3M Ultrafina SE - Correction & Filling by Rotary

[imported_Dave KG]

3M Ultrafina SE is an oily light cutting finishing polish that was designed to remove holograms left by more aggressive cutting compounds. The product can also be used for light correction on many finishes as well when used with a polishing or finishing pad. The product is marketed as being free from dedicated fillers, however many have reported a filling effect from the polish suggesting the product does actually contain fillers, or at least the capability to fill.



Our thoughts on this have been that, being very oily, Ultrafina has the capability to mask machine marring... But only under certain conditions. If the polish is thoroughly worked, the abrasives broken down so that the finish is well refined then the oils will have nothing to mask so you do not see any filling effect. However, if you do not thoroughly work the polish then the abrasives or pad leave light marring which the oils can then fill, thus giving a filling effect. We decided to put this to the test, comparing a long work time with a short work time on the effects from the finishing polish to see if this idea has any merit.



So - with the help of 3M Fast Cut Plus on a cutting pad, we have put in to a red Golf door some lovely holograms (fully wiped down to ensure any filling effect from FC+ removed):



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0291.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0293.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0294.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0296.jpg



Panel taped up so that a short set and a long set can be compared. Both sets use a finishing pad with 3M Ultrafina SE with the aim of refining out the Fast Cut holograms.







Long Set



This would be what I would describe as a traditional rotary set for finishing that I would use - the Zenith point as it is often referred to, starting slow and working up to speed and working the polish thoroughly before stepping down through the speeds for refinement. Set length was around 4.5 mins. Also, note that this set has been done by a novice rotary polisher - so many thanks to Allie for doing this set under Gordon`s guidance :) ... Video of the set:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/th_00002.jpg (http://s669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/?action=view&current=00002.mp4)



And now the results, the following pictures taken before any wipe down:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0303.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0304.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0306.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0313.jpg



Then, after two wipe downs with IPA in this case:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0326.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0329.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0330.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0332.jpg



Carefully examining the finish showed no evidence of machine marring being revealed following the wipe down, and for us at this stage we felt that the abrasives had been worked thoroughly enough so as not to leave any marring that the oils in the polish could have filled.





Short Set



Now, again following the Zenith point technique, but this time keeping the working time much shorter - this would be a far shorter set than I would even recommend for machine polishing by rotary! However, we were wanting to see if making the set much shorter resulted in Ultrafina SE filling in any way... Video of the set:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/th_00003.jpg (http://s669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/?action=view&current=00003.mp4)



Results, firstly before any wipe downs carried out:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0308.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0309.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0311.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0316.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0317.jpg



Now, following two wipe downs with IPA:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0334.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0335.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0338.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0341.jpg



Arugably at this stage, there was still little difference between the finishes before and after the IPA wipe downs, perhaps very slight tails and marring becoming evident in the short set. In person as well, it was tough to see, but we were pretty convinced the finish was not as good after the wipe down.







More Aggressive Pad



To see if we could get more conclusive evidence of Ultrafina SE masking, we set up a heavy polishing pad, and polishes the area again using a short set similar to the video to get the following results before an IPA wipe down:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0346.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0349.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0350.jpg



You could argue at this stage that slight marring and hologramming was evident before the wipe down. However, the comparison after the wipedown was an eye opener: following to IPA wipe downs:



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0353.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0356.jpg



http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/DavidMcLean/FillingPolishes/DSC_0359.jpg







Thoughts



Clearly, as shown by the more aggressive pad, Ultrafina SE does have the capability to mask marring under certain conditions. This is a lot more evident when using a more aggressive pad than it is for a short machine polishing set, which points out to me that a lot of the marring for the aggressive pad comes from the pad itself and not the abrasives of the polish not fully working - something to be aware of when using more aggressive pads with lighter polishes, especially oily ones which have the ability to mask under certain conditions. However, also, slight evidence of marring with the short set also highlights to me the importance of a long machine polishing set... thoroughly working the polish not only has the benefit of getting a sharper finish through jeweling, it also helps to avoid machine marring that can be inflicted with short set and inadvertently masked by the oils of the polish.

