Flex 3401 vs. Rupes Mille/Makita P5000C, for those that are wondering.

[Joel1979]

The major determinant is the cars you work on, or more specifically, how much curvature the cars you work on have. The more curved the body panels, the more likely you are to see pad stalling on free rotation DAs. In that case, despite the longer stroke of the 15mm-21mm models (from any company), their ability to continue to rotate the pad decreases severely. This is where the forced rotation polishers (again, from any company) will actually be faster than the long stroke free spinning DAs. If you are, for example, polishing a 1970s slab sided Cadillac, you will probably do very well with a long stroke DA. If you are polishing out a Porshe 911, or an old VW Beetle, then the forced rotation DA will probably be faster, as it will keep the pad spinning.

It is possible to polish even the 911/VW Beetle with a free rotation DA, but you need to be so careful with the amount of pressure you are applying, and so cognizant of the pad spin, that it can make the polishing process a real ordeal, and it will take a long time to do it.

On a vehicle with flat surfaces, the long stroke DAs will polish faster, due to their larger area of coverage. The forced roation DAs will also not have a problem with the flat surfaces, it will take longer due to the shorter stroke of the current crop of forced rotation DAs (stroke is 8mm for Flex XC3401, 5.5mm for Makita PO5000C and Rupes Mille).

Note that modern cars are tending more and more towards curved surfaces, the exception being some pickup trucks and SUVs.

Well thats a nice theory mut not true at all. Again there are only very very few spots where you have problems with 15-21 mk2 machines. If you have problems, then you just cant use the machine. For those areas rotary or Rupes mini comes handy. And its not like 3401 is perfect for small areas either, so most of who does this must have two machines.

Me and my friend did white 2008 997 Porsche which had very hard clearcoat and had lots of swirls and scratches. He did the other side and i did the other side. I was using Rupes 21 mk2(both 5" and 6" bp) and Rupes mini with Meguairs and Lake Country microfiber pads. He was using Flex 3401 and a mini rotary with yellow hex logic(one of most agressive foam pads). We used the same compound which is Nanolex heavy cut(better than Menzerna 400), i would guess onbar with Jescar). I corrected my side much faster. He tried my Rupes and admitted that it actually does cut faster with much less effort. Again Porsche is very curvy car and i didnt have any stalling problems. That friend is going to buy Rupes 21 mk2

Now if someone asks that why didnt he use microfiber, well because microfiber dont really work all that well on forced rotation da. Not on Flex 3401 and not on my Rupes Mille. Even forced da with something like Lake Country purple foamed wool doesnt cut like Rupes and microfiber. The thick Buff and Shine microfiber is ok with forced rotation, but not great.

Oh and the cutting power of Rupes is not because you get larger are covered but because you get larger motion. For example Rupes 21 mk2 with 5" plate and pads corrects quicker than with 6". So yeah.

here are couple of examples of Mk2 performance and atleast on that 21 mk2 video there is no washer mod and with it the stalling is even less of a problem or non existing

https://youtu.be/N74Tj9WRf4M?t=114
https://youtu.be/cBWkYIYzhes?t=167

 

[TTQ B4U]

"Orbit size is not that important on a gear driven" Is that an odd statement. I thought the orbit is what prevents these da's from causing swirls. If orbit size wasn't important wouldn't we be using rotaries?

Orbit is what prevents holograms but it's not important to have a large orbit on the gear driven units as even at 8mm it's not inducing any complications of the rotary units. All-in Larger Orbits don't really correct any faster vs an 8mm forced unit as detailers are going to be covering the same area with say the saem3-4 perhaps 5 passes and while over time a larger orbit of say 13mm spread out over the course of an entire vehicle may sound like it's covering more ground, it's not really. A panel is still likely going to be worked in the same number of sections on either unit.

Add in the fact that a forced rotation unit will never stall and can be run at any speed (important for products that require a slower than full-on speed) and again, never stall, and you'll continue to correct with the same numbers of passes. The new Rupes MKII's are significantly better than the MKI's but they will still stall. Unlike a Forced Driven unit they also aren't going to be used on the edges of small panels where a pad may not be fully in-contact with the panel such as on the top of a bumper or say while trying to polish out water spots on the top of a rear bumper.

