Thanks for the patience in me posting this. I wrote in in sections because I have not had a whole lot of time for posts, so if something is way off base, it is likely a copy and paste issue from moving stuff around.
Have you changed anything since post #3? I think I've read a few things that are different elsewhere, but there's no need for me to ask if you say everything is the same.
Everything looks good... I will stand by the recommendations.
The only thing I would add is this in regards to supplemental wetting agents:
Introducing a spritz of water or detail spray is a no-no primarily because although cutting power may increase, so too will scouring. Besides, soaking wet pads are not helpful. If you decide to implement the use of a secondary wetting agent, be aware that scouring or abrasive clumping could occur (at least until you figure out how to avoid it on that paint at that time).
This information was posted on another current TID thread (as I think you are very well aware):
http://truthindetailing.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=2482
I think I will copy and paste the info from the thread you referenced to the thread (it seems to be a good compilation of M105/KBM information).
Is this method applicable with a Flex 3401?
Well, much of it is, but since the Flex does not have an issue with rotation since it is forced, you will want to back off the pressure.
Otherwise, that machine is going to steer itself all over the place! So, I believe that with the Flex, your pad choice is very important.
Thinking things through here on pad choice. All of this is opinion, rumination, contemplation. Time to split some hairs, dissect stuff. Theorize, so to speak.
We could use a good discussion about foam pads, anyway!
So, pads for the Flex, eh? Well... rather than getting specific, I would like to talk about foam pads in general.
A
thin pad would work better than a
thick pad for the purpose of transferring the the machine's 5/16" eccentric motion
through the pad so it can efficiently work the paint. Not much need to worry about pad cushioning slowing the offset rotation of the pad, because it is force driven. A
stiff pad would probably cut better than a
cushiony pad, but with added stiffness comes less contouring of the pad. To counteract this problem, we would normally add more downward pressure to force the pad to shape its face to the panel being polished. Unfortunately, when we add downward applied pressure to the Flex, it tries to "steer" the machine in all sorts of directions.
As I see it in my mind...
The ideal
defect removal pad for a Flex would be one that would easily compress so that it could effortlessly contour to the panel shape.
This way, there would be no need to increase downward pressure. If we only need to use a normal amount of pressure, we can avoid the
steering characteristics[/] of the machine when downward pressure is applied. Most pads that compress easily feature very thin membrane walls, and lots of pores per inch (PPI). Lots of tiny pores, easy to compress... sounds like a finishing pad, eh?
But we shouldn't just look at a PPI rating because less PPI does not necessarily equate to any[/] specific performance characteristic. To clarify: Suppose two competing pad manufacturers offer foam pads that spec out at only FOUR pores per inch. One design might offer very thin walls and large pores, while the other might have very thick walls with tiny little pores.
The pad with thin walls and large pores would EITHER allow more product to pack into the membrane-like structure OR allow an increased amount of side-to side wiggling movement of the pad. Huh?
If we prime the pad using buffing liquid to fill the space between the pad's memebrane-like walls, and the walls were stiff enough to trap the buffing liquid, the abrasive material would be moved back and forth across the paint surface in a somewhat controlled manner. Some of the abrasives would slip away and roll along the surface as the pad moved. Likewise, some of the material already on the paint surface would be whisked about and end up in the pad. By moving the abrasive in and out of the pad, contaminated particles and paint residue are essentially diluted via mixing with the fresh buffing liquid. This effectively extends the life of the liquid before the onset of saturated contamination. Among many other things, pad priming increases the usable area of a foam pad. It also creates what amounts to a hard-barrier, slowing absorption of the "liquid" portion of the buffing compound (this helps control pad saturation). After all, the newer generation of abrasives are chock full of tiny hard particles that are able to pack tightly together. Considering this, we might conclude that a rather hard surface is created between the membranes, so leveling capability will be increased.
If we do not prime the pad using the buffing liquid (thus leaving the void area open), then the pad walls will bend. This movement may allow some of the walls to contact the paint surface. Eventually, abrasive particles would attach to the walls. They would likely have increased cutting power because they are attached and therefore traveling at maximum speed (the same speed as the pad is moving). To counteract wall distortion, we could apply more pressure but we do not know if the added pressure will result in a closing of the walls, so this could result in a zero sum gain. Regardless the outcome, this may not be the best way to use this pad because our goal was to avoid adding pressure in the first place.
It should be noted that since the walls are so thin on a pad of this theoretical design, not a lot of abrasive particles would be attached to the face of the pad. For this discussion, the face is the portion of the pad that is actually TOUCHING the paint. What might the net effect be?
If a particle is attached to a pad and not able to dislodge, it is moving at maximum speed, so cutting power would be at its peak. As paint is abraded by its movement, some of the paint is likely to stick to the particle. If the material is soft, it may not be such a big deal. However, if the particles are hard and crunchy (such as would be the case with oxidized paint, or paint that has particles of dirt embedded), we could create more defects.
A potential problem using a thin walled, large pore pad such as the type outlined as a defect removal pad is this: If you are using an abrasive-laden buffing liquid that is designed for rapid paint removal (a cutting compound), then the pad has a tough time pushing its way through the particles that have mechanically attached to the paint. Further, if the buffing liquid is a thick consistency or has a LOT of abrasive content, the pad simply cannot push its way through built-up liquid that is stuck to the paint surface without deflecting its shape. What generally occurs is often referred to surface gumming, which is an easy way of identifying the fact that the pad is gliding over the buffing compound rather than pushing through it.
Compared to a thin wall, large pore pad, a foam pad with thick walls and small pores would not allow as much buffing liquid to enter the membrane-like structure of a foam pad. If the pad was a closed cell design, it would take even LESS product to pack the small pores. Well, guess what? Many of the newer generation foam cutting pads are similar to this design! granted, They feature WAY more than four pores per inch. The biggest points to consider are:
1. Wider walls mean more abrasive particles can attach to the face of the pad.
2. Less product is needed to thoroughly prime a similarly sized pad with buffing liquid because the closed cell design (also referred to as non-reticulated).
3. The buffing liquid will not migrate through the buffing pad as quickly as a thin walled, large pore pad.
Sounds like a real winner for the purposes of removing defects.
There are some issues associated with this design, but a lot of guys are seeing great success with similarly designed pads. In general, if two pads are made of the same foam material, but one is open cell while the other is closed cell, you will generally notice an increased working temperature of the pad because less airflow through the pad is likely, and the denser material will not cool down as quickly because there is more material to cool. In addition, you will likely notice that the rebound action of the pad will be slower, too. Finally, once you decide to wash the pad, it will take a lot longer for it to completely dry. Look around and you will see some posts attesting to this fact.
It should be noted that I am not referring to any particular brand of pad throughout this post. Terms such as "thin" or "thick" in reference to wall thickness, and "cushiony" or "stiff" in relation to pad resiliency are non-specific. My hope is not to necessarily point out a specific "ideal" foam cutting pad because preferences and techniques have a large effect on pad performance. Paint condition, buffing liquid type, and many other factors can change the performance of a pad, too. For specific recommendations, guys that use the Flex all the time are your best bet in terms of getting close to an ideal pad. Hopefully by reading this post you can use the information to better dial in the performance of any foam buffing pad for any specific polishing task.
)
