Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
Yup, that’s what I use. It’s effective and inexpensive.
Synthetic Clay*
Claybar doesn’t shear, it grabs, picks up, and removes contaminants off the surface.
IronX not doing anything | defective???
- Thread starter charlestek
- Start date
Yup, that’s what I use. It’s effective and inexpensive.
Synthetic Clay*
Claybar doesn’t shear, it grabs, picks up, and removes contaminants off the surface.
Rsurfer
Well-known member
- Jan 26, 2007
- 14,159
- 26
Yup, that’s what I use. It’s effective and inexpensive.
Synthetic Clay*
Claybar doesn’t shear, it grabs, picks up, and removes contaminants off the surface.
If the iron particles are below the clear coat, clay will not grab and pick it up. Contaminants off the surface, yes.
Coatingsarecrack
Well-known member
- Dec 9, 2018
- 7,882
- 570
Yeah I Could be wrong just speculating. Korean company, Korean dating? Also from reading these are production dates and not expiration dates since 2020 I believe.
Lastly about iron X from Avi in am older forum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting theory....i don't think i'll be using it much anymore only on wheels actually. I think clay is way more effective and it's enjoyable to me.
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
All contaminants including Iron particles are above the clearcoat aka above surface contaminants. The only thing that’s ever “below surface” are defects such as scratches. If contaminants such as iron particles were to make it through your clearcoat you wouldn’t be able to fix it and you’d need a new paintjob because your clearcoat would be fubar.
2black1s
New member
- Jan 23, 2015
- 1,783
- 1
Here's my opinion...
Like I said in my earlier post, claying will remove all "bonded" surface contaminants, including iron particles. Provided that assumption is correct, and I believe it is, an iron removing chemical is not an absolute necessary. Here's a link to a thread by Eldo where he did a 50/50 test that illustrates that point quite clearly. https://www.autogeekonline.net/foru...over-50-50-test.html?highlight=iron+x+vs+clay
That is not to say that iron removers do not work or are not sometimes desired, but it does provide evidence that they are not always absolutely necessary.
I don't buy into the premise that iron particles are so deeply embedded into the surface that they will not be completely removed during claying and an iron removing chemical is necessary to completely remove them. They are just like any other contaminant that has "stuck" to the surface and will be removed during claying.
One could actually take this question a step further and challenge the need for pre-polish decontamination, chemical or mechanical, at all, especially during multi-step correction processes. I propose that compounding and polishing will remove the majority, if not all, of any "bonded" contaminants.
Like I said in my earlier post, claying will remove all "bonded" surface contaminants, including iron particles. Provided that assumption is correct, and I believe it is, an iron removing chemical is not an absolute necessary. Here's a link to a thread by Eldo where he did a 50/50 test that illustrates that point quite clearly. https://www.autogeekonline.net/foru...over-50-50-test.html?highlight=iron+x+vs+clay
That is not to say that iron removers do not work or are not sometimes desired, but it does provide evidence that they are not always absolutely necessary.
I don't buy into the premise that iron particles are so deeply embedded into the surface that they will not be completely removed during claying and an iron removing chemical is necessary to completely remove them. They are just like any other contaminant that has "stuck" to the surface and will be removed during claying.
One could actually take this question a step further and challenge the need for pre-polish decontamination, chemical or mechanical, at all, especially during multi-step correction processes. I propose that compounding and polishing will remove the majority, if not all, of any "bonded" contaminants.
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
I like and agree with your post except for this last part… Many years ago when I 1st really got back into detailing I attended the couple of classes offered by Meguiars at their headquarters in Irvine CA. Mike Stoops was the instructor for the 1st class and 1 of the questions I asked was if the claybar was really necessary if they were going to perform a heavy compound/polish steps, wouldn’t the compound remove the contaminants in 1 aggressive step? His reply? Mmm… No, you still have to claybar. 1 of his reasons why included a much harder user experience during the machine polish. His reasoning for why the contaminants would survive through the machine compound/polish was a bit less convincing to me [probably because it’s just simply hard to explain how and why] but he definitely stuck to those guns when he said the contaminants would survive an aggressive compound.
