Detailing World Forum banner

Kelly@KDS Keltec and Midlands Car Care Wet Sand Tuition Detail - Edition 30 Golf GTI

176K views 242 replies 116 participants last post by  Alan W 
#1 ·
I've just been lucky enough to spend three days down at KDS Keltec with Kelly and his team, learning how to wet sand with the main aim of removing orange peel. Uniquely, this training was concluded on my very own car - a Golf GTI Edition 30 - with the aim of removing as much of the orange peel in my clearcoat as possible.

This thread shares my thoughts and experiences on the time spent with Kelly, and gives an overview from the perspective of a trainee on KDS's course.

I am also very fortunate to be the first - I have Certificate 0001!!

Day One :

It's not very often I get out of bed at 5am, but I needed to be at KDS for 9am for my wet sanding training, so like an excited child on Christmas morning, I was up bright and early and set on my way. I'd forgotten just how bad the M1 and M25 were and unfortunately arrived 15 minutes late!

Upon arrival at KDS's unit in Gillingham, Kent:


DSC01420 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01421 by RussZS, on Flickr

With introductions out of the way (Kelly has a team of 4 including himself), Kelly began to prepare a bonnet which would be the test panel for the first days worth of tuition:


DSC01422 by RussZS, on Flickr

The aim of the first day was to cover the following areas:
- Use of a Laser Pointer to create a fixed point to assess clearcoat removal rates
- How to use a PDG effectively, including how to calibrate one correctly
- The differences between using a DA Sander, working by bare hand and using a block
- Risks around scorelines, pigtailing and dirt/grit
- Using compounds and polishes to remove sanding marks and restoring the gloss to the paint

The test panel itself was absolutely ideal - covered in dents, RDS's and crucially orange peel:


DSC01430 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01428 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01432 by RussZS, on Flickr

It's almost as bad as a new BMW!!:lol:

Here are some pics of the tools we used during the first day:


DSC01435 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01436 by RussZS, on Flickr

So we have:
- PosiTector 6000
- Mirka DA Sanders and Abralon Discs
- 3M 1200, 1500 and 2000 grade sand paper
- Meguiars 2500, 3000 and 4000 grade sand paper
- Sanding Blocks

We set up the laser pointer on a tripod, secured by clay, to create a fixed point to allow us to as accurately as possible assess the removal rate of whatever we were doing.
Next Kelly showed me how to correctly calibrate the PosiTector 6000:


DSC01448 by RussZS, on Flickr

A bare metal block was used to create a reference point:


DSC01453 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01454 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01455 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01463 by RussZS, on Flickr

Next we tested with a shim:


DSC01467 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01468 by RussZS, on Flickr

That's pretty close…

Now on a 125 shim:


DSC01484 by RussZS, on Flickr

With the P6000 appropriately calibrated, Kelly moved on to begin the wet sanding demonstration. The key thing I have learnt about wet sanding is how important cleanliness is. If you catch a single dirt particle between the paper and the panel, the consequences can be severe. We began by flooding the panel, to remove any traces of dirt or dust:


DSC01499 by RussZS, on Flickr

We began with 1500 grit. The paper was put into a bucket with warm water and hand wash (to help with lubricity):


DSC01502 by RussZS, on Flickr

Kelly began wet sanding by hand with 3M 1500


DSC01500 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01504 by RussZS, on Flickr

To deomstrate just how fine the 'scratches' from 1500 are, Kelly went over a test section with Lime Prime and Super Natural Hybrid:


DSC01514 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01516 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01519 by RussZS, on Flickr

Impressive stuff!! However, up close…


DSC01522 by RussZS, on Flickr

It just goes to show how deceiving some photos could be…

Next Kelly showed me how to use a Mirka DA Sander with 2000 grade disc:


DSC01528 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01535 by RussZS, on Flickr

Now from certain angles, it would appear that the orange peel has been fully removed. I've seen a couple of threads where this process has been used, and from certain angles it looks perfectly flat:


DSC01533 by RussZS, on Flickr

However up close, at the right angle we can see the peel is still very much there!!


