Last January I traded in my 1997 Lexus. 11 years of weather, washing, waxing, sun, ice, dew, some salt spray, some road salt, an occasional frisbee bounce, somebody sitting on the fender, leaning against it, all the elements of wear (I have two kids at home if that tells you anything). I waxed it periodically with Meguiar's but I was far from anal. When I traded it the paint still looked fantastic, and not one drop of Glare had ever touched it. Now my question to Glare is this: Why should I spend a lot more money on something that takes a lot longer to apply, when in my experience, NOT using it worked out just fine? Let's say it does do something that other waxes don't. How long would I have to keep the car to realize that?
I've already described my experience with Glare in the other thread. All that work and money and I was left wondering why I bothered? It wasn't any shinier than conventional waxes and seemed to wash off at the first touch of clean water and a soft sponge.
My bike, on the other hand, is hardly exposed to anything like the elements I described above on my car. It sits in a garage, under a cover, never sits outside, never ridden in rain, rinsed off if ever a speck of dirt gets on it. I imagine this is fairly typical of HD owners. So when would the typical bike owner get the benefit of the supposed increased durability and paint protection? How long under those ideal conditions would it take for Glare usage to be justified?
Not trying to be a hard case, but I need to see some justification for the expense and effort that applies in the real world.