Iron X, truly a safe product for finishes?

[CEE DOG]

1.- No, there is no risk of reaction of Optimum Car Wash. You can certainly use a mitt as well.

2.- The only problem is you will be diluting the Iron X before you agitated it. You may very well be fine in doing so if its not much contaminants but if it is then after you agitate it you will have also rinsed it mostly away and rather than being able to just let it sit another minute you would have to re-apply IX... Again, I`m a bit more detail oriented than most so maybe fine for you.



Thanks!

[pwaug]

When using IronX I guess you can`t do the whole car before rinsing as the product would dry. So is it best to work from the bottom up so that you`re always working to a dry surface?

[CEE DOG]

I usually spray the entire car at once. If applied in the shade it won`t dry up on the surface in that amount of time. By the time its applied to the whole car you are about ready to go back and agitate at the point you started and proceed.



Just don`t let it dry in the sun and your good.

[pwaug]

Thanks Corey! I always wash etc in the garage so I`ll give it a try on the whole car.

[Swanicyouth]

I used Trix on my clear bra and it did not damage.

[pwaug]

If not trying to save time, but aiming for the best possible outcome is it best to clay first then use IronX?

[Accumulator]

If not trying to save time, but aiming for the best possible outcome is it best to clay first then use IronX?

For the best possible outcome, I`d be all about chemical decontamination, which would pretty much eliminate the need for clay (absent special circumstances).

[Jesstzn]

[COLOR="#0000CD"]



a) Detailer`s clay - removes paint surface contaminants i.e. it abrades the top section of an iron particle, leaving what is below the paint surface to remain.

I`m not jumping into the foray here but I find this statement very difficult to fathom. I can`t see how something as soft as clay can "abrade" an iron particle that is somewhere around 4 - 5 on the Mohs hardness scale. I would have more of a tendency to believe the stickiness of the clay pulls the iron particle out of the surface.



If it can abrade iron why can`t it abrade a fine speck of tar from the surface using the same logic? Thats because the speck of tar is stuck to the surface and can`t be pulled out like the iron particulate.





As for the product changing color as it does its job.. Is the color change created when the product reacts with the iron or the iron oxide (rust stain) ?

[togwt]

I`m not jumping into the foray here but I find this statement very difficult to fathom. I can`t see how something as soft as clay can "abrade" an iron particle that is somewhere around 4 - 5 on the Mohs hardness scale. I would have more of a tendency to believe the stickiness of the clay pulls the iron particle out of the surface.



If it can abrade iron why can`t it abrade a fine speck of tar from the surface using the same logic? Thats because the speck of tar is stuck to the surface and can`t be pulled out like the iron particulate.





As for the product changing color as it does its job.. Is the color change created when the product reacts with the iron or the iron oxide (rust stain) ?

Of course your`e right, what was I thinking, detailers clay `pulls` particulates from the surface, they only include abrasives to mar the paint

[imported_PiPUK]

IAs for the product changing color as it does its job.. Is the color change created when the product reacts with the iron or the iron oxide (rust stain) ?

The purple colour is an iron complex - contrary to what some will tell you, purple colour is indicator that iron is present AND the reactant are present. If you don`t get colour, either iron or reactive chemical are low.



As to what `iron` is reacting, it is the iron salts, the oxides here, not the metallic iron. This are is well documented with the method having been used in chemical labs for the better part of a century.

[Jesstzn]

Of course your`e right, what was I thinking, detailers clay `pulls` particulates from the surface, they only include abrasives to mar the paint

Thank you .. maybe you should change your data base to reflect this

[Jesstzn]

As to what `iron` is reacting, it is the iron salts, the oxides here, not the metallic iron.

Thank You .. so basically if I clayed the panel and it pulled the iron particulate out the brownish stain left can create the purple reaction.

