Wetsanding vs. Rotary vs. PC, what removes more paint? (The answer may shock you)

Denzil said:
Let me know which one you end up getting Supe! I'm in the market for one... eventually, hehe.
Click to expand...



Hehe, I'm gonna start by borrowing Greg Nichol's PTG. :cool: J/K Greg. OT: are we ever gonna get that Bentley done?



Well, at least wait until he has formed an opinion on his to decide.



I really want the Defelsko, as it has the ability to tell you the thickness of your primer, base, and clear coats, but the price is a bit out of my league right now.



I really do see the use of the Defelsko, though. Just having a reading of X mils doesn't really tell you much... how much of that is primer, base, and clear? Anything other than the clear doesn't really matter, does it?
 
does this apply to general purpose light polishing though



I mean correcting to get rid of RIDS ... lol..... with a PC could definately take off more clear, but what about light swirling that requires little pressure. I mean that right off the bat gets rid of wetsanding as its not needed, but rotary vs pc on clear removal in this situation?



I found this thread quite interesting and informative. A lot of the time though if a scratch looks rough enough to need wetsanding I just kinda accept it as the amount of paint removed to correct it doesn't sit well. I suppose that could be just from the fact that its hard to try and perfect a DD that gets literally BEAT to crap or perfect the toy/fun car that gets BEAT on a racetrack lol
 
sharky nrk said:
does this apply to general purpose light polishing though..... with a PC could definately take off more clear, but what about light swirling that requires little pressure. ..
Click to expand...



I've lightly polished some of our vehicles via PC/Cyclo for years and years with no problems at all.
 
oh yeah I don't imagine there would issues, but from the sound of the "study" or "test" you could use a rotary on it for years and years with no issues either and save a bunch of time. I don't know I guess I am just alot more comfortable throwing the PC around then the rotary.
 
sharky nrk said:
.. from the sound of the "study" or "test" you could use a rotary on it for years and years with no issues either and save a bunch of time..
Click to expand...



That's *if*, and a big "if" it is IMO, you a) can finish out 100% with a rotary and b) never have an "oops".



And no matter *what* you use, at some point you can only take off so much clear before you have problems, so IMO it gets back to not marring it up much in the first place and knowing when to say "good enough".
 
Accumulator said:
And no matter *what* you use, at some point you can only take off so much clear before you have problems, so IMO it gets back to not marring it up much in the first place and knowing when to say "good enough".
Click to expand...



good point, never realized it that way. By compounding/polishing often you are taking off small amounts of cc each time. And eventually if you're too excessive, the cc would lessen over time.



this threads awesome :woot2:
 
I think people are looking into this too much...



To remove swirls, RIDS, scratches, defects you have to remove all the clear above the deepest part of the scratch or defect. Taking your time with sandpaper and checking frequently, you can remove close to the precise amount of paint. The rotary is more precise and the PC is the least precise.



That doesn't mean the PC is bad (its not because it is very safe) at all, it just means and experienced rotary user can remove less amount of paint then a PC.
 
TH0001- I'm glad you posted that, IMO it's especially good coming from *you* :xyxthumbs



Oh, and that "experienced rotary user" (I would substitute "highly skilled" for "experienced" ;) ) bit *is* significant, even if you don't want to beat your own drum too much.
 
TH0001 said:
That doesn't mean the PC is bad (its not because it is very safe) at all, it just means and experienced rotary user can remove less amount of paint then a PC.
Click to expand...



There are no pix, Atlantic Euro.



But since this topic has come back to life, TH0001, I don't understand what you mean in the first part of the above quote. Do you mean the PC is very safe or not very safe? It seems that if it removes more paint, it can't be "very safe"?
 
It's safe in that it won't cause other damage. The amount of CC removed is still pretty negligible but it's the least precise of the these three methods. What you don't have to fear (as much) with a PC or other RO polisher is burning paint with a rotary or instilling super RDS or something with wetsanding and rotary.
 
phamkl said:
What you don't have to fear (as much) with a PC or other RO polisher is burning paint with a rotary or instilling super RDS or something with wetsanding and rotary.
Click to expand...



And with the PC/Cyclp/etc. you won't get holograms.



Oh, and playing around on the Denali XL yesterday, I concluded that some wool pads (e.g. LC PFW) on a rotary are actually *safer* than orange foam 4" pads on the PC!
 
Accumulator said:
I concluded that some wool pads (e.g. LC PFW) on a rotary are actually *safer* than orange foam 4" pads on the PC!
Click to expand...



And the PFW perform better than the orange foam as well (on a rotary).
 
Quick question about this post - as a Brit I'm not sure what a mil is when measuring the thickness of paint. I'm assuming that this is 0.0001 of an inch but thought I would check. I've been in manufacturing and servicing for a few years now but over here we only have 0.001 of an inch which we call a "Thou" or 0.001 of a MM which we call a micron.
 
from Units: M



"mil [1]

a unit of distance equal to 0.001 inch: a "milli-inch," in other words. Mils are used, primarily in the U.S., to express small distances and tolerances in engineering work. One mil is exactly 25.4 microns, just as one inch is exactly 25.4 millimeters. This unit is also called the thou. With the increasing use of metric units in the U.S., many machinists now avoid the use of "mil" because that term is also a handy slang for the millimeter."





Contrary to the above, I've never heard a machinist or mechanical engineer use the word "mil" to mean millimeter. I've only ever heard it used to mean 0.001".





PC.
 
D&D Auto Detail said:
I have seen people put holograms in with the PC.
Click to expand...



haha noobs!



no jk.



this is a shocking conclusion indeed... although this means that PCs should have more power to level swirls so i am confused once again



sorry i did not read all 7 pages to the thread. I just read post #1 and decided to post this after seeing the post i quoted too :sadpace:
 
D&D Auto Detail said:
I have seen people put holograms in with the PC.
Click to expand...



Huh, I've *never* seen that, and didn't even think it was possible what with the PC's dual action/random orbital movements :think: I know it can leave hazing/etc., but I've never seen it leave holograms...never seen holograms from anything except a rotary.



Not :argue just never saw/imagined it. I don't understand how a random orbital abrasion pattern can result in that kind of marring :confused: Seems to me the surface would be too "cross hatched" for holograms to occur.
 
Accum, they are not *holograms* in the traditional sense, whereas you can see every movement with the buffer that the person made. I've made "holograms" with the PC and a very agressive product (IMO, I know you think differently), HT EC. It was with a 5.5" LC CCS orange pad, and it had a "holographic" appearance to it. I didn't break down the polish well at all, and the resulting micromarring was so severe and uneven due to uneven polish breakdown that it gave it a hologramed appearance. I hope this makes some sort of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top