Topic: Frame: powdercoat, or not.

[HondaMan]

He recommended to use a catylised acrylic, there is a product that they use on the undercarriages of trains, it doesn't flake when it gets a stone chip.  It will still chip but you really need to try.  He also put an anti-grafiti clear over it to give it a shine and also any road grime simply wipes off.  It still looks like the day it was applied.

Now, THERE's a novel idea! I've been a railfan all my life, too. The Imron was said to have been developed for locomotives, but found its way to the US trucking industry when everyone could buy a working man's diesel and hit the road to make a living (before the DOT went beserk in the mid-1980s). Everyone painted their fiberglass tilt-cabs with Imron, and it looked great for 10 years or more, after which stones would take it off in little star shapes (like my fairing!). It seems like, after that time, the paint becomes maybe brittle?
 
So, catalyzed acrylic...gotta look into that one!

[HondaMan]

Sorry Retro

"That couldn't be further from the truth"

you can't compare a parts box to brush bumpers being driven off-road in all weather conditions, scraping tall brush, going through mud, gravel, dirt,etc.  Powder coating is fine for bike frames and show car frames and maybe nut & bolt boxes but for rough treatment go with a good primer & paint. 

regards

Wasn't having a go at you Ron, my parts box has about 1000 {sh1tloads} of different nuts and bolts in it and I made it and powder coated it in around 1986, its been half way round the country and beat to #$%* but it had good quality Dulux powder on it and it hasn't failed yet, its a great example of good powder,  powders these days are much better. I would go with either good powder or a good epoxy {epoxy is very strong but fades if not applied with a clear coat} for the best toughest finish hands down. I paint industrial coatings,  thats my trade I've done a lot of powder coating {mostly industrial}, electro static spraying, Acran, when it was used widely {mining equipment} as well as a pile of industrial polyurethanes and epoxies. You would be amazed what is powder coated these days, including most Bull bars and nudge bars used on 4WD's... 

Edit, a couple of things I left out that should be of interest, Powder has a far better abrasion resistance than any paint and remains pliable for many years {resin based}, it is also 100% solids, which is far better than any paint , it is also unaffected by fuel, brake fluid and other chemicals and has a very low to nil toxicity, it is food grade and classed as a "green" product unlike any  paint or epoxy. Epoxies have poor UV ratings and should have a polyurethane clear coat over them to stop powdering and fading.

Hey, Retro, a few questions, if I may:

In 1979 someone painted my tank & side covers with a gold epoxy that is REAL close to the gold candy (but not translucent, obviously). I have been 100% impressed with how well it has held up, just not so much with the color (I asked him for blue...). I finally wore some minor scuffing into it with 30 years of tank bags bumping and sliding on it. But, it was a 1-shot paint over primer, he said: if it a simple paint to apply? It would seem to be a good frame paint, if one could shoot it at home. I sure can't powder coat!

I also have a now well-chipped Imron on my Vetter. It was the buzz in 1974 when I had the original Vetter lacquer in tatters, so I had it Imron'd. After 15 years or so, it started chipping like a windshield stone crack does when something big hit it, and now I have lots of such marks, deep enough I will have to fill them before the next paint. My question is: do you know what can be painted over Imron? No one seems to think anything will stick to it. It can't be removed with solvents, and I am not about to sand my hand-laid fiberglass Vetter I, rare as they are.

Hi Mark, A 1 shot epoxy..? The only single pac epoxies i have seen or used are primers, every other top coat product was a 2 pac, thats how epoxies work, they need an activator {part B}to set them off. Wondering how you asked for blue and got gold...
Imron is a polyurethane paint and very toxic, you would need to look at a MSDS sheet or speak to Dulux about that, I've used lots of urethanes but only ever as a top coat and in industrial conditions only, like at QLD newspapers, in the press room the painted walls are, or were, stained with a film of ink that can't be seen in the air, but accumulates on the walls and sends them black, an acrylic paint was applied to the walls after cleaning them and then a polyurethane coating is painted over the top of the acrylic to seal it and provide a surface thats easily cleaned, that was a product called PolyU400, its a marine grade clear with great anti graffiti properties, we also use that on council's roadside portable offices that are prone to being graffitied, the graffiti just wipes off.. I do know that there are paints like acrylic auto paints that are recommended not to be painted over PolyU, not sure about 2 pacs myself as I've never had to paint over PolyU, in saying that, polyU paints have great resistance to anything sticking on them, including paint, thats why we use them as an anti graffiti coating. Sorry i couldn't be of more help.. If I ever have any questions about product I usually just ring the paint rep and ask, get it straight from the horses mouth...  