[Accumulator]

Dave KG- Ah, good info. Like the Lime Prime thread, this is another one that has piqued my interest.



Are you certain that your IPAing after the long set was sufficient to remove any/all filling? Some people have reported incredible difficulty in getting Ultrafina`s oils/whatever off, or out of, the paint :think:

[CosminTX]

good info ,

i use ultrafine with flex da and 3m blue pad , great results so far!

[Kevin Brown]

Dave KG- ...Are you certain that your IPAing after the long set was sufficient to remove any/all filling? Some people have reported incredible difficulty in getting Ultrafina`s oils/whatever off, or out of, the paint :think:



Good point, George, and yes, although I do not use Ultrafina, I have tested it, and even then, not at length. Just wasn`t overly impressed.



This doesn`t make Ultrafina a bad thing in my eyes.

After all... if it`s that durable, it`s gotta be protecting the paint, which is a plus.

If it can hide swirls long-term, that`s good, too, unless you`re wantng to strip it.



Someone like Scottwax would be more schooled on its use.



This all being said.. it does require a much stronger solvent to remove than IPA.

A petroleum solvent of some sort. Dave KG would know which would do the job the best. We just used a wax and grease remover via multiple applications. Naptha, liquid petroleum gas... you know, the raspy stuff from the 20th century.

[Thomas Dekany]

Dave KG- Ah, good info. Like the Lime Prime thread, this is another one that has piqued my interest.



Are you certain that your IPAing after the long set was sufficient to remove any/all filling? Some people have reported incredible difficulty in getting Ultrafina`s oils/whatever off, or out of, the paint :think:



Good to see you Dave again posting some good stuff.



ACC: Where is that thread?

[David Fermani]

Excellent thread David! Great documentation and effort! Many on Autopia tend to refer to this product as Ultra-Filler based on the overwhelming terrible results that not only body shops have created, but several detailers too.






3M Ultrafina SE is an oily light cutting finishing polish that was designed to remove holograms left by more aggressive cutting compounds.



Oily is an understatement. I`ve never seen another product disperse oil like UF while buffing. I also believe these oils to be part of the culprit for this concealment people are experiencing. I`ve buffed light wash induced defects on my own black vehicle with UF and a blue LC pad(no LSP) and it looked great. But, after about 30ish days it took a nosedive right back to square one. To me, it ultimately didn`t correct anything, BUT, it made the paint look incredibly glassy and beaded water for a pretty decent lenght of time. I still like using it on super soft clears because it can be a lifesaver at times.



Per 3M, UF was actually designed to be used used after the primary compound/swirl refinement step following their compound/cutting pad step. It`s purpose it to remove very faint buffer marks created by not the 1st step of their system, but their middle step. If used within these parameters and carried out with the proper prescribed technique it can and should have no problems doing as it`s designed. But, like all devious minds in body shops tend to think a little on the side of what they don`t see (now) won`t hurt em. I`ve seen and spoken to countless painters, painter`s helpers and body shop detailers that swear up and down that they can go from the initial compound/wool step right to UF with a semi-finishing foam and it is acceptable to their "at the time" eyes. But, because they tend to believe that once the car leaves their lot, it`s out of their life. Well, I also have done alot of reinspections on said vehicles months down the road and can attest that they are wrong!






If it can hide swirls long-term, that`s good, too, unless you`re wantng to strip it.

This all being said.. it does require a much stronger solvent to remove than IPA.

Agreed. Do you think that using a stronger solvent *could* lead to swelling/concealing on the short term?

