Thanks Mr Wiz, but I was replying to my own earlier misstatement.
I think this discussion has gotten too technical for the vast majority of readers here. It has for me. So far, the best (most relevant) info I’ve seen has been Clay’s array of photos, relating scratch patterns to particular stones for empirical data . Maybe it’s just time for an updated version including the current crop of stones and abrasives.
[quote quote=“CliffCurry” post=19721]My questions are in the area of the high grit sandpapers. I am using a combination of papers from 3M that I guess are ANSI, and I found some 2500/3000 grit paper from an auto detail supply company locally. My results are good and consistent and the progression is smooth but on the charts it seems there is now way it could line up.
For example my P2500 paper is much much finer then a 600-800 ANSI paper from 3M. The 3000 grit is so smooth it feels like vellum or something…any help greatly appreciated.[/quote]
I have updated the chart to include ANSI Coated values from B74.18-1996 as sourced from http://www.uama.org/Abrasives101/101Standards.html. This data was apparently available all along but I thought the described click-for-detail function was broken because my browser was set to block pop-up windows. :oops:
Be aware however that high ANSI Coated grit numbers are apparently a deprecated standard as the 2006 revision of B74.18 does not include any values above 600, and the ones it does include match ANSI Bonded values.
Thank you Mr Wizard!
In the last little bit I’ve adopted a less thinking/more doing approach until I can get a scope to see what’s really going on down there.
I’ll check the updated chart n compare to my own results just for clarity where the real world meets the chart taking a grain of salt alongwith the numbers.
I have the chart taped right above my bench and refer it daily for my progression across the different media. It really is invaluable. Much Aloha!
As this chart nears maturity I again ask for feedback on its design and content. All feedback is appreciated but here are some seed questions:
Are there aspects that take too long to understand or remain entirely opaque to you?
Is there a standard or product line that you wish were included that is not?
Would additional common size references such as Table Salt be helpful, or useless clutter?
Are the designations of the red-colored items in certain columns apparent or confusing?
Are the black and orange vertical lines understood and appreciated? Are there too many or too few of them?
Does any data stand out as likely being in error?
Gotta find me those A300 Trizacts in 1 x 42.
I’m guessing their scratch pattern will be minimal compared to other belts.
[quote quote=“zig” post=20296]Gotta find me those A300 Trizacts in 1 x 42.
I’m guessing their scratch pattern will be minimal compared to other belts.[/quote]
1x42-80 A300CF “Gator” 337DC Trizact Aluminum OxideThose are available here: . 3M states that it will finish like an 80 grit belt which is why it is marked as such. Realistically I wouldn’t expect them to cut like a 50 grit belt as (I believe) Trizact belts are intended for finishing, not roughing.
[quote quote=“Mr Wizard” post=20302][quote quote=“zig” post=20296]Gotta find me those A300 Trizacts in 1 x 42.
I’m guessing their scratch pattern will be minimal compared to other belts.[/quote]
1x42-80 A300CF “Gator” 337DC Trizact Aluminum OxideThose are available here: . 3M states that it will finish like an 80 grit belt which is why it is marked as such. Realistically I wouldn’t expect them to cut like a 50 grit belt as (I believe) Trizact belts are intended for finishing, not roughing.[/quote]
Thanks Mr Wizard.
I actually think I have them, not the same as the A100 style where the abrasives are closer together.
They are more the gator style.
They leave scratch patterns similar to other belts.
Hope was that they would have the same tight pattern as the 100 and others.
I’ll pull them out but believe they leave a pretty rough scratch pattern with those large spaced diamonds as they are Gators.
I saw a 160, it may be in the same trizact pattern if I can find it.
Looking for rough work without deep scratches.
The A100s are great, but wear fast.
Let me see if I understand: you want the coarsest non-“Gator” Trizact belt available? Do you know the product number of the (finer) belt that you do like?
Yep.
They produce a finer pattern. I don’t know the number, just saw trizact A300 on the chart and said “do want!” 
Would you mind posting this question in a new thread? I’d rather keep this one more focused, yet I also want to see if I can help you track down a product to try.
No Worries, sorry for hijack.
The chart has been updated to v0.91. As always please see the README for a list of changes.
The chart has been updated to v0.92. As always please see the README for a list of changes.
The chart has been updated to revision 8. Please see README.txt for an extensive list of changes.
The chart has been updated to revision 9. This is a particularly large revision and I welcome comments. Significantly I identified and corrected the error of listing “CAMI” and “ANSI” separately. As always please see README.txt for details. (You may need to to a hard refresh, Shift+F5, to see the change.)
My ISP is changing hands and I have been told to expect spotty service until April. If you get a “403 Forbidden” on the the main directory or any of the files please try a hard refresh, several times if necessary; it is a transient error.
The chart has been updated to revision 10. I would appreciate feedback on the background style change. ISP problems persist; please try a hard reload (Shift+F5) if you get a 403 Forbidden error.
The chart has been updated to revision 12. Try a hard reload (Shift+F5) if you see an older edition.
The chart has been updated to revision 14.
The chart has been updated to revision 15. The directory link in the original post has been broken. Here it is again:
Revision 16 is live. I updated the Wicked Edge values to those currently provided, despite the lack of explanation, as the old page has been removed.