Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

[imported_Detailing Technology]

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.

100%. If you have the same size grit 100% through the process, you have removed all of the defects of that depth. Then pull back a bit and you can finesse the finer marks remaining with the same polish and possibly a different pad.



The situation is, what if the dininishing abrasive diminishes prior to you being completed with that polishing process? You have to use more and make another pass.



I`m certainly not saying everything can become a one step.

[gmblack3]

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.

As you noted, I`d be hard pressed to believe you where removing that much clear or paint. Anything is possible, but without a quality PTG.....

[imported_Detailing Technology]

So can any users of the new M105 /M205 comment on the swelling and resistance to IPA wipedowns that have now hit the Menzerna line? Is it too premature to make any conclusions?



I`d really not be pleased if I knew I was giving an end product that has the potential to receed in the right conditions.

[Setec Astronomy]

As you noted, I`d be hard pressed to believe you where removing that much clear or paint. Anything is possible, but without a quality PTG.....

The Chinese gage may be a POS, but the one I borrowed from work should have been pretty good. We usually use it for non-ferrous, and the substrate geometry and IIRC surface finish seems to affect it, so I dunno, not sure if the ferrous probe reacts that way. The paint didn`t fall off my old car in the last year I had it, so I didn`t instantly ruin it. Anyway, makes me feel better that you have trouble removing .1 mil.

[Todd@RUPES]

Okay, I`m going to do my best to clear up some questions (and hesitantly admit that I am not Kevin Brown)..



I`m missing something here, its just DA polishing



It is DA polishing, but there are specific differences in technique, pressure, pad selection, etc, to take advantage of the newer +Non Diminishing Abrasives+ found in compounds like M105. Specifically there is a technique adjustment to take advantage of the slightly different characteristics of a non-diminishing abrasive polish.



This is crazy, people are using a compound with a cut of 12



Most polishes (I assume) rate there cut as the paint removed over a buffing cycle (from initial polishing to abrasive breakdown). A cut of 10 would mean a lot of paint removal (and hopefully high point leveling) during the buffing cycle.



However non-diminishing abrasives don`t have a cycle in the traditional sense, because the polish will cut and cut and cut. That cut over time is what makes M105 cut so well (it has no `timer` it removes as much or as little paint as needed) while still finishing nicely.



In other words, remove light swirls by buzzing the polish for 10-15 seconds, or remove deep scratches by working longer, maybe 2 minutes. The resulting finish when you wipe away the polish will be the same (the abrasives over the same cut/finish weather applied for 1 pass or 20)You choose the cut, not the length of the polishing cycle. In other words, you control the polish, the polish doesn`t control you.



Doesn`t priming the pad require excessive polish?



Yes



What is so great about the KBM?



On excessively scratched paint that requires heavy leveling, I can take a compound and wool pad, make 3 or 4 heavy applications, followed by a medium polish, followed by a finishing polish, or I can do the KBM, work until all the defects are removed, then final polish. (Or get really fancy, switch to a finishing pad and more the M105 remaining on the paint to a perfect shine).



Or on soft paints that require heavy cutting (for several applications) then require a ton of medium polishing steps to remove all the compound marks, etc, I can simply do the KBM and remove it all in seconds. I probably saved 8 hours on a 328 Ferrari, maybe more. Also there was no stress and guess work, M105, porter cable, work until defects are gone.



Am I removing too much paint?



I would liken DA polishing with a non diminishing abrasive polish more like wet sanding with a super high grit paper, since we have eliminated the variability (and clumsiness) of abrasive break down cycles. I found wet sanding to be among the most effective tools for paint defect removal only because you can sand flat until the defects are removed, then stop. Non diminishing abrasives are similar in application, polish until the defects are gone, then stop. No need to work through a cycle.

[Scottwax]

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 was in the same Meguiars class as Jim was and we were told that while clear coats typically average 1.5-2.0 mils thick, you should always assume 1.5 mil thickness since PTG`s only show total paint thickness. We were advised to not remove more than .3 mil via wetsanding, leaving .1 mil for removing the wetsanding marks which leaves you .1 mil above the minimum critical 1.0 mil level you don`t want to go below.

[Setec Astronomy]

So from a technology standpoint, the step-change has been the ability to create sharp, hard particles of uniform size? (the underlying technology that allows 105 to exist). I know the particle uniformity has been a bugaboo in the abrasive business, as far as hardness, the move from silicon carbide and other ceramics to diamond started long ago...just curious if you know what the "critical mass" was that allowed this (apparently) unique series of compounds/polishes to be created.

[imported_Detailing Technology]

Has anyone else read about the new line of compounds that Menzerna is producing for release?



The most interesting product I read about is due out this May and is called 206dd.



