Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

HEY EVERYBODY!



BLAME TODD FOR THE HYPE! :cry:



HE NAMED IT THE KEVIN BROWN METHOD! :hide:



I doubt he realized what a monster he created by doing so... :hm
 
jdoria said:
B Schools...



cross-pollination

outsourcing

right-sizing

macro management

e-marketing

shifting paradigms

stacking of management



All bullshiznit. How many people here have, or know someone who lost their job for one of these reasons?



In corporate America (Can I sound more rude?) When the old dogs bank enough dough to kick back, the HR departments are forced to hound the B-schools to recruit some kids with "ideas". (Remember the movie "In Good Company? If not, watch it.) These kids re-hash the old correct ways and attempt to do things they have no experience doing! This is why old stuff ALWAYS comes back.

Because its the way to do it!:spot
Click to expand...



Amen, brother.
 
Kevin Brown said:
HEY EVERYBODY!



BLAME TODD FOR THE HYPE! :cry:



HE NAMED IT THE KEVIN BROWN METHOD! :hide:



I doubt he realized what a monster he created by doing so... :hm
Click to expand...



Once people realize who well it works I have no problem with people calling the THM. I'm humble like that ;)
 
I am waiting for the final "paper" to be released before i make my final decision on my purchase. I was tempted to buy a flex kit with menzerna solutions, but after reading about this method i decided to hold off a little longer to see if i should go with a PC instead of flex.
 
Jakerooni said:
wow... really?? This is where it's headed to? 12 on the scale and it's a new "miricle' product? I'm really not liking that. Although I can see it's uses for the PC. It;s only logical that when you factor in all variables and need to get equal results if you're using a less aggressive machine you need a more aggresive product to compensate. Hopefully no one grabs this super compound and a rotary and goes to town on a clearcoat or something. 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...



Truly no offense meant, so please don't take it that way... but it's pretty clear that you don't.



For those of us that have used M105 extensively, we realize that M105 is actually a safer option to old school products. Before, you would use an abrasive compound to get out the heavy defects, and use the products until the heavy defects were gone. But then your compound and heavy twisted wool would leave some nasty and relatively deep damage itself, which would then require removing that as well.



M105 allows you to remove those defects without creating its own damage (aside from occasional LIGHT stuff that would come out in the already necessary fine polish anyway), effectively REDUCING how much paint is removed.



Also, the method makes perfect sense, saves time, and when you consider the fewer applications vs old school methods, I have found the product usage to be the same or less (especially considering you can re-wet and get a second pass "for free")



Kevin Brown knows what he is doing, and I'm sure it will be sufficiently clear soon enough. :xyxthumbs
 
this entire thread has me a little upset. I try all these months to learn how to use a rotary, buy all the pads and plates, etc for it, and now I'm reading that all i need is my PC to begin with! I hope this isn't a fad. Next thing you know, the two bucket method will be disproved and there will be a surplus of buckets everywhere.
 
RZJZA80 said:
... Next thing you know, the two bucket method will be disproved and there will be a surplus of buckets everywhere.
Click to expand...



Now YOU are FUNNY...! :spit:



Some capitalist will turn those buckets into portable clothes washing machines or something...



No, you have not wasted your time or money with the rotary.

If there were such a thing as The World's Best Paint-Polisher competition...



One finalist would use the rotary while the other used a random-orbital.

I'd enter just to see if I could beat them both... Doing my polishing by hand.



THAT is the AMERICAN way, baby...! :grinno:
 
jdoria said:
What is most interesting about this is are the hard facts:



2 Threads

200+ Posts

7,200+ Views



All in about 60 hours of visibility.
Click to expand...



Well you have certainly been doing a great job of fueling the conversations. :hm
 
Please stop the talk about the naked and Journey thing. I have enough trouble just trying to keep the extension cord out of the way!:scared:
 
Jakerooni said:
wow... really?? This is where it's headed to? 12 on the scale and it's a new "miricle' product? I'm really not liking that. Although I can see it's uses for the PC. It;s only logical that when you factor in all variables and need to get equal results if you're using a less aggressive machine you need a more aggresive product to compensate. Hopefully no one grabs this super compound and a rotary and goes to town on a clearcoat or something. 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...



The original formula 105 was released in about February of '08. A lot of guys have been using it since then. I started using it last March. Meguair's just released an updated formula of M105 that they gave their official blessing to use with a DA. The first version was not approved for DA use, although there's been quite a few guys using the first version successfully with a DA. I tried it a couple times with a DA and didn't have much luck.



