Rupes 21 -vs- Rupes 21 Mark II

[swanicyouth]

I find it funny that the RUPES owners that were bashing the G21 for having a more powerful motor and it not being necessary because the Rupes machine was better and more efficient, what are they saying now...Rupes changed the motor to a more powerful one????

I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with the BOSS system was always that it was a direct knock off of the Rupes Bigfoot 15 & 21.

The BOSS is prolly a great machine. People seem to like it. But, when you have a relatively small industry like DA polishers specifically designed for automotive paint, it's just a shame some companies choose to take the intellectual property pioneered by others.

The thing is though, the the originators will always end up ahead. SEMA is coming, and I'm sure Rupes has more up its sleeve than the Mk II - or they wounded have waited for SEMA to announce the Mk II.

Sure, more power can be a bonus - but to be quite frank the original BF machines work quite well already. Rupes prolly could have done nothing and continued to sell a ton of machines.

So, for me - the problem with the BOSS was never that it was a poor machine, but sort of an ethical issue. If anyone honestly believes the BOSS' body, throw, spindle mechanism, counterweight, trigger, shroud, system approach, pad design, etc.. aren't direct copies of what never appeared on a DA before Rupes designed them - I think you are kidding yourself.

Maybe most people don't care if it's a copy as long as it's a good machine. But, given the choice - I always like to stick to the original.

 

[Dylan@RUPES]

...Rupes changed the motor to a more powerful one????

Not necessarily a true statement, read this:
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum...nsumption-why-bigger-isn-t-always-better.html
More accurately we redesigned the motor to operate more efficiently.

a) Is there any way to estimate how much improvement there was on curves? In other words, given I am only a weekend warrior and not interested in "focusing too much on technique" do you think the stalling is reduced by 50 percent, 75 percent or 25 percent.

A lot depends on the severity of the curve, but I will say this - I haven't encountered a panel feature that the Mark II stalls rotation on, even if I ignore technique and operate a little more 'ham fisted' than I'm used to.

To quantify it for you, I'd say the MKII can 100% handle the majority of common panel curves that would have stalled the original. Its only going to be in the most extreme cases that it can't overcome it.

b) Do you think this tool would work for newbies or weekend warriors who are clearly only taking care of their own rides. Or is this tool geared more to the professional detailer / body shops (where I believe Rupes wants to take their business).

Hard to say... if you'd asked me this same question a decade ago I'd have never predicted the 'weekend warriors' adopting tool technology in this price range in the first place.

Professionals, who stand to benefit from the increased performance in terms of decreased time to complete a job, its a no brainer.

For the weekend warrior... just depends on their budget and how into the hobby they are. I have friends that won't go beyond a HF DA b/c they only polish 1 car a handful of times a year and it gets the job done. I have other friends that have an entire collection of RUPES tools and they're just hobbyists.

In terms of user friendliness, it still hits the sweet spot in that its safe for an inexperienced user to pickup and use, yet powerful enough to do real work in the hands of a skilled pro.

Thx for any comments and the very fact that we have heard from multiple members of Rupes (and nothing from Flex) shows the significant attention to customer issues and that is a company I want to do business with.

Thanks for asking the questions, we're always happy to engage. A large part of my reason for coming to work for RUPES was the company philosophy of customer engagement. :dblthumb2:

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Thank you both Todd and Dylan for the responses. As you commented, you can stall the machine on a concave at an angle but I am considering a go all in with Rupes if you can generally answer the following:

You are welcome, but no need to thank us. I get to talk about stuff I'm passionate about and some how this is called a job. :dblthumb2:

a) Is there any way to estimate how much improvement there was on curves? In other words, given I am only a weekend warrior and not interested in "focusing too much on technique" do you think the stalling is reduced by 50 percent, 75 percent or 25 percent.

It really is an impossible question to answer accurately because of the huge amount of variables that could be involved without even considering technique. Basically it is an infinity x's infinity ='s question.

However, I have yet to use the Mk.II tools on a concave that compromised rotation. Too be honest, I find myself wanting the LHR15ES far more as the 6-inch pad and 15 mm throw make this tool a sweetheart for any surface I have encountered thus far.

But depending on the angle of the concave, the tool can easily be more than 100% more forgiving of technique. (I don't know what that means, but I just wanted to state a percentage). :dblthumb2:

b) Do you think this tool would work for newbies or weekend warriors who are clearly only taking care of their own rides. Or is this tool geared more to the professional detailer / body shops (where I believe Rupes wants to take their business).

