Time for a little controversy: The Case AGAINST Coatings

jlb85 said:
The achiles heel of coatings, and clear coat per se, is that to repair the damage from bird crap (as an example) requires significant effort and work in most cases. A wax can be removed and replaced quickly, as can sealants, albeit they are much weaker to the damage. The articles touch on this a little, but we had to keep them short, hoping the reader would figure this out.


 


Regarding heat, and this is the engineer in me, "heat resistance" means nothing of value to the detailer, and is used as a blanket statement in attempt to qualify a product over another. What does heat resitance mean? Does it mean the coating is still there after a heat cycle? Or does it include that the coating is still effective after a heat cycle? Is it just as effective or did it loose some of its qualities? How many heat cycles can it withstand before a decrease in "protection" (another empty misnomer technically)? What temperature do the cycles have to be before it decreases performance? Does the coating's bonding to the substrate suffer during a heat cycle?


 


I had a client (non automotive) that fire kilned C1 to 1000 degrees F. After one firing it was "still there", but not after a second firing. Further, he mentioned after looking at it under a microscope (I assume), it didn't look like it would be very useful after that firing. With an exhaust going upwards of 1000 degrees F air flow (my boosted EGTs run 1300-1500 F, and although not all of that gets to the surface, most of it will), how many cycles would a coating protect against? Would it delaminate? Will it still prevent blueing? On a Harley the exhaust temps are MUCH lower (straight low restruction pipes in an underpowered combustion cycle), but how about brake calipers? Those can see enough temp to fry powder coating after a few cycles, and brakes get over 1500 F on even a street car. One track day and I can assure you the calipers have melted away any protection.


 


So heat resistance on paint is something I will sell to my clients. Saying a coating will protect their calipers or exhaust is something I would be very hessitant to mention, although I know some clients will never cycle their brakes that high, which are the same clients that, like Charles says, never wash their own cars and are the ones who could benefit the least from a coating, other than it being "expensive and the ultimate in protection", which it is.


 


The extremely appealing glass look of a coating comes with caveats, which need to be understood by the professional and the client.
Click to expand...


Most of the cars I work on are not track cars. My client's track cars have the crap beat out of them and they don't care about them as much.


 


But if I am removing the wheels so they can be thoroughly detailed and coated, it makes sense to coat their calipers, imo. They are paying for the wheels, not the calipers. So there is no skin off their backs. In the case that they aren't threshold braking and super heating their calipers, it will probably stay right where it is and make maintenance easier. 


 


None of this is to prove what you're saying is wrong as I agree with it. But no one can speak absolutely about coating calipers/tail pipes and its usefulness. It should be a case-by-case consideration.
 
One test on C1,and you assume that all coatings have no reistance?

I would personally test out Opti Coat before I made those claims.


Sorry of bizarre the stance that is made by the two articles.

First one says, don't coat just wax.

Second says, don't wax just seal.

My question is why must someone choose one over the other.

Why wouldn't you seal and then wax for the added protection?


I understand that you want controversy, to drive traffic to your page,

but I think that you are Way off base when talking about bird bombs

eating through the coating. This sounds like irresponsible owners.

Just because you have a coating, doesn't mean that you can leave

damaging materials on the surface. It still is prudant to remove ASAP.


One thing that I don't believe can be argued, is that coatings give you

more time to clean the surface before damage is done.


Let's think of a helmet. If you take a big enough fall, you still will

hurt your head, but not nearly as much as if no helmet.


Why the heck would you suggest Saran Wrap (a seal) instead

of a coating for protective factors? Of course as an installer, you

can sell many more seals and waxes, as coatings have too high of

lifetime.


In comment about first article, you say about not knowing

Opti Coat, and direct them to second article, where you tell them to seal

their vehicle. Umm, Opti Coat is much superior. I don't understand how the

entire premise of the article is anti coating, but supports sealing?


Seals are the less effective cousin of coatings. The only benefit of seal

over coating is cost per application and ease of application. All other

qualities make coatings superior. These are durability, look, feel,

protection, and a great lifetime to cost ratio.


