clay vs cleaner
- Thread starter Ern
- Start date
imported_speedingpenguin
New member
06E90 said:
well hell, you dont HAVE to, but would you want to be picking up all those little particles and rubbing them all over your paint while your polishing? and I dont think polishing would get rid of a lot of that stuff either..... so if you were to skip the clay process, you'd not be removing all of the crap on/in your paint, and you'd be dragging the stuff you DID remove all over your paint..... up to you I guess
I a'int gonna force ya to clay!brwill2005
New member
David Fermani said:
It is overused in the sense that it was created in Japan for removing industrial fallout and overspray. Clay performs wonderfully at those tasks. Here, it is promoted as a paint cleaner that should be used on a regular basis and/or everytime you wax or polish your car. The companies who manufacture and sell lots of clay, such as Auto Magic, are the ones who disseminate this information. Clay is extremely profitable for Auto Magic. If it was not, they would not be bringing patent infringement lawsuits against every company who manufactures clay or similar products. Plenty of comapnies, in order to sell more product, disseminate false or incomplete information. I just can not buy the fact that something that will remove overspray and other tough to remove contaminants will not remove wax. To answer your question, no I do not think wax is overused. If you are using a wax with no abrasives, such as OCW or something similar there is not going to be any negative effects of using it too much. Clay on the other hand, can be used too much because it has abrasive properties and can mar paint.
speedingpenguin said:well hell, you dont HAVE to, but would you want to be picking up all those little particles and rubbing them all over your paint while your polishing? and I dont think polishing would get rid of a lot of that stuff either..... so if you were to skip the clay process, you'd not be removing all of the crap on/in your paint, and you'd be dragging the stuff you DID remove all over your paint..... up to you I guess
Wow, you need to chill. Just asking a question. I never said I don't clay. Just read some of my C&B's and check the procedure.
My question arises from the Sonus article where it implies that the clay works by abrasive action just like an abrasive polish would. THere are also plenty of posts about marring with use of clay, so those particles you speak of might just rub all over the paint while claying too.
Currently if the surface feels smooth and I just need to correct some spiderwebbing I just polish. If the surface is rough at all, I clay then polish. Just wondering if this might be redundant.
ProStreetCamaro
New member
To be honest I never clay our cars. I tried it one time on all of our cars and trucks and the clay never got dirty so I knew it wasnt doing anything. I know this isnt the norm and I have no clue why our vehicals dont get embedded foreign material but they never have. Trust me I am happy about that!
Accumulator
Well-known member
I believe I can speak with a little authority here, based on first-hand experience over a long timeframe; I've been claying since detailing clay (as opposed to overspray clay- different clays for different applications) came out in the early '90s. In fact, I spot-clay at every wash as needed..that's a lot of claying, on everything from ss lacquer to glass.
Back when David B. started selling clay under the Sonus label he discussed it in great detail, correcting some misconceptions that I and others had, and that I suspect a lot of people still have.
Clay cleans by "shearing" the contamination off the surface, not by "pulling" it out. That's why clay isn't always 100% effective on raildust/ferrous contamination (and why decontamination systems generally work better for this).
Clay *is* abrasive, but "abrasive" can mean a lot of things, functionally speaking, and if many clays are used correctly they won't abrade the paint, in large part because there is lube between the paint and the clay. Some don't even abrade an existing LSP to a significant extent. It's when more aggressive clays are used, especially with a bit of pressure and perhaps insufficient lube, that marring and other abrasive effects occur.
Clay some unwaxed (but unoxidized) black ss lacquer with a very mild clay, no significant pressure, and plenty of lube. You'll observe no marring and no paint transfer to the clay- i.e., no abrasive effect on the paint.
Claying with stuff like the Sonus Ultra-fine/green can, in effect, "clean the existing LSP". It shears the contamination off the existing LSP so you can reapply over a clean surface without having to use a paint cleaner/polish that would remove *all* the existing LSP from the paint. This works especially well with products where layering is possible, like KSG and Zaino. IIRC, Sal Zaino once said that proper claying with his clay would remove "approximately half a layer" of his sealant. IME gentle claying with Sonus green doesn't even come close to removing half a layer of KSG or even regular wax, otherwise my LSPs would be clayed away in no time instead of lasting for many months.
One good reason to clay before you polish is that *only* polishing can result in "polishing the contamination", smoothing and rounding it over so it's even harder to remove later. I suspect that the polishing media sometimes conform to the contamination or pass over it, rather than getting it off the paint.
