Amazing content. Took a lunch brake from polishing and now I'm excited to go and finish the car and I know I will save time with this New knowledge! Thank you! 🤩
Solid video as always. Looking forward to seeing a demonstration explaining #5. The explanation sounds good on paper but when my rotation stops, typically the orbit screeches to a halt as well
Thanks for commenting... can you please expand a little for us? With an orbital tool the orbit is locked to the tools motor, so unless you are able to stop the motor from running the orbit cannot be stopped. The rotation is, however, not driven so it is completely possible to stall rotation.
@@RUPES thanks for the reply. So the orbit doesn't stop, it just appears to go much slower and produce less correcting ability. The takeaway I had from the explanation given for Myth #5 was that stalling isn't a bad thing for correction. A cool next step would be to physically compare the cutting ability of a "stalled" pad vs an uninhibited pad. Or maybe I completely misunderstood Myth #5
@@derek723 Thats a good video idea and we'll see what we can do. The takeaway should be that rotation stall is only a small overall component of correction. Many people falsely panic when they see momentary pad stall. With as little as it contributes to correction rate it really isn't the thing to be worried about. Long term pad stall (like doing a whole car without rotation) can overheat pads very quickly as rotation helps immensely with cooling. The main adjustment you should consider with rotation stall is pressure, and while you might assume less, the actual recommendation is to INCREASE pressure. Compressing the pad a little more and translating more of the tools movement will help. You should also experiment with manipulating pad angle and tool speed to compensate. We're not saying that you shouldn't try for rotation whenever possible, just that when you lose it momentarily it isn't as big a deal as many detailers seem to believe it is.
so if u average the added correction percentage with rotation @ 120 rpm, that is, 25+20+14+5, it comes down to 16%. It means you still have 84% correcting ability with the orbit action only.
Wool, all other things being equal, will have more cutting ability than the equivalent foam pads. Speaking in general terms, in most common scenarios, foam is the least aggressive, wool is more aggressive than foam, and microfiber is more aggressive than wool.
I had orange peel removal project from white transporter. The clearcoat was rockhard and i used rupes rotary with 180mm twisted wool. It removed defects nicely but then i added 5" backing plate and blue wool on to my 21 mk3 and i did cut just as much if not more while leaving better finish. Offcourse 230mm pad can cover larger area than 130mm. SO what is your official opinion using 5" backing plate on 359 skorpio?
Sander balance, because the smaller orbits involved, is much less of a concern. Obviously we spend considerable time making sure the tool is low vibration, but the tolerance for the backing plate and consumable range is wider as there is less offset to manage. The Skorpio sander is available stock with a 125mm (5") plate using the part code RH329 instead of RH359. It is the same tool except it comes equipped with the 980.015N backing plate. If you want to run a smaller plate on your Skorpio simply order that plate and swap it in.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Definitely always best when you can be proficient with all the different types of tools, then you can choose whatever is best for the particular surface or situation.
This is certainly true on "older" paint technologies - the specifics of this discussion were related to modern multi-part catalyzed clear, which cannot return to a liquid once it is cured.
To what degree? A 2 part catalyzed clear has outgassed and cannot “melt”. Introduction of high heat can cause damage and at a high enough degree reduce the material to ash, but it will never “reflow” as in liquify.
The video I get is that rotation has minimal impact. If that’s the case, why did Rupes go with a more powerful motor with the Mark II? To “please” people?
First - to clarify the Mark II and Mark III motor did not get "more power" it is still a 500watt motor as it was with the first generation. We made it 30% more efficient, allowing it to deliver more RPM output with the same wattage consumption. Rotation has minimal impact on correction, but it is still an impact, so to maintain peak performance rotation is desired. The myth is "IF ITS NOT ROTATING ITS NOT CORRECTING" and that is busted, but in the search for optimal performance a more efficient motor gave the tool higher speed potential, even if only by a small margin when considering only correcting power. The other aspect that rotation helps with that is not discussed in the video is cooling - when rotation is stalled heat builds up much faster. Short term stall is not an issue, long term stall is. Think of the rotational movement as the 'radiator' and frankly speaking is probably the more valuable addition it makes to the overall equation. The end result of the improved efficiency in the 2nd and 3rd gen tools is that the tool can run optimally in the middle-speed range vs. the top end as typically required with the first gen tools. Now speed 5 and 6 can be reserved for situations where they're needed and the tool does its best work in the middle range. If you haven't watched yet, go check out our RUPES Replies episode on recommended tool speeds! Thanks for commenting!
