Learn to machine sand TODAY! LIVE Detailing Class at 3:00pm Eastern Time

[Jacob Harrod AUTOCLEAN]

It's a darn good video! I watched it yesterday and learned a bunch!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Autogeekonline mobile app

[2black1s]

Here you go...

Yancy and I took a number of different readings in the same general area and here's the lowest reading...


http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/4239/aPTG_003.JPG


:)

Thanks for following up Mike.

If that 17.6 reading correlates to the 18.1 (before) reading from yesterday, it indicates that up to 0.5 mils was removed.

Note that the 18.1 mil measurement was the thinnest of yesterday's "before" measurements and the 17.6 mil measurement is the thinnest of today's "after" measurements.

That is a little more than I expected to see, but it still shows how aggressive you have to be during polishing to remove any significant amount of paint. In this case the paint was sanded, compounded, and polished. I'd expect the paint removal breakdown to be something like this (only my guestimate)...

Sanding = ~ 0.26 mils removed
Compounding = ~ 0.16 mils removed
Polishing = ~ 0.08 mils removed

In my eyes, this shows that during routine polishing and/or AIO processes to remove swirls and other minor/shallow defects, the amount of paint removed is minimal. Looking at the values in the above guestimate, the amount of paint removed during the polishing step is less than the resolution of the gauge (0.1 mils) itself. It would take multiple polishing cycles before you'd even begin to see the change in measurements, and you also have to assume the exact same measurement location to ensure accuracy.

While my analysis here is based on a single before/after measurement, I hope that it can relieve some of the concerns out there relative to removing too much paint during routine polishing and/or AIO processes. When performed using quality products combined with a sound process, the risks are minimal in most cases. There will always be exceptions, i.e., age, history, etc., but that is where we all have to make are own assessments when such cases arise.

The only other thing I'd like to see, in an effort to refine my analysis, is what the range of measurements taken today is. The range of the "before" measurements taken yesterday was 18.1 to 19.2 mils. If I knew today's range I could refine my analysis using averages rather than a single data point and doing so could provide an even clearer "real-world" picture.

[Mike Phillips]

In my eyes, this shows that during routine polishing and/or AIO processes to remove swirls and other minor/shallow defects, the amount of paint removed is minimal.



Agree. The above is my experience.

And when I'm asked a very common question,

How many times can I compound my car?

First I tell the person,

Well - if after compounding the first time, if you stop doing stupid stuff to the paint you won't have to compound again. :D



But realistically, for the masses - removing too much paint is the least of their worries as long as they are using great abrasive technology and then common sense stuff like matching the right pad to the tool and product and of course, using good technique.








The only other thing I'd like to see, in an effort to refine my analysis, is what the range of measurements taken today is. The range of the "before" measurements taken yesterday was 18.1 to 19.2 mils. If I knew today's range I could refine my analysis using averages rather than a single data point and doing so could provide an even clearer "real-world" picture.



Been there done that...

From October of 2009

Removing Orange Peel & Sanding Marks with the Griot's ROP and the Wolfgang Twins (http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/wet-sanding-cutting-buffing/21463-removing-sanding-marks-griot-s-rop-wolfgang-twins.html)


From post #2

Whenever you do any kind of testing it's vitally important to remove and reduce as many variables as possible, so I came up with a way of using 3M Painter's Masking Tape to create a grid pattern on the hood that I could use to locate the 3 locations in a repeatable method.

I then used the 3M Painter's Tape Grid System to take my measurements with the goal being to record measurements from the same locations for each reading as much as possible. To check myself and my consistency in sanding and compounding, I chose 3 places to duplicate the same test and recorded all the measurements as a "control".

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/772/WetSandingExperiment1015.jpg

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/772/WetSandingExperiment1021.jpg




The FULL explanation of what I did and how I did it is in the actual article, I'm not going to post any more than what I have above as a teaser.

Removing Orange Peel & Sanding Marks with the Griot's ROP and the Wolfgang Twins (http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/wet-sanding-cutting-buffing/21463-removing-sanding-marks-griot-s-rop-wolfgang-twins.html)



At the end of all my sanding, buffing and measuring, I found I removed approximately .5 mills and that was after hand sanding 3 times.