One of the biggest benefits of the large throw random orbital technology is that anybody with minimal training can achieve world-class results. Move it slow/ hold it flat/ enjoy. In this regard, the BigFoot Mk.I and Mk.II's are perfect for newbies and weekend warriors who want to create a true swirl free finish quickly without damaging their paint.

Thx for any comments and the very fact that we have heard from multiple members of Rupes shows the significant attention to customer issues and that is a company I want to do business with.

Again, no need to thank us but your comment is appreciated. Both Dylan and myself have years of customer service experience (I was with Proper Auto Care and PBMG's Autopia division for 3 years and Dylan was the man behind Adam's Polishers for just as long). Add Jason Rose to the mix and we have the personal to actively engage in online discussions.

In fact, all three of us love to do it. :dblthumb2:

 

[7.3powerstroke]

Todd, I like how you mentioned you really like the 15 these days. I believe Dylan also said the 15 is his favorite tool most of the time. I already have a Rupes 21 and also a 21 from another company. It sounds like a new 15 would fit me just right.

 

[jms493]

I am in for saving time. I like the PC but it takes lots of passes to achieve desirable results. With 2 young kids my time is valuable to me. If price is right i will jump in with a 15 inch model.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[VISITOR]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my issue with the BOSS system was always that it was a direct knock off of the Rupes Bigfoot 15 & 21.

The BOSS is prolly a great machine. People seem to like it. But, when you have a relatively small industry like DA polishers specifically designed for automotive paint, it's just a shame some companies choose to take the intellectual property pioneered by others.

The thing is though, the the originators will always end up ahead. SEMA is coming, and I'm sure Rupes has more up its sleeve than the Mk II - or they wounded have waited for SEMA to announce the Mk II.

Sure, more power can be a bonus - but to be quite frank the original BF machines work quite well already. Rupes prolly could have done nothing and continued to sell a ton of machines.

So, for me - the problem with the BOSS was never that it was a poor machine, but sort of an ethical issue. If anyone honestly believes the BOSS' body, throw, spindle mechanism, counterweight, trigger, shroud, system approach, pad design, etc.. aren't direct copies of what never appeared on a DA before Rupes designed them - I think you are kidding yourself.

Maybe most people don't care if it's a copy as long as it's a good machine. But, given the choice - I always like to stick to the original.

Thats the great thing about this forum, you're entitled to your own opinion as everyone else is...

 

[Garagehack]

Read through the whole thing but did not see a release date for the MrkII. Did I miss it? When will this thing ship?

I am thinking of throwing a 5" backing plate on my first gen 21 and buying the MrkII for the 6-7" pads. Probably easier for the first gen 21 to keep a 5" pad spinning than the larger pads. What do you guys think?

 

[fotomatt1]

Any chance the internals of the Mk I will be upgradable to make it a Mk II without buying a whole new machine? Would be great if Rupes could put out an upgrade kit or something.

 

[Woob]

Does the Mark 2 come with a better electrical cord? Excited for this release!

 

[JMCamaroSS]

I have been using the Mark I Bigfoot 21 for a few months now. When I received it, I immediately made the KB style washer on a bench grinder, to fit the 5" Rupes backing plate I also got for the 21.

Having used the GG 6" (the regular one, not the boss), I was very happy with the faster and better results from the Rupes. Also the nearly vibration free operation.

In spending many hours using the GG, I learned to keep the pad spinning on concave and convex areas by rotating the body of the machine to "fit" the curve. Using the Mark I Bigfoot 21, I have no issues with pad stall, as it only happens occasionally when I don't move the body of the machine properly with the curve.

My question is, will the new Mark II continue to spin if your technique is less then spot on when polishing concave and convex panels?

 

[JMCamaroSS]

I have been using the Mark I Bigfoot 21 for a few months now. When I received it, I immediately made the KB style washer on a bench grinder, to fit the 5" Rupes backing plate I also got for the 21.

Having used the GG 6" (the regular one, not the boss), I was very happy with the faster and better results from the Rupes. Also the nearly vibration free operation.

In spending many hours using the GG, I learned to keep the pad spinning on concave and convex areas by rotating the body of the machine to "fit" the curve. Using the Mark I Bigfoot 21, I have no issues with pad stall, as it only happens occasionally when I don't move the body of the machine properly with the curve.

