Clear coat or not

[TWFAUST at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/22/01 2:52:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gerard at poboxes.com writes:


> Take a look at the trunk lid of my Audi 200:
> 

      I think that the problem you have is one of poor preparation or 
application, not product failure. Proper painting is 10% artistry and 90% 
sweat. If it was accident repair and insurance funded a lot of short cuts are 
taken.
      In addition to my Audis, I have a "secret sin", this is pictured here: <A HREF="http://www.ofoto.com/PhotoView.jsp?UV=204035849448_91422304203&US=0&collid=71089093203&photoid=94371693203">
Ofoto 1972 Charger</A> 
      This car wears its original 1972 single stage paint.
      Because of this, I am also a lister on Moparts.com. The amount of 
technical information available there is staggering. I posted the clearcoat 
question there. The response was a resounding yes as to the clear coat. One 
of the points made is that recent EPA rulings have basically eliminated the 
permissible use of lacquer. Of the currently available processes, clear coat 
is the easiest to repair. They also made the point that more is not better. 
With the demise of lacquer, the clear coat is no longer clear, it is amber. 
Each succeeding coat of "clear" alters the color slightly.
      Interestingly, clear coat is a response to EPA regulations. The 
factories adopted it because it is lighter than traditional processes 
(thinner) and saves 10-15 lbs. per car. The "color coat" is much thinner than 
other processes and depends on the clear for its survival. The process also 
permits the use of water based color coats. This is much cheaper than 
traditional paints, at least at the manufacturing level.
Tom Faust
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.audifans.com/pipermail/quattro/attachments/20011022/2d15932f/attachment.htm