The original formula 105 rapidly took over as my "go to" polish for everything except finishing. And yes, it can definitely be a heavy hitter, however it is so easily controlled as to how much correction you do with it, it's only really a 12 in cut if you use it in an aggressive manner. I believe that M105 has drawn such a loyal following and garnered so much hype for the following reasons:.



1. It is extremely easy to control how aggressive you want to be with it. You can use it anywhere you'd use a medium weight polish or even rocks in a a bottle.



2. It works very fast. The original formula had a very, *very* short working time. LIke twenty seconds. IMO, (and it is just that.... opinion), Meg's did this on purpose because they had the same worry you do about people taking off too much clear. The Meguair's training video that was on YouTube last summer showed one of their instructors taking out 2k sanding marks with 105 using a working time of exactly nine seconds.



3. The very small non-diminishing abrasives leave behind a finish that you would never think came from a 12 cut compound, especially if you work it with very little pressure. In many cases, I had cars ready for *jeweling* after using M105.



4. You can stop anytime you want. Well, for the most part... With a traditional diminishing abrasive, you're kind of stuck; once you have started an application, you have to see it through all the way til the abrassives are completely broken down. If you stop too soon, the finish will suffer from comopunding marks and holograms. I'm not stating anything new here, but just reitterating it so it contrasts with 105... Since the abrasives in 105 don't break down, you can stop anytime you want to; you do not have to wait for the abrassives to break down. As long as your last couple passes with 105 were with light pressure, you'll have a very nice finish when you stop.



The process of using M105 for correction, then following it up with Ultrafina made last year's detailing season the most enjoyable I've had in a while.



M105 really is different from what we think of as traditional compounds, and I can certainly understand your concerns; if I was sitting here telling you that I use Presta Cutting Cream as my "go to" polish, you would be completely justified in thinking I was even crazier than I am. A heavy hitter like PCC just doesn't work the same way as 105. There's no way I could get PCC to finish down to the point that the paint was ready to be jeweled. It would definitely take a middle polishing step. To be fair, often times a middle step has been needed when I use 105, but I blame that more on my technique (or lack thereof) than I do the polish.



All this peaches-n-cream comes at a price, though. As mentioned, 105 takes a completely different technqiue to use correctly. Lot's of people have developed lot's of different ways. I have been *very* happy with my technique for using 105 with a rotary, but again, it did take a lot of time, effort, and especially patience to get to the point where using 105 wasn't frustrating. I gave up on it a couple times. Now I'm glad I went back and toughed it out.



You just might want to give it a fair shake before you dismiss it out of hand.
 
SuperBee I'm in your position with M105, well where you were in the past... I tried it, liked it, had some trouble with it, and sort of gave up on it to use M95 as it was easier... now I'm going back to experimenting with M105, old and new, and hopefully seeing it through. If you don't mind me asking, what is your rotary method that you've come to be so satisfied with over the past year?
 
Like I said I'm not dismissing anything. I've been talking to people behind the sceens to get more information on this. I fully admit I don't know alot about 105. The few things I do know are it's not in the best intrest to design an entire method around a single product. I've asked severl people now if this method can be used with other non-diminishing products no one knows becuase 105 so far has been the only product tested in this method to anyone's immediate knowledge. And just like said the 105 of just a little while ago is not the 105 of today. As new laws get passed (almost daily it seems) products unfortunatly must be constanly changed and evolved to comply with the new laws. If this method indeed works with "Non-diminishing" abrasives of ANY kind then it's a good method. If it's soley designed around a single product as it sits today it can really become a dangerous method to rely on. I have no idea why it wouldn't work with any and all non-diminishing products since it's been stated that's where the industry is headed anyways I would like to see (ot test for myself once the weather lets up a bit here) how this method works with a variety of products. I don;t think this is a bad method. (as I understand it) I do however think it's a little outdated and if it's in line with what I'm understanding it to be I know of several improvements that have already been made to this method throughout the years. But like stated before I have to be missing something here because I can't understand how the "pros" here have never heard of this before. The method I know of this has been around for at least 10 years and very widely practiced by almost every detailer I;ve ever personally known. So that's my stance currently Since I only seem to be ruffling feathers I won't comment more on it until I see the actual method by the man himself so i can get a full understanding of it completly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top