Low Solids Experiment

crashtech

crashtech

Combo Man & Mod
I want to try and make some Euro into a low solids (about 25% or so) clear for an experimental test panel.

I assume this would create a clear that required at least 4 coats.

Barry, how much reducer would be required to achieve 25% solids?

Would there be any adverse effect on the longevity of the clear, assuming proper mil thickness was achieved?
 
I did not say, all I did was get you to about the 25% range.

If paint companies want to know , they can buy a gallon and figure it out themselves.
 
Just for the record, I am not a spy. I work for no one but myself, and any information I seek is solely for the purpose of refining my knowledge and technique to better serve my customers.

Many paint manufacturers include solids info right in their tech sheets, so I actually had no idea that this might be considered "proprietary" information.

I still don't know what "enough coat for a net" means, I hope you will explain it for me.

Thanks.
 
I know you are not a spy and any company can figure out the solids, we use to have on tech sheets years ago but I got sick and tired of some stupid paint store guy, look at the sheet in the shop and just add 5% and say that is what my solids are.

Nothing personal but there are things I'm not getting into on here, I give out more info then I should.

There a post now wanting to know if talc in the epoxy, its a simple answer with two letters but I'm not touching, first what difference does it make? There is no other epoxy in this market, that can hold a candle to ours, anyway.
 
Barry,

I completely understand. I for one am really interested in the scientific side of things and I appreciate all the inside insides you do give us on your products. It helps me to use them better. BTW. I have already done reductions close to this and it works fine.
 
Since I don't have a mil gauge, it will be tough to know when there is enough material on the surface. Double the number of coats might not be enough, since the coats will wet easier on go on far thinner.

I might need to get a mil gauge. Good ones are pretty pricey.
 
Seems to me, that this year when one of the majors had a delam issue, with one of their lower brands, that clear was in the 30 mil range and their answer was the following.

3 coats on top surface, with no buffing.
4-5 with buffing and they said you should be safe.

Who knows what the real truth was as they first blamed it on the painters but had to fess up, when the four shops in town found out the others were having the same problem.

Buy a mill gauge.
 
OK, then is it safe to ask, for Euro, what the dry film mils should be for proper basecoat protection? And how much over that should be allowed for normal polishing and waxing, which will erode away a bit of the finish with time?
 
Crash, the tech manual says 2 mils minimum for Euro, I remember reading it when I was painting my van.
 
Crash, I think you'll end up with some contraction if you cut it too much with reducer-the light leathery look.
 
Yes, I am sure there will be significant contraction.

I realize that material applied in this fashion would need to be buffed 100%, like you would expect of a lacquer.

I want to examine the appearance of material applied in this fashion after sanding and polishing. I am particularly interested in the possibility of improving the look of concave surfaces in demanding lighting conditions.
 
All companies want 2 mils net when done, this is more a Ciba thing as they make the UV additives, one advantage you will have is one of the new UV's SPI has added to their clear is one designed for the auto manufactures, that will hold up with less mils.
HOWEVER, we are blending this with three other UV's and cannot use the full strength that an OEM can because they are doing all overs and ours are spot to allovers, so we can't have a cast in the clear.

Personally, crash, I think you are making a big mistake, as you have stated before, in your area, you live with every job you do.

Leave the low solid stuff for people doing used car work, that do not have to ever see their work again.
Just my 2.3745 cents worth.
 
I'm not doing this to cut corners. Even the car lot jobs I do get Euro at 4:1:1.5.

On the contrary, I would expect this technique to actually consume more material, if it is successful it will be used to clear completes withe large concave areas. I will do one session of the required amount of coats, wet sand, then apply another round of the required number to produce more than enough film thickness.

What I am after here is whether the resulting paint film (8 to 12 thin coats total?) will provide the same protection per dry mil as a film that was applied using conventional methods.
 
Crash, are you trying to lay the clear down smoother per coat? If you are, I've found that the more reducer I use the higher the pressure at the gun needs to be. Obviously you need to be careful not to over-atomize. But if you crank up the pressure you'll burn off the excess reducer and have less chance of contraction because of trapping solvent.
 
Not necessarily smoother, no.

Straighter? It's hard to explain what I am thinking on this, but many experiences with different materials over the years are leading me to at least try this.

I feel like something has changed over the years regarding the final appearance of my paint jobs, and not for the better. It could be that I am pickier now than I once was. Problem is, all the DAU82 and lacquer jobs I did are all long gone or several states away, so I have nothing to compare to.

Basically, I want something that will look a little more like a lacquer job when finished. Even though urethane is hard to polish, I am able to get a good shine on it, that is not the problem. The problem is a certain texture that remains, most noticeably in concave contours.

I want to see if lower solids plus more coats changes things.
 
Ha, you need to talk to frank cox over on the 101 forum. He waters down cheap kirker clear then puts on 3 coats then done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top