Layering- Go By Your Own Observations

A

Accumulator

Well-known member
This subject came up for the umpteenth time on another recent thread and I felt compelled to post the following-



Layering is simple enough to test for, and reasonable controls (well, controls sufficient for *my* acceptance at any rate) such as equalized starting times are easy enough to implement.



Wonder if something layers? Test it. When one test area stays "just LSPed", whatever that means to *you*, much longer than another (or doesn't), you'll have your answer. Then when somebody else proffers his opinion you can just go by what works/doesn't for *you* in *your* situation. Or, you can tweak your process and see if that makes a difference.



Some stuff layers in a significant way and other stuff doesn't. And not always the products that you'd expect. And what works/doesn't for another person might not mirror your experience. If you haven't tested it yourself, in *your* conditions, you're merely guessing and/or taking the opinions of others (myself included) on faith.
 
Amazing what a little science can tell you. Should be a fairly easy proposition with a PTG though. Test the panel without protection. Do 3-6 layers, retest. Record results and compare. Should be obvious.
 
Thanks for the post Accumulator. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, BUT, I think that it should be simpler than that, at least in some cases.



First of all, I personally would never recommend less than two coats of any LSP (unless it contains cleaners that would eradicate the first coat). A second coat helps to ensure complete and uniform coverage. That's for sure.



Besides that though, I think that there should be some products where their layerability should be definitive facts, rather than the result of individual testing. Chemical engineering has come far enough that someone should be able to tell us, DEFINITIVELY, the effects of layering a product or product(s).



I'm not saying that this is ALWAYS the case. For example, I've found that using Meguairs #7 glaze under Pinnacle Souveran negatively impacts the durability of the wax. That's something I just had to figure out on my own.



But what if I used megs #26 over #7. What effect will that have? Someone at Meguairs should be able to tell me that.



The Klasse company should be able to explain WHY they recommend KAIO as a base for KSG. What chemical reaction occurs that enhances the performance of either product?



Any wax manufacturer should be able to tell you, definitively, what effect layering their product will have.



I'm not saying Accumulator is wrong. There are an infinite number of products and product combinations where layering simply needs to be tested by the user. However, even with the scientific controls that he suggests, it's still a crapshoot. There is simply no way to implement enough scientific controls to produce a definitive result. Where one person sees an improvement from the addition of a second layer, another person may see no difference.



Basically my point is that the "Try it and see if it works for YOU" advice is used a little too loosely, I think. There are simply some things that should, or should not, work for EVERYONE.
 
Less said:
The Klasse company should be able to explain WHY they recommend KAIO as a base for KSG. What chemical reaction occurs that enhances the performance of either product?
Click to expand...



The way I read Klasse's recommendation for KAIO, is only if it's needed - no chemistry involved. UPS just dropped off my AutoGeek order so I have the containers right here. Quote off of the KSG - "It provides an additional acrylic protective layer over the AIO Cleaner Protector. If the surface is new and not oxidized, the KSG can be applied without preceding with the KAIO..."
 
You and I share the same ideology in terms of layering (weird huh....we actually agree on something). It will probably remain an argument that may not ever be agreed upon or resolved among detailing people.



There are IMO visual and physical advantages to layering with the right lsp product. Layering with a reasonable amount of a(n) (wax or sealant) has produced for me personally a very deep toned finish that has shown great durability in a variety of climate settings (ranging from fully covered and garaged and uncovered and exposed to the northeastern elements). I enjoy the visual effects of carefully layering my favorite lsp over a set period (spring and summer), observing how the finish develops into a deep toned shine and visual quality.



There are negatives, however, in "layering" indefinitely. No matter how much of a product that you may apply to paint, the benefit of the layering exercise may be compromised if a user doesn't provide cleaning to the paint surface after a set amount of layering (my time limit is usually from 7-9 layerings in season or up to one year). Too much of a product "layered" (or applied for the non believing) onto paint without providing a cleaning with either a hand or machine method polishing will allow dirt and oxidation to become trapped within the finish. Many times the oxidation is not readily seen, but the difference becomes very apparent after polish prepping a heavily lsp'd surface.



