Online demonstration of technique.

[WhyteWizard]

I've been thinking of a way to standardize demonstrations of the various products and techniques.

There's no doubt there are a lot of guys here who get really good results using a pretty wide variety of tools, materials, and technique, so, how can we assess the various strengths and weakness' of the different styles?

Here's what I've come up with so far and I'm hoping some other people will contribute.

First, we need a test panel that's reproducible. There are metal supply places all over the country and I'm pretty sure most of them have off the shelf sizes of sheet metal that are within square inches of each other.

Next, we need to have a standard primer, base-coat, clear-coat that's both cheap enough for people to afford it and at the same time polishes nicely.

Then, we need a standardized scratch pattern. To that end, I think machine sanding wet is better than dry sanding because wet sanding doesn't create the infamous pigtails of the recent challenge.

From that point on, the same size panel, same paint, same scratch pattern, it's up to each of us to decide how to handle the situation. The point would be to show how each of us gets the results we get and how long it might take us each to get there. Obviously, a panel isn't a car, it doesn't have the same challenges, the inside and outside curves, right angles, moldings, tight spots, etc. but at least it would give us a starting point.

Then, I think the panel should be well lit, and the process should be shown in one continuous shot from start to finish up to and including wiping off the excess material and a final wipe with solvent or IPA. You can decide if you want to count the cleanup time or not as far as comparisons are concerned. If the people want to share what they use, that's up to them, but in any case it has to be understood up front that none of us are representing anything unless are authorized to do so. I doubt seriously that many manufacturers are going to be excited about this sort of thing because there are still too many variables involved. I can tell you right now, I'll probably keep my own council on that part.

I hope this will be a good starting point and others will make suggestions to move the process forward.

Robert

 

[RaysWay]

I love this. I've even considered attempting to execute some sort of standardized testing personally like you've suggested, but I think the amount of energy needed to properly execute this sort of scientific approach greatly outweighs the result.

It's sort of like trying to scientifically prove the best skillet to cook a steak. Sure you can buy a ton of unique skillets manufactured by different processes, each with its own unique alloys. Then you can determine a specific temperate and control the humidity and the air temperature and etc etc etc. Then you can record all this data and at the end of the day, all you have is a bunch of data on what you think works best to cook that specific type of meat (or in this case, clearcoat).

I think the better approach is to have a good chef (detailer), who can make very good meals (details) with whatever ingredients he is given (tools/chemicals).

 

[alexxxx89]

Another barrier to this is measuring the application of downward pressure. Unless everyone gets a Force Gauge, or every D/A or Rotary gets one built in, you cannot accurately and reliably reproduce results (which is half of testing/proving something empirically).

The other problem with standardization in this field is that there is no "standard" for paint. The variables involved in every vehicle are different.

I support a list of "basic" techniques, with the caveat that each one is relative to the user and that results may vary.

Cool idea though!

 

[RaysWay]

Another barrier to this is measuring the application of downward pressure. Unless everyone gets a Force Gauge, or every D/A or Rotary gets one built in, you cannot accurately and reliably reproduce results (which is half of testing/proving something empirically).

The other problem with standardization in this field is that there is no "standard" for paint. The variables involved in every vehicle are different.

I support a list of "basic" techniques, with the caveat that each one is relative to the user and that results may vary.

Cool idea though!

Empirical! Thank you, I was looking for that word earlier lol. Good points.

 

[alexxxx89]

Empirical! Thank you, I was looking for that word earlier lol. Good points.

:bigups It seems the $2600/semester tuition is paying off. Believe it or not Social Work is rooted in evidence-based research and practice. I am no stranger to the scientific method.

 

[WhyteWizard]

The standard paint would be the same brand, mix and application. How people run their various machines would be up to them, in the same way different chefs use their knives differently. There's no doubt there would be a lot of great results and we'd be able to see those results in real time. There's not just one way, I'm more interested in seeing all the ways.

One thing I thought of after the original posting is this: It would be interesting to take paint thickness readings before and after to see which methods sacrificed the most paint on the way to getting an acceptable result.


Robert

 

[spcrhaviland]

The standard paint would be the same brand, mix and application. How people run their various machines would be up to them, in the same way different chefs use their knives differently. There's no doubt there would be a lot of great results and we'd be able to see the ways those results can be achieved. There's not just one way, I'm more interested in seeing all the ways.

Robert

Well yes in the testing environment the paint qualities would be the same throughout, but you can't generalize those results to every other paint out there is what I am saying. Your idea is valid for sure, maybe someone can organize a demonstration booth at SEMA next year for experts from the different companies to demo their techniques and record it. I also agree that visual demonstrations of people's different styles would be cool to see, especially for the purpose of establishing proper habits for beginners.

 

[RaysWay]

:bigups It seems the $2600/semester tuition is paying off. Believe it or not Social Work is rooted in evidence-based research and practice. I am no stranger to the scientific method.

Hahaha I believe it. Science is all around us.

The standard paint would be the same brand, mix and application. How people run their various machines would be up to them, in the same way different Chefs use their knives differently. There's no doubt there would be a lot of great results and we'd be able to see the ways those results can be achieved. There's not just one way, I'm more interested in seeing all the ways.

Robert

Ya I hear you. It just depends on how critical we want to be with the variables. For example, I imagine if a single painter was given 3 hoods to paint in the same paint booth, with 3 of the same paint guns, and mixed the paint/hardener/catalyst himself, and then attempted to duplicate his application as much as possible; it could still be argued that each hood is unique. It would be amazing if they weren't unique. Even identical twins aren't identical. Which is just one of the many problems. A single cubic centimeter (cc) of extra hardener would technically disqualify that panel as an experimental control.

But I do really like your thinking here...you've got me thinking of some ideas. I'll see what I can do...

