New Rupes Polisher AMMONYC

Awesome info Todd.

I cant wait for the release. After watching Larry's video, the quick assembly of the Mark II showed that not much has changed on the 21 aside from the internal components.

If this is the case, I wonder if we can send in our current 21 machines for an "upgrade". Is this an option or am I off base here?

You don't have to answer now, I will wait until all information of the MK II is released. Just a thought.
 
This looks very interesting. Is it generally thought that the improvements will reduce the amount of stalling / stopping on vertical/curvy panels. Based on an improvement of 40% torque that should really help. Anyone have any thoughts here?
 
Todd@RUPES said:
I would like to make a few things clear.

The BigFoot Mark II has been in development for almost 2 years. I was first shown one last December (10 months) ago. I received and have been using one for the last 6 months. This is a case of RUPES working very hard to trump themselves.

Secondly, the reason that development took so long is because RUPES was adamant about maintaining efficiency! Wattage rating is NOT the amount of power the tool produces. It is simply a measure of consumption, that is how much power does the machine consume off the grid.

What really matters is the torque delivered to shaft, not the power the motor consumed by the motor. That's like bragging your car produces terrible fuel economy. (Seriously)

The random orbital movement is very efficient and requires far less energy consumption to drive the pad. If too much power is sucked off the grid, the power has no where to go and literally the waste becomes heat. As a sophisticated tool manufacturer, we find that producing a hot running tool is unacceptable to our standard.

So the BigFoot Mk II will still only draw 500w off the grid, but will deliver about 40% more torque to the shaft (and thus the paint) as before. Take the modern LS1 Corvette and the original 1970 LS-1 Corvette. The modern car produces 450 horsepower and manages 30 mpg. The original car produced only 370 horsepower (gross, which is probably as low as 330 NET) and managed maybe 12 mpg. While there are plenty of reasons to enjoy the old Stingray, poor fuel consumption is not one of them.

One of the major benefits of being the manufacturer (and known by our peers as one of the most sophisticated) is that we can design, specify, and build the exact high-quality motors we want , design the electronics from the ground up to utilize the power, and of course since we originated the counter balancing system and understand its nuances will still offer the most balanced system, not just on the X (side to side) axis but also the Y (vertical) axis to prolong tool life.

At the very least I hope this clears up a few questions you seemed to have about the creation of the Mk II.
Click to expand...

Thought as much, Rupes innovates and never imitates :dblthumb2:
 
mbpress01 said:
This looks very interesting. Is it generally thought that the improvements will reduce the amount of stalling / stopping on vertical/curvy panels.

Based on an improvement of 40% torque that should really help.

Anyone have any thoughts here?
Click to expand...


Well.... that's why I secured both a cool looking car... and a car with some major curves. I didn't just bring this 1951 Mercury to Autogeek because Sylvester Stalone drove one in the movie Cobra.

watermark.php
stallone_movie_poster.jpg



The Mercury we buffed out using the new production units can be seen here and I'll have a full write-up before SEMA.

Rupes Visits Autogeek


:)
 
OK. So I've hear "Roopees," "Roops," and now "Roopez." Ha! Nice machine. Thanks for posting that video.
 
When I see Larry's polisher all I think is 'storm trooper'. I would like the rebel version please.
 
It's been a while, but, I seem to remember Johnny Depp has a 51 Merc also. It's nice to see the old ones and not another tri-5 Chevy. My dad also said he thought his '51 Buick was the best car he ever bought. I wish I could have got him another before he died. Keep on rockin it old school Mike!
 
JSou said:
Awesome info Todd.

I cant wait for the release. After watching Larry's video, the quick assembly of the Mark II showed that not much has changed on the 21 aside from the internal components.

If this is the case, I wonder if we can send in our current 21 machines for an "upgrade". Is this an option or am I off base here?

You don't have to answer now, I will wait until all information of the MK II is released. Just a thought.
Click to expand...


I love this idea. Hopefully that is an option. Would save me the headache of trying to sell my 15 on eBay.
 