It is really best IMO to use good judgment in determing how much of a product one wishes to "layer, deposit, apply" to the paint. In reality the paint only requires a minimum amount of an lsp applied between paint cleaning in order to provide basic protection; Its the extra amount of "layers" and effort applied to a surface that could provide satisfaction to a user.
 
lbls1 said:
You and I share the same ideology in terms of layering (weird huh....we actually agree on something)...
Click to expand...



Heh heh, gee.. like *that* never happened before :chuckle:

It will probably remain an argument that may not ever be agreed upon or resolved among detailing people.
Click to expand...



Yeah...that's one reason I posted this kinda-ranty thread; personal experiences differ for all sorts of reasons and I get tired of people posting "the definitive truth" about stuff I've experienced first-hand.



Less said:
However, even with the scientific controls that he suggests, it's still a crapshoot. There is simply no way to implement enough scientific controls to produce a definitive result. Where one person sees an improvement from the addition of a second layer, another person may see no difference.
Click to expand...





Yeah, that's the subjective aspect of this, and "subjective" isn't always a pejorative..it's the opinion/observation/experience of the *subject* that matters IMO. If one subject sees beading (just an example, no flames please ;) ) for six weeks and another subject sees it for twelve, that's a *subjective* difference but that doesn't mean the 12-week guy didn't experience what he did. Ditto for appearance diffs.



The controls are just a means of keeping things fair between the layered/not areas for that person.



Basically my point is that the "Try it and see if it works for YOU" advice is used a little too loosely, I think. There are simply some things that should, or should not, work for EVERYONE.
Click to expand...



I've had *so* many experiences that I simply cannot explain...stuff that "should *NEVER* layer* that does.... :nixweiss Had I not tried some of those seemingly stupid things I woulda missed out.



I guess my point was that if somebody *cares* then they should go by their own experiences. And if somebody else's experiences differ that doesn't mean we need to have some big :nono :argue



When people make those definitive statements about things they haven't tried, it bugs me. And when people discount the YMMV-aspect of this, well..that does too.

SCoach said:
Should be a fairly easy proposition with a PTG though. Test the panel without protection. Do 3-6 layers, retest. Record results and compare. Should be obvious.
Click to expand...



Apparently isn't that simple :think: Using my ETG, I can't measure a difference between six layers of KSG (something that *does* layer for everybody) and none. The layers are too thin to measure in microns (let alone larger fractions of a mil).



A while back, Mike Phillips reported that the lab guys at Meguiar's were also unable to measure the build-film of LSPs. Other than the new "glass coatings", LSPs simply go on too thin for this kind of measurement. Even those coatings are only in the fraction-of-a-mil range and those are a whole different ballgame from what we're usually talking about.
 
Accumulator said:
Apparently isn't that simple :think: Using my ETG, I can't measure a difference between six layers of KSG (something that *does* layer for everybody) and none. The layers are too thin to measure in microns (let alone larger fractions of a mil).
Click to expand...



Are we now talking homoeopathy for cars?
 
butchdave said:
Are we now talking homoeopathy for cars?
Click to expand...



Heh heh...not at all; my worldview is about as far from homeopathy as you can get ;)



It's simply a matter of the measuring instrument not being able to work in the required range. Get an ETG that measures in the 100ths-of-a-micron range and you'll be good to go.
 
I see what your saying accumulator. YMMV is a probably a big rule we should all remember in the back of our minds when giving suggestions or taking them.



Since were on the subject of layering though, I wonder if WOWA sealants can build a measurable layer.



That's ofcourse if they actually layer and not just "blend" with the original coating.



I say WOWA since your not actually wiping anything away. Most of what goes on stays on besides the solvents.
 
Dsoto87 said:
.. if [WOWA sealants] actually layer and not just "blend" with the original coating...
Click to expand...



As long as more ended up on the surface I don't think it'd matter in the *functional* sense.



Whether more WOWA ends up on the surface oughta be easy enough to test for with stuff like that...I might try it with the Ultima trim stuff next time I use it (note to self...).
 
Accumulator said:
Heh heh, gee.. like *that* never happened before :chuckle:





Yeah...that's one reason I posted this kinda-ranty thread; personal experiences differ for all sorts of reasons and I get tired of people posting "the definitive truth" about stuff I've experienced first-hand.
Click to expand...



:LOLOL Aint that the truth bud!?!?!