Sure coatings cost more, but you could apply one coating and

maintain it versus dozens of seals over the vehicles lifetime.

What is your time worth? Because you are wasting it sealing.
 
Actually, I asked Dr. G specifically about great and Opti Coat for tail pipes

and exhausts. He said that it was very heat resistant and will work well.

He said that Harley exhausts were no problem.


I even asked about their seal, and he said it was good at high temps too.

I personally would assume that high temps would break down the seal

faster, but I have not tested this, yet.


To test one coating, and apply that to all brands, is not a valid perspective.

Each brand is made differently and had different attributes.

People here will be very open if you test multiple coatings with

different tests. But, they want to see the tests for themselves.


Check out the thread by Nth Degree about Trim Restorer tests.

That is a great comparison test. Yours seems to be more opinion.

I am not sayng that your opinion is wrong Op, just that many people

here have strong opinions about coatings. You need facts to sway

their own personal testing.
 
Those of us who have used various LSPs side-by-side over an extended period *know* what does what and what doesn't.  Even with uncontrollable variables ("every bird-bomb is different"), there are enough obvious trends that it's not all that hard to make some generalizations.  Nor is it all that hard to :rolleyes: about many of the generalizations that have made it all the way to Conventional Wisdom status.


 


Similarly, regarding brake temperatures....I wonder how many people have used heatrange-indicating paint or an IR gauge to see what *really* goes on in that regard.  In my case, "normal street use" vehicles just didn't generate the high temperatures that people talk about.  Some *extreme* street use vehicles have gotten pretty hot, but that was after "don't try this at home, kids!"-driving that people aren't doing regularly (not even LE/etc. applications).


 


A lot of what gets said, especially on the internet, simply isn't so.
 
WilliamWallacesWashAndWax said:
One test on C1,and you assume that all coatings have no reistance?

I would personally test out Opti Coat before I made those claims.
Click to expand...


Can you provide your test results with OC and heat cycles since you recommend it for exhausts?



The issues with heat are not unique to coatings, so it really is not a matter of one brand over another. It is a fundamentals issue.



The rest will be more clear when the other articles come out. But so far so good, lots of questions and concerns, which is exactly what we all should be doing :)
 
I got the information directly from the creator of Opti Coat.

While, I am not saying that the Op is wrong, I am merely saying

for him to show Us the proof, as what he is saying is going against

what the manufacturer days about the products.


I personally can't assume that C1 and Opti Coat would be the same.

Why would they? The assumption of this seems to be the basis for

this entire thread.


You miss the point. It Is about one band versus another. You can't assume

that they all are the same without testing. Basically, this article is telling

professionals here that they are all wrong, coatings are all the same, and we

did testing on one, so that is all that is needed.


Funny that the response was "show me the testing", Umm that was my point exactly.

Show complete testing, to prove that all coatings act the same and none have

heat resistance properties.


So who should I believe? The owner of the company who is always on point?

Or the guy who says that they tested one coating brand, and they all are the same?
 
Accumulator said:
Similarly, regarding brake temperatures....I wonder how many people have used heatrange-indicating paint or an IR gauge to see what *really* goes on in that regard. In my case, "normal street use" vehicles just didn't generate the high temperatures that people talk about. Some *extreme* street use vehicles have gotten pretty hot, but that was after "don't try this at home, kids!"-driving that people aren't doing regularly (not even LE/etc. applications).
Click to expand...


Umm, not really sure what you mean. Brake temperatures are very well known, and easily monitored. The one stop high-speed case may not have enough heat flux to overheat the caliper, but the two-footed drivers and the brake draggers will definitely overheat their brakes even within minutes, which not only causes premature rotor and pad failure, also heats the hub bearings beyond their design causing the seals to cook, grease to migrate, and the assembly to fail prematurely. So more "normal" drivers will be closer to the temp threashold than you would think. This is a huge issue for the OEMs, who are constantly trying to remove cost of brake shields and cost of upgraded (silicone based) bearing seals and greases versus acheving "consumer reports recommended" stopping distances, low noise, and low dust. I also carry an IR thermometer with me to the track, and have used it on the street more to measure rate of temperature deltas with different brake venting setups.
 
