First and foremost, this is a great thread and many thanks to Jon for taking the time to post and share some of his valuable information with the community: always a pleasure to read what he has to say.
While I appreciate what both Jon and Ron are bringing to this discussion from the scientific aspect of things, I'm very much bothered in what I'm reading in some ways. It's important to know and understand what happens and why in paint correction / paint systems, but I feel there are important points that are completely missing. One such area is touched on by Bryan:
gmblack3 said:
At least 80% of the readings that I have taken with my Advanced 200 PTG show the clear makes up approx 2/3 of the total thickness. This of course only covers composite, plastic or other non-metal panels. So if I show 5 mils total, 3 mils of that is usually clear. As always YMMV!
Oddly enough, I've been noticing similar results (usually around 50% of the total thickness being the clear-coat on my identical Deflesko 200 Advanced) on composite materials. I don't think this is far from the truth. Take into account we're limited to reading plastic the majority of the time (number one composite body material on the majority of cars), and those bumpers, mirrors, etc are not being painted the same way the rest of the car is. While the shell's are being sprayed by robots all at once, many bumpers and mirrors are coming directly from suppliers. In addition to coming from a completely different place, I'd like to know what affect flex-agents have on paint systems: specifically clear-coat. While it may be just one added ingredient, that one added ingredient means the formula for the paint is different.
Without a doubt there's a lot of research and development going into automotive finishes: especially for the OEM side of things, but I feel it's important to point out that not all panels are painted in the same way. Manufacturers do a lot of fancy testing to make sure their paint systems will hold up to wear and tear, but suppliers play a large role in all of this too, and often they're not the exact same systems.
This leads me to me other main point, which is the way the industry looks at things compared to how detailers look at things. Let's be frank: having your car looking like-new or better-than-new is not a necessity. The overwhelming majority of the population would consider us crazy (and does) for the extremes we go to in order to make cars look their best. The industry has guidelines and standards for how cars need to be made for a desired result. With the overwhelming majority of the population not caring what they steer around nor how it looks, the industry must cater to their number one buyer. Detailers however look at the potential a vehicle has and how that car can potentially look if cared for correctly. I think Bob summed my feelings towards all this "premature clear-coat failure" and "jeopardizing paint systems" talk:
Auto Concierge said:
Who knew.....................man I guess my clients for the last 17 years plus have been extremely "Lucky" as I have been taking away thier UV protection everytime they see me. Maybe it's time for me to do something else.
Now we all know Bob's a very shy guy, and it usually takes a lot of prying to get his honest opinion, so take what he's saying in context: if what was being through-out this thread was true: we'd all be running around with a ton of clients that have major paint issues; mainly their clear would flaking off in large sections / they'd be getting "crow's feet" lines from clear-coat failure. But it's not. The reason is simple: the industry is full of crap / their rules don't completely apply to us.
This is meant with no offense to any of the gentleman that I hold in high regard. Jon, Ron, Dr. G, etc all have great backgrounds and have likely done more for professional car care than I ever will. Never the less, we're talking about an industry (car manufacturing) that is only looking out for themselves. If you remove more than half a mil of clear-coat you're basically voiding your paint's warranty because you'll ruin the car?
Sure. Saab gives their owners instructions that their cars shouldn't be waxed?
Right.
Manufacturers test things in the condition it is produced.
The first half of these two following sentences is 100% true, the second part is the deduction that OEM manufacurers believe in due to those truths:
Modern clear-coat's don't
need to be waxed, so they shouldn't be.
They don't
need to be polished, so they shouldn't be.
The big guns don't want clear-coat removed simply because of the numbers. If they put out 100,000 cars with half the clear-coat removed, they're going to see huge spikes in paint issues.
They're making their rules and recommendations based off the majority of the population, and the majority of the population treats their cars like absolute crap, and I feel that's extremely important to point out. We are not the majority of the population nor are our clients.
Anyhow...
