehicle. At $0.25 per ounce, this is $1.50 per application.

If you are priced at $0.44 per minute ($1.75 per 4-minutes) and cost of goods is 9 percent of gross sales, throughput, the rate at which carwash generates money through sales, is $0.40 per minute ($1.60 per 4-minutes).

How are you possibly going to price in the cost of goods for hot wax and make any money?

You can’t because the technology that would allow you price a wand-bay as a service sold by the unit rather a product sold by the minute does not currently exist.

Another issue is protection products that contain silicone or polymers that impart hydrophobic properties to the surface must be rinsed off.

Since you have no control over how customers behave, there is no assurance rising will occur which creates the potential for customer service problems associated with quality.

 

[madscientist]

Since you have no control over how customers behave, there is no assurance rising will occur which creates the potential for customer service problems associated with quality.

Relying on 100% of your customers to make decisions that are more involved than choosing between soap and rinse is generally a bad idea.

I do like the way you think, though. Bringing excitement to the ss bays is important. Keeping it overly simple is the tricky part.

 

[soapy]

Applying hot wax by brush would require less product since there would be much less waste compared to the foam curtain in a tunnel. I see people leave the bays all the time with soap still on their car. Yes the wax would have to rinsed off like any other product that is put on that would be part of the instructions. There are timers that let you price different selection at different prices. I probably would not invest the money for a new timer however. The trick is to get people to spend more time and money in the SS bays. This might just be another way to do it.

 

[PaulLovesJamie]

Soapy, I think this is a good idea. I've never seen a self serve wax/cc that I thought was good, if there is a way to improve the result of that service I'm interested. I'm tempted to do some experimenting

 

[soapy]

I did some price checking today to see what it might cost to add a hot wax brush system on a 4 bay car wash that has an existing open function on the coin box. A LP system from kleenrite would run $300 per bay not including the tubing from the equipment room to the bay. If you alredy have a triple foam gun in the bay you could simply put a foamy brush handle on it and start with a cost of less than $30 per bay. I think if I were converting a foam gun system I would use a cloth foam brush to give it more of a polishing feel. If a tunnel gets an extra $4 per application what should a SS get?

 

[rph9168]

I think is a good idea except it would have to time out. As Robert suggests it could cost quite a bit per minute.

 

[JustClean]

Hey Soapy,
I think this is a great idea. I would love to convert my existing HP wax selection to this foam brush wax if the results were good. Since you were at the show how smooth is the surface afterwards? Could this be comparable to a hand wax? Does it need to be rubbed of with the brush afterwards?

 

[MEP001]

I think is a good idea except it would have to time out. As Robert suggests it could cost quite a bit per minute.

It doesn't compare to tunnel applications because the self-serve customer won't be applying it at the same rate. I have the Vector set up to cover a car with tri-foam in about 15 seconds. It takes a SS customer at least a couple minutes to go around their car with the tri-foam gun. They're getting far less volume of product in that time and spending more than $1.00.

 

[soapy]

The car hoods I touched were very silky smooth but it is hard to tell without first feeling it before an application. In Simoniz application they use actual carnuba wax mixed with some other polymers to create a lasting finish. Zep who now owns both Blue Coral and Armor All demonstrated a different type for each company. The Blue Coral version is placed above the Rain X application as an upsell. A good rinse is all that is needed after the application. It does not dry to haze but rather a high shine.

 

[robert roman]

Since a small amount of carnauba is contained in product, it imparts its qualities to surface – smoothness, shine and wet look.

“In Simoniz application they use actual carnuba wax....polymers to create a lasting finish.”

Carnauba is not long lasting. Exposed to heat and solar radiation from sun, carnauba, beeswax, etc. are saponified – convert to soap with low melting point. Hand wax lasts longer than spray because thin coat is layered on surface.

“The Blue Coral version is placed above the Rain X.... as an upsell.”

If you understand physical science of these products, you might question this.

Contact angle repels water from surface. Window glass has angle of 10 degrees. When water drop falls on glass, it flattens, spreads out and wetting occurs. If the surface has strong positive electrical charge, negatively charged water clings to opposite charge and becomes difficult to move.

This is why tunnel operators apply drying agent that contains silicone (contact angle of 70 degrees). Polymer has a higher contact angle (100 degrees). So, hydrophobic (water hating) effect is stronger.

Assume we do the double dip as suggested.

