Some conversation between Kevin Brown and Barry Theal

Dammit, I suck at reading. Not in the sense that I can't "read", but rather I suffer from short attention span... I will mark this as one of those "must read" items and read it in parts daily because I'm sure there's some good sh1t on it... Kevin, I still want to to try your method, so once there's a Cliff's Notes version out I'm on it ;)!
 
JuneBug said:
Here's my thoughts, right now, I can't get a decent day to detail (I'm a weekend part timer) so I can't test my theory. The theory? That a Cyclo using M105 would work as well or better than a simular PC/PCXP with the same pad due to the longer stroke the Cyclo has. And I've asked on a few boards and no one has tried it that I know of.
Click to expand...



Nope, my PC with a 4 inch pad seems about the same as my Rdgid 2611 with a 6.5 inch pad(although the 2611 is smoother). The 2611 has a smaller orbit, actually 2 smaller orbits, the smallest of which will leave hollograms if you don't break the polish down enough.



A rotary has a fixed orbit and breaks down abrasives better than a PC-speed is the main factor there.
 
I've been through this post twice and still haven't digested all of it.

Barry- Thanks for sharing and for continually pushing the limits of paint correction.

Kevin- Thanks for taking the time to be so thorough in your response, there's a ton of great info in there.

-Brent
 
wannafbody said:
A rotary has a fixed orbit and breaks down abrasives better than a PC-speed is the main factor there.
Click to expand...



I'm tending to not see this as the case. You'd be surprised how well and quick a PC with a firm pad breaks down deminishing abrasives like Menzerna. A rotary produces heat, which isn't a surface's friend. A PC levels the surface more evenly/flatter and creates more friction; which is what breaks down abrasives more effectively. Food for thought; I've been told that Menzerna @ the OEM level is mostly used with a PC.
 
Heat is only a by product for polishing.Its not needed. The only thing I can say right now is that I truley think that a rotory is soon going to be a thing of the past. I'd hate to say it, but Just when you think you seen and heard it all. The whole polishing industry changes. AMAZING
 
Some really great information here, but it seems that Kevin never gives a firm opinion on what he thinks of burnishing the paint with something like final inspection. Is that a fair/accurate assessment?
 
David Fermani said:
Why would you burnish paint with a QD?
Click to expand...



I guess you would have to ask Barry that question.



Did you not read the original post?



bufferbarry said:
I found you need

a lubricant to keep the pad moving while only using your pad as the abrasive. So

I moved onto quick detailers and such and found that you can finish down with

Final Inspection Spray. If makes a great lube as well as cleans the paint free

of the oils from the polishes. Once trying this I ran the pc at speed 3 after 2

lights mists of final inspection and boom I burnished paint with a pc and had

amazing results.
Click to expand...
 
David Fermani said:
I'm tending to not see this as the case. You'd be surprised how well and quick a PC with a firm pad breaks down deminishing abrasives like Menzerna. A rotary produces heat, which isn't a surface's friend. A PC levels the surface more evenly/flatter and creates more friction; which is what breaks down abrasives more effectively. Food for thought; I've been told that Menzerna @ the OEM level is mostly used with a PC.
Click to expand...



A PC twists the abrasives across the paint and the spinning action is simply centrifical force. If you push on the PC it will stop spinning. Then you are simply left with a small twisting, jiggling motion. Sure it will partially break down abrasives but if you use it with hard traditional abrasives it will leave a hazy surface. The rotary will spin by direct drive regardless of pressure at whatever RPM you set. 3500 rpm is much faster than centrifical force.
 
Circular motion has more friction that oscillation motion.



OEM level polishing with oscillation I think would have to do with taking out operator error and the fact that they would not be doing major correction.
 
I had a rotary and a Flex, now it's just 2 PC's and a Cyclo, the only thing I miss is having a rotary to do headlights with. Spring is coming and I'll try my Cyclo vs PC with M105 soon enough.
 
