Flex 3401 vs. Rupes Mille/Makita P5000C, for those that are wondering.

[DETAILROOKIE]

Like I told Scott, all in forced rotation and full speed. I ran my Makita BO6040 head to head with the other machines and it was faster and this is maybe half again faster than that.

It took about a quarter of the car to get comfortable with the smaller pad size and shape of the machine but after that it was a joy to use.

RSW

That's great news. Thank you for posting your experience with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Autogeekonline mobile app

[ScottH]

Yes and at 5 with my left hand on the trigger, right hand at the top. Also, very little hand rubbing and no tape.

How are you liking yours?

RSW

Didn't get to use mine yet. Planning to this weekend on mom's Grand Cherokee provided it's back from the shop (fuel gauge broke)

ScottH

[Todd@RUPES]

Per Jason Rose of Rupes -

"9mm or smaller orbit tools will require both movements for performance. But large orbit tools are less dependent on rotation....however best performance is always with both movements."

That's last sentence is the most telling thing Jason Rose said, and as Mike Phillips has said many times. Therefore, I want the most pad rotation I can get = most efficiency. There is no way that pad rotation makes little difference to oscillation with a random orbital.

There isn't a magic switch which flips at 9mm, it's a sliding scale. The less the diameter of the orbit, the more dependent the tool becomes of rotational movement.

A tool produces movement which, with a proper pad, can be converted to mechanical action on the paint's surface. If you have mechanical action, you have the potential for material removal. There for, categorically, I would say the statement "if it ain't, it aint removing paint" is inaccurate, although it may be a generic way of explaining a concept to very very new people firmly.

The the larger the orbital of the tool, the more distance the pad covers per orbit. A 21mm orbit means (every spot on ) the pad moves 66mm per orbit. If we multiply that by 4500 RPM (which the eccentric set would covert to OPM) that equals 297,000 mm per minute, or 29.7 km/h - 11.07 mph.

11 miles per hour is quite a lot of velocity and offers a significant amount of polishing potential. For comparison, a 6.5 inch pad on a rotary, spinning 1500 rpm produces 29 mph on the edge. This is enough to burn your finger in a split second, although most of the polishing action is focused on a sweet spot about an inch from the edge, which is about 24 mph and moving inward to a point that reaches no more than 15 mph. The average area of the pad used to "cut" averages 19 mph.

So the pad velocity of a random orbital polisher with a 21mm orbit, with zero rotation, produces roughly half the usable movement of a rotary with a moderately sized pad at a moderate-to-high rpm. While this might seem overly scientific and overly nerdy (both of which I readily admit), these are really really simple concepts that need to be understood if one desires to get the most out of a random orbital tool.

If any of you follow any of the RUPES employees on social media, you will probably see the frequency in which we are traveling the US (and Central and South America, and the Caribbean) hosting jam packed training classes. Even in our basic class, after we explain the basic concept above, somebody will ask "So can you remove paint defects without rotation", and the answer is YES. And then we show them, of course.

So if the BigFoot 15mm and 21mm (as well as tools that have copied this movement) random orbital polishers generate enough movement at the tool to polish paint, then why is this even a question??

Usually the same issue that is causing the pad to stop rotating might be the same issue which is causing the lack of polishing performance.... What did I just say? Let me try to unpack it.

Imagine you are moving your hand in a big orbital movement, like Mr. Myagi has just told you to wax his entire fleet of pre-war cars. Big circles. When you go to wax the car, you grab a foam pad. Ideally, you would hold the pad flat to the surface and almost all of your arm movement would result in the pad moving an equal distance on the car.

Now lets make the pad a little bigger than your hand and a little taller and softer. Now when you hold it flat, you feel more drag, but once you pick up the slack the pad moves freely until it encounters a curve which plants it like a drag slick. Anybody who has applied wax with too soft or too big a pad knows exactly what I am talking about. Now imagine instead of moving your arms at 50 circles a minute (and getting a good sweat) we can do these circles 4000 times a minute. The drag or resistance on the pad has been multiplied and equal amount.

So if you plant part of the pad against the paint enough to stall rotation, what can happen is the pad binds up internally, and much of the orbital (polishing) movement is lost as well - like a bowl of jello jiggling on itself. To make matters worse, not only have we lost movement (orbital and rotational), but the lost energy is being converted to heat waste inside the pad.

With a large pad and a large diameter orbit it is hard to keep the pad flat (or at least flat to the surface), particularly on concave surfaces. What happens is that the pad might bridge across the gap, create two high spots which stall the rotation and allow the pad to absorb the orbital movement, thus resulting in very little polishing action on the surface and a lot of heat in the pad.