From the site-

3/6/09

New for 2009, Menzera introduces 206dd, utilizing the finest non-diminishing abrasive technology known to man. This ground-breaking compound contains contain genuine diamond bits collected from certified blood-free jewelers in Antwerp. The 206dd diamond media is uniformly ground and filtered in size to remove 2000 grit sanding marks. The fact that the abrasives used in this compound are actual diamonds, assures the end user that there is no finer way to correct "cerami-clear" and the newer "nano" technology clear coat finishes.



Its being marketed to the automobile aftermarket, marble floor polishers, and granite countertop cutters.



Its going to retail for $695.00 US per liter, GIA certification not included. The good news is, as long as you keep cleaning the media, you can reuse it indefinitely.



Sounds like a must have in 09.aypal:

















If you believe that, I have a few bottles to sell you.

[RaskyR1]

:lol

[imported_Jakerooni]

Ahh the madness...

[imported_Detailing Technology]

Too much "mental-masturbation" for one day. I feel like I am at work again.:down





I think its safe to say that we all impatiently await the full info on the Kevin Brown method.



Sounds like proper use of the non-diminishing abrasive will change the game. Now lets hope that swelling and IPA impervious polishes dont screw it all up.







Now go out and make some money...

[autoconcierge]

A Porter cable removes more defects than a rotary?, an airsander is a way different machine(which I have with all the trizact accs.......) Up until reading this thread I would have never thought to use a Flex,cyclo, pc to remove serious defects.



Now the aforementioned DA machines have their place, and some jobs I can get quite a bit of correction with my Flex DA, but removing wet sand marks and serious RIDS a DeWalt @ high speed with proper pad prime and compound will always do the trick. BTW Megs 105 and 205 have never caused a problem with filling for me, especially 205 leaves a great finish everytime.:think:

[gmblack3]

I have removed the equalivent of 1800 (micromesh 3600) wetsanding marks with the KBM. One area did take 2x, but it was no big deal.

[Accumulator]

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)

Well, leaving the Jag out of this (hey, I`ve been polishing that thing since `85 so of course its paint has been over-thinned), and also the MPV (where I went through *with the PC* by being carelessly aggressive around a nasty RIDS), I`ve removed too much clear in an effort to remove all the marring from my used M3.



I don`t even need my ETG to tell me (though it confirms it), its visible in certain lighting conditions as the over-thinned areas are too light/overly metallic.



There are also some areas on my GMC that`re (too?) thin too, from having been hammered by both ebpcivicsi and myself because we just weren`t gonna settle for "used truck condition".



In these cases nothing goofy-aggressive was done, it just took so much abrasion to remove the defects that too much clear was removed.



That damage was done *before* I got M105 BTW, with old-school compounds and rotary work (and some mild wetsanding too).



With the PC/3.5" PFW/1Z Pasta Intensiv, I cut through the clear in two places on my friend`s horribly neglected `93 Audi. Again, I wasn`t doing anything irresponsible, I just went too far and it happened faster than I expected (and consider that I`ve been polishing Audis since the late `80s).



For that matter, the MIA (but not forgotten) Lynn went through the clear on a Benz with PC/Meg`s 7006/#83 at the St. Louis g-t-g a few years ago (Mike Phillips was there when it happened).



Yeah...you really *can* take off too much clear and you don`t have to be ridiculously aggressive to do it.

[gmblack3]

Well, leaving the Jag out of this (hey, I`ve been polishing that thing since `85 so of course its paint has been over-thinned), and also the MPV (where I went through *with the PC* by being carelessly aggressive around a nasty RIDS), I`ve removed too much clear in an effort to remove all the marring from my used M3.



I don`t even need my ETG to tell me (though it confirms it), its visible in certain lighting conditions as the over-thinned areas are too light/overly metallic.



There are also some areas on my GMC that`re (too?) thin too, from having been hammered by both ebpcivicsi and myself because we just weren`t gonna settle for "used truck condition".



In these cases nothing goofy-aggressive was done, it just took so much abrasion to remove the defects that too much clear was removed.



That damage was done *before* I got M105 BTW, with old-school compounds and rotary work (and some mild wetsanding too).



With the PC/3.5" PFW/1Z Pasta Intensiv, I cut through the clear in two places on my friend`s horribly neglected `93 Audi. Again, I wasn`t doing anything irresponsible, I just went too far and it happened faster than I expected (and consider that I`ve been polishing Audis since the late `80s).



For that matter, the MIA (but not forgotten) Lynn went through the clear on a Benz with PC/Meg`s 7006/#83 at the St. Louis g-t-g a few years ago (Mike Phillips was there when it happened).



Yeah...you really *can* take off too much clear and you don`t have to be ridiculously aggressive to do it.

So you have polished about 10-15 different vehicles and most detailers I know have polished 100s. It seems that you have had issues on at least 25% of cars you have put a machine to (please correct me if I am misreading.) My guess is most detailers who have polished over 100 cars have had issues on maybe 3%.....:nixweiss