Quick beads might not be as durable anyway but it might be more objective to apply the coatings side by side instead of top and bottom, since the bottom is always gonna get worn more, especially if you drove in rain at all after application. Thanks for the test!
Thanks! The whole point was to test quick beads, wet coat was just for reference in this test. So having quick beads on the bottom gives me a better indication on durability and also helps me lay out all test products better than using separate panels.
None of the “topper” products used are really designed to give very much protection. In fact many retailers refer to them as sacrificial layers to be used up instead of your main protection. Most of them are designed to be used weekly or bi-weekly to enhance gloss and water beading
In my experience, the "scarring" or "masking" effect is only temporary, which matches up with the water behavior shown here on your 7 day follow-up wash. This is why many sealant/coating "torture tests" on RU-vid are kind of bogus. Hardly anyone ever follows up after a few days (or even hours) to see if hydrophobics return to the products they tested.
i will say doesnt surprise me with the top acting a little better, as the bottom gets beat up alot more. to get a better idea if it was product or location. 1 door shoulda been wet coat and one door shoulda been quick beads then you can see how they both perform in the harsher area and the less harsh on the top of the door
I thought of that too, however it would have made my product testing harder to do. Also the vehicle is barely contaminated so the lower panels didn’t get impacted any more than the top.
