# Some technical questions about Koch Chemie Polishes...



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Koch Chemie's polishes are one of the few I haven't tried yet, and I'm kind of curious about them... I used Menzerna quite a bit early on, then largely moved to Scholl for my diminishing polishes, and apparently now one of the same lead scientists that worked at both companies developing their products is now working for Koch Chemie...

However, the one thing I haven't really gotten a clear image of in my reading, is what the working cycle of the abrasives is like? Is it a long, linear diminishing cycle like Menz where those abrasives take quite a bit of working at high speed to fully refine, or a short diminishing cycle like Scholl where they work and break down very quickly? Something in between like Rupes? 

Also, I hear a lot of talk about H8.02, and even a bit about M2.01, but not really much at all about F5.01... I'm a fan of other P2500 grade polishes like Menzerna PO203/MC2500, and Scholl S20 Blue on softer paints, so how does F5.01 directly stack up against the likes of these in regards to its performance? 

What's the selling point of KC over Menz or Scholl? 

Just trying to build up a better mental picture of these products before I give them a spin... 

Thank you very much in advance for any advice and explanation you can provide. :thumb:

- Steampunk


----------



## BarryAllen (Feb 3, 2017)

You do surprise me with your comment about the breakdown time of Scholl. All I've ever read is how long it can be worked for.

Never used it myself, die hard Menz fan.


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

BarryAllen said:


> You do surprise me with your comment about the breakdown time of Scholl. All I've ever read is how long it can be worked for.
> 
> Never used it myself, die hard Menz fan.


The lubricants in Scholl polishes let them be worked for a very long time, but after a fairly short time (The duration of which is dependent upon friction, but on something like a 15mm DA on speed 4, would be something like the first 1-2 passes with Scholl S17+ as a particular example. The durability of the frangible abrasive clusters varies from polish to polish in the line, in addition to starting and finishing scale.), the abrasives start to break down and will very quickly arrive at their final scale. At this fine size they will remain for as long as you continue to work the polish...

Think of it like having a coarse non-diminishing polish for x-number of passes, which after a brief transitional period, becomes a fine non-diminishing polish for the remainder of the set.

Even though you _can_ continue to work the abrasives for countless passes after they have broken down, doing so to excess only continues to further generate swarf and also weaken the lubricant's film strength. This will result in an inferior finish... The ideal is actually to not work a lubricant until it fails, but to be able to complete all of the correction/refinement you needed while it still remains strong.

By comparison, Menzerna has a more linear breakdown of abrasives, over a much longer period of time... The size of the abrasive clusters slowly, and gradually breaking down until eventually they will reach their smallest point. It's a less dramatic sort of frangibility, merely, but the end result is the same. You still want to catch them in that 'perfect window' once the abrasives have broken down and done their job of refining the surface, but the fluid film strength remains strong, and has not been loaded with more swarf than it has to be.

Hopefully this helps to explain...

Menzerna are lovely polishes... If they got along with my climate a little better, I would probably use them more often than I do. There's nothing like going zen on a long ZPM set. :buffer:

- Steampunk


----------



## BarryAllen (Feb 3, 2017)

Steampunk said:


> The lubricants in Scholl polishes let them be worked for a very long time, but after a fairly short time (The duration of which is dependent upon friction, but on something like a 15mm DA on speed 4, would be something like the first 1-2 passes with Scholl S17+ as a particular example. The durability of the frangible abrasive clusters varies from polish to polish in the line, in addition to starting and finishing scale.), the abrasives start to break down and will very quickly arrive at their final scale. At this fine size they will remain for as long as you continue to work the polish...
> 
> Think of it like having a coarse non-diminishing polish for x-number of passes, which after a brief transitional period, becomes a fine non-diminishing polish for the remainder of the set.
> 
> ...


Wow.

Ok. This was the bit that got me really interested:

_*Think of it like having a coarse non-diminishing polish for x-number of passes, which after a brief transitional period, becomes a fine non-diminishing polish for the remainder of the set. *_

I finally understand what Mike Phillips was talking about years ago with SMAT v's DMAT

Meguiars Ultimate Compound is SMAT and therefore supports a method of stopping the correction when 'its done' rather than having to go the whole 10 yards and break the compound down.

Thank you.


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

I've found KC H8.02 cuts better than Menz HCC400, but it doesn't finish as good. 
This was a test I've done with both compound on the same type of pad, same paint, same technique and number of passes: 6 high pressure passes @ 1500rpm on the rotary and no finishing in the end.
How this translate to abrasives' breaking down I could not say. I have not done multiple test with short to long buffing cycles.

F5.01 seems to be a dying bread, as does MC2500/2400. Most people are going towards Meguiars style lineup, with only 2 polishes, one heavy cutting and low to medium cut, like Sonax PF/EX04-06, Megs 205. Cutting compounds have really evolved and finish really good; and although MF pads are more aggressive than foam the finish can be clear up by a light polish, so there is no need for medium cut.


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Thank you for the reply.  

It's interesting that you found H8.02 to cut more than HCC400 in your apples-to-apples comparison... There seems to be a lot of mixed opinion about where this product is actually positioned. Some find it to be a heavy cutting compound equal or superior to in cut something like Scholl S3+ XXL, while others find it more in the range of Menz MC2200 (PO85RD3.02 Super Intensive Polish)/Scholl S17+. It's rated as a P1500 grade compound on wool, whereas some of the compounds people find in their experience it cuts more than, are rated even coarser by the manufacturer at P1200 on wool. Quite curious...

Did you do a solvent-wipe afterwards, to check for filling? If so, was it any easier to strip than Menz? Did you find the panel temps comparable, or did one compound run any smoother/cooler than the other? 

- Steampunk


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

There are lot of variables, that's why I started testing on a scrap panel, using the same techniques. If you test on day one compound on a certain paint and next week another compound on a different paint there is little comparison that can be made. 
As you mentioned, some compounds break down faster while other slower. Some could have bigger abrasives to begin with, other could have them smaller, it's not just the quantity of abrasive material, but also their size and brittleness.

The paint I've used them on is medium hardness. On really hard or really soft paint maybe the results would be different.

I did an Eraser wipe after and did not notice any filling.
If it's easier to strip compared to Menz I could say. How do you judge this?
I did not monitor panel temps carefully, I was planning to use an IR thermometer but got sidetracked and forgot about it. Maybe H8.02 run a bit hotter, but don't quote me on that.

I will test Scholl S3 pretty soon in the same conditions, stay tuned


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Thank you again for your reply...

Yes, there are many variables that can alter the results different people achieve, and unless you know the details of their testing it makes it harder to utilize what they are sharing... This is why I appreciate that you have shared your test parameters. :thumb:

I typically test for filling using a variety of chemicals... Starting with a dry MF wipe for control, followed by Eraser or an IPA mix, then followed by either a petroleum-solvent based panel wipe, and or an APC wash... Some polishes are resistant to Eraser or IPA as a stripping agent, so I've found it's worth testing more than one chemical. 

I will keep an eye out for your test results. :thumb:

- Steampunk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Can't help with your query Steamy as I've only used menz - more importantly, Welcome back! Hope you are well (improved?). Happy New Year bud.
By the way what lsp are you favouring these days wax or sealant?


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

suds said:


> Can't help with your query Steamy as I've only used menz - more importantly, Welcome back! Hope you are well (improved?). Happy New Year bud.
> By the way what lsp are you favouring these days wax or sealant?


Hey, Sudsy! Good to hear from you, matey...  Thank you, and a happy New Year to you, too...

Regarding the rest, PM on its way. 

- Steampunk


----------



## pawlik (May 16, 2011)

Totally disagree with Toni. From KC I used only 8.02. Ending now second 1L bottle. For me 8.02 is more in between SIP and FG400 for cut and like S17+ for finish. And 8.02 have a lot of fillers. Products like Gyeon Prep or CP Eraser not remove them fully. For true finish I use strong IPA mix 80/20 and solvent based paint degreaser. I don't sure about abrasives, but they diminish more like Scholl, very long working time but initial cut you get from few first passes. Hope this help and sorry for my bad English. Please ask if you dont understand my mind


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts!  It does help very much, and your English conveyed your thoughts quite clearly.  Really helps me to understand H8.02... 

- Steampunk


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

@Steampunk:
So, I've used Scholl S3 last week and I must admit it's really a fantastic compound.
It cuts really well and finishes outstanding. It took out 1200 grit sanding marks in one hit on medium hardness paint.

Now, compared to KC H8.02 I tend to believe S3 it has lower cutting power but finishes much nicer. I've used the same technique/pad/paint with both and while both took out the same sanding marks H8.02 left behind some nasty marks. You might think this means H8.02 finishes worse than S3, but I believe the abrasives in H8.02 are harsher compared to S3 - and you can also feel and see this (H8 has really visible abrasives, while in S3 they are barely noticeable).
If you're not working on hard paint or you're chasing deep RIDS I would continue to use S3. It's a really nice compound with above average cut and fantastic finish.


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Thanks for the feedback, Toni...  I really appreciate it. Continues to make things a bit clearer...

Agree totally on S3+ XXL... Really amazing the way it can finish out for a compound. S2 Shock 2 Cut is the same way, just notably higher up the foodchain in terms of cut, and more oriented towards foam pads (S3+ XXL plays really nicely on wool.). I do miss S3 Gold's vanilla scent, though... That was a nice touch. 

I was really more interested in Koch Chemie's finer polishes, anyway... If anyone has had experience with F5.01 in comparison to Menz MC2500 or Scholl S20 Blue, or M2.01 in comparison to SF3500 or S30+, I'd love to hear about it... :thumb:

- Steampunk


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

S3 Gold, S3+ ... are there different versions?
I thought it was only one S3 Gold XXL.
Not sure what I have, I received it as a sample. It doesn't smell of vanilla though.


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

toni said:


> S3 Gold, S3+ ... are there different versions?
> I thought it was only one S3 Gold XXL.
> Not sure what I have, I received it as a sample. It doesn't smell of vanilla though.


S3 Gold was the original... S3+ XXL is the update. I think you can still get S3 Gold in 5-liter size, but the advertising may just have not been updated yet...

If it has no scent, you have S3+ XXL. The update offered a much better lubricant that tended to dust less, ran smoother, was easier to clean up, and also contributed to a better finish on softer paints... I still am uncertain if they did anything to change the abrasive package, but irregardless, it is a really wonderful compound.

Hope this clears things up...

- Steampunk


----------



## toni (Oct 30, 2005)

Thanks! I didn't really keep up with the Scholl range.


----------



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

Has anyone tried Koch H09.02 is it much better than H08.02? I quite like H08.02 but i need some more cut from my compound.


----------



## D-ART (3 mo ago)

sm81 said:


> Has anyone tried Koch H09.02 is it much better than H08.02? I quite like H08.02 but i need some more cut from my compound.


Yepp, H9 is slightly more aggressive but a very little... But finishes really better. Looks like H9 have more uniform abrasives.


----------



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

D-ART said:


> Yepp, H9 is slightly more aggressive but a very little... But finishes really better. Looks like H9 have more uniform abrasives.


Thanks. What about Rupes DA compound, how it compares?


----------



## noorth (Jul 10, 2019)

What a great thread! Too bad steampunk doesn't post anymore...


----------



## Itstony (Jan 19, 2018)

The KC polish range has won over so many people. It is very popular and as always, very understated.


----------

