Originally Posted by BudgetPlan1

Lotsa stuff out there lately, some recently released ‘Graphene Coatings’ are sparking discussion, sometimes a bit contentious, sometimes optimistic, sometimes pessimistic but unusually entertaining. Plenty of folks saying it’s nonsense and taking it to task based upon wording (Graphene Coating, Graphene-Infused Coating, Graphene Ceramic Coating, etc.) and the suspect ability to currently actually produce a true ‘GRAPHENE COATING’.

I wasn’t around when coatings first came around, touting such nonsense as “Diamond-Infused 10h Hardness” and similar “9H hardness, over twice as hard as your clearcoat” claims (the latter while being technically correct, in reality proves to pretty close to functionally irrelevant…”This really soft pillow is harder than that really soft pillow”) so I’m not certain if the backlash was similar but it’s quite interesting nonetheless from a marketing v. reality perspective.

I’m certainly no scientist but it is all currently quite intriguing to me. I had SPS Graphene on my daily driver from May 2019 thru August 2020 (16k miles in NE Ohio), detailed notes on that experience here if interested: https://budgetplan1.wordpress.com/sps-graphene-coating/

While it was an excellent product that had many positive attributes some folks might find beneficial, in the end it came up a bit short in areas I consider important to my particular situation w regards to vehicle usage, maintenance and perhaps a little bit of the climate I live in. I have gone back to my preferred ceramics which have been proven winners for my situation since October of 2016.

Frankly, whether or not it says graphene on the label is of no matter to me, the coating in the bottle either works for me and my specific needs or it doesn’t. The SPS was a great coating overall, especially if you like slickness and high water contact angle entertainment. Didn’t meet my needs in the end but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad product at all, rather that it’s just not a great product FOR ME. Time will tell with graphene, I guess. The question that has recently come to the forefront is just what the graphene in the formulation contributed to the positive attributes I experienced. It appears that perhaps it was not the graphene at all.

A few articles/references regarding the current skepticism surrounding ‘graphene’ can be found below:

1. Feynlab Blog Post: Coating Chemistries, and Differentiating Marketing Terms from Actual Chemistry: https://www.feynlab.com/coating-chem...ual-chemistry/

2. Rag Company Q & A w/ Gtechniq; 46 minutes in the topic of Graphene comes up: ASK Us About Detailing & Cars w/ GTECHNIQ! | Q&A Thursday #81 | August 6th, 2020: https://youtu.be/XjyLge_H22c?t=2709

3. Chicago Auto Pros/Dr. Beasley/Ethos: https://youtu.be/sbfr35YkDzk

4. A little bit from Alfred Yow, the mind behind the Art d’ Shine/SPS coatings. Kinda clarifies the role of the Reduced Graphene Oxide component in the coatings. From a Facebook post regarding graphene coatings. Seems like a bit of a ‘helper’ to the PDMS portion of the formulation:



I think it's gonna take some time to figure all of this out re: graphene. Migliore, SPS/Art d' Shine, Ethos, Glassparancy, Adam's, TAC Systems and a few more have released products w graphene as part of their formulations but perhaps more telling are those mfg's who haven't; CarPro, Gyeon, Feynlab, Optimum and Gtechniq, some of whom have openly questioned the value of graphene given it's manufacturing limitations at this time.

The primary 'optimistic benefit' of graphene as it's currently marketed is the potential reduction in water spotting due to its ability to reduce surface temps; occasional mentions of graphene's toughness is tossed about but that seems to be a secondary point. Any visible performance benefits such as slickness, water behavior and similar are (as Albert Yow explains it) not due to graphene at all so, well...I dunno.

Will be fun to watch but not convinced that it's really any kind of 'revolution' given my personal experience with it. I guess that could change in future...or not.

What I get from all of this is:

1. Current technology does not allow for any fundamentally significant level of Graphene to be incorporated into a coating.

2. Any real or perceived benefits of a graphene coating have very little (if anything) to do with any trace amount of graphene in it.

3. The functional foundation of any graphene coating is basically the same as a ceramic, likely Siloxane/Polysiloxane/Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or Polysilazanes.

So if we bake a 'Graphene Coating Cake' the cake batter itself is the same as if we baked a 'Ceramic Coating Cake' and the graphene in the cake is not significant enough to even be considered the frosting on the cake but rather merely the handful of 'sprinkles' on top of the frosting on top of the cake. Maybe.

I kinda view it as using a ceramic coating that for some reason has an extra word on the label, and merely taking up space on that label is likely the greatest visible contribution 'graphene' makes to the overall satisfaction.

Methinks just because it says `graphene` on the label doesn’t make it a bad product but perhaps merely a questionably marketed one. The graphene coating I had on my car was very good overall, had some great attributes…but not due to the graphene IMO. That aspect of it (graphene and waterspots) didn`t pan out but it was otherwise a solid performer, quite good actually but for my situation, not as good as my preferred ceramics.

And for me, that`s what is kinda sad about the current graphene landscape; sensationalist marketing is gonna drag down some otherwise good products just because they have the world `graphene` on the label.

If I had a vehicle that better fit the strengths of the graphene coating I used, I would not hesitate to use it again, not because it said `graphene` on it but because it worked exceptionally well in areas that have nothing to do with the currently reported benefits of graphene.

One of the more frequent positive user experience mentions w/ regards to using a graphene coating has to do with the water behavior…”This stuff is just crazy hydrophobic!!!”. Again, while this very likely has little to do with any graphene in it, it brings up a curious question of is graphene truly hydrophobic? As with much of the discussion regarding graphene in paint coatings, opinions vary.

Is graphene Hydrophobic or Hydrophilic?

Now I ain't saying I understand all of this but it appears as if it has something to do with the thickness of the graphene layer. I think in thin layers, it's actually hydrophilic. And as Albert Yow of SPS mentions, the excellent water behavior of their graphene coating is due to amped up PDMS as opposed to the graphene which is there primarily as an ?insulator? in hopes of keeping surface temps down. :shrug:

https://www.msesupplies.com/blogs/ne...or-hydrophobic

I suppose all we can do is wait and see how it all shakes out, will it become the next *real* thing or the next marketing buzzword. Having lived w a graphene coating for over a year, I’m not sold on the entire ‘thing’ yet in a universal “this is better than that” sense…but maybe that will change. Or not. And that’s what makes it interesting, no?

Another source of graphene, apparently more economical to produce, comes from (of all things) the Eucalyptus tree: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/06/...ucalyptus-bark

Bear in mind that I’m not a chemist, a scientist, a materials engineer nor even a professional detailer in any sense of the word. I’m just a curious person looking for the best products to fit my particular situation and as always, YMMV.

Originally Posted by 2020

BudgetPlan: excellent summary. You must really struggle using Twitter.