All these process choices.. are they documented?

[Accumulator]

Agreed, Rich. Let's get it resussitated [sp?].

Heh heh, a smart-aleck person , IF they were in a playful mood , and IF they were talking to SOMEONE who told Jason to "get an atlas" , might say something insufferable like "get a dictionary" . Heh heh heh says the guy who readily admits he can't spell without various aids....and who just couldn't resist.

 

[imported_zenhog]

Ok, here's a revision.



Please look for the "?" and the dotted line boxes for questions I have.



The main question is - is this a process aid, a product selecting aid, or both? When we get to the point in the process where products have to be selected, it's going to make this chart 1. very busy and 2. a huge source for disagreement lol. So.. why not put a box there that says they need to choose a product, list the products they can choose from, even maybe a one sentince tag to go with each product, and leave it at that.



i.e. look at the area for oxidation, scratches and swirls. Hopefully they'll know that you start with the least aggressive needed and then work your way down the list. we can even have a reminder of that. And then list the products by aggressiveness.



Also.. regarding the glaze issue (glaze before carnauba but not synth) I think that's another area where we have a side note and let them make the decision off the chart.



Well, your input is not only appreciated but needed to get this done. So get out your glasses, look this over, and post an update! :

http://www.autopia.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3715&size=big&papass=&sort=1

 

[shaf]

Nice work Zenhog. :xyxthumbs



It's definitely on the right track IMO.



Constructive criticizm:



1) I'd personally remove the decision trees for the carnauba and synthetics that branch them off as either durable or attractive. I think that kind of thing should be up to the user to find out...



2) .....actually the more I think about it, I think product names should be left out all together. The reason for this is that there are so many products and we already have some abrasiveness charts (and opinion threads) for most polishes, and many comparisons between sealants and waxes, which have "looks" in the eye of the beholder anyway. I think things should be broadly categorized into generalities like "mild" "very mild" "moderate" "strong" etc. and just leave the waxes/sealants as carnauba-like or sealant as is.



3) Product choices are usually broadly similar between hand and PC use. Remove rotary usage since if you're good enough to be using that you shouldn't even NEED the chart!



4) Make "Swirls Visible?" box (under "Carnauba-like") head back up towards polishing steps...... Maybe there should be a Paint Evaluation Box that leads directly down to the polish choices boxes?



5) The Dawn wash near the end is unneeded unless using Zaino (maybe have a side branch just for Zaino), since I think it should be suggested that sealant pre-cleaners (AIO, BF precleaner, etc etc) should always be used for simplicty's sake.





Okay, that's all I can think of right now...



Maybe I should give this a try sometime based on this chart.... would you mind Zenhog? Maybe...

 

[chris0626]

Oh, man, am I bummed! :angry Spent about 20 mins composing a reply to zenhog's latest effort, then my modem kicked me off and I lost the whole thing! :grrr Fortunately, 4DSC has said just about everything I thought ... and more --and even more articulately. :bow.



But, first things first: Thanks, zenhog, for making a new stab at this. :bow

1) I'd personally remove the decision trees for the carnauba and synthetics that branch them off as either durable or attractive. I think that kind of thing should be up to the user to find out...

Amen! When the chart started including qualities like "reflective" OR "durable" is when I started to throw up my hands.

2) .....actually the more I think about it, I think product names should be left out all together.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Instead, refer folks to the Detailing Products Dicussion forum or the Reviews section.

I think things should be broadly categorized into generalities like "mild" "very mild" "moderate" "strong" etc. and just leave the waxes/sealants as carnauba-like or sealant as is.

I don't understand, 4DSC. What do you mean here? Do you even think we could all agree about mild vs. moderate etc.? -- especially it partially depends on the pads being used; e.g., SMR mild with a yellow pad probably mild, but with a wool pad ....?

3) Product choices are usually broadly similar between hand and PC use. Remove rotary usage since if you're good enough to be using that you shouldn't even NEED the chart!

I second that!

4) Make "Swirls Visible?" box (under "Carnauba-like") head back up towards polishing steps...... Maybe there should be a Paint Evaluation Box that leads directly down to the polish choices boxes?

