Popular Autopia myths

[bmerjorge21]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >

<em class='bbc'>Originally posted by Guess My Name [/i]
<strong class='bbc'>Autopia Myths:


Brad B is actually Wilson from Home Improvement.

Don't believe, me look at his pic on the mod page!

:nixweiss [/b]</blockquote>Ha ha ha!! LMAO Guess!!

 

[vettefan67]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >

<em class='bbc'>Originally posted by YoSteve [/i]
<strong class='bbc'>if beading can = no paint protection, then isn't that bad for using beading as a determination for wax protection? [/b]</blockquote>Steve I remember us having a conversation about this on a few different occasions. I thought you agreed with me that beading is an accurate measure of _something_ being on the paint if your car does NOT bead first?

It's not the beading alone, it's the beading VS what the car did before applying. How many here have never ever used an abrasive product on their paint, keeping it showroom condition? Very few. Therefore many / most cars wouldn't bead with clean paint anywhere near as much and with the same symmetrical beading of a protectant coating on the paint.

<strong class='bbc'>No beading[/b] --PROTECT--> BEAD .....beading = protection

<strong class='bbc'>Beading[/b] --PROTECT--> Same beading patterns = beading is not an accurate test for remaining protection on this car or the protectant is not there at all due to improper application or other variables.

<strong class='bbc'>Bead Somewhat[/b] --PROTECT--> More symmetrical, even beading over entire car = beading patterns are an accurate measure of there being <em class='bbc'>some[/i] protection on the surface.

[ADDED]I referred only to "beading" in this post. However a more accurate statement would be to replace "beading" with "change in paint-water reactivity" or something of the sort. Beading isn't the only thing that shows something is there.[/ADDED]

 

[DaGonz]

<strong class='bbc'><span style='color: red'>Posted by YoSteve...[/b]

There's a whole slew of information on silicone polymer explanation (and there's a chart that says which types are used in what industries). Yes, breast implants are in there too...

So that explains why the <strong class='bbc'><span style='color: blue'> Baywatch Babes[/b] never needed to dry off..the water just beaded up and rolled off their bodies as they ran down the beach!:xyxthumbs

 

[JS]

No, there's nothing contradictory in my post.

In your post that I was basically replying to, you stated:

<strong class='bbc'>"So, IMO any product that claims "sheeting" must contain some sort of abrasive as well, even if it is very minute amounts. The abrasives are what's causing the sheeting action, otherwise there would be beading. So, I think the whole sheeting thing is a myth"[/b]

My point was that the mere presence of abrasives, in and of themselves, are not causing the sheeting. It depends on the total function of the product . Surely at some time in your life, you have used a "one-step" or "cleaner wax" type product that contained abrasives. I know I have--yet the car beaded water after their use. That is because "one-step"or "cleaner wax" also contain a protectant in their formula as well as abrasives. Autoglym Super Resin Polish would be an example.

Also you stated:

<strong class='bbc'>"Sheeting is completely natural on an unwaxed or sealant free car AND on those where an abrasive has been used". [/b](caps mine)

You had the first part right; but the second part was wrong.

Also you stated:

<strong class='bbc'>"When you wash a car after using SMR or a Rubbing Compound the water lays on the surface and sort of sheets off because of the abrasive action on the paint"[/b]

You were using pure paint cleaners/swirl removers (SMR) or rubbing compounds that have no protectant qualities. Yes, as I stated, the abrasives REMOVED the protectant. Cleaning or compounding is the SOLE function of those products. They contain NO protectant. So naturally water never beaded. But that doesn't mean that ANY product with abrasives in it will cause water to sheet off a car. Which is certainly what you implied in your post.

 

[MikeLS]

I understand your POV better now. And I agree, after thinking about some things, that abrasives in protectants may not cause sheeting after their use. NuFinish is a good example I guess. That stuff is one of the most abrasive one-step protectants out there, but after using it water will surely bead for a while. I suppose it really boils down to a beading versus sheeting debate (and what causes each), which I've seen discussed at length here before.



I suppose my whole issue is that I still don't buy into the sheeting aspect of protectants, which is stricty MY opinion. I just don't think it's natural for a well protected finish to sheet water. I know others disagree, but these are just my beliefs....

 

[DETAILKING]

An abrasive cleaner wax (nu finish) will bead because it is applying a protectant to the paint.......



New clearcoat as demonstrated BEADS with no protection on it



Use of abrasives weaken the clearcoat and permeate it. In time, the clearcoat will SHEET now when unprotected and all the protective wax is stripped off.. This happens naturally with age, but use of abrasives accelerate this.



Make sense?!