Not too long after that while I was in the beginning days of detailing other people’s vehicles I ran into a situation where I ran out of clay as I was just getting started with building my stock full of detailing supplies and I figured it shouldn’t make That big of difference if I went ahead and skipped the claybar on that days job. That’s when I found out for myself that bonded contaminants do in fact survive a machine compound/polishing. Try it 1 day on a moderately contaminated vehicle.
2black1s
New member
- Jan 23, 2015
- 1,783
- 1
I like and agree with your post except for this last part… .
I was posing that as a hypothetical. I'm sure it would be dependent on the type and severity of the contamination.
Coatingsarecrack
Well-known member
- Dec 9, 2018
- 7,882
- 570
I agree that Claying would remove the Iron but I would think melting away iron and having less contamination would be beneficial.
Les contamination wiping across the paint that is embedded in clay, would use less clay, a little less work and more extra precautions.
Polishing and coating went just fine before iron removers and I agree it is a cost that didn’t have to be added.
I do believe it is better for clear coat preservation.
Cars dried just fine before drying aids but we still use them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Les contamination wiping across the paint that is embedded in clay, would use less clay, a little less work and more extra precautions.
Polishing and coating went just fine before iron removers and I agree it is a cost that didn’t have to be added.
I do believe it is better for clear coat preservation.
Cars dried just fine before drying aids but we still use them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
They’ll always be people who struggle or find it a chore to claybar their vehicle. For those people or those who are looking for a faster overall process to detail their vehicle, the iron remover might be just what they’re looking for.
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
I love claying too.
And you say there was a ton of contaminants removed from your hood yesterday with the claybar? What kind of protection did you apply just after the last time you clayed it 1yr. ago? Cancoat?
chilly
Well-known member
- May 13, 2006
- 3,110
- 991
I always read these threads just to see what the current thinking is and over the years I have had a few thoughts, although none of them are really original
This drawing of iron fallout particles imbedded in clearcoat was stolen off YouTube and belongs to Brian at Apex
I have seen essentially the same graphic drawn by many other detailers over the years
It would be amazing and incredibly informative if some science wizard out there could actually take a microscopic cross section picture of brake/rail dust on clearcoat and show us what is really going on, but I’m not holding my breath on that one
Anyway I guess the theory behind these pictures is that the brake dust is so hot that it literally melts itself into the clear coat, I’m not sure how it could get imbedded otherwise unless the force of washing pushed it into the paint
If you assume that the picture is more or less accurate then the idea of simply “pulling” iron particles out with clay WITHOUT hitting the fallout with an iron remover first seems less likely to be successful due to the jagged nature of the particles and even more so if the theory that it melts into the clearcoat is true
It would seem that the pro iron remover theory is that the iron remover goes down into the void and dissolves enough of the “root” of the particles so that either the particles come out with the rinsing process or are loosened enough to then be pulled out by the claying process
I respect the experiments that have been done to support both sides of the argument and I think like so many other processes we argue over that this is a one size does NOT fit all situation and each vehicle we approach needs to be evaluated and treated accordingly
I also feel that people who think that because THEIR car has ceramic discs or pads and therefore are immune to iron residue need to realize just how many different ways their ride can be exposed to iron and should at least test the more likely areas of their car for fallout
I don’t ever just assume a car is contaminated and hose it down with iron remover, I test first; it’s no different to me than a test spot when correcting paint
If I find contamination in the likely areas I’ll go further forward and test rocker panels and behind fender cutouts and see how bad it is and act accordingly and if I find iron I use a combination of spray remover and clay (not at the same time) because in all likelihood I am going to clay anyway
I’m a hobbyist so it’s not about time and working against a clock and as others have said I actually enjoy claying and get a kick out of seeing just how much garbage gets pulled out of a “clean” car's paint
