LSP stripping

ski2 said:
And isn't this what we are all looking for in our LSPs--Durability!!!

Thanks for all the great information!!!!!
Click to expand...

Absolutely - so it surprises me that so many people claim to remove their expensive LSPs with a squirt of hand dishwash liquid or a quick spray with APC.
 
I use a highly concentrated citrus wash spiked with APC. Always follow with polish even if the paint is in good shape. Never had an issue with residual LSP.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AG Online
 
I only "strip" cars the first time I wash them. I use cg cwg and apc. Most cars that come to me don't even have any protection, other than what a car wash offers.

I just think of it as a super cleaning, anything left is cleaned up with, claybar and compound.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using AG Online
 
Good descriptive photos! :props:

Stripper_on_polymer2.jpg



PiPUK said:
Overall the conclusion I have to come to is that this:

a) Can leave a temporary surfactant residue which could fool a user into thinking the LSP was stripped.
b) Was actually unable to even overcome the hydrophobicity of our polymer product so wasn’t even able to leave a surfactant residue.

So yet more reason for you guys to question the myth of easy LSP stripping -
here we have failed to remove even a simple spray wax inspite of using a product routinely recommended for stripping of all coatings.
LSP STRIPPING IS HARDER THAN YOU THINK!
Click to expand...
-Thanks again for providing your expertise and insight into the "LSP stripping" premise!
-Moreover it solidifies the information/suggestions you provided in this recent post regarding the same "stripping-topic":
PiPUK said:
Stripping requires a significant level of alkalinity and/or solvents
(particularly non-polar solvents with high solvency, e.g. mineral spirits and stronger).

If you manage to do it with less, best contact your LSP manufacturer and ask why their product is so fragile!
Click to expand...

:)

Bob
 
ken tuep said:
I only "strip" cars the first time I wash them. I use cg cwg and apc. Most cars that come to me don't even have any protection, other than what a car wash offers.

I just think of it as a super cleaning, anything left is cleaned up with, claybar and compound.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using AG Online
Click to expand...

VP Mark said:
I use a highly concentrated citrus wash spiked with APC. Always follow with polish even if the paint is in good shape. Never had an issue with residual LSP.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AG Online
Click to expand...

My initial posting used a dramatically stronger blend than you used. If you check back, it did look like the LSP was gone. Then I wiped it with IPA which clearly showed otherwise. My proposal is that this is commonplace - many products merely provide the look that the LSP is gone when this effect is achieved by a film of surfactant on top of the LSP. Whilst I cannot say that this is going to be the same for every scenario, it has reproduced reliably every time I have tried. The only exception, to date, it when the supposed stripper product fails even to leave a film because it cannot overcome the hydrophobic nature of the surface (as per this more recent post).

As before, the importance is that, if I were to try to apply another LSP on top of any of the 'stripped' surfaces - the ones which actually have a surfactant film - then the performance and durability of what you apply over the top will be compromised.
 
Perhaps these expensive LSPs people buy are not near as effective as they think. The only thing I've ever had real work at stripping is the collinite lineup. Most other stuff comes off with a breeze. Not very many products are truly detergent resistant and if they are are not resistant to high concentrations.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using AG Online
 
But how do you know you have stripped these LSPs?
 
Beading occurs on a clean clearcoated surface, or any surface that is free of contaminants for that fact. So to say that the IPA brought back the LSP is completely false.
 
PiPUK said:
What you might notice is that there is a strip on the left where the surface appears to be stripped.
So I gave a section of that strip a wipe with IPA –
picture 6 shows quite clearly just where I wiped it after I tossed another bucket of water over the area.
So, once more, this little section shows that there can be a temporary surfactant residue,
PiPUK said:
If you check back, it did look like the LSP was gone.
Then I wiped it with IPA which clearly showed otherwise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Willy Wang said:
Beading occurs on a clean clearcoated surface, or any surface that is free of contaminants for that fact.

So to say that the IPA brought back the LSP is completely false.

.....................^^^
interesting.gif
^^^.....................
Click to expand...

coffee-n-pc.gif


Bob
 
Willy Wang said:
Beading occurs on a clean clearcoated surface, or any surface that is free of contaminants for that fact. So to say that the IPA brought back the LSP is completely false.
Click to expand...

That is an exaggeration of reality. Yes, a clean and freshly polished surface is not totally hydrophillic. However, most of the time when someone demonstrates this, they will have previously used a polish which is oil heavy and which has left a residue of oil. In practice, every time I have seen a freshly polished surface bead water like a freshly applied sealant - it is the oil from the prep which is responsible.

So, yes, a clean surface will not be totally hydrophillic but the example I have presented is very strongly hydrophobic. No matter how much I were to try polishing this surface, without the sealant on it, it would never be that hydrophobic. Moreover, the sealant in question actually modifies the appearance such that the area applied to appears darker that the surrounding (we are chemical formulators, not photographers so capturing this is just not plausible). None of the tests I have shown managed to remove that which strongly supports my findings. If you look at the second part of the test, the beading was recovered with repeated rinsing, it did not need IPA.

