Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

[Lumadar]

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)

Truly no offense meant, so please don`t take it that way... but it`s pretty clear that you don`t.



For those of us that have used M105 extensively, we realize that M105 is actually a safer option to old school products. Before, you would use an abrasive compound to get out the heavy defects, and use the products until the heavy defects were gone. But then your compound and heavy twisted wool would leave some nasty and relatively deep damage itself, which would then require removing that as well.



M105 allows you to remove those defects without creating its own damage (aside from occasional LIGHT stuff that would come out in the already necessary fine polish anyway), effectively REDUCING how much paint is removed.



Also, the method makes perfect sense, saves time, and when you consider the fewer applications vs old school methods, I have found the product usage to be the same or less (especially considering you can re-wet and get a second pass "for free")



Kevin Brown knows what he is doing, and I`m sure it will be sufficiently clear soon enough. :xyxthumbs

[imported_RZJZA80]

this entire thread has me a little upset. I try all these months to learn how to use a rotary, buy all the pads and plates, etc for it, and now I`m reading that all i need is my PC to begin with! I hope this isn`t a fad. Next thing you know, the two bucket method will be disproved and there will be a surplus of buckets everywhere.

[Kevin Brown]

... Next thing you know, the two bucket method will be disproved and there will be a surplus of buckets everywhere.

Now YOU are FUNNY...! :spit:



Some capitalist will turn those buckets into portable clothes washing machines or something...



No, you have not wasted your time or money with the rotary.

If there were such a thing as The World`s Best Paint-Polisher competition...



One finalist would use the rotary while the other used a random-orbital.

I`d enter just to see if I could beat them both... Doing my polishing by hand.



THAT is the AMERICAN way, baby...! :grinno:

[imported_Detailing Technology]

What is most interesting about this is are the hard facts:



2 Threads

200+ Posts

7,200+ Views



All in about 60 hours of visibility.

[Pats300zx]

What is most interesting about this is are the hard facts:



2 Threads

200+ Posts

7,200+ Views



All in about 60 hours of visibility.

Well you have certainly been doing a great job of fueling the conversations. :hm

[fergnation]

Please stop the talk about the naked and Journey thing. I have enough trouble just trying to keep the extension cord out of the way!

[SuperBee364]

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)

The original formula 105 was released in about February of `08. A lot of guys have been using it since then. I started using it last March. Meguair`s just released an updated formula of M105 that they gave their official blessing to use with a DA. The first version was not approved for DA use, although there`s been quite a few guys using the first version successfully with a DA. I tried it a couple times with a DA and didn`t have much luck.



The original formula 105 rapidly took over as my "go to" polish for everything except finishing. And yes, it can definitely be a heavy hitter, however it is so easily controlled as to how much correction you do with it, it`s only really a 12 in cut if you use it in an aggressive manner. I believe that M105 has drawn such a loyal following and garnered so much hype for the following reasons:.



1. It is extremely easy to control how aggressive you want to be with it. You can use it anywhere you`d use a medium weight polish or even rocks in a a bottle.



2. It works very fast. The original formula had a very, *very* short working time. LIke twenty seconds. IMO, (and it is just that.... opinion), Meg`s did this on purpose because they had the same worry you do about people taking off too much clear. The Meguair`s training video that was on YouTube last summer showed one of their instructors taking out 2k sanding marks with 105 using a working time of exactly nine seconds.



3. The very small non-diminishing abrasives leave behind a finish that you would never think came from a 12 cut compound, especially if you work it with very little pressure. In many cases, I had cars ready for *jeweling* after using M105.



4. You can stop anytime you want. Well, for the most part... With a traditional diminishing abrasive, you`re kind of stuck; once you have started an application, you have to see it through all the way til the abrassives are completely broken down. If you stop too soon, the finish will suffer from comopunding marks and holograms. I`m not stating anything new here, but just reitterating it so it contrasts with 105... Since the abrasives in 105 don`t break down, you can stop anytime you want to; you do not have to wait for the abrassives to break down. As long as your last couple passes with 105 were with light pressure, you`ll have a very nice finish when you stop.



The process of using M105 for correction, then following it up with Ultrafina made last year`s detailing season the most enjoyable I`ve had in a while.



M105 really is different from what we think of as traditional compounds, and I can certainly understand your concerns; if I was sitting here telling you that I use Presta Cutting Cream as my "go to" polish, you would be completely justified in thinking I was even crazier than I am. A heavy hitter like PCC just doesn`t work the same way as 105. There`s no way I could get PCC to finish down to the point that the paint was ready to be jeweled. It would definitely take a middle polishing step. To be fair, often times a middle step has been needed when I use 105, but I blame that more on my technique (or lack thereof) than I do the polish.



All this peaches-n-cream comes at a price, though. As mentioned, 105 takes a completely different technqiue to use correctly. Lot`s of people have developed lot`s of different ways. I have been *very* happy with my technique for using 105 with a rotary, but again, it did take a lot of time, effort, and especially patience to get to the point where using 105 wasn`t frustrating. I gave up on it a couple times. Now I`m glad I went back and toughed it out.