As always, YMMV
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This drawing of iron fallout particles imbedded in clearcoat was stolen off YouTube and belongs to Brian at Apex
I have seen essentially the same graphic drawn by many other detailers over the years
It would be amazing and incredibly informative if some science wizard out there could actually take a microscopic cross section picture of brake/rail dust on clearcoat and show us what is really going on, but I’m not holding my breath on that one
Anyway I guess the theory behind these pictures is that the brake dust is so hot that it literally melts itself into the clear coat, I’m not sure how it could get imbedded otherwise unless the force of washing pushed it into the paint
If you assume that the picture is more or less accurate then the idea of simply “pulling” iron particles out with clay WITHOUT hitting the fallout with an iron remover first seems less likely to be successful due to the jagged nature of the particles and even more so if the theory that it melts into the clearcoat is true
It would seem that the pro iron remover theory is that the iron remover goes down into the void and dissolves enough of the “root” of the particles so that either the particles come out with the rinsing process or are loosened enough to then be pulled out by the claying process
I respect the experiments that have been done to support both sides of the argument and I think like so many other processes we argue over that this is a one size does NOT fit all situation and each vehicle we approach needs to be evaluated and treated accordingly
I also feel that people who think that because THEIR car has ceramic discs or pads and therefore are immune to iron residue need to realize just how many different ways their ride can be exposed to iron and should at least test the more likely areas of their car for fallout
I don’t ever just assume a car is contaminated and hose it down with iron remover, I test first; it’s no different to me than a test spot when correcting paint
If I find contamination in the likely areas I’ll go further forward and test rocker panels and behind fender cutouts and see how bad it is and act accordingly and if I find iron I use a combination of spray remover and clay (not at the same time) because in all likelihood I am going to clay anyway
I’m a hobbyist so it’s not about time and working against a clock and as others have said I actually enjoy claying and get a kick out of seeing just how much garbage gets pulled out of a “clean” car's paint
As always, YMMV
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
This drawing of iron fallout particles imbedded in clearcoat was stolen off YouTube and belongs to Brian at Apex
1st time I’ve seen that drawing or anything like that representing iron deposits on paint. I personally find that theory hard to believe simply based on the fact that synthetic clay can in fact remove iron deposits, it may be harder to accomplish, but anyone who’s used a claymitt on a white vehicle knows it can be done and you can actually see when you’ve finally removed those stubborn iron particles off the paint… But if synthetic clay “shaves” contaminants off the surface, how could that physically happen if we’re to believe that drawing that the iron deposits are somehow halfways beneath the clearcoat? How could synthetic clay “shave” iron deposits from under the clearcoat while leaving the clearcoat completely fine?
I’d have to hear it from an actual scientist and last time I checked Bryan from Apex doesn’t wear a white coat. It’s also the 1st time I’ve heard anything about melting into the clearcoat but hey I haven’t been paying THAT much attention lately, but alot of that seems far fetched to me. Makes me want to call some sources now.
chilly
Well-known member
- May 13, 2006
- 3,110
- 991
1st time I’ve seen that drawing or anything like that representing iron deposits on paint. I personally find that theory hard to believe simply based on the fact that synthetic clay can in fact remove iron deposits, it may be harder to accomplish, but anyone who’s used a claymitt on a white vehicle knows it can be done and you can actually see when you’ve finally removed those stubborn iron particles off the paint… But if synthetic clay “shaves” contaminants off the surface, how could that physically happen if we’re to believe that drawing that the iron deposits are somehow halfways beneath the clearcoat? How could synthetic clay “shave” iron deposits from under the clearcoat while leaving the clearcoat completely fine?
I’d have to hear it from an actual scientist and last time I checked Bryan from Apex doesn’t wear a white coat. It’s also the 1st time I’ve heard anything about melting into the clearcoat but hey I haven’t been paying THAT much attention lately, but alot of that seems far fetched to me. Makes me want to call some sources now.
Oh I am not disagreeing with anything you say
There was a big IF in there
lol
No, Brian doesn’t wear a white coat
I have seen Larry Kosilla draw a very similar picture as well as others over the years
Nope, they probably don’t have PHDs either
That’s one reason I said an actual microscopic study would be amazing
I don’t know if any of the people who think that way are right or wrong
That’s one reason I hedge my bets and hit fallout from 2 directions
I respect your experimentation and your results
Peace
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eldorado2k
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2015
- 14,545
- 645
Forensic Detailing once got the microscope out in order to examine the effects that the claybar has on the paint. I can’t completely remember what his conclusion was because it’s been a while, but I give him props for his effort there.
chilly
Well-known member
- May 13, 2006
- 3,110
- 991
I guess this topic has so many facets that there isn't any single discussion/argument that can take it all in and you have to TRY and think about it logically and take the thought process one step at a time
Honestly I would bet any theories, questions, or arguments I could bring up have been brought up before so there is no need to dredge it all up again
Like so many other topics maybe the best thing is agree to disagree (not saying I disagree with you) and call it a day
I just finished my morning walk and today IS national coffee day so I am doing my part to celebrate and I have a second pot brewing
I am also hoping I get notification early enough that my packages of detailing stuffs are ready to pick up at the post office before it closes at 1:00 and I can get the boss saddled up to drive the 61 miles to pick them up
Fingers crossed
Honestly I would bet any theories, questions, or arguments I could bring up have been brought up before so there is no need to dredge it all up again
Like so many other topics maybe the best thing is agree to disagree (not saying I disagree with you) and call it a day
I just finished my morning walk and today IS national coffee day so I am doing my part to celebrate and I have a second pot brewing
I am also hoping I get notification early enough that my packages of detailing stuffs are ready to pick up at the post office before it closes at 1:00 and I can get the boss saddled up to drive the 61 miles to pick them up
Fingers crossed
Coatingsarecrack
Well-known member
- Dec 9, 2018
- 7,882
- 570
CanCoat is not as much as a true coating but it’s roughly around 25% solid. Most sealants are less than 5
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DFB
Well-known member
- Aug 12, 2019
- 4,887
- 2,952
Circling back to the observation of IronX not showing a dramatic or obvious reaction, a lot of this will come down to vehicle use, storage and maintenance.
For example, my Mustang is not a daily driver, never sees a wet road, is stored in a garage and maintained ruthlessly. Using IronX prior to polishing, there was little to no iron reaction from the product -
On the other side of the story, this Subaru Forrester is used on all road surfaces, is parked outdoors 24/7, is washed infrequently and has minimal to no LSP applied. The result from an iron remover is far more obvious -
So, it's likely the car in question was largely iron free. I still think it's worthwhile doing the iron-decon a worthwhile step even if the reaction is minimal, that just means you are doing a good job of maintenance.
For example, my Mustang is not a daily driver, never sees a wet road, is stored in a garage and maintained ruthlessly. Using IronX prior to polishing, there was little to no iron reaction from the product -
On the other side of the story, this Subaru Forrester is used on all road surfaces, is parked outdoors 24/7, is washed infrequently and has minimal to no LSP applied. The result from an iron remover is far more obvious -
So, it's likely the car in question was largely iron free. I still think it's worthwhile doing the iron-decon a worthwhile step even if the reaction is minimal, that just means you are doing a good job of maintenance.
I had Nv EVO on the hood with a couple polish angel high gloss top ups. It didn't last a year. I think it was still there but it was very flat.
Weather here sucks so i really don't maintain my car very well - Newfoundland, Canada.
Maintenance really is key. I don't think you will get long for any coating if you don't wash it at least 2x per month.
Probably preaching to the choir lol just thinking out loud.
edit: I applied my coating outside too. It's a nightmare, i wouldn't suggest it to people like me - driveway detailers. If cancoat lasts even 6mths i will be happy, i will just give her another quick polish with gyeon primer. The amount of claying i've done the last few days has convinced me my car needs to be clayed at least 1x per year anyhow. And i love polishing...so i'm done with these high solid multi year coatings!
I had a great few days polishing the horizontal surfaces of my car. With sonax perfect finish and gyeon primer. My style this year has changed. I will do 1 full panel/large section now before i wipe down the polish residue - much more relaxing and focus for me. With both perfect finish and primer you only need a nice dry towel. Oily polishes a rag soaked in N914 works great.
thinking out loud lol