[Accumulator]

Of course your`e right, what was I thinking, detailers clay `pulls` particulates from the surface, they only include abrasives to mar the paint

You needed to do something a bit more blatant, like [sarcasm]...Of course your`e right, what was I thinking, detailers clay `pulls` particulates from the surface..[/sarcasm] to get your point across



The point being that clay works via shearing not by "pulling". Clay glides along on top of a film of lube until it bumps into someting, like contamination, which it then shears off. Yeah, *sometimes* that shearing action will also yank the contaminatin out of a depression/pore/etc. in the paint, but that isn`t the norm. So *usually* the clay leaves a bit of contamination behind, the little bit that`s below the surface of the paint. That`s why rust-blooms are *MUCH* more likely to "come back" after claying than they are after chemical decontamination (I like clay and use it all the time, but this was exactly my experience).



IMO (based on IME ) clay seldom causes significant marring IF (and it`s a mighty big "if" indeed) you use gentle clay, lots of lube, minimal pressure, and you keep kneading/replacing the clay often enough to keep contamination from turning it into sandpaper. I`ll sometimes knead/replace clay afte moving it across the paint *one time and one inch* and I doubt that many people bother doing that.



Clay might seem nice and soft, but some clays (overspray clay and stuff like that one odd batch of Sonus gray a few years back) are indeed very abrasive and will, even through a film of lube, mar up paint something awful. BTDT with that Sonus! Looked like I`d wetsanded, and I`m about as careful/gentle about claying as somebody can be. Usually the more gentle clays have gentle abrasives that merely assist in the "shearing" action and won`t mar the paint as long as lube/pressure/etc. etc. are used right, but oh man are there a lot of variables in play.

[togwt]

I answered this question on another website that Jesstzn is a moderator on and got very put out about it so I hoped someone else would enlighten him.



The English are probably too conservative when it comes to sarcasm, sometimes ours ‘good manners’ get in the way (thanks Accumulator)





Thirty year old simplistic abrasive technology and its still missunderstood - wow

[Jesstzn]

You needed to do something a bit more blatant, like [sarcasm]...Of course your`e right, what was I thinking, detailers clay `pulls` particulates from the surface..[/sarcasm] to get your point across



The point being that clay works via shearing not by "pulling". Clay glides along on top of a film of lube until it bumps into someting, like contamination, which it then shears off. Yeah, *sometimes* that shearing action will also yank the contaminatin out of a depression/pore/etc. in the paint, but that isn`t the norm. So *usually* the clay leaves a bit of contamination behind, the little bit that`s below the surface of the paint. That`s why rust-blooms are *MUCH* more likely to "come back" after claying than they are after chemical decontamination (I like clay and use it all the time, but this was exactly my experience).



IMO (based on IME ) clay seldom causes significant marring IF (and it`s a mighty big "if" indeed) you use gentle clay, lots of lube, minimal pressure, and you keep kneading/replacing the clay often enough to keep contamination from turning it into sandpaper. I`ll sometimes knead/replace clay afte moving it across the paint *one time and one inch* and I doubt that many people bother doing that.

I guess we will really never know unless a clay manufacturer chimes in and I doubt they will. The shearing theory is wonderful but that`s like telling me that I could take clay and run it over an iron file and shear off the teeth because they are sticking up. And if it shears off something it bumps into why doesn`t it shear of the fine particles of tar that protrude from the surface?



My theory regarding clay and rail dust ( iron particulate ) ;

A) Clay pulls the iron particulate out of the spot that its imbedded in.

Clay doesn`t do much for fine tar particles because 1) It can`t dissolve it, 2) It can`t shear it off even tho tar is no where near iron on the Mohs hardness scale. 3) Tar is adhered to not imbedded in the surface.

C) Clay has abrasives in it to abrade away the iron oxide stain left after the particle has been pulled from the surface.





I could buy the abrading theory if the abrasives in the clay were on an unforgiving media like the media in sand paper or the likes but the abrasives in clay move over or around a piece of iron, because the media is pliable, not cut it off. Path of least resistance.



A compound on a yellow pad will cause marring on paint where properly used clay won`t BUT the yellow pad/compound combination won`t shear off iron particulate sticking out of the paint surface.



As far as claying and rust blooms coming back , unless you plotted every bloom you had on some form of scale you will never know if it came back .. or its a new one.





Maybe one day a clay manufacturer will chime in ... not a reseller with their opinion.