How does anyone coat a car with only 10cc of product?!?!?!?

I was recently asked to test the new Wolfgang Uber Ceramic Coating and I decided to try it on a Black 2015 GM truck

W9AecUS.jpg


The truck had basic dealer installed swirl option and the client wanted a quality shine before locking it in with a coating. After compounding and polishing i proceeded to clean the surface with BLACKFIRE Crystal Coat Paint Prep.
I proceeded to coat the entire painted surface of the truck with only 7cc total product used!
heres a couple of shots of the finished truck

VuU90XJ.jpg


2pQVsXA.jpg


I was very pleased with the ease of use of this product as well as the gloss and slickness levels

Thanks Nick for letting me test such an awesome product
 
Vega@Autopia said:
Or we can just add this great mystery to my list of life's unanswered questions....

Can you cry underwater?
Where do all the socks go?
Why does anyone that believes a tomato is a fruit, still allowed to be a scientist?
What is the hacky, that's in a sack?
Why does everybody love Raymond?
Why is it called a building, if it's already built?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
I guess I am not really question how/if it can be done. What I am asking is are we really doing ourselves or customers a favor by applying them super thin? As I see it and think about it I feel like the thicker the coating the better.
 
TroyScherer said:
I guess I am not really question how/if it can be done. What I am asking is are we really doing ourselves or customers a favor by applying them super thin? As I see it and think about it I feel like the thicker the coating the better.
Click to expand...

Then I would completely reword your question. But yes I completely agree about the thickness. I remember when Gloss-Coat first came out I was reading a lot of reviews of users only using 2-3 cc's for their entire car. It made me question my own application process. I thought to myself "maybe I wasted a lot in the applicator". A few months later, I got a few PM's and emails from users who were wondering why my beading or water contact angle looked so much better than theirs even though we used the same product. The only suggestion I could think of was that I applied my coating thick.
 
If a coating creates a long term bond to the paint (5 years) and prevents the bonding of contaminants once cured then why would you need anything more than the thinnest of layers? If a layer is 1 molecule thick and achieves the desired results then making it 3 molecules thick will not increase the bond strength nor increase the protective capability in terms of chemical resistance. The only benefit would be sacrificial product for inevitable abrasion or degradation.

Instead of thinking of coatings as just a "protective" layer you should also think of it in terms of a "cleaning aid" that makes maintenance easier. Those who think a coated vehicle doesn't need to be washed as often are mitigating the benefits.

IMO coatings serve a purpose but are being over-hyped and over-sold for the profitability (I believe to the long term detriment to the industry). Not all cars or car owners are prime candidates for coatings. Additionally, interiors and other parts of a vehicle still need routine detailing/maintenance. When a car is coated those other aspects are often neglected for far too long.
 
I have only ever used Opti Coat 2.0. I typically don't coat the glass, and in most cases using 10cc is a stretch...7cc maybe? I've always thought that I was not using enough, but using any more product tends to leave high spots. Are there any benefits to going around the car twice/applying a second thin coat?
 
I think the two real questions to ask are:


Can a manufacturer claim BOTH 10cc to coat a vehicle and 1 - 2 microns of coating thickness?

Can the claimed thickness be achieved with "a few drops per panel"
 
allenk4 said:
I think the two real questions to ask are:


Can a manufacturer claim BOTH 10cc to coat a vehicle and 1 - 2 microns of coating thickness?

Can the claimed thickness be achieved with "a few drops per panel"
Click to expand...





Assuming the average hood of a car is roughly 5’ x 4’ or roughly 122 cm x 152 cm.

Volume = length * width * height

In order to achieve a thickness of 2 microns:

V = 122 * 152 * .0002

V = 3.7088cc

That does not take into account the amount of product that evaporates or is wasted through absorption in the applicator. If a coating is 50% solids and 50% solvent then the volume necessary to achieve 2 microns of protection would actually require roughly 8cc to coat just the hood.

Assuming the average car has roughly seven times the surface area of the hood it would require roughly 26cc (or 52cc based upon the 50% evaporation).

