Autopia.org - View Single Post

Bruce · 11-15-03, 02:37

Dear Tom,

Thanks for the impressive research. That pretty much clears it up for me.

One of the fascinating things about detailing is that—fanatic as we may be—most of us don’t know what really happens where the rubber meets the road. Instead, we intuitively use a model based on what we see and experience. My default detailing model for putting one product over another, or applying several coats of the same product, is that I am laying down layers over my paint, like multiple sheets of Saran Wrap. In my heart I know this is not what is really happening, but the model works…most of the time.

My model breaks down and becomes almost useless when I am giving more than a moment’s thought to whether I should use Klasse, Zaino, EX, UPP or Glanz Wax on my son’s car; when I am trying to figure out how a layer of EX could possibly bond to a layer of VM; and when I am staring at the Zaino price list wondering if I really need Z1, ZFX, or both Z5 and Z2 (higher optical properties? 99.9% optically perfect?).

I bumped the model up a level by postulating the paint surface as rugged terrain and assuming the oils, wax or sealant smoothed it out by filling in the gaps and valleys, hardening to a greater or lesser degree, and thereby forming a mechanical bond with the paint. But I also doubted that the coating was reacting chemically with the hard, relatively inert paint surface. This helped a bit, but still left more questions unanswered than answered. (OK, you fill the gaps with VM, but what is left for the EX to bond to?)

Then along you come, Tom, with your Gummy Bear research and your primer on how to detail the leaves on my house plants. Now we’re getting somewhere. I happen to love Gummy Bears, and your observation that they are protected by a layer of carnauba wax, presumably cured, is interesting indeed. I also know, from my own experience, that Gummy Bears stick to each other. Every time I extract a single Gummy Bear from a clump (so as not to appear overly gluttonous) I now wonder if it was stuck to its neighbors a) by covalent cross-linking, b) by cationic bonding, or c) because one of the kids took it out of his mouth and returned it to the bag. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that two cured layers of carnauba are somehow bonding with each other. Add that to what you have said about the complexity of wax composition, and what you (and Mequiar’s) have said about cationic bonding of wax to the paint surface, and I am ready to accept that by some mysterious chemical process involving the sharing of electrons, which I don’t have to understand, wax and presumably synthetic sealants can form a decent bond with the paint and with each other, even though cured.

But the significant breakthrough for me is your conclusion that successive applications of wax create a denser film rather than multiple discrete layers of wax. If I assume that the same principal also applies to synthetic and hybrid sealants (and why not), I can view the process as individual molecules bonding to the paint surface, but not necessarily completely covering it, thus leaving room for the next application to bond to the paint (and to the existing wax molecules) and increasing the film density. If the microscopic paint terrain is a rugged as I think it is, this means that there is that much more paint surface for the wax to attach to. It also means that there may be an additional element of mechanical bonding through friction.

It also suggest that, instead of filling up the gaps, like pouring water in a hole, the product is coating the surfaces of the hills and valleys.

With these few leaps of logic (which might make a chemist roll his eyes heavenward), I think I now have model that seems to reasonably answer most of my questions:

1. VM’s magic ingredients bond to the paint, but leave room for EX to attach to the paint as well. I suppose it is possible that the EX might displace and replace some of the VM, but, as Steve (Poorboy) has said, you can avoid scrubbing out the VM by applying the EX by hand rather than by PC. This is also consistent with your corollary that instead of a layer of EX over VM, you really have a blend of the two in the same film. More justification for experimenting, and don’t we love that!

2. Instead of environmental assaults eating through a thick layer of wax from above, I now view it as attacks on individual molecules which are attached to the paint, destroying the bond. This (as well as the layer theory) suggests that multiple applications might result in greater longevity and durability. Have you found that to be the case?

3. I’ve always been puzzled about why Z1 is necessary and what ZFX, as a replacement for Z1, actually does, other than decrease drying and curing times. Revisiting these questions with my new and improved model, I find I still don’t have a clue. Oh, well. You can’t have everything.

4. Successive layers of Zaino make sense because their molecules would be attaching to the bare paint areas remaining after previous applications, resulting in a denser layer with greater coverage. It might also suggest, though, that you will soon reach a point of diminishing returns as the film reaches maximum density, although who’s to say that Zaino doesn’t just start bonding to itself and developing a thicker layer? Or maybe that 43rd coat of Z2 just feels good, and doesn’t bond to anything.

The great thing about my new model is that now I can do almost anything without feeling stupid. (The model does not apply to the paint prep side of the detailing house. There are lots of stupid things I can do over there.)

