Flex XCE 9-8 150 anyone know when it will actually be released ?

[kkritsilas]

First, you argue with what Todd has said about the longer throw, then you say you do not know if it's true !?
Was it Todd who also said that Rupes did not need more power, and then increased it by 30%.

"It is also possible that a 12 to 15mm forced roration DA would be unusable due to either, or both of:"
It is only a speculation, may be true, but still a speculation.

We can not have a discussion, if your speculation is to be taken for truth, I can also speculate, but it does not make them more true than yours.

Also link to Todd's statement so we can get that statement verified

It is posting #1 at this link:

https://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/auto-detailing-101/110329-flex-3401-vs-rupes-mille-makita-p5000c-those-wondering.html


I am not arguing with Todd. What I wrote was Rupes position on throw length on Fixed rotation polishers. That is Rupes'/Todd's position position on that matter. I never said I agree with it, I never said that I don't agree with it. I did say that I wanted to see an objective test between all 3 of the detailing oriented fixed rotation polishers (the Flex XC3401 VRG, the Makita PO5000c, and the Rupes Mille). By that I mean having somebody who really knows how to use polishers (preferably fixed rotation polishers) do a test on a panel using common pads/pad sizes, compounds and polishes, and to the extent possible arm movement. What should not be the same is rotational speed, as the two new fixed rotation polishers are designed with higher OPMs and shorter throws, vs. the older XC3401 with its longer throw and lower OPM. I want to see how the shorter throw higher OPM compare to the longer throw. lower OPM Xc3401 VRG. This will help to prove or disprove,Rupes'/Todd's statement that stroke length is not an important factor in fixed rotation polishers.

Todd's statements regarding the power increase in the Bigfoot Mark II is what is causing me to doubt his statements about the un-importance of stroke length in fixed rotation polishers. My understanding was that the Mark IIs were brought out specifically to address the stalling issues that people were complaining about with the original long stroke Bigfoot polishers. Todd said it wasn't. The guy from AMMO NYC in his videos said it was to reduce stalling by 30%, and most people seem to think that the stalling has been reduced on the Bigfoot Mark IIs. To me in comes down to this: is Rupes' position on fixed rotation stroke length based in engineering, or is it an attempt to play down the longer stroke length of the XC3401 as being less significant than the OPM speed?

As for the points I made regarding longer stroke fixed rotation polishers, you may see that as speculation, where as I tried to make is an extrapolation from what is currently happening in fixed rotation polishers. My logic is as follows: In order to balance out a oscillating weight's momentum, you normally use a counterweight moving in the opposite direction. That weight can be the same weight oscillating the same distance, a heavier weight moving a shorter distance, or a lighter weight moving a longer distance. If you increase the stroke length to 12 or 15 mm, you will need to move the counterweight with the same weight the same distance in the opposite direction, or a much heavier weight a shorter length. In the first case, you increase the size of the polisher in order to be able to accommodate the longer counterweight travel. In the second case, the polisher weight goes up. This is just considering the counterweight, not the need for a bigger, stronger gear train or a bigger motor that can move both the backing plate and the counterweight the greater distance required. So my conclusion would be that the the polisher will be bigger, heavier, and most likely will have much more vibration than the XC3401 (8mm stroke), which already has many complaints regarding its vibration. So, if you would like to counter these points, please do so, but do not call them speculation, as I did think this out prior to writing what I did.

It may be worth your while to ponder the following; Why have the latest fixed rotation polishers REDUCE stroke length if there were any advantage to increasing the stroke length, keeping in mind that they were competing against an established fixed rotation polisher that has had quite a bit of success (the 3401)? Why did two completely independent engineering groups, one in Italy (Rupes) and one in Japan (Makita) both come to the same conclusion regarding stroke length (5.5 mm) and both also increased their OPMs?

P.S. Todd has also brought up some interesting points in postings #165-168 in the above link.

[Deje]

It is posting #1 at this link:

https://www.autogeekonline.net/forum/auto-detailing-101/110329-flex-3401-vs-rupes-mille-makita-p5000c-those-wondering.html


I am not arguing with Todd. What I wrote was Rupes position on throw length on Fixed rotation polishers. That is Rupes'/Todd's position position on that matter. I never said I agree with it, I never said that I don't agree with it. I did say that I wanted to see an objective test between all 3 of the detailing oriented fixed rotation polishers (the Flex XC3401 VRG, the Makita PO5000c, and the Rupes Mille). By that I mean having somebody who really knows how to use polishers (preferably fixed rotation polishers) do a test on a panel using common pads/pad sizes, compounds and polishes, and to the extent possible arm movement. What should not be the same is rotational speed, as the two new fixed rotation polishers are designed with higher OPMs and shorter throws, vs. the older XC3401 with its longer throw and lower OPM. I want to see how the shorter throw higher OPM compare to the longer throw. lower OPM Xc3401 VRG. This will help to prove or disprove,Rupes'/Todd's statement that stroke length is not an important factor in fixed rotation polishers.

Todd's statements regarding the power increase in the Bigfoot Mark II is what is causing me to doubt his statements about the un-importance of stroke length in fixed rotation polishers. My understanding was that the Mark IIs were brought out specifically to address the stalling issues that people were complaining about with the original long stroke Bigfoot polishers. Todd said it wasn't. The guy from AMMO NYC in his videos said it was to reduce stalling by 30%, and most people seem to think that the stalling has been reduced on the Bigfoot Mark IIs. To me in comes down to this: is Rupes' position on fixed rotation stroke length based in engineering, or is it an attempt to play down the longer stroke length of the XC3401 as being less significant than the OPM speed?

As for the points I made regarding longer stroke fixed rotation polishers, you may see that as speculation, where as I tried to make is an extrapolation from what is currently happening in fixed rotation polishers. My logic is as follows: In order to balance out a oscillating weight's momentum, you normally use a counterweight moving in the opposite direction. That weight can be the same weight oscillating the same distance, a heavier weight moving a shorter distance, or a lighter weight moving a longer distance. If you increase the stroke length to 12 or 15 mm, you will need to move the counterweight with the same weight the same distance in the opposite direction, or a much heavier weight a shorter length. In the first case, you increase the size of the polisher in order to be able to accommodate the longer counterweight travel. In the second case, the polisher weight goes up. This is just considering the counterweight, not the need for a bigger, stronger gear train or a bigger motor that can move both the backing plate and the counterweight the greater distance required. So my conclusion would be that the the polisher will be bigger, heavier, and most likely will have much more vibration than the XC3401 (8mm stroke), which already has many complaints regarding its vibration. So, if you would like to counter these points, please do so, but do not call them speculation, as I did think this out prior to writing what I did.

It may be worth your while to ponder the following; Why have the latest fixed rotation polishers REDUCE stroke length if there were any advantage to increasing the stroke length, keeping in mind that they were competing against an established fixed rotation polisher that has had quite a bit of success (the 3401)? Why did two completely independent engineering groups, one in Italy (Rupes) and one in Japan (Makita) both come to the same conclusion regarding stroke length (5.5 mm) and both also increased their OPMs?

P.S. Todd has also brought up some interesting points in postings #165-168 in the above link.

Making a machine with less throw but with higher OPM means that the risks increase with the machine, it is more like a rotary.
It is therefore a machine with a longer throw but with a lower OPM is preferred, such as Flex 3401.
As said flex 3401 is well balanced, both for paint correction but also for safe use.

Both machines (Rupes, Makita) really feel like anti-climax,I was hoping for something more fun.

[Mike@ShineStruck]

You're also increasing RPM, not just OPM
my test showed me the PO5000c corrects faster then my 3401 with a test panel and 1000 grit sanding marks..

Should someone buy for that sole reason if they already have a 3401.....nope..but there are other good reasons to.