Rupes 21 -vs- Rupes 21 Mark II

[Rsurfer]

It seems that you agree with the statement that rotation isn't necessary for correction, so I am baffled why the conversation continues to grow. However, if like me, you simply enjoy a good, well argued debate, then at this point I would ask you to move it PM's and lets return this thread to it's topic so others can ask questions on the Mark II vs the original design..



Did I miss something here..where did Cardaddy agree that rotation is not necessary for faster/better correction?

 

[Todd@RUPES]

Id like to say thank you both Todd and Dylan for these responses takes a lot of time sifting through and replying in depth to each and every question. Loved the mk1 and fully intend to snag up latest and greatest mk2 machines when they become available!

My absolute pleasure!

 

[Todd@RUPES]

It seems that you agree with the statement that rotation isn't necessary for correction, so I am baffled why the conversation continues to grow. However, if like me, you simply enjoy a good, well argued debate, then at this point I would ask you to move it PM's and lets return this thread to it's topic so others can ask questions on the Mark II vs the original design..



Did I miss something here..where did Cardaddy agree that rotation is not necessary for faster/better correction?

I don't believe he said that, nor did I say that he said that. Neither the text you quoted above nor the original statement that he asked me to explain mentioned anything about "faster/better".

 

[Rsurfer]

I don't believe he said that, nor did I say that he said that. Neither the text you quoted above nor the original statement that he asked me to explain mentioned anything about "faster/better".

So he said you don't need rotation for correction?

 

[Todd@RUPES]

So he said you don't need rotation for correction?

No, I inferred it - which is why I used the word SEEMS in the following sentence that you quoted: "It seems that you agree with the statement that rotation isn't necessary for correction" and have avoided words like better/faster. :dblthumb2:

This is based on the inferences in the text to pad speed, the concession of removing P1500 defects as significant, and admission that people may not be ready to accept such a concept.

I find Cardaddy's posts extremely well thought out and intelligent and further appreciate the time required to make them , which is why I offered to continue such a discussion in PM's while returning this thread to its intended subject.

 

[rocco999]

Hello everyone
Todd do you think in a near future Rupes will release a rupes Duetto Mark II ?
Thanks

 

[dlc95]

Hello everyone
Todd do you think in a near future Rupes will release a rupes Duetto Mark II ?
Thanks

I was wondering the same.

I will be picking another Duetto up in the future, and it would be a bit of a drag to get one, only to have an upgraded version available shortly there after.

Then again, the one I have rocks pretty hard!

 

[cardaddy]

I was wondering the same.

I will be picking another Duetto up in the future, and it would be a bit of a drag to get one, only to have an upgraded version available shortly there after.

Then again, the one I have rocks pretty hard!

:iagree:

Bought the Duetto deluxe kit for CarMomma when it came out. She REALLY likes it! Easy one handed operation, corrects great, easy on the arms as well.:dblthumb2:
Just have to run it darned near wide open, and ahhhhhh that Rupes whine. I swear... it was at least a year ago I commented here about hearing a video playing from another room (YouTube app on the TV) and came inside saying "he's usng a RUPES!" :laughing:

 

[cardaddy]

Sorry for the delayed reply. Been running circles around here lately.

Perhaps I'll find the time. At the very least I would like to response to the points I find pertinent, but then you go and post this, taking up what little time I have.

Sorry, thought the point of the thread was to demonstrate the differences, (improvements???) in the new machine.

Which in my mind isn’t exactly an ‘argument’, or to prove an argument. Then again… in legalese, were we in court… we’d be talking about presenting oral arguments. :laughing:

For lack of better wording, let’s just say lively discussion.

I do appreciate your understanding that my thoughts are solely meant to stimulate discussion, as well as a better understanding of the principles involved.

You have my sincere thanks for that Todd. rops:

Of course, luckily I was able to learn form one of the pioneers in this field early on and was taught a valuable lesson... seek knowledge from those more learned or experienced. It has been instrumental in my life

If I release all pressure on the pad and let it free spin quickly, I can generate much more speed from rotation. .

