base & clear or gloss

[kstead]

went to see the guy painting my mini today and we spoke about this briefly before he had to leave. He says i need 3/4 coats of gloss colour which will then be flatted and polished, I asumed it would be clear over a base. He says a gloss colour will be more maintanable but I've paid up front (£1500) and suspect he may now be cutting corners. colours will be black roof etc. and orange. can anyone tell me what I should be insisting on?

Edited by kstead on Monday 30th April 23:16

[Anatol]

There's a reason all modern factory finishes are clear over base. "Easier to maintain" is an outright lie. A clearcoat protecting the colour from the environmental hell cars go through is going to give you a vastly easier to maintain finish.

Get your money back and walk away from this guy. He's trying to do you over. In my humble opinion.

HTH

Tol

[apguy]

I beg to differ.

Direct gloss is a perfectly acceptable substitute for clear over base. Yes it's easier to paint and cheaper but the finish and longevity is equal to cob.

My own car is painted in a mixture of cob and direct gloss and I challenge anyone outside of the trade to tell which bits are which.

[Anatol]

Now, perhaps. But not over time. Without the benefit of a UV protective clearcoat, an orange pigment (the colour the question was asked about) is likely going to fade very noticeably, definitely within the proper expected lifespan of a professional paint job.

This can be remedied by regular abrasive polishing to remove the top layer of oxidised pigment, but that is significantly increased maintenance - the "easier to look after" issue.

Add to that the lack of any clearcoat buffer to offset paintskin damage from something like a bird lime hit, and it's only more true.

That's not to say that direct gloss paint has no role in automotive finishing, but it is absolutely not a lower maintenance option. Telling the difference is a separate issue.

Tol

[kstead]

Thanks for replys, the colour im hoping to achive is as seen on the new punto,similar to the focus st but not metalic, i think it'll suit a mini better. Roof will be black as will other details like mirrors etc. Also I want to use some viynal stickers on the doors for numbers, how would this affect things? I'd like them to be removable. As for maintanance the painter says any touch ups will be easier to match. How would fiat do it? I assume the paint will come from them and have an approved method? Any advice recived greatfully.

[apguy]

Anatol said:

Now, perhaps. But not over time. Without the benefit of a UV protective clearcoat, an orange pigment (the colour the question was asked about) is likely going to fade very noticeably, definitely within the proper expected lifespan of a professional paint job.

I'm not going to disagree but the UV inhibiters in clearcoat aren't all that either. I'm sure you have resprayed as many red Alfas as I have that are pink cob

Anatol said:

This can be remedied by regular abrasive polishing to remove the top layer of oxidised pigment, but that is significantly increased maintenance - the "easier to look after" issue.

But at least you have that option with direct gloss. If you have pigment fade with cob then you have nothing to polish.

Anatol said:

Add to that the lack of any clearcoat buffer to offset paintskin damage from something like a bird lime hit, and it's only more true.

In fact I'd say that its at this point that direct gloss wins. We use both Nexa Autocolour and Spies Hecker Ultra clearcoat and neither are particulary resilient to bird lime. With cob you only have a few microns of laquer that you can flat out the damage before you hit basecoat. At which point its a panel respray. With direct gloss I can keep going until I hit primer.

Of course, choice of paint type will be subject to a number of factors and I agree that diverting the original posters attention by claiming direct gloss is "lower maintainance" is a poor way of justifying that choice.

[Anatol]

If I read you right, you think direct gloss is superior to COB. It's certainly cheaper, in terms of materials cost, and time/expensive processes required to apply it.

All the major manufacturers have rejected direct gloss as a modern finish option. Given that they use vast quantities of paint, switching to a cheaper per litre option would save them phenomenal amounts of money. Being able to remove the entire clearcoating process from their finish lines would similarly save very significant amounts.

Yet they all continue using the more expensive paints, and more complicated process. If direct gloss was a genuinely better finish option in the modern automotive world, they'd be using it and making enormous savings as a result.

They're not. They're spending the extra. If there was no significant advantage to be had, they'd never have moved from the old direct gloss technology to modern COB finishes. There's more to that choice than the fashion of effect finishes (which direct gloss technology simply can't supply).

And I disagree with your thoughts on UV inhibitors in clearcoats - there are clears which have sufficient UV inhibition to properly protect weak, UV-harmed pigments from extensive sun exposure. There are plenty of red cars out there with COB on all panels except the bonnet, for example, and the relative durabilities of the technologies are very obvious to any observer.

If some manufacturers aren't using decent UV-inhibiting clears, that's doesn't reflect the fact that there are superior options in the COB technology. And criticising COB for having less than perfect UV protection is an unusual position to take when suggesting the direct gloss, (with essentially no UV protection barrier over the pigment) is a superior finish option!

Tol

Edited by Anatol on Thursday 3rd May 12:27

[apguy]

I wasn't making a stand for direct gloss over cob. The original poster was concerned that he was being given duff information from a bodyshop. The associated replies indicated that "Get your money back and walk away from this guy. He's trying to do you over. In my humble opinion."

I was just offering an alternative opinion.

I am fully aware of the benefits of clear over base and in my shop it makes up 99% of the paintwork we do. Equally I wasn't slamming all clearcoat UV inhibators (I did say "I'm not going to disagree ", although my phrasing could have been better) just indicating that red as a pigment always suffers some degradation with bleaching.

I'm a strong supporter of waterborne base and solvent clearcoat, not least because it means that all those firms that have ignored the EPA regs for the last few years now have to compete on a level-playing field with folks like me, who have invested in waterborne

[TallPaul]

I know I've come into this debate a little late, but I thought I'd add my view-
Modern manufacturers use Clear Over Base for straight colours for one reason. VOC. 99% of cars are now painted with waterborne paints. As none of the paint manufacturers have yet released a water based lacquer(or direct gloss straight colour), cars are painted with water borne colour coats- metallic or solid colours, then coated with a solvent based clear coat. This is the only way they can be compliant in their use of Volatile Organic Compounds.