LSP stripping

[PiPUK]

Wouldn't the SLES (@1-3%), that's in CarPro's
Eraser paint-prep, leave behind any residue?

("Worse case scenario") Even if it would...
It must not have any negative impact or interfere
with CarPro's Coatings' applications/bonding...


Bob

Let's say that I wouldn't be using it. SLES is mainly a foamer, not especially good as a detergent. Slightly odd choice, IMO

 

[fightnews]

Hi Guys,

As many may know, I have been arguing about the ineffectiveness of supposed LSP stripping techniques. Here we have our basic WOWA sealant, water based and gives routine 3 month durability. It is about a month old. I have applied to it neat TFR, which is a highly alkaline degreaser (pH>13) with a number of surfactants. Here is what it looks like after a good wiping with a sponge soaked in the product and then a couple of buckets of water thrown over to rinse.

View attachment 19412

OK - so there are no beads. If you look closely, you can see that most of the surface is wet with the water sticking to the surface, just like you expect when your LSP is stripped. So we have stripped the LSP then, just as one expects from a very strong APC/degreaser type products. But wait one minute, lets give it a wipe with neat IPA. Lets see what we get when we throw another bucket of water over it:

View attachment 19413

View attachment 19414

So I have wiped the top left corner with IPA and the first picture shows this close up. It looks rather different to a moment ago! The second picture shows the bonnet as a whole so you can see that the surrounding area is still behaving as it was in picture 1 (it has now had 3 buckets of water thrown on it so has been rinsed more than most people will do). So my IPA wipe (which many believe will strip an LSP) has magically recovered my LSP! Wow!

Now lets summarise my (and some others) thoughts:

Many supposed LSP strippers are surfactant containing. Many surfactants will 'stick' to surfaces either through design (e.g. to enhance gloss or stop water spotting) or because they see the LSP as rather similar in structure to the oils they like to bond with. As a result, many surfactant products will leave a film of surfactant on top of the LSP, this will then attract water so hide any beading or sheeting of the LSP.


This is what has happened in my first picture - there is a surfactant film. With the IPA wipe, I have dissolved the film and uncovered the LSP and thus pictures 2 and 3 show the beading has returned.

So there you go, absolute proof that the above mechanism is not just theoretical! Had someone tried to apply a fresh LSP after the step 1 'stripping', the fresh LSP would have been highly compromised, had it been a fussy LSP (e.g. nano sealant), there is a chance it might have failed to bond totally.

its a nice experiment but it doesn't "prove" anything. how do we know its not just clean clear coat beading the water? new paint does that. how do we know there's not other factors involved that i cant think of? how do we know for a fact whats on or in the paint?

 

[fightnews]

Hi Guys,

As many may know, I have been arguing about the ineffectiveness of supposed LSP stripping techniques. Here we have our basic WOWA sealant, water based and gives routine 3 month durability. It is about a month old. I have applied to it neat TFR, which is a highly alkaline degreaser (pH>13) with a number of surfactants. Here is what it looks like after a good wiping with a sponge soaked in the product and then a couple of buckets of water thrown over to rinse.

View attachment 19412

OK - so there are no beads. If you look closely, you can see that most of the surface is wet with the water sticking to the surface, just like you expect when your LSP is stripped. So we have stripped the LSP then, just as one expects from a very strong APC/degreaser type products. But wait one minute, lets give it a wipe with neat IPA. Lets see what we get when we throw another bucket of water over it:

View attachment 19413

View attachment 19414

So I have wiped the top left corner with IPA and the first picture shows this close up. It looks rather different to a moment ago! The second picture shows the bonnet as a whole so you can see that the surrounding area is still behaving as it was in picture 1 (it has now had 3 buckets of water thrown on it so has been rinsed more than most people will do). So my IPA wipe (which many believe will strip an LSP) has magically recovered my LSP! Wow!

Now lets summarise my (and some others) thoughts:

Many supposed LSP strippers are surfactant containing. Many surfactants will 'stick' to surfaces either through design (e.g. to enhance gloss or stop water spotting) or because they see the LSP as rather similar in structure to the oils they like to bond with. As a result, many surfactant products will leave a film of surfactant on top of the LSP, this will then attract water so hide any beading or sheeting of the LSP.


