Serious question, not sure if dumb or not...

A

ArkayoDeetayo

New member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
913
Reaction score
0
I was reading how coatings such as CQuartz adds a layer of protection and are resistant or less likely to scratch/mar. That means the "layer of protection" it leaves behind can be marred/scratched.

I always thought I had "soft paint" since it was so easy to remove swirls/marring with polishes that are rated 1-2 in the 10 scale range.

However, thinking about how coating has resistant mar/scratching layers, is it possible when I apply my waxes/sealants, that the marring/swirling I am seeing is just on the wax/sealant itself rather than my paint? Beause I get a lot of swirls or mar from just using the wrong wash media(CG synthetic washpad) to using the wrong microfiber.

So is there such thing as waxes/sealants leaving behind a layer that can be marred/swirled the same way as coating? Or is the mar/swirl directly on my paint?

P.S, when I use quality MF and wash media (I only used that before I knew better), now that I use higher quality, I notice the swirl/marring has gone down but still doesn't answer my question as to whether the swirl/mar is on my paint or on the waxes/sealant if that is even possible?
 
Its on the paint, the coating are sorta like an extra clear coat. they are alot tougher then selants an waxes but can still be swirled/marred.
 
I think what rock012345 was really asking (and if not, then what I would like to ask). If the "Coatings" are like a "sacrificial" layer of clear, that is harder than MOST clear, but can still be scratched / marred, would the same be true for waxes and sealants. To state in another way - is the wax and / or sealant that is put on as a LSP "Scratch-able" to the point where, if scratches/marring is seen, is it in the clear or could it be in the LSP.
 
IMO it has to be the clear. Unless your talking about a product like opti-coat in which case you may be able to get a visable scratch in that without hitting the clear...that's all IMVHO...
 
rock012345 said:
...
So is there such thing as waxes/sealants leaving behind a layer that can be marred/swirled the same way as coating? Or is the mar/swirl directly on my paint?
...
Click to expand...

The marring/swirling is on the OEM clear coat or on the applied coating. The LSP is too thin to be the only one affected.
 
so if I apply a coating (Cquartz) and happen to mar it with a cheap microfiber towel, the marring will be on the coating.

if I apply a coat of wax (Fuzion) and happen to mar it with a cheap microfiber towel, the marring will be on the paint.

Is that correct?

The "reason" is because the coating is a lot thicker than the fuzion wax?
 
In a test on UK detailing forum Detailing World, waxes and sealants were found to have a thickness of around 20 nanometers - 1/5000th of a (100 micrometer-thick) human hair. Cquartz, on the other hand, claims a film thickness of around 1 micrometer - 50 times thicker than that of your typical wax or sealant. It'll also be a harder film than your wax/sealant. These factors means that it would be possible for marring to be contained within the film layer of a coating, but very, very unlikely in the case of a wax or sealant (any "marring" that only impacts the wax or sealant layer would probably not be visible, though this is all conjecture on my part).
 
rock012345 said:
so if I apply a coating (Cquartz) and happen to mar it with a cheap microfiber towel, the marring will be on the coating.

if I apply a coat of wax (Fuzion) and happen to mar it with a cheap microfiber towel, the marring will be on the paint.

Is that correct?

The "reason" is because the coating is a lot thicker than the fuzion wax?
Click to expand...



umi000 said:
In a test on UK detailing forum Detailing World, waxes and sealants were found to have a thickness of around 20 nanometers - 1/5000th of a (100 micrometer-thick) human hair. Cquartz, on the other hand, claims a film thickness of around 1 micrometer - 50 times thicker than that of your typical wax or sealant. It'll also be a harder film than your wax/sealant. These factors means that it would be possible for marring to be contained within the film layer of a coating, but very, very unlikely in the case of a wax or sealant (any "marring" that only impacts the wax or sealant layer would probably not be visible, though this is all conjecture on my part).
Click to expand...

First off...

@rock012345...not a dumb question/thread subject, IMHO!


Next...

In calculating cold, clinical mathematical 'numbers' for thicknesses (layers, if you will)
of CC paint-films, waxes/sealants/Coatings you''ll have to be able
to measure (for USA conversion-factoring) in:
Millionths, hundred thousandths, ten thousandths...of an inch...

[And, thusly, can be quite difficult to visualize/put your hands around (at least I think so).]


-Modern CC sprayed in the OEMs' factory paint-kitchens are 'thin' (and OEMs want it even 'thinner'):~ 25-40 microns
25-40 microns: ~ 1-1.75 mils
1-1.75 mils: ~ .001-.002 inches...1/1000th-2/1000ths of an inch...
and depending on the OEM, and their particular paint-engineering-specs:
"softer>harder", in 'CC-speak'. that is.