WilliamWallacesWashAndWax said:
I got the information directly from the creator of Opti Coat.



So who should I believe? The owner of the company who is always on point?

Or the guy who says that they tested one coating brand, and they all are the same?
Click to expand...


Easy: Believe the guy who is trying to sell you something.
 
We have tested multiple coatings. We find Opti-coat to be king, and continue to use it and offer it to our clients. No one is saying every coating is exactly the same as I feel that would be as irresponsible as saying every wax, every sealant, every polish, or every shampoo is exactly the same.


 


It's still not a perfect product. Lots of people having issues with Opti-coat getting water spots, with beading, with leaky tubes. By Optimum's own admittance, there have been changes that caused some of these issues. You can talk to Chad "Rasky" about when he found out about a temporary resin change in the formula that caused him some issues. 


 


No one is saying coatings don't have resistance to the elements nor that they aren't durable. They're the king of durability.


 


The case against coatings is they still need maintenance as they can get pitted, damaged, scratched, and swirled. This means they'll still need some claying and polishing. The problem with permanent is just that: it becomes a lot like clear-coat (another permanent coating) in how it needs to be maintained. So while it offers great protection, I argue ANYTHING you use offers great protection as a sacrificial barrier and because maintenance doesn't change regardless of what you use, how much superior are coatings in reality? 
 
I disagree, when you are coreecting the coating,

this is a replaceable surface, while correcting the clear coat

becomes expensive when you lose thickness.


I would much rather have a sacrificial barrier, even if

I must maintain it. Paint without coating takes much more

maintenance, and there is less variance for owner error.


Coatings have significantly less maintenance than seals.

Perhaps the other two articles will clear up your position,

I just don't understand it as of yet.
 
jlb85- Ah, I never considered the "brake draggers", my fault, such behavior just doesn't occur to me.  I wasn't thinking of "one-top" situations either, sure wouldn't expect anything much from those.


 


About the temps being "well known", heh heh... I can count on one hand the number of people I know IRL who've ever monitored such stuff on street cars.  Even my "car-guy" pals sorta :rolleyes: when I try to discuss it.  They dismiss it with something like "hey, we're not talking track days here...".


 


Sounds like you share my, uhm...more in-depth interest in such stuff  :)


 


Hey, with regard to the "bug/bird-bomb etching" issue, I'm really surprised that this is a problem with coated vehicles.  I find even some conventional LSPs to be so resistant to etching that I basically no longer bother cleaning such stuff off between washes...even after weeks I just don't get etching unless I'm using one of my known-to-be-fragile LSPs (and I sure do spot-clean contamination off of those).  Guess it gets back to the "all bird bombs are different..." thing.
 
WilliamWallacesWashAndWax said:
Actually, I asked Dr. G specifically about great and Opti Coat for tail pipes

and exhausts. He said that it was very heat resistant and will work well.

He said that Harley exhausts were no problem.


I even asked about their seal, and he said it was good at high temps too.

I personally would assume that high temps would break down the seal

faster, but I have not tested this, yet.


To test one coating, and apply that to all brands, is not a valid perspective.

Each brand is made differently and had different attributes.

People here will be very open if you test multiple coatings with

different tests. But, they want to see the tests for themselves.


Check out the thread by Nth Degree about Trim Restorer tests.

That is a great comparison test. Yours seems to be more opinion.

I am not sayng that your opinion is wrong Op, just that many people

here have strong opinions about coatings. You need facts to sway

their own personal testing.
Click to expand...


As it was pointed out, a tail pipe and calipers are two different beasts temperature-wise.
 
I just don't understand how a few super high temp areas would

cause someone to say coatings are useless (paraphrase).


What is the big deal about not having a coated caliber anyways?

Most people could agree that coatings are more beneficial for paint.


Wax breaks down at temperature, so coatings are vastly superior

to wax on this point also. Again, under heat coatings are best out of

wax, seal, or coating. I am wondering based on what does the Op say

that waxes and seals are preferred.


If it is to maintain your work load, I could see how some assume coatings

would cause you to lose work, but a more durable product creates more

loyal customers.