This is what has happened in my first picture - there is a surfactant film. With the IPA wipe, I have dissolved the film and uncovered the LSP and thus pictures 2 and 3 show the beading has returned.

So there you go, absolute proof that the above mechanism is not just theoretical! Had someone tried to apply a fresh LSP after the step 1 'stripping', the fresh LSP would have been highly compromised, had it been a fussy LSP (e.g. nano sealant), there is a chance it might have failed to bond totally.

I don't see this as absolute proof. If you polish half that panel and get rid of the last then wipe it down the same way you could still get beading. Beading is not the end all, be all of whether an lsp is on there

Edit lol didn't realize I responded in November

 

[fightnews]

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?

because they don't know any better or are misinformed. Your argument is everybody does it so it must be true? Your testing is not conclusive just for the fact that clean paint may be water. Wether or not it is beading is beside the point. It can bead water so you simply can not use beading as proof of anything.

 

[Loach]

Just want to share the results for my most recent strip test. The following products failed to completely remove Zymol Glasur and Chemical Guys Pete's 53 in the short term throughout a continuous wash test:

Turtle Wax Max Power Car Wash at 9oz per gallon
Purple Power Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Boat Wash at 6oz per gallon.
Adam's Strip Wash at 1oz per gallon.
Chemical Guys Clean Slate at 1oz per gallon.
Chemical Guys Citrus Wash and Gloss at 2oz per gallon.
Duplicolor Grease & Wax Remover - Undiluted
Klean Strip Prep-All (Aerosol)

I'll have to throw the video together when I have time. Glasur fared extremely well until we got to Prep-All. Citrus Wash and Gloss had the highest concentration of surfactants (easy to mistake this for removal especially on weathered waxes). Duplicolor Grease & Wax Remover actually helped to supercharge Glasur again by removing the surfactants left behind from the previous soaps. Multiple heavy uses of Prep-All had the biggest impact on both sides - this had a stronger impact on Glasur and was the only time Pete's 53 surpassed it in performance - I was surprised by this.

Unprotected paint is heavily impacted by surfactants, if you're using a strip wash on an LSP and you're getting a decent sheeting rate from the water, I would highly doubt removal. IPA will help dissolve the surfactants on the paint to revive the water behavior of both the LSP on protected paint and the surface on unprotected paint, the difference is a protected surface has always been more resistant to the impact of surfactants in soaps in my tests. As the surface tension of the LSP degrades, the better the opportunity for surfactants to really cling to this surface and resist rinsing.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

its a nice experiment but it doesn't "prove" anything. how do we know its not just clean clear coat beading the water? new paint does that. how do we know there's not other factors involved that i cant think of? how do we know for a fact whats on or in the paint? (November 2016)

I don't see this as absolute proof. If you polish half that panel and get rid of the last then wipe it down the same way you could still get beading. Beading is not the end all, be all of whether an lsp is on there

Edit lol didn't realize I responded in November (April 2017)

because they don't know any better or are misinformed. Your argument is everybody does it so it must be true? Your testing is not conclusive just for the fact that clean paint may be water. Wether or not it is beading is beside the point. It can bead water so you simply can not use beading as proof of anything. (January 2018)

What do you do, come back every 6 months, read this thread, and get all worked up again? PiPUK hasn't been on the forum in like a year and a half. And I thought I was cranky.

 

[fightnews]

Just want to share the results for my most recent strip test. The following products failed to completely remove Zymol Glasur and Chemical Guys Pete's 53 in the short term throughout a continuous wash test:

Turtle Wax Max Power Car Wash at 9oz per gallon
Purple Power Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Boat Wash at 6oz per gallon.
Adam's Strip Wash at 1oz per gallon.
Chemical Guys Clean Slate at 1oz per gallon.
Chemical Guys Citrus Wash and Gloss at 2oz per gallon.
Duplicolor Grease & Wax Remover - Undiluted
Klean Strip Prep-All (Aerosol)

I'll have to throw the video together when I have time. Glasur fared extremely well until we got to Prep-All. Citrus Wash and Gloss had the highest concentration of surfactants (easy to mistake this for removal especially on weathered waxes). Duplicolor Grease & Wax Remover actually helped to supercharge Glasur again by removing the surfactants left behind from the previous soaps. Multiple heavy uses of Prep-All had the biggest impact on both sides - this had a stronger impact on Glasur and was the only time Pete's 53 surpassed it in performance - I was surprised by this.