Thanks, Retro!
By "1-shot" I meant he put on the primer, then the color was mixed and sprayed in one layer. But, the paint was 2 parts, one he called "hardener", like an epoxy glue. It was clear.

At the time, I had just been married the month before, and parts of my Garnet Brown Flake tank were bare metal (from my tank bag). The guy owed me a favor, said he'd paint it for me: I said, "...great, just make it NOT RED, but preferably Blue, not a pastel color: I hate the Brown. Whatever you have like that would be fine." (Freshly married and broke riders can't be too choosy...). Somehow, he only heard, "...whatever you have will be fine" and he had some paint left from a Chevy pickup truck he just custom-painted for someone. In Harvest Gold epoxy. Been that for 34+ years, now. 

[grcamna2]

Can you choose to have the PC'er do either a heavy coat or choose a light coat? I just wondered what they usually do ? 

Again,do any of you know if they can choose to PC either a light or heavy coat? I don't like to cover up my frame too thick and want the frame number stamps to show through well as they've been stamped only lightly.

[Retro Rocket]

I've sent a link of this thread to Mark {powderman}, seeings though he currently runs a modern coating shop and knows the modern powders and does motorcycle specific work, he would be able to answer your question ......   I will say that some of the powder coatings i've seen lately were far thinner than the industrial work i used to do with powder...

[grcamna2]

I've sent a link of this thread to Mark {powderman}, seeings though he currently runs a modern coating shop and knows the modern powders and does motorcycle specific work, he would be able to answer your question ......   I will say that some of the powder coatings i've seen lately were far thinner than the industrial work i used to do with powder...

Thanks Retro

[Powderman]

Powdercoat is durable, but can chip. It's thick, gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.).
Lacquer/enamel is simpler to apply, easy to touch up, MUCH cheaper, and if done right can last 40 years (mine did!). It doesn't hide much, so it doesn't smooth out the little "ugly" things in the production frames, though.

Tell us what you think, if yours has some age on it?

I have 5 bikes I'm a-building, most of which are bare frames right now. I'd be interested in knowing what everyone thinks about this part of it?

Here are my qualified thoughts on the issues here. I quoted Mark's thread to answer his points first, then I will touch on some of the other misconceptions in this thread.
PC is about 10 times more durable than paint, yes it will chip but it is much less likely to because of it's durability. I've seen hammer tests (not something I would do) with much less damage than a painted part can take.
It doesn't "gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.)." if the coater doesn't want it to. High temp masking tape, silicone plugs and caps handle those chores. An experienced coater will know what to look for when it comes to bolt holes, threads and tight clearance motor mount holes and such. Most of my powders are recommended to be laid in 1.5-3.0 mil thicknesses. putting it on thicker is not a wise option as it leads to cracking and flaking due to it's thickness. A modern automotive paint thickness is in the 5-6 mil region so when done properly powder is not thicker then paint. I've done identical pieces in powder and paint and the powdered ones weigh less than painted ones do. Powder is made of some of the same ingredients as paint. We have polyester, urethane, acrylic, etc.powders.
I'd still like to see someone tell the difference between paint and powder just by looking at it. So the restoration thing tells me you are better off with the longer lasting coating because no one would know unless you told them. I have in my experience found that PC is less expensive than anyone in my area quotes for the same parts in paint, assuming they are a professional and not a rattle can job.
There are several different kinds of primers we can use also depending on the environment the parts are subjected too and the material being coated.

[Powderman]

One of your choices Mark in your poll question should have been " I like to keep it stock as possible" I may have hit that one.

I would challenge you to tell the difference just by looking at 2 identical pieces, one coated and one painted.

[Powderman]

Sorry Retro

"That couldn't be further from the truth"

you can't compare a parts box to brush bumpers being driven off-road in all weather conditions, scraping tall brush, going through mud, gravel, dirt,etc.  Powder coating is fine for bike frames and show car frames and maybe nut & bolt boxes but for rough treatment go with a good primer & paint. 

regards

A good primer and powder is a better option.

[grcamna2]

Powdercoat is durable, but can chip. It's thick, gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.).
Lacquer/enamel is simpler to apply, easy to touch up, MUCH cheaper, and if done right can last 40 years (mine did!). It doesn't hide much, so it doesn't smooth out the little "ugly" things in the production frames, though.