DSC01530 by RussZS, on Flickr

I then had my first go! 4000 Grit Abralon Pad on the Mirka, to refine the finish of the 2000:


DSC01542 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01541 by RussZS, on Flickr

I was keen to try the 2000 myself to see if orange peel could be removed on a different part of the test panel:


DSC01548 by RussZS, on Flickr

However again, from certain angles it looks great - very flat:


DSC01551 by RussZS, on Flickr

However, catch the lighting correctly and we can see the peel is still present:


DSC01552 by RussZS, on Flickr

Meanwhile Kelly just off refining the other part of the test panel so that it was all at 4000 grit level:


DSC01560 by RussZS, on Flickr

For fun, we tried P1 via a 4000 Grit Pad…


DSC01562 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01565 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01569 by RussZS, on Flickr

Not bad!!

However, clearly not perfect… so next Kelly polished the panel up with Scholl S3 and a Scholl Wool Pad via Flex Rotary:


DSC01573 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01576 by RussZS, on Flickr

So the top half of his section of the panel was all done by machine (2000 then 4000 as I've seen on here many times) and the bottom part was all done by hand 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 and 4000 (done properly IMO!).

Using a PDR light, we can see the bottom half of the panel (done by hand)


DSC01584 by RussZS, on Flickr

(Note the dent)

Now the top half, done by machine:


DSC01586 by RussZS, on Flickr

Now we can see that the orange peel has been flattened to an extent, but has not been removed entirely. From my perspective, it was clear to see that sanding by machine was not only very quick but also very easy to do - easier than correcting paint with a rotary certainly! Whilst it did flatten a little, it was beginning to become clear that to remove orange peel correctly and fully, then it needed to be done by hand.
Further pics of the panel:

Top Half (machine)


DSC01590 by RussZS, on Flickr

Low Half (hand)


DSC01593 by RussZS, on Flickr

Then it was my turn….!!!

So, before I started, we took a paint reading:


DSC01597 by RussZS, on Flickr

I started, like Kelly did, with 1500 grit:


DSC01601 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01600 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01599 by RussZS, on Flickr

Very scary stuff at first! It needed another pass to completely flatten the remaining peel:


DSC01603 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01605 by RussZS, on Flickr

Much better… much more even coverage and crucially, the peel is all but removed:


DSC01606 by RussZS, on Flickr

2000 grade was next, then 2500:


DSC01608 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01609 by RussZS, on Flickr

You can see the gloss starting to return to the paint at this stage, it becomes far more reflective.


DSC01611 by RussZS, on Flickr

We finished with 3000:


DSC01613 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01612 by RussZS, on Flickr

Next I used the Flex/S3/Wool combination to remove the sanding marks:


DSC01614 by RussZS, on Flickr


DSC01617 by RussZS, on Flickr
 
See less See more
57
#45 ·
Yes, but VERY cool ones :lol:

This has been a real eye opener in terms of removal by various methods and the mirror finishing/reflectivity at completion:doublesho. Great write up and thanks for sharing the experience Russ ... you must feel like Russ Skywalker after having lessons from Obi Wan Kelly.... feel the peel Russ:lol:
Haha that's genius Neil, and thank you for the kind words on Twitter throughout too :)

thanks for taking to time to post this thread and share your experience , it`s certainly a thread worth reading . i`ve always been put off wet sanding due to risk of removing too much but the way you have explained it and compared it to the mf system it`s something i`ll be looking at in the future , :thumb:
Thank you :)

Superb write up. :)

Fish
:thumb:
 
#38 ·
thanks for taking to time to post this thread and share your experience , it`s certainly a thread worth reading . i`ve always been put off wet sanding due to risk of removing too much but the way you have explained it and compared it to the mf system it`s something i`ll be looking at in the future , :thumb:
 
#40 ·
Nice write up Russ will look forward to seeing it in the flesh.

Could the high removal rate of the MF system simply be down to the fact it was removing the damaged layer of sanded clearcoat though?

As you sometimes get when you first test panel a car as it removes the dead layer of uv damage etc?

Would be interesting to run a test side by side MF vs Rotary yes?