I am not saying this to be mean. But if you only wax and seal, and i

coat their vehicle, then the client would probably look more highly to my service.


Who waxes or seals calibers or tailpipes anyways?

Bizarre basis of criteria.


Also, I disagree that anything used provides a sacrificial barrier.

Wax and seals will not protect against big chips, plus they won't last as long.

Big chip on a sealed surface might go all the way through paint, could have to repaint.

Big chip on coated surface, and you might just need to redbuff the coating.

Rebuff > Repaint any day
 
People don't LSP calipers and/or tailpipes?  OK, OK....confession time: I don't do all my calipers, only the "nicely finished" calipers that show like the ones on my S8 (and the rear drums on the beater Tahoe), but it sure makes 'em easier to keep concours-level tidy.  Fortunately, I've done OK with the temp issue, but I haven't subjected them to a lengthy track session either.


 


Heh heh, this thread kinda borders on "arguing over the intenet" anyhow IMO, I doubt we're all gonna end up agreeing when it's all said and done.
 
I am actually curious at the main reasons they say coatings are worse

compared to wax /seal. This would give me further reason to layer

coating and wax versus just coating.


I really think that the Op intends that coatings aren't a Miracle cure,

that it isn't the last step ever needed. While they still have maintenance needed,

I would think that more maintenance is needed on wax/seal. However,

this may be a counter intuitive issue, where reapplication of Wax is easier than

maintenance of a coating.


Accumulator, they seemed to want an argument by the title and

controversial nature of the thread. That being said, I view that a

thorough debate is necessary to understand points on both sides.

I am still struggling to see how coatings are lacking comparing head to head

performance on any basis.


Cost over durability, protection, look, maintenance. I believe that coatings beat

out waxes and seals in every one of these categories.


I can understand the "harder to maintain" stance, but that also comes

with increased protection and longer life time. I would wager that a wax

would take much more work in a years time than a coating.


I don't understand how a wax over a coating wouldn't be the best of both

worlds if you want to argue about sacrificial barriers. I just want as many

barriers between damage and my paint as possible.
 
I don't think a coating can be compared to a wax or sealant. The simple fact is that a coating is harder and thus less prone to scratches, wash marring, outside elements, take your pic.


 


Most waxes and sealants have a better look IMO yes. Yet with the right prep and without touching the paint... you wouldn't know which one had what on it, so I suppose that part is a moot point.


 


I like the idea that even if I have to polish out any marring that much of it is simply the coating rather than the paint itself. OC for me I didn't like as much as 22 PLE glass pro, but that was just my opinion. I want to try CQF on my new VW, but I'm not going through all of the license crap and I think that's a very stupid marketing this for cquartz to do considering how much more they would sell. Put directions on the product, and if it's not done properly, then it's your fault and not theirs.


 


Overall I would have to say coatings are for the guy who wants to polish and then not worry about the paint for a long time aside from proper washing once each week or 2... or 3 :-P. Waxing is for the more OCD who likes to just do it a lot more often. Neither is wrong for their choice. Just different strokes.
 
Guitarist302008 said:
 


 


Overall I would have to say coatings are for the guy who wants to polish and then not worry about the paint for a long time aside from proper washing once each week or 2... or 3 :-P. Waxing is for the more OCD who likes to just do it a lot more often. Neither is wrong for their choice. Just different strokes.
Click to expand...


Exactly why I coated my own car, just don't want to mess with it on a regular basis. And if I want to add some extra pop, I can apply wax over it. 
 
I think a minor drawback is color/appearance match when collision work is done. Either with full panel painting or worse, blending into coatings. Will they affect paint adhesion? Could this cause problems for another owner down the line?
 
dfoxengr said:
I think a minor drawback is color/appearance match when collision work is done. Either with full panel painting or worse, blending into coatings. Will they affect paint adhesion? Could this cause problems for another owner down the line?
Click to expand...


 


Any body shop that is doing their job properly is scuffing any panel they're applying paint onto, so the coating will be gone long before it hits the booth... adhesion problems should be a non issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top