Thanks again,
Bruce

11-15-03, 02:37	#30 (permalink)
Bruce Registered User Bruce is offline Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Inside the Beltway Posts: 91	Dear Tom, Thanks for the impressive research. That pretty much clears it up for me. One of the fascinating things about detailing is that—fanatic as we may be—most of us don’t know what really happens where the rubber meets the road. Instead, we intuitively use a model based on what we see and experience. My default detailing model for putting one product over another, or applying several coats of the same product, is that I am laying down layers over my paint, like multiple sheets of Saran Wrap. In my heart I know this is not what is really happening, but the model works…most of the time. My model breaks down and becomes almost useless when I am giving more than a moment’s thought to whether I should use Klasse, Zaino, EX, UPP or Glanz Wax on my son’s car; when I am trying to figure out how a layer of EX could possibly bond to a layer of VM; and when I am staring at the Zaino price list wondering if I really need Z1, ZFX, or both Z5 and Z2 (higher optical properties? 99.9% optically perfect?). I bumped the model up a level by postulating the paint surface as rugged terrain and assuming the oils, wax or sealant smoothed it out by filling in the gaps and valleys, hardening to a greater or lesser degree, and thereby forming a mechanical bond with the paint. But I also doubted that the coating was reacting chemically with the hard, relatively inert paint surface. This helped a bit, but still left more questions unanswered than answered. (OK, you fill the gaps with VM, but what is left for the EX to bond to?) Then along you come, Tom, with your Gummy Bear research and your primer on how to detail the leaves on my house plants. Now we’re getting somewhere. I happen to love Gummy Bears, and your observation that they are protected by a layer of carnauba wax, presumably cured, is interesting indeed. I also know, from my own experience, that Gummy Bears stick to each other. Every time I extract a single Gummy Bear from a clump (so as not to appear overly gluttonous) I now wonder if it was stuck to its neighbors a) by covalent cross-linking, b) by cationic bonding, or c) because one of the kids took it out of his mouth and returned it to the bag. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that two cured layers of carnauba are somehow bonding with each other. Add that to what you have said about the complexity of wax composition, and what you (and Mequiar’s) have said about cationic bonding of wax to the paint surface, and I am ready to accept that by some mysterious chemical process involving the sharing of electrons, which I don’t have to understand, wax and presumably synthetic sealants can form a decent bond with the paint and with each other, even though cured. But the significant breakthrough for me is your conclusion that successive applications of wax create a denser film rather than multiple discrete layers of wax. If I assume that the same principal also applies to synthetic and hybrid sealants (and why not), I can view the process as individual molecules bonding to the paint surface, but not necessarily completely covering it, thus leaving room for the next application to bond to the paint (and to the existing wax molecules) and increasing the film density. If the microscopic paint terrain is a rugged as I think it is, this means that there is that much more paint surface for the wax to attach to. It also means that there may be an additional element of mechanical bonding through friction. It also suggest that, instead of filling up the gaps, like pouring water in a hole, the product is coating the surfaces of the hills and valleys. With these few leaps of logic (which might make a chemist roll his eyes heavenward), I think I now have model that seems to reasonably answer most of my questions: 1. VM’s magic ingredients bond to the paint, but leave room for EX to attach to the paint as well. I suppose it is possible that the EX might displace and replace some of the VM, but, as Steve (Poorboy) has said, you can avoid scrubbing out the VM by applying the EX by hand rather than by PC. This is also consistent with your corollary that instead of a layer of EX over VM, you really have a blend of the two in the same film. More justification for experimenting, and don’t we love that! 2. Instead of environmental assaults eating through a thick layer of wax from above, I now view it as attacks on individual molecules which are attached to the paint, destroying the bond. This (as well as the layer theory) suggests that multiple applications might result in greater longevity and durability. Have you found that to be the case? 3. I’ve always been puzzled about why Z1 is necessary and what ZFX, as a replacement for Z1, actually does, other than decrease drying and curing times. Revisiting these questions with my new and improved model, I find I still don’t have a clue. Oh, well. You can’t have everything. 4. Successive layers of Zaino make sense because their molecules would be attaching to the bare paint areas remaining after previous applications, resulting in a denser layer with greater coverage. It might also suggest, though, that you will soon reach a point of diminishing returns as the film reaches maximum density, although who’s to say that Zaino doesn’t just start bonding to itself and developing a thicker layer? Or maybe that 43rd coat of Z2 just feels good, and doesn’t bond to anything. The great thing about my new model is that now I can do almost anything without feeling stupid. (The model does not apply to the paint prep side of the detailing house. There are lots of stupid things I can do over there.) Thanks again, Bruce __________________ On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. - The New Yorker