Paragraphs upon paragraphs of the so called "absolute truth", and only to find out at the end of those paragraphs that in essence its an elaboration of someone's experience or opinion. Many times a few of those preachings become hot air for balloons lol!!
 
Does anyone have experience layering over Poli-seal? I am considering putting 'Natty Blue' or 'XMT180' over Poli-seal.



Good idea, or nay?
 
Gears- IME 476S is weird in this regard. It layers for me too, but it also does enough solvent action on previous applications to sometimes make for really nasty pseudo-holograms. And the way 845 apparently solves this problem makes me :think: too.



So why are you bummed about it layering...trying to strip it off or something?



89gt-stanger- I've never used either of those, but I'd expect NB to go on OK over most anything, at least anything synthetic.
 
[quote name='Accumulator']Gears- IME 476S is weird in this regard. It layers for me too, but it also does enough solvent action on previous applications to sometimes make for really nasty pseudo-holograms. And the way 845 apparently solves this problem makes me :think: too.



So why are you bummed about it layering...trying to strip it off or something?





No, I'm not trying to remove it . Its just my normal thing is to do two coats of any wax I use. I'm not trying to increase the depth I just feel its the best way for me to be sure I get complete coverage. When I do this with 476 I get the weird pseudo-holograms. My answer to this was stopping after the first coat of 476.
 
I agree with Accumulator. It's a subjective thing. That's the beauty of the is forum; detailing professionals/enthusist share their experiences with various products.

There is one thing I have learned from this forum; many products require a cure time to work properly. Zanio comes to mind, and because of that time-consuming process, some people don't like it. I have no experience with it, but when I look at the some of the posted pictures, the results speak for themselves. (Yes, I'm envious).

Also, I 've heard that most concours show cars have been layered with several coats of a good carnauba wax.

Even KSG can be layered for better protection and gloss.

But with all this, there does come the law of diminishing returns. Can I tell if a show car has 3 or 12 layers of Zymol on it? NOOOO!!!

That's the point. How much time you spend for the look you want is up to you.
 
I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but the reason the PTG doesn't work on testing the layering of LSP may not just be the thickness factor. Something like a PTG is going to test for layers based on previously known physical property of paint. That is how it reflects light, how it restricts the flow of electricity, how it responds to sound etc... Whatever that PTG uses to gauge thickness.



Even if your LSP were thick enough for the PTG to gauge, it still may not pick it up simply because the LSP will have different physical properties than paint. It won't resonate the same at a certain frequency, it won't echo back ultrasonic waves the same way, it won't have the same electrical resistance etc... whatever the case maybe for that particular PTG's technology.
 
My painter's advise was to wax the car several times a week, every time you wash, just as often as possible. Obviously he thinks it layers, but reading these posts I'm not so sure. I always thought if it didn't have a cleaning agent in it, it would layer in some way. Normally I would use KAIO, then Collinite 915, lots of 915, and often, and it made a very deep glossy look and lasted forever. I've recently used DG AW and it SEEMS to layer, but I have no proof of this, just damn if it doesn't look nice.
 
Gears said:
[... Its just my normal thing is to do two coats of any wax I use. I'm not trying to increase the depth I just feel its the best way for me to be sure I get complete coverage. When I do this with 476 I get the weird pseudo-holograms. My answer to this was stopping after the first coat of 476.
Click to expand...



Ah, OK, I was thinking about those pseudo-holograms a while after I posted that. Yeah, 476S is a one-shot deal unless you're willing to run the risk of having to deal with those.

RZJZA80 said:
My painter's advise was to wax the car several times a week, every time you wash, just as often as possible. Obviously he thinks it layers, but reading these posts I'm not so sure...
Click to expand...



Maybe he's just trying to have you stay one step ahead of the wax's breakdown. You know, more a case of refreshing than layering :nixweiss



I was like that with the Jag for years...every week (at least) it got washed, every wash it got waxed. Even if the wax wasn't layering (and I'm pretty sure it wasn't with Souveran, and no spitshine) it was still staying well-waxed that way.
 
duke4ever- I dunno how my ETG works, maybe you have a point there. But I'd expect Meguiar's to have given that some thought when they were trying to measure such stuff :nixweiss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top