Menzerna Polish Range - Removal Rates Test (to destruction!)

[imported_Dave KG]

Another example thread, this time looking at removal rates and correction achieved from the full Menzerna range of polishes. The point - to see how the polishes perform, what paint removal corresponds to what correction, the abilities of the polishes and at the end, where it all goes wrong (purposefully in this case ).



So here we have our test panel - its the roof of my trusty banger, a Vauxhall Astra which is living out the last days of its life being polished before it goes to the scrappy! A test mule Out with the wire wool, lets get some scratches:

Now, we measure the thicknesses here using multiple readings and taking the average, and we calculate the absolute error in each reading also. The starting thickness here was measured to be:



Starting Thickness = 107.4 +/- 0.7um



For all of the ceramiclear abrasive polishes, the classic Zenith Point Technique was used: spread at 600rpm, work at 1500 - 1800rpm, refine at 1200, then 900rpm.



First up was 85RD Final Finish on a finishing pad, which delivered the following results:

Note how much worse the paint looks under the strip lighting - deeper marks are masked by the bright light sources such as the Sun Gun. Good level of correction though for a finishing polish on a finishing pad!



Paint thickness after 85RD:



After 85RD = 106.1 +/- 0.8um

*No removal rates calculated, only remaining thicknesses here. Subtraction gives removal rates, sum of the squares square rooted of the percentage error gives a measure of the error in this value for those interested



Next stage: 106FA on a polishing pad (W8006 from Meguiars), and we get:

Notably better correction, we are now just down to the deeper RDS. Paint left:



After 106FA = 102.9 +/- 0.8um

Looks to be more paint removed, as would be expected. This paint was prepolished to ensure soft upper layers removed.



Next stage: 203S Power Finish on a polishing pad:

A little better but not hugely, the remaining marks are deeper than it would seem, but then 203S did not seem to remove much paint:



After 203S = 101.8 +/- 0.8um



Certainly not compared to 106FA - into harder paint perhaps, or a slightly different abrasive style not being suited to this paint... Intensive Polish was next, so we'll see what that delivers:

A bit more in terms of correction, but at what cost in paint?:



After 85RD3.02 = 101.0 +/- 0.8um



Again, seems low, so looks like we are into harder paint now - this points more to there being a gradient in paint hardness on a finish, starting soft and getting harder the deeper you go which further supports the idea of there being UV degredation of upper clearcoat layers.



Now, we move to a different style of abrasive - a brittle, sharp abrasive compared to the ceramiclear's rounder abrasives. That of S34A Power Gloss, applied as above using Zenith method which although not typically Power Gloss, I wanted to keep the application the same here to avoid this being a variable.



The results:

Correction level superb, finish not bad either considering its a heavy cutting compound on a soft paint! Or is the paint soft? Debate :lol:



The paint left:



After S34A = 93.7 +/- 0.9um



A big amount of paint removed! Does this mean that the sharper abrasives better suit this paint for removal?



Now, at this stage, a second hit of Power Gloss would not be advised on a real detail... but as this is an experiment, lets do it, and see why its not advised!! :lol: Note the strike through after two hits:

Using the readings, you could see this coming - big chunk of paint removed first time, paint level now low, all factors pointing to another hit of PG being a no no! Paint left now:



After 2x S34A = 85.3 +/- 0.7um



Well into the strike though level...



So, what can we say after this little bit of fun?



First open ended question - different styles of abrasives... PG is more aggressive but it is hugely so here, is it that the sharper abrasives better suit this paint? Testing with the PO91L version of IP will tell us this answer here, so watch this space But an interesting observation.



Note also, the removal rates slowing down again, pointing to paint getting harder the deeper we go for the same abrasive type. This is more consistent results with previous tests.



And, also interesting to see the Meznerna range's cutting and finishing abilities



Many thanks to Alex_E for his help with this test

 

[scary bill]

Another very informative thread. (like anyone expected less)



I find these kinds of subjects to the most interesting, it relates to the *what is really happening*. I am a science geek.



I hope to see more post like this one.

 

[alowe]

It is too early in the morning for this post. I will need to reread later in the day when brain is up to at least 85%

 

[Accumulator]

Dave KG- Great post (as always ).



Yeah, the question of whether a paint is uniformly hard is interesting, huh?



Also interesting to me is how relatively little paint removal it took to cause damage. A good caveat there to counter the "keep going, nothing but perfection is acceptable" line of thinking.

 

[scary bill]

Dave KG- Great post (as always ).



Yeah, the question of whether a paint is uniformly hard is interesting, huh?



Also interesting to me is how relatively little paint removal it took to cause damage. A good caveat there to counter the "keep going, nothing but perfection is acceptable" line of thinking.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I (and many on here) strive so hard to not have to polish. That is a good thing.



I did notice that under halogens my lighting has about a dozen light, *light* scratches. They are hard to spot, I can't see them in the sun. You almost have to know where they are and look for them individually. To correct them would only take an aggressive polish( like OP/white). I left them. I don't want to repaint in the future.



The truck still looks absolutely stunning in person, defiantly not something I thought *I* could accomplish.