I imagine so! Just as you can jack your car up and the drive wheels will spin much more freely, but in both instances… nobody is getting anywhere.

However, as applied to the paint and considering the total surface area of the pad, at least 90% (typically) of the total movement will come from the orbital movement.

Of course, none of this really matters because as you have also demonstrated, a large majority of the pad movement (and thus potential polishing friction) comes from the orbital movement. You asked to me to clarify my statement "it doesn't have to be be rotating to correct paint" which your math and many people's experience clearly does.

No…. I think what the math SHOWS…. is where there is *rotation* that it (rotation) *by itself* generates FAR MORE than 10% of the total movement. (Which may be upwards of 30%.) Yet there are other factors that come into play.

Rotation is beneficial in most circumstances. Excuse my skepticism but you haven't presented any case that rotation is necessary for correction.

Well, other than the fact that everyone out there will tell you to keep your pad rotating while doing correction.

Except of course yourself being (so far) the lone exception.

Perhaps below you'll understand a bit clearer what my thought process is, and how it translates to pad rotation being not just beneficial, but critical to the process of paint correction.

Below I’ve explained it a bit clearer perhaps.

It is an upgraded design and thus needed a new name.

I'm not an engineer but luckily I have had very long discussions with the engineering team in Italy as well as the excellent engineers we have state side.

I am not sure what you mean by a redesigned weight system and why you feel this is necessary for pad rotation. There is no offset on the shaft side (post bearing) that is causing the pad to whip around.

Yeah well... me neither. (not an engineer)

I may have gotten ahead of myself there... I apologize... didn’t mean to "infer".

Perhaps the weight system is identical, (I have no idea) But SOMETHING is redesigned, the motor for sure (as has been stated).

Could it then be that the RPM of the motor is (basically) the only thing that has changed as it regards power to rotate the pad? I know you’ve mentioned that it runs faster at each speed setting, ergo… it turns faster, runs faster, moves the pad faster, annnnnnnddddd via centripetal force keeps PAD ROTATION working more thoroughly throughout the working RPM range of the device.

You’ve mentioned the ability to maintain orbital speed as well. I would hope that the OPM speed drop never was much of an issue. I know that I’ve yet to stop ANY machine from stalling out orbital motion (of any size), even with the rotation of the pad sitting still. (Hence we can grab the pad with our hands and not break fingers and wrists!)
Sans the Flex 3401 of course!

I agree with the thought of centripetal force imparting rotation because the outer edge of the pad would have more force making it "fall in". However, the engineers I have spoken with assured me that this was not the case. I confess I still don't understand it completely.…..

Ultimately the math for a random orbital is pretty simple. Calculate the distance traveled by the orbit x the number of orbits, the distance traveled by the rotation x the number of rotations, then convert. Then we can calculate the movement in MPH, Km/S, M/S or any other d/t rate.

Although… this is where it gets a little tricky.

It isn’t as if the pad itself is a series of (pre primed) 21mm circles, all sitting side-by-side, edge-to-edge all aligned on the surface like a bunch of quarters, all being forced to oscillate (without rotation).

What is REALLY happening is a pad, with the total surface area of 38.48 Square Inches *is* oscillating (when not rotating) on a 21 mm orbit. That surface area is where (some) correction is happening, although that COMPLETELY depends on how well the compound/polish is distributed on said pad. (See below)

It seems that you agree with the statement that rotation isn't necessary for correction, so I am baffled why the conversation continues to grow. However, if like me, you simply enjoy a good, well argued debate, then at this point I would ask you to move it PM's and lets return this thread to it's topic so others can ask questions on the Mark II vs the original design.

No…. not really, far from it actually.

Although I see where you thought perhaps I had “inferred” it.
Just as you said you “inferred” that is what I said.
Think we’re better off to be in a ‘no inferred zone’ for the moment.

I understand that (depending on pad and orbit size) OPM pad to surface speed alone is a factor, (<80% at best) if you believe that only OPM is necessary.

However without rotation the phenomenon known as “DA Haze” (which I mentioned earlier) is a MAJOR factor to consider, amongst others.

I’m thinking overall that the mass of the face on a pad has to come into play in both axis.