Unprotected paint is heavily impacted by surfactants, if you're using a strip wash on an LSP and you're getting a decent sheeting rate from the water, I would highly doubt removal. IPA will help dissolve the surfactants on the paint to revive the water behavior of both the LSP on protected paint and the surface on unprotected paint, the difference is a protected surface has always been more resistant to the impact of surfactants in soaps in my tests. As the surface tension of the LSP degrades, the better the opportunity for surfactants to really cling to this surface and resist rinsing.

No way it supercharged anything, you are dealing with a clean painted surface there thats all IMO. Unless you can prove a wax is still on there?

 

[fightnews]

What do you do, come back every 6 months, read this thread, and get all worked up again? PiPUK hasn't been on the forum in like a year and a half. And I thought I was cranky.

No it' just honest my opinion and the truth. Beading proves nothing thats all there is to it

 

[fightnews]

If you take a panel and compound it then completely remove all the oils. Wax 1 side and leave the other bare. Wash it 3 times with that DuPont wax remover without cheating. Then do an IPA wipedown on both sides and I guarantee they will both bead and sheet the same.

 

[dlc95]

If you take a panel and compound it then completely remove all the oils. Wax 1 side and leave the other bare. Wash it 3 times with that DuPont wax remover without cheating. Then do an IPA wipedown on both sides and I guarantee they will both bead and sheet the same.

How do you personally determine if a painted surface is clear of lsp?

 

[Rmd]

If you take a panel and compound it then completely remove all the oils. Wax 1 side and leave the other bare. Wash it 3 times with that DuPont wax remover without cheating. Then do an IPA wipedown on both sides and I guarantee they will both bead and sheet the same.

So if bare paint beads/sheets water, and an LSP beads/sheets water, then what condition accounts for paint that doesn't bead/sheet water? Surfectants in the shampoo? If so, then a shampoo that leaves nothing behind like Carpro reset should always increase beading, either by leaving the LSP as the only substance on the paint, or by leaving the paint bare. Has anyone tested this? Seems like it would be interesting.

 

[Eldorado2k]

its a nice experiment but it doesn't "prove" anything. how do we know its not just clean clear coat beading the water? new paint does that.

Define “new paint”

As far as your other statements, are they based on your opinion? Or based on your experience? Because I believe 1 of your posts said “think”, but none of them describe any sort of testing you may have done in order to come to your conclusions. If you have done some kind of testing of your own then lets hear it. There’s plenty of open ears.


Now as far as bare paint beading water... While it’s not impossible, I say [based on my experience] it’s not usually the case. Glass is a whole nother story, as it’s rare for me to see glass that doesn’t bead [whether it’s bare or not]. But paint? Nah, bare paint doesn’t bead unless it’s the rare exception.

You mention IPA, polish, TFR, wax striping soaps, but there’s another player in the game you seem to have forgotten about, and that’s clay. I also believe you’re giving the very thin layer of wax/sealant/etc. way too much credit when in reality it’s maximum potential of protection in the best case scenario pales in comparison to the actual clearcoat, which is the Real thing that’s protecting the paint, and there’s alot of proof that the clearcoat can survive for many many years without ever being waxed at all. But lets not get off topic.

My point is that wax isn’t as durable as you might think, and a good claying can render it gone. I see it happen whenever my goal is to do so.

And this is what clean clayed bare paint looks like. No polishing oils, no nothing. And certainly no beading. Just bare paint because clay doesn’t leave any possible surfactants, etc. behind.

What do you guys think?

 

[FUNX650]

Some automotive clay bars
contain surfactants.