[Scottwax]

Good read. Goes to show why directions should be followed! 3M says Ultrafina is ONLY for removing light buffer trails and you should use an intermediate step between compounding and Ultrafina. They also are very specific how to polish with it. Spread around at 1000 rpms, work in with enough pressure to lightly compress the pad at 1800-2000 rpms for several passes, then reduce pressure and finish out with a few more passes at 1000 rpms. When used as recommended, it really works well and the results hold up.

[imported_Dave KG]

Dave KG- Ah, good info. Like the Lime Prime thread, this is another one that has piqued my interest.



Are you certain that your IPAing after the long set was sufficient to remove any/all filling? Some people have reported incredible difficulty in getting Ultrafina`s oils/whatever off, or out of, the paint :think:



I`ve found that it depends on what is causing the filling effect - with 3M it seems that it is the oils in the polish, and so far I`ve been happy that IPA is removing these oils but there`s no guarantee. I`ve also used bodyshop panel wipe from our neighbouring bodyshop (not sure what is in it!) during tests and this has shown that you have to be careful with IPA! A cursory wipe down is no good, I tend to saturate the panel and wipe in straight lines with moderate pressure as this seems most effective for removing oils. But then, there is no guarantee that the panel wipe is removing everything - though, the use of IPA is certainly making a difference so it is definitely removing something. But you`re right, there`s no way of knowing whether *all* of whatever is filling has been removed from the paint - I wish there was an easy way of guaranteeing it! It does highlight the importance of performing some form of wipedown though :)

[imported_Dave KG]

G

This all being said.. it does require a much stronger solvent to remove than IPA.

A petroleum solvent of some sort. Dave KG would know which would do the job the best. We just used a wax and grease remover via multiple applications. Naptha, liquid petroleum gas... you know, the raspy stuff from the 20th century.



We have also tried, just for fun in tests, neat APC (G202) and Autosmart Tardis tar remover - both of these have shown an ability to remove oils or waxes that some polishes leave on the finish that can mask marring, but again, whether we are getting full removal is hard to say 100%.

[imported_Dave KG]

Oily is an understatement. I`ve never seen another product disperse oil like UF while buffing. I also believe these oils to be part of the culprit for this concealment people are experiencing. I`ve buffed light wash induced defects on my own black vehicle with UF and a blue LC pad(no LSP) and it looked great. But, after about 30ish days it took a nosedive right back to square one. To me, it ultimately didn`t correct anything, BUT, it made the paint look incredibly glassy and beaded water for a pretty decent lenght of time. I still like using it on super soft clears because it can be a lifesaver at times.



Per 3M, UF was actually designed to be used used after the primary compound/swirl refinement step following their compound/cutting pad step. It`s purpose it to remove very faint buffer marks created by not the 1st step of their system, but their middle step. If used within these parameters and carried out with the proper prescribed technique it can and should have no problems doing as it`s designed. But, like all devious minds in body shops tend to think a little on the side of what they don`t see (now) won`t hurt em. I`ve seen and spoken to countless painters, painter`s helpers and body shop detailers that swear up and down that they can go from the initial compound/wool step right to UF with a semi-finishing foam and it is acceptable to their "at the time" eyes. But, because they tend to believe that once the car leaves their lot, it`s out of their life. Well, I also have done alot of reinspections on said vehicles months down the road and can attest that they are wrong!





Yup, and this jump can be used (mistakenly) to cut the middle step out, cutting corners to save time in both the `shop and detailing - through misunderstanding of the product and techniques more than through trying to cheat customers I believe (or rather, hope :) ) ... When detailing I know spend a lot of time with wipedowns, feeling my way around to see just what true correction has been achieved to the best of my ability (or at least, when I am detailing - I`m a secondary school Physics teacher now, and only detail my own car as a hobby these days :) ). I wonder, when reading what seem fanciful miracle stories of compounding and polishing a whole car in very quick times if these fillers are what are leading people to believe big jumps can be made in steps and sets cut short - in actual fact, if you really want to get the finish you have to go through the steps and you have to ensure full working of the abrasives all the time. But these masking effects can cover a multitude of sins (and cover poor technique!). Only temporarily though, as you say!