What we’re talking about is moving the ENTIRE pad around a 7” circle, versus moving it around a .82” inch (21mm) orbit. Remember, we’re talking about over 38 square inches now moving not just orbitally, but rotationally. The mass of a .82” orbit is miniscule compared to a 7” pad moving at 150 RPM. Then add in the .82” orbit, along with rotation, all happening at once and the scale of P2P (remember "Pad to Paint" from earlier) increases dramatically.

If moving the total area of the pad in a .82” orbit is good, then moving it in conjunction with a 150~200 rpm orbit would have to be leagues better.

This part (below) is where I think rotation is crucial.

Remember, we’re also talking about moving material around on the pad surface to areas OTHER than the pea sized drops where the pad was primed. Which I SERIOUSLY doubt would do any real correction!

If the only area(s) in contact with the paint were 3~5 drops of compound that never moved beyond their own 21mm orbit, you would literally NEVER get a vehicle corrected.

This would be akin to literally having five 21mm pads, all primed and ready, never rotating, only orbiting, surrounded by the entire rest of the COMPLETELY DRY pad just sitting there, grinding on the surface of the paint!

Take those 3~5 21mm areas by themselves and you'd not get any real correction.

Then surround those by over 32 square inches of dry pad on the surface, all the while moving over hundreds of square feet of surface area and you’d have a cluster hump of massive scale.

Remember… when doing paint correction we are talking about moving a given liquid (of various cutting abilities) around, within, beneath the TOTAL pad to paint surface area for it to be effective.

Perhaps however.... were we talking about priming 100% of the surface area of a pad, and THEN not having rotation (on a large orbit machine) then sure… you’d have a better chance of any sort of ‘real’ correction. I'll even succeed in this instance you *might* indeed end up with viable paint correction. But ONLY if the entire surface of the pad is coated with liquid compounding/polishing product. Without it.... you are doing dry buffing. And I think everyone would agree that NOBODY wants (or approves) that.

Now of course, if we were doing nothing more than sanding, and had a solid sheet of sand paper, with distributed grit covering the entire (over 38 square inches) area then sure… we’d get a sanding motion that surely take off the top layer of paint.

But we’re not!

That is why I mentioned testing on a panel (a Rupes designed and primed to spec with 3~5 drops pad) a machine with ZERO rotation.
Then another one (primed exactly the same) running at 150 RPM.

IMHO, the only way to effectively compound/polish paint is to MOVE the liquid around to the surface area of the pad (beyond where it was primed with 3~5 dots) AND to move that pad both orbitally as well as rotationally.

Remember, rotation (and an entire industry of rotary buffers built around it) is where all this whole hoopla of paint polishing came from to begin with. We all know that rotation alone will correct paint. Just not on the train believing that orbital motion alone will do the same. (Staying in that "non inferred zone".)

Ultimately, the Mark II will generate both more orbital speed and maintain that orbital speed under load, which results in more pad movement, which results in faster correction That is what this thread is about.

Ahhhhh, yes…. And THIS we are in agreement with. :dblthumb2:

Please do understand Todd, that I’m not trying to be adversarial, far from it. And again... I appreciate your understanding that my thoughts are meant to stimulate discussion on the product at hand. Which BTW are (across the lineup) an exceptionally well designed group of tools!rops:

Appreciate the offer to drop to PM, although here that’s not the easiest thing to do considering the box gets full REALLY quick, ANNNNNNNND the PM keystroke limit of 10,000 severely limits lively discussions (especially when you’re trying to quote others).

FWIW, I’ve been trying to focus on only the differences in the new versus the old machine. As well as why that (new) difference was actually necessary.

Because from everything I've seen... it seems that the guys in the field, using the machines, WANTED “pad rotation”. Just as it seems that the engineers at Rupes have listened to those concerns, AND addressed that primary goal, for the end user.

Now we are reading the idea/claim that pad rotation wasn't/isn’t in fact necessary, which doesn’t seem to reason with having a redesign/improvement/”evolution” in developing new machine(s).