Tell us what you think, if yours has some age on it?

I have 5 bikes I'm a-building, most of which are bare frames right now. I'd be interested in knowing what everyone thinks about this part of it?

Here are my qualified thoughts on the issues here. I quoted Mark's thread to answer his points first, then I will touch on some of the other misconceptions in this thread.
PC is about 10 times more durable than paint, yes it will chip but it is much less likely to because of it's durability. I've seen hammer tests (not something I would do) with much less damage than a painted part can take.
It doesn't "gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.)." if the coater doesn't want it to. High temp masking tape, silicone plugs and caps handle those chores. An experienced coater will know what to look for when it comes to bolt holes, threads and tight clearance motor mount holes and such. Most of my powders are recommended to be laid in 1.5-3.0 mil thicknesses. putting it on thicker is not a wise option as it leads to cracking and flaking due to it's thickness. A modern automotive paint thickness is in the 5-6 mil region so when done properly powder is not thicker then paint. I've done identical pieces in powder and paint and the powdered ones weigh less than painted ones do. Powder is made of some of the same ingredients as paint. We have polyester, urethane, acrylic, etc.powders.
I'd still like to see someone tell the difference between paint and powder just by looking at it. So the restoration thing tells me you are better off with the longer lasting coating because no one would know unless you told them. I have in my experience found that PC is less expensive than anyone in my area quotes for the same parts in paint, assuming they are a professional and not a rattle can job.
There are several different kinds of primers we can use also depending on the environment the parts are subjected too and the material being coated.

thanks for this post

[Powderman]

The biggest problem I have seen with powder coating is when it gets a stone chip, the rust in the chipped area tends to run under the surface of the powdercoating and after some time it can come off in sheets.  When I did my bike I had the frame painted, my old man is a painter and powder coater so I had the option of either.  He recommended to use a catylised acrylic, there is a product that they use on the undercarriages of trains, it doesn't flake when it gets a stone chip.  It will still chip but you really need to try.  He also put an anti-grafiti clear over it to give it a shine and also any road grime simply wipes off.  It still looks like the day it was applied.


Powder is good, but in my opinion it isn't the ultimate product like some people seem to think it is.  It has its own flaws just like anything else.

"The biggest problem I have seen with powder coating is when it gets a stone chip". This I think is a bigger issue with paint as to "when" than with powder that is so much tougher that it becomes a question of "if" it chips.
This is usually a case where the parts been sprayed with a pretreatment only instead of having a sand blasted finish as well. A proper texture from blasting is one of the processes that makes powder so tough because it has more "tooth" to adhere to than a sanded and chemically bonded paint surface. Paint will do the same thing you mention above if the prep is the same as coated part you sited.

[Retro Rocket]

Thanks Mark, there is a lot of misinformation out there on powder, its like any finish, poor prep means poor results.....

[Powderman]

Can you choose to have the PC'er do either a heavy coat or choose a light coat? I just wondered what they usually do ? 

Again,do any of you know if they can choose to PC either a light or heavy coat? I don't like to cover up my frame too thick and want the frame number stamps to show through well as they've been stamped only lightly.

In some states it is illegal to coat the numbers at all. When coating numbers is an issue we will spray the whole frame as usual and then just hit the number area with a light coating to cover but not fill the numbers. Keep in mind when applied properly the coating is only .0015"-.003" thick, the numbers are much deeper than that. Some times we apply the color with out shooting the numbers and then add a clear coat over the whole thing so the numbers can still be read but won't rust from being unprotected.

[grcamna2]

Yes, that helped me understand it  I just wanted to be sure that these rusty numbers/letters will still be visible after I used a small SS wire brush to smooth them 'off'.. and wasn't sure how thick powder coat usually is;I think I'll ask them to mask that area off and maybe a light coat of paint.. I wonder if I should try using an electric engraver to trace the oem numbers...but maybe not  The police might frown on it...

[HondaMan]

Powdercoat is durable, but can chip. It's thick, gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.).
Lacquer/enamel is simpler to apply, easy to touch up, MUCH cheaper, and if done right can last 40 years (mine did!). It doesn't hide much, so it doesn't smooth out the little "ugly" things in the production frames, though.

Tell us what you think, if yours has some age on it?

I have 5 bikes I'm a-building, most of which are bare frames right now. I'd be interested in knowing what everyone thinks about this part of it?

Here are my qualified thoughts on the issues here. I quoted Mark's thread to answer his points first, then I will touch on some of the other misconceptions in this thread.
PC is about 10 times more durable than paint, yes it will chip but it is much less likely to because of it's durability. I've seen hammer tests (not something I would do) with much less damage than a painted part can take.
It doesn't "gets into things so you must clean/scrape/g it off certain places (like engine mounts, swingarm pivot points, inside of rear axle spacers, etc.)." if the coater doesn't want it to. High temp masking tape, silicone plugs and caps handle those chores. An experienced coater will know what to look for when it comes to bolt holes, threads and tight clearance motor mount holes and such. Most of my powders are recommended to be laid in 1.5-3.0 mil thicknesses. putting it on thicker is not a wise option as it leads to cracking and flaking due to it's thickness. A modern automotive paint thickness is in the 5-6 mil region so when done properly powder is not thicker then paint. I've done identical pieces in powder and paint and the powdered ones weigh less than painted ones do. Powder is made of some of the same ingredients as paint. We have polyester, urethane, acrylic, etc.powders.
I'd still like to see someone tell the difference between paint and powder just by looking at it. So the restoration thing tells me you are better off with the longer lasting coating because no one would know unless you told them. I have in my experience found that PC is less expensive than anyone in my area quotes for the same parts in paint, assuming they are a professional and not a rattle can job.
There are several different kinds of primers we can use also depending on the environment the parts are subjected too and the material being coated.

Thanks for the details!
I perceive then that some of the powdercoated things I am getting are not so good. I get a lot of swingarms that were powdercoated (for rebuilds), and some of them are as much as .060" thick over the ends of the pivot tube(!). Most of these I can cut off with a sharp knife, but once in a while I have to file or even grind it off - sometimes it is really hard stuff! The problem here is that the thickness makes the pivot tube wider than the collar, so bolting it into the frame then locks the swingarm solidly in place. If the frame is also powdercoated and the owner does not clean it off these pivot tube bolsters, the powdercoat grinds itself up in a couple hundred miles and then attacks the end caps and/or seals in the pivot area.

Here in Colorado, the over-coated frame will sometimes fail VIN inspections, so masking (or something) the frame number is important, too.

Also, these are the ROCKY Mountains, with only 2 Interstates in the whole State: the many, many construction trucks used to keep the roads open throw LOTS of rocks at us. We can't keep uncracked windshields on our cars for even 6 months around here, and finally in 1989 the State repealed the "vehicle must not have a cracked windshield" law, because they wouldn't solve the trucking issues. But, these rocks have chipped many a Harley paint job: my neighborhood is lousy with H-D customized rides, and the riders all gripe about the rock chips in their expensively powercoated frames (and chrome).

Hence my poll: I'm trying to get smarter about the several bikes I am building, and how I should paint some of them. The restos: sure, they will get enamel. But the show-ier bikes, maybe powder?

[ekpent]

One of your choices Mark in your poll question should have been " I like to keep it stock as possible" I may have hit that one.

I would challenge you to tell the difference just by looking at 2 identical pieces, one coated and one painted.

  A judge at a show may be able to tell and I would know for sure. Do you want to arm wrestle for your "challenge"  Some resto's can be overdone.

[Retro Rocket]

One of your choices Mark in your poll question should have been " I like to keep it stock as possible" I may have hit that one.

I would challenge you to tell the difference just by looking at 2 identical pieces, one coated and one painted.

  A judge at a show may be able to tell and I would know for sure. Do you want to arm wrestle for your "challenge"  Some resto's can be overdone.

Please explain how you would "know for sure" ekpent.. Whilst i love your confidence,  Its virtually impossible to tell these days?
Seriously, you'd be doing well to pick good powder over paint, There are literally thousands of powders these days and a lot look exactly like paint, satins, high gloss, flat, wrinkled, metal flake, pearls, candy, hammer tone and more, any finish you can get in paint , have a look at the finishes in the link i posted earlier in this thread and  Google "custom powder coat". Mark {Powderman} knows his stuff and i'd have my money you failing the test...

[calj737]

Hey Retro, I think ekpent might be right. One way to identify whether it's powder or paint is the powder ALWAYS looks better  and last longer 

For me, I'd always use powder coat. Much better product in my opinion and the vast array of finishes, textures and colors make it highly desirable to me. Heck, I've even used it as base layer on tanks I've repainted after significant metal work. Gave me 100% confidence of a fully sealed and cured protection layer. Not always obtainable with paint. It also made the final paint layer flow and reflect better in my eyes.

Powdercoat rules! (To coin a phrase)

[HondaMan]

Hey Retro, I think ekpent might be right. One way to identify whether it's powder or paint is the powder ALWAYS looks better  and last longer 

For me, I'd always use powder coat. Much better product in my opinion and the vast array of finishes, textures and colors make it highly desirable to me. Heck, I've even used it as base layer on tanks I've repainted after significant metal work. Gave me 100% confidence of a fully sealed and cured protection layer. Not always obtainable with paint. It also made the final paint layer flow and reflect better in my eyes.

Powdercoat rules! (To coin a phrase)

Now, there's another thought: is powdercoat more fuel-resistant (spelled "e-t-h-a-n-o-l") than the others? I like 'durable' on my own bikes.

[grcamna2]

I want to have my frame,chainguard,footpegs/stand & fuel tank done on a little CB125 that was left outside as 'Yard Art'(maybe  ) for over 20+ years south of Birmingham,AL. w/ that corrosive stuff in the soil.., and having it be very resistant to Eth. would be a Big plus 

I want to have it done all in gloss black because that's what the bike originally was.This'll be the first one I've ever had powder coated,the others I just 'rattle-canned' them.

[Retro Rocket]

Hey Retro, I think ekpent might be right. One way to identify whether it's powder or paint is the powder ALWAYS looks better  and last longer 

For me, I'd always use powder coat. Much better product in my opinion and the vast array of finishes, textures and colors make it highly desirable to me. Heck, I've even used it as base layer on tanks I've repainted after significant metal work. Gave me 100% confidence of a fully sealed and cured protection layer. Not always obtainable with paint. It also made the final paint layer flow and reflect better in my eyes.

Powdercoat rules! (To coin a phrase)

Now, there's another thought: is powdercoat more fuel-resistant (spelled "e-t-h-a-n-o-l") than the others? I like 'durable' on my own bikes.

Yes it is...It has a far better chemical resistance than paint..

[HondaMan]

Hey Retro, I think ekpent might be right. One way to identify whether it's powder or paint is the powder ALWAYS looks better  and last longer 

For me, I'd always use powder coat. Much better product in my opinion and the vast array of finishes, textures and colors make it highly desirable to me. Heck, I've even used it as base layer on tanks I've repainted after significant metal work. Gave me 100% confidence of a fully sealed and cured protection layer. Not always obtainable with paint. It also made the final paint layer flow and reflect better in my eyes.

Powdercoat rules! (To coin a phrase)

Now, there's another thought: is powdercoat more fuel-resistant (spelled "e-t-h-a-n-o-l") than the others? I like 'durable' on my own bikes.

Yes it is...It has a far better chemical resistance than paint..

Now the BIG question: does powder come in candy colors?

[seanbarney41]

Hey guys,  I think you are missing Ekpent's point.  Sure, powdercoat looks better than paint.  That's why it is not for a correct restoration...kinda like you guys who love to polish aluminum until it looks like chrome....that is not correct.

[SOHC4 Cafe Racer Fan]

That's okay with me, as I am a resto-mod kind of guy.  I want it to be better than off the assembly line.

[Retro Rocket]

Hey Retro, I think ekpent might be right. One way to identify whether it's powder or paint is the powder ALWAYS looks better  and last longer 

For me, I'd always use powder coat. Much better product in my opinion and the vast array of finishes, textures and colors make it highly desirable to me. Heck, I've even used it as base layer on tanks I've repainted after significant metal work. Gave me 100% confidence of a fully sealed and cured protection layer. Not always obtainable with paint. It also made the final paint layer flow and reflect better in my eyes.

Powdercoat rules! (To coin a phrase)

Now, there's another thought: is powdercoat more fuel-resistant (spelled "e-t-h-a-n-o-l") than the others? I like 'durable' on my own bikes.

Yes it is...It has a far better chemical resistance than paint..

Now the BIG question: does powder come in candy colors?

Yes

[grcamna2]

That's okay with me, as I am a resto-mod kind of guy.  I want it to be better than off the assembly line.

I think you could get it close to stock, but that powder 'molded' look is nice to keep it protected,from what I've seen on other's bikes