Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

gmblack3a said:
So far my PTG findings show that no excessive CC is removed when using the KBM.
Click to expand...



Hey man, don't take me the wrong way. Some guys (JimmyBuffit, for example) preach about not removing more than half a mil or the CC is wrecked. I have to guess that on a serious correction you are taking that much off...and will the owner just go to the swirlomatic again? How many times has the car been buffed before, does anyone really see one of these cars 5 years or 10 years down the road? I'm not being critical, I'm just thinking out loud about this stuff. I've taken some PTG readings on my cars that have scared the crap out of me.
 
Jakerooni said:
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)
Click to expand...



No man, only the latest version is labeled for DA, the original was hand and rotary. I think the secret is the uniform size and sharpness of the abrasive...think Unigrit in a bottle.
 
Yeah, *I* am in the "don't take off too much clear!!" camp myself. And (or "but") M105 doesn't seem excessively aggressive, at least not on the hard clear I'll use it on. It's possible to make it behave quite mildly with the right pad/technique..man I resisted trying M105 for *so* long, but once I finally did, well, that was that.



Cut of "12"? Only if you want it be like that. It's sure not rocks-in-a-bottle IMO.



But yeah...I do worry about people overdoing it with stuff like this. For a guy like me who hardly *ever* corrects the whole car it's great, but people who keep remarring their vehicles had better be a little careful as you can't just keep M105ing marring away time after time.



It's sorta like the way every kid with a few grand to spend can buy a car that woulda been considered "scary-fast" twenty years ago. "Can" doesn't always equal "should".



gmblack3a- Yeah, I thought the "how much clear is removed" thing was primarily just an interesting observation, not like a matter of it being excessive. My interest is merely intellectual curiosity as opposed to a real concern (especially as I'm not all that fond of my rotaries anyhow).
 
I see it like this. If you have RIDS or a scratch you just have to have removed, you have to lose some clear. Its that simple.



Any comments from Tood and Bryan on the process? Is my diagram off-the-wall or on the mark?
 
So for with my Defelsko PosiTector 200 Series (Advanced) any plastic bumper on at least 10 cars that I have tested tell me that the clear is 2.0-3.0 mills thick. Incase you don't know the 200 advanced can read each layer, but it only works on plastics or composites. I have only had the chance to use it on a repainted vette so far and the clear was in the 2.0-2.5 mill range.



It takes a lot of compounding to remove .1 mill of clearcoat. Using an airsander with 1500, then 3000 trizact will not remove .1 mill of clearcoat and even after polishing out you wont have that much removed. Now I know that is very hard for all of the clearcoat police around here to believe. But untill you go out and spend in excess of $2500 for the advanced 200 you are not going to know for yourself.



Back to the KBM and how much clearcoat is removed. Yesterday I took around 20 readings with my DFT Combo where I had a tape line. If you have a PTG you will know that clearcoat readings can vary in areas as small as 1 sq inch. Using the mill setting I could not read a reduction in CC thickness, switching to microns I had found 2 places out of the 10 side by side reading that I did where the reading was reduced by 1 micron.



Now people using different techniques may produce different results.
 
I think people get carried away with the amount of clearcoat they are removing when they polish.





One post I have not yet seen on Autopia and most likely never will is:



Ooops! I burned through the center of my door while doing a correction. Pics (not 56k safe)
 
gmblack3a said:
So for with my Defelsko PosiTector 200 Series (Advanced) any plastic bumper on at least 10 cars that I have tested tell me that the clear is 2.0-3.0 mills thick. Incase you don't know the 200 advanced can read each layer, but it only works on plastics or composites. I have only had the chance to use it on a repainted vette so far and the clear was in the 2.0-2.5 mill range.



It takes a lot of compounding to remove .1 mill of clearcoat. Using an airsander with 1500, then 3000 trizact will not remove .1 mill of clearcoat and even after polishing out you wont have that much removed. Now I know that is very hard for all of the clearcoat police around here to believe. But untill you go out and spend in excess of $2500 for the advanced 200 you are not going to know for yourself.