-Assumption/Going by umi000's waxes'/sealants'-layer-thickness number of: 20nm...is true, then:

20 nm: ~ .02 microns
.02 microns: ~ .00078 mils
.00078 mils: ~ .000007-8 inches...7-8 millionths of an inch...very 'thin'...

(And it's been said/accepted that waxes are usually 'softer' than sealants...
and have differing temperature-fracture-points/"types of bonding"/'scratch-resistance'.)

-CQuartz claims a SiO2 Coating-film thickness of: .7-1.5 microns.
.7-1.5 microns: ~ .00003-.000006 inches (3/1000,000-6/1000,000 in)...
Still quite thin---but probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding"...is considered:
"thicker(~x50)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.

-Opti-Gard/Coat 2.0 claims a SiC Coating film-thickness of: 1-2 microns
1-2 microns: ~ .00004-.00008 inches (4/1000,000-8/1000,000 in)...
Still, also, quite thin---but, again, probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding":
"thicker(~x100)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.


-There are certain ASTM testing methods for all of these different:
"Layers that are intended to protect the BC's colors" characteristics...

(Among many): for thickness, hardness, scratch/abrasive-resistance.

(If you go here: ASTM International - Standards Search
you'll be able to type-in this information, whenever you so desire)


My conclusion would be that Coatings would be more prone to have
"induced-marring" atop/within said Coating---Not atop/into the CC paint-film layer...

(With the Depth of "induced-marring" into/through this:
'harder than (waxes/sealants) Coating-layer' taken into account, of course!)

And...More than likely, IMHO...
Nigh onto impossible not to breach waxes'/sealants': 'Softer, thinner than a Coating's film-layer'...
Seemingly, then, without much effort (whatever touches (A: M.P. analogy, perhaps?) waxes/sealants) would have the
tendancy to introduce this "induced-marring" to the CC paint-film.

Also... Scratch-resistant doesn't mean scratch-proof!!


Keep in mind: My figures/way-of-figuring...may be way off-base, though.


:)

Bob
 
Last edited:
Thanks Umi and Bob, that clears things up.

Didn't know waxes were so much thinner than coatings.

I want to buy a coating, but then all my waxes I already bought would be wasted, and I also enjoy putting a coat of wax...would be kind of useless to put wax on the coating as part of the benefit of the coating is the coating's property to keep cleaner
 
I think also, if the scratch is strong enough to fracture the clear coat, it's strong enough to "fracture" or push the wax aside, so to speak, on a micro level.

It's like, imagine apply a wax by hand, letting it haze and not removing it. Now you have a layer of wax on paint. Then imaging scratching it with something sharp, like a nail. The wax, due to its relative softness to the paint, would be pushed aside or penetrated by the nail easily, and the clear coat would scratch. This is what I believe is going on on a smaller level.

Of course, a coating is thicker and harder than a layer of wax. The harness may be on the level of the clear coat. So instead of the coating being "pushed aside" it may scratch, protecting the paint below. It's not soft like wax, so it's not easily pushed aside. Of course, this situation goes on thousands of times on a micro level, causing swirls on a waxed surface. But the coating is providing more protection, or a sacrificial barrier that is comparable in hardness to clear coat. Wax is not comparable in hardness, so it's easily pushed away under pressure of the scratching implement, offering little if any protection against scratching on the surface it's on.

Just my take on what's going on.
 
rock012345 said:
Thanks Umi and Bob, that clears things up.

Didn't know waxes were so much thinner than coatings.

I want to buy a coating, but then all my waxes I already bought would be wasted, and I also enjoy putting a coat of wax...would be kind of useless to put wax on the coating as part of the benefit of the coating is the coating's property to keep cleaner
Click to expand...

Thanks...rock012345.

One or two other things...

As waxes and sealants degrade during their expected life-cycles, they'll have the tendency to become tacky/sticky...
enabling contaminates to be 'glued', as it were, atop/therein them.

-More chances to: 'mar' the CC paint-film, perhaps?

Also...The well publicised "secret" to CC's gloss/shine is to
smooth/polish as many defects/blemishes from the CC as possible.
(But then, don't we, take the chance to reduce the thin-ness of an already thin CC;
and, perhaps, even compromise its built-in UV-rays Protectors.)

I ask, then: Would 'wax-products', such as Optimum Polymer Technologies:
Optimum Car Wax...be the cure-for-what-ails-us??


:)

Bob
 
so if I lay down a coat of wax or sealant, the waxes/sealants only leave 20 nm behind after wipe off...

why does a coating leave behind 1.5 micron behind then? shouldn't both products wipe off leave behind the same surface amount?
 
FUNX725 said:
First off...

@rock012345...not a dumb question/thread subject, IMHO!