My question is, will the new Mark II continue to spin if your technique is less then spot on when polishing concave and convex panels?

Sorry Dylan, I didn't read the entire post. I see you already answered this. You said:

A lot depends on the severity of the curve, but I will say this - I haven't encountered a panel feature that the Mark II stalls rotation on, even if I ignore technique and operate a little more 'ham fisted' than I'm used to.

To quantify it for you, I'd say the MKII can 100% handle the majority of common panel curves that would have stalled the original. Its only going to be in the most extreme cases that it can't overcome it.

I could not find a "edit" link for my original post.

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Read through the whole thing but did not see a release date for the MrkII. Did I miss it? When will this thing ship?

I am thinking of throwing a 5" backing plate on my first gen 21 and buying the MrkII for the 6-7" pads. Probably easier for the first gen 21 to keep a 5" pad spinning than the larger pads. What do you guys think?

It should be here by the 1st of the year (before than). We don't want to make promises we cannot keep (and ANYTHING can go wrong) but the expected release date is around Dec. 15. :xyxthumbs:

Our company stance is NOT to switch backing plate sizes and to always remain careful of pad weights. Our pads are designed specifically with the counter balance system in place and changing the pad size will effect tool vibration significantly.

However, yes a smaller pad will rotate faster, but the question becomes "why?". The 21mm BigFoot generates 90% or more of it's total pad speed from the orbital movement of the pad. While rotation is nice and offers some benefits, it is not necessary. Again, at SEMA, I removed P1500 sanding scratches with ZERO rotation. The trick is to use a pad which has a foam formula designed for random orbital rotation so you don't loose too much of the movement before it transfers to the paint. :xyxthumbs:

Any chance the internals of the Mk I will be upgradable to make it a Mk II without buying a whole new machine? Would be great if Rupes could put out an upgrade kit or something.

I know the front grip will not transfer over and I believe none of the other parts will either. I will check. It is very much an "all new" tool, despite the family heritage external appearance.

Does the Mark 2 come with a better electrical cord? Excited for this release!

The Mark 2 comes with the same cord that the last run of 1st Gen tools has. It was updated about a year ago.

I have been using the Mark I Bigfoot 21 for a few months now. When I received it, I immediately made the KB style washer on a bench grinder, to fit the 5" Rupes backing plate I also got for the 21.

Having used the GG 6" (the regular one, not the boss), I was very happy with the faster and better results from the Rupes. Also the nearly vibration free operation.

In spending many hours using the GG, I learned to keep the pad spinning on concave and convex areas by rotating the body of the machine to "fit" the curve. Using the Mark I Bigfoot 21, I have no issues with pad stall, as it only happens occasionally when I don't move the body of the machine properly with the curve.

My question is, will the new Mark II continue to spin if your technique is less then spot on when polishing concave and convex panels?

You can still bind the pad up on any random orbital tool with poor technique or if the spot is just too small for the pad. However, 90% of the friction of the pad is created by the orbital movement and it is very possible to remove deep defects with zero rotation.

Jason Rose and Larry Kosilla did an excellent pod cast on this subject some weeks ago. The idea that "if it's not spinning, it's not correcting" is completely wrong and even more so when it applies to tools that rely on a large orbit diameter for corrective power.

With the Mark II, it will be much harder to stall the pad and it will
continue to cut harder should the pad be forced to stall. The new 15 Mark II uses a smaller orbit, higher RPM, and a smaller pad. It is an absolute jewel and would be the best choice for curvy panels. rops:rops:

 

[Zubair]

What do you mean the new 15 MKII uses a smaller orbit? Smaller than 15?

 

[cardaddy]

What do you mean the new 15 MKII uses a smaller orbit? Smaller than 15?

Yeah... what exactly does "smaller orbit" while still being a 15mm orbit mean? :dunno:

You can still bind the pad up on any random orbital tool with poor technique or if the spot is just too small for the pad. However, 90% of the friction of the pad is created by the orbital movement and it is very possible to remove deep defects with zero rotation.

Jason Rose and Larry Kosilla did an excellent pod cast on this subject some weeks ago. The idea that "if it's not spinning, it's not correcting" is completely wrong and even more so when it applies to tools that rely on a large orbit diameter for corrective power.

With the Mark II, it will be much harder to stall the pad and it will
continue to cut harder should the pad be forced to stall. The new 15 Mark II uses a smaller orbit, higher RPM, and a smaller pad. It is an absolute jewel and would be the best choice for curvy panels. rops:rops:

Saw Jason and Larry's video... and they made it a POINT to talk about pad rotation.

I totally understand you can do nothing but an 'orbit' and get (some type of) correction, as in doing it by hand, 'wax on - wax off' that you are getting some correction, but that is not machine correction.

I'm just questioning the above statement, as it flies in the face of everything... everywhere... from EVERYONE about pad rotation and paint correction. Don't know how many times I've heard, trainers, videos, and industry giants (when speaking of a DA for paint correction) stress "pad rotation" over the years. Easily thousands (if not tens of thousands) for sure. First thing you learn is "mark your backing plate".


Never mind the fact that pad rotation is THE reason the MkII came to fruition. Or at least the reason that everyone is talking about.

Purpose designed foam pad/machine combination with a pad that doesn't do a lot of 'wiggle' and you'll still get "orbit". Throw in a thick pad and you'll lose most, if not ALL of it. (Which, btw... is why they came out with thin pads.)
Then throw in microfiber pads and orbit without rotation and you might as well be doing nothing. In fact... you'll likely end up doing nothing but marring the surface.

Don't get me wrong... I understand with 15mm or even 21mm of 'orbit' you'll get SOME correction. Again... as if you were doing it by hand and have zero rotation. But to say "The idea that "if it's not spinning, it's not correcting" is completely wrong" at BEST needs quite a bit of 'splaining! (As Ricky Ricardo would tell Lucy!)

 

[fotomatt1]

It should be here by the 1st of the year (before than). We don't want to make promises we cannot keep (and ANYTHING can go wrong) but the expected release date is around Dec. 15. :xyxthumbs:



Our company stance is NOT to switch backing plate sizes and to always remain careful of pad weights. Our pads are designed specifically with the counter balance system in place and changing the pad size will effect tool vibration significantly.



However, yes a smaller pad will rotate faster, but the question becomes "why?". The 21mm BigFoot generates 90% or more of it's total pad speed from the orbital movement of the pad. While rotation is nice and offers some benefits, it is not necessary. Again, at SEMA, I removed P1500 sanding scratches with ZERO rotation. The trick is to use a pad which has a foam formula designed for random orbital rotation so you don't loose too much of the movement before it transfers to the paint. :xyxthumbs:









I know the front grip will not transfer over and I believe none of the other parts will either. I will check. It is very much an "all new" tool, despite the family heritage external appearance.









The Mark 2 comes with the same cord that the last run of 1st Gen tools has. It was updated about a year ago.









You can still bind the pad up on any random orbital tool with poor technique or if the spot is just too small for the pad. However, 90% of the friction of the pad is created by the orbital movement and it is very possible to remove deep defects with zero rotation.



Jason Rose and Larry Kosilla did an excellent pod cast on this subject some weeks ago. The idea that "if it's not spinning, it's not correcting" is completely wrong and even more so when it applies to tools that rely on a large orbit diameter for corrective power.



With the Mark II, it will be much harder to stall the pad and it will

continue to cut harder should the pad be forced to stall. The new 15 Mark II uses a smaller orbit, higher RPM, and a smaller pad. It is an absolute jewel and would be the best choice for curvy panels. rops:rops:

Would be nice if Rupes could offer some kind of "Trade in-Trade Up" program....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mp0wer]

What do you mean the new 15 MKII uses a smaller orbit? Smaller than 15?

I think he meant it has a smaller orbit in relation to the 21

 

[cardaddy]

Would be nice if Rupes could offer some kind of "Trade in-Trade Up" program....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WWWWAAAA. HAAAA HHHHEEEEEE uh huh....
yeah right! :laughing:

(Right there with that 3 year warranty.)

And no, I don't have the BOSS. But I do own a Rupes. (But of course would like a BOSS or MkII if anyone wants to send one thus way.)

 

[JMCamaroSS]

Our company stance is NOT to switch backing plate sizes and to always remain careful of pad weights. Our pads are designed specifically with the counter balance system in place and changing the pad size will effect tool vibration significantly.

I'm kind of confused by this, I have used the 21 with the 5" backing plate and washer mod with Scholl Concepts Spider Pads, Lake Country HD Pads, Carpro Flash Pads, Lake Country Hydrotech Pads, and Megs DMC Pads.

With the 6" backing plate I've used Megs DMC and Lake Country CCS Pads.

I cannot tell any difference in vibration of the machine from any combination I've used, only that it spins somewhat faster with the 5" backing plate under light/moderate pressure vs. the 6", and that the HD pads are harder to stall.

I of course don't want to damage the machine, will using the 5" Rupes plate on the 21 cause damage to the machine over time?

 

[wrx495]

Awesome video!! I am curious I am looking for another DA. I currently have the Flex 3401 and PC7424XP. Will there be a Mark II for the Rupes 15?

Please correct me if I am wrong with the Model Number as I do not need the Rupes 21 but (I believe) the Rupes 15. Either way, awesome video!!

I'm with you on that boat! have gg v2 thinking mark ii 15 or boss 15

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Yeah... what exactly does "smaller orbit" while still being a 15mm orbit mean? :dunno:



Saw Jason and Larry's video... and they made it a POINT to talk about pad rotation.

Yes, they showed the additional pad rotation as an indicator of the increase in power. The additional rotation comes from the machines ability to maintain ORBITAL motion under load. It is the inertia of the orbital movement (and a host of other factors) that create the spinning motion. However, most of the additional cutting power is going to come from the ability to maintain orbital motion under load.

I totally understand you can do nothing but an 'orbit' and get (some type of) correction, as in doing it by hand, 'wax on - wax off' that you are getting some correction, but that is not machine correction.

A 21 mm tool orbiting at 4200 OPM and spinning at 150 RPM with a 7 inch pad will produce the following rates of movement.

10.34 mph from any spot on the pad
13.46 mph at pad's edge (3.12 mph rotational speed)
10.78 mph 1 inch from center (.44 mph from rotational speed)

This isn't a matter of moving the pad like a hand, it is a matter of that the overwhelming majority of movement comes from the orbital action. IF we transfer the orbital movement to the paint effectively, pad rotation (while offering many benefits) is not necessary.

I'm just questioning the above statement, as it flies in the face of everything... everywhere... from EVERYONE about pad rotation and paint correction. Don't know how many times I've heard, trainers, videos, and industry giants (when speaking of a DA for paint correction) stress "pad rotation" over the years. Easily thousands (if not tens of thousands) for sure. First thing you learn is "mark your backing plate".

I don't know who you are referring to. With old-school conventional thinking (on tools with 6-8mm orbits), you desperately needed the additional movement that rotation created.

Again, Jason and Larry did a recent podcast covering this very issue and how the paradigm shift necessitated by a large diameter orbit. Even Kevin Brown prefers to keep his pad rotation limited.

Never mind the fact that pad rotation is THE reason the MkII came to fruition. Or at least the reason that everyone is talking about.

Yes, it is the reason people are discussing because it is the most visual indicator of the tool maintaining orbital speed when subjected to load.

Purpose designed foam pad/machine combination with a pad that doesn't do a lot of 'wiggle' and you'll still get "orbit". Throw in a thick pad and you'll lose most, if not ALL of it. (Which, btw... is why they came out with thin pads.)
Then throw in microfiber pads and orbit without rotation and you might as well be doing nothing. In fact... you'll likely end up doing nothing but marring the surface.

Foam that is stiff laterally will transfer more orbital movement which increases cutting power without needing additional pressure to compress the foam. If the foam is too soft, then thinner foam pads accomplish a similar feet.

Microfiber will cut better if it isn't rotated too fast. This is why we recommend speed 4 on the first generation, while speed 3 seems to be a sweet spot on the Mark II.

Don't get me wrong... I understand with 15mm or even 21mm of 'orbit' you'll get SOME correction. Again... as if you were doing it by hand and have zero rotation. But to say "The idea that "if it's not spinning, it's not correcting" is completely wrong" at BEST needs quite a bit of 'splaining! (As Ricky Ricardo would tell Lucy!)

[/QUOTE]

Again, the ability the remove P1500 with zero rotation is -IMO - hardly some correction, it is significant. Of course it would be more effective to have some rotation (even if slow) to continue to expose fresh abrasives to the paint and help fight abrasive loading from the surface, but the cutting power itself remains strong.

I am in no way suggesting the rotation isn't beneficial (sometimes extremely) but it is not necessary for correction. The larger the orbit becomes the less important rotation is for defect removal speed.