Moreover again, if a totally clean surface beads water - why do the vast majority of detailers, pro or enthusiast, use this characteristic to decide if an LSP is present or not?
 
it's a flawed method of confirming whether an LSP is present or not. Because water beads on clean surfaces, ie condensation on the side of your cup, most windows or glass surfaces produce beading effects as well. And water beads on oils and waxes as well. Can the effects on beading by a wax or polish compared to an absolutely clean surface actually be determined by the naked eye? I would say probably not. However, IPA is pretty amazing at cleaning oils. Have you ever used IPA to clean a water pipe that was caked with resin? I'm certain the resin along the inside of a water pipe is much stickier and greasier than the oils in a polish or a wax you apply on your car. I am 100% confident that there is no residue left after a thorough IPA wipedown. In fact, I wouldn't use anything other than IPA for 2 reasons: 1. how well it cleans my bong. 2. it is way cheaper than cleaners made for cleaning polish residue. Those are gimmicks that companies created to simply make money off detailers.
 
Willy Wang said:
Have you ever used IPA to clean a water pipe that was caked with resin?

I am 100% confident that there is no residue left after a thorough IPA wipedown.
In fact, I wouldn't use anything other than IPA for 2 reasons:
1. how well it cleans my bong.
2. it is way cheaper than cleaners made for cleaning polish residue.
Click to expand...

peace.gif


Bob
 
PiPuk - Thanks for the great thread!


This info brings up a interesting question. I've always assumed the lack of beading on a car after going through a few automatic car washes (touch-less) was a result of the chemicals stripping off the wax/sealant...now I'm starting to question if it's just residual surfactants on the surface killing the beading???

Thoughts?
 
Willy Wang said:
it's a flawed method of confirming whether an LSP is present or not. Because water beads on clean surfaces, ie condensation on the side of your cup, most windows or glass surfaces produce beading effects as well. And water beads on oils and waxes as well. Can the effects on beading by a wax or polish compared to an absolutely clean surface actually be determined by the naked eye? I would say probably not. However, IPA is pretty amazing at cleaning oils. Have you ever used IPA to clean a water pipe that was caked with resin? I'm certain the resin along the inside of a water pipe is much stickier and greasier than the oils in a polish or a wax you apply on your car. I am 100% confident that there is no residue left after a thorough IPA wipedown. In fact, I wouldn't use anything other than IPA for 2 reasons: 1. how well it cleans my bong. 2. it is way cheaper than cleaners made for cleaning polish residue. Those are gimmicks that companies created to simply make money off detailers.
Click to expand...

I have to stop you because IPA is not the cleaner you believe it is. I am not coming at you from a detailing perspective or as someone who has a few cleaning solvent kicking about - we manufacture hundreds of tonnes of cleaning products in a year. Isopropanol is a moderately polar solvent which is useful in a great many situations - that is not in doubt. However, it is simply not even close to the most potent solvent out there. Heck, you can use it on household paint and you would struggle to do a lot of damage. Contrast that to non-polar and aromatic solvents and it is a weakling compared to many.

For fact, we don't use IPA as a carrier for many products because it will not dissolve them. Wax does not easily dissolve in it (and even then, in small proportions), many polymers and resins will not dissolve, silicones are troublesome. You should recognise that each of these things, common in car care, are highly non-polar in character. You should also not be surprised at what we do use as carriers - non-polar solvents (think of mineral spirits as one of the least potent of this class).

Think even on automotive - if IPA was as potent as you imply, why do we have to resort to non-polar solvents (typically xylene and toluene) for removal of tar? IPA simple does not touch the sorts of tar deposits common in the UK. The reason is simply, tar is highly non-polar and IPA is not. Like dissolves like is a good general rule.

As for the validity of the method, I will have to disagree. As I stated, even if I was to discard everything else, I can physically see that the sealants are still there. IPA does not remove them (nor does wash up liquid, APC, TFR and often even heavy non-polar solvents, for that matter). The hydrophobicity of the surface is far too high to be mistaken. I was not wishing to go to this depth but contact angles for water on clean paint are rarely greater than 75 degrees - yes, slightly hydrophobic and it could give beads and sheets. The surface I have presented have contact angles in excess of 100 degree - there is absolutely no mistaking that difference, even by eye.
 
So PiPuk, what do you think would be a better alternative to IPA wipe downs?
 
This is a good thread. I was just researching on how to remove klasse sealant that's been on the car for a month to try another product.
 
Willy Wang said:
So PiPuk, what do you think would be a better alternative to IPA wipe downs?
Click to expand...

As a wipedown, it is fine - as I understand, IPA is generally used after polishing to remove residual oils etc., so it doesn't need to strip, just lift the (rather light) oily residues. The polishing stage will have dealt with any LSP.

The only note on IPA, and this is a practical thing that I learnt from Mike's comments, is that it doesn't really lubricate. This fits well with comments I have seen elsewhere which indicate that there is the risk of 'swiping' when using IPA. This is where Car Pro Eraser earns its keep (ignoring residue potential), it is IPA with lubrication. Panel wipes are the main alternative here, these are generally non-polar solvent blends of varying volatility so are more effective if any of the residual oils are a bit difficult and they also have the advantage of giving a much 'slicker' application. Of course the problem is that they cannot be diluted with water so tend to cost more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top