Can I just challenge the wisdom of the theory behind the principle here?
You have immaculate new paintwork and you want it to stay that way - makes sense.
So you apply a temporary film that takes the knocks instead of the paint, and the inevitable damage is inflicted on the film not the paint. So whilst the film will show scarring after a while, you'll know that when you peel it off, the paint will be pristine.
Come first warm Sunday in May you go out to pamper your pride and joy, and you get your two buckets and snow foam and lambswool mitt etc. to get a lovely swirl free high gloss sparkle but when you do the front you have a now torn and spattered bit of plastic that looks different from the rest of it. And ridges at the edges.
So all in all when exactly do you get the benefit of this investment in protection? It seems it's when you peel it off 3 or 4 years later when you sell it on or hand it back to the dealer.
I'm struggling to understand where the logic is in all this. Clearly I'm missing the point.
Maybe it's genuinely invisible and looks just like the paint would and it doesn't scar. You see, I'm assuming it acts in a sacrificial way, but is it that in fact it is bullet proof?