So far, it seems the main difference is it/they run faster, at each setting. (Yes, the head design is different, but that’s not the mechanical difference.) And with the faster RPM of the motor, the ‘by product’, actually the intended product of it all... happens to actually end up with nothing less than maintaining the all too important, and perhaps highly underestimated *pad rotation*.

Which btw I still say we absolutely need, to various degrees, under all circumstances, to do proper paint correction. (Which I hope you understand better now, being as orbital speed *or* size isn't everything that comes into play once you add liquid to the face of the pad.)
Forrest Gump once said, "Maybe both is happening at the same time"

If indeed speed was/is the only thing that was limiting/slowing pad rotation, and the overall reason to have the MkII design... maybe we just needed a "10" on the speed setting(s), or a turbo and a bit of nitrous! :laughing:

Ol' Forrest is one of favorite movie characters of all time, so I'll close with this...my favorite: "And that's all I've got to say about that".

 

[runrun411]

Whoa Tony, you've said a mouth full. Maybe a couple of mouths. I haven't read all the replies on this thread so please forgive me if this has already came up. I wonder if the increased speed on the MKII would be equal to the speed on the 1st version with the washer mod. If so than "Whomp there it is".

 

[Zubair]

The washer mod reduces stall significantly and increases speed through each setting. I've been asking for a comparison too as I'm certain there isn't much in it.

 

[cardaddy]

Whoa Tony, you've said a mouth full. Maybe a couple of mouths. I haven't read all the replies on this thread so please forgive me if this has already came up. I wonder if the increased speed on the MKII would be equal to the speed on the 1st version with the washer mod. If so than "Whomp there it is".

Heheheeeeeee... whoa there brother! :laughing:

Nahhhhh... considering I *know* that Rupes doesn't want us/you/them to use the machines in any manor other than the way they were built. And needless to say... they don't recommend the washer mod AT ALL.

That being said, the first thing I did was put a thin washer *EVEN* in the Duetto! Running it with and then without it's a no brainer. Doesn't mean you don't still have to run it on 5 or 6, but it surely doesn't suffer from lack of rotation with it.

Todd has said that the new MkII design(s) all run faster RPM's at each setting, so I know from that that they all run faster, period.

THAT is why I've been posting the thoughts, (and calculations) that I have. I mean, sure... the new machines turn faster, right? But WHY? Obviously it was/is to address (perhaps nothing more than) "pad rotation" which is something I firmly believe in.

Try as I might... I can't latch on to the thought that you can do any real (or insert descriptive adjective of your choice..... such as meaningful, substantial, proper) paint correction without rotation. Because THAT is what moves the liquid (compound/polish) around, on and within the pad, plus around and on the paint itself.

Although as I stated... I'm sure the area where the product is actually sitting is doing it's work. Just hate to see what is happening to all the 'dry' areas when the pad doesn't rotate.

Tell ya' what.... just go ahead and weld the bearing on your Big Foot and stop that pesky rotation, then get back to me on how well that orbital only motion works.

All joking aside, humans have polished paint by hand forever, and that is nothing but and orbit, and it works.... sorta.

But the KEY would be to have the entire pad loaded with product.......

Which isn't recommended under any situation, especially the Rupes "system".

End of the day... great machines, from a first class company that is paying attention to needs of the users, as well as the industry as a whole.

Just want to make sure that we don't get derailed into thinking rotation isn't very important, if not just as important in the process as the orbital motion. (Which plays a greater role of course in the 21mm machine, although not negating the need for rotation imho.)

 

[Todd@RUPES]

I do appreciate your understanding that my thoughts are solely meant to stimulate discussion, as well as a better understanding of the principles involved.

You have my sincere thanks for that Todd. rops:

I appreciate a stimulating discussion equally, and as such will address pertinent points on your reply. Some at this point are just redundant.

No…. I think what the math SHOWS…. is where there is *rotation* that it (rotation) *by itself* generates FAR MORE than 10% of the total movement. (Which may be upwards of 30%.) Yet there are other factors that come into play.

21mm polisher running a 7 inch pad at 4200 OPM and 150 RPM (which is quite quick)...

