Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

[Accumulator]

Seems to me that a huge part of this is might be specific to the characteristics of M105.



I know *I* was very surprised when the PC and Flex did such incredible work with M105 on my M3, the same project that`d resisted some *very* aggressive rotary work.



Leaving polish residue on the panels and following up with a milder step (e.g., a finishing pad and/or less pressure) is stuff that some of us have done for ages; I know ebpcivicsi and I have discussed doing it a few times in the past.



I think the big thing here is that Kevin Brown has put all the different factors together into a properly integrated method/system. It`ll be interesting to see his final write up.



And yeah...when guys like TH0001 are so impressed by somebody, well, that`s mighty impressive!

I think it goes back to TH0001`s thread showing that a PC actually can remove more paint than a rotary (I forget the details)...

IIRC, what TH0001 found was that the PC removed more paint in the course of *doing the same degree of correction*. Some of us guessed that the PC`s abrasive efforts might`ve "followed the contours of the marring" (or perhaps the texture of the paint in general) moreso than a rotary does, but I don`t think we ever came up with a definite explanation.



Those who care about such stuff might be interested in how the amount of paint removed would compare between a conventional rotary approach and the KBM :think:

[Setec Astronomy]

IIRC, what TH0001 found was that the PC removed more paint in the course of *doing the same degree of correction*. Some of us guessed that the PC`s abrasive efforts might`ve "followed the contours of the marring" (or perhaps the texture of the paint in general) moreso than a rotary does, but I don`t think we ever came up with a definite explanation.



Those who care about such stuff might be interested in how the amount of paint removed would compare between a conventional rotary approach and the KBM :think:

Yes, you`re right, it was the comparison of polishing with a PC vs. wetsand and rotary, that the wetsand and rotary removed less paint to get the same level of correction. (or something like that ) I was just over at MOL researching this and I see Mike Phillips didn`t agree with TH0001`s conclusions.



It`s funny how for a while we talk about not removing too much paint, just leaving deep scratches, about not compromising the clear, etc. and then Meg`s comes out with a compound that is off their scale (12, on a scale that used to end at 10) and everybody and their brother is using it and taking off who knows how much paint. I guess part of it is the perspective that if you`ve got a brutalized black car that`s turned in from lease or something, that it`s better to compound the crap out of it so you can sell it, and you don`t care if the CC fails in 2 years...or if you are going to turn it in from lease before the CC fails. Better than a repaint.

[gmblack3]

I am sure that all or most of your questions will be answered when KB is ready to release the paper.



So far my PTG findings show that no excessive CC is removed when using the KBM.

[imported_Jakerooni]

wow... really?? This is where it`s headed to? 12 on the scale and it`s a new "miricle` product? I`m really not liking that. Although I can see it`s uses for the PC. It;s only logical that when you factor in all variables and need to get equal results if you`re using a less aggressive machine you need a more aggresive product to compensate. Hopefully no one grabs this super compound and a rotary and goes to town on a clearcoat or something. Is it at least labeled "Designed for D/A use only"? or something to that effect? (I just don`t know that much about 105 yet)

[imported_Detailing Technology]

Megs is owned by 3M now correct?



Conspiracy Theory:

Im sure they have some planned obsolescene in these products for the paint manufacturers...Sell more tape and abrasives to the body shops becuase they are painting more...



Dont post replies to that, I`m just breaking balls. But I do believe successful people are the best in hiding their motives.

[imported_Detailing Technology]

I am sure that all or most of your questions will be answered when KB is ready to release the paper.



So far my PTG findings show that no excessive CC is removed when using the KBM.

So you`ve done it, is my graphic representation on the mark?

[Setec Astronomy]

So far my PTG findings show that no excessive CC is removed when using the KBM.

Hey man, don`t take me the wrong way. Some guys (JimmyBuffit, for example) preach about not removing more than half a mil or the CC is wrecked. I have to guess that on a serious correction you are taking that much off...and will the owner just go to the swirlomatic again? How many times has the car been buffed before, does anyone really see one of these cars 5 years or 10 years down the road? I`m not being critical, I`m just thinking out loud about this stuff. I`ve taken some PTG readings on my cars that have scared the crap out of me.

[Setec Astronomy]

Is it at least labeled "Designed for D/A use only"? or something to that effect? (I just don`t know that much about 105 yet)

No man, only the latest version is labeled for DA, the original was hand and rotary. I think the secret is the uniform size and sharpness of the abrasive...think Unigrit in a bottle.

[Accumulator]

Yeah, *I* am in the "don`t take off too much clear!!" camp myself. And (or "but") M105 doesn`t seem excessively aggressive, at least not on the hard clear I`ll use it on. It`s possible to make it behave quite mildly with the right pad/technique..man I resisted trying M105 for *so* long, but once I finally did, well, that was that.



