Kevin Brown Method - My understanding

I

imported_Detailing Technology

New member
In reading about the Kevin Brown Process, I have come up with a basic understanding, but am still waiting for the final document to be released.



I believe the idea is to turn the foam pad into a sheet of variable grit sandpaper. Non-diminishing grit is housed in the pad, then via pressure it is extruded though the pad on to the surface.





Am I correct in my representation below?



A. Pad Primed with media



B. Surface shown with major defects



C. High pressure is applied to the pad, thus extruding abrasives and removing deeper defects



D. Pressure is gradually releived, thus reducing the amount of abrasive protruding hence polishing a finer level of defects



E. FINISHED







KBP.jpg








Is the idea of spraying water onto the surface to induce capilary action to draw more abrasives to the surface of the pad for more cut?





Seems we have gone full circle with polishing processes. This takes me back to the days of sanding primer with a "mudder" which could carefully remove mass amounts of material quickly in professional hands.
 
Danase said:
Why not just use a polish with diminishing abrasives?
Click to expand...



I think the idea with the KBM is that it allows for very rapid correction while finishing to a reasonable level, all in one step (and being faster than rotary).
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I think the idea with the KBM is that it allows for very rapid correction while finishing to a reasonable level, all in one step (and being faster than rotary).
Click to expand...



But don't you waste a ton of product that way? Maybe I'm lost.
 
Bob - I'm just GUESSING on the process from reading the posts here.



To me if it works like a charm, Im happy to burn through a 32oz bottle of polish or a Porter Cable every month. Its just the cost of learning / doing business. We'll just hunt for better tools.
 
I don't fully understand this either. 1 this has been around for quite a few years. (ever since I've seen foam pads used) I really kind of thought this was detailing 101 here. and 2. I agree with Bob it really does waste a lot of product in effort to save a little bit of time.
 
Add to this, all the recent posts abount Menzerna polishes. I am tempted to call back all of the work I did this year to review. If I see the magical return of swirls, etc becuase the product is somehow immune to a few passes with an IPA wipedown, Im changing my process.



Not going to be the most cost effective, but a least I'll know I am providing an honest service.
 
Jakerooni said:
I don't fully understand this either. 1 this has been around for quite a few years. (ever since I've seen foam pads used) I really kind of thought this was detailing 101 here. and 2. I agree with Bob it really does waste a lot of product in effort to save a little bit of time.
Click to expand...



That's what I was thinking. I thought it was standard thinking that if you press harder you are going to get more cut.



Maybe I'm just not getting it or maybe it's new to some?
 
I think its a good idea to publish the process as a great majority of people have been putting a few pea sized drops of polish on the surface of foam pads, then working it into the paint.



Seems like a whole new mindset to follow this process.
 
Yea there just has to be something to this I'm not understanding fully. Everyone seems to be hailing it as some sort of detailing breakthrough but if it's what I'm thinking most have been using this as they learn how to do the basics of paint correction for years. So I have to be missing something here.
 
My understanding is minimal. I havent witnessed it or tried it yet. It seems to remind me of the old 8" D/A days sanding filler primer in the body shop. Might be me just reflecting back to those days, I dont know.



I love when things make a full circle like this. Just shows such a victory.
 
I think it goes back to TH0001's thread showing that a PC actually can remove more paint than a rotary (I forget the details). The use of a PC and a non diminishing abrasive cuts faster with still no (minimal?) chance of burning, as compared to wool or foam cutting pad on a rotary. That's what I'm getting from it, since the guys doing it are hardcore rotary users using it on brutalized paint.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I think it goes back to TH0001's thread showing that a PC actually can remove more paint than a rotary (I forget the details). The use of a PC and a non diminishing abrasive cuts faster with still no (minimal?) chance of burning, as compared to wool or foam cutting pad on a rotary. That's what I'm getting from it, since the guys doing it are hardcore rotary users using it on brutalized paint.
Click to expand...





100% agree with Todd on that. Its back to the old school.

We used an 8" "Mudder" D/A when we had to sand filler primer from a butchered panel, or fix someone elses butcher body job, down to bare metal. We didnt use a grinder.
 
mmmm??? I'm going to hold my tounge until this is fully explained. But if it's my understanding on how this works I'll gladly tell you an even easier way that uses much less product that gives you the same results... (I'd call it detailing 102 LOL) But because I seriosuly think I'm just missing something here I'll wait until it's explained a bit better.
 
Seems to me that a huge part of this is might be specific to the characteristics of M105.



I know *I* was very surprised when the PC and Flex did such incredible work with M105 on my M3, the same project that'd resisted some *very* aggressive rotary work.



Leaving polish residue on the panels and following up with a milder step (e.g., a finishing pad and/or less pressure) is stuff that some of us have done for ages; I know ebpcivicsi and I have discussed doing it a few times in the past.



I think the big thing here is that Kevin Brown has put all the different factors together into a properly integrated method/system. It'll be interesting to see his final write up.



And yeah...when guys like TH0001 are so impressed by somebody, well, that's mighty impressive!



setec astronomy said:
I think it goes back to TH0001's thread showing that a PC actually can remove more paint than a rotary (I forget the details)...
Click to expand...



IIRC, what TH0001 found was that the PC removed more paint in the course of *doing the same degree of correction*. Some of us guessed that the PC's abrasive efforts might've "followed the contours of the marring" (or perhaps the texture of the paint in general) moreso than a rotary does, but I don't think we ever came up with a definite explanation.



Those who care about such stuff might be interested in how the amount of paint removed would compare between a conventional rotary approach and the KBM :think:
 
Accumulator said:
IIRC, what TH0001 found was that the PC removed more paint in the course of *doing the same degree of correction*. Some of us guessed that the PC's abrasive efforts might've "followed the contours of the marring" (or perhaps the texture of the paint in general) moreso than a rotary does, but I don't think we ever came up with a definite explanation.



Those who care about such stuff might be interested in how the amount of paint removed would compare between a conventional rotary approach and the KBM :think:
Click to expand...



Yes, you're right, it was the comparison of polishing with a PC vs. wetsand and rotary, that the wetsand and rotary removed less paint to get the same level of correction. (or something like that :o) I was just over at MOL researching this and I see Mike Phillips didn't agree with TH0001's conclusions.



It's funny how for a while we talk about not removing too much paint, just leaving deep scratches, about not compromising the clear, etc. and then Meg's comes out with a compound that is off their scale (12, on a scale that used to end at 10) and everybody and their brother is using it and taking off who knows how much paint. I guess part of it is the perspective that if you've got a brutalized black car that's turned in from lease or something, that it's better to compound the crap out of it so you can sell it, and you don't care if the CC fails in 2 years...or if you are going to turn it in from lease before the CC fails. Better than a repaint.
 
I am sure that all or most of your questions will be answered when KB is ready to release the paper.



So far my PTG findings show that no excessive CC is removed when using the KBM.
 
wow... really?? This is where it's headed to? 12 on the scale and it's a new "miricle' product? I'm really not liking that. Although I can see it's uses for the PC. It;s only logical that when you factor in all variables and need to get equal results if you're using a less aggressive machine you need a more aggresive product to compensate. Hopefully no one grabs this super compound and a rotary and goes to town on a clearcoat or something. Is it at least labeled "Designed for D/A use only"? or something to that effect? (I just don't know that much about 105 yet)
 
Megs is owned by 3M now correct?



Conspiracy Theory:

Im sure they have some planned obsolescene in these products for the paint manufacturers...Sell more tape and abrasives to the body shops becuase they are painting more...



Dont post replies to that, I'm just breaking balls. But I do believe successful people are the best in hiding their motives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top