First, Rain-X (negative electrical charge) is applied to positively charged surface. The surface now has Rain-X on it, contains polymer with high contact angle that repels water.

Next, hot wax (polymer + wax) is applied. In short, water containing polymer (high contact angle) and wax (high contact angle) is applied to surface (Rain-X) that has a high contact angle.

Unless polymer and wax in hot wax product can impart greater contact angle on surface than Rain-X can, the only advantage of double dip is to obtain the characteristics of carnauba – smoothness, shine, wet look.

In other words, why Rain-X if you are hot waxing?

As for cost related to SS, if wand COGS is $0.16 for 4-minutes, I still can’t see how you are going to price in a material that costs $0.25 per ounce.

 

[MEP001]

As for cost related to SS, if wand COGS is $0.16 for 4-minutes, I still can’t see how you are going to price in a material that costs $0.25 per ounce.

This product to which you refer that costs 25¢ per ounce and "requires" 6 ounces per car to be applied for effective coverage, what is its recommended dilution? I'd like to estimate its end-use cost compared to the triple-foam chemical we're using now and get an estimated real-world COGS.

 

[robert roman]

I normally do not have to concern myself with chemical dilution ratio in the work I do.

For example, if an OEM recommends six ounces of product ABC to obtain a specific outcome in terms of standard for quality, longevity, durability, etc., then I based the math on six ounces.

If you want to explore the possibility of offering hot wax in wand-bay, I’m sure the good folks at Simoniz USA, ZEP and others that make and sell this stuff would be glad to entertain your inquiry.

 

[MEP001]

I normally do not have to concern myself with chemical dilution ratio in the work I do.

For example, if an OEM recommends six ounces of product ABC to obtain a specific outcome in terms of standard for quality, longevity, durability, etc., then I based the math on six ounces.

Then you can see how your information and opinion on this subject is very much out of place. What would be necessary to determine COGS would be cost-per-minute of application, which is determined by dilution and product flow to the bay. It's unrealistic to suggest that a self-serve customer will be expected to purchase an up-sell service at a predefined application amount.

 

[robert roman]

I don’t agree with your assertion because you can reason an answer using OEM application rates needed to achieve the desired effect from use of chemical.

Here are some values calculated from a client’s wash in application cost per linear foot.

Soap = $0.0089, tri-foam = $0.0056, clear-coat = $0.0022, drying agent = $0.0007

Hot wax = $0.0278

Here, hot wax is three times more expensive to apply per linear foot and five times more expensive to apply than tri-foam.

If hot wax cost $0.25 per ounce, this infers the tri-foam cost is $0.05 per ounce.

In this case, the actual purchase price was $0.06 per ounce (Transmate product).

So, my question is how are you going to price in a product at least three to five times more expensive to apply than the other wand-bay chemistry?

 

[MEP001]

So, my question is how are you going to price in a product at least three to five times more expensive to apply than the other wand-bay chemistry?

If it will still turn a profit knowing what it will cost per minute to run, you just do it and not worry about it. You could even call it a loss-leader, an attraction to entice new customers with an effective product no one else has.

 

[soapy]

Do not forget to mention the 2 to 3 minutes it takes to rinse the product at almost no cost at all. This would go to the profitablity of the product. The product would be applied after the car was washed and rinsed so you are not aonly selling application time but also rinse time with the package since an extra would be required. Just like selling a rain X package in a SS bay requires extra rinse time.

 

[JustClean]

I would love to get my hands on something like this, but I fear it is another "wax" whose result is not even close to hand waxing. Please Soapy and others, tell me it's much much better

 

[robert roman]

Attached is an excerpt from spreadsheet I use in solving these types of problems.

1st section show possible recipes, chemical cost per linear foot and time. Middle two sections show results of applying time against revenue and cost. Last two sections show results based on 20 percent up-sell; basic to hot wax.

“….you just do it and not worry about it. You could even call it a loss-leader,…”

Possibly, but loss-leading depends on selling something else with higher margins. However, wand products with best margins have least value added.

 

[MEP001]

Possibly, but loss-leading depends on selling something else with higher margins. However, wand products with best margins have least value added.

So I used the wrong term. You missed my point. If it brings in more customers, it brings in revenue, unless the facility is already so busy that it can't handle any more customers, or unless the added service is so excessively expensive to operate that it makes the entire sale an overall loss.