New Abrasives Chart

craig if this is to be helpful in any way, I highly advise that you/we keep the Meg's #s as a baseline... if 3M stuff is more aggressive, make it a 13, don't change M95/105 to 11...



As for diminishing abrasives, I don't think it's necessary to have them separate for the simple reason that it's best to assume one step polishing with each, meaning using the 'right' amount of product on the same exact pad, using only pressure of say a Makita, and polishing until you need to reapply polish and/or move on...



This can easily get out of hand with different variables because pressure plays a big part in correcting ability of each polish (even though it's probably the pad doing most of the work due to pressure) so I think it's best to assume all the Meg's products have been used on the rotary with a white or black LC pad, for example, and given their respective places on the abrasiveness scale... from there just rate the rest of the products according to that sort of standard.



Oh and lastly, I think we need to decipher the actual scale a bit more in a way that the numbers correspond to either the minimum or maximum correction a specific polish can perform... the reason I mention this is because it seems like the products at the higher end of the scale seem to say "I can cut this much" and the products at the lower end are saying "I can cut this little"... maybe just state that the numbers are the minimum cut of each polish, such as with a black LC pad or SuperBee's zero cut pads...
 
Lecchilo:



I agree. I did not make the change in the above image. While Jay J was simply trying to be helpful, the chart is *based* off of the megs system, because that is one system where we know where they are rated.



Now, everything is not comparable to that system, but I have found this to be the best way I can organize things to some degree of certainty.



To your last comment, I think that I have rated everything to their average cut level (based on user feedback, not statistical analysis). But once you brought up pad selection, that sent a chill down my spine as I do

not want to even attempt to delve into that. The more variables are brought into play, the more complicated this gets.



I think, unless I am wrong, I have basically rated everything based off of average opinion of use. Yes, M205 will get more cut when used w/ PFW than with finishing pad. I understand that and have decided that the best way is to place these somewhere in the middle. All of these can get more cut, and all of them can cut less.



I hope to attack this once again, when things slow down a bit for me in the next week again.



Thanks for the advice and following this thread everyone.
 
craigdt said:
Lecchilo:



I agree. I did not make the change in the above image. While Jay J was simply trying to be helpful, the chart is *based* off of the megs system, because that is one system where we know where they are rated.



Now, everything is not comparable to that system, but I have found this to be the best way I can organize things to some degree of certainty.



To your last comment, I think that I have rated everything to their average cut level (based on user feedback, not statistical analysis). But once you brought up pad selection, that sent a chill down my spine as I do

not want to even attempt to delve into that. The more variables are brought into play, the more complicated this gets.



I think, unless I am wrong, I have basically rated everything based off of average opinion of use. Yes, M205 will get more cut when used w/ PFW than with finishing pad. I understand that and have decided that the best way is to place these somewhere in the middle. All of these can get more cut, and all of them can cut less.



I hope to attack this once again, when things slow down a bit for me in the next week again.



Thanks for the advice and following this thread everyone.
Click to expand...



I definitely don't want to bring in variables, that's why I was suggesting basing the ratings off a zero cut pad... for example, if you say M105 is a 12 with a black LC pad, someone should have experience with another polish with the same pad in order to rate it on the scale... Definitely don't bring variables as that's another 2-3 charts per polish on its own haha
 
Unfortunately I cant directly address that issue. I have only worked with the ScratchX 1,

and that was in the "4" neighborhood.



The more I use SSR2.5, the more I realize it really isnt a heavy compound (obviously)



Maybe someone who has used both can chime in.
 
corrections:

39004 would be a 13

85 Diamond cut is the only 12 on that scale

SSR3 would be a 10 or 11

105 and 95 are like... 7's on the scale, not sure how you came up with them being a 12. they're NOT CLOSE to being that aggressive! vs some of the other products on the chart

DACP is a 9 and much more aggressive than scratch-X by hand and by machine
 
Toysrme said:
corrections:

39004 would be a 13

85 Diamond cut is the only 12 on that scale

SSR3 would be a 10 or 11

105 and 95 are like... 7's on the scale, not sure how you came up with them being a 12. they're NOT CLOSE to being that aggressive! vs some of the other products on the chart

DACP is a 9 and much more aggressive than scratch-X by hand and by machine
Click to expand...



You sure you're using 105 and 95 correctly? M95/M105 and PFW is the most aggressive I ever go and when used with a bit of pressure definitely cut more than M85... I'll be doing some testing with a paint gauge and all the products soon and I'll post up what I get from the readings...
 
craigdt said:
Yes indeed. But its still has the ability to remove some defects. Hence its "2" rating
Click to expand...



It's not comparable to any of the other 2's. I've never seen it remove anything.
 
I'd love to see the GlossHaus products added here.



PM me with how the ranking scale works (might have missed it in the thread) and I'll give you the ratings for the three polishes and the glaze. Thanks!
 
Got a hold of Chemical guys for some of their products, here is what they told me:

Paint Correction 3 # 700 - 1000 grit sanding scratches

Paint Correction 2 # 721 - 1200 grit sanding scratches (most similar to the M105)

Paint Correction 1 # 778 - 1800 grit sanding scratches

All $18.95 each.



Nano 3n Superior Finish (close to Menzerna PO85D)



The top 3 are not listed on their site, but available over the phone.



Due out answer to their "cut" series, 1, 1.5 and 2.



Edit, got answer:

Cut 1.0 = 1000 grit

Cut 1.5 = 1500 grit

Cut 2.0 = 2000 grit
 
All,



I am rebuilding the chart as the OP appears to be MIA.



Please PM me your submissions for update - will post once I have it recreated with the inclusions from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top