Cut of "12"? Only if you want it be like that. It`s sure not rocks-in-a-bottle IMO.



But yeah...I do worry about people overdoing it with stuff like this. For a guy like me who hardly *ever* corrects the whole car it`s great, but people who keep remarring their vehicles had better be a little careful as you can`t just keep M105ing marring away time after time.



It`s sorta like the way every kid with a few grand to spend can buy a car that woulda been considered "scary-fast" twenty years ago. "Can" doesn`t always equal "should".



gmblack3a- Yeah, I thought the "how much clear is removed" thing was primarily just an interesting observation, not like a matter of it being excessive. My interest is merely intellectual curiosity as opposed to a real concern (especially as I`m not all that fond of my rotaries anyhow).

[imported_Detailing Technology]

I see it like this. If you have RIDS or a scratch you just have to have removed, you have to lose some clear. Its that simple.



Any comments from Tood and Bryan on the process? Is my diagram off-the-wall or on the mark?

[gmblack3]

So for with my Defelsko PosiTector 200 Series (Advanced) any plastic bumper on at least 10 cars that I have tested tell me that the clear is 2.0-3.0 mills thick. Incase you don`t know the 200 advanced can read each layer, but it only works on plastics or composites. I have only had the chance to use it on a repainted vette so far and the clear was in the 2.0-2.5 mill range.



It takes a lot of compounding to remove .1 mill of clearcoat. Using an airsander with 1500, then 3000 trizact will not remove .1 mill of clearcoat and even after polishing out you wont have that much removed. Now I know that is very hard for all of the clearcoat police around here to believe. But untill you go out and spend in excess of $2500 for the advanced 200 you are not going to know for yourself.



Back to the KBM and how much clearcoat is removed. Yesterday I took around 20 readings with my DFT Combo where I had a tape line. If you have a PTG you will know that clearcoat readings can vary in areas as small as 1 sq inch. Using the mill setting I could not read a reduction in CC thickness, switching to microns I had found 2 places out of the 10 side by side reading that I did where the reading was reduced by 1 micron.



Now people using different techniques may produce different results.

[imported_Detailing Technology]

I think people get carried away with the amount of clearcoat they are removing when they polish.





One post I have not yet seen on Autopia and most likely never will is:



Ooops! I burned through the center of my door while doing a correction. Pics (not 56k safe)

[imported_Detailing Technology]

350 views and not one comment on the actual process?



Is my diagram that off?

[Setec Astronomy]

So for with my Defelsko PosiTector 200 Series (Advanced) any plastic bumper on at least 10 cars that I have tested tell me that the clear is 2.0-3.0 mills thick. Incase you don`t know the 200 advanced can read each layer, but it only works on plastics or composites. I have only had the chance to use it on a repainted vette so far and the clear was in the 2.0-2.5 mill range.



It takes a lot of compounding to remove .1 mill of clearcoat. Using an airsander with 1500, then 3000 trizact will not remove .1 mill of clearcoat and even after polishing out you wont have that much removed. Now I know that is very hard for all of the clearcoat police around here to believe. But untill you go out and spend in excess of $2500 for the advanced 200 you are not going to know for yourself.



Back to the KBM and how much clearcoat is removed. Yesterday I took around 20 readings with my DFT Combo where I had a tape line. If you have a PTG you will know that clearcoat readings can vary in areas as small as 1 sq inch. Using the mill setting I could not read a reduction in CC thickness, switching to microns I had found 2 places out of the 10 side by side reading that I did where the reading was reduced by 1 micron.



Now people using different techniques may produce different results.

I`m not trying to be argumentative. On my 15yo GM clear, I used an old coating thickness tester that I borrowed from work, which was a $2K unit in it`s day (name brand industrial unit). I`d have to look up the numbers, but I`m sure I took off a half mil with my PC and #83. Perhaps it was because the finish was old and oxidized, but I did wonder if that was an accurate number. Later, on my new car, using my Octane Guy-recommended Chinese unit that my friend Jr. bought me for my birthday, I believe I got similar removal (that was using some pretty agressive pads/polishes) when trying to remove the DISO. Knowing how squirrely eddy-current testing can be, I`m not sure if I should believe these numbers. In both cases, I stopped taking readings because I wanted to continue polishing, in the case of the old car because it was a beater at the end of its life and I couldn`t really make it much worse, and on the new car because I couldn`t live with it the way it was. I`d like to believe I wasn`t really taking anything off of the new car, because I wasn`t really doing anything to the swirls, except when I went to SSR3 on a 4" pad.

[Scottwax]

Why not just use a polish with diminishing abrasives?

Because they aren`t as effective at removing deeper defects vs polishes with small but very hard non-diminishing abrasives. Not only is Meguiars moving in that direction but I believe that Optimum did as well with their new polishes.