New Self service option

[MEP001]

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

I don't think there's any miracle product that can replicate hand wax, but if someone comes up with a SS product that does we'll be rollin' in cash.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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.

Not really becuase the delivery systems and the "Desired effect" of the systems differs radicaly from the tunel to the SS system.

The tunnel "Waterfall effect" requires and wastes hhuge amounts of product. Those machines can't even use a flow jet which is rated ta 7gpm becuase it will not deliver enough flow for the application sysem as opposed to a foaming brush system in a bay that can easily use 1 flo jet to service 4 bays.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Perhaps not a perfect, but a realistic profit model:
Let’s assume for the moment that the Tunnel product and SS product and the dilution rates are the same. Let’s also assume that the SS delivery volume of the diluted product is the same as the delivery volume for the Foam Brush is 1/20th = 5% of what the tunnel system delivers at $1.50 for 30 seconds of application. This gives the SS a cost of 15 cents pe r minute. If the SS charges $2.00 for 4 minutes that = 50 cents for 1 minute or 70% gross margin. If the cost / volume is double what I guesstimate, the margin is still 35%.

 

[JustClean]

Is anyone going to try it and report back about the results (application & paint surface)?

 

[soapy]

I did some research today on application etc. I checked a SS bay where I am using a trifoam spray gun to apply rain X. It uses about 21 oz. of final diluted product product per minute. If I paid the kleenrite price for the simoniz carnuba wax product and diluted to their specs. and used the same 21 oz per minute the cost would only be 4 cents per minute in a spray application. I suspect that the carnuba wax product is a foamier product than rain X and would be fine if delivered through a foam brush application. I was trying to get a sample sent to me to test but have not had any luck. I have been pretty happy with the extra shine that the Rain X has given me and would need to compare it against the carnuba products that are now coming out. I still like the idea of application through a brush type system and need to find out more about the protection it gives.

 

[robert roman]

Earl,

You might change your opinion if you follow the math here;

http://forum.autocareforum.com/showthread.php?t=10174&page=2

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl,

You might change your opinion if you follow the math here;

http://forum.autocareforum.com/showthread.php?t=10174&page=2

I am sorry, but the link takes me to a page with lots of math so I don't know which post you refer to. If it is tunnel mth, it does not apply to the SS since the Tunnels use a waterfall effect for show which uses huge volumes compared to volume dispensed by a foam brush type application.

 

[MEP001]

I am sorry, but the link takes me to a page with lots of math so I don't know which post you refer to.

He probably meant this particular post (which is within this thread):
http://forum.autocareforum.com/showpost.php?p=76597&postcount=19

It seems more like he's trying to keep self-serve operators from offering a product that you can get from a tunnel wash.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Earl,

You might change your opinion if you follow the math here;

http://forum.autocareforum.com/showthread.php?t=10174&page=2

OK, so I looked at the spreadsheet with the post and I am not sure I understand it. There is a cost per foot and seemingly a cost per time. I am guessing only the cost per time matters for the SS.

While the cost for the "Waterfall" tunnel wax applications is high I submit that most of the high cost is do to volume used. This is not a metric applicable to the SS, Let's assume for the moment that Soapy's 21 oz per minute of diluted product for the Tri Foam is a better measure. If you looked at the waterfall type equipment at the show they could not use flo jets rated at 7 GPM because it was not enough. In my soap waterfall type application which has more air the Flo Jet just gets by. Now, 7 GPM = 896 oz. Lets assume that 7gpm rating is optimal and overrated and it really puts out 420 oz / min. That menas the SS application is using 5% per minute of the tunnel application. I submit it's an even lower percentage because the tunnel applications are putting out way more than 3.2 gallons (420 oz) per minute.

 

[robert roman]

In spreadsheet, cost per linear foot is the application rate by product (derived) applied to minutes of use.

Desired effect refers to end result of using product - drying agent imparts hydrophobic effect on surface.

Assume a manufacturer of drying agent determines it takes three drops of drying agent per square inch to impart hydrophobic effect causing water to bead up.

Thus, four or five drops would not cause an additive effect (wasting product) and using one drop would not cause the desired effect – beading.

Yes, the “waterfall” in tunnel is a show but it is also an application method involving rate (time and amount of product use).

For example, if glow foam doesn’t cover a side panel or is of insufficient concentration – the desired effect will not be achieved.

This problem is minimized in automatic wash because the machine can be designed and calibrated so distribution is a constant.

With a wand-bay, you can have a constant coming out of the nozzle tip but you have no control over how customers distribute the product on the car.

If customers zip around the car applying an insufficient amount of glow foam, the desired effect may not be realized. If customers apply a lot more of the product than is necessary (using more minutes), the substantially higher application cost of this product will erode margin.