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/772/WetSandingExperiment1009.jpg

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/772/WetSandingExperiment1010.jpg


Mark you buckets so you can quickly and easily identify which buckets hold which papers.

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/data/772/WetSandingExperiment1011.jpg



I don't think I'll ever do anything so extravagant like I did for that article the rest of my life. Instead I'll just use common sense when doing ANY detailing process and of course, dial-in my process first via the Test Spot.




:)

[2black1s]

Good stuff in this (and the linked) threads!

Now on to another topic... The rotary aspect of the video.

I can't tell you how much I agree with the "going on edge" aspect and that is exactly the way I use the rotary. I don't think I go quite as far on edge, although maybe I do and just don't realize it, as I have never seen a video of me polishing. The way I would explain my method is to say that I skew the pad slightly, one way or the other, to give myself better control.

Back in my heyday there were no discussion forums like this so I don't remember ever discussing this topic. But every instruction that you could find (few and far between relative to today) stated to keep the pad flat to the surface. Even product instructions gave the same direction. And most instruction that I have seen to this day still says the same thing.

You don't know how many times I tried polishing with a flat pad. That's what all the "experts" told us was the right thing to do. Right?

Not for me!

What a flat pad on a rotary does is makes you fight the machine through the entire process. One side of the pad wants to walk the machine in one direction while the other side of the pad wants to walk in the opposite direction. Then as you try to control the opposing forces the machine starts chattering and hopping around and you're in for a long day.

All you have to do to eliminate the struggle is to skew the pad a little to one side or the other. Now you have a very smooth operating tool that you are in complete control of. And when I say smooth, I mean absolutely smooth... Smoother than any DA polisher.

To someone that has never used a rotary I would use an industrial floor buffer as an analogy. If you ever used one you will know that just a little pressure to one side of the handle will make the machine move in that direction in a very controlled manner. A little pressure to the other side of the handle and the machine will now move in that direction. A rotary polisher on a car surface acts the same way.

As soon as I close this post I'm going to go find your book (Mike's Book - The Complete Guide to a Show Car Shine) and read up on the rotary section. I don't recall ever hearing of or reading of this practice before yesterday. Did I miss it? Or is it not discussed there?

[PaulMys]

Good stuff in this thread!

Now on to another topic... The rotary aspect of the video.

I can't tell you how much I agree with the "going on edge" aspect and that is exactly the way I use the rotary. I don't think I go quite as far on edge, although maybe I do and just don't realize it, as I have never seen a video of me polishing. The way I would explain my method is to say that I skew the pad slightly, one way or the other, to give myself better control.

Back in my heyday there were no discussion forums like this so I don't remember ever discussing this topic. But every instruction that you could find (few and far between relative to today) stated to keep the pad flat to the surface. Even product instructions had the same instruction. And most instruction that I have seen to this day still says the same thing.

You don't know how many times I tried polishing with a flat pad. That's what all the "experts" told us was the right thing to do. Right?

Not for me!

What a flat pad on a rotary does is makes you fight the machine through the entire process. One side of the pad wants to walk the machine in one direction while the other side of the pad wants to walk in the opposite direction. Then as you try to control the opposing forces the machine starts chattering and hopping around and you're in for a long day.

All you have to do to eliminate the struggle is to skew the pad a little to one side or the other. Now you have a very smooth operating tool that you are in complete control of. And when I say smooth, I mean absolutely smooth... Smoother than any DA polisher.

To someone that has never used a rotary I would use an industrial floor buffer as an analogy. If you ever used one you will know that just a little pressure to one side of the handle will make the machine move in that direction in a very controlled manner. A little pressure to the other side of the handle and the machine will now move in that direction. A rotary polisher on a car surface acts the same way.

As soon as I close this post I'm going to go find your book (Mike's Book - The Complete Guide to a Show car Shine) and read up on the rotary section. I don't recall ever hearing of or reading of this practice before yesterday. Did I miss it? Or is it not discussed there?

I've never used a rotary on a car or truck, but I have hundreds and hundreds of hours on them on boat hulls (gelcoat).

You are 100% correct, John. Trying to keep a rotary pad flat on the surface is next to impossible, and counterproductive to say the least.

