Red Max Pro

The Search button in the toolbar above will find prior discussions on the use of this product.

Just curious, does your coach have full body paint or fiberglass/gel coat with decals?

I participate on a number of RVing sites and haven't seen any reports of the Red Max Pro yellowing, but it is rated by the manufacturer as an indoor wax. Not sure what that implies. Like any wax, it will have to be renewed occasionally. Since it is a heavy duty floor wax and multiple coats are used, I suspect it will be necessary to strip the old wax before applying new.

Folks give the Red max Pro a lot of credit for restoring the finish, but it's the Barkeepers Friend and elbow grease that removes the oxidation. The Red Max is just shine in a bottle and it's not clear that it is superior to any other brand of high gloss floor wax.

A comparative test with the 3M Marine Restorer & Wax product suggests that the 3M gives equal or better results with less effort and it is definitely designed for exterior use.

That's, at best, a poor comparative test. We don't know how badly oxidized the surface was to begin with, nor the relative condition after using Barkeeper's Friend vs the 3M product. I have no experience with barkeeper's friend, but it appears to was applied manually, and there's no way to know if it removed all oxidation. The 3M product linked in Gary's message is specifically for heavily oxidized finishes, meaning that it contains a heavy grit (3M also sells products with less and no grit). Using a power tool with the 3M product would, for sure, do a good job of removing oxidation.

IMO the reported 'hand test' showed what I'd expect; The 3M product created a smoother surface for the wax, whereas the Red Max Pro may well have been put down on a less smooth surface, and any protrusions/roughness would merely be amplified (made to appear worse) by the subsequent application of several layers of RMP.

Conjecture, yes, but no more so than drawing any other conclusions from this 'test'.

In the interests of full disclosure, I've never used Red Max Pro and I admit to being a skeptic. I've maintained fiberglass boats for many years, and continue to do so. I've used my share of 3M products in addition to various others, and have reported on them extensively in this forum.

I totally agree that the comparative "test" is anecdotal rather than scientific, but so are all the glowing reports of Red Max Pro success.

We use Barkeeper's Friend at home when an abrasive cleaner is needed. It's an excellent product, but it's a heavy grit too - a cleansing/scouring powder rather than a polish.

Not looking for an endorsement for RMP-3, but it's clear that the product will never receive a decent review on this, or any other forum, until folks quit referring to it as a WAX, and comparing it to a WAX.  RMP-3 is an acrylic floor finish solution, not a wax.

RMP-3 will NOT restore anything.  RMP-3 will, however, put a shine on just about anything.  This includes a heavily oxidized fiberglass RV, but who wants shiny oxide?

As with any surface finish (re-finish) product, preparation is the key.  In the case of an oxidized RV, use of a light abrasive scouring agent is very important.  A quick Google search of Barkeeper's Friend will tell you why it is the product of choice for this process.  BKF will remove as much oxidation as you care to apply "elbow Grease" to remove.  This, in no way should detract from the fact that RMP can, and will, produce a superb shine on an old fiberglass surface.

To describe the RMP process as requiring several layers, or multiple coats, of heavy duty floor wax, is somewhat disingenuous.  RMP is applied with a cloth dampened with the liquid.  The product dries almost instantaneously, and subsequent layers/coats simply enhance the shine by filling any small scratches in the surface.  The resultant thickness of the multiple layers/coats would still require a micrometer to measure. 

Stripping IS NOT required if the intent is just to apply a fresh coat of RMP-3.  I washed my rig earlier this spring with a good car wash and reapplied a single coat of RMP-3.  It looks as good as it did when first applied last season.

I don't have people lining up to run their hands down the side of my rig to test the smoothness of the finish, so it doesn't bother me that it doesn't have that waxy feel.  It just keeps shining, month after month.  RMP is probably not appropriate for a $200k MH, or an $800k boat, but for the many of us with older weather worn fiberglass rigs, it's a GREAT solution.

Oops, did someone hit a nerve  :-[

Not looking for an endorsement for RMP-3

Click to expand...

Methinks the OP was.

Tom said:

Oops, did someone hit a nerve  :-[

Click to expand...

Nope!  Just find it a bit irritating when the same folks keep using the same erroneous terms to describe a product and process that they've never tried.

Just find it a bit irritating when the same folks keep using the same erroneous terms to describe a product and process that they've never tried.

Click to expand...

Hm... since I was the one to admit to having never used RMP, exactly which erroneous terms did I use that irritated you?

Tom said:

Hm... since I was the one to admit to having never used RMP, exactly which erroneous terms did I use that irritated you?

Click to expand...

There was only one other post involved.  Surely you can figure out who I responded to. ???

Clue... it was called a wax four times in the first paragraph alone.  RMP-3 has been discussed on these forums for about three years now.  It just seems to me that anyone wanting to comment on the subject with any authority would have the facts.

Does that mean I don't need to apologize for using irritating erroneous terms?

Now I'm confused by your use of 'some folks'  ??? But, as I always say, it doesn't take much to confuse me  :-[

Tom said:

Does that mean I don't need to apologize for using irritating erroneous terms?

Click to expand...

Absolutely

Phew!

And I don't expect one from anyone else either, because folks seldom get one from me

Well, I sure wouldn't wish to use erroneous terms or irritate anyone. I'm really a nice guy, but (too) often misunderstood  :-[  I'm extremely fortunate to be surrounded by a team of staffers who tolerate my shortcomings. OTOH they're not afraid to whack me across the head with a 2x4 when I step out of line, but usually do that in the privacy of the back room, or via email.

Tom said:

Well, I sure wouldn't wish to use erroneous terms or irritate anyone. I'm really a nice guy, but (too) often misunderstood  :-[  I'm extremely fortunate to be surrounded by a team of staffers who tolerate my shortcomings. OTOH they're not afraid to whack me across the head with a 2x4 when I step out of line, but usually do that in the privacy of the back room, or via email.

Click to expand...

Not sure where this came from, or where it was intended to go, so count me among the confused and misunderstood.

My, my, I really kicked over an anthill, didn't I?

The term "wax" is used so loosely these days, including around here, that I've mostly given up correcting people over it and just go with the flow. Very few of the products people apply to their RVs, cars or boats actually have any "wax" in them anymore, or have only a token amount so they can put "carnuba" or some such on the label. I know Tom uses real paste wax on his boat, but I'll bet there are damn few others who do.

For what it's worth, real wax doesn't restore anything either. There is no oxidation remover in wax.

Not sure where this came from

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be difficult to figure out who brought up the subject of erroneous terms 

My additional comments referred to my prior concern that I might have been the one to cause irritation, also not difficult to figure out from this short discussion  ???

I really kicked over an anthill

Click to expand...

Nah, you poked the bear  ;D