Back to the KBM and how much clearcoat is removed. Yesterday I took around 20 readings with my DFT Combo where I had a tape line. If you have a PTG you will know that clearcoat readings can vary in areas as small as 1 sq inch. Using the mill setting I could not read a reduction in CC thickness, switching to microns I had found 2 places out of the 10 side by side reading that I did where the reading was reduced by 1 micron.



Now people using different techniques may produce different results.
Click to expand...



I'm not trying to be argumentative. On my 15yo GM clear, I used an old coating thickness tester that I borrowed from work, which was a $2K unit in it's day (name brand industrial unit). I'd have to look up the numbers, but I'm sure I took off a half mil with my PC and #83. Perhaps it was because the finish was old and oxidized, but I did wonder if that was an accurate number. Later, on my new car, using my Octane Guy-recommended Chinese unit that my friend Jr. bought me for my birthday, I believe I got similar removal (that was using some pretty agressive pads/polishes) when trying to remove the DISO. Knowing how squirrely eddy-current testing can be, I'm not sure if I should believe these numbers. In both cases, I stopped taking readings because I wanted to continue polishing, in the case of the old car because it was a beater at the end of its life and I couldn't really make it much worse, and on the new car because I couldn't live with it the way it was. I'd like to believe I wasn't really taking anything off of the new car, because I wasn't really doing anything to the swirls, except when I went to SSR3 on a 4" pad.
 
Danase said:
Why not just use a polish with diminishing abrasives?
Click to expand...



Because they aren't as effective at removing deeper defects vs polishes with small but very hard non-diminishing abrasives. Not only is Meguiars moving in that direction but I believe that Optimum did as well with their new polishes.
 
Scottwax said:
Because they aren't as effective at removing deeper defects vs polishes with small but very hard non-diminishing abrasives. Not only is Meguiars moving in that direction but I believe that Optimum did as well with their new polishes.
Click to expand...



100%. If you have the same size grit 100% through the process, you have removed all of the defects of that depth. Then pull back a bit and you can finesse the finer marks remaining with the same polish and possibly a different pad.



The situation is, what if the dininishing abrasive diminishes prior to you being completed with that polishing process? You have to use more and make another pass.



I'm certainly not saying everything can become a one step.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I'm not trying to be argumentative. On my 15yo GM clear, I used an old coating thickness tester that I borrowed from work, which was a $2K unit in it's day (name brand industrial unit). I'd have to look up the numbers, but I'm sure I took off a half mil with my PC and #83. Perhaps it was because the finish was old and oxidized, but I did wonder if that was an accurate number. Later, on my new car, using my Octane Guy-recommended Chinese unit that my friend Jr. bought me for my birthday, I believe I got similar removal (that was using some pretty agressive pads/polishes) when trying to remove the DISO. Knowing how squirrely eddy-current testing can be, I'm not sure if I should believe these numbers. In both cases, I stopped taking readings because I wanted to continue polishing, in the case of the old car because it was a beater at the end of its life and I couldn't really make it much worse, and on the new car because I couldn't live with it the way it was. I'd like to believe I wasn't really taking anything off of the new car, because I wasn't really doing anything to the swirls, except when I went to SSR3 on a 4" pad.
Click to expand...



As you noted, I'd be hard pressed to believe you where removing that much clear or paint. Anything is possible, but without a quality PTG.....
 
So can any users of the new M105 /M205 comment on the swelling and resistance to IPA wipedowns that have now hit the Menzerna line? Is it too premature to make any conclusions?



I'd really not be pleased if I knew I was giving an end product that has the potential to receed in the right conditions.
 
gmblack3a said:
As you noted, I'd be hard pressed to believe you where removing that much clear or paint. Anything is possible, but without a quality PTG.....
Click to expand...



The Chinese gage may be a POS, but the one I borrowed from work should have been pretty good. We usually use it for non-ferrous, and the substrate geometry and IIRC surface finish seems to affect it, so I dunno, not sure if the ferrous probe reacts that way. The paint didn't fall off my old car in the last year I had it, so I didn't instantly ruin it. Anyway, makes me feel better that you have trouble removing .1 mil.
 
Okay, I'm going to do my best to clear up some questions (and hesitantly admit that I am not Kevin Brown)..