FYI:
Electricity is measured in terms of amperage, voltage, and wattage. Amperage (amps for short) is a measure of the AMOUNT of electricity used. Voltage (volts) measures the pressure, or FORCE, of electricity. The amps multiplied by the volts gives you the wattage (watts), a measure of the WORK that electricity does per second.

Think of it this way: Electricity flowing through a wire is like water flowing through a garden hose. The amount of water that can fit through the hose depends on the diameter of the hose (amps). The pressure of the water depends on how far open the faucet is (volts). The amount of work that can be done (watts) depends on both the amount and the pressure of the water (volts x amps = watts).
 
JSou said:
Awesome info Todd.

I cant wait for the release. After watching Larry's video, the quick assembly of the Mark II showed that not much has changed on the 21 aside from the internal components.

If this is the case, I wonder if we can send in our current 21 machines for an "upgrade". Is this an option or am I off base here?

You don't have to answer now, I will wait until all information of the MK II is released. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I don't think that idea would be economically viable. Twice the labor and the new parts cost.
 
FUNX650 said:
Some words I think of are:
Round-trip air fare; emolument; perquisite; marketing.


Bob
Click to expand...

Its a smart idea by them, I feel Jason Rose was a big part of it as him and Larry are buddies.

Larry gets millions of views on YouTube and what better way then to give him a machine.

And especially now Larry will have too shout then out every now and again because of the trip and the machine.

So excellent marketing by them.
 
Junebug said:
FYI:
Electricity is measured in terms of amperage, voltage, and wattage. Amperage (amps for short) is a measure of the AMOUNT of electricity used. Voltage (volts) measures the pressure, or FORCE, of electricity. The amps multiplied by the volts gives you the wattage (watts), a measure of the WORK that electricity does per second.

Think of it this way: Electricity flowing through a wire is like water flowing through a garden hose. The amount of water that can fit through the hose depends on the diameter of the hose (amps). The pressure of the water depends on how far open the faucet is (volts). The amount of work that can be done (watts) depends on both the amount and the pressure of the water (volts x amps = watts).
Click to expand...
•Yes...but...(for comparison's sake):
-Should/Shouldn't watts be converted
into units-of-work?
-What's the difference, if any,
between joule(s) and erg(s)?


Bob
 
is it possible to create a group buy for the Mark II?

i have been using my friend's PC. It's time to get my own.
 
FUNX650 said:
•Yes...but...(for comparison's sake):
-Should/Shouldn't watts be converted
into units-of-work?
-What's the difference, if any,
between joule(s) and erg(s)?


Bob
Click to expand...

Amps is the energy entering the tool, and defines the potential work the motor could maybe do... but not really...

First is efficiency... If the motor is sucking a lot of power but producing little output (relative to input) than it will tend to run very warm to hot. If the motor is converting all of the input into output (torque) the motor will tend to run cool.

RUPES makes our own motors and specifies everything from the gauge of the windings to the exact metallurgy of the wires. It would have been cheaper for us to use a less efficient, higher input motor but user comfort was a key design objective of the original BigFoots (BigFeet ;) ). It had to run cool.

Second is that input depends on load. For example, if you take one tool at zero load, the wattage will be very low. If you increase the load by increasing friction, the watt rating will increase as motor requires more power to overcome the increased load. So how do you rate the tool? There is no standard.

Let's say we lock the spindle with a wrench and run the tool. The wattage will spike through the roof. Again, is this number accurate.

You can measure the efficiency by comparing the load on the tools and testing how much power the motor is drawing. You can increase the load to see which tool bogs first and continue to increase load to see which continues to draw more power.

I am confident that the new tools will not only blow people away with the power that they produce (torque to the paint) but how little power they suck off the grid and how cool they run, hours on end. :dblthumb2:
 
Todd@RUPES said:
Insert post# 39 here:

:dblthumb2:
Click to expand...
^^^That's all good and well^^^

However, IMO:
It still begs the question(s):

Should/Shouldn't there be a work-units
conversion...for comparison's sake...between the
two "Brands" of polishers discussed in this thread?


Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top