I know this thread is kinda dead but a thought kinda popped into my head today. what if you were to do all of your steps as normal through finishing, do 2 coats of a good carnauba wax of your choice, then try Barry's idea with a QD and a super soft pad like a LC gold pad, or maybe even a LC blue pad? I'm thinking that you would have to wait a little while after the last coat sat for a while. you probably couldnt work your wax for long. Or this would just be screwing up a perfectly good wax job.:doh



Any thought on this guys?
 
Dave,

What you need to realize here is that there are 100's of ways to polish paint or anything as such. We all try to follow simple guidelines that were layed down by those before us. Its the thinking and analyizing is what will make you a better detailer. We all know how to do it, but do we know why it works. What if pe rsay some could create an abrasive so perfect that it wouldn't it wouldn't diminish (which has already been done) it would be so small that the abrasive could suspend between the pad and the paint. instead of transfering from the pad to the paint. That sure would chage things now wouldn't it. As a professional I feel we need to learn to think outside the box. As technology advances, we need to readjust. Its the ones who aren't affraid to learn new things will be the ones to fall behind. Keep thinking it only gets more confusing. ;)
 
I don't think Dave is looking for further philosophical pontification upon the past of future of detailing/detailers and what it will take to further our professional work.



I think what you're asking Dave is what would happen if you would use your last layer of Carnauba + some QD + a jeweling pad for jewling. You're asking if the Carnauba itself would assist in the jeweling process (in the same kind of way the QD would) or if you would be removing the wax?



That's an interesting thought. I would think that on some level it would have to. By generating a tiny bit of heat I would think you'd be enhancing the many elements of the wax (like when you apply Vintage by hand) while at the same time "burnishing" (although no type of abrasive is actually being used the high-lustre-burnished finish it the goal) the painted metal surface. I could see where the wax, along with the QD, could also provide a little more slickness to allow the pad to lose ANY bite it may have at all while the QD cleans it all off leaving perfectly polished paint behind.



Ry- I have also used DI water in the past.
 
I do something like that with my pseudo-spitshine (via PC or Cyclo). You have to be careful lest the combination of QD, wax, and (machine-supplied) mechanical agitation be a little too aggressive and mess things up.



The problems usually occur when you do this over a previously applied coat of wax, and appear to be a matter of solvent action. But even with just one coat it can still cause issues if you overwork the wax...it gets hard to buff off and that can lead to marring.



If you want to try it, I like using #16 and Griot's Speedshine. Very little of each and don't buff aggressively. I've done OK with other paste waxes too, but I always like using the SpeedShine.



When it works right, you get a (very slight) boost in gloss and much more spherical beads that look like tiny ball bearings sitting on the paint.
 
Accumulator said:
The problems usually occur when you do this over a previously applied coat of wax, and appear to be a matter of solvent action. But even with just one coat it can still cause issues if you overwork the wax...it gets hard to buff off and that can lead to marring.
Click to expand...



I can see this being a tough matter to overcome. I too was thinking of the wax actually causing marring OR that I would have to buff it off thus marring the paint with the reintroduction of MF.



Accumulator said:
If you want to try it, I like using #16 and Griot's Speedshine. Very little of each and don't buff aggressively. I've done OK with other paste waxes too, but I always like using the SpeedShine.



When it works right, you get a (very slight) boost in gloss and much more spherical beads that look like tiny ball bearings sitting on the paint.
Click to expand...



Now that's some practical advice from the practical perfectionist! :xyxthumbs
 
My head hurts too. I beleive. So it would be nice to have some step by step instructions to use the KB method.
 
D Tailor said:
Now that's some practical advice from the practical perfectionist!
Click to expand...



FWIW, I'm a bit *too* practical to bother doing this sort of thing much any more ;)



.I too was thinking of the wax actually causing marring...
Click to expand...



That should't be a problem unless you do something really weird. Between a no-cut pad, the QD, and the nonabrasive nature of a (straight) wax, it just shouldn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top