It won't polish the same - a panel that is heated up too much is actually much more difficult to polish due to paint swell and the effects of heat on the compound/pad as it interferes with cycle times. Heat is a mostly unwanted byproduct of polishing (a friction-based process) not a benefit to it.
Completely disagree with the statement that rotary pad velocity varies dependin on what part of the pad you are talking about. Velocity is all the same, speed is all the same from the center of the pad to the very outer edges; furthermore, that's why we refer to it as rates per minute, RPM. If you disagree, grab a sharpe and put a dot in the center, and a dot on the edge and turn on the machine-- dots always stay in the same spot and the speeds of the dots stay the same. Distance traveled on the other hand, is a different matter. But the outer edges of the pad vs the center, has more cut or it covers more distance (more area touched). That's why worn foam pads often bow out on the edges due to the wear and tear from higher speed polishing.
@user sony Yes. That is exactly what we are saying. You are probably confusing ORBITS per minute and ROTATIONS per minute. With an dual-action orbital tool the driven movement is the orbit, so on something like the LHR15 Mark III the ORBITS PER MINUTE (OPM) are anywhere between 3000 and 5200 depending on the speed setting of the tool. The ROTATIONS PER MINUTE (RPM) are not driven, and generated by centripetal force, bearing friction, and then manipulated by operator/situational inputs such as downpressure, angle, surface drag, pad weight, etc. Proper application of a large stroke random orbital tool has the operator manipulating rotation rate to be somewhere in the range of 45-60 ROTATIONS per minute. The orbits are controlled entirely by the speed setting on the tool and are not subject to change by user input. The segment of the presentation you're referring to is disproving the argument that when an large-orbit dual-action polisher doesn't generate rotation it is not working. The math works out, as you saw, that in the ideal operating conditions around 60rpm contributes a very small percentage to the overall tool movement. We stretch that math out to 120rpm (way over what would be considered normal or even effective) to further prove that even in that situation with the rotation whipping around at 2x per second the overall movement added to the total is relatively low as the ORBIT is the dominant movement in this scenario. Hope that clarifies things for you. If you have additional questions or need further explanation of the concept please reach out directly to our team. The contact info for our global and North American offices can be found in the video description. 👍🏼
Based on loads of personal experience in a professional setting...the FLEX 3401 corrects faster than the Rupes 15. This difference is most evident on the concave areas like a BMW hood and is hardly recognizable on flat areas. You will be less tired at the end of the day from running the Rupes. That day will be shorter with the Flex.
Respectfully disagree, however, if you are loyal to a gear driven movement we offer the LK900E Mille which has higher pad velocity and rotates in the correct direction so you don’t have to use Flex 😉
Yes. If you have the skill and know how. Rock the rotary and Rupes 15 BF DA. Double tap. With a fine wax by hand. Oofaah! $300 + 50 tip in 3 hrs. Salut!
![BigFoot 101: The Test Spot [Chapter 04]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N1Zoc2W2Tbo/mqdefault.jpg)
![BigFoot 101: The Test Spot [Chapter 04]](/img/tr.png)
![Polishing Difficult to Finish Paint - [RUPES Replies Season 02 Episode 02]](/img/n.gif)
i have no words , another scientifically documented presentation
Wow, the information about pad stall was very helpful! Thanks! The math makes a lot of sense.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Excellent presentation. I learned alot today.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Amazing content. Took a lunch brake from polishing and now I'm excited to go and finish the car and I know I will save time with this New knowledge! Thank you! 🤩
That’s awesome! Thanks for watching and commenting.
Solid video as always. Looking forward to seeing a demonstration explaining #5. The explanation sounds good on paper but when my rotation stops, typically the orbit screeches to a halt as well
Thanks for commenting... can you please expand a little for us? With an orbital tool the orbit is locked to the tools motor, so unless you are able to stop the motor from running the orbit cannot be stopped. The rotation is, however, not driven so it is completely possible to stall rotation.
@@RUPES thanks for the reply. So the orbit doesn't stop, it just appears to go much slower and produce less correcting ability. The takeaway I had from the explanation given for Myth #5 was that stalling isn't a bad thing for correction. A cool next step would be to physically compare the cutting ability of a "stalled" pad vs an uninhibited pad. Or maybe I completely misunderstood Myth #5
@@derek723 Thats a good video idea and we'll see what we can do.
The takeaway should be that rotation stall is only a small overall component of correction. Many people falsely panic when they see momentary pad stall. With as little as it contributes to correction rate it really isn't the thing to be worried about. Long term pad stall (like doing a whole car without rotation) can overheat pads very quickly as rotation helps immensely with cooling.
The main adjustment you should consider with rotation stall is pressure, and while you might assume less, the actual recommendation is to INCREASE pressure. Compressing the pad a little more and translating more of the tools movement will help. You should also experiment with manipulating pad angle and tool speed to compensate. We're not saying that you shouldn't try for rotation whenever possible, just that when you lose it momentarily it isn't as big a deal as many detailers seem to believe it is.
Very helpful information. Thanks!
Thanks for watching. Glad it was useful.
Excellent content and presentation!
Thank you. We're glad you found it useful!
Learned alot!
so if u average the added correction percentage with rotation @ 120 rpm, that is, 25+20+14+5, it comes down to 16%. It means you still have 84% correcting ability with the orbit action only.
What is the difference between the wool pad and the foam pad for cutting
Wool, all other things being equal, will have more cutting ability than the equivalent foam pads. Speaking in general terms, in most common scenarios, foam is the least aggressive, wool is more aggressive than foam, and microfiber is more aggressive than wool.
I had orange peel removal project from white transporter. The clearcoat was rockhard and i used rupes rotary with 180mm twisted wool. It removed defects nicely but then i added 5" backing plate and blue wool on to my 21 mk3 and i did cut just as much if not more while leaving better finish. Offcourse 230mm pad can cover larger area than 130mm.
SO what is your official opinion using 5" backing plate on 359 skorpio?
Sander balance, because the smaller orbits involved, is much less of a concern. Obviously we spend considerable time making sure the tool is low vibration, but the tolerance for the backing plate and consumable range is wider as there is less offset to manage. The Skorpio sander is available stock with a 125mm (5") plate using the part code RH329 instead of RH359. It is the same tool except it comes equipped with the 980.015N backing plate. If you want to run a smaller plate on your Skorpio simply order that plate and swap it in.
What is the difference between wool pads and fome pads
this is gold 👌
Get a rotary and a Rupes Bigfoot Da. Learn both with pads and products. Nothing will stop you!
Thanks for watching and commenting. Definitely always best when you can be proficient with all the different types of tools, then you can choose whatever is best for the particular surface or situation.
I can run the mark 3 21mm at speed 2.5 with nice results! Now let me buy those new pads and polishes.
Do you run a 5” backing plate?
No, 6”
I'm a French polisher, you can heat the lacquer and fill scratches 100%.
But not with polishing and not with heat.
This is certainly true on "older" paint technologies - the specifics of this discussion were related to modern multi-part catalyzed clear, which cannot return to a liquid once it is cured.
Please expand on this
To what degree? A 2 part catalyzed clear has outgassed and cannot “melt”. Introduction of high heat can cause damage and at a high enough degree reduce the material to ash, but it will never “reflow” as in liquify.
@@RUPES sorry I was talking about the pre cat lacquer
The video I get is that rotation has minimal impact. If that’s the case, why did Rupes go with a more powerful motor with the Mark II? To “please” people?
First - to clarify the Mark II and Mark III motor did not get "more power" it is still a 500watt motor as it was with the first generation. We made it 30% more efficient, allowing it to deliver more RPM output with the same wattage consumption.
Rotation has minimal impact on correction, but it is still an impact, so to maintain peak performance rotation is desired. The myth is "IF ITS NOT ROTATING ITS NOT CORRECTING" and that is busted, but in the search for optimal performance a more efficient motor gave the tool higher speed potential, even if only by a small margin when considering only correcting power. The other aspect that rotation helps with that is not discussed in the video is cooling - when rotation is stalled heat builds up much faster. Short term stall is not an issue, long term stall is. Think of the rotational movement as the 'radiator' and frankly speaking is probably the more valuable addition it makes to the overall equation.
The end result of the improved efficiency in the 2nd and 3rd gen tools is that the tool can run optimally in the middle-speed range vs. the top end as typically required with the first gen tools. Now speed 5 and 6 can be reserved for situations where they're needed and the tool does its best work in the middle range. If you haven't watched yet, go check out our RUPES Replies episode on recommended tool speeds! Thanks for commenting!
RUPES thanks for the awesome reply.
It is difficult to comprehend that cool surface will polish the same as the one that has heat generated in it.
It won't polish the same - a panel that is heated up too much is actually much more difficult to polish due to paint swell and the effects of heat on the compound/pad as it interferes with cycle times. Heat is a mostly unwanted byproduct of polishing (a friction-based process) not a benefit to it.
Completely disagree with the statement that rotary pad velocity varies dependin on what part of the pad you are talking about. Velocity is all the same, speed is all the same from the center of the pad to the very outer edges; furthermore, that's why we refer to it as rates per minute, RPM. If you disagree, grab a sharpe and put a dot in the center, and a dot on the edge and turn on the machine-- dots always stay in the same spot and the speeds of the dots stay the same. Distance traveled on the other hand, is a different matter.
But the outer edges of the pad vs the center, has more cut or it covers more distance (more area touched). That's why worn foam pads often bow out on the edges due to the wear and tear from higher speed polishing.
12:45 i want that polisher can melt the paint into liquid
OK, i'm scratching my head about RPM's of a Oribital polisher. You say 60-120 RPM is common? No way
@user sony Yes. That is exactly what we are saying.
You are probably confusing ORBITS per minute and ROTATIONS per minute. With an dual-action orbital tool the driven movement is the orbit, so on something like the LHR15 Mark III the ORBITS PER MINUTE (OPM) are anywhere between 3000 and 5200 depending on the speed setting of the tool. The ROTATIONS PER MINUTE (RPM) are not driven, and generated by centripetal force, bearing friction, and then manipulated by operator/situational inputs such as downpressure, angle, surface drag, pad weight, etc. Proper application of a large stroke random orbital tool has the operator manipulating rotation rate to be somewhere in the range of 45-60 ROTATIONS per minute. The orbits are controlled entirely by the speed setting on the tool and are not subject to change by user input.
The segment of the presentation you're referring to is disproving the argument that when an large-orbit dual-action polisher doesn't generate rotation it is not working. The math works out, as you saw, that in the ideal operating conditions around 60rpm contributes a very small percentage to the overall tool movement. We stretch that math out to 120rpm (way over what would be considered normal or even effective) to further prove that even in that situation with the rotation whipping around at 2x per second the overall movement added to the total is relatively low as the ORBIT is the dominant movement in this scenario.
Hope that clarifies things for you. If you have additional questions or need further explanation of the concept please reach out directly to our team. The contact info for our global and North American offices can be found in the video description. 👍🏼
Based on loads of personal experience in a professional setting...the FLEX 3401 corrects faster than the Rupes 15. This difference is most evident on the concave areas like a BMW hood and is hardly recognizable on flat areas.
You will be less tired at the end of the day from running the Rupes. That day will be shorter with the Flex.
Respectfully disagree, however, if you are loyal to a gear driven movement we offer the LK900E Mille which has higher pad velocity and rotates in the correct direction so you don’t have to use Flex 😉
Yes. If you have the skill and know how. Rock the rotary and Rupes 15 BF DA. Double tap. With a fine wax by hand. Oofaah! $300 + 50 tip in 3 hrs. Salut!