Clear Coat Conspiracy!

Maintenance/Repairs
,
21

So much malarchy. The dirty little secret in government now is the amount of money being paid private contractors for the level of drivel that they produce. NASA and the USAF are no exception, if you even belief this was demonstrated, which I highly doubt.

The reason for the shift to clear coat was to compete with the foreign manufacturers for the shine. Clear is no different than pigmented, just looks like a deeper finish. Paint needs time to cure which is why waxing is not recommended for a few months. If you want damage to paint, just let let water droplets dry on an unwaxed surface so that the contaminants can eat into the finish. And if you think you aren’t picking up rail dust or other contaminants in the paint, try claying the finish once and notice the difference.

22

Ooooooh! The nerve of those wax charlatans! I’m going to strip the wax off all 4 of my cars just as soon as I install the Turbonators!

23

I feel somewhat sure that the base coat/clear coat painting method is cheaper. And cheaper always wins in the Automobile business.

24

A whole year of maintenance control?! And I bet you spent 364 of those days discussing the intimate details of waxing airplanes, didn’t you. Assuming you really were in the air force (which I don’t believe) and assuming you saw these NASA don’t-wax-the-space-shuttle videos (which I also don’t believe), you’ve failed to recognize that sometimes different procedures are implemented for airplanes than for cars. That’s why we don’t have to pre-flight cars and make sure the flaps work.

In short, your OP is full of junk pseudoscience, and now you’re adding qualifications (that you apparently didn’t see the need to inform us of in the OP) to try and shore up your bogus claims.

In short, you’re a troll, and I’m therefore done replying to you.

25

The science of the issue is in what is known as an anode. If water remains in the clear coat finish when a car is waxed, the water is captured. The captured water then becomes heated by the sun by much the same method that sun heats through a glass window. But since the water is captured it can?t evaporate or get hot enough to rise above the wax. Thus the water remains and without evaporating, creates an anode (oxidation reaction) effect towards the paint. When this occurs enough times the water eventually makes way to the bare metal. The corrosion is minute, but eventually will show up. This will never happen if a car is fully dried before waxing.

The coating before clear coat was a different composition lacquer I believe. The coating and paint would eventually dull and crack. Clear coat resists cracking but will certainly scratch. Clear coat can also have UV protection in it.

Waxing in itself will not hurt clear coat, but moisture under the wax will create the anode effect.

It would take several years for the corrosion to show due to the minute amounts of moisture trapped under the wax.

The entire point is that waxing, although looking nice, can be detrimental over time if done improperly.

There is not Car Company or Oil Company on the planet willing to divulge any of this information, they’ll never do that. The NASA point was to teach the effects of small amounts of moisture against a seemingly protected surface for corrosion awareness. The same video revealed that BTG (Boat trailer grease) was well suited to grease any axle during that period because it would virtually not break down. The entire military uses the stuff today, but is marketed differently to them.

On our entire planet we are all caught up in paradigms. If a theory or explanation does not fit our understanding we tend to dismiss it or ridicule it. Unfortunately some grade school habits hang on throughout our lives.

Of course the entire waxing thing sounds ridiculous, but the science of it remains factual and can’t be dismissed with rational, but scientific experimentation, which was performed in the video.

And about the paradigms and how they apply…well

–Man couldn’t fly—until Wilbur and Orville
–The world was flat—until Columbus
–Gravity was unknown—until Sir Isaac Newton

?Just because we have never been exposed to information doesn’t mean it isn’t true. How we respond to that information, on a global basis, is where the fate of all humanity lies. ?

I’m not referring to the wax, but rather to paradigms.

26

Now my BS meter is pegged. Any time someone brings up Wilbur and Orville, then I know they’re full of it.

You don’t seem to understand: you have proposed something (waxing hurting clear-coat paint) that can easily be checked by comparing waxed cars to unwaxed cars. When that comparison is made, it proves the opposite is, in fact true, that waxing protects paint, clear coat included.

Your idea, while interesting, is wrong. Easily proven to be wrong, in fact. I’m always interested in new ideas, that’s how I make my living. But they need to have value, some element of truth to them.

27

Maybe NASA should have devoted a bit more time to the following in regards to the shuttle explosion instead of producing videos which are entirely baseless.

The Rogers Commission found that NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident.[2] NASA managers had known that contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but they failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors.

Note the 1977 date and the explosion in 1986. Nine years of foot dragging, stonewalling, and looking the other way on one single, solitary issue and we’re to take everything NASA says at face value? Fast forward 17 years and…

NASA’s original Shuttle design specifications stated that the external tank was not to shed foam or other debris; as such, strikes upon the Shuttle itself were safety issues that needed to be resolved before a launch was cleared. Launches were often given the go-ahead as engineers came to see the foam shedding and debris strikes as inevitable and unresolvable, with the rationale that they were either not a threat to safety, or an acceptable risk.

With the demise of the shuttle program guess the NASA guys are off the hook for any more inadvertent and fragmented landings with those particular vehicles.

28

Well, I think you may have misunderstood the video. Water on clear coat will act as a magnifyer in the sun and damage the paint. I can’t for the life of me figure out how you would trap water (if not moisture in the air) between a wax coat and paint. Paint has been continuously improved in quality and durability over the past 50 years which is why it is being used now and is certainly more expensive which is why it was developed.

Lacquer was first used to paint cars back in the old days. An improvement was enamel in the 50’s. Then improving that was acrylic enamal and acrylic lacquer that acted like enamel but stood up better and could be buffed. The latest is the urethane finishes that outlast and outshine the others. I have used all of them at one point or another. The only one the car manufactures said didn’t need waxing was the Acrylic but they soon found out different.

29

“The entire point is that waxing, although looking nice, can be detrimental over time if done improperly.”

Okay, now you’ve surprised me. You’ve made your third contradictory assertion.

“There is not Car Company or Oil Company on the planet willing to divulge any of this information…”

There never is, is there?

“The NASA point was to teach the effects of small amounts of moisture against a seemingly protected surface for corrosion awareness. The same video revealed that BTG (Boat trailer grease) was well suited to grease any axle during that period because it would virtually not break down. The entire military uses the stuff today, but is marketed differently to them.”

Any axle? Even in my wrist watch? What about goose grease like they used in the Little Rascals?

“On our entire planet we are all caught up in paradigms. If a theory or explanation does not fit our understanding we tend to dismiss it or ridicule it. Unfortunately some grade school habits hang on throughout our lives.”

I’m a big fan of 2+2, so I’ll give you that one.

“Of course the entire waxing thing sounds ridiculous, but the science of it remains factual and can’t be dismissed with rational, but scientific experimentation, which was performed in the video.”

What, now?

"And about the paradigms and how they apply…well

–Man couldn’t fly—until Wilbur and Orville"
Well, no, ask the Montgolfier brothers.
"–The world was flat—until Columbus"
Well, no, the roundness of the Earth was known in ancient times.
"–Gravity was unknown—until Sir Isaac Newton"
Well, no, Newton just did the math.

What’s NASA’s position(s) on heated car seats?

30

Clear coat is not to prevent rust. Paint itself will prevent rust. Clear coat is to protect the paint and keep it from oxidizing and fading.

31

Aerospace vehicles and cars do not use the same type of paint. Aerospace vehicles do not use a clearcoat. Wax for cars comes from the sap of a tree.

Why would NASA make a video about maintenance of car paint? Chances are that someone had a few extra bucks in their budget and needed to get them spent before the end of the FY. That person may also harbored some beliefs against the car wax industry for some reason so they ordered this video made.

If you think that this kind of thing can’t happen, you have no idea. I spent 4 years in a command headquarters while I was in the Navy. I saw this kind of stuff all the time, and being the quiet, shy, nonarguementative type that I am (lol), well lets just say that a lot of beltway bandits (government contractors) would do their best to keep me out of any type of policy or logistics meetings. I didn’t get any job offers from any defense contractors when I retired either.

I’m kind of curious as to why the Air Force would show this type of video. The Air Force had a pretty good school system in aircraft maintenance. I worked with a few guys at Chanute AFB on composite material repair and NDI. These guys were pretty sharp. I don’t think they would have allowed that kind of junk to be used in their training programs.

While I was at this command, one of my programs was corrosion control training for Naval Aviation. As you know, Navy aircraft are subjected to a much more corrosive environment than Air Force aircraft. The Air Force knows better than to store aircraft 90 feet above a large body of salt water. Corrosion Control is an “all hands” job for everyone in the squadron and it’s a constant, never ending battle.

We don’t wax our airplanes, but not for the reasons stated in this NASA video. And we don’t clearcoat them either.

32

Good point. Petroleum wax is paraffin, which as far as I know is not used on cars. Carnauba was comes from the leaves (not sap) of a Brazilian tree.

33

Why don’t you just wait until the car is dry before you wax it?

I can tell you from experience, clear coat is not a substitute for wax. You still need to wash, polish, and then wax your car. Just washing and waxing is a half-a__ed way to do things.

34

Exactly right, CSA. It’s raildust; some say it comes from the train that delivered the car, some say it comes from the cars brakes, and some say it comes from snow plow blades. I would believe 1 or 2, but 3 sounds far fetched. Having owned a couple of white cars I know it can be removed by using a “clay bar” and lubricant (Meguiars makes a good one) available at most parts stores.

35

We never saw hime eat paint; only light bulbs. But I bet he eats paint - especially if it’s a painted light bulb.

36

If this were true, we’d see cars rusting, frequently, through body panels, from the outside in.

As a rust-belt resident, my experience has been that cars rust mainly:

  1. At the bottom of body panels (from the inside out) where drain holes are obstructed.
  2. Around wheel-wells and the general vicinity thereof (where road-salt spray is flung during driving).
  3. Bare metal on the underbody, esp. cheap (i.e. non-stainless) exhaust.

So, even if OP’s theory could conceivably happen, in practice it still constitutes a negligible percentage of total loss to rust.

37

I Still Cringe At The Thought That U.S. Rocket Scientists Confused Rail Dust With Water Trapped Somehow In Little Pockets In Car Wax, But They Did Fail To See That Those Pesky Little Solid Booster O-Rings Could . . .

. . . A friend with a genius brother observed his brother, time after time, throwing his dirty clothes in the toilet right next to the clothes hamper.

CSA

38

Texas, after a lousy day at work, I got a big laugh at your post.Thanks!

I think the OP should start rolling skinnies and lay off the fatties.

39

For the life of me I can’t remember any complaints at all from car owners about small brown specs in the paint.

When taxpayer dollars are involved the end result doesn’t have to make any sense.

40

Once someone starts talking about conspiracy between car manufacturers and oil companies, everything else they say is suspect. In this case, the existence of this video, so don’t worry, your taxpayer dollars are perfectly safe.