One could pull out a Rupes ibrid (I have an use one) but it is also very susceptible to stalling. It requires a very very light touch in many areas to prevent stalling and arm movement / hand movement in this case, needs to be slow, thus slowing overall correction time.

In the end Todd is marketing both types of units now because there IS a benefit to forced rotation and that was an area of the market they had been missing out on. They needed a unit that is less dependent on technique and offered more rotation as when correcting paint, rotation is key and they wanted more rotation capability.

I recently posted about some severely ragged-out Porsche's that I completed full corrections on and with my Flext 3401 on some purple or blue wool pads and even just OTC Ultimate Compound, I can remove all defects with just 3-4 passes. Another 1-2 maybe 3 passes on speed 4 with CarPro Essence, and it was perfection. Moved through the projects in very low amounts of time.

 

[JCDetails]

Kkritsilas and joel1979, thank you for that detailed insight. That's exactly the info I was looking for.

Maybe I'm inferring some things on my own, but it seems like a forced da is more for someone looking for a single machine to go around a whole car. In that regard the makita is great just in case you need to swap to free spin for a more delicate area or something like that.

If someone's got a dedicated 3" machine, a la gg3, rupes mini, or even a pe8, then it seems like a 21mm da would fit the bill with the smaller machine handling the tricky bits.

My wife's Lincoln mkc is a curvy little ####### and had it not been for my gg3 I'd have been screwed. Same with the hood on my fathers sl550 that I just polished last night, it's got a double curve body line matching the contour of the headlight going up toward the windshield, and a downward 'waterfall' at the nose about 2" wide. With 3.5" thinpros it was no problem, but I'd never have gotten a 5 or 6 inch machine in there. Even forced rotation I don't think would have helped there.


Sent from my iPhone using AGOnline

 

[JCDetails]

Orbit is what prevents holograms but it's not important to have a large orbit on the gear driven units as even at 8mm it's not inducing any complications of the rotary units. All-in Larger Orbits don't really correct any faster vs an 8mm forced unit as detailers are going to be covering the same area with say the saem3-4 perhaps 5 passes and while over time a larger orbit of say 13mm spread out over the course of an entire vehicle may sound like it's covering more ground, it's not really. A panel is still likely going to be worked in the same number of sections on either unit.

Add in the fact that a forced rotation unit will never stall and can be run at any speed (important for products that require a slower than full-on speed) and again, never stall, and you'll continue to correct with the same numbers of passes. The new Rupes MKII's are significantly better than the MKI's but they will still stall. Unlike a Forced Driven unit they also aren't going to be used on the edges of small panels where a pad may not be fully in-contact with the panel such as on the top of a bumper or say while trying to polish out water spots on the top of a rear bumper.

One could pull out a Rupes ibrid (I have an use one) but it is also very susceptible to stalling. It requires a very very light touch in many areas to prevent stalling and arm movement / hand movement in this case, needs to be slow, thus slowing overall correction time.

In the end Todd is marketing both types of units now because there IS a benefit to forced rotation and that was an area of the market they had been missing out on. They needed a unit that is less dependent on technique and offered more rotation as when correcting paint, rotation is key and they wanted more rotation capability.

I recently posted about some severely ragged-out Porsche's that I completed full corrections on and with my Flext 3401 on some purple or blue wool pads and even just OTC Ultimate Compound, I can remove all defects with just 3-4 passes. Another 1-2 maybe 3 passes on speed 4 with CarPro Essence, and it was perfection. Moved through the projects in very low amounts of time.

Another good perspective.

In those instances where you're 'edging' the pad ie not 100% contact in a tight area, do you get any product sling? Thinking sort of horizontal area with only 1-2" of a 5" pad in contact with the rest free and parallel to the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Autogeekonline mobile app

 

[TTQ B4U]

Another good perspective.

In those instances where you're 'edging' the pad ie not 100% contact in a tight area, do you get any product sling? Thinking sort of horizontal area with only 1-2" of a 5" pad in contact with the rest free and parallel to the ground.

No. I've never had an issue with sling except for when I use the Small iBrid Nano Unit. Otherwise, the key with polishing is to use 3-4 small dime size drops, no priming necessary, for most all of what I use too.

 

[JCDetails]

No. I've never had an issue with sling except for when I use the Small iBrid Nano Unit. Otherwise, the key with polishing is to use 3-4 small dime size drops, no priming necessary, for most all of what I use too.

Even SMAT products and/or mf pads? General consensus seems to be to prime in those cases.

Personally I find I lean toward DAT products as it just seems more comfortable to me so it's not as big an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Autogeekonline mobile app

 

[Joel1979]

Orbit is what prevents holograms but it's not important to have a large orbit on the gear driven units as even at 8mm it's not inducing any complications of the rotary units. All-in Larger Orbits don't really correct any faster vs an 8mm forced unit as detailers are going to be covering the same area with say the saem3-4 perhaps 5 passes and while over time a larger orbit of say 13mm spread out over the course of an entire vehicle may sound like it's covering more ground, it's not really. A panel is still likely going to be worked in the same number of sections on either unit.

Add in the fact that a forced rotation unit will never stall and can be run at any speed (important for products that require a slower than full-on speed) and again, never stall, and you'll continue to correct with the same numbers of passes. The new Rupes MKII's are significantly better than the MKI's but they will still stall. Unlike a Forced Driven unit they also aren't going to be used on the edges of small panels where a pad may not be fully in-contact with the panel such as on the top of a bumper or say while trying to polish out water spots on the top of a rear bumper.

One could pull out a Rupes ibrid (I have an use one) but it is also very susceptible to stalling. It requires a very very light touch in many areas to prevent stalling and arm movement / hand movement in this case, needs to be slow, thus slowing overall correction time.

In the end Todd is marketing both types of units now because there IS a benefit to forced rotation and that was an area of the market they had been missing out on. They needed a unit that is less dependent on technique and offered more rotation as when correcting paint, rotation is key and they wanted more rotation capability.

I recently posted about some severely ragged-out Porsche's that I completed full corrections on and with my Flext 3401 on some purple or blue wool pads and even just OTC Ultimate Compound, I can remove all defects with just 3-4 passes. Another 1-2 maybe 3 passes on speed 4 with CarPro Essence, and it was perfection. Moved through the projects in very low amounts of time.

It seems like you really dont get the idea of long throw. You think its only benefit is that it covers more ground? In that case porter cable with 7 inch pad corrects faster than Rupes 15 with 5-6 inch pad? No, the bigger throw means more movement and cutting action is happening, more kinetic energy. Kinda like you would compare 800rpm rotary to 1500rpm rotary. Or imagine cutting wood with saw and doing 80mm motion vs 150mm or even 210mm motion. With larger throw 15-21mm throw, more action is happening than with smaller 8mm and you have to compensate that with lots of pressure and you still dont get as quick results.

There is benefit on forced rotation that it never stall yes. There is also benefits with long throws especially if you know how to use them. You get faster results with less effort and fatigue.

Btw, could somebody tell that what would be best wool cutting pad for forced rotation machine(my Mille)? Rupes wool doesnt work well on Mille, atleast not compared to 15-21 as crazy as it sounds. Even Lake Country purple foamed wool doesnt match. If there is some magical pad that turns forced da more powerfull than 15-21 with microfiber, please tell me.

 

[TTQ B4U]

It seems like you really dont get the idea of long throw. You think its only benefit is that it covers more ground? In that case porter cable with 7 inch pad corrects faster than Rupes 15 with 5-6 inch pad? No, the bigger throw means more movement and cutting action is happening, more kinetic energy.

I'm not going to debate the idea of correcting ability of buffers when they don't spin. Both Mike and Todd have already covered the fact that if the buffer isn't spinning the correction being done is far far less. Long throws are great, but orbital action and rotation have already been covered and beat to death.

There is benefit on forced rotation that it never stall yes. There is also benefits with long throws especially if you know how to use them. You get faster results with less effort and fatigue.

Again, to your point that's exactly why Rupes has moved into the market with a forced rotation unit. They too know that while many here are going to argue about technique and how to keep a unit spinning, it's also important to simply produce a unit where that issues has been eliminated.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Jason Rose of Rupes told me the Mille requires less technique and should correct faster than an MK II 21. He did say, in the right hands, the MK II 21 is a beast, but again, in the right hands. With the Mille/PO5000, the smaller forced throw can be very finicky with a lot of pads. The 3401 is more forgiving when it comes to pad selection.

 

[Joel1979]

I'm not going to debate the idea of correcting ability of buffers when they don't spin. Both Mike and Todd have already covered the fact that if the buffer isn't spinning the correction being done is far far less. Long throws are great, but orbital action and rotation have already been covered.



Again, to your point that's exactly why Rupes has moved into the market with a forced rotation unit. They too know that while many here are going to argue about technique and how to keep a unit spinning, it's also important to simply produce a unit where that issues has been eliminated.

You make it sound like forced da is superiour without any weaknesses. Again i claim that 95% of car stalling is not a problem and on all of those areas long throw beats forced rotation. If there is no benefits of long throw, then why Flex brought the XFE 7-15? Do you own long throw and forced rotation? I do and i also have a Flex PE 14-2 rotary so...

Rupes 15-21 mk2:

+ outcuts forced da most of the time
+ doesnt need much downward pressure but can handle pressure
+ doesnt walk
+ is smoother
+ works amazingly well with microfiber pads which are superiout compared to foam
- is more harsh on pads
- with 21mm throw you must be more cautious in tight places than say 5-8mm throw machine
- can stall, but with mk2 machines it is really not an issue. Where it stalls there you should use smaller machine anyways

forced rotation
+ never stalls
+ can take tons of pressure
+ easier on pads
+ easier on tight spots
- not as smooths
- tends to walk
- cutting power lacks behind long throw most of the time
- microfiber pads dont work well at all

 

[Joel1979]

Jason Rose of Rupes told me the Mille requires less technique and should correct faster than an MK II 21. He did say, in the right hands, the MK II 21 is a beast, but again, in the right hands. With the Mille/PO5000, the smaller forced throw can be very finicky with a lot of pads. The 3401 is more forgiving when it comes to pad selection.

I would say in right hands both 15-21 outperform Mille. Atleast on my hands they do. And i have heard samekind feedback from all pro detailers here in Finland who have tested Mille(there are only a few for now).

Bottom line is that Mille is great polisher, but in the right hands 15-21 make faster results.

 

[TTQ B4U]

You make it sound like forced da is superiour without any weaknesses.

You're welcome to interpret what I've noted however you wish, but I've been pretty clear that the details have already been covered just as I've already noted about the weaknesses of the long throws. They too were already pointed out.

If there is no benefits of long throw, then why Flex brought the XFE 7-15? Do you own long throw and forced rotation? I do and i also have a Flex PE 14-2 rotary so...

I don't work at Rupes but I'm sure Todd will chime in with the reason the brought specific products to market. My belief is that they are a natural progression from a lower end DA as I don't see many 7424 users then jumping into using a rotary. IMO most People buy DA because they don't have experience with rotary units.

My experience with them is that I started detailing as a strong hobby over 25 years ago and was taught using a rotary mainly because my parents owned several dealerships and our body shop guys taught me. I then moved to a small 7424 series DA but still used a rotary. From there I tried a higher end DA but still wasn't thrilled. I fought moving to a Flex unit as I did my heavy corrections with a traditional rotary and then simply polished with a DA if/where needed.

In terms of performance I see my Flex all-in over an entire vehicle out performing a long throw. Again, I'm working a large hood in the same number of sections thus covering the same ground. The difference is on panels with curves, small narrow sections or thin areas, I don't have stalling issues and can just power through without switching units.

I don't find a forced unit harsh, just different. Walking isn't something I consider an "issue" either. It's just a characteristic of that type of system. Again, I've used a rotary an understand how to handle the attributes of forced rotation. I only see a forced unit really getting annoyingly grabby with a MF Pad mounted on it and that's moot as wool corrects far better with zero issues and finishes out beautifully with only a light polish and couple passes necessary as a follow up.

 

[Joel1979]

So you still say there are no benefits on long throw and it just covers more ground. Lol.

 

[TTQ B4U]

So you still say there are no benefits on long throw and it just covers more ground. Lol.

Not sure what additional benefits that haven't already been listed that you're looking for me to note? Happy to repeat what's already been spoken. The biggest benefit IMO is their smoother operation. If you're looking for me to agree with you that they are superior overall than a forced rotation unit then don't hold your breath as that's a personal opinion for each of us to make and really is irrelevant in a comparison thread and my opinion and yours would be two different ones in a mix of thousands. Though for the record, I have provided my opinion on AG before.

Overall they each have their benefits and draw backs yes. Covering more ground and overall speed or time to completion are two different things. In terms of the importance of throw length on a forced rotation unit, Todd himself has already covered that topic as well as has Mike. My opinion stands that with any free spinning orbital polishers, the pad MUST rotate and oscillate in order to remove paint/clear coat so that the surface is leveled and the defects removed. If it's not spinning, you're wasting time.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

I would say in right hands both 15-21 outperform Mille. Atleast on my hands they do. And i have heard samekind feedback from all pro detailers here in Finland who have tested Mille(there are only a few for now).

Bottom line is that Mille is great polisher, but in the right hands 15-21 make faster results.

I really want to try the Mille with the Rupes coarse wool pad and new Mille compound.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

I would say in right hands both 15-21 outperform Mille. Atleast on my hands they do. And i have heard samekind feedback from all pro detailers here in Finland who have tested Mille(there are only a few for now).

Bottom line is that Mille is great polisher, but in the right hands 15-21 make faster results.

I really want to try the Mille with the Rupes coarse wool pad and new Mille compound.

 

[RSW]

I would say in right hands both 15-21 outperform Mille. Atleast on my hands they do. And i have heard samekind feedback from all pro detailers here in Finland who have tested Mille(there are only a few for now).

Bottom line is that Mille is great polisher, but in the right hands 15-21 make faster results.

Have you tried using the same pad and polish on each machine, applying the same weight to a panel, running the machines in place for the same amount of time, then measuring the temperature? If you haven't please do, I think the results should be informative.

Thanks.

 

[JCDetails]

Have you tried using the same pad and polish on each machine, applying the same weight to a panel, running the machines in place for the same amount of time, then measuring the temperature? If you haven't please do, I think the results should be informative.

Thanks.

perhaps it's just my sense of internet...but this seems to be one of those "I already know the answer" type of questions/suggestions....

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

I think the results should be informative.

Thanks.

How so?

 

[JCDetails]

How so?

not trying to speak for RSW, but I believe he's hinting at the amount of heat that each machine puts into the panel using the same product and pad for the same amount of time as a measure of the 'work' being done or the amount of correction that each can do in a given period of time. This in response to claims that one or the other corrects faster.


I think it's important to delineate the term 'cover more ground' as it can be misleading. We should instead separate into 'footprint' and 'correcting speed'.

In the area of 'footprint' the large throw DAs, with pad size being equal, obviously win. This is because rotation has no real effect on the raw number of square inches the pad touches in a single orbit. A 6" pad orbiting 15 or 21mm will obviously cover more surface area than the same 6" pad covering a 5.5 or 8mm orbit.

The area of 'correcting speed' is what RSW is eluding to. Can you correct the same area of paint (Let's say the standard 2'x2' area) faster with a flex/makita/mille faster than a rupes or griots 15 or 21. If the forced machine can make up for its lack of orbital surface area coverage by correcting that same 2x2 in less time or passes than the 15 or 21, then it is 'faster'.