A full polishing range.
From cutting and one-step correction to final finishing.
Estimate paint-correction work from the distribution of defects and surface types instead of relying only on vehicle size or a single test spot.
Updated · NANOLAB Knowledge

Two vehicles of the same size can require very different correction work. Defect depth, repairs, geometry and the requested finish determine the process. A zone-based estimate makes those differences visible.
Group areas by surface condition and required method, not merely by panel name. For example, broad lightly marked paint, heavily affected lower sections and uncertain repaired panels may need separate assessment.
Choose a suitable test area within each important condition. Record the supported process, accepted outcome and remaining limitations. Do not extrapolate the easiest flat section to every contour.
| Zone | Estimate input |
|---|---|
| Routine correction | Area and demonstrated process time |
| Complex geometry | Tool changes and access time |
| Uncertain condition | Assessment allowance and decision point |
| Whole job | Preparation, cleanup and inspection |
An estimate might assume that most paint responds like the accepted test areas, with a defined allowance for different sections. If an unexpected repair is found, use the agreed scope-review process rather than silently increasing aggressiveness to stay on schedule.
Record where time differed and why. Over several jobs, this improves quoting more effectively than adding a blanket percentage to every vehicle.
The customer should understand the intended finish and exclusions, while the workshop retains a practical production plan. Vehicle size remains useful, but it is one input rather than a substitute for inspecting the paint.
Ask NANOLAB about your surface and intended use. For application and care, use the current instructions for the exact product.

A Defect Pareto Chart for a Polishing Workshop