# Triple Thick Poly



## woodcoyote (Dec 30, 2012)

Hey has anyone ever used this stuff before? Just saw this at HD.

Just curious.


----------



## sincere painter (Apr 14, 2010)

Revelational.


----------



## Lambrecht (Feb 8, 2010)

It is my understanding that several thin layers is stronger and more durable than one thick layer.


----------



## woodcoyote (Dec 30, 2012)

Lambrecht said:


> It is my understanding that several thin layers is stronger and more durable than one thick layer.


I'm curious to just see the data or results. The thick layers generally doesn't work because of runs etc. But either way it's about the thickness of the film right? That's my assumption. I.e. dry mils.

Maybe rustoleum has come up with a new trick for the bag? Don't know, just curious to see feedback.


----------



## Epoxy Pro (Oct 7, 2012)

I saw this but didn't really look at the can. I need some exterior for my mom's log furniture.


----------



## Jmayspaint (Mar 26, 2013)

Lambrecht said:


> It is my understanding that several thin layers is stronger and more durable than one thick layer.



I've heard that said many times, I wonder what the theory behind that is though? 

Kinda seems like it would be the opposite to me in many cases. It is certainly easier and more likely that you will developed consistent mil build with multiple thin coats, but assuming all that is equal why would layering be advantageous with non reactive coatings? 

Lacquer or shellac melts into itself I guess and doesn't matter how many applications are necessary to build it up as long as you don't exceed the max build that some lacquers have. With something like polly, doesn't it dry into separate films that have to bond to each other? Except for possibly flexibility I can't think what the actual advantage could be. 

Just seems to me one continuous film would have less potential weak points (again, assuming application parameters are the same) than a layering of the same film. I guess it would depend on the particular coating, but quite a few call for one or two thick builds.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

It's a way to market their new lo voc poly and nothing else. They are basically redeveloping their poly from 30 years ago before they started thinning it so much to sell it so cheap. It's about the same thickness as Varathane poly was when it was still an independent company and didn't have to bastardize their product to sell it at the box stores. Nothing really revolutionary. Kind of like triple rolls of toilet paper. All they have done is go back to what was a standard sized roll from the 70's. I have an inset tp holder in my house that i remember as a kid that a roll of tp would be so tight when you first put it in that you couldn't spin the roll. Through the years they have gotten looser and looser. Then suddenly, there was "triple" rolls of tp. They fit tight again. Same kind of idea.


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Is this like 10x Restore?


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Jmayspaint said:


> I've heard that said many times, I wonder what the theory behind that is though?
> 
> Kinda seems like it would be the opposite to me in many cases. It is certainly easier and more likely that you will developed consistent mil build with multiple thin coats, but assuming all that is equal why would layering be advantageous with non reactive coatings?
> 
> ...


I can't speak for wood coatings specifically as it's not my most knowledgeable end of the trade, but for _most_ coatings doing too thick of a coat causes drying issues that can severely effect the long term durability of the coating. Almost all coatings rely on at least some evaporation to dry correctly. In order for evaporation to work, there must be contact with air so there's something to take the water (or alcohol, or what have you) molecules. 

When you layer too thick, the bottom of the coating can't dry as quickly as it's supposed to; this can cause all manner of problems, from adhesion issues to hardness issues, because the bottom has a hard time getting rid of its water (etc) molecules. It's possible this can hinder the formation of the cross-linking bonds that give many paints their durability, as cross-linking requires oxygen from the air as I recall.

It can also cause premature cracking of the coating as the top and bottom contract at different rates when they're trying. You can demonstrate this easily- take a paint can and fill up the top part of the lid with the paint until it reaches the lip. Then let it dry. Come back in a day, and the top will be cracked all to pieces and the bottom will still be mushy.

Again, not sure how much of this is relevant to wood coatings but I have a feeling the idea is similar.


----------



## Jmayspaint (Mar 26, 2013)

DrakeB said:


> I can't speak for wood coatings specifically as it's not my most knowledgeable end of the trade, but for _most_ coatings doing too thick of a coat causes drying issues that can severely effect the long term durability of the coating. Almost all coatings rely on at least some evaporation to dry correctly. In order for evaporation to work, there must be contact with air so there's something to take the water (or alcohol, or what have you) molecules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All that makes good sense, but let me narrow the question a bit. 

