Flex Review XC 3401

[Deep Gloss Auto Salon]

I have over 100 hours on my flex and as stated only use it for one steps so, my opinion is not one of a person who has not extensively used the flex.. In my eyes the finish my rotary produces is superior.

Does is do great work = heck yes, will most people be satisfied with it, yes can I see a noticeable difference in finish, yes...

Maybe I am just not as smart as most but the way I see it a jiggiling motion will never create a perfect finish as compared to a circular movement.

Although you may not think you see it I am fairly confident that the jiggling motion by nature creates microscopic inclusions that while may not be noticeable to most, does detract from the over all reflectivity (refraction) when compared to a rotary.

[ZoranC]

I have over 100 hours on my flex and as stated only use it for one steps so, my opinion is not one of a person who has not extensively used the flex.. In my eyes the finish my rotary produces is superior.

Does is do great work = heck yes, will most people be satisfied with it, yes can I see a noticeable difference in finish, yes...

Maybe I am just not as smart as most but the way I see it a jiggiling motion will never create a perfect finish as compared to a circular movement.

Although you may not think you see it I am fairly confident that the jiggling motion by nature creates microscopic inclusions that while may not be noticeable to most, does detract from the over all reflectivity (refraction) when compared to a rotary.

1. I assume you have not looked at the surface processed correctly by Flex and rotary under microscope to be able to say with 100% confidence there are "microscopic inclusions that detract from overall reflectivity". Am I correct in my assumption?

2. I assume you haven't measured reflectivity of the surfaces procssed by rotary vs Flex to be able to make firm statement which method results in higher reflectivity. Am I correct in my assumption?

3. You are forgetting that 3401 is not "jiggling". It has rotary component too.

4. Last, but far from least, laws of physics dictate that overall reflectivity is maximized when surface is reflecting light to maximum in all directions. It is a common sense random orbit will give better uniformity to surface, thus higher reflectivity, in that regard. Those that do not trust that and do not have access to expensive equipment can do simple test themselves and get an answer for themselves:

Take piece of wood and imagine that is your clear coat/paint. Now sand it with rotary sander. It sure removes wood fast but no matter how hard you tried to make it uniform you will notice once you drag fingers across surface that it is still relatively "rough". "Rough" surfaces sure do not result in maximum reflection.

Now take a random orbit sander to same surface, repeat same process and same test. Much smoother under your fingers, isn't it? And we all know laws of physics dictate that flatter (smoother) surface will reflect more.

Thus we have just proven that surface properly done with random orbit should result in higher reflectivity than one with pure rotary action. Unless there are those vague "microscopic inclusions".

But those "microscopic inclusions" you are venturing to assume might be there, could it that your assumption is based on experiences with PC not breaking down the polish and you could be forgetting 3401 is not the PC, neither by power nor by design? When was the last time you have seen anybody reporting "half moons" or anything like that with Flex? I have never. What about you? Have you seen them during your use?

I wish I had access to reflectometer and microscope so I can bust this myth once for good. If I had it I would also love to test few of my theories about roles of orbit size and path pattern type.

[budman3]

1. I assume you have not looked at the surface processed correctly by Flex and rotary under microscope to be able to say with 100% confidence there are "microscopic inclusions that detract from overall reflectivity". Am I correct in my assumption?

2. I assume you haven't measured reflectivity of the surfaces procssed by rotary vs Flex to be able to make firm statement which method results in higher reflectivity. Am I correct in my assumption?

3. You are forgetting that 3401 is not "jiggling". It has rotary component too.

4. Last, but far from least, laws of physics dictate that overall reflectivity is maximized when surface is reflecting light to maximum in all directions. It is a common sense random orbit will give better uniformity to surface, thus higher reflectivity, in that regard. Those that do not trust that and do not have access to expensive equipment can do simple test themselves and get an answer for themselves:

Take piece of wood and imagine that is your clear coat/paint. Now sand it with rotary sander. It sure removes wood fast but no matter how hard you tried to make it uniform you will notice once you drag fingers across surface that it is still relatively "rough". "Rough" surfaces sure do not result in maximum reflection.

Now take a random orbit sander to same surface, repeat same process and same test. Much smoother under your fingers, isn't it? And we all know laws of physics dictate that flatter (smoother) surface will reflect more.

Thus we have just proven that surface properly done with random orbit should result in higher reflectivity than one with pure rotary action. Unless there are those vague "microscopic inclusions".

But those "microscopic inclusions" you are venturing to assume might be there, could it that your assumption is based on experiences with PC not breaking down the polish and you could be forgetting 3401 is not the PC, neither by power nor by design? When was the last time you have seen anybody reporting "half moons" or anything like that with Flex? I have never. What about you? Have you seen them during your use?

I wish I had access to reflectometer and microscope so I can bust this myth once for good. If I had it I would also love to test few of my theories about roles of orbit size and path pattern type.

Hmm, valid points and some good food for thought ...

[MadOzodi]

I love my Flex 3401. I use my UDM whenever I need to get to the smaller spots with a 4" or 3.5" pad. I loved my 3401 even moreso when I mated it with a LC Purple Foamed Wool pad to get rid of 5+ years of crap (etching, swirls, etc.) using only Menz SIP. Without a paint thickness gauge (PTG), I'm glad I have a 3401. However, if I were ever to get a PTG, and start to correct more cars than just my own and a couple others, I wouldn't think twice about moving up to a rotary. As far as which rotary, I'm not sure. Would a rotary have cut the time it took for me to complete that correction (just a trunk, mind you)? Without a doubt in my mind.

IMO, even though I own a 3401, were I to do it over again, I'd go straight from a PC/UDM to a rotary.

[ASPHALT ROCKET]

Zoran, I have split a hood and trunk and the rotary always has the best finish. You are the reason I picked up a flex, but honestly the rotary does a bettery job in leveling the paint which in turn gives you a better finish. Everyone has a favorite tool they use and yours is the Flex, the rotary is my favorite one because it produces the best results.

[ZoranC]

Zoran, I have split a hood and trunk and the rotary always has the best finish. You are the reason I picked up a flex, but honestly the rotary does a bettery job in leveling the paint which in turn gives you a better finish. Everyone has a favorite tool they use and yours is the Flex, the rotary is my favorite one because it produces the best results.

Asphalt, I believe you that your particular result turned out better with rotary on that hood.

However, I do not feel one person's result on one hood can be extended to all users on all cars all the time.

I have finished panels with rotary, Flex, Cyclo, and few other tools. Results were indistinguishable to a point of reaching hair splitting (if we don't count times when holograms were a giveaway of rotary use and need for much higher skill when using rotary). Actually, on some paints I had impression finishing with Cyclo was giving me higher gloss.

But any evaluation/judging done by same person that has performed work can be biased by subconcious preference for certain tool. So I might be biased toward Flex and Cyclo but by that same token you might be biased toward rotary.

Only way to know for sure is to get rotary person and Flex person together, split the area and then invite at least several experienced people to judge without anybody knowing which part was done with what, and then have results confirmed with reflection measurement.

Everything I have seen so far indicates opinions will be split about equally. And if we have reached that point we can say that for all practical purposes finish produced by Flex is equal to finish produced by rotary.

[loudog2]

I'll donate a couple of my family members cars, that are in horrible shape, for your fight(testing). It'll save me the time

[ZoranC]

I'll donate a couple of my family members cars, that are in horrible shape, for your fight(testing). It'll save me the time

Thank you for your generous offer! However, I already volunteered my own cars, sorry

[loudog2]

Just rying to be helpful. I thought I would give it a shot. Doesn't hurt to ask.

[MadOzodi]

... and without doubt in my mind rotary with FWP and SIP would not take you any faster to LSP than 3401 did. But you know, I wish all the people that venture to guess where pinata is would instead just simply get a factual hands on answer, something like divide the vehicle in two halves and have an actual go at it measuring time.

Interesting...obviously, there are other factors involved in my conclusion. I have used a rotary (Hitachi) on only a 2x2 section of a car and wasn't comfortable with it; skippin around everywhere. IMO, just seeing the way a polish is worked by a rotary vs the 3401 makes you think that it's doing more in less time. A handful of us got together earlier in the year at a meet and polished a car. I was using my 3401, littlemissGTO was using a Makita, and there was also another rotary and 3401 being used. It would have been nice to do a comparison on time spent vs end result, but none of us thought about doing it at the time.