[Accumulator]

ACC: Where is that [Lime Prime] thread?



See if this link works: http://www.autopia.org/forum/machine-polishing/135931-dodo-juice-lime-prime-correction-filling-rotary.html

[Accumulator]

Dave KG- As best I can tell, the filling one can get from Menzerna 106FF is also caused by oils, and that experience so spooked me that I`ve been leery of trying to finish with Ultrafina even though people claim it`s "Accumulator-proof". Sometimes these tenacious oils really take hold and won`t clean away.



Do you have Hi-Temp`s PrepWash (link: Silicone & Wax Remover (http://www.topoftheline.com/silicone-wax-remover.html) ) over there across the pond? I got fed up with IPA`s ineffectiveness (on M205 oils to be specific) and have pretty much switched to the PrepWash for this sort of thing. No, it`s not perfect, but it`s nice and safe.



Kevin Brown- Yeah, I can`t say I`ve never reached for paint-prep solvents myself ;) One of these days when I`m at the autobody/paint supply place I`ll probably pick up a gallon of PrepSol or PreKleano...more olfactory cues from childhood :D

[Kevin Brown]

... Do you think that using a stronger solvent *could* lead to swelling/concealing on the short term?...



I suppose the way to test this would be to identify specific points on a panel via marker, and measure the paint thickness at those points. Since we`d be conducting the effects on paint thickness... why not test the effects of heat as well?



To test how heat affects paint thickness:

1. Take a reading of the specific point.

2. Next, use a heat gun to warm the area.

3. Then, use a laser thermometer to check the temp. Once the area cools to a specific temperature, take a thickness reading.



If we can keep the panel at a constant temp (room temp, or something stable), we could then accurately test the effects of solvents:



1. Saturate the specific points with products such as IPA, wax & grease remover, certain compounds or polishes, and for fun, water. To keep the liquids from running, perhaps a small sponge or cotton ball could be saturated and placed under pressure via weight.



2. After ample time, take a measurement.



Wow. :idea





Ideally, we could get some inexpensive petri dishes (shallow bowls) and have them painted.

Then, we could place an exact amount of liquid in each bowl.

Keep the solvent there for a specific time, then pour out, and wipe dry.

The glass would likely have very little distortion compared to a panel.



We`ve got both Dave`s chiming in here, and either could pull this off.



Fermini, you`ve got loads of connections with body shops, so perhaps one of the shops would spray some petri dishes for you. Obviously, you and detail oriented so I know you could be very specific.



Dave KG, o` master tester and physics guru... is this something you could do, would do, would want to do, or have the time to do?



Oh, man... this could be cool. :rockon1:

[imported_Dave KG]

I have heat guns and IR and laser thermometers - I`ll chat with Gordon on Thursday when I am down in Glasgow, as that`s where I do a lot of my detailing testing - I actually wound up my detailing business to pursue my career in teaching, but I still like to keep my hand into the detailing game as a hobby :)



I`d use both ultrasonic and eddy thickness gauges, as paint will conduct different at different temperatures and this will affect the reading you get from the gauge in addition to any paint swell.



There`s a lot of mileage to testing the real nitty gritty here - let`s see what we can come up with :)

[Kevin Brown]

I have heat guns and IR and laser thermometers - I`ll chat with Gordon on Thursday when I am down in Glasgow, as that`s where I do a lot of my detailing testing - I actually wound up my detailing business to pursue my career in teaching, but I still like to keep my hand into the detailing game as a hobby :)



I`d use both ultrasonic and eddy thickness gauges, as paint will conduct different at different temperatures and this will affect the reading you get from the gauge in addition to any paint swell.



There`s a lot of mileage to testing the real nitty gritty here - let`s see what we can come up with :)



RIGHT ON! :drum:



Now, if Fermani can do it Florida style.... we could compare results! :cheer2: