Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm fixing some dents and scratches on an old R30. Found a dent repair guide on this website:http://www.vgautopaints.com.au/

But I can't quite understand this tip:

*Tip

When masking up stick down the paper

with tape and then fold the paper over the

tape. This will give you a soft edge.

Does anyone know what it means?

Also found some useful videos on dent removal by a New Zealander who goes by the name of 'Restolad'. Here's an example:

JH

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/317078-spray-painting-soft-edges/
Share on other sites

it is a bit hard to understand, but i know that when you mask and paint, if the paint thickness builds up, when you remove the tape you get a sharp raised edge.

sorry its just a guess but does it mean by sticking down paper and folding it back, the edge of the paper will somehow soften the edge effect? :)

sorry its just a guess but does it mean by sticking down paper and folding it back, the edge of the paper will somehow soften the edge effect?   :cool:

I can't see how to stick down paper _and_ fold it back, because if the masking tape runs over the paper, it's stuck to the paper and not the panel.

Thanks for the response.

JH

Emailed VG Auto Paints and Tools and received a very quick response...

If you get a piece of masking paper and run some masking tape along the edge of it so its half on and half off.

Then stick down the taped up paper on the area you want to mask but in the opposite direction to where you want masked.

Then fold the paper over the tape so that it pulls the tape up and creates a rounded edge.

This is so you dont get a hard line where the paint/primer meets the rest of the panel.

Thanks hope this helps.

Ill be making a DVD of the lessons soon.

David Gatt

VG AUTO PAINTS & TOOLS

JH

What he said^^

The other thing you can do which works quite well, is to get some thick masking tape and fold 1/3 of it back on itself, then have the folded line as the edge where you want a 'soft' paint edge. I've done this a bit and after buffing you can't tell where the join is.

But it's a good idea to do all joins along a crease/change in direction of the car somewhere which gives additional 'blendedness' if you get what I mean. People expect to see a change in paint a little bit at a crease so it gives you a bit more breathing room if you make a mistake.

okay.

what this means is, when masking up an area you wish to paint or blend into existing paint you want to hide the fact its been painted.

Just masking it up with a peice of tape will result in a "hard line edge" making it clearly visible to the world that you've painted that area.

a "soft edge" is achieved when masking like so.

8.jpg

notice how I put down a strip of masking tape, folded half of it over, leaving it loose, then taping that down firmly with another bit of tape.

this is how you acheive a "soft line edge" and avoid paint build up resulting in a "hard line edge"

As you can see in the pic above I was priming, this method of masking should only really be used for priming.

you don't need this masking method for painting. You should be either painting the entire panel or blending the entire panel.

Either way you won't need this method and soft edge masking is only used when you want to spray a tiny bit of a panel.

When applying colour/clear coat/blending agent the whole panel your painting should be available to be sprayed.

cheers.

If you want to see my guide on painting go here.

http://mcc.xcesiv.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...