You just might want to give it a fair shake before you dismiss it out of hand.

[imported_Ivan Rajic]

SuperBee I`m in your position with M105, well where you were in the past... I tried it, liked it, had some trouble with it, and sort of gave up on it to use M95 as it was easier... now I`m going back to experimenting with M105, old and new, and hopefully seeing it through. If you don`t mind me asking, what is your rotary method that you`ve come to be so satisfied with over the past year?

[imported_Detailing Technology]

Well you have certainly been doing a great job of fueling the conversations. :hm

I`ll add that to my resume if I am ever looking for a job again!



"Superb ability to cultivate open and highly creative thinking virtually across multiple time zones".

[imported_Jakerooni]

Like I said I`m not dismissing anything. I`ve been talking to people behind the sceens to get more information on this. I fully admit I don`t know alot about 105. The few things I do know are it`s not in the best intrest to design an entire method around a single product. I`ve asked severl people now if this method can be used with other non-diminishing products no one knows becuase 105 so far has been the only product tested in this method to anyone`s immediate knowledge. And just like said the 105 of just a little while ago is not the 105 of today. As new laws get passed (almost daily it seems) products unfortunatly must be constanly changed and evolved to comply with the new laws. If this method indeed works with "Non-diminishing" abrasives of ANY kind then it`s a good method. If it`s soley designed around a single product as it sits today it can really become a dangerous method to rely on. I have no idea why it wouldn`t work with any and all non-diminishing products since it`s been stated that`s where the industry is headed anyways I would like to see (ot test for myself once the weather lets up a bit here) how this method works with a variety of products. I don;t think this is a bad method. (as I understand it) I do however think it`s a little outdated and if it`s in line with what I`m understanding it to be I know of several improvements that have already been made to this method throughout the years. But like stated before I have to be missing something here because I can`t understand how the "pros" here have never heard of this before. The method I know of this has been around for at least 10 years and very widely practiced by almost every detailer I;ve ever personally known. So that`s my stance currently Since I only seem to be ruffling feathers I won`t comment more on it until I see the actual method by the man himself so i can get a full understanding of it completly.

[SuperBee364]

I`ve had great results with the KB method... for the most part:







...I think I overdid it with the pressure on that one. :nervous:



:lol

I think KB would be proud! I know I am... Just don`t ask to borrow my pads, aight? :laugh:

[imported_billzabub]

I think KB would be proud! I know I am... Just don`t ask to borrow my pads, aight? :laugh:

:buffing: comes to mind

[SuperBee364]

:buffing: comes to mind

lol



Hmmmm.... Now I can`t help but wonder if this could be the reason why Meg`s new Soft Buff 2.0 pads are so stiff. I only have one of them, which was a free sample from Rick at ADS. It`s their zero cut Soft Buff 2.0 foam pad. The surface of the pad is very soft; there`s no doubt that it`s zero cut. But the pad is very stiff. As in hard to compress. I can see where hard-to-compress pads would fit in nicely when using 105 or 205.



Esit: billzabub, I`m sure glad you decided to come out of your four year lurk mode.:hifive:

[SuperBee364]

Like I said I`m not dismissing anything. I`ve been talking to people behind the sceens to get more information on this. I fully admit I don`t know alot about 105. The few things I do know are it`s not in the best intrest to design an entire method around a single product. I`ve asked severl people now if this method can be used with other non-diminishing products no one knows becuase 105 so far has been the only product tested in this method to anyone`s immediate knowledge. And just like said the 105 of just a little while ago is not the 105 of today. As new laws get passed (almost daily it seems) products unfortunatly must be constanly changed and evolved to comply with the new laws. If this method indeed works with "Non-diminishing" abrasives of ANY kind then it`s a good method. If it`s soley designed around a single product as it sits today it can really become a dangerous method to rely on. I have no idea why it wouldn`t work with any and all non-diminishing products since it`s been stated that`s where the industry is headed anyways I would like to see (ot test for myself once the weather lets up a bit here) how this method works with a variety of products. I don;t think this is a bad method. (as I understand it) I do however think it`s a little outdated and if it`s in line with what I`m understanding it to be I know of several improvements that have already been made to this method throughout the years. But like stated before I have to be missing something here because I can`t understand how the "pros" here have never heard of this before. The method I know of this has been around for at least 10 years and very widely practiced by almost every detailer I;ve ever personally known. So that`s my stance currently Since I only seem to be ruffling feathers I won`t comment more on it until I see the actual method by the man himself so i can get a full understanding of it completly.

Bah, I`m just being overly sensitive. It`s always good to have a voice of reason around to temper the hype. Although we`re just used to that being Setec...

[SuperBee364]

SuperBee I`m in your position with M105, well where you were in the past... I tried it, liked it, had some trouble with it, and sort of gave up on it to use M95 as it was easier... now I`m going back to experimenting with M105, old and new, and hopefully seeing it through. If you don`t mind me asking, what is your rotary method that you`ve come to be so satisfied with over the past year?