So, to answer the original question:


10 = 7 * 122 * 152 * h

10 = 129808 * h

10/129808 = h

h = .00007703685 or .77 microns (.385 microns after 50% evaporation)

*surface area and evaporation are rough estimates
 
Think there is only one way to test this: someone polish a panel. Wipe clean with alcohol then take paint thickness measurement multiple times in same spot to get average reading. Coat panel and let it cure. Retake measurements in the same spot.

We can speculate/hate all we want but the truth will be in the results. Plain and simple. And I ask for all the popular coatings to be put to this test for all the fanboys and haters alike.
 
52split said:
Think there is only one way to test this: someone polish a panel. Wipe clean with alcohol then take paint thickness measurement multiple times in same spot to get average reading. Coat panel and let it cure. Retake measurements in the same spot.

We can speculate/hate all we want but the truth will be in the results. Plain and simple. And I ask for all the popular coatings to be put to this test for all the fanboys and haters alike.
Click to expand...

+1 with this -

Ideally, it would have to be applied by a Robot as vehicles are primed and painted today to ever get it perfectly even (as long as the robot is programmed correctly), and who is going to offer that up.. :)

And then, you need to have the most accurate DeFelsko or another measuring tool to get the most accurate if possible measurements to see the change..

The closest it will ever be to this will be what Anthony Orosco, Ron Harris, and the Team are doing in San Antonio, Texas...
I know of no one else who has experience in spraying coatings like they do..

There may be others that have been spraying coatings but I have never heard or read about them yet..
Dan F
 
52split said:
Think there is only one way to test this: someone polish a panel. Wipe clean with alcohol then take paint thickness measurement multiple times in same spot to get average reading. Coat panel and let it cure. Retake measurements in the same spot.

We can speculate/hate all we want but the truth will be in the results. Plain and simple. And I ask for all the popular coatings to be put to this test for all the fanboys and haters alike.
Click to expand...

I tried it on a bare piece of metal (calibration shim) and didn't register anything after one coat of a popular coating. Then again I didn't drop $2400 on a gauge that may or may not be able to pick it up. Me thinks much more sophisticated measuring equipment is going to be required to determine if in fact coatings leave behind their claimed thickness. I choose not to push those marketing claims to potential clients.
 
52split said:
Think there is only one way to test this: someone polish a panel. Wipe clean with alcohol then take paint thickness measurement multiple times in same spot to get average reading. Coat panel and let it cure. Retake measurements in the same spot.

We can speculate/hate all we want but the truth will be in the results. Plain and simple. And I ask for all the popular coatings to be put to this test for all the fanboys and haters alike.
Click to expand...

RaskyR1 said:
I tried it on a bare piece of metal (calibration shim) and didn't register anything after one coat of a popular coating. Then again I didn't drop $2400 on a gauge that may or may not be able to pick it up. Me thinks much more sophisticated measuring equipment is going to be required to determine if in fact coatings leave behind their claimed thickness. I choose not to push those marketing claims to potential clients.
Click to expand...


Chad is right. Our PTGs are not accurate enough to measure fractions of a micron.

A test could be done buy using a small dish, such as a petri dish, measure the thickness when empty (average over surface area), place 1ml. or 2ml. into the dish, allow to cure for a couple weeks, then take measurments. By knowing the surface area of the dish you can determine how thick the solution was when first placed. The difference between that and the average cured thickness will indicate the amount of product that evaporated. Then you can calculate the percentage of loss and estimate the actual thickness of the cured coating on a car through the math.
 
Nth Degree said:
Chad is right. Our PTGs are not accurate enough to measure fractions of a micron.

A test could be done buy using a small dish, such as a petri dish, measure the thickness when empty (average over surface area), place 1ml. or 2ml. into the dish, allow to cure for a couple weeks, then take measurments. By knowing the surface area of the dish you can determine how thick the solution was when first placed. The difference between that and the average cured thickness will indicate the amount of product that evaporated. Then you can calculate the percentage of loss and estimate the actual thickness of the cured coating on a car through the math.
Click to expand...

I figured since the calibration shim has no coating, reading zero when the PTG is placed on it, surely it would pick up the claimed thickness once a coating was applied to it. I'll have to try it again with a spray application and see if that makes a difference.

At the end of the day I really don't care. As long as the coatings do their job it's just more marketing BS to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top