It's not like people didn't do OK with only polishes and paint cleaners for years before clay became popular, and as jfelbab pointed out there are jobs where paint cleaners are a better choice than clay. So IMO if somebody doesn't want to clay it's not the end of the world and they can still go a great job. But it seems there are still a lot of misconceptions about detailing clay on both sides of the subject.
Back when David B. started selling clay under the Sonus label he discussed it in great detail, correcting some misconceptions that I and others had, and that I suspect a lot of people still have.
Clay cleans by "shearing" the contamination off the surface, not by "pulling" it out. That's why clay isn't always 100% effective on raildust/ferrous contamination (and why decontamination systems generally work better for this).
Clay *is* abrasive, but "abrasive" can mean a lot of things, functionally speaking, and if many clays are used correctly they won't abrade the paint, in large part because there is lube between the paint and the clay. Some don't even abrade an existing LSP to a significant extent. It's when more aggressive clays are used, especially with a bit of pressure and perhaps insufficient lube, that marring and other abrasive effects occur.
Clay some unwaxed (but unoxidized) black ss lacquer with a very mild clay, no significant pressure, and plenty of lube. You'll observe no marring and no paint transfer to the clay- i.e., no abrasive effect on the paint.
Claying with stuff like the Sonus Ultra-fine/green can, in effect, "clean the existing LSP". It shears the contamination off the existing LSP so you can reapply over a clean surface without having to use a paint cleaner/polish that would remove *all* the existing LSP from the paint. This works especially well with products where layering is possible, like KSG and Zaino. IIRC, Sal Zaino once said that proper claying with his clay would remove "approximately half a layer" of his sealant. IME gentle claying with Sonus green doesn't even come close to removing half a layer of KSG or even regular wax, otherwise my LSPs would be clayed away in no time instead of lasting for many months.
One good reason to clay before you polish is that *only* polishing can result in "polishing the contamination", smoothing and rounding it over so it's even harder to remove later. I suspect that the polishing media sometimes conform to the contamination or pass over it, rather than getting it off the paint.
It's not like people didn't do OK with only polishes and paint cleaners for years before clay became popular, and as jfelbab pointed out there are jobs where paint cleaners are a better choice than clay. So IMO if somebody doesn't want to clay it's not the end of the world and they can still go a great job. But it seems there are still a lot of misconceptions about detailing clay on both sides of the subject.
imported_speedingpenguin
New member
06E90 said:
I was just answering the question in a way whcih would explain my point, thats all
mikebai1990
New member
I think we should all focus on Accumulators post, which seems to be right on the money! 
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
brwill2005 said:
I think Accumulators post above proves most of your statement to be not accurate.
brwill2005 said:
As far as Auto Magic's patent infrigements go, don'y you think they should enforse their patents or just let *competitors* steal market share for their own patented ideas? Wouldn't you do the same thing? :think: :think2 Clay has been turned into big business for the detailing market not because of it's smoke & mirror tactics, but because it's a valuable and useful tool. Anyone from pros to morons can use this product and produce incredible non-damaging results. How is Auto Magic providing false or incomplete information? Their not telling people to use their aggressive Red Clay Magic for everyday applications. 99.99& of their clay marketing is is for their Blue Clay Magic (which according to almost everyone does not marr the finish).
brwill2005
New member
Why is Accumulator's statement automatically correct and mine is wrong? He, like me, has received his information from a third party; either from a manufacturer or another knowledgable person. I too, have plenty of experience using clay. I have seen clay, even very mild clay, mar a finish. I do think Auto Magic should enforce their patent, however, my point was they are enforcing it because clay is very profitable for them. You stated that waxes were more profitable for AM. I agree clay is a valuable tool, however, I just feel it is over marketed as an every day paint cleaner. This is simply my opinion, and I am not sure why you can not respect that.
David Fermani
Forza Auto Salon
I tend to trust what Accumulator's thought's are on most subjects, especially marring. Accumulator(like me) hasn't necessarily received our information from 3 rd party sources but from 1st hand repairing vehicles. I've personally clayed 100's of vehicles as well as witnessed 1000's being clayed by my detailers that worked for me. I've mostly used Clay Magic(blue) and have never witnessed any marring from correctly using it . To me, that's a personal guarantee. I'm not sure what strain of clay or clay lube you're using, but if you're getting marring(when you are trying to avoid it), your process is either needing adjustment or you are using aggressive blends. Have you tried Blue clay Magic? In addition to 1st hand experiences, I also have personal/professional relationships with a few Auto Wax executives and they have no motivation to lie or provide me with wrong information when asked. For Auto Magic, I would guess that waxes are more profitable for them. They sell 10 different kinds and I'm sure there's more profit in a $25 gallon of wax compared to $25 in clay. I imagine they have more revenue in waxes than clay. I could be wrong, but it's an educated guess. I'm not trying to personally attack you, I just trying to debate this issue at hand.
