Rupes Visits Autogeek

Can't wait for the official specs, models and write up. Will order one as soon as the 230v models are available. I'm certain its not just a bump in power, Rupes innovates so the shifting of goal posts once again is expected.
 
Mike.Phillips@Autogeek said:
That's what we were working with all day long today. I think Todd said this project is the first to use the new tools in the U.S.

I cover these in my new how-to book too. See sig-line.


:xyxthumbs:
Click to expand...

To my knowledge Mike, this was the first time the tools have been used on any project outside of RUPES USA in the US. I have no idea what the crazy Europeans have done :)
 
AnthonyGXP said:
I hear it's suppose to have more power than any DA on the market, but before Rupes said anything over 500 watt was overkill? Guess they have to keep up with the trends!
Click to expand...

You are confusing consumption with power output. Watts is a somewhat meaningful number for electricians and guys who need to make sure you have enough power supply to run appliances. One thing it is NOT is a measure of actually power.

The example I used in another thread is still relative here: Take a modern Stingray with the LS1 and a 1970 Stingray with the original LS-1. The modern engine produces 450 NET horsepower power and can manage almost 30 mpg. The original produced 370 GROSS horsepower (probably 320ish net) and on a good day, downhill, could manage about 12 mpg.

The Mk II is not only more powerful (torque delivered to the shaft) but also maintains a very high degree of efficiency. The random orbital movement is a very efficient movement. Shoving too much power into the motor and not using it efficiently only wastes power and does nothing but produce heat. It's the torque delivered to the shaft that counts :)
 
Mike.Phillips@Autogeek said:
Here's a before picture, this car was buffed out using a wool pad and a rotary buffer.


Here's the crew...

Todd Helme, Mike Phillips and Alberto Quiroscabrera

watermark.php



I'll post a full write-up and all the before and after pictures in a few days


:)
Click to expand...

In my head I always imagine that I'm far less goofy looking and have a better tan...

Thank you so much Mike, Meghan, Jason and the rest of Autogeek for having us, it was really fun to see my old friends and get to polish another project together. What a great time!!!:dblthumb2::dblthumb2:
 
swanicyouth said:
Looking forward to it.

Quick... Is Asia ready to copy this machine??? Was there time enough to recoup the $$$ from the last copy???

Take notes. Rupes is bringing out something new.

I saw an Australian knock off of a Rupes Mini. Lolz. Of course - it was used and for sale.

Thankfully, there is an innovative company like Rupes pushing the envelope and technology.
Click to expand...

All that hype died down, your right the leader is leading once again.....
 
Dylan@RUPES said:
Beautiful transformation guys... that paint looks stunning after a nice polish at the hands of some skilled dudes with a high quality system :)
Click to expand...


Thanks Dylan...

This was also the car Sylvester Stallone used in the movie Cobra. I figured cool car plus Sylvester Stallone is also known as the Itialian Stallion so it all kind of gels...

watermark.php
stallone_movie_poster.jpg



:xyxthumbs:
 
Todd@RUPES said:
You are confusing consumption with power output. Watts is a somewhat meaningful number for electricians and guys who need to make sure you have enough power supply to run appliances. One thing it is NOT is a measure of actually power.

The example I used in another thread is still relative here: Take a modern Stingray with the LS1 and a 1970 Stingray with the original LS-1. The modern engine produces 450 NET horsepower power and can manage almost 30 mpg. The original produced 370 GROSS horsepower (probably 320ish net) and on a good day, downhill, could manage about 12 mpg.

The Mk II is not only more powerful (torque delivered to the shaft) but also maintains a very high degree of efficiency. The random orbital movement is a very efficient movement. Shoving too much power into the motor and not using it efficiently only wastes power and does nothing but produce heat. It's the torque delivered to the shaft that counts :)
Click to expand...

FWIW - the C7 Stingray powerplant is the LT1, the LS1 died with the C5, replaced by the LS2, then the LS3 which spawned the LS7 and LS9.

Im the MAN
 
Dylan@RUPES said:
FWIW - the C7 Stingray powerplant is the LT1, the LS1 died with the C5, replaced by the LS2, then the LS3 which spawned the LS7 and LS9.

Im the MAN
Click to expand...

1) I meant LT1 and LT-1

2) Are you even holding a RUPES in your profile picture?

#winning
 
Todd@RUPES said:
You are confusing consumption with power output. Watts is a somewhat meaningful number for electricians and guys who need to make sure you have enough power supply to run appliances. One thing it is NOT is a measure of actually power.

The example I used in another thread is still relative here: Take a modern Stingray with the LS1 and a 1970 Stingray with the original LS-1. The modern engine produces 450 NET horsepower power and can manage almost 30 mpg. The original produced 370 GROSS horsepower (probably 320ish net) and on a good day, downhill, could manage about 12 mpg.

The Mk II is not only more powerful (torque delivered to the shaft) but also maintains a very high degree of efficiency. The random orbital movement is a very efficient movement. Shoving too much power into the motor and not using it efficiently only wastes power and does nothing but produce heat. It's the torque delivered to the shaft that counts :)
Click to expand...

Awsome! Thanks Todd for the explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top