10.34 mph from orbital movement alone
3.12 mph edge speed increase (about 30% faster on the edge)...
.44 mph increase 1 inch from center (4% faster)...
0 mph increase in center..

The AVERAGE increase would approx 15% across the surface of the pad, if the pad was able to achieve and maintain 150 RPM.

You are counting pad edge speed and I am considering the surface of the pad as a whole.

Well, other than the fact that everyone out there will tell you to keep your pad rotating while doing correction.
Except of course yourself being (so far) the lone exception.

I also suggest that some rotation offers benefits (I feel like I have to continue to repeat this). What I said is that it is not necessary for correction(which is true as I have removed P1500 grit scratches with zero rotation in front of several crowds of people at SEMA). I have also provided links with guys like Kevin Brown and Jason Rose addressing the issue you as well.

Perhaps below you'll understand a bit clearer what my thought process is, and how it translates to pad rotation being not just beneficial, but critical to the process of paint correction.

Some rotation certainly helps, but it is possible to correct paint to a significant degree with little to no rotation. Is it the best way? No, because rotation improves the process for a number reasons, so of which you touch on.

However, as long as you can transfer the orbital movement to the paint, you can correct the finish and in some cases remove P1500 grade marks from isolated spots with zero rotation. It is easy to prove, no matter how much math and banter we go back and forth with.

Could it then be that the RPM of the motor is (basically) the only thing that has changed as it regards power to rotate the pad?

No, the motor improves the amount of torque delivered to the shaft, which maintains the higher RPM underlay which results in the pad spinning faster under load.

You’ve mentioned the ability to maintain orbital speed as well. I would hope that the OPM speed drop never was much of an issue. I know that I’ve yet to stop ANY machine from stalling out orbital motion (of any size), even with the rotation of the pad sitting still. (Hence we can grab the pad with our hands and not break fingers and wrists!

Stalling and bogging are two different things. When you apply load to the pad, you cause the RPM to drop. This reduces the forces responsible for rotation.

What is REALLY happening is a pad, with the total surface area of 38.48 Square Inches *is* oscillating (when not rotating) on a 21 mm orbit. That surface area is where (some) correction is happening, although that COMPLETELY depends on how well the compound/polish is distributed on said pad.

Excellent point. However, RUPES recommends priming the pads with a specific procedure which will distribute fresh abrasive over the paint. Also, just because rotation has stopped in our hypothetical discussion does not mean that we are suggesting to hold the pad still, etc.

However, in the real world, as you suggest, rotation does offer a benefit. On this we agree.

I understand that (depending on pad and orbit size) OPM pad to surface speed alone is a factor, (<80% at best) if you believe that only OPM is necessary.
However without rotation the phenomenon known as “DA Haze” (which I mentioned earlier) is a MAJOR factor to consider, amongst others.

Sorry, but you are once again only considering the face of the pad as a cutting tool in regards to your 80%. At least 85% percent of the movement across the entire pad comes from the orbital movement and that is being generous with the rotational speed. At a slower rotational speed, that number increases to 90% or more.

Also, I am not sure I understand why you think that a lack of rotation would contribute significantly to DA haze. The faster the rotational rate, the tighter each loop of the pattern is pulled, and the more chance you have digging the abrasive (if attached to the pad) in. There is a sweet spot between rotational movement and orbital speed when it comes to finishing quality, but generally slower is better for finish quality.

Of course this has nothing to do with whether rotation is necessary for correction, just beneficial (which it is).

If the only area(s) in contact with the paint were 3~5 drops of compound that never moved beyond their own 21mm orbit, you would literally NEVER get a vehicle corrected.This would be akin to literally having five 21mm pads, all primed and ready, never rotating, only orbiting, surrounded by the entire rest of the COMPLETELY DRY pad just sitting there, grinding on the surface of the paint!

Again, great point, if we are not moving the pad. But it is possible to get a film of abrasive on the surface which be worked as every atom on the paint is orbiting.

Perhaps however.... were we talking about priming 100% of the surface area of a pad, and THEN not having rotation (on a large orbit machine) then sure… you’d have a better chance of any sort of ‘real’ correction. I'll even succeed in this instance you *might* indeed end up with viable paint correction. But ONLY if the entire surface of the pad is coated with liquid compounding/polishing product. Without it.... you are doing dry buffing. And I think everyone would agree that NOBODY wants (or approves) that.