What's one way you can overcome this? Depending on the foam, perhaps a little more pressure. Pressure helps compress the foam, restoring orbital movement to the paint, and in some cases, this can even restore some rotation. With other foams, it might actually plant the tool harder and increase heat built up in the pad. You don't know, unless you try.

With a large diameter random orbital polisher, most of the movement comes from the orbital action. The goal to getting the most of these tools is too think how to harness that movement in the most effective manner possible, often times, but not always these results in pad rotation.

Also, because I have said similar things before, and people have misquoted my statements (or I didn't explain them clearly), I am not saying that rotation is not beneficial. It is a good thing for a number of reasons. With a random orbital polisher, a good blend of orbital and rotational movement is ideal.

[Mike Phillips]

Very well written explanation Todd. You are a very good writer.

somebody will ask

"So can you remove paint defects without rotation",

and the answer is YES.

And then we show them, of course.

I consider myself a perpetual student and that's because I completely understand that new technology is being introduced at such a high speed that the only way to stay up with it is to be open to learning.

That's why I don't believe there's any such thing as an expert. Nobody can know everything at the rate new information is being introduced except for perhaps AI.

I will say I've buffed out a lot of cars in my life and was in this industry when the Porter Cable 7424 and the 7336 were introduced to the car detailing world and have used pretty much all the recognized, popular and talked about polishers on the market.

I've never seen paint defects removed in a timely manner with any free spinning orbital polisher without pad rotation but I'm 100% open to seeing it.

I am not saying that rotation is not beneficial. It is a good thing for a number of reasons. With a random orbital polisher, a good blend of orbital and rotational movement is ideal.

And that's my point. You need both and especially if you want to buff out a car in any acceptable time period.


Again, well written piece Todd. RUPES is lucky to have you as a part of their team.

[DETAILROOKIE]

Very well written explanation Todd. You are a very good writer.





I consider myself a perpetual student and that's because I completely understand that new technology is being introduced at such a high speed that the only way to stay up with it is to be open to learning.

That's why I don't believe there's any such thing as an expert. Nobody can know everything at the rate new information is being introduced except for perhaps AI.

I will say I've buffed out a lot of cars in my life and was in this industry when the Porter Cable 7424 and the 7336 were introduced to the car detailing world and have used pretty much all the recognized, popular and talked about polishers on the market.

I've never seen paint defects removed in a timely manner with any free spinning orbital polisher without pad rotation but I'm 100% open to seeing it.




And that's my point. You need both and especially if you want to buff out a car in any acceptable time period.


Again, well written piece Todd. RUPES is lucky to have you as a part of their team.

I agree, I just finished an F150 with my g15 and there was a spot on the hood that I could not get any pad rotation. To the naked eye it looked like it took off some of the oxidation with just the orbital movement, but when I light up the area with my swirl finder, the oxidation was still there. Perhaps the orbital movement can take off some defects, but it would take forever and not provide the defect free results that pad rotation provides.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Autogeekonline mobile app

[RSW]

Todd,

Thanks for that explanation.

You wrote, "So if you plant part of the pad against the paint enough to stall rotation, what can happen is the pad binds up internally, and much of the orbital (polishing) movement is lost as well - like a bowl of jello jiggling on itself. To make matters worse, not only have we lost movement (orbital and rotational), but the lost energy is being converted to heat waste inside the pad."

Isn't that why Rupes makes their pads thinner and stiffer? And why a long nap wool pad on a random orbital doesn't work well - the fiber of the wool flexes and reduces the amount of movement between the pad and the paint.

Also, it occurs to me that when a random orbital is run with the edge of the pad against a surface and the spin stops, the drop in performance is because that movement at the edge of the pad isn't a full orbit. instead of the full 21mm per orbit which is, Pi X 21mm X 2000RPMs and creates 131,880 mm of movement. you get at the very edge where there is no spin 21mm X 2000RPMs for 42,000 mm of movement - a dramatic drop because the pad is moving back and forth at the edge, not in a full circle. The lack of spin most certainly hurts it that case, but when the pad is flat against a surface it's not the same because even though the pad is stalled, the edges are still getting the full 21mm of movement.

When it comes to random orbital machines, where does the spin come from? How much energy, and therefore polishing action, is in that spin?

RSW

[WRAPT C5Z06]

If pad rotation on a long throw isn't that important, why did Rupes make the Mark II version, which its sole purpose was to increase pad rotation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RSW]

Where does Rupes say increasing spin was the reason for the Mark II?

RSW

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Where does Rupes say increasing spin was the reason for the Mark II?

RSW

https://youtu.be/N59cMTzSbdk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RSW]

https://youtu.be/N59cMTzSbdk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't ask who said it was the reason, I asked where did Rupes the company say it was the reason. They have a list of advantages for the machine but I don't see increased spin among them.

RSW