Bob

 

[Eldorado2k]

Some automotive clay bars
contain surfactants.


Bob

Which ones?

Btw I used this clay mitt on that paint in the pic. Claymitt package doesn’t state anything about it containing surfactants, so I think it doesn’t apply in my case?

 

[FUNX650]

Some automotive clay bars
contain surfactants.

Additionally:

Many automotive clay “lubricants”
(that are often used in conjunction with
not only automotive clay bars, but also
with decontamination blocks/mitts/sponges/
cloths/etc.) also contain surfactants.


Bob

 

[Eldorado2k]

Additionally:

Many automotive clay “lubricants”
(that are often used in conjunction with
not only automotive clay bars, but also
with decontamination blocks/mitts/sponges/
cloths/etc.) also contain surfactants.


Bob

Yes, I already knew you would say that... [2 seconds after I posted my question that’s what I correctly predicted] lol.

But what about the claybars? Interested to know which claybars contain surfactants as opposed to which ones don’t.

 

[fightnews]

How do you personally determine if a painted surface is clear of lsp?

I only do my own car and im always polishing and applying a new lsp before the duration is up. Plus I use a spray every wash, and wash 1x a week. I've never tried to get the maximum time out of anything.

 

[fightnews]

Define “new paint”

As far as your other statements, are they based on your opinion? Or based on your experience? Because I believe 1 of your posts said “think”, but none of them describe any sort of testing you may have done in order to come to your conclusions. If you have done some kind of testing of your own then lets hear it. There’s plenty of open ears.


Now as far as bare paint beading water... While it’s not impossible, I say [based on my experience] it’s not usually the case. Glass is a whole nother story, as it’s rare for me to see glass that doesn’t bead [whether it’s bare or not]. But paint? Nah, bare paint doesn’t bead unless it’s the rare exception.

You mention IPA, polish, TFR, wax striping soaps, but there’s another player in the game you seem to have forgotten about, and that’s clay. I also believe you’re giving the very thin layer of wax/sealant/etc. way too much credit when in reality it’s maximum potential of protection in the best case scenario pales in comparison to the actual clearcoat, which is the Real thing that’s protecting the paint, and there’s alot of proof that the clearcoat can survive for many many years without ever being waxed at all. But lets not get off topic.

My point is that wax isn’t as durable as you might think, and a good claying can render it gone. I see it happen whenever my goal is to do so.

And this is what clean clayed bare paint looks like. No polishing oils, no nothing. And certainly no beading. Just bare paint because clay doesn’t leave any possible surfactants, etc. behind.

What do you guys think?

No I don't have my own methods for testing or anything like that I just see that all the ways people are saying they can tell are flawed. None of them are conclusive. We would need some kind of a swab test or something like that. Something that could detect the presence of wax on a surface. And what concentration of wax constitutes a viable LSP?

All these ways people are talking about remind me of dousing or Ouija boards they are unreliable tests.

Also the clear coat is the paint we are trying to protect, It may be clear but it is still paint. Nobody is waxing to protect the base coat. You can't even get to it?

 

[Loach]

No way it supercharged anything, you are dealing with a clean painted surface there thats all IMO. Unless you can prove a wax is still on there?

The beading of Glasur is supercharged as a baseline compared to most other waxes. I could tell the surfactants of the previous products had a slight impact on the surface especially after the heavy Citrus Wash and Gloss dilution. Then after using Duplicolor, not only was there not evidence of a performance impact or removal of Glasur, but the beading actually improved compared to the rinse after Citrus W&G, back to Glasur's normal or "supercharged" performance.

Testing side by side with a control section, in this case Pete's 53, and easily seeing the differences in the water behavior on both sides is proof that the waxes are surviving on the paint. The surface tensions they leave behind are different at the very start, they degrade at different rates and they're impacted by surfactants at different rates. What I do then is compare at the end of strip washing to the panel when it has been polished and washed with the same soaps, the unprotected paint will show a much slower sheet and it will usually develop this slow sheet after the first wash with soap.

 

[Eldorado2k]

Some automotive clay bars
contain surfactants.


Bob

Still waiting on a reply...