Again, moving the pad over the paint is going to disperse produce onto the paint that pad is going to polish with.

Take a rotary and put 3 drops of product 4 inches from center. If we don't move the machine, we will only polish in that very small loop. However, moving the pad across the surface disperses the product on to the surface.

Remember, rotation (and an entire industry of rotary buffers built around it) is where all this whole hoopla of paint polishing came from to begin with. We all know that rotation alone will correct paint. Just not on the train believing that orbital motion alone will do the same. (Staying in that "non inferred zone".

If we are staying of the "inferred zone" then we should stick with the fact that I have stated that rotation is not necessary for correction. I have consistently clarified this statement multiple times against certain inferences.

I have never suggested that orbital movement alone is the best way, nor can orbital movement alone replace rotational movement, all I have said (and frankly the point we continue to stray from) is that you don't need rotational to correct the finish. I have also said that the larger the orbit, the less rotational speed is needed for equal results.

Now we are reading the idea/claim that pad rotation wasn't/isn’t in fact necessary, which doesn’t seem to reason with having a redesign/improvement/”evolution” in developing new machine(s).

It isn't necessary, it is beneficial. The idea of developing a new machine was to deliver a more efficient tool that will provide more torque to the surface while drawing less power and running even cooler. The added rotation is certainly a benefit.

 

[dlc95]

:iagree:

Bought the Duetto deluxe kit for CarMomma when it came out. She REALLY likes it! Easy one handed operation, corrects great, easy on the arms as well.:dblthumb2:
Just have to run it darned near wide open, and ahhhhhh that Rupes whine. I swear... it was at least a year ago I commented here about hearing a video playing from another room (YouTube app on the TV) and came inside saying "he's usng a RUPES!" :laughing:

Ha! Yes, that sound is quite distinctive!

If I'm using the Duetto I'm usually on the 3 or 4 setting - without the washer mod. To cut I'm using the blue microfiber / Zephir set up. Together, this combination works great, and takes care of the ugliest defects.

I've since cleaned my machine, and unwittingly removed all the lubricant between the shroud / plate, and have since worn away the shroud. Thus now the plate free spins - without the washer!

I believe it has an adverse effect on the work time and behavior of the liquid, and how it interacts with the microfiber pad. I get a lot more dust that I used to, as well as more heat, however I believe these things are hurting my process, and reducing my overall cut.

With the shroud engaged, it feels like I reach a point of total equilibrium, and harmony between the components of the system. After using the rotary so long ago, the 3401, and being diligent about the 7424xp's rotation, it was tough wrapping my brain around the concept of this type of polisher. In my mind I likened it to the square, or triangle shaped wood sanders that carpenters use. It's as if that feature was built into these machines, to increase effect on the surface being treated.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Buy a 3401 and not have to worry about rotation issues.

 

[swanicyouth]

Mid December, they are already in production.

Any idea when AGO will be shipping the pre-purchased Mk II?

 

[7.3powerstroke]

Any idea when AGO will be shipping the pre-purchased Mk II?

Same here....

Looks like several other places already have them in stock.... Cant be long now....

 

[apthai]

Did you guys place an order yet? I placed my "pre-order" on Jan. 3rd and got my shipping confirmation on Jan. 5th. I'm in California so it took a few days but received it on Jan. 8th.

If you're looking to order I'd say just do it and it'll probably ship soon.

 

[7.3powerstroke]

Did you guys place an order yet? I placed my "pre-order" on Jan. 3rd and got my shipping confirmation on Jan. 5th. I'm in California so it took a few days but received it on Jan. 8th.

If you're looking to order I'd say just do it and it'll probably ship soon.

I preordered back around Black Friday...they already shipped some 21's. But I ordered a 15.

 

[apthai]

I preordered back around Black Friday...they already shipped some 21's. But I ordered a 15.

Oh ok. Yea, I picked up the 21s. Hopefully they get the 15s soon!