Next...

In calculating cold, clinical mathematical 'numbers' for thicknesses (layers, if you will)
of CC paint-films, waxes/sealants/Coatings you''ll have to be able
to measure (for USA conversion-factoring) in:
Millionths, hundred thousandths, ten thousandths...of an inch...

[And, thusly, can be quite difficult to visualize/put your hands around (at least I think so).]


-Modern CC sprayed in the OEMs' factory paint-kitchens are 'thin' (and OEMs want it even 'thinner'):~ 25-40 microns
25-40 microns: ~ 1-1.75 mils
1-1.75 mils: ~ .001-.002 inches...1/1000th-2/1000ths of an inch...
and depending on the OEM, and their particular paint-engineering-specs:
"softer>harder", in 'CC-speak'. that is.

-Assumption/Going by umi000's waxes'/sealants'-layer-thickness number of: 20nm...is true, then:

20 nm: ~ .02 microns
.02 microns: ~ .00078 mils
.00078 mils: ~ .000007-8 inches...7-8 millionths of an inch...very 'thin'...

(And it's been said/accepted that waxes are usually 'softer' than sealants...
and have differing temperature-fracture-points/"types of bonding"/'scratch-resistance'.)

-CQuartz claims a SiO2 Coating-film thickness of: .7-1.5 microns.
.7-1.5 microns: ~ .00003-.000006 inches (3/1000,000-6/1000,000 in)...
Still quite thin---but probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding"...is considered:
"thicker(~x50)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.

-Opti-Gard/Coat 2.0 claims a SiC Coating film-thickness of: 1-2 microns
1-2 microns: ~ .00004-.00008 inches (4/1000,000-8/1000,000 in)...
Still, also, quite thin---but, again, probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding":
"thicker(~x100)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.


-There are certain ASTM testing methods for all of these different:
"Layers that are intended to protect the BC's colors" characteristics...

(Among many): for thickness, hardness, scratch/abrasive-resistance.

(If you go here: ASTM International - Standards Search
you'll be able to type-in this information, whenever you so desire)


My conclusion would be that Coatings would be more prone to have
"induced-marring" atop/within said Coating---Not atop/into the CC paint-film layer...

(With the Depth of "induced-marring" into/through this:
'harder than (waxes/sealants) Coating-layer' taken into account, of course!)

And...More than likely, IMHO...
Nigh onto impossible not to breach waxes'/sealants': 'Softer, thinner than a Coating's film-layer'...
Seemingly, then, without much effort (whatever touches (A: M.P. analogy, perhaps?) waxes/sealants) would have the
tendancy to introduce this "induced-marring" to the CC paint-film.

Also... Scratch-resistant doesn't mean scratch-proof!!


Keep in mind: My figures/way-of-figuring...may be way off-base, though.


:)

Bob
Click to expand...
Well said Bob! I believe the clear below my coatings is pristine for the reasons you so eloquently stated!
 
FUNX725 said:
Thanks...rock012345.

One or two other things...

As waxes and sealants degrade during their expected life-cycles, they'll have the tendency to become tacky/sticky...
enabling contaminates to be 'glued', as it were, atop/therein them.

-More chances to: 'mar' the CC paint-film, perhaps?

Also...The well publicised "secret" to CC's gloss/shine is to
smooth/polish as many defects/blemishes from the CC as possible.
(But then, don't we, take the chance to reduce the thin-ness of an already thin CC;
and, perhaps, even compromise its built-in UV-rays Protectors.)

I ask, then: Would 'wax-products', such as Optimum Polymer Technologies:
Optimum Car Wax...be the cure-for-what-ails-us??


:)

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob, IMO the UV inhibitors in the coatings make up for the loss of them from abrating the clear.
 
rock012345 said:
so if I lay down a coat of wax or sealant, the waxes/sealants only leave 20 nm behind after wipe off...

why does a coating leave behind 1.5 micron behind then? shouldn't both products wipe off leave behind the same surface amount?
Click to expand...
No! A coating is designed to lay down a tough functional barrier over the clear to be the first line of defense. It is harder than most clears. A sealant is designed to keep the elements off the clear. Wax is a soft barrier that may protect from some bird bombs and offer temporary UV Protection. As Bob said it is great at retaining particles that can contribute significantly to marring clear. As you might know, I am a coatings fan!
 
Really great posts!
The way CQuartz works is it's literally a glass coating so its actually a thin layer of glass on your paint.  As you know glass is much harder than wax or paint. however it as many have said this coating is thin for a sheet of glass but very very thick for an lsp.  Ill get you a couple videos up around lunchtime I think you will find interesting
 
FUNX725 said:
First off...

@rock012345...not a dumb question/thread subject, IMHO!


