Law of Diminishing Returns ??

[jfsully]

I've seen this term used (or maybe misused) many times on this forum and others.

The rule, if applied as in economics, means that for each successive coat of wax there WILL be an increase in utility and/or looks. That incremental increase will become less with each coat of wax BUT there is still an improvement.

Is it worth the effort? that may be a valid question and all of us involved in this hobby (or profession) make that decision when we become addicted to detailing. The difference between a dirty car and a clean one is massive, the difference between a clean car and an LSP'd car is a little less, the difference between a LSP'd car that has been polisihed is a little less...... and so on.

Is this the way the term is being used or do people mean that for each additional coat of wax (after a specific point) there is a detrimental effect to the look and/or protection?

[Wolf-Strong]

What it means is in terms of 'layering' waxes. The idea that most people have on layering waxes is something like this: take a piece of paper, and now lay it down on the table; this represents the first layer of wax. Now take another piece of paper, and this will represent the second layer. As you can see, it keeps on getting bigger, and bigger and a constant rate. Thicker and thicker, and each layer is adding a constant.

Now what this term you used would mean is simple; take a piece of paper with about 15-20% of it cut in with little holes/long open tears. Now add a second piece of paper just like that (only not cut in the same places). Now do a third, and what you will see is that pretty much the entire surface is covered with nothing to see through. What this represents is that when you lay down a coat of wax, it doesn't COMPLETELY cover the surface, like the first example, so you throw on 1 or 2 more coats to ensure even coverage, and after that, the law of diminishing return kicks in with any other coat only covering maybe a fraction more of the original surface.

The idea in the first one is that it is possible to layer waxes because they add thickness, whereas the second idea is that you layer, or more like add on more coats to ensure even coverage, and that after a while, it just becomes not worth the effort to cover .00001% more.

I have yet to see the first one prove ground, so I stick with the second.

[m4gician]

Good, a fellow economics student.

Look don't worry about MR=MC here. What you want to do is when WAXING (if you've done a good job polishing) you'll find...

1 - Coat = Great
2 - Coats = Durable greater
3 - coats = probably not as much difference to justify a 3rd coat.

If you're using Souveran, it might not be worth it financially (unless of course you bought the 2 for 1 w/ at least a 10% discount) because of how much 8 oz. of it costs and how much you use for that additional layer.

[Wolf-Strong]

Me, an economics student? I dropped/flunked out of my first year of college 2 years ago and haven't looked back since :D The MR=MC flew right over my head and I didn't get that one....












But I know detailing like the back of my hand! :righton:

[ScottB]

The Law of Dimishing Returns has been tossed around detailing since the advent of sealants and their promise that each level adds durability or better looks. Hogwash in most cases :

1. Waxes -- 1 coat is all thats needed, two for uniform coverage in case of missed spots.

2. Sealants --2 coats maximum. Seems to add some minor additional reflection or gloss but durability does NOT seem to amplify.

[ejflanag]

If claying does this take off all wax that is on vehicle if not whats the best way to completely strip off the wax to start fresh on the paint....

[TOGWT]

Layering waxes or sealants would be dependant upon the intended outcome.
a) Paint surface protection / durability
Layering is IMO not proven to improve either

b) Aesthetics
As this is very subjective IMO layering a wax by ‘spit-shining’ vastly improves depth

The law of diminishing returns, as eluded to is a term used in Economics. I fail to see why an economics principle would be used in detailing when in trying to explain layering, unless it was to try to give some credence to the writer by blinding the reader with science (I think the American explanation would be BS).

[sneek]

LOL good times in macroeconomics.

[makdaddy626]

I've seen this term used (or maybe misused) many times on this forum and others.

The rule, if applied as in economics, means that for each successive coat of wax there WILL be an increase in utility and/or looks. That incremental increase will become less with each coat of wax BUT there is still an improvement.

Is it worth the effort? that may be a valid question and all of us involved in this hobby (or profession) make that decision when we become addicted to detailing. The difference between a dirty car and a clean one is massive, the difference between a clean car and an LSP'd car is a little less, the difference between a LSP'd car that has been polisihed is a little less...... and so on.

Is this the way the term is being used or do people mean that for each additional coat of wax (after a specific point) there is a detrimental effect to the look and/or protection?

Actually, I do not believe that the economic principle of diminishing returns necisitates that there will be an increase, in fact, it is general accepted that at some point the increase in a given variable will result in a zero impact or even a negative one... The marginal return on investment is still diminished.

Consider an example:
A fixed sized piece of land is planted with 100 pounds of seed and yields 1000 lbs of product. Adding a second 100 pounds of seed will most likely not yield a full 2000 lbs becuase of overcrowding and compition for nutrients. At some point, adding more seed will actually be detrimental to the process to the point where less than a full ton of product of is harvested. The math might look something like:

100 lbs (input) = 1000 lbs (output) = 1:10
200 lbs (input) = 1500 lbs (output) = 2:15
300 lbs (input) = 1800 lbs (output) = 1:6
400 lbs (input) = 1600 lbs (output) = 1:4 - this represents a negative impact to both total output as well as marginal cost!

The same is true of LSPs... layering (the addition of a variable) may yield some benifit but problably not at a constant rate of doubling the benifits of a single coat. At some point, the looks will not only stop improving, but will probably be negatively impacted. At this point both the overall appearance as well as the marginal appearance will suffer.

[Brian_Brice]

All in the prep period period period. 2 coats should be suffice which arguably isn't two coats anyways. Better put would be two applications.

[ScottB]

If claying does this take off all wax that is on vehicle if not whats the best way to completely strip off the wax to start fresh on the paint....

paint cleanser (chemical) or polish (abrasive) ....