 

[WhyteWizard]

The variation between operators, those running the machines will be the biggest difference IMHO. I would expect big differences between people running exactly same set ups. Except that I think anyone who makes a video, then doesn't get a result they'd like to share, probably won't make it public. I can't imagine the person I was thirty years ago, that skill set, competing with me now. No contest. Still, I think it's worth doing, so I'm going to go ahead and get some panels painted and give it a shot. I'll tell what paint was used and how the panels were prepped for the video, but I doubt I'll give away much more than that. I'll let the video show what it shows.


Robert

 

[Smack]

Robert,

This is a very good idea to try and standardize demonstrations across many different products.

The test panel idea picked up from a local metal distributer is great and will give everyone something to test on and create a good starting point.

Now things will get more complicated and even harder to "Standardize" a process. For paint manufacturers there are many that can be chosen on. One thing that needs to be addressed is that these test panels are all sprayed with either water based paint or solvent based. Once this is sorted out the chemicals in the system have to be chosen. i.e. reducer, hardener and so forth. To make it simple let's say PPG.

Now with a "Standardized" paint manufacturer and chemical selection, things get progressively harder to "Standardize". Finding a paint shop that uses only one manufacturer's paint gun. Lets use SATA guns in example. Now we need to find out if the painter is using a High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) gun or a Reduced Pressure (RP) gun. Once this is sorted out a "Standardized" needle selection will be required. Some painters are comfortable with a 1:3 needle (myself) while others use a 1:4 or higher. If we ask a painter that is comfortable with a 1:3 to spray he will have no problems whereas if we ask a painter used to a 1:6 to spray with a 1:3 he may be out of his comfort zone. Assuming we get all this "Standardized", the style and technique between the painters will be different. At this point let's just say a "Standardized" process is feasible.

Now what WILL not be "Standardized" is the painter making his selection of chemicals to mix to effectively work in say a hot and humid place such as Miami. A painter in say the hot dry air such as Las Vegas will have to alter his selection to effectively spray in his region. At this point we have lost the "Standardized" system as the painter in Vegas has to use more reducer to make up for the dry air. Also the temperature at which the paint booth will bake and maintain temperature is equally important. The booth will also play a role in this as the booth could be an updraft or downdraft etc.

With the painting process there are far to many variables that can not be controlled.

Although we can however implement some sort of "Standardized" product testing procedure.

Great idea and discussion. Looking forward to continuous feedback

Best Regards,
Mike

 

[WhyteWizard]

Hey Mike,

I suggest something like this: "MRS-6400 European Clearcoat 2.1 V.O.C. is a high solid clearcoat glamour clear. This clearcoat mixes 2:1 with an activator system designed for various temperature ranges. It can be air dried or baked." I've worked with this, it's not expensive and widely available here in the States.

As long as the painter mixes the paint according to spec, then puts enough clear on the panel to accommodate the amount sacrificed to sandpaper the polishing characteristics should be close enough for this purpose. Maybe we should think about curing though. In my experience, paint cuts easier when it's fresh but cuts better, to a higher gloss with less trouble when it's at least a few weeks old. What do you think of having a two weeks in the sun cure time? A person could do the initial cut for distinctness of image but then wait a few weeks do the wetsand with machine, 3/16 throw random orbital, 3M finishing film, for example to create the scratch and then polish.

The trickiest part as far as I'm concerned might be the sanding. Good sanding makes a huge difference, the number of pigtails - which shouldn't be a problem with we discs - the amount of pressure, does the person lighten up on the pressure for the last few passes, etc. That's why if I'm asked to polish behind someone else's sanding, I do a test, see what they've buried, then either ask them to sand again or sand it again myself. But I digress. I'm sure you got all this instantly.

Still, at the end of the day, there's at least a starting point. Then, if we wanted to go from virtual to real, we could have people volunteer at SEMA or some other big show, polish in real time with panels painted and sanded all as close to the same as possible. Imagine , detailers from all over the world, opening their cases and taking out their machines, that steely eyed look.... Is that funny or what?

BTW, I never cut 1500 grit scratch. I go all the way to at least 3000, because I want it to look like I was never there, no hint of sandpaper distortion, a real, "off the gun" finish.

All the best,
Robert

 

[Smack]

Hi Robert,

Sounds like a good selection available widely that should provide consistent results. As I mentioned earlier, gun choice and needle selection will also play a role in the outcome as well as humidity, temperature, and how the panel is baked.

As we both know, curing, can really effect how the paint behaves during testing sessions. If we all agree to bake the panel, how fast or slow it is accomplished will play a role. Especially if you can not control the humidity during baking. Here in Germany, I would never be able to let the panel cure in the sun for 2 weeks let alone a day or two with the rainy cloudy weather experienced here. Same thing goes back in the states. In Las Vegas, most of the time we would let the paint set up and bake the finish outside in 100+ degree sunny weather. As you mentioned, initial cut and buff jobs will perform differently after cure time and 2-3 weeks down the road.

The sanding part will be the trickiest part of the operation as you mentioned. This will be harder to standardize than anything with so many variables involved. I'm with you on sanding. I remember starting out in the body in Las Vegas and those guys wanted to see what I was made out of. Some how the managed to get everything wrong during the painting process and gave me a white 2010 Chevrolet Silverado with a bedside that felt like Stucco paint! Boy was that hole to dig out of! Started cutting on 1000 and finished with 3000. All by an air DA.

Wouldn't that be cool to see a project like that at SEMA doing real time demos?

I have cut 1500 scratch out before. 849, 3M wool, and 3M perfect-it compound. It did the job but what an ugly process. I too prefer to finish out with 3000. This way you don't have to be so aggressive during compounding and will end up with that crystal clear finish. "Off the Gun"

Best Regards,
Mike