I've been using Clay Magic since I became hip to clay and it's usefulness back in the late 90's. I have clayed quite a few vehicles with it and have not experienced any marring, but that was not my contention from the get go. I just wanted people to understand how clay actually works and that it's not just some magic material that "pulls" contaminants from the paint. That's a huge misconception, but understandably so. I can see alot of casual customers being scared away if the manufacturers told the truth on how it works. I've used Clay Magic, Mother's Clay and Meguiars Clay and haven't experienced marring with either.David Fermani said:
I agree with the patents that clearly describe how detailing clay works. Accumulator pretty much summed it up short and sweet.
And I’ll say it again as I’ve said in the past. Clay can be made more or less aggressive by increasing or decreasing the type of abrasives, the physical size of the abrasives, the concentration of abrasives and the firmness of the resin being used.
Clay does not work as a magic contaminant magnet or sticky substance that pulls or lifts contaminants. If it did, then we should be able to press it flat on the surface and pull off *all* the contaminants, but it doesn’t work effectively this way, especially with a lubricant which would further hinder its ability to lift or pull contaminants. The action of working the clay back and fourth across the paint should tell everybody something about what’s going on, especially if they’re familiar with hand sanding or hand polishing, etc.
We all know a slippery lubricant is recommended when using clay and the reason behind this should further clue us into the way clay works. This thin film of slippery lubrication provides protection as a safety barrier and allows the clay to hydroplane across the surface. In other words, the clay is riding on this thin film of slippery lubrication and not the actual painted surface that it would otherwise mar and or scratch without lubrication. This protective thin film of lube allows the microscopic abrasives in the clay to *selectively* shear off and or polish protrusions (bonded contaminants, stains, etc) above the film’s surface, which are then embedded into the clay.
Another way to think of this that might make more sense to some people is to think of the wet sanding process. They’re very similar in that you’re working an abrasive across the surface, BUT, clay *selectively* works (abrades, embeds, etc) the protrusions and not the entire surface because it can ride on a protective film of slippery fluid where as wet sanding applies most of its force to the entire surface without discretion.
And I’ll say it again as I’ve said in the past. Clay can be made more or less aggressive by increasing or decreasing the type of abrasives, the physical size of the abrasives, the concentration of abrasives and the firmness of the resin being used.
Clay does not work as a magic contaminant magnet or sticky substance that pulls or lifts contaminants. If it did, then we should be able to press it flat on the surface and pull off *all* the contaminants, but it doesn’t work effectively this way, especially with a lubricant which would further hinder its ability to lift or pull contaminants. The action of working the clay back and fourth across the paint should tell everybody something about what’s going on, especially if they’re familiar with hand sanding or hand polishing, etc.
We all know a slippery lubricant is recommended when using clay and the reason behind this should further clue us into the way clay works. This thin film of slippery lubrication provides protection as a safety barrier and allows the clay to hydroplane across the surface. In other words, the clay is riding on this thin film of slippery lubrication and not the actual painted surface that it would otherwise mar and or scratch without lubrication. This protective thin film of lube allows the microscopic abrasives in the clay to *selectively* shear off and or polish protrusions (bonded contaminants, stains, etc) above the film’s surface, which are then embedded into the clay.
Another way to think of this that might make more sense to some people is to think of the wet sanding process. They’re very similar in that you’re working an abrasive across the surface, BUT, clay *selectively* works (abrades, embeds, etc) the protrusions and not the entire surface because it can ride on a protective film of slippery fluid where as wet sanding applies most of its force to the entire surface without discretion.
imported_speedingpenguin
New member
maxi said:
No, it should not.
I have never had any problems with clay swirling or hazing my paint in any way, shape or form. I have used Meguiars, Mothers and Clay Magic, which are the only clay bars I've ever seen in the stores, and none have marred my paint at all. No need to worry about the softest clay because none of them will damage your paint unless you don't use it as directed.maxi said: