Diminishing vs. Non-Diminishing Abrasives

smack said:
I think you have it backwards Tony....


cardaddy said:
Don't think so.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I must agree with Mike's (smack's) assessment...


You left out the below chart from the thread/link you posted:
cardaddy said:
Here's the thread: The Difference Between Diminishing and Non-Diminishing Abrasive Polishes - Autopia Forums - Auto Detailing & Car Care Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Sure...Everything eventually breaks down.

With SMAT abrasives technology, the abrasives start out small...
and stay, relatively, the same size until either infinity is reached...
Or:
Whenever "the end" of the buffing cycle necessary to remove defects/blemishes
has been determined, to have been met, by the buffer operator.


Just my take on the DAT (since 1901) vs. SMAT (ca. 200?) abrasives' technologies

:)

Bob
 
I have found that SMAT products work very well with CCS pads and DAT products better with flat pads. The CCS pads and the SMAT products combo allows for a very long working time using very little product.

I have found that D300 works best with Megs MF pads like it was designed to and do not use D300 with other pads. If I need more cut from D300, I just add some M105.
 
Bolding in the quotes below is mine.

cardaddy said:
SMAT breaks down. It also provides a bit more cut at the VERY beginning, like first pass. Then as it breaks down you work it longer. Finally near the end it's providing very little cut, but as you 'spritz it' with water you get a bit more cut and finishing ability.

Which is why it tends to finish better than DAT products. :dblthumb2:

DAT otoh will cut more evenly, cut from the beginning to end, and isn't run through as long of a working cycle. But, can finish out much earlier.
Click to expand...

I also agree with smack...
smack said:
I think you have it backwards Tony....
Click to expand...

Willy Wang said:
DAT - Diminishing Abrasive Technology
SMAT - Super Micro Abrasive Technology

You can spritz both to give you longer work times, although I find SMAT to tend to have longer work times to begin with. Not sure if this is 100% accurate for all SMAT products.
Click to expand...

I think you understand the technology fine (probably better than I do), but I think you mixed up the two with regard to their 'technology'. Such as the contradiction that you made, between "Which is why it [SMAT] tends to finish better than DAT products" and the graphs that you provided showing that the DAT products finish slightly better.
 
FUNX725 said:
I must agree with Mike's (smack's) assessment...


You left out the below chart from the thread/link you posted:

http://www.autogeekonline.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/65594

Sure...Everything eventually breaks down.

With SMAT abrasives technology, the abrasives start out small...
and stay, relatively, the same size until either infinity is reached...
Or:
Whenever "the end" of the buffing cycle necessary to remove defects/blemishes
has been determined, to have been met, by the buffer operator.


Just my take on the DAT (since 1901) vs. SMAT (ca. 200?) abrasives' technologies


Bob
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that the 'gist' of the statements were whether or not DAT provided more cut at the very beginning, not the breaking down part. It's no secret that I'd rather work with SMAT and stopped using DAT whenever I could over a year ago. (Although I've been working with a local guy that uses nothing but Menz SIP on most everything out there.) :dunno:

I may be wrong there, but that is the part I was addressing. The initial cut phase. From what Todd has said/shown it does indeed provide more cut going in. (And of course drops off quickly.) It was actually working with Menz so much this summer that got me to buy three bottles, FG400, IP2000, SF4000 because of the extended working time and finer finishing there at the very end.
 
cardaddy said:
It was my understanding that the 'gist' of the statements were whether or not DAT provided more cut at the very beginning, not the breaking down part. It's no secret that I'd rather work with SMAT and stopped using DAT whenever I could over a year ago. (Although I've been working with a local guy that uses nothing but Menz SIP on most everything out there.) :dunno:

I may be wrong there, but that is the part I was addressing. The initial cut phase. From what Todd has said/shown it does indeed provide more cut going in. (And of course drops off quickly.) It was actually working with Menz so much this summer that got me to buy three bottles, FG400, IP2000, SF4000 because of the extended working time and finer finishing there at the very end.
Click to expand...

Tony, check post #11 of this thread (here)... where you were answering Art's question (which you also quoted) about which breaks down.

You answered SMAT... rather than DAT (Dimishing Abrasives). I think this is where we were saying that you had them mixed up.
 
drvnbysound said:
Tony, check post #11 of this thread (here)... where you were answering Art's question (which you also quoted) about which breaks down.

You answered SMAT... rather than DAT (Dimishing Abrasives). I think this is where we were saying that you had them mixed up.
Click to expand...

Well son of a BEACH... :dig: :laughing:

So we're clear, you all know what I was errrrrr; thinking, right?

RIGHT?


RIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT!!!!!..... :rolleyes:

In any event, yes, DAT breaks down, but still provides a brief period of higher cut, and yet at the end has literally none, only to be 'boosted' (like by a spritz) and rises to finish slighty better, albeit after working much longer.

That in an of itself though isn't enough to make me reach for DAT products as my 'go to' on any regular basis. (I know some that use nothing but, and swear by it.) Nothing wrong with that at all.

I'd rather have more cut throughout the process and work the swirls/water spots/bug guts/etc. out faster THEN finish with another SMAT product if at all possible. Just takes less time, and we all know time is money. (Although in my case, time equates to back pain so the sooner I can finish the better.) :rolleyes:

It may be also worth noting that on most paints this method works. Even the soft red on my G35 responds well to 205, but better to UP (with less cut and longer working time). *(That is ss far as SMAT goes, yet DAT would make it easier.)* But as we all know, some tend to end up with more than their share of haze/micromarring (black Porsche for instance) and that is when you want to have DAT to finish with, like on those nightmarish paints.

And speaking of nightmarish paints....

Anyone done a black Viper lately?

I've got a friend that just sold his red 06 Viper for a 2013 black SRT GTS. When I sent him the link to the 86 slant nose with PBL coating he wanted it instantly. He's interested in the whole shooting match including glass and wheels. Haven't seen it in person yet so I don't know how bad the DISO is. Just wondering if anyone has worked with that particular black yet and has any insight on it? :idea:
 
Hey Tony,

Didn't mean to call you out. Just read through your post #11 and saw that you had your verbage a bit out of line. Didnt have the time to give you the full response as others have done.

No harm no foul.

:)
 
smack said:
Hey Tony,

Didn't mean to call you out. Just read through your post #11 and saw that you had your verbage a bit out of line. Didnt have the time to give you the full response as others have done.

No harm no foul.

:)
Click to expand...

Oh no worries. I didn't see it as a 'call out', more of a; How in the hell did I do that? Like DUH! We were all on the same page, just threw the wrong acronym in that one sentence.

allenk4 said:
Read an interesting piece by Todd Helme over on Autopia.

He suggested that you can use SMAT M105 and get it to finish down LSP ready by starting with an aggressive compounding pad and then switching to a finishing pad. He does this without buffing off the polish left on the surface by the compounding step.

Seems like it could be a big time saver for the Pro's out there.

Finishing with Meguiar's M105 Ultra Cut Compound - Autopia Forums - Auto Detailing & Car Care Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

I've been saying that all along. What I refer to as a 1.5 step process for instance. Start with one pad, keep working the product then switch to another. Don't need it for DAT products because they break down on their own and finish out 'finer' (cut wise, not necessarily quality of finish wise) at the end.

I don't really think that it'd necessarily qualify as an extra (enough) step in the process enough so, taking so much time so that you would charge extra for it each and every time. Especially when you consider it can actually SAVE you time by not having to switch to a fine polish to finish down the paint.

Although I know some people would charge more, just as some customers are willing to pay more. C'est la vie! :coolgleam:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top