Dr. G says that the UV inhibitor in OCW is the same as in clearcoat, and that it will migrate into the paint with continued use. The original OCW patent had to do with combining the UV inhibitor with the wax, IIRC, i.e., other people had the idea, but couldn`t get the chemical to mix with the wax or something along those lines. I guess the second patent was the actual UV protection part.
Getting back to the first part, I take Dr. G`s word about the migration, but who knows. I mean this is his original area of expertise, and he is the first guy who gave a good explanation for why the flexible urethane bumpers and other painted plastic parts used to fade before the rest of the car. Remember we always used to talk about that here? The theories were that the parts got hotter in the sun because of the lower thermal conductivity of plastic vs. metal parts, that they used different paint because the parts were flexible, that they used different paint because they couldn`t bake the paint at as high a temperature as the metal parts, etc.
Dr. G explained that they found that the UV inhibitor in the CC would migrate into the base coat and primer, and on a plastic part would keep migrating into the plastic, essentially drawing it out of the clear. They solved this later by adding the UV inhibitor into the plastic, so it was already at equilibrium and wouldn`t leach it out of the clear. Which I guess explains why this doesn`t seem to be happening on newer cars.
But even if the inhibitor in OCW penetrates, does it make any difference? Vs. using FK1000, in Accumulator`s example, which empirically provides UV protection even though it doesn`t contain anything specifically for that.
Bookmarks