Hey, you know me... any invitation I get to run my big mouth, I`ll take!



Seriously, though, that`s exactly what I went through. If it hadn`t been for Greg Nichols, I woulda just given up on the stuff. The man is a darn good detailer and teacher. One piece of his sage advice: "Hey, Supe, never point your high pressure wand at a car unless you`ve already test sprayed it and made sure the metal tip isn`t gonna come flying off at a high rate of speed, mmmkay?":nervous2:





Disclaimer: This is all stuff I found to work well with the old formula 105. I don`t have a clue if it would work with the new stuff. My gallon of new stuff gets here today! Also, there`s going to be some things here that may contradict what I`ve said in earlier postings about 105 and how I use it, too. Things change over time and experience with a product.



Anyway.... to start off, I like to vary the pad and stick with the same polish (105) for all *correction*. For finishing or intermediate polishing, I stick with a pad (either no bite foam or finishing wool), and vary the polish.



Pick a pad that is appropriate for the condition and hardness of the paint, keeping in mind that 105 can only finish down as well as the pad you are using will allow it to. (that`s also the reason I use a no bite pad for intermediate polishing and finishing, but that`s another discussion entirely). If the paint is really hammered and in need of serious correction, I`ll use an Edge double twisted wool pad.



In order of aggressiveness, my pad choices for use with 105:



1. Black Edge wool



2. Yellow Edge wool



3. Purple foamed wool. My personal favorite, as you can do serious correction with this pad, and if you do your last few passes with very light pressure, you can get a lot of paints to finish down holo free and ready for final polishing.



4. Any no bite foam finishing pad. 105 and a no bite foam pad is an incredible combination. I use this instead of SIP now. When ever you`d reach for SIP, give this a shot. Start out with medium pressure, and finish with a few passes using just the weight of the buffer. Once again, this is where the small abrasives strut their stuff; they are able to finish out as well as they can without any interference from the pad`s bite. It really shows off 105`s finishing ability.





How to explain the actual usage... Not an easy task..



This applies to whatever pad you`re using 105 with.. I used to (this is subject to change after what I`ve learned in this thread) start off by misting the pad with a bit of FK425. Then I would put four small pea sized dots on the pad. Now this is the part that`s hard to explain, so bear with me... Normally, at this point I would outline what I call my "polish box"; I`d spread the polish around in a 2`x2` (or so) box without the buffer running, then I`d turn on the buffer at slow speed, and again spread the polish evenly through the "box". You can`t do that with 105, or it`ll flash over before you can even get your machine turned on. After you`ve applied the four dots to your pad, you "hit the ground running": turn on the buffer and start working the polish immediately. Go until you think you`re about half way to the time that the polish is going to flash on you. This amount of time is extremely variable, and you`ll just have to experiment with how long the working time is for the conditions of that day. I only keep going into fresh paint until I`m at the halfway time point. I also use pressure as appropriate for the amount of cutting I need. At the halfway time point, I ease off on the pressure to just a bit more than the weight of the machine, and go back over the paint I`ve been working on until the polish flashes. If you timed it right, you should be right back to where you started from. One or two passes with light pressure is what your shooting for to get the best finish.



At this point, a lot of guys have good luck with spritzing the surface with distilled water and working the 105 until it dries again. I never had much luck doing that.



105 really performs well when your pad is saturated with the polish. Once a pad is saturated, it takes very little 105 per application, and you`ll find that you have plenty more working time. It`s weird... the more saturated the pad is, the longer the working time you`ll get before flash over. And that`s great, because you can stop anytime you want. Just remember that the finish you get is highly dependent on the pressure you used for the last few passes, and the pad you used.



Until you get used to the working time, you`ll probably find yourself in a situation where the polish has flashed, and you didn`t have enough time to do the light pressure passes. No worries, just apply some fresh 105 and do your light pressure passes. Sorry to seem like I`m getting really basic here, but this is quite different than what you`d do with a traditional polish and breaking it down correctly.



Also, once a pad is saturated, you might find that adding additional polish just exacerbates the whole flashing problem and polish sticking on paint. If your pad gets to that point, don`t take it off! You`ve hit the "sweet spot". Keep polishing using no additional polish! You can keep going until you`re no longer seeing any cutting/polishing going on. At that point, spur (or brush) the heck out of the pad, apply four more dots, and start the process over again.



It`s really cool when your pad gets to the saturation point. There`s hardly any residue left behind, and you can immediately see (without having to look through residue) at the result you are getting. It feels pretty strange to buff out a whole section of a car without seeing any residue left behind or using any additional polish. The first time I did this, I kept thinking, "What are you doing?? You`re *dry buffing* this paint! whatareyoumental?" You`ll get over it fast when you see the results, though.



Hopefully this helps.... but again, it`s probably already obsolete information.



Last edit, I think:



I found that high rpm`s on a rotary did not work well with 105 at all. I pretty much stick with 1k-1.2k.