This is the one area where maybe I disagree, 4DSC. There's already a swirls/scratches/oxidation box that would lead folks into the polishing step. But for lots of folks, there still may be some minor swirls/scratches left. And I think :nixweiss they need to know that they can further minimize them by using a glaze. Am I wrong?

Maybe I should give this a try sometime based on this chart.... would you mind Zenhog? Maybe... [/B]

Not sure whether zenhog's still online, but I THINK he would welcome your help. And I certainly would. Also, for the sake of my middle-aged eyes, is there any way to make the fonts look bigger on the screen? I'm going blind trying to read all this.

 

[imported_zenhog]

Fonts bigger Lynn? Sheesh. They're set to about 12 points now!



lol.. ok, ok, I'll quit teasing. Let's see what I can do with those fonts..



More to come after I open the chart and incorporate the comments..

 

[imported_zenhog]

Ok, check out rev 3 here:



http://www.autopia.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3727&size=big&papass=&sort=1





I took out mention of rotary. And took out the subsets under synthetic decision.



What about products named in the polishing area? And products to be named in the PC vs manual area?



Also just noted before synth application that if it's Zaio to do a Dawn wash.



The Glaze step under Carnauba is there probably because of the zaio need to not have any stuff on the surface. For other synthetics does it matter? If not, then there should be glaze mentioned on that side too with the note that Zaio can't deal with fillers.

 

[shaf]

Yeesh! Sorry to hear that Lynn - I hate that when it happens!

I don't understand, 4DSC. What do you mean here? Do you even think we could all agree about mild vs. moderate etc.? -- especially it partially depends on the pads being used; e.g., SMR mild with a yellow pad probably mild, but with a wool pad ....?

Yes... this is a big stumbling block. The problem is there really isn't a "recipe" for doing this stuff, and yet here we are trying to come up with a "paint-by-numbers" type of chart! :lol I'm not sure how to resolve this without a paragraph or something.... Maybe the best approach would be to generalize it even further to call them strong, moderate, and gentle processes so that people can do whatever they want, like wool with #9 or Diamond Cut with a polishing pad.

This is the one area where maybe I disagree, 4DSC. There's already a swirls/scratches/oxidation box that would lead folks into the polishing step. But for lots of folks, there still may be some minor swirls/scratches left. And I think :nixweiss they need to know that they can further minimize them by using a glaze. Am I wrong?

No, you are right, and it is a good point. It's not "Autopian perfect", but it's an acceptable option. The only danger is if people try to rely on glazing too much when the swirls are actually too heavy for glaze to help.



BTW Lynn, you're not alone in not being able to read that chart. I couldn't make out "scratches" in the middle box and my brain kept reading "sorbaholic"! :lol :rofl

 

[imported_zenhog]

ok, let's see what I can do with that chart. i can make it bigger for the screen, you guys will just have to figure out how to print it on a normal sized piece of paper!

 

[imported_zenhog]

oh, and wherever you want a text box to make a point or explain something just let me know. we can do that too.

 

[imported_zenhog]

ok for all you folks who can't see well, try this. I may have figured out a trick to help you.



Also, note

1. there is no route for someone who just wants to do a maintenance wash, with no wax removal and/or a wax touchup

2. the Hand work for swirls, etc. What do we put there? Products?

3. Keep in mind this is a process flow, not a teaching document. If we want to get into product options or methods, then it may be hard to do on this page. i.e. mild vs moderate vs aggressive scratch removal. Do you want to get into that or put a box there and hope they know what their starting point is?



Here's the latest (and hopefully readible) chart:



http://www.autopia.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=3728&size=big&papass=&sort=1

 

[imported_RadMon]

Great work, Zenhog, and I am so glad to see work being put back into what should be a great aid to the newbie detailers!



What follows are my $0.02:



For the "Apply Synthetic" box, I feel there should be a loopback to itself since I see that many here like to put 2 or 3 (or more) coats of their favorite synthetic (especially the Zaino crowd but also for the KSG users as well). You could also think about tentatively titling this loopback arrow as "Optional."



Also, from what I've read, there are some who like to Wax after they apply the Synthetic but I see this is not represented in the flow. Again, this is an optional choice and should likely be left up to the reader to make and experiment with.