I have some wings from the car i broke up in my unit if you fancy it one night?

Dave
 
#43 ·
Nice write up Russ will look forward to seeing it in the flesh.

Could the high removal rate of the MF system simply be down to the fact it was removing the damaged layer of sanded clearcoat though?

As you sometimes get when you first test panel a car as it removes the dead layer of uv damage etc?

Would be interesting to run a test side by side MF vs Rotary yes?

I have some wings from the car i broke up in my unit if you fancy it one night?

Dave
Possibly, but if that were true then the same would have applied to the removal rate by wool on my car. The MF system has its place for sure, but it seems to be very aggressive on softer paints, but I wouldn't write it off personally after this single panel, as you say it needs more testing. It still has its benefits in terms of low levels of heat build up and an easy to 'handle' machine, but I've not seen many people measure removal rates as yet...

We should defo do some testing :)
 
#46 ·
Thanks :)

That is jaw dripping wet in the pics, i have never seen VW diamond black look so good on reflections and deep gloss.
Cheers Trip. The colour always annoyed me a lot, very milky in some lighting due to the high metallic flake content. It now just looks glossy and wet. I'm very impressed at the overall appearance now!

Fantastic write up. Very informative and truly amazing finish.

May i ask how many sheets of sanding paper have you used? Did you change them regulary? :)
LOTS!! :doublesho I used a new sheet of each grade on every panel. Sometimes a couple.
 
#52 ·
Thanks Deano :)

Fantastic review again all be it more technical work this time , why is the difference you great in clarity with the machine wet sand apposed to hand is it you are breaking down the stages better and more liner action better than DA, also shocked at removal rates on MF system , you would have to careful as a novice on softer paint with that i would have though, glad i have a mini and BM, thanks again Russ for sharing your work and KDS great to look and read and learn but different doing on your own car, how did you feel when you did the first panel?
I assume so yes, I'll let Kelly answer that for you in more detail than I'd be able to. Thank you :)

The microscope is a brillaint addition looked at it a few times myself. Think I might remove the orange peel from the two areas on the car which have had paint.

I've got to agree Russ hand sanding is my preference there is a technique to it, see a lot of handsanding leaving "fingers" instead of using the palm.

Did you continue to spray the panel while you were sanding after the initial soaking to flush any particles away ?

You looking forward to doing the rest of the car?

John.
John, no I reflooded the panel every few minutes or so to remove any potential dirt build up. I have seen people use spray bottles which makes sense too, but I stuck to Kelly's instructions. Russ.
 
#49 ·
Fantastic review again all be it more technical work this time , why is the difference you great in clarity with the machine wet sand apposed to hand is it you are breaking down the stages better and more liner action better than DA, also shocked at removal rates on MF system , you would have to careful as a novice on softer paint with that i would have though, glad i have a mini and BM, thanks again Russ for sharing your work and KDS great to look and read and learn but different doing on your own car, how did you feel when you did the first panel?
 
#50 ·
The microscope is a brillaint addition looked at it a few times myself. Think I might remove the orange peel from the two areas on the car which have had paint.

I've got to agree Russ hand sanding is my preference there is a technique to it, see a lot of handsanding leaving "fingers" instead of using the palm.

Did you continue to spray the panel while you were sanding after the initial soaking to flush any particles away ?

You looking forward to doing the rest of the car?

John.
 
#51 ·
Excellent write up Russ thanks for posting it up. :thumb:

Certainly plenty of new & very useful methods / techniques learned over your training days at KDS to add to your detailing skills set.
Props for doing the work on your own car as well mate, results look awesome from the images so I'd imagine in the cold light of day even better :argie:
Its not just the German marques that have the peel, my Focus has it too hence the name of Orangina :lol:

Wish you all the best with the new venture, just had a quick read through your new unit thread as well :thumb:
 
#56 ·
Excellent write up Russ thanks for posting it up. :thumb:

Certainly plenty of new & very useful methods / techniques learned over your training days at KDS to add to your detailing skills set.
Props for doing the work on your own car as well mate, results look awesome from the images so I'd imagine in the cold light of day even better :argie:
Its not just the German marques that have the peel, my Focus has it too hence the name of Orangina :lol:

Wish you all the best with the new venture, just had a quick read through your new unit thread as well :thumb:
Thanks mate, really appreciate it :)

Fantastic write up, and amazing finish on your golf now... not that it was shabby to start with.

Love reading things like this, thanks for taking the time to write it up :thumb:
You're very welcome, and thank you :)

Really interesting read Russ!

Glad to see more mention of edging pads to remove rids as opposed to sanding them,it's so much quicker (especially with wool) Yet folk are all too often a bit quick to break out the sand paper just for the sake of it IMO
I completely agree Clark! I've always wondered about using sanding an RDS because surely the benefit of a pad on a machine is that it will contour more into the scratch, allowing you to round it off far more effectively. Plus, if the car has orange peel - which most seem to these days - you really don't want to be leaving the car with a flat spot amongst a 'peely panel'.

Russ.
 
#71 ·
Thank you buddy :)

Great write up there Russ
Amazing work
Cheers!

Epic matey, simple stunning finish.
Thanks Shaun :thumb:

Nice one guys, the end result speaks for itself :thumb: Looks like a very nice course, Kelly!

- Jesse
Cheers Jesse :)

Awesome work and a great read! the finish is amazing,i need to save up and go get some wet sanding training like you
It's a great investment, you leave with such confidence!!

The best Thread I have read for ages..Thanks for sharing it with us..
Too kind, thank you!! I'm very conscious that I could have spent another hour or so adding content, such as more on the RDS removal, and the pro's and con's of the PosiTector 200A

Worthy few days for some insight from a great pro. Costly hobby this mate eh? Or is this becoming a full time thing going to such lengths? Either way, golfs looking smooth as.
Thanks Scott. I'm staying part time and always will be. I love my day job too. I see this as fun tbh, so don't mind detailing at weekends, so yes, still like a hobby to me!!

Excellent work russ. May I ask a question please, and this is a serious question I am on no way trying to be smart. In the pictures of your own car, can you explain how the original paint is 106 um, the same after 1500, the same after 2000, but then you manage to remove 2um with 2500? Is it something to do with how hard you are working the paper, or is it more likely slight discrepancy in the readings? I just can't get my head around how such harsh paper removes nothing, twice, but a much lighter combo removes so much? Figured it was more to do with "how" and not "what" ?

Cheers in advance, matt
Hi Matt,

That's a very good question, and something I left wide open, so I was expecting a question from an eagle eyed viewer!! :thumb:

The device only measures in even numbers, so is obviously 'rounding up and down' a fair bit. So, for example, 108 could mean 109.9 but could also mean 107.1, so there's a lot of 'swing'. So, 2500 certainly wouldn't have removed more, but 'just enough' to take it past the rounding threshold onto the lower reading - if that makes sense? Ideally we'd have a device reading in steps of .25 microns, so see a truer reading of removal rates. Also, even with the laser pointer it's tough to get the reading on the EXACT spot. Some were higher!! :doublesho:lol: I used the lowest readings we could measure and the most removal to give an avaerage overall view of what we were actually removing.

Great write up Russ. I've been following your progress on Twitter and it certainly looked like an amazing few days! The Golf looks amazing too, and now will be a great advertisment for your own business!
Thank you so much! I hope the Twitter and Facebook updates weren't a little too much? I was very excited about what was going on! It's just a shame the iPhone camera is so poor!

Russ.
 
#62 ·
Worthy few days for some insight from a great pro. Costly hobby this mate eh? Or is this becoming a full time thing going to such lengths? Either way, golfs looking smooth as.
 
#63 ·
Excellent work russ. May I ask a question please, and this is a serious question I am on no way trying to be smart. In the pictures of your own car, can you explain how the original paint is 106 um, the same after 1500, the same after 2000, but then you manage to remove 2um with 2500? Is it something to do with how hard you are working the paper, or is it more likely slight discrepancy in the readings? I just can't get my head around how such harsh paper removes nothing, twice, but a much lighter combo removes so much? Figured it was more to do with "how" and not "what" ?

Cheers in advance, matt
 
#133 · (Edited)
A great thread... your excitement and enthusiasm comes through in the writing. :thumb:

... In the pictures of your own car, can you explain how the original paint is 106 um, the same after 1500, the same after 2000, but then you manage to remove 2um with 2500?

Is it something to do with how hard you are working the paper, or is it more likely slight discrepancy in the readings? I just can't get my head around how such harsh paper removes nothing, twice, but a much lighter combo removes so much? Figured it was more to do with "how" and not "what" ?...
... The device only measures in even numbers, so is obviously 'rounding up and down' a fair bit. So, for example, 108 could mean 109.9 but could also mean 107.1, so there's a lot of 'swing'. So, 2500 certainly wouldn't have removed more, but 'just enough' to take it past the rounding threshold onto the lower reading - if that makes sense? Ideally we'd have a device reading in steps of .25 microns, so see a truer reading of removal rates. Also, even with the laser pointer it's tough to get the reading on the EXACT spot. Some were higher!! I used the lowest readings we could measure and the most removal to give an avaerage overall view of what we were actually removing...
I have an opinion on this topic, which I hope you don't mind if I share. A caveat- I don't know a whole lot about these meters.

Let's do a theoretical 3-step sanding of a painted panel. For simplicity sake, let's assume the clear paint on this panel is a very thick 10 millimeters.

For our first cut, lets assume that the abrasive grains attached to our sanding sheet can potentially cut grooves into the paint 3mm deep. Let's also assume that the sanding sheet is pushed across the surface only once, and that a maximum cut is indeed achieved (3mm).

Although we've cut 3mm-deep grooves into the paint, the areas between the grooves are left unaffected. We shall refer to the unaffected portion of paint as peaks, which are as tall as the paint originally was prior to sanding. If we were to take a reading of the sanded area, would it still register as being 10mm thick (the same as it was prior to sanding), or would it register 7mm? After all, the meter (the ultrasonic transducer, actually) would still sit upon the uppermost portion of the paint surface. Or... perhaps the meter would take an average the peak height and the groove depth, and give a reading of 8.5mm? In the case of this meter, it was mentioned that the meter delivers its readings in even numbers. I simply do not know how the meter works in this regard.

Moving on...

The goal of the second sanding step is to eliminate the peaks between the grooves without cutting further into the paint. To do this, we'll use a sanding sheet that can potentially cut grooves into the paint 2mm deep. Once again, we shall push the sandpaper across the surface only once, and achieve a perfect cut of 2mm. However, this time we decide to cut across the peaks left behind by the first sanding step. This way, we're certain to eliminate at least some of every peak.

Done with the second step. At this point, we have not cut into the paint more than 3mm. Our paint surface now features grooves that are 3mm deep, and 2mm deep.

For our third cut, we'll use a sanding sheet that can potentially cut grooves into the paint 1mm deep. To maximize our cut of the varied peaks, we'll shift our direction of sanding once again, in hopes of affecting the original peaks as well as the secondary peaks. As expected in this theoretical sanding session, we achieve a perfect cut of 1mm deep. Any guess as to whether any portion of the paint's surface has been left unaffected by our 3-step sanding process? I suspect that there likely is.

On to the buffing!

Our machine, pad, and compound should make short work of eliminating the remaining peaks, and it does. Since the surface is now relatively level, a thickness reading should be accurate and consistent across the paint surface. So, even though we may not have removed all that much paint, it could certainly seem that way if we rely upon only readings. Of course when we sand, we do not typically push the sandpaper across a given area only once. We repeatedly scrub an area over and over, to ensure a thorough cut. In addition, if only one or two sanding steps are accomplished prior to polishing, the readings may be shocking if we compare thickness readings prior to and after the polishing session.

As for the variances in thickness even when using a laser pointer...

It's likely that your meter was simply picking up variances in paint thickness due to paint swell and shrinkage. It would certainly be possible that the meter accurately measured gains in thickness; heat, pressure, and solvents can definitely affect paint thickness in a hurry.

I hope I didn't make this too confusing. Again... a great job on the write-up. Lots of talent in the UK.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top