[2black1s]

... The only other thing I'd like to see, in an effort to refine my analysis, is what the range of measurements taken today is. The range of the "before" measurements taken yesterday was 18.1 to 19.2 mils. If I knew today's range I could refine my analysis using averages rather than a single data point and doing so could provide an even clearer "real-world" picture.





... Been there done that...

From October of 2009

Removing Orange Peel & Sanding Marks with the Griot's ROP and the Wolfgang Twins (http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/wet-sanding-cutting-buffing/21463-removing-sanding-marks-griot-s-rop-wolfgang-twins.html)...



Wow! I see you have a touch of engineer and the resulting insanity in your nature as do I LOL.

Great job and I couldn't have done it any better myself.

Your results show that the material removed during the compounding and polishing steps is even less than my earlier "guestimates". For the sanding step my "guestimate" was low (but your experiment was a 3-step sanding process where the video was only a single step).

This is even better news than I speculated earlier for anyone concerned with removing too much paint during polishing.

[Mike Phillips]

Wow! I see you have a touch of engineer and the resulting insanity in your nature as do I LOL.




Happy to say I've overcome OCDness. I've replaced it with laziness and I don't careness. :D






Great job and I couldn't have done it any better myself.

Your results show that the material removed during the compounding and polishing steps is even less than my earlier "guestimates". For the sanding step my "guestimate" was low (but your experiment was a 3-step sanding process where the video was only a single step).

This is even better news than I speculated earlier for anyone concerned with removing too much paint during polishing.




Like I tell people wondering and worried about removing too much paint. As long as you're using great abrasive technology and not doing stupid stuff - removing too much paint "for most people" is the least of their concerns. And if they're NEW to machine polishing - then removing ENOUGH paint (to actually remove the defects), is actually their real concern.



:)

[muaddba]

Mike, in this live demo, you used the Flex CBeast with a 7-inch Rupes pad. I thought I had read somewhere else on the forum (the search is failing me, but I swear it was one of your posts) that you did not recommend going above the 5 inch backing plate for the CBeast. If so, how did you use a 7-inch pad? Or maybe the advice was "old" advice and you've changed your mind?

[Mike Phillips]

Mike, in this live demo, you used the Flex CBeast with a 7-inch Rupes pad. I thought I had read somewhere else on the forum (the search is failing me, but I swear it was one of your posts) that you did not recommend going above the 5 inch backing plate for the CBeast. If so, how did you use a 7-inch pad?



When the CBEAST first came out, I had a hard time finding larger pads that worked well with the machine. AND I had a history and a tendency to use the thick Lake Country Force Hybrid pads with the original BEAST so I naturally tried these with the CBEAST and while "yes" they do work - I found it was just too much pad or volume of pad for this cordless tool.

The Lake Country Force Hybrid in both 6.5 and 5.5" versions are also not the "optimum" shape for any of the beast tools. Again these pads work on these tools but a more tapered pad design works better.





Or maybe the advice was "old" advice and you've changed your mind?




Sometimes we find our thoughts about a topic undergoes an evolution. This can be for a number of reasons, for example spending more time with a tool or product or perhaps new technology is introduced to cause us to change how we do things and also how we think about things.

When RUPES introduced their new CP foam pads I began using them on the entire family of BEAST tools and I found I really liked the yellow and white pads for these tool. There's a tick of social business pressure to show RUPES pads on RUPES tools as well as show RUPES chemicals with RUPES pads and tools and I do this in all my car detailing classes. But at the risk of getting frowned upon by RUPES folks for using thier pads on FLEX tools, (a tick of a social faux pas), because they work so well and feel so right for the BEAST tools my thinking has undergone an evolution.

I now PREFER the 6" backing plate and 7" pads on the BEAST, Supa BEAST and CBEAST tools. I not only like the RUPES CP foam pads but I also like the B&S Uro-Tech pads on the FLEX BEAST Family of tools. And also just to mention, for more aggressive cutting with the BEAST tools, I also like the 7 inch RUPES Coarse Wool Polishing Pad.

These pads,

7 inch RUPES Coarse Wool Polishing Pad (https://www.autogeek.net/rupes-coarse-wool-7inch-pad.html)


The foam core helps smooth out the "felt action" of the tool to you as you hold and buff with the tool.


