Anthony A said:
First I see you found my post from a few years ago when I first started using UF. At that point I had just purchased it and I was new to it. I found it to be lighter than FP II when I used it. At that time I had been using FP II for years and had my technique down. I was very comfortable with the polish and knew its quirks and limitations. UF I had just started using and was no where near as proficient with it yet. Much practice and tweaking of my technique with UF has changed (obviously) the results I get.
Results are often dependent on experience. That is why we must strive to qualify people's opinions on the Internet otherwise poor unsuspecting souls could read lines like "Ultrafina is milder then FPII" with out the prerequisite "I only polish my own cars with Ultrafina and a Porter Cable so I don't have very much experience" they are mislead into weighing the worth of the opinion.
Anthony A said:
My side by side comparisons of UF and FP II now get me different results as you would expect. Interesting that in that thread when I suggested UF was lighter than FPII the people that posted in that thread all disagreed. They said UF was much more aggressive than FPII which I agree with now after becoming more comfortable with the polish. I'm glad you posted that because it proves I'm not the only one that thinks UF has more cut than FP II.
It's a good thing you didn't start attacking those people who had different opinions of you then.
Anthony A said:
Here is the link to the thread in question. It's about what polish has the absolute lightest cut. I had forgotten about that thread or I would have posted a link to it earlier to prove there are many others that don't think UF is so light after all. Thanks David for helping me make my point although I know that was not your intention.
What polish has the absolute lightest cut?
The only point proven is how people will post opinions and defend them with out having the required experience to offer a very meaningful opinion, then change their opinion, yet not learn from their mistakes.
Anthony A said:
You ask how I determine if it filled or not. Simple. I use the polish and the marring was gone. I wipe the area down with alcohol and it did not come back. I polish the area again with KAIO and the marring did not come back. It has been months and it some cases more and the marring has not come back. Is that not enough to safely say the marring was removed not filled?
If something works by your standards then nobody is trying to tell you that you are wrong for liking the way a product performs. The problem is when you are going make definitive statements about people being wrong because their opinion is different then yours. When you pass your opinion off as factual in light of evidence that you are wrong then I do feel you are being misleading because you are more interested in defending your opinion then having open discussions.
I work with Body Shops all day long. I have taught one particular 3M rep how to use his product and regularly talk with two others. I have detailed cars for over twenty years and even doing this part time I average at least one full paint correction per week. I have provided why my experience would disagree with your opinions. You have attacked me and my creditability.
Anthony A said:
I use UF and FP II with a PC. My cars do not get any defects that need anything close to rotary power to correct. Don't see what that has to do with anything any ways.
Well this has EVERYTHING to do with it. If your experience is limited to doing your own cars every once in a while with a DA and UltraFina, at least it qualifies your experience and adds allows people an accurate way to weigh the value of your opinion. I am not sure what you do for a full time job or what your area of expertise is but if you where an investment banker I wouldn't question you on interest rates just because I once put some money in my bank account.
The problem is that you are not being objective towards your own lack of experience, but would rather defend an opinion you have. Of course using a PC gives you the benefit of eliminating holograms because of the random scratch pattern you create.
Anthony A said:
Now we can debate weather UF has some fillers or not. In fact we could debate that about any polish. Menezera claims that their polishes don't fill and some say they do. Megs says theirs don't and the oils are trade secrete oils for lubrication. Goes on and on. No big deal to me.
Oils can cause unwanted filling.
Anthony A said:
Your claim about paint thinner though just takes it to a whole new level. There is no way that any fillers in UF would not be removed by multiple coats of paint thinner. The lack of comments supporting you on that proves I'm not alone. You seem to be liked and you would have tons of support on that if it was believed by others. It is an outrageous claim.
I am sure that you have applied castor oil with a high speed rotary to a freshly applied paint and tried to remove it with various solvents, prep solutions, and alcohol or have polished your own cars with a PC a couple times. One or the other?
Anthony A said:
No matter what else is posted in this thread. UF works well for me. It removes more than FP II does and what it removes stays gone after months and years so unless it has indestructible fillers, which your claims about paint thinner seem to suggest, the defects where removed not filled.
As long as it works for you and your experience then great. You have no idea what you are talking about as far as removing certain products from paint but you do polish your own cars on occasion with a PC. At least those who read this thread will have an accurate idea on to way your opinion and will find your arguments on this thread with other respected detailers who have tons of experience laughable.