As a last step, I think another optional step would be to QD on top of the wax (I know I do as my experience with the products I'm using have proven that a final QD does add a bit more wetness/gloss).



I think it woudl be a good idea to add footnotes like how one tells if they have oxidation or not (that's one I still have to research but I'm not worried about it at this time since I have a brand new car). Up above you imply why Clay Barring is needed (when the finish is not smoot as glass). I do think many (but not all) have an understanding of what swirls and scratches are, though.



One very important point, I think from a newbie point of view, is that the blocks should be able to add a footnote which lists applicable products. I know there is much contention about certain products and how manufacturers blur the lines with terms like polishes, glazes, cleaners, etc. but one product could be listed in two or more places if necessary with explanations as to why (some us AIO as a pure sealant while others think it's also a very light swirl reducer/polish). I'm not saying that the first pass will the golden rule but it makes something concrete for y'all to discuss and work from there toward the final statements and how they should reflect the varied uses and opinions of all who care to be part of this great effort.



As some have pointed out, this is one chart (for the annual or 6-month full detailing) and it would probably be fairly easy to make a simpler version for the weekly/monthly upkeep of minor washing/waxing/QD'ing.



Thanks for all the hard work to all those who are involved in this effort! I don't know what I can contribute but just let me know if I can!

 

[Accumulator]

OK, time for me to stop teasing Lynn and actually contribute something worthwhile



RadMon- Good observations.



Zenhog- The latest version is a LOT easier to read, at least for me. And it prints out OK.



Trying to incorporate all the recent input...



Might be a little tough to avoid brand-name references, but yeah, we should try to keep it as generic as possible (could list products in the footnotes).



Yes, how about if we just have a separate, simpler chart for maintenance washes?



Yes, how about a "repeat until satisfied loop" of some kind for layering of sealants?



Adding an optional QD process at the end might be a good idea, same with a wax topper for synthetics (maybe a decision/test and branch to the wax process?).



NOT intending to :argue with 4DSC, but maybe we CAN come up with a simplified "recipe" for some of this stuff. e.g., for product/pad combos, we could just stick with the conventional wisdom: work imperfections from severe to moderate to minor using "normal" combinations- FCRC/wool or cutting, polishes/cutting or polishing, glazes and SMR/polishing or finishing (it could even be MORE simplified than this). Yeah, people DO use all kinds of products and combinations, but we could stick with the known/agreed upon favorites. Steer people with BAD scratches more towards FCRC, people with MINOR swirls more towards SMR and most people towards the middle of the two (I can't help but think PI-III MG, but that's brand naming...).



Maybe a loop from the final "swirls visible?" test (maybe test for "very minor" or "more noticeable") back to the polish process(es?) as an option/alternative to the glaze process (sometimes you find you didn't do as well as you wish you had and want to redo the polishing).



For hand use, I *THINK* all the products we're talking about can be used by either RO or by hand. We're not discussing products that need the heat/speed of a rotary and a RO is really just a fast (and indefatigable) hand. I use all my products by hand or RO without trouble.



How can I help you with the compounding/polishing processes? I worry about assuming that the user will know where/how to start, especially with this particular process(es). I'd have tests/decisions based on severity of the imperfections, which would lead to branching to [compounding with FCRC/wool or cutting], [polishing with polishes/cutting or polishing], [LIGHT polishing with SMR, etc./polishing (or finishing? I never do this with a finishing pad, myself)] processes. These would have to be nested/charted right so that you go from aggressive-->intermediate-->final AND CAN ALSO go straight to the individual process (e.g., final polishing) as needed.

 

[JimS]

I'd been under the impression that it is a really good idea to do a second wash following the clay. Should that step be included?



Great job! This will really be helpful.

 

[Accumulator]

I'd been under the impression that it is a really good idea to do a second wash following the clay. Should that step be included?

This is one of those "opinions vary" issues. I DON'T wash after claying, but then I usually clay while I wash. GENERALLY, *I* think if you clay "right" (this is NOT intended as a slam at anyone!) there will be little if any residue, at least nothing the "next step" wouldn't remove. I've gone straight from (post-wash style) claying to wax plenty of times. But that's JUST MY TAKE on this. The more responses we get on this the better..let's have the chart reflect the majority opinion/"conventional wisdom".