Ipa 105/205

SuperBee364 said:
That's true... I remember reading Kevin's recommendation about going light on the last few passes, which seems to really make a difference with 105, but not so much with 205.
Click to expand...



No, I don't think I've ever recommended light pressure the last few passes... not with M105 or M205.

I DO recommend that the user MINIMIZE the AMOUNT of product for a final polish, as well as maintaining consistent pressure throughout the application cycle.



Once again, trying to explain a specific amount of pressure with terms such as light, normal, moderate, or heavy is tough.



SuperBee364, if you have a copy of the 3-pager can you send it to Greg?

If not I can send a copy directly to Greg myself.

Not sure if it will help, but it certainly won't hurt.



Greg- you've got some good advice coming from Tim. We seem to work the liquid in a similar manner.



To find out if a liquid is compatible with a paint type, try this:



If after you've dialed in the paint using the random orbital and hazing or micro-marring is present, put the machine down for a minute.

Next, use a fresh microfiber or a foam applicator to apply the M105 or M205 by hand. Several brisk swipes of the pad should do.



Then, liberally mist the surface with a glass cleaner such as Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner or Meguiar's NXT Generation Glass Cleaner (they contain other ingredients as well as alcohol to lift away grease and stuff- you can use another similar glass cleaner if you want). Gently wipe the surface with a water saturated microfiber towel. Finally, wipe the remaining moisture and residue with a high quality microfiber.



If the scouring has been eliminated, we can now rest assured that the liquid IS compatible with the paint type, and the procedure or amount of product being used can be adjusted through trial and error to determine the best application method.



I know this is not news to many of you on this site.

I have no doubt many of the guys in this thread are amongst the best in the business when it comes to paint polishing.

Personally, I have not invested the same amount of time using M205 as I have M105 (probably a 100:1 ratio in favor of M105). I am certain that if you decide to continue to use M205, you will make it through the learning curve (as will I).



As soon as I can, I will dedicate a dozen hours just playing with various application methods using this versatile yet seemingly finicky liquid.
 
Kevin Brown said:
No, I don't think I've ever recommended light pressure the last few passes... not with M105 or M205.

I DO recommend that the user MINIMIZE the AMOUNT of product for a final polish, as well as maintaining consistent pressure throughout the application cycle.



Once again, trying to explain a specific amount of pressure with terms such as light, normal, moderate, or heavy is tough.



SuperBee364, if you have a copy of the 3-pager can you send it to Greg?

If not I can send a copy directly to Greg myself.

Not sure if it will help, but it certainly won't hurt.



Greg- you've got some good advice coming from Tim. We seem to work the liquid in a similar manner.



To find out if a liquid is compatible with a paint type, try this:



If after you've dialed in the paint using the random orbital and hazing or micro-marring is present, put the machine down for a minute.

Next, use a fresh microfiber or a foam applicator to apply the M105 or M205 by hand. Several brisk swipes of the pad should do.



Then, liberally mist the surface with a glass cleaner such as Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner or Meguiar's NXT Generation Glass Cleaner (they contain other ingredients as well as alcohol to lift away grease and stuff- you can use another similar glass cleaner if you want). Gently wipe the surface with a water saturated microfiber towel. Finally, wipe the remaining moisture and residue with a high quality microfiber.



If the scouring has been eliminated, we can now rest assured that the liquid IS compatible with the paint type, and the procedure or amount of product being used can be adjusted through trial and error to determine the best application method.



I know this is not news to many of you on this site.

I have no doubt many of the guys in this thread are amongst the best in the business when it comes to paint polishing.

Personally, I have not invested the same amount of time using M205 as I have M105 (probably a 100:1 ratio in favor of M105). I am certain that if you decide to continue to use M205, you will make it through the learning curve (as will I).



As soon as I can, I will dedicate a dozen hours just playing with various application methods using this versatile yet seemingly finicky liquid.
Click to expand...



D'oh! I apologize for mis-quoting you, Kevin. I'm sure I read about going light for the last couple passes, but I'm confused as to who said it. My apologies! :o:o Sheesh, that's embarrassing.



I'll be happy to forward the 3 page version to Greg.



And thanks for that post... it really helps sort things out a lot.



Edit: It did take a while to catch on to using M105 correctly. Can't wait to get there with 205.
 
SuperBee364, if you have a copy of the 3-pager can you send it to Greg?

If not I can send a copy directly to Greg myself.

Not sure if it will help, but it certainly won't hurt.
Click to expand...



Kevin..any idea when you will officially release your paper???
 
Pats300zx said:
Kevin..any idea when you will officially release your paper???
Click to expand...



Yes.

It will be before the end of this month.

I am currently working on it an average of approximately 2-4 hours per day.



It it hard to gauge the progress because I've added another section and it required more graphics. I've also moved sections around.

Once I get past the first twelve or so pages, the diagrams are not needed nearly as much. Since I added to the beginning of the paper, I have been stuck on page three, four, five, etc.



Even though it is a long paper, the graphics take up a lot of space.

Don't get me wrong- there's a lot to read, but it should be a pretty easy read. Easy read, yes. Easy write... NO!



Once I finish a few pages, I send it off for input from Chris Dasher.

He helps to correct grammatical and sentence structural errors. We discuss wording on certain paragraphs or sentences.

He looks at the diagrams and sometimes recommends changes. Then we move on.



Next, it will go to my new pal Al (recommended by Dasher). Al is sharp- he caught errors we did not, and he is a crack shot on the punctuation stuff. Plus, he reads the paper from a different perspective because he is somewhat new to the paint polishing scene. Then I ponder his suggestions and fix obvious mistakes. I've added a section because he asked me some basic questions that were not answered for him by reading a small part of the paper. I knew the answers weren't in the paper later on down the line, as I was not going to cover the topic. But, after some thought (and an additional 40 hours of work!), it is nearly completed.



When it is all done I will send it off to the big-gun shooters.

If they say it looks good, we are a GO. I am trying to fast track it.



Just when I think I am finished, I always have to make changes.

Put it this way- I thought I was certainly going to post it by November 1st, 2008!!
 
By the way, from what I know...

M205 was first and foremost designed as a final finishing polish for use with a rotary.

I think that most times, M205 leaves a very nice finish when used via rotary with only a few passes and consistent pressure.



If you find that the rotary is leaving mild swirling (and you've tried changing pads, adjusting pressure & speed, and applying different quantities of liquid), put the buffer down. :soscared: Next, hand rub a section of the paint with M205, and then inspect the results. You may find that it just might work better than a follow-up buffing step using a different liquid (and it won't require a lot of elbow grease or time to achieve a stunning result).



Keep in mind how rapidly this liquid works. It is not designed to be used as a long-cycle polish. Although the abrasives used are super-duper tiny, there's a LOT of it in the formula. If used as intended, it is impressive. However- if this is all too much effort for you, I can understand. :bolt



That being said, I think that most guys see a lot of promise with the liquid.

It used to be someone would say about a product, "I tried it and was not impressed", or, "I like product X so much better- anyone want to buy this stuff from me?" Nowadays, I see a lot of comments along the lines of, "It cut super fast, but it was dusty. How can I fix the dusting issue?" Or, "I used the liquid today and the paint was flawless, but it has a short working cycle. Is this normal?"



The previous comments show frustration and resolution that the product is a no-go. The latter comments suggest that, although the results weren't completely satisfactory, the user saw something during the experience that was impressive enough to use the product again.



That is a good thing (I think it is, anyway).



Can M205 be used for a long period of time?

Yes, but the finish usually suffers because of it.



Is M205 able to remove light to moderate defects (even though it is considered a finishing polish)?

Yes, but the pad and abrasive material can load quickly with abraded paint residue (sometimes the cause of micro-marring).



Will it finish perfectly every time?

No, but overall it works well with most paint types.



One last thing.

This pertains to the "aggressiveness" discussions related to products like M105 and M205. I think that the term "aggressive" is a word that generalizes and confuses when used to discuss the capabilities of polishing liquids and abrasives. I'm not saying there is a better term to use, but nonetheless, it is confusing.



After all, machines that use lasers to cut perfect edges in metal MUST be considered aggressive. This is also true of water jet cutting machines. However, the machines and techniques these incredible pieces of equipment replace are rudimentary in comparison. Even though they are aggressive in terms of their cutting power, the do so very precisely.



I feel the same way about M105 and M205.

If a painted surface is machine polished using an aggressive pad and a lot pressure (for a long period of time), certainly there is a possibility that too much paint is being removed for the task at hand. But (as previously stated by several members), the user controls the application method and timeframe these liquids are being used. Self control is key.



If I can polish a section of paint and remove the target defects with one application and two passes using M105 (leaving a very refined finish), why in the world would I want to revert to using a more traditional liquid that requires five times the passes and two applications (then follow up with another pad/polish combo to remove the remaining defects left by the "aggressive" abrasives in the traditional formula)? :nixweiss



Easy answer... I wouldn't! :nana:



No insult intended to anyone... Just shooting the breeze.

BTW- I am not working on the "paper" because I am out of town and the file is at home. :ignore
 
Kevin - Thanks for the research and such on that "paper."



Are you going to make a separate thread for it?



EDIT: I just realized how confusing using M105 & M205 is... Makes me want to keep to Menzerna. :scared:
 
Lumadar said:
I picked up that suggestion from Nick Chapman. Glass Cleaner contains alcohol and leaves a very clean/pure surface too. For initial testing I use straight ISO wipes, and then wipe the streaking or haze ISO leaves away with the glass cleaner rather than a QD which might fill in and of itself.
Click to expand...



Kevin Brown said:
Then, liberally mist the surface with a glass cleaner such as Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner or Meguiar's NXT Generation Glass Cleaner (they contain other ingredients as well as alcohol to lift away grease and stuff- you can use another similar glass cleaner if you want). Gently wipe the surface with a water saturated microfiber towel. Finally, wipe the remaining moisture and residue with a high quality microfiber.
Click to expand...



On a side note, I don't see glass cleaners containing any more than ~5-10% alcohol content? That, coupled with the light cleaning agents in glass cleaner can't have that good of cleaning/stripping power compared to straight alcohol applications. Why not just use straight alcohol instead. I've never had a problem with streaking unless there were heavy fillers on the surface. If so, I'd just keep wiping until they flashed off.



Great info BTW, I'm cataloging all these techniques in my mind for when I attempt this process.
 
David Fermani said:
On a side note, I don't see glass cleaners containing any more than ~5-10% alcohol content? That, coupled with the light cleaning agents in glass cleaner can't have that good of cleaning/stripping power compared to straight alcohol applications. Why not just use straight alcohol instead. I've never had a problem with streaking unless there were heavy fillers on the surface. If so, I'd just keep wiping until they flashed off.



Great info BTW, I'm cataloging all these techniques in my mind for when I attempt this process.
Click to expand...



actaully window cleaner with amonia is what you should use to remove oils from chemicals. its not the alcohol in the window cleaner its the amonia!
 
David Fermani said:
On a side note, I don't see glass cleaners containing any more than ~5-10% alcohol content? That, coupled with the light cleaning agents in glass cleaner can't have that good of cleaning/stripping power compared to straight alcohol applications. Why not just use straight alcohol instead. I've never had a problem with streaking unless there were heavy fillers on the surface. If so, I'd just keep wiping until they flashed off.



Great info BTW, I'm cataloging all these techniques in my mind for when I attempt this process.
Click to expand...



Do a "squeak test" after using your glass cleaner. For me, it makes a definite difference depending on how much oil was left behind in the first place, it sometimes goes from sounding as if it were waxed to a nice loud squeak indicating a clean surface.



I will say this, though, as Nick explained it to me, you will still want to use stronger alcohol wipes for initial testing or more top dollar jobs. Once you establish that your technique should be working and producing the desired finish the glass cleaner just offers an extra step of insurance.



Furthermore, as I explained, alcohol itself can leave a white streak in some cases so the glass cleaner is a great way to leave a maximally cleaned surface without the risk of adding anything that a QD might leave.



stiffdogg06 said:
EDIT: I just realized how confusing using M105 & M205 is... Makes me want to keep to Menzerna. :scared:
Click to expand...

Although there are rare cases like what is covered here that may make them seem more complicated, I doubt you will find many people that will argue that overall M105 and M205 are more complicated than Menzerna polishes.



Meguiar's simplified the process in many ways by eliminating the need to make sure you fully work the polish to break down the abrasives. It requires LESS skill and knowledge to use them



Also, Menzerna will "out fill" M105 or M205 any day of the week if you look at the majority of their products.
 
Maybe I'm wrong but I'd think that a true diminishing abrasive finishing polish should leave a better finish than a non diminishing abrasive finishing polish:nixweiss
 
wannafbody said:
Maybe I'm wrong but I'd think that a true diminishing abrasive finishing polish should leave a better finish than a non diminishing abrasive finishing polish:nixweiss
Click to expand...





It all depends on the final size of the abrasive. The reason 105 works so well as a heavy compund is that it uses a relatively large amount of abrasives, but they are very small in size, which allows them to leave a good finish.
 
SuperBee364 said:
It all depends on the final size of the abrasive. The reason 105 works so well as a heavy compund is that it uses a relatively large amount of abrasives, but they are very small in size, which allows them to leave a good finish.
Click to expand...



True but I do agree with fbody... I have yet to come even close to finishing better on a non-dim abrasive polish... I'm waiting to try M205 a bit more but I'm getting the results I've seen a lot all over the forums, in that after a wipe down it's obvious a finishing polish is necessary..
 
lecchilo said:
True but I do agree with fbody... I have yet to come even close to finishing better on a non-dim abrasive polish... I'm waiting to try M205 a bit more but I'm getting the results I've seen a lot all over the forums, in that after a wipe down it's obvious a finishing polish is necessary..
Click to expand...



Me too. I have yet to see a compound that finishes off nicer than 105, but I'm still very much struggling with both 205 and 151.
 
SuperBee364 said:
Me too. I have yet to see a compound that finishes off nicer than 105, but I'm still very much struggling with both 205 and 151.
Click to expand...



I'm still not a 'pro' with M105 and rotary... I've been using M95 for its longer work time and been getting great results but will keep trying M105.
 
Yeah, I love 95, too. If it wasn't for the speed advantage of 105, I'd use 95 exclusively. It's just a great polish.. Very good bite, perfect amount of working time, easy to use, and finishes off better than most heavy compounds. Yeah, 95 is a winner, for sure.
 
I have to use the Megs twins some more, but I agree that the process for using them is more involved that first suggested. These products are marketed towards the general population, thus they are not in the Detailers line up. Can you imagine the general population having to follow the process outlined here for best results? Brushing the pad after each panel and number of pads needed for a car.........



Want to thank kevin for giving directed responses, I'll keep playing around with the process, but I'm still not convinced these products won't fill if not used in an exacting fashion, very similar to 106ff/fa.



My latests issue is the shear number of pads I have burned up per car, I burn up a burgandy pad each car I do. If they can improve the backing of these cutting pads to last longer that would be a bonus. They just seperate from the backing due to the pressure and rotational force required.



The reason I was excited about the twins was because of time savings and customers wants. I'm not there yet with these two.



Cheers,

GREG
 
Greg Nichols said:
I have to use the Megs twins some more, but I agree that the process for using them is more involved that first suggested. These products are marketed towards the general population, thus they are not in the Detailers line up. Can you imagine the general population having to follow the process outlined here for best results? Brushing the pad after each panel and number of pads needed for a car.........
Click to expand...



I have to disagree with that premise. 105/205 are in the Mirror Glaze product line, which is definitely not marketed at the "general population". These are the professional products. IMO, the "general population" products are the OTC consumer (Gold Class, NXT, etc.), and next would be the Detailer line, which is targeted to more high volume users (note there are no compounds or polishes in the Detailer line, only one-steps). The most "esoteric" of the Meg's products are the MG, which exist in minute variation so that the "professional" can get just what he's looking for.



The internet has really changed things. When I first started using Meg's products 25 years ago or so, they really had no OTC line, and it was really difficult to get the MG products, you had to seek out an auto body supply store. Now, not only can you get any MG products you want online (from Meg's direct or elsewhere), you can also get application instruction here at Autopia or on MOL or elsewhere. But in no way would I consider 105/205 to be a mass market or "general population" product; they are professional products and there is therefore some expectation of a level of expertise or learning curve to get maximized results.



My two cents.
 
^^^

Yes I can see this point, IME anyone can buy these at the local store and use them, so that is why I have the view I do. The Detailer line you have to go to the local paint supply store.





Cheers,

GREG
 
Not to belabor this, but "anyone can buy these at the local store"?? What local store can you buy 105/205 at? The best I have seen is some #9 at Pep Boys, and maybe some liquid #26, I think that's the only MG products I have ever seen OTC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top