Since many self-service operators need all the help they can get, I certainly would not suggest concepts or ideas having the opposite effect.

Selling glow foam is simply easier with tunnel or in-bay as well as more profitable because of the difference in revenue model in comparison to wands.

 

[soapy]

If the cost is 4 cents a minute or even 10 cents per minute in a SS and you are charging .50 cents per minute how are you loosing money if they spend extra time applying the product? You aren't you are making more money!

 

[Earl Weiss]

If the cost is 4 cents a minute or even 10 cents per minute in a SS and you are charging .50 cents per minute how are you loosing money if they spend extra time applying the product? You aren't you are making more money!

>>>That menas the SS application is using 5% per minute of the tunnel application. I submit it's an even lower percentage because the tunnel applications are putting out way more than 3.2 gallons (420 oz) per minute.<<

i guess readers will have to choose how they would calculate the cost of the option. AT the ICA show the average stated cost was $1.50 per application. Now,. I submit that the time of the tunnel application at 120CPH conveyor speed is 30 seconds so the cost is $3.00 / minute. As per my numbers above the SS foam brush or soapy's triple foam gun would use 5% of that or 15 cents / minute. At a SS price of $2.00 / 4 minutes or 50 cents a minute thats a profit margin of 35 cents per or 70%.

At those rates, it's worth while depending on capital outlay to add a function.

 

[MEP001]

If customers apply a lot more of the product than is necessary (using more minutes), the substantially higher application cost of this product will erode margin.

I figured based on the cost of the product ($179/5 gal.) and based on 21 oz./min. on tri-foam delivery that even if the product dilutes at 20:1 it will still only cost 28¢ a minute to dispense. If a car wash is charging ~50¢/min., kindly explain to me how a customer using the feature longer than recommended will erode margin if it's still well below the operating cost to be profitable.

 

[robert roman]

On a previous page, I provided a spreadsheet that shows throughput calculations to simulate conditions of using the conveyor hot wax and shine product in wand-bay.

Anyone can choose to reject the results.

However, if conveyor hot wax and shine product in wand-bay is viable, why aren’t chemical suppliers tripping over each other to sell you large amounts of it?

On the other hand, you might want to consider copying a page from this book.

http://www.jnbint.com/chemicals.htm

 

[Washmee]

On the other hand, you might want to consider copying a page from this book.

http://www.jnbint.com/chemicals.htm

I had to go wash my eyes out after looking at that page.

 

[Earl Weiss]

However, if conveyor hot wax and shine product in wand-bay is viable, why aren’t chemical suppliers tripping over each other to sell you large amounts of it?

[/url]

My guess, and it's just that feel free to disagree

A. They are not that smart / Innovative.
B. Takes one to do it and then they fall all over themselves like for Tunnel Tire shine or waterfall arches.
C. The SS market unlike the conveyor market is harder to add a function to since if all functions are used you need to eliminate one or need a relatively large capital outlay.
D. The potential sales are relatively small. Using Industry averages guesstimate the "Average Bay" does 500 cars per month. A 5 Bay SS might do 2500 per month. That's maybe 35% of the potential sales of a Tunnel and probably far fewer locations.

All of the above.

 

[robert roman]

I’ve been tracking various industries since 1995. My estimates are pretty close to the following.

Today, average self-service yield (5-bay) is 25,000 CPY, down from about 35,000 in 1998.

Reportedly, there are 25,500 self-service locations, down from about 32,500 in 1998 and 24,000 conveyor locations, up from about 19,000 in 1998.

So, it appears to me self-service wands still represent a commercially viable market for such a product.

 

[soapy]

I have had some discussions with a couple of larger chemical companies and they are showing interest. One company is now working on sending me some product to test. Kleenrite said simoniz carnuba wax product is diluted 100 to 1.

 

[MEP001]

On a previous page, I provided a spreadsheet that shows throughput calculations to simulate conditions of using the conveyor hot wax and shine product in wand-bay.

That sheet does nothing to show how selling something that costs less than what you sell it for will end up being less profitable when you sell more of it.

So, it appears to me self-service wands still represent a commercially viable market for such a product.

That's suddenly and without any explained reason (other than increased number of washes as a potential base to purchase new equipment) the exact opposite of what you've been arguing.

 

[bighead]

you know what they should do: install some sort of LED light in the applicator...

Shoot, even the regular brush guys should install some battery powered LED in their brush heads for some psychedelic effect...

I should patent that idea... damn giving out free money ideas....

how would it be activated though? some sort of flow switch? You'd have to take the high tech heads out during weep season if that was the case....