What I always find interesting is when I post about specific pads or things like microfiber towels and give "good" explanations as to why I like them and use them - the next thing I see is these thing empty out off the shelves in the warehouse. I take my recommendations seriously, I know people trust what I say.


Hope the above makes sense and helps.


:cheers:

[Mike Phillips]

Mike, in this live demo, you used the Flex CBeast with a 7-inch Rupes pad.




I know the world doesn't hang on every word I type, so in case you missed this recent article, here's the link.

Mike Phillips recommended foam pads for the FLEX Family of BEAST 8mm Gear-Driven Orbital Polishers (https://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/product-reviews-by-mike-phillips/128526-mike-phillips-recommended-foam-pads-flex-family-beast-8mm-gear-driven-orbital-polishers.html)



And here's a related article,

Supa BEAST and CBEAST Backing Plate Swap by Mike Phillips (https://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/how-to-articles-by-mike-phillips/124929-supa-beast-cbeast-backing-plate-swap-mike-phillips.html)



And for what it's worth, when typing out the spelling of the word beast - it's all capital letters.

BEAST - FLEX 3401
Supa BEAST - new corded version of the 3401
CBEAST - cordless version of the new 3401


And for everyone reading this into the future - FLEX is DISCONTINUING the original XC 3401 VRG polisher. In fact, they are no longer shipping to many countries. So if you want one - better get one while you can. And here some sage advice.

If you purchase the original BEAST - I'd highly recommend getting a couple back-up backing plates. READ this carefully,

BACKING PLATES ARE WEAR ITEMS!




That's right, the velcro hooks wear-out from being stretched each time you remove a pad and the form intercore on these backing plates also breaks down. It's just a natural process just like you and me are in a state of contually breaking down.

The tool will be useless without a good backing plate and the BEAST backing plate is UNIQUE and SPECIFIC to the BEAST. There are no other options that fit and work.




:buffing:

[muaddba]

Mike, thanks for this explanation. Sadly, it seems I had found some older threads when searching for recommended pads (and backing plates) for the CBEAST (capitalization correction noted), and bought based on them. Those pads (5.5" LC Force Hybrid in Orange and White) will be arriving today from my 20% off order I placed last week. I actually had the 5.75" backing plate in my cart and removed it based on the unfortunately outdated advice I found. Will I get less satisfactory performance out of this setup? Should I attempt a return of the pads and order the Rupes pads with the appropriate backing plate?

And if I could be so bold....if you think I should attempt to adjust my order, could you link to the correct backing plate so I am sure I get the right thing? EDIT: Crap, I found the link for it in your other post, and it's out of stock. Hopefully it will be back in stock soon.

[Mike Phillips]

Will I get less satisfactory performance out of this setup?

Should I attempt a return of the pads and order the Rupes pads with the appropriate backing plate?




If it's possible - I would opt for the larger backing plate and the RUPES pads. The 5.5" LC pads will work though, just feels kind of wonky to me as I'm buffing. It's a case of the tool has a ton of power, now you need a pad approach that enables you to best use the power.





And if I could be so bold....if you think I should attempt to adjust my order, could you link to the correct backing plate so I am sure I get the right thing?

EDIT: Crap, I found the link for it in your other post, and it's out of stock. Hopefully it will be back in stock soon.



Here's a better option - get the 6" RUPES yellow and white foam pads and they will turn and churn great on the factory 5" backing plate.

For a cutting pad, go with either one of the Buff and Shine foam cutting pads, probably the maroon colored one, it's fairly aggressive. If it's now aggressive enough then might as well go with the RUPES microfiber in 6"


Trying my best to help... with 49,685 posts on this forum, it's impossible to update everything I've written.


:dunno:

[muaddba]

Mike, thanks for the info, and I do apologize if you felt I was annoyed at you....it was really more being annoyed at my own search results.

[Mike Phillips]

Mike, thanks for the info, and I do apologize if you felt I was annoyed at you....it was really more being annoyed at my own search results.




I didn't feel that way so no worries - I feel your pain when it comes to doing research and making the right choices.

If you find any thread where I'm still sharing my initial thoughts on backing plates and pads - share here and I'll update it.


:cheers: