Thanks for sharing this information Brian.

Thats a good test and I believe proves your point to the fools who think they
know better.

X711.

 

This is very interesting.. how do u fix a goof up in the base then?

 

As I was told and said in the original thread, "lightly scuff in one direction". Keep it as small as possible. Epoxy seal it? Maybe, I don't have all the answers.

Brian

 

Martinsr..... That wasn't the first time you got called names and was ridiculed for your posts, and won't be the last. Part of your problem is that you post long drawn out posts that say one thing, then when pointed out that you are wrong, either edit them, or say that wasn't what was meant.

Quite frankly, I have doubts that most anyone that has worked in the business for any length of time really values your information at all. A test conducted by you, to prove your point, is not a reliable test, as far as I am concerned.

This is very interesting.. how do u fix a goof up in the base then?

As I was told and said in the original thread, "lightly scuff in one direction". Keep it as small as possible. Epoxy seal it? Maybe, I don't have all the answers.

Your last comment is the one that you need to remember and understand!

Ideally, every paint job will have absolutely no defects. If there are defects, there are ways to fix them, without completely stripping all of the product off and starting over. It has been done many many times. You sand out the problem and spray over it.

Aaron

 

Boy oh boy, I'm never using Dupont anymore. Never tried SW and I guess I don't want to now. Along with everyone else I come here to learn and today I learned I don't want nothing to do with Dupont anymore if that test is valid.

The only time I ever had a delamination problem with Dupont products is when I sprayed base directly over Variprime (this is a big no no), this was many years ago now. I haven't sprayed Variprime for at least 10 years. I've denibbed and sanded Chromabase and Chroma Premiere many times-especially when doing graphics-removing overspray, etc.... and never seen any problems.

 

Aaron, I don't edit my posts as others do. On that discussion you can see that I left stuff there that I could have edited out. I edit for spelling and grammer because I don't want to look like I have a third grade education, sometimes before editing it gives that impression.

On the "Book" thread by Barry you rant and rave about the people who post yet just say "adjust your gun" instead of telling the guy HOW to adjust the gun. I tell them how to adjust the gun, that takes longer than "You sand out the problem and spray over it." I respond with (click here) in a long drawn out post.


Names, people with poor vocabularies call names, I give facts and live with them.

Now, explain to me guys how I "didn't not follow the tech sheets wrong" Did I "Mistakenly not follow the tech sheets in the right incorret way?" What I did is EXACTLY what was discussed on the other thread. I sanded the base, PERIOD. How exactly is someone who reads either of these threads to interpret this? I SANDED the base. And yes Aaron, there is a certain amount of "slant" being I wanted it to fail. HOWEVER, I FOLLOWED THE TECH SHEETS in every regard EXCEPT the little part about sanding it. I sanded it FLAT much more than "nibbing" as the tech sheet recommends. It was mentioned in the original thread this was fine, sanding the base was fine. This was said over and over. How is a newbe who comes here looking for advice supposed to take that?

You want honestly? Prior to grabbing that fender and doing the scratch test yesterday I had no idea what would happen. I had a "hunch" but nothing to the level of failure that I got. I had thought about, "what if this test proves nothing, will I post the results?" Now, THAT still wouldn't have proven that it "couldn't" fail because of this sanding of the base. Because it may still have needed to have the "Planets" aligned with a perfect cercomstance of flash times, solvent choice, etc.

But this test, it was pretty definitive, follow the tech sheets to the tee except sand the base flat and you WILL have the makings for a failure.

Now, I do plan on doing the test again, this time I will have a few test points with different degrees of sanding or "nibbing" to see just how far can you go and be safe.

Brian

p.s. By the way, the reason I havn't done this test in the weeks and weeks following the idea is that it has been very cold here (for sunny California)and I WANTED honest results.

 

Boy oh boy, I'm never using Dupont anymore. Never tried SW and I guess I don't want to now. Along with everyone else I come here to learn and today I learned I don't want nothing to do with Dupont anymore if that test is valid.

Bob, just as if I would have sprayed the base outside in the snow, just don't do that and the product is fine. The area where the tech sheet was followed passed the test.

Brian

 

WOW!

You just made thousands of chemistry books with regards to "solid mass"
totally useless and invalid.
I have no doubt you will take an international award for this finding.
Hey remember all us little guys when you get the award.

OR
You just did a demonstration as to why no body shop should ever use S&W or Dupont, or whatever one you tested.

Brian, don't PM me again to see this crap as I don't have time or really care about the tests as they mean nothing.
I have a life.

 

Barry, YOU said you could sand DuPont base coat. You said DuPont had "other" reasons why it couldn't be sanded. Why in the world can't you explain now why this test is invalid?

I am just a normal guy who can't understand what you just said about "solid mass" can you please explain it?

Anyone???? I did EXACTLY as was told by a number of people to be fine, that I was nuts to believe the paint reps.

Please, Barry, you took the time to come here and beat me up but you can't take the time to explain to everyone why this test is invalid?

Brian

Edit: And Barry, don't go knocking DuPont or S-W. I used DuPont and I ABUSED it, of course it did not perform as it should. DuPont is used in tens of thousands of shops around the world and they sell billions of dollars in product all backed by a lifetime warrantee. That is IF you follow the tech sheets.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PRODUCTS USED IN THIS TEST. IT WAS APPLICATION ERROR.

 

Bob..... I garee with you completely. If that test were valid, ther would be no way I would use that product again. I am not Brian Martin, so I do not spray perfect paint. That means that there will be nibs and such that would need to be removed. Obviously, according to the "paint god", that means that you could not repair the base, you would have to keep striping it off until you got it perfect, so you could spray clear. It would have to be sprayed exactly as the tech sheet says also. Otherwise, you will be really busy making sure no one comes near it with duct tape, as the paint will come off onto the tape.

I am really surprised with SW though. They weren't smart enough to ask Mr Martin before they posted the Tech Sheets online. They say that you can sand to remove nibs, as long as you shoot more base over it. How can they be so foolish!!!!! All they had to do was ask him, and he would have set them straight.

Brian.... I tried to understand your posted response to me. Maybe you should go back to taking care of those Happy California Cows I see on TV. They would be used to someone that shovels so much BS.

Aaron

 

You guys are so sad, soo sad.

Are you accusing me of lying? Are you accusing me of spraying WD-40 on it to make it loose adhesion? Are you saying that you shouldn't be able to stick duct tape on a car? What is it you are saying??

I did a valid test, not "scientific" but a valid "general" test that YOU could chose to do. Just paint a fender with three coats of base allowing the recommended flash time then sand the base with 1000 grit sand paper and spray another couple of coats on it. Clear the panel and wait a week and do the scratch and tape test. It is that simple.

Are you saying I didn't do that? What are you saying?

Both S-W and DuPont (and others by the way) say a light "nibbing" of dirt is ok. I have said that over and over.


What I did is EXACTLY what I we were told by a number of people was just fine.

This is exactly what I figured would happen. You guys can't admit anything, it is mind blowing actually. Argue something, but you have nothing to say but tired old crap making up things I said or Dupont or something.

FOLLOW THE TECH SHEETS AND YOU WILL BE FINE I have been saying that for almost ten years on forums. Once in a while I get some guy or guys who insist that I am wrong some how for suggesting such a stupid thing as follow the tech sheets. My God men, how in the world can you keep going without stopping and saying hmmmmmmmm.

Brian

 

Brian... I never accused you of lying. To do that, I would have to feel that you were intelligent enough to know what you were doing, and provided false information. To me, that is obviously not the case!

 

Interesting stuff. I post results of a test. There is no discussion, only attacks at the messenger. Very interesting stuff indeed.

Yeah I posted it with a little glee, do you blame me? I was beat up for this before, now I am being beat up again. All for saying FOLLOW THE TECH SHEETS. Funny stuff this auto paint.

I wonder if there is a forum for doctors where some guy is saying "But you have to sterilize your surgical tools" and there are some other doctors saying "Hey, nothing has ever happen that I know of and I never sterilize them".

Brian

 

Crawling out of my hole momentarily...

I was a painter for nearly 20 years. Before starting my sheetmetal shaping business, I spent 6 years as the painter in a collision shop.

EVERY new part that was installed on a vehicle was sanded with 320 grit, rubbed down with red scotchbrite, sealed and painted with three coats of base prior to hanging on the car. When the body man was finished with repairs, my job was to prep for paint and in doing so, the raw basecoat was sanded with 600 grit wet. Basecoat was then applied as usual with no special attention to the raw base. This shop had been doing business like this for at least 5 years before I started, and probably longer than that, truth be told. In 6 years, guess how many vehicles came back with delamination problems.......ZERO. We had the reputation of being the top shop in the area. Our reputation insured us repeat business and many times we would see the same car back in the shop time after time for collision repair. Now, if paint was going to delaminate, shouldn't it do so when a fender, hood or whatever has been severely damaged in a collision???? It never happened, not once!!!!! Most of the time, my paint would adhere better than the OEM stuff.

We were using PPG Deltron, by the way.

Brian's test may have worked as it did because of a poor product. These multi billion dollar companies aren't necessarily putting out the best product, in fact, they try to cut cost every chance they get.

The very few times I ever had a product failure, they would never admit to a problem. The blame was always placed on the painter. I rarely changed my technique, so if 1 in 1000 paint jobs would fail, How is that painter error???

Use good products, you'll get good results. Common sense should tell you if a basecoat will not adhere to itself after sanding, something is seriously wrong, as you have neither a chemical nor mechanical bond. The red flags should be flying!!!!!

crawling back into my hole now.

Randy Ferguson

 

Randy, maybe it was the 600, that IS different than the 1000 I used. Maybe that would make all the difference. That is something to test or at the very least debate. Thanks for bringing another side AND some reasons as to what can be done with a base coat that needs sanding or repair to the table.

I'll give that a try.

Though I have to disagree with the poor products, as I said, I abused the product. And I too have sprayed for many years, in normal circomstances you don't ever need to touch the base other than a nib of dirt here and there, all within the tech sheets recommendation.

As far as the way you guys did it at that shop, that is basacwords if I ever saw it. I thought we did some goofy things where I work like painting weld in rad supports before and then again later. Painting a fender then prepping and painting it again after hanging, what a waste of time.

But thanks again for some other thoughts.

Brian

 

Brian,

Do you not edge panels before hanging them on the car???

It's actually faster in the long run to prep both sides of the panel and have the basecoat applied prior to hanging the part. This eliminates having to seal the e-coat and apply basecoat to hiding after the car enters the paint booth. The color is already applied and hiding is achieved. Two coats of base are applied over the new panels and blended to adjacent panels during this process, so you spend very little time in the booth shooting base.

Another advantage to this method is that you can get a pretty good idea as to whether or not you've picked the correct alternate.

Many painters actually follow this process and swear by it.

You only think it's basackward because you haven't tried it.

Randy Ferguson

 

Randy

All the shops here edge the panels before they are hung. Makes it look a lot more professional. I have a painter I work with that will often also paint the complete panel on the outside. He does it, like you mentioned, to check the color match, specially with some of the odd colors.

I guess everyone is painting wrong.

When you prepped the panels after they were shot with base, did you only sand 4" at a time? Maybe that was the trick. Since SW says you can sand up to 4", and then shoot more base, that means you only sand 4" at a time, and it won't peel. Or does that mean it don't matter if it peels as long as it is 4" or less?

Aaron

 

Aaron, you look foolish with your comment dude. If you want to contribute to the discussion leave the school yard stuff on the school yard. Of course panels get "edged" or "jambed" what ever it is called in your neck of the woods. But Randy is talking about prepping and putting a base on the whole panel inside and out and then hanging the part and then prepping and painting it all over. In my neck of the woods and in my head, that is a waste of time. Painting the panel off the car inside and out and then hanging it is the most productive. A quick scuff on the jamb and jambing it, hanging it and then prepping the outside for paint is the second most productive. Prepping and painting it twice is less productive than those to ways, don't you think?

Randy, how is the color match helped by having a base on the panel with no clear? And is the jamb left with no clear? There are places where that would work being the underhood colors are matte, so I can see it working. But matching the color and shooting the panel off the car inside and out is the fastest, bare none.

Brian

 

In my neck of the woods and in my head, that is a waste of time.

Man it must really be a rough life being the smartest person in the world. Having to deal with a world of people that know nothing, about anything. What it must be like to be the "know it all paint god". Knowing that hundreds of professional painters are screwing up by not painting like you think they should. Since the 2 painters I work with only have a combined 60+ years of painting experience, maybe I should print out this thread. They can read it and be educated by Mr Martin on how it SHOULD BE DONE.

Painting the panel off the car inside and out and then hanging it is the most productive.

Yes.... that is fine if you are panel painting. Of course, then the vehicle has to be assembled without anything getting scratched or chipped. That is considerably more time consuming with the part completely finished on the exterior. Then again, the painters do like to blend the adjacent panels, and that is easier with the replacement panel on the car.

 

As Aaron said, if you don't blend, that's fine to paint a panel off the car and have it finished. It'll look like crap, as 99.9% of the time it won't match, but if that's how you wish to do it, go for it!!

Brian, as usual, you're incorrigable.

It's a total waste of time trying to convince you of anything. I see you on about every paint and body forum on the internet. Usually you have far more posts than anyone else and you can be found online at all hours of the day. This tells me you either have a very understanding boss who allows you to sit on the computer all day, while "watching paint dry" or you're simply feeding us a line of BS.

Now I'm crawling back into my hole for good......again.

 

Randy, "Incorrigable", huh? we are discussing something with two different sides. I asked how you match when there is no clear and do you clear the jambs? I am not being a smart ars, I am asking how this is done to better understand and possibly learn from this method you used. Man o man Randy, there is no reason to get upset.

I have studied production and the use of all different techniques to speed it up in the shop. I am all ears to hear how your way was used. I can say "I don't like that, however" and it is a NORMAL conversation. Not an "I KNOW MORE THAN YOU" one sided conversation. Unless you know another way to ask questions, let me know.

Now, this is going off topic a mile talking about production but yes, you can and we do blend everyday at work by painting the panel off the car on a rack in the booth and blending the adjacent panels at the same time.

Then the panel is bolted onto the car next to the panels that were blended in the booth.

Now, to get back to the sanding the base, if sanding the base with 600 seemed to be fine, what do you think the difference is in sanding it with 1000?

Brian

Edit: Randy, you know I have heard that stuff about always being on the forums and there is one thing I don't understand. How could you say I am always on the forums at all times of the day without YOU being on there too or spending the time to research it? I didn't know you cared so deeply about me.

 

Yes.... that is fine if you are panel painting. Of course, then the vehicle has to be assembled without anything getting scratched or chipped. That is considerably more time consuming with the part completely finished on the exterior. Then again, the painters do like to blend the adjacent panels, and that is easier with the replacement panel on the car.

We along with most of the other shops who are progressive in production do paint parts off, bolt them on (without chipping them) AND blend adjacent panels WHILE the car is in the both with the loose panels off on racks being painted.

Like the guy who brought the idea to our shop said. "If a bodyman is not good enough to bolt on panels without chipping them, he needs to change his job".
* I resisted too, I thought it was crazy to think that we could hang all those panels without chipping and with them fitting as good as I could with some massaging and spoon work prior to paint. But he proved us all wrong, we do it all the time and it really is a time saver. Now, the paint shop, they will have a problem now and then by not applying enough paint on the start of the blend on the blend panels and ending up with a different color. But THAT needs to be corrected, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I am not saying I know everything, I am saying I am willing to listen and question and examine every method out there.

You know that at the Toyota assembly plant they will pay an employee money if that person comes up with some way to save SECONDS off a procedure? Seconds add up Aaron.

Brian

* Edit: Just wanted to add a little more, never ending you know.

 

Martin, I wonder if a longer cure time would have altered the results of your tests. Did the paint peel? It appears it did. Do most folks ever put duct tape on their cars - nope. It's probably even more unlikely that duct tape would be put on a car within a week of a repaint and left on for an extended period of time. As a comparison of sorts I've seen tape pull off lots of comparitively freshly painted surfaces using things like latex paints in houses, etc. Months later this same tape would not pull off the now 100% fully cured paint. If something similar is occurring here this would also explain why most shops wuld never see the delamination...it takes some sticky duct tape placed on the paint fairly soon after painting to invoke the situation.

Perhaps sanding does "interupt" the effectiveness of the chemical bond to subsequent layers. The paint then has to rely on a physical bond - at that point maybe the comparitive lack of tooth left by the use of 1000 grit paper just wasn;t enough with only a week's worth of cure time. I an honestly say I know almost nothing about this stuff, but just form a common sense perspective these items seem at least plausible.

 

No Cab, that makes perfect sense. Like I said, I did follow the tech sheets to the Tee. As far as a full cure, I thought of that. But the base is 1K and doesn't "cure" at all, so even if the clear wasn't fully cured it would seem to me a moot point. Now, if hardener was used in the base, it may be a whole different thing, ALL I tested was what I tested.


If waiting longer could have made a difference, you got me, I don't know. The paint DID peel, it totally failed at every sand spot. If the base was sanded before clear the tape pulled off the clear only, where the base was sanded and rebased, the tape pulled off the clear AND that application of base that was applied over the sanded base.

As far as whether one is going to put duct tape on a car, well, that too is a moot point. We don't plan on dropping a metal ball on it or subjecting it to freezing cold and blazing hot in one day but that IS what is done to test products.

And I can't say it enough, yes this "abuse" with the tape but it DID hold up just fine where I followed the data sheet and didn't sand it.

But waiting longer, I'll do this again and see.

Thanks so much for the level headed discussion.

Brian

 

Perhaps a test after the paint had been applied a month, and another section over 600 grit tooth. I think the forum probably needs at least a month before you raise this subject again ;>! Very interesting stuff nonetheless.