I'm missing something here, its just DA polishing



It is DA polishing, but there are specific differences in technique, pressure, pad selection, etc, to take advantage of the newer +Non Diminishing Abrasives+ found in compounds like M105. Specifically there is a technique adjustment to take advantage of the slightly different characteristics of a non-diminishing abrasive polish.



This is crazy, people are using a compound with a cut of 12



Most polishes (I assume) rate there cut as the paint removed over a buffing cycle (from initial polishing to abrasive breakdown). A cut of 10 would mean a lot of paint removal (and hopefully high point leveling) during the buffing cycle.



However non-diminishing abrasives don't have a cycle in the traditional sense, because the polish will cut and cut and cut. That cut over time is what makes M105 cut so well (it has no 'timer' it removes as much or as little paint as needed) while still finishing nicely.



In other words, remove light swirls by buzzing the polish for 10-15 seconds, or remove deep scratches by working longer, maybe 2 minutes. The resulting finish when you wipe away the polish will be the same (the abrasives over the same cut/finish weather applied for 1 pass or 20)You choose the cut, not the length of the polishing cycle. In other words, you control the polish, the polish doesn't control you.



Doesn't priming the pad require excessive polish?



Yes



What is so great about the KBM?



On excessively scratched paint that requires heavy leveling, I can take a compound and wool pad, make 3 or 4 heavy applications, followed by a medium polish, followed by a finishing polish, or I can do the KBM, work until all the defects are removed, then final polish. (Or get really fancy, switch to a finishing pad and more the M105 remaining on the paint to a perfect shine).



Or on soft paints that require heavy cutting (for several applications) then require a ton of medium polishing steps to remove all the compound marks, etc, I can simply do the KBM and remove it all in seconds. I probably saved 8 hours on a 328 Ferrari, maybe more. Also there was no stress and guess work, M105, porter cable, work until defects are gone.



Am I removing too much paint?



I would liken DA polishing with a non diminishing abrasive polish more like wet sanding with a super high grit paper, since we have eliminated the variability (and clumsiness) of abrasive break down cycles. I found wet sanding to be among the most effective tools for paint defect removal only because you can sand flat until the defects are removed, then stop. Non diminishing abrasives are similar in application, polish until the defects are gone, then stop. No need to work through a cycle.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Hey man, don't take me the wrong way. Some guys (JimmyBuffit, for example) preach about not removing more than half a mil or the CC is wrecked.
Click to expand...



I was in the same Meguiars class as Jim was and we were told that while clear coats typically average 1.5-2.0 mils thick, you should always assume 1.5 mil thickness since PTG's only show total paint thickness. We were advised to not remove more than .3 mil via wetsanding, leaving .1 mil for removing the wetsanding marks which leaves you .1 mil above the minimum critical 1.0 mil level you don't want to go below.
 
So from a technology standpoint, the step-change has been the ability to create sharp, hard particles of uniform size? (the underlying technology that allows 105 to exist). I know the particle uniformity has been a bugaboo in the abrasive business, as far as hardness, the move from silicon carbide and other ceramics to diamond started long ago...just curious if you know what the "critical mass" was that allowed this (apparently) unique series of compounds/polishes to be created.
 
Has anyone else read about the new line of compounds that Menzerna is producing for release?



The most interesting product I read about is due out this May and is called 206dd.



From the site-

3/6/09

New for 2009, Menzera introduces 206dd, utilizing the finest non-diminishing abrasive technology known to man. This ground-breaking compound contains contain genuine diamond bits collected from certified blood-free jewelers in Antwerp. The 206dd diamond media is uniformly ground and filtered in size to remove 2000 grit sanding marks. The fact that the abrasives used in this compound are actual diamonds, assures the end user that there is no finer way to correct "cerami-clear" and the newer "nano" technology clear coat finishes.



Its being marketed to the automobile aftermarket, marble floor polishers, and granite countertop cutters.



Its going to retail for $695.00 US per liter, GIA certification not included. The good news is, as long as you keep cleaning the media, you can reuse it indefinitely.



Sounds like a must have in 09.:Paypal:

















If you believe that, I have a few bottles to sell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top