Let's assume we're staying within the coatings specifications. Is there any reason to think that a coat of Aura exterior applied at the max WFT of 6.4mil would be weaker than two coats applied at 3.2mil? Or in the case of the Varathane, why would two coats applied at 4.5mil be stronger than one applied at 9? 

Again, let's assume conditions are within spec to allow for proper drying, and that application variances aren't an issue.


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Jmayspaint said:


> All that makes good sense, but let me narrow the question a bit.
> 
> Let's assume we're staying within the coatings specifications. Is there any reason to think that a coat of Aura exterior applied at the max WFT of 6.4mil would be weaker than two coats applied at 3.2mil? Or in the case of the Varathane, why would two coats applied at 4.5mil be stronger than one applied at 9?
> 
> Again, let's assume conditions are within spec to allow for proper drying, and that application variances aren't an issue.


Within spec and assuming you're not having problems with runs/sag thicker is always better imo. If you're having trouble with runs/sag then you might want thinner. This is, of course, assuming you trust the paint company who did the product to have done their due diligence testing the drying (which is fairly reasonable).

Edit: Oh, and assuming you're giving the product proper dry time and applying in proper conditions. In high heat/low humidity, thinner coats can be better sometimes because if you apply thick the outside will dry much faster than normal and can cause the same issues as I mentioned above. This can, of course, be resolved by simply applying in better conditions.


----------



## Jmayspaint (Mar 26, 2013)

DrakeB said:


> Within spec and assuming you're not having problems with runs/sag thicker is always better imo. If you're having trouble with runs/sag then you might want thinner. This is, of course, assuming you trust the paint company who did the product to have done their due diligence testing the drying (which is fairly reasonable).
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Oh, and assuming you're giving the product proper dry time and applying in proper conditions. In high heat/low humidity, thinner coats can be better sometimes because if you apply thick the outside will dry much faster than normal and can cause the same issues as I mentioned above. This can, of course, be resolved by simply applying in better conditions.



I've been using a lot of Aura exterior lately and have been trying to push my WFT as close to 6.4 as I can get. I gotta say, if you can get the film on that thick fairly quickly, it levels almost perfectly. 

It's actually not too bad to run. It's so heavy bodied, provided no extender or water is added, that it stays put pretty well even though it does level out.


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Jmayspaint said:


> I've been using a lot of Aura exterior lately and have been trying to push my WFT as close to 6.4 as I can get. I gotta say, if you can get the film on that thick fairly quickly, it levels almost perfectly.
> 
> It's actually not too bad to run. It's so heavy bodied, provided no extender or water is added, that it stays put pretty well even though it does level out.


Yah, it's a great product. Honestly, at 6.4 mils there'll probably be a house shaped square of paint standing after the building's turned to dust. Stuff is bulletproof.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

Jmayspaint said:


> All that makes good sense, but let me narrow the question a bit.
> 
> Let's assume we're staying within the coatings specifications. Is there any reason to think that a coat of Aura exterior applied at the max WFT of 6.4mil would be weaker than two coats applied at 3.2mil? Or in the case of the Varathane, why would two coats applied at 4.5mil be stronger than one applied at 9?
> 
> Again, let's assume conditions are within spec to allow for proper drying, and that application variances aren't an issue.


It depends on the product and the resins. A catalyzed product like a conversion varnish has a fairly critical film thickness window. With quality poly resins the thickness window is much larger due to more flexibility and a more stable product during the curing period. With an acrylic resin you would actually have a quite large thickness range so putting it on thicker shouldn't effect the durability as opposed to putting on two thinner coats. Again it depends on the quality of the resin. Putting on a heavy coat of a lesser grade acrylic resin can cause mud cracking and other film problems.

But, i really don't think that you would gain any durability one way or the other if the total film thickness is the same. Two coats of cheap paint isn't any better then a double thick coat of the same paint or visa versa.

It's just marketing hype for people that flunk a 20 question IQ test.


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

I mean, in theory at least, all "in spec" means is that the product is going to function correctly- and the majority of that is drying and curing correctly. The answer to the question "how thin/thick can I put this on and still have it work correctly" should be "in spec." As long as you're in spec, thicker should always give a better performance in the end.


----------



## Jmayspaint (Mar 26, 2013)

DrakeB said:


> Yah, it's a great product. Honestly, at 6.4 mils there'll probably be a house shaped square of paint standing after the building's turned to dust. Stuff is bulletproof.



Went back to a house today that I did two and half years ago using Aura exterior on the trim and shutters. Still looks great, even on the sunny sides there appears to be no fading or loss of gloss. One raw wooden screen door I did with two coats of Aura without priming as a test. It's not on the sunny side but is exposed to quite a bit of moisture. It still looks great too, no sign of peeling. 

Unfortunately, the Super Deck Deck&Dock elastomeric applied to the deck hasn't fared as well. 


















This is a two teared deck on the shady side of the house . The lower deck is only a couple feet from the ground. The upper deck was coated on all sides. It has done much better. 

I feared the lower deck may be vulnerable to moisture intrusion, but the customer was willing to give it a shot despite my uncertainty. I felt it was a good opportunity to test the product as it was a fairly small deck system. 

I'm going to try for a warranty claim on the material and try it again, this time I'll do the underside of the lower deck as well. May be beating my head against the wall, but I can't pass up this opportunity for further testing. It seems all these thick acrylic deck coatings are doomed, but I still want to see for myself. 

This is the one and only customer deck I've done with that type of coating. I felt like I had to at least give it a try. 

Random side note, I also tested using exterior wood glue to stop some nasty tannin bleed on a pine garage door casing on that job. It's held perfectly under the Aura.


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Personally, I'd give up on the thick coatings. It's my personal opinion that, in addition to being a terrible coating as far as durability is concerned, it also directly contributes to premature damage of the wood.

I know I've still got a few gallons in my store- I'm selling them to people for concrete where it works a fair bit better. I refuse to sell it to people for wood as I want neither the fiscal nor the moral responsibility for the damage it causes. It was extremely irresponsible for companies to sell it in the first place (and evidence suggests they knew that before it ever hit market for many of them), and I'm not interested in passing on that irresponsibility. Just my 2c.


----------



## Oden (Feb 8, 2012)

This stuff what the idea is to get away with one coat?
New work? The grain is still gonna raise and it's gonna need a sand then a recoat? It's not that thick? So?
The sand and seal is pretty darn thick. I can't think this is much thicker than that. 
Bit the sand and seal it dries in a hour so what's quicker than that. A nice heavy coat that is dry in a hour, sand it smooth and finish it off. 
What's the dry time on that stuff I'd wonder.


----------



## Oden (Feb 8, 2012)

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Varathane-1-qt-Satin-Triple-Thick-Polyurethane-2-Pack-281543/205446734

I see but it's a water based
It's interesting that it claims to 'Amber' some
IMO a major drawback of most water based, they don't 'amber'


----------



## DrakeB (Jun 6, 2011)

Oden said:


> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Varathane-1-qt-Satin-Triple-Thick-Polyurethane-2-Pack-281543/205446734
> 
> I see but it's a water based
> It's interesting that it claims to 'Amber' some
> IMO a major drawback of most water based, they don't 'amber'


I'd guess it's got a tint to it to artificially create the look. Could be wrong, though.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

Jmayspaint said:


> Went back to a house today that I did two and half years ago using Aura exterior on the trim and shutters. Still looks great, even on the sunny sides there appears to be no fading or loss of gloss. One raw wooden screen door I did with two coats of Aura without priming as a test. It's not on the sunny side but is exposed to quite a bit of moisture. It still looks great too, no sign of peeling.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Super Deck Deck&Dock elastomeric applied to the deck hasn't fared as well.
> 
> ...


Naw. Another elastomeric deck product fail? How could that be? Glad i don't sell any.


----------

