a.k.a. Patrick
New member
I was recently asked to swap some pads with a fellow Autopian. The deal was to swap 6.5 x 1.25" flat LC for 5.5 LC Low Profile CCS. The new gen low profile 5.5 pad. I gladly accepted the offer, as I wanted to gauge there ability and functionality, in comparison to the popular, more traditional 1.25" thick pads. The low profile pads have "dozens of dimples in the foam collect excess polish and reserve it until it is needed on the pad’s face (the area that is in contact with the paint). This design prolongs your working time and reduces product waste." Also, "Creates less heat – CCS pockets provide several points where the foam is not completely touching the paint. This reduces friction and therefore heat generated between the pad and the paint." Source
I have recently had the opportunity, or rather presented the opportunity to try these pads on several cars. I have waited until I have had a good amount of "UDM"ing with these pads to offer my opinion on them.
I have used them on the last several details, the two most previous details, 1 BMW (Mica Blue), and one Acura (NBP). Both dark colors, requiring more then a typical refreshing. One not seeing a detailer, wax for that matter, since it was new, and the other I hadn't seen in about a year. So there were swirls no doubt which required some time. Orange CCS 5.5" were used on both, with a mid grade polish, followed by a lighter polish, and again, an Orange CCS 5.5" pad.
The one thing I noticed, or maybe didnt notice was any real benefit with the CCS design, and Im pretty fond of LC products. I just didn't see any real benefit with this design. My pads have never skipped to begin with (UDM or PC), absorption has never really been a problem, nor has "product release" on demand, been a problem. I have struggled with the idea of consistent abrasive breakdown, when there's more product "hiding", in cells. The compound itself hasn't changed, but just the design.
Now on to Low Profile. After a couple panels, (on both vehicles) I found the pad depressed to such an uncomfortable thickness (or thinness), I actually had to check the pads adhesion, as I was concerned there may have been a failure. Sure enough, it was still attached properly, but was depressed so thin, for a moment it looked like a pancake. It was that thin. And this is a fairly dense pad! I had lost a considerable amount of cushion, and flexibility. Also noted was with the material so condensed now, the heat generated, had no real way to escape. Not that the UDM/technique was generating alot of heat, it was just something that occurred to me to be concerning.So I changed pads.....polished away another third or so of the car, and changed it again. I ended up using 3 Orange pads for one detail, one polish. I pressed on to see if I could find anything that I may like with this low profile. At the end of 1- 4 hr detail, and 1- 5.5 hr detail, I decided these LP pads weren't for me, and my friend made out in greener pastures then I had. (Which is ok, after all, i wanted to learn what these pads were all about, and theres obviously a cost involved)
I'm not here to bark on LC, or the source with which I have quoted, this is just one mans opinion.....
If anyone has some tips to offer on the use of these pads, I'm all ears. I have quite a few Im going to need to get my moneys worth out of......
I have recently had the opportunity, or rather presented the opportunity to try these pads on several cars. I have waited until I have had a good amount of "UDM"ing with these pads to offer my opinion on them.
I have used them on the last several details, the two most previous details, 1 BMW (Mica Blue), and one Acura (NBP). Both dark colors, requiring more then a typical refreshing. One not seeing a detailer, wax for that matter, since it was new, and the other I hadn't seen in about a year. So there were swirls no doubt which required some time. Orange CCS 5.5" were used on both, with a mid grade polish, followed by a lighter polish, and again, an Orange CCS 5.5" pad.
The one thing I noticed, or maybe didnt notice was any real benefit with the CCS design, and Im pretty fond of LC products. I just didn't see any real benefit with this design. My pads have never skipped to begin with (UDM or PC), absorption has never really been a problem, nor has "product release" on demand, been a problem. I have struggled with the idea of consistent abrasive breakdown, when there's more product "hiding", in cells. The compound itself hasn't changed, but just the design.
Now on to Low Profile. After a couple panels, (on both vehicles) I found the pad depressed to such an uncomfortable thickness (or thinness), I actually had to check the pads adhesion, as I was concerned there may have been a failure. Sure enough, it was still attached properly, but was depressed so thin, for a moment it looked like a pancake. It was that thin. And this is a fairly dense pad! I had lost a considerable amount of cushion, and flexibility. Also noted was with the material so condensed now, the heat generated, had no real way to escape. Not that the UDM/technique was generating alot of heat, it was just something that occurred to me to be concerning.So I changed pads.....polished away another third or so of the car, and changed it again. I ended up using 3 Orange pads for one detail, one polish. I pressed on to see if I could find anything that I may like with this low profile. At the end of 1- 4 hr detail, and 1- 5.5 hr detail, I decided these LP pads weren't for me, and my friend made out in greener pastures then I had. (Which is ok, after all, i wanted to learn what these pads were all about, and theres obviously a cost involved)
I'm not here to bark on LC, or the source with which I have quoted, this is just one mans opinion.....
If anyone has some tips to offer on the use of these pads, I'm all ears. I have quite a few Im going to need to get my moneys worth out of......