Next...

In calculating cold, clinical mathematical 'numbers' for thicknesses (layers, if you will)
of CC paint-films, waxes/sealants/Coatings you''ll have to be able
to measure (for USA conversion-factoring) in:
Millionths, hundred thousandths, ten thousandths...of an inch...

[And, thusly, can be quite difficult to visualize/put your hands around (at least I think so).]


-Modern CC sprayed in the OEMs' factory paint-kitchens are 'thin' (and OEMs want it even 'thinner'):~ 25-40 microns
25-40 microns: ~ 1-1.75 mils
1-1.75 mils: ~ .001-.002 inches...1/1000th-2/1000ths of an inch...
and depending on the OEM, and their particular paint-engineering-specs:
"softer>harder", in 'CC-speak'. that is.

-Assumption/Going by umi000's waxes'/sealants'-layer-thickness number of: 20nm...is true, then:

20 nm: ~ .02 microns
.02 microns: ~ .00078 mils
.00078 mils: ~ .000007-8 inches...7-8 millionths of an inch...very 'thin'...

(And it's been said/accepted that waxes are usually 'softer' than sealants...
and have differing temperature-fracture-points/"types of bonding"/'scratch-resistance'.)

-CQuartz claims a SiO2 Coating-film thickness of: .7-1.5 microns.
.7-1.5 microns: ~ .00003-.000006 inches (3/1000,000-6/1000,000 in)...
Still quite thin---but probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding"...is considered:
"thicker(~x50)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.

-Opti-Gard/Coat 2.0 claims a SiC Coating film-thickness of: 1-2 microns
1-2 microns: ~ .00004-.00008 inches (4/1000,000-8/1000,000 in)...
Still, also, quite thin---but, again, probably due to its "ingredients/type-of-bonding":
"thicker(~x100)/harder/more scratch-resistant"...than waxes/sealants.


-There are certain ASTM testing methods for all of these different:
"Layers that are intended to protect the BC's colors" characteristics...

(Among many): for thickness, hardness, scratch/abrasive-resistance.

(If you go here: ASTM International - Standards Search
you'll be able to type-in this information, whenever you so desire)


My conclusion would be that Coatings would be more prone to have
"induced-marring" atop/within said Coating---Not atop/into the CC paint-film layer...

(With the Depth of "induced-marring" into/through this:
'harder than (waxes/sealants) Coating-layer' taken into account, of course!)

And...More than likely, IMHO...
Nigh onto impossible not to breach waxes'/sealants': 'Softer, thinner than a Coating's film-layer'...
Seemingly, then, without much effort (whatever touches (A: M.P. analogy, perhaps?) waxes/sealants) would have the
tendancy to introduce this "induced-marring" to the CC paint-film.

Also... Scratch-resistant doesn't mean scratch-proof!!


Keep in mind: My figures/way-of-figuring...may be way off-base, though.


:)

Bob
Click to expand...

I think that there should be a new offering on Autogeek online.

Instead of deatiling classes, we need to get an engineering degree. Do you think that USF would accredit your nano coating program?
 
rock012345 said:
so if I lay down a coat of wax or sealant, the waxes/sealants only leave 20 nm behind after wipe off...

why does a coating leave behind 1.5 micron behind then? shouldn't both products wipe off leave behind the same surface amount?
Click to expand...

-Remember...This is referencing the initial wipe-off of waxes/sealants.

-Even while doing a: "Final Wipe" (<<MP) you'll remove any 'high-spots' of waxes (moreso than sealants)
that haven't filled-in, as it were, the 'valleys' of the CC paint-film. The thickness of these types of LSP's will then
be reduced to around 5-6 nm.
Each time, thereafter, you/environment "touch" (<<MP) the waxed/sealed CC paint-film...
Boom! These-types-of-LSP's: reductions...keep re-occurring...'til gone.


-Coatings, on the other hand, don't play well with/don't require:
more wiping than necessary to smooth out any "wrinkles", so to say.
Ergo...a resulting:'thicker' Coating-LSP layer. (that is, if you call .75-2.0 microns thick)
After drying/curing...Coatings capability in: standing-up to further "touchings"...
longer than traditional LSP's is the reasoning behind their usage on top-coat paint-film(s).
That and, perhaps, "better protection" of said paint-films


-This is my take on this "thickness" of LSP-differences...


But...Then again...
Does this even take into account any discussion/debate:
RE:"Layering/Topping of LSP's"?!?! (OOOPS!...UH OH!)

:)

Bob
 
Last edited:
man Bob, you are the freaking man!

I am learning from your very informative post, obviously you are an intelligent individual.

On top of that, you have such a cool/unique typing/wording/characterization! Thanks again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top