Compounding and polishing are about the same thing. Only difference is the aggressiveness, correct? Compounding and polishing BOTH cut into the paint, but compounding essentially cuts deeper.
Shouldn't one polish FIRST as a 'first attempt' to try and get a light scratch out, remove some oxidation, swirls, etc. and then if the polishing does NOT work, then 'up' the aggressiveness into the compounding stage.
You are correct. I have an article that explains this in detail. This practice is called,
"Use the least aggressive product to get the job done"
It's also covered in all my how-to books, see my Signature Line at the bottom over every one of my posts.
Yet detailers start off aggressive/compounding first then move to polishing... then sealant then wax (or what-have-you).
Two reasons for this,
1: Some detailers have a lot of experience and upon evacuating the condition of the paint they know based upon experience that they will need a true compound from the very start to accomplish the goal for the project they are working on.
I start with a compound for some of my projects.
2: New advances in abrasive technology have so dramatically changed compounds that now you can safely start with a compound without removing too much paint.
I explain this in detail in this article,
The SMAT Pack - Everything you ever wanted to know about Meguiar's SMAT products...
Below is just a portion of my article, I recommend clicking the above link and reading the full article.
Now look for the par where I talk about a
Monkey Wrench 
DAT - Diminishing Abrasives Technology
Diminishing Abrasives are a category of abrasives that actually break down, pulverize and disintegrate into nothingness as you work them against the paint.
For example, a diminishing abrasive will start out a certain size and/or shape, then
under pressure over time as they are worked against the paint they will actually breakdown or break apart. This means they start out aggressive and thus aggressively abrading the paint, as they are worked under pressure over time they begin to break down and as they breakdown their aggressiveness level is reduced to the point that when correctly worked they are completely broken down and all you have left is a mixture of spent or used-up diminishing abrasives and the carrying agent or base they were embodied in to start with. There's also a certain amount of removed paint in this resulting mixture.
SMAT - Super Micro Abrasives Technology
Super Micro Abrasives are as the name states microscopic in size and do not break down like diminishing abrasives. While they may not breakdown like a diminishing abrasive, there does come a point where there effectiveness falls off in performance, my guess is that this is a cumulative effect of the base formula they are embodied in dissipates while particles of removed paint build up in the residue adulterating or diluting their effectiveness.
Just to note, this same adulterating or diluting effect takes place with any abrasive product because as the abrasive remove small particles of paint, these small particle of paint join into the mixture thus changing the ratio or percentage of abrasives to the base formula.
What's the practical difference?
The biggest difference that I can share is this, with diminishing abrasive technology you
MUST work the product until the abrasives have completely broken down to insure you don't leave any swirls in the paint. The reason for this is because if you stop buffing before the abrasives have completely broken down then they are still cutting or abrading the paint, thus leaving swirls in the paint.
This isn't really a problem because most diminishing abrasive products when used correctly will break down over a
normal buffing cycle, (period of time and number of passes), to sufficiently break the abrasives down. It's usually only an issue for people
new to car detailing who are learning as they go.
With Super Micro Abrasive Technology, theoretically, because the abrasives don't break down, or more specifically because the abrasives don't break down like diminishing abrasives break down, you can stop anywhere in the buffing cycle without leaving swirls caused by the abrasives. This would tend to make SMAT products more
"Bubba-Proof" with an easier or more flat learning curve.
Because the abrasives don't break down like traditional diminishing abrasives, and from experience leave a very clear, scratch-free finish whether you're using the most aggressive or the most non-aggressive products, this new technology kind of throws a
monkey wrench into the philosophy of,
"Use the least aggressive product to get the job done"
Notice in the above statement I used the word
aggressive,
not abrasive.
This is how the statement is supposed to be written because there are more factors involved besides just the liquid chemical that contribute to how aggressive a process is, for example, your
application material can be a
HUGE factor as to how aggressive your choice of products are. I just point this out because I see others typing the above quote and often times they write,
"Use the least abrasive product to get the job done"
While the meaning is
close, it's not
exact as you can use products that are not abrasive at all to accomplish a task and still be following the philosophy.
But I digress... back to the topic at hand...
Why it's important to use the least aggressive product to get the job done?
The idea behind using the least aggressive product to get the job done is to remove the defect or defects
while leaving the maximum amount of paint on the car.
For any Newbies reading this, anytime you remove a defect or defects like swirls, scratches
Type II Water Spot Etchings,
Type I Bird Dropping -
Topical Stain Etchings,
Sanding Marks after wet-sanding, you
must remove some paint from the surface until you
level the surface of the paint with the lowest depths of the defects you're trying to remove.
So removing below surface defects means removing paint.
That's normal and acceptable but the problem is
paint is thin and from what I've seen over the years getting thinner. That means you and me don't have a lot of room for error and for decades, dating back to the Model T, the philosophy of,
"Use the least aggressive product to get the job done"
worked and made a lot of sense. Paint is thin and you only want to remove as little as as you have to in order to remove the defects so your paint will last over the service life of the car.
Now let me tie this
train-of-thought together with SMAT products and why it throws a monkey wrench into traditional thinking.
Because the abrasives used in SMAT products don't break down in the same way diminishing abrasives break down and tend to leave a scratch-free, high gloss finish, (no matter which product you're using), this means you apply them and then
only work them till the defects are gone.
Once the defects are gone, (and you visually see this as you work an area), you then stop working the product and wipe off the residue and move to the next step or a new section.
It's this ability to stop when the defects have been removed instead of stopping after the diminishing abrasive have broken down that throws a wrench into the old tried and true philosophy of
using the least aggressive product to get the job done because theoretically you can start with the most aggressive product and because you stop after the defects have been removed you achieve the same goal as you would have achieved by using the least aggressive product to get the job done but you can usually do it faster and more effectivley... AND you leave the same amount of paint on the car.
With diminishing abrasives, it could be that you've removed the defects but if you removed them before the abrasives fully broke down, you must continue to work the products to avoid leaving swirls in the paint because the abrasives are still abrading, this means you're removing paint you don't have to remove. At least that's the theory I'm presenting in this article.
Make sense?
IF not, then chew on the ideas presented above and if you're still confused then post your questions to the forum!
Good question Niko... it shows you're thinking...
:dblthumb2:
