# The Encylobeadia Driptaninca - Setting up my Master LSP database



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Hey Everyone!

For nearly a year I've been toying with the idea of setting up a database for LSPs and documenting/showcasing their respective performances in a number of metrics. At first I just wanted to record their water beading performance with a single, identical and repeatable photograph. I was initially going to use my test fenders for this as they can be left in my garage with 100% controllable conditions, but they're also large and unruly and occasionally used for other tests and reviews - ones that can changes their characteristics and conditions. Through work I acquired 2 identical mirror housings, one in a bright silver colour, the other in a dark gunmetal colour (warranty parts that were slated for the garbage bin after the hold time had passed). Because they're identical in construction (thought one is driver side, the other passenger) I have the ability to test not only performance on light colours, but also dark using a common substrate. This also opens up the option for testing gloss and filling abilities, as well as your typical beading and water performance.

As you'll see in the photos, the mirrors are a bit angular in construction, having corners and clear flat spots. This would also allow me to test sections with controlled wear - buffer haze or lightly polished wet sanding marks to show filling abilities on one mirror, or just on one side - the possibilities are endless. Because of their small nature, I can move them and place them easily and run simple tests with water in a very repeatable fashion, as well as photograph and film them with identical lighting, composition, and movements.This is where you all come in. I want to know what you would like to see tested and documented with each product. As of right now, I am obviously going to test initial water behavior and beading characteristics, but I am also now dabbling with gloss and filling abilities, as well as possibly introducing a controlled repeatable durability test using a normal APC product and application (10:1 APC applied 5 or 10 times and water performance recorded afterwards). I might incorporate these into reviews as well as a stand alone database so if someone wanted to look up a product quickly and see results they can.

Here are the mirror housings after a quick APC wash and clay - will be fully polished and stripped down before I start testing.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

So let me know what you think. Open to suggestions that are not listed as well, but might not be able to incorporate it if very costly (gloss meters are WAY to much for me right now) or too involved. As of right now I plan to test every single product I have that incorporates some kind of protective film. Once those are done I will look to add to the list as time and budget allows.


----------



## Stoner (Jun 25, 2010)

Fantastic idea - really looking forward to the results. :thumb:


----------



## Dave50 (Mar 14, 2013)

As above, fantastic idea. Subscribed

Dave


----------



## straight6hatch (Jul 17, 2020)

Brilliant idea Sheep! 

Whilst you have pots of products I'm sure, I'd bet my bottom dollar that people would be willing to send you some (for science  ) given how little product you would need to 'coat' 2 wingmirrors. 

Excited to see how this progresses


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

:lol:Brilliant! Encyclobeadia!:lol:


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Some developments today as well as an additional piece that will be great for side by side ranking. I clayed the mirrors last night and hit them with tar remover today, which was then followed by a thorough polishing to get them up to snuff. Polish used was Sonax Perfect Finish (4/6). As you'll see in the photos below, they're looking great and should provide very good bases for consistent testing.

In addition to the mirrors, I managed to snag another painted trim piece, this one being a lower bumper garnish that is painted in a very wet looking metallic silver. It's basically brand new, so after a quick wash/clay/detar and polish its ready for prime time. The other benefit to this piece is that it has 5 evenly marked and separated sections of flat, slightly sloped paint. This means I can put 5 products on the panel, and do very simple, easy side by side comparisons as well as just slickness via tilting.

As I work on this and think it over, I'm contemplating dropping the wet sand and fill testing portion. I will still test gloss and filling on good paint, but I'm thinking that wet sanding marks will not be real world representative to what users would be looking at in a proper setting. Let me know your thoughts and we can test it possibly on one of the fenders instead (more surface area).

Dark mirror prior to polishing.
IMG_0468 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Light mirror prior to polishing.
IMG_0474 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Dark mirror after polishing.
IMG_0478 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Light mirror after polishing.
IMG_0479 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

All 3 panels after polishing.
IMG_0488 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Skid plate after polishing.
IMG_0489 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr


----------



## cangri (Feb 25, 2011)

Cracking job.

And thank you for your time dedicated to this project.


----------



## JU5T1N (Dec 7, 2019)

Testing gloss without a meter especially on perfect paint is pointless, you could test visual effects though. I thought testing the filling was an interesting idea and not an aspect of lsps many people test but would be incredibly useful information to people without perfected work daily drivers. May be just use a really fine sand paper like p6000.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

JU5T1N said:


> Testing gloss without a meter especially on perfect paint is pointless, you could test visual effects though. I thought testing the filling was an interesting idea and not an aspect of lsps many people test but would be incredibly useful information to people without perfected work daily drivers. May be just use a really fine sand paper like p6000.


I say gloss, but I mean darkening/different visual performance. I'm not sure how I would categorize this, as some times the difference is impossible to photograph, but visible to the naked eye.

In regards to filling, I can get 3000 grit paper and then lightly polish it to remove the bulk of the haze but leave enough behind to give something to fill. The question becomes how much to leave and how to keep the results similar so the database is comparable in a fair manner. That's the main challenge with this, keeping it fair between sessions and applications.

I might try the frist round of beading shots over the weekend using the 5 section panel, and save the mirrors for gloss/visual difference. If I have time I'll look around for paper and dabble with wet sanding on the black fender and see if it works out with a 3000 grit haze and a light polish like ultimate polish.


----------



## JU5T1N (Dec 7, 2019)

When sanding you could use no pressure, go in 1 direction and count the number of times you go back and forth so you have a method thats easy to repeat and will produce results similar enough for the test. I think polishing just adds more variables that will make it more difficult to get similar results.


----------



## Rappy (Oct 2, 2020)

Thanks for this :thumb::thumb:


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

JU5T1N said:


> When sanding you could use no pressure, go in 1 direction and count the number of times you go back and forth so you have a method thats easy to repeat and will produce results similar enough for the test. I think polishing just adds more variables that will make it more difficult to get similar results.


That is a good option, but If I put in sanding marks that a light polish can't fully remove, I should have a decent defect level and still have it worked in evenly (not just grinding in 1 direction). I'll play around with it this weekend and see what I end up with.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Picked up a pack of Wet sand paper. All of them are velco backed (7 inch size though...) ranging from 1000 to 3000. What I think I'm going to do is do a section with 2000 and a section with 3000 and polish them both with a couple different light polishes and see how the results look. If 2000 is a bit too much I'll use 3000 and let the black fender be my haze/fill panel going forward.

Panel setup on my winter rims, ready for a wetsand and polish over the weekend.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

It could really use it too.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Ok, did a quick round of wet sanding and polishing today to see how the seconds would take to a couple light polishes, and to see how well I can wetsand without ever having done it before - Spoiler alert, I suck.

In my defense, this panel is extremely non flat so getting into the dips and valleys was hard. It was also hard to keep it still so I had to jump between wetting and holding.

I used Meguiars Ultimate Polish and Optimum Hyper Polish as my tests, and did one section per grit (2000 and 3000 grit). Things looked good after the wipe off but panel wipe showed that a lot of defects were left behind. The results say that 3000 should be a good pairing for Megs UP (easier to restock than Hyper Polish) and once I get better at wet sanding (or use the other fender - its flatter) I should be good to go. Pics below.

2000 grit after drying off.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit after drying off.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit UP after panel wiping.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit HP after panel wiping.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

2000 grit HP after panel wiping.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

2000 grit UP after panel wiping.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

And here is a spot that was not sanded or polished (had wax/sealant on it from last test).
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr


----------



## pt1 (Feb 8, 2014)

Great idea, thanks for doing it
Look forward to the results 

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

OK so I was not impressed with my performance hand wet-sanding so I decided to cut the pads down to fit my 3 inch polisher backing plate and give that a go (what do I have to lose, it's a junk panel anyway right?). Overall the performance was MUCH more consistent and it was easy to achieve a consistent haze. The issue of the fender not being flat still persisted though, which is making me rethink using this panel despite it's excellent ability to show defects. I might try a small section on the other fender and see if the performance is more consistent. Technically this fender _would_ work, but I want this to be _easily_ repeatable, and at this rate it's not.

Anywho, here is the photos of my attempts. I did follow up with a long UP session to see how the final results would look in a naked ready for LSP environment.

Full panel, 3000 grit, prior to polishing.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit prior to polishing
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit, after polishing before panel wipe.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

3000 grit, after polishing and panel wiping.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

*Eyes and Opinions Wanted!*

Over the past 2 nights I setup 5 test sections with 5 products and after 24hours (minimum) cure I photographed them under 2 different wetting conditions to showcase the performance of each. I say Eyes and Opinions wanted as I'm trying to determine if this is a image/format/angle etc that would be considered useful.

So let me know! Is this formatting useful to you, or do you want to see these photographed in a different manner. I can try setting the panel level and getting a water bead contact angle shot from a full on side shot. Let me know. This is not the "durability" photo, I need to establish a baseline reference shot first and then I can degrade the products before photographing again to showcase the "wear".

This is the first angle I tried before switching to a different angle as I found the new (next) angle showcased the bead shape better.
DSC_2481 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Below are photos of the products with a strong back light, after being wet with a mist setting on the trigger nozzle (this produces the best beads the product can produce).

Wowo Crystal Sealant
DSC_2485 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Ceramic Spray Coating
DSC_2486 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Mothers CMX Spray Coating
DSC_2487 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Seal N Shine V2
DSC_2488 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

TAC System Shinee Wax
DSC_2490 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Below are photos of each section after a Shower setting rinse. I moved the nozzle across the panel at a fairly high rate of speed to prevent flooding and dry-sheeting, while also slow enough to leave behind enough product to produce beads.

TAC System Shinee Wax
DSC_2491 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Seal N Shine V2
DSC_2492 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Mothers CMX Spray Coating
DSC_2493 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Ceramic Spray Coating
DSC_2495 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Wowo Crystal Sealant
DSC_2496 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Okay, thanks for looking. Let me know what you think! I tried out the same products on wet sanded sections but wasn't impressed with the results. I will work on that and add it into the results eventually, once I have a fair comparison.


----------



## straight6hatch (Jul 17, 2020)

Sheep, this is absolutely excellent. I dont recall having seen a comparison like this, done in this way, before. Top marks from me. Very much looking forward to how this continues. 

Perhaps making a list of sealants you want to try but dont have would be good too so we can maybe send you some


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

straight6hatch said:


> Sheep, this is absolutely excellent. I dont recall having seen a comparison like this, done in this way, before. Top marks from me. Very much looking forward to how this continues.
> 
> Perhaps making a list of sealants you want to try but dont have would be good too so we can maybe send you some


I will down the road when I run out of my own supply, as if right now I have more than enough to keep me busy. I am going to play a bit more tonight and see if I can figure out a way to get a shot of a contact angle. After that durability testing using APC is fairly straight forward. Still working on the haze/filling abilities portion though.


----------



## pt1 (Feb 8, 2014)

Its all looking good pal, thanks for doing it 

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

Sheep said:


> I will down the road when I run out of my own supply, as if right now I have more than enough to keep me busy. I am going to play a bit more tonight and see if I can figure out a way to get a shot of a contact angle. After that durability testing using APC is fairly straight forward. Still working on the haze/filling abilities portion though.


How good is the zoom on your camera? Using that same angle and looking at a bead that is on the panel top but also the horizon, you should be able to get a shot of the contact angle. It would need to be a macro zoom type shot, though I suspect this will be taken from a distance. A bridge camera I have would do a very good job of getting that shot I think.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

roscopervis said:


> How good is the zoom on your camera? Using that same angle and looking at a bead that is on the panel top but also the horizon, you should be able to get a shot of the contact angle. It would need to be a macro zoom type shot, though I suspect this will be taken from a distance. A bridge camera I have would do a very good job of getting that shot I think.


My telephoto lens has decent Macro capabilities, otherwise so does the iphone does some as well. I can get that shot, one way or another.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

OK!

Tonight I setup the panel again, this time with a prop to help "level" the sections so I could take a head on photo and get a better angle on the bead shape (contact angle). I have a couple versions, and then I ran through each section, once from each side using a different angle and line. Let me know what you think.

Mothers CMX, first angle check. I ended up switching to a different angle and then ran through each section from the "back" (label not visible) side.

This angle is a little more downward looking than I wanted, but I will submit it for the sake of options.
DSC_2498 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Dropped the camera down a bit more and the image is much more in line with the panel. Mothers CMX again.
DSC_2499 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Now we're running through the last setup angle through each section. This is where I need feed back if you like the results from this angle. I'm looking for feedback if this is "fair" enough, or if it doesn't show enough variation between sections.

Tac System Shinee Wax
DSC_2502 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Ice Seal N Shine V2
DSC_2503 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Mothers CMX Spray Coating
DSC_2504 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Hybrid Solutions Ceramic Spray Coating
DSC_2505 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Wowo Crystal Sealant.
DSC_2507 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Now, we flip the panel around with the angle fading towards us, but tilted up in the front to help level it. You can still see up the slope, but it's showing a bit more of the product area versus the previous setup.

Tac System Shinee Wax
DSC_2509 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Ice Seal N Shine V2
DSC_2510 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Mothers CMX Spray Coating
DSC_2512 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Turtle Wax Hybrid Solutions Ceramic Spray Coating
DSC_2513 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Wowo Crystal Sealant
DSC_2514 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Personally, I prefer the second sections of photos. It tells more of the story, and should showcase differences better. I will work on Chemical Testing in the next few days and see what kind of solution I come up with. Torn between wash soap and APC and how many hits (would prefer less, I am going to be doing a lot of these).


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

Beautiful. 

With the chemical testing, I would go for a product that is known to be aggressive, but is also commonly used in car cleaning. A typical soap will take ages, and maybe something you could do 'on the side', but your standard test should have a standard, aggressive product at a set, repeatable dilution.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Couple more test sections added, for a total of 9 individual sections, 7 of which are the same shade of silver. I might reserve the 2 darker grey sections for appearance testing and use the silver to beading and chemical resistance testing.

Panels after a waterless wash. Still need claying and full polish. I'll just give the light silver panel a once over, and go thorough and heavy on the darker one to get it as good as possible.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

roscopervis said:


> Beautiful.
> 
> With the chemical testing, I would go for a product that is known to be aggressive, but is also commonly used in car cleaning. A typical soap will take ages, and maybe something you could do 'on the side', but your standard test should have a standard, aggressive product at a set, repeatable dilution.


I have a lot of Meguiars APC, but it's labelled as an interior cleaner, and to that extent, I'd agree. It DOES clean well outside but it is intended for interiors. Super Clean degreaser works well for exteriors, is commonly found everywhere, and is easy to restock so I can use the same chemicals indefinitely (also easier on the pocket book than some boutique APCs). I don't have access to high strength snow foams, and foaming every panel would be messy and hard to do in the garage (which is where I intend to do these tests). I'm thinking of mixing a 10:1 and 5 or 3:1 mixture of Super clean and running the 10:1 first, document, and then the stronger mix and seeing if the product holds. I would also wet wipe between each pass and dry off to help the surface tension return.


----------



## straight6hatch (Jul 17, 2020)

Sheep - How amazing are these pictures! Bravo sir! Even without considering the testing youre doing, these images are top notch and the angle is spot on.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Hello Again everyone!

Been a while since I updated but I can assure you that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking or working on this project. Before tackling chemical testing, I wanted to try some more variations to fill/gloss testing as I think this is a bit more relevant than how many hits of APC a product can take.

Since the black panel is super beat up, I thought hitting it with a rotary polisher and aggressive pad/compound combo would help remove some of the super heavy defects while still leaving behind a good amount of compound haze. I used extremely poor technique as well to help exacerbate the damage. I also hit the good panel with the same pad/polish combo and poor form to see if a perfect panel with hazing would be useful as it's an easier panel to work with.

Here is the "good" fender after getting compounded with the rotary (using poor form) and panel wiped.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

And the black panel after the same treatment.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Afterwards, I lined up some sections and applied a smattering of products to see if the results were useful.
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Here is some photos of the fill/bare lines left by the tape. Note these are not labelled as to who did what, but just to show the appearance for discussions sake. If you find this acceptable, let me know!

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

I personally think the up close shots have more information, but I think the fender needs to get fully corrected and the re-hazed via wool pad to be useful for the level of fill and consistency the test would require.

Now, I tried to do the same thing with the good panel, but the defects were so minor the tape lines were hard to see in a photo, so I ended up taking a video to show them. This is not ideal as I want this database to be test/photo only, not video. Either way, here are the results.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

As you can see, the lines are visible with the light and camera moving together, but for the sake of photo,s it was nearly impossible to see much difference in some sections.

So there we have it! I am going to fully clean up the black fender and re-haze it with a wool pad and see how those results look. If I get a toned down look to what I have above, I'll be happy.

Thanks for reading, comments and suggestions welcome.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

Looking great and I think you’re on the right track now.


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

After seeing the results of lasts nights polishing, I decided to hit the black panel again with the rotary and try to remove as many defects as I could with a very aggressive pad and polishes. The results speak for themselves.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr
Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Just enough defects to allow for filling characteristics to show through, without it looking like putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak.

Achieved the results with the following polishes on a megs 7 inch cutting pad and rotary polisher. I will use the rotary polisher to reset this panel after each test with an aggressive pad and polish, followed by a panel wipe.

Untitled by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

OK, haze testing it setup. I have picked my chemical testing product (super clean, 1 hit 10:1, followed by one hit 3:1). Now it's time to setup sections and get testing! It will probably be a while before I start the official thread for this test. I have a lot of products I want to get going all at once, and I need to hammer out the fine print/test parameters before I get